Another gun massacre in the States (merged)

[Lucky13]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

The first question is a bit more difficult, isn't it?


If you have the right to use violence to protect your property, then you are granting the right to individuals to use violence to take your property. Property ownership is a privilege granted to you by the State. A nation state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force/violence. That's political science 101.

The lessening of that monopoly contributes to the failure of the State.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ndu.edu/press/monopoly.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ndu.edu/press/monopoly.html</a>

Not difficult at all, for what they did they deserved it.

Privilege? your having a laugh , the serf system is long gone ,as far as i'm concerned and there's a slim chance of it happening , if you catch someone in your house trying to steal your property they are fair game.

You still haven't answered the first question. It's in bold above so you can't miss it.

Without the State how would you legitimize your "right" to own property?

Do you value your possessions over another individuals life?

The old man was protecting the innocent customers from armed robbers , he had every reason to believe that his and other peoples lives were in danger , so yes I believe he had every right to shoot at the robbers, I hope the bank gave him a reward.

I own my tv because I bought , I don't need the state to tell me I own it , a receipt does, I don't sit there thinking my tv is worth more than a life , of course it isn't , but I believe if you enter my home illegally I should be able to remove you by any needs necessary to do so.

 

[SWP's back]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

Stalking should be.

Do you think robbery should be a capital offence? And I am hardly stalking you, you posted in a thread I was active in so don't flatter yourself.

A bloke following me around on the internet is hardly flattering.

Armed robbery , shots fired by the robbers , yes.

Armed robbery , no shots by the robbers , 25yrs min.

No wonder few people ever voted for you.

25 yrs for armed robbery? And people wonder why (C)onservatives and the right wing are classed as outdated old fools. And death for anyone who has fired a shot.

And you were the one that posted in a thread I was already active in and you were the one that started pm-ing me last night petal. As said before to you, hope to you on the 4th when 150 odd bluemooners are getting together. Being as popular as syphallis, I doubt you will show your face though.

 

[mammutly]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

She's obviously a gun-toting maniac deserving of a long prison sentence.

The sheer ignorance of Mammutly's post (which I missed) is breathtaking.
Sure, the massacres get far more screentime and column inches than people protecting themselves and others but that's no excuse. Anyone who ventures into the discussion (esp. with such strong views) over guns and gun laws should have at least done 10 seconds of research. I mean ffs it's a complete fecking joke!

edit:
TBH it shouldn't even take any research to know that guns have protected people. Common sense (an overrated virtue most of the time, imo) is enough. And, yes, common sense is also enough to know that guns will be used to murder people.

If you have guns in the house, especially hand guns, there are always going to be tragic accidents and many deaths and injuries occur across the US every year that just wouldn't have happened without the ready availability of such weapons.

There may, very exceptionally, be occasiions when an individual has successfully used a gun for protection, but overall the evidence hardly needs analysis. In countries where public ownership of guns for 'personal protection' has been banned, the murder rate has dropped massively. Australia might be the easiest example, but there are others that are not hard to find - even with the most basic amount of research ;-)

I'd like to see your statistical analysis for Australia murder rates because from what I am aware of there was no statistically significant drop as a result of the banning in the mid 90's.
IIRC, things like robbery and GBH rose as a result.

Considering the amount of guns in circulation in the US, the homicide rates are quite low, esp. when you consider the horrendous problems in Mexico and Columbia which spill over. What you'll find is that crime in the US is exasperated by drug prohibition. Researchers and economists have estimated that the majority of homicides would disappear if the US government ended this foolish drug policy.

As for the bold part, you should probably do some analysis at least.

Its not my statistical analysis and your awareness is absent and your recollection is wrong.

I don't often use such blunt terms, but your take on this issue is entirely contrary to all the available evidence. Its not a relative argument. If guns are banned, less people die. That is established fact.

 

[scenecreamer]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

Not difficult at all, for what they did they deserved it.

Privilege? your having a laugh , the serf system is long gone ,as far as i'm concerned and there's a slim chance of it happening , if you catch someone in your house trying to steal your property they are fair game.

You still haven't answered the first question. It's in bold above so you can't miss it.

Without the State how would you legitimize your "right" to own property?

Do you value your possessions over another individuals life?

The old man was protecting the innocent customers from armed robbers , he had every reason to believe that his and other peoples lives were in danger , so yes I believe he had every right to shoot at the robbers, I hope the bank gave him a reward.

I own my tv because I bought , I don't need the state to tell me I own it , a receipt does, I don't sit there thinking my tv is worth more than a life , of course it isn't , but I believe if you enter my home illegally I should be able to remove you by any needs necessary to do so.

Who or what gives the old man the right to further endanger everyone else?

 

[SWP's back]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

You still haven't answered the first question. It's in bold above so you can't miss it.

Without the State how would you legitimize your "right" to own property?

Do you value your possessions over another individuals life?

The old man was protecting the innocent customers from armed robbers , he had every reason to believe that his and other peoples lives were in danger , so yes I believe he had every right to shoot at the robbers, I hope the bank gave him a reward.

I own my tv because I bought , I don't need the state to tell me I own it , a receipt does, I don't sit there thinking my tv is worth more than a life , of course it isn't , but I believe if you enter my home illegally I should be able to remove you by any needs necessary to do so.

Who or what gives the old man the right to further endanger everyone else?

His gun!

 

[scenecreamer]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

The old man was protecting the innocent customers from armed robbers , he had every reason to believe that his and other peoples lives were in danger , so yes I believe he had every right to shoot at the robbers, I hope the bank gave him a reward.

I own my tv because I bought , I don't need the state to tell me I own it , a receipt does, I don't sit there thinking my tv is worth more than a life , of course it isn't , but I believe if you enter my home illegally I should be able to remove you by any needs necessary to do so.

Who or what gives the old man the right to further endanger everyone else?

His gun!

True enough

 

[Barcon]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

You still haven't answered the first question. It's in bold above so you can't miss it.

Without the State how would you legitimize your "right" to own property?

Do you value your possessions over another individuals life?

The old man was protecting the innocent customers from armed robbers , he had every reason to believe that his and other peoples lives were in danger , so yes I believe he had every right to shoot at the robbers, I hope the bank gave him a reward.

I own my tv because I bought , I don't need the state to tell me I own it , a receipt does, I don't sit there thinking my tv is worth more than a life , of course it isn't , but I believe if you enter my home illegally I should be able to remove you by any needs necessary to do so.

Who or what gives the old man the right to further endanger everyone else?

What would you have done?

 

[Lucky13]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

You still haven't answered the first question. It's in bold above so you can't miss it.

Without the State how would you legitimize your "right" to own property?

Do you value your possessions over another individuals life?

The old man was protecting the innocent customers from armed robbers , he had every reason to believe that his and other peoples lives were in danger , so yes I believe he had every right to shoot at the robbers, I hope the bank gave him a reward.

I own my tv because I bought , I don't need the state to tell me I own it , a receipt does, I don't sit there thinking my tv is worth more than a life , of course it isn't , but I believe if you enter my home illegally I should be able to remove you by any needs necessary to do so.

Who or what gives the old man the right to further endanger everyone else?

At a guess The American Constitution.

 

[scenecreamer]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

The old man was protecting the innocent customers from armed robbers , he had every reason to believe that his and other peoples lives were in danger , so yes I believe he had every right to shoot at the robbers, I hope the bank gave him a reward.

I own my tv because I bought , I don't need the state to tell me I own it , a receipt does, I don't sit there thinking my tv is worth more than a life , of course it isn't , but I believe if you enter my home illegally I should be able to remove you by any needs necessary to do so.

Who or what gives the old man the right to further endanger everyone else?

What would you have done?

Not sure. But I don't carry a firearm, so that wouldn't be an option. I can tell you that if I'd been there with my family I'd have been mad as hell at that reckless idiot.<br /><br />-- Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:48 pm --<br /><br />

The old man was protecting the innocent customers from armed robbers , he had every reason to believe that his and other peoples lives were in danger , so yes I believe he had every right to shoot at the robbers, I hope the bank gave him a reward.

I own my tv because I bought , I don't need the state to tell me I own it , a receipt does, I don't sit there thinking my tv is worth more than a life , of course it isn't , but I believe if you enter my home illegally I should be able to remove you by any needs necessary to do so.

Who or what gives the old man the right to further endanger everyone else?

At a guess The American Constitution.

Are you American? If not, then I can understand why you are mistaken.

 

[Barcon]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

Who or what gives the old man the right to further endanger everyone else?

What would you have done?

Not sure. But I don't carry a firearm, so that wouldn't be an option. I can tell you that if I'd been there with my family I'd have been mad as hell at that reckless idiot.
-- Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:48 pm --

Who or what gives the old man the right to further endanger everyone else?

At a guess The American Constitution.

Are you American? If not, then I can understand why you are mistaken.

Why? If it wasn't for him, you and your family may have been hurt. I didn't see him shooting towards any of of the innocent people in there. At the time he acted, there's a good chance he thought that he and all the others may be killed.