Would a gun have made a difference? - Page 2

PythonGuy · September 17, 2005, 10:56 AM

Exactly NRAhab,

Thats like that Tom (nutjob) Cruise movie where the police could see future crime with clairvoyants and just kill them BEFORE they even commited a crime. Eventually, we'll all be dead, perfect!

SomeKid · September 17, 2005, 11:26 AM

Really funny.

I stated HOW I WOULD RULE IF I WAS ON A JURY and you people, most of whom are supposedly older and wiser start crying and whining and saying I advocated it, even when I clearly stated that I do not advocate doing it, because even I acknowledge you will go to prison for it.

Even the liberals I deal with at college can understand the difference between advocate, and tolerating/not having a problem with.

308Enfield · September 17, 2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Even the liberals I deal with at college can understand the difference between advocate, and tolerating/not having a problem with.

Webster's dictionary defines tolerate as:

1. To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
3. To put up with; endure. See Synonyms at bear1.
4. Medicine. To have tolerance for (a substance or pathogen).

So SomeKid, by your own words, while you do not advocate executing wounded, non-threatening people you do not prohibit or oppose it, you recognize and respect other people's right, belief or practice in doing it, and you willingly permit it? It still seems that you're voicing the opinion that street executions are ok with you. I doubt that many, if any, others on this board will agree with that.

Just to be precise, let's include the Thesaurus entry for tolerate:

abide, accept, admit, authorize, be big, bear, bear with, brook, condone, consent to, countenance, endure, go, have, hear, humor, indulge, live with, permit, pocket, receive, sanction, stand, stand for, stomach, string along, submit to, suffer, sustain, swallow, take, tough out, undergo, wink at

SomeKid · September 17, 2005, 03:35 PM

308, let me run a scenario by you.

A man comes home, finds his 10 year old daughter being savagely raped by a gang of refugees from N.O., in front of the father they slit her throat, then when he produces his weapon, surrender.

He executes every one of them.

You are on the jury. What do you do?

I know what I would do.

Something you really may want to consider.

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...+nullification

As I stated, I do not encourage people to solve all their problems with 230 grains, but lets face it, sometimes it is appropriate, and sometimes the law is wrong. We have human juries for a reason.

308Enfield · September 17, 2005, 03:44 PM

So we're completely changing the scenerio where the shooting occurrs? Good job, that really helps to support your initial argument. How about a vote? How many people approve of SomeKid's argument and how many do not agree?

SomeKid · September 17, 2005, 03:53 PM

What completely change? We are talking about how one would vote on a jury. I am open about what I would do.

I specifically made that scenario for a reason. The thread starter might have been ganged, and if he was not killed outright, he might have gotten a front-row seat to his woman being raped.

Now I ask you again, if you were on the jury, what would your verdict be in regards to the hypo?

PythonGuy · September 17, 2005, 04:11 PM

After seeing this pic of SomedumbKid, I don't think its fair to pick on him anymore, 308Enfield.

Byron Quick · September 17, 2005, 05:30 PM

I know the legalities and, in most circumstances, will follow those laws. In most circumstances. However, there are circumstances, such as the wounded, unthreatening man bleeding on the pavement just killed my mother, where I'm going to shoot as long as I see twitches.

People who don't want to be shot as many times as time and ammunition supply permits need to do one of two things: 1) Leave my friends and family in peace, or 2) make sure that I don't obtain a sight picture.

I'll respect the fact that MY assailant is wounded and no longer a threat in an attack on myself. After a successful assault on a friend or relative, resuliting in grave injury or death, I will have absolutely no regard for the fact that the poor assailant is injured, no longer a threat, and another human being. He won't be injured long. He'll never be a threat in the future. He doesn't fit my definition of "human being."

Personally, I'd like to see the self defense laws changed. I'm in favor of allowing legal lethal force in response to ANY unprovoked assault-whether armed or unarmed. I'd be willing to bet big money that the rate of unprovoked assaults would plummet after the bullies realized that a slap could get them shot to death-legally.

September 17, 2005, 10:56 AM	#26
PythonGuy Junior member Join Date: November 4, 2004 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 456	Exactly NRAhab, Thats like that Tom (nutjob) Cruise movie where the police could see future crime with clairvoyants and just kill them BEFORE they even commited a crime. Eventually, we'll all be dead, perfect! Last edited by PythonGuy; September 17, 2005 at 02:17 PM.

September 17, 2005, 03:44 PM	#30
308Enfield Senior Member Join Date: August 3, 2005 Location: Tennessee Posts: 239	So we're completely changing the scenerio where the shooting occurrs? Good job, that really helps to support your initial argument. How about a vote? How many people approve of SomeKid's argument and how many do not agree? __________________ "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

September 17, 2005, 11:26 AM	#27
SomeKid Junior member Join Date: July 11, 2005 Location: Tennessee Posts: 107	Really funny. I stated HOW I WOULD RULE IF I WAS ON A JURY and you people, most of whom are supposedly older and wiser start crying and whining and saying I advocated it, even when I clearly stated that I do not advocate doing it, because even I acknowledge you will go to prison for it. Even the liberals I deal with at college can understand the difference between advocate, and tolerating/not having a problem with.

September 17, 2005, 03:35 PM	#29
SomeKid Junior member Join Date: July 11, 2005 Location: Tennessee Posts: 107	308, let me run a scenario by you. A man comes home, finds his 10 year old daughter being savagely raped by a gang of refugees from N.O., in front of the father they slit her throat, then when he produces his weapon, surrender. He executes every one of them. You are on the jury. What do you do? I know what I would do. Something you really may want to consider. http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...+nullification As I stated, I do not encourage people to solve all their problems with 230 grains, but lets face it, sometimes it is appropriate, and sometimes the law is wrong. We have human juries for a reason.

September 17, 2005, 03:53 PM	#31
SomeKid Junior member Join Date: July 11, 2005 Location: Tennessee Posts: 107	What completely change? We are talking about how one would vote on a jury. I am open about what I would do. I specifically made that scenario for a reason. The thread starter might have been ganged, and if he was not killed outright, he might have gotten a front-row seat to his woman being raped. Now I ask you again, if you were on the jury, what would your verdict be in regards to the hypo?

September 17, 2005, 04:11 PM	#32
PythonGuy Junior member Join Date: November 4, 2004 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 456	After seeing this pic of SomedumbKid, I don't think its fair to pick on him anymore, 308Enfield.

September 17, 2005, 05:30 PM	#33
Byron Quick Staff In Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA Posts: 2,361	I know the legalities and, in most circumstances, will follow those laws. In most circumstances. However, there are circumstances, such as the wounded, unthreatening man bleeding on the pavement just killed my mother, where I'm going to shoot as long as I see twitches. People who don't want to be shot as many times as time and ammunition supply permits need to do one of two things: 1) Leave my friends and family in peace, or 2) make sure that I don't obtain a sight picture. I'll respect the fact that MY assailant is wounded and no longer a threat in an attack on myself. After a successful assault on a friend or relative, resuliting in grave injury or death, I will have absolutely no regard for the fact that the poor assailant is injured, no longer a threat, and another human being. He won't be injured long. He'll never be a threat in the future. He doesn't fit my definition of "human being." Personally, I'd like to see the self defense laws changed. I'm in favor of allowing legal lethal force in response to ANY unprovoked assault-whether armed or unarmed. I'd be willing to bet big money that the rate of unprovoked assaults would plummet after the bullies realized that a slap could get them shot to death-legally.