Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
:noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
but come on, at least try to hide behind a title. dude's got like 38 items under his name on amazon.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
:noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
but come on, at least try to hide behind a title. dude's got like 38 items under his name on amazon.
If you have a problem with laws/sentencing, you should fix it through democratic ways, just because you're a victim doesn't give you the right to kill someone (I don't mind self defense, but I do mind that you prefer death over a nonlethal self defense if that is available).Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You say you prefer the criminal dead to alive, if alive is an option - which means you are acting as judge, jury and executioner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Key words being self-defense, lethal and non-lethal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
As far as I'm concerned, someone who commits multiple felonies places himself (and it usually is a him) squarely outside of society. The social contract does not apply to them. For all intents and purposes, they cease being a human being. They're little more than a rabid animal, and while I wouldn't go out of my way to kill such an animal, I'm not going to be very sorry if someone else does the job. As for the law: it already allows killing in self-defense. No one's calling for extra-judicial punishments here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
An inherent part of the social contract is that man is allowed to kill to remain alive. If someone is an imminent deadly threat, their life is forfeit at a stage long before the law gets involved. If society deems such behavior to be unacceptable, it is free to punisher the killer. Of course most societies find this kind of behavior quite acceptable. After all, no one wants to be placed in the same situation and be faced with the option of being killed or killing and going to prison.Quote:
You say you prefer the criminal dead to alive, if alive is an option - which means you are acting as judge, jury and executioner.
So, let's ask you to provide the evidence that proves that this huge flaw is causing massive casualties of innocent, law abiding citizens. Or is evidence only required when it's convenient for your arguments?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Or maybe this is the same reasoning and logic that was bandied about when we heard that states who were issuing out CCW permits would have shootouts over parking spaces and regular showdowns at the O.K. Corral.
You can be happy that something happened that makes the world a better place even if the action was wrong. For example if a terrorist murders another terrorist. Huzzah - happy parade. To me self defense is a right that everyone should have. BUT EVEN IF IT WEREN'T - society would still be better off with the criminal dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
They're also far more useful :confused: :rolleyes: :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Why do you even bother posting that list when we both know you don't care about kids dying? You could perhaps halve the deaths under the items listed above firearms with better access to the right kind of care and possibly a better urban environment.Quote:
http://www.childdeathreview.org/nati...talitydata.htm
Selected Causes of Death, Ages 0-19, per 100,000 Population (2007)
Cause Number of Deaths Mortality Rate
Natural 36,272 44.1
Perinatal Conditions 14,570 17.7
Congenital Anomalies 6,896 8.4
Neoplasms 2,302 2.8
Respiratory Disease 1,442 1.8
Circulatory Disease 1,666 2.0
Nervous System Disease 1,609 2.0
SIDS 2,453 3.0
Unintentional Injury 11,560 14.0
Motor Vehicle 6,683 8.1
Drowning 1,056 1.3
Fire/Burn 544 0.7
Poisoning 972 1.2
Suffocation/Strangulation 1,263 1.5
Firearm 138 0.2
Homicide 3,345 4.1
Firearm 2,186 2.7
Suicide 1,665 2.0
Firearm 683 0.8
Suffocation/Strangulation 739 0.9
Poisoning 133 0.2
Quite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
A car is designed to transport people from A to B. A gun is designed to kill.
The tired old 'cars kill more than guns' argument has always been invalid.
~
I think it's perhaps time for a more sensible thread on gun ownership & control, and break away from Lewk's childish rinse-and-repeat threads. Great Story indeed ...
It's not a great story Lewk. It's a story of God's creation making sad mistakes and end up losing their life for it. It's a story of humanity killing one another to settle disputes. There's nothing great about death, nor will there ever be.
Dispute?
Otherwise nicely done.
A car is designed to drive. A gun is designed to shoot. I'm going to guess that cars are used for nefarious purposes at least as frequently as guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Along with why are cars allowed to go 100 mph? There is no good reason to blast down the highway at that speed, and anyone who defends that as a right is a speed nut.
It's not *causative* but correlated to how gun deaths are adjudicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
The 'evidence' is the number of shootings, including self-defense claims, that aren't thoroughly investigated or prosecuted in courts. The 'evidence' is in felons remaining armed, possibly repeating crimes. The 'evidence' is police and DAs (at state and federal levels) being chronically understaffed and underfunded...and can't/won't take a case to trial when the only other witness is dead.
tsk, I never said that, and you know it. :down:Quote:
Or maybe this is the same reasoning and logic that was bandied about when we heard that states who were issuing out CCW permits would have shootouts over parking spaces and regular showdowns at the O.K. Corral.
so you're cool with 3 bullet magazines once we move over to automated cars?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
In short, you don't have the evidence, do you? Let's see the numbers, GGT. You were pushing Lewkowski for his numbers and a reality check. Fine. Now lets see yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I never said you did. But it's the same "common-sense" we heard whenever the CCW issue has come up.Quote:
tsk, I never said that, and you know it. :down:
Incidentally, this is a much cooler story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21679053
Dude, that chip on your shoulder looks more like a boulder. What's up with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
There are multiple gun-related deaths every day in the US. Just take Chicago, and it doesn't take much to realize that ALL gun-related deaths are NOT finding their way through our legal system. Numbers of gun-related injuries don't even match up with numbers of investigations, prosecutions, convictions, incarcerations.
Do you really need me to cite data or studies to prove what we already know....that our gun-related crimes/injuries/deaths exceed the capabilities (or funding) of our police or courts? It's not like we can look to the incarcerated population as a metric, to "prove" our systems are working just fine, since that includes large numbers of non-violent offenders.
:bored:Quote:
I never said you did. But it's the same "common-sense" we heard whenever the CCW issue has come up.
Oh yes, let's double down on more Nanny Statidiocy (TM)! Along with Safe Diets, Video Games, and Language Police!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
No, I want you to do what I asked you to do at the beginning. Provide a citation, with real numbers from a reputable source, that show SYG/Castle laws are flawed in their implementation and have lead to an increase in the number of unjustifiable shootings.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
You seem to be under the impression that you can shoot someone in your house or on the streets and there be no subsequent investigation... because SYG law. This is not nor has it ever been the case.
Shooting is more useless than rollingQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Are we going to have panels to decide each item's use?
Depends on how stupid we wanna get with our judgements I guess...? Oh yeah btw I didn't know you guys could drive 100mph on every street and roadQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Imagine how many fewer robberies there would be if there were no cars. Or how much less terrorism there would be without planes. Or how many fewer rapes there would be without condoms (which are used to avoid leaving incriminating evidence).
You deny that (some) cars can go that fast? Why should they have that ability? Shouldn't there be a mechanical limit on how fast a car can go for our safety? For the CHILDREN?!!??!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Cars, planes and condoms are all more useful to civilians than shooting. Honestly Loki I've met kindergartners with a better grasp of reality than youQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I meant legally. As in, do you guys not in fact have speed limits?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
We do, but just like gun laws, crazies break them, so we need MOAR LAWS!
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Ignoring scale for a moment - did you think Bin Laden's death was a good thing? Worth celebrating?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon
its coming. the markets that automated cars are going to shakeup are already successfully lobbying to make sure the cars can't be programmed to break the law. its only going to be a small speed bump in the long run, and by the time automated cars are a legit consumer choice, the same laws and devices that went into making sure they can't speed will be kept cause it will make it easier to catch those who speed in their outmodes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
so the question remains.
I guess you did not catch my point.