Another shooting in america

[roaminblue]

When I lived in the US, i worked with a guy from mississippi who was a born again christian and a committed gun nut.

We sometimes used to go into the center of Denver for supplies etc, and occassionaly when at a red light, homeless people used to approach the car begging. His reaction was to lock the doors and put his right hand onto the case in which he kept his pistol.

Now, obviously he never shot anyone, and nothing bad happened. But that paranoia is how people get shot in the face.

The past few pages on this thread make me very glad we don't have easy access to weapons. If we did, would the Brits be any more responsible with weaponry than the citizens of the united states? I'd argue, quite probably not. Maybe I'm naive, but without guns, I would argue that the instinct would be one of defence; with guns, it is possible that the instinct would be one of attack. The difference being, once you pulled the trigger the outcome is now completely out of the individual's hands.

 

[Blumers Bloomers]

Oh my days.

Someone enlighten me please, is that Alex Jones actually a supposed Spokesman for others?

That was one of the most embarrassing and disturbing interviews I've ever watched!

 

[stonerblue]

Whats your point with the underlined bit Mark? i would shoot the fukin lot of em.

Sorry to but in but do you feel breaking and entering is a crime that should be punishable by death?

yes

fuckinell !!

 

[paphos-mcfc]

i think if someone broke into my house i`d be more concerned for my families safety than some scroat and there well being. whether i went to court or not would not be a consideration at the time.

Exactly. The people who argue against this generally don't have kids of their own, or are said scrotes themselves. They simply don't understand the strength of the human instinct to protect your own kids.

Utter fucking rubbish,as is par for the course from you.
I have kids,and I don't need lectures in 'the strength of the human instinct' from anyone,let alone you.
So,just to clarify matters,does that render me a scrote for not wanting to kill an intruder for breaking and entering my house?

Not trying to sound a **** or anything, but I'm with fetters on this. I have kids too, and if the situation arose I'd deal with it by covering my arse. Defence, should never become attack, no matter what. If someone comes in my house with the intention to steal, the likelihood is that he's going to be quiet as possible, and doesn't want to be disturbed. Now I'm not going to run up behind him and clout him on the head as that in the eyes of the law is unlawful personal violence.
If he comes in my house and clearly has a baseball bat or a knife in his hand, then yes, I'll be more cautious. The law says you can use reasonable force and that's what I'd use. I'm hardly going to shoot the fucker because he's snooping around my house with a baseball bat, but I feel threatened with violence or my family then, I'll take further steps to defend myself and my family.

Killing a person in my eyes is the last resort.

 

[Johnsonontheleft]

Exactly. The people who argue against this generally don't have kids of their own, or are said scrotes themselves. They simply don't understand the strength of the human instinct to protect your own kids.

Utter fucking rubbish,as is par for the course from you.
I have kids,and I don't need lectures in 'the strength of the human instinct' from anyone,let alone you.
So,just to clarify matters,does that render me a scrote for not wanting to kill an intruder for breaking and entering my house?

Not trying to sound a **** or anything, but I'm with fetters on this. I have kids too, and if the situation arose I'd deal with it by covering my arse. Defence, should never become attack, no matter what. If someone comes in my house with the intention to steal, the likelihood is that he's going to be quiet as possible, and doesn't want to be disturbed. Now I'm not going to run up behind him and clout him on the head as that in the eyes of the law is unlawful personal violence.
If he comes in my house and clearly has a baseball bat or a knife in his hand, then yes, I'll be more cautious. The law says you can use reasonable force and that's what I'd use. I'm hardly going to shoot the fucker because he's snooping around my house with a baseball bat, but I feel threatened with violence or my family then, I'll take further steps to defend myself and my family.

Killing a person in my eyes is the last resort.

You don't sound like a **** because you're simply expressing your opinion and not resorting to childish insults.

My problem would be that a burglar would be quiet, but then so could someone who broke into your house with the intention of kidnapping your daughter.

There's no way of knowing an intruder's intentions - it's not like you can sit them down with a cup of tea to ask them: "so, petty theft or are you planning to kidnap and rape my kids?" Nobody who kills an intruder because they fear for the safety of their children should face any kind of recrimination. Remember the intruder is the initial criminal here. Breaking into somebody's home when they are there (or not) is a despicable crime. It's not the same as somebody threatening you on the street, the home is your private property and by breaking in a criminal offence has already been committed.

I agree that killing should be a last resort but in that situation people don't think clearly, people will panic when faced with an intruder and may not think about the consequences of their actions.

 

[Damocles]

My problem would be that a burglar would be quiet, but then so could someone who broke into your house with the intention of kidnapping your daughter.

Outside of Hollywood movies, this isn't exactly a common occurence is it?

 

[SWP's back]

My problem would be that a burglar would be quiet, but then so could someone who broke into your house with the intention of kidnapping your daughter.

Outside of Hollywood movies, this isn't exactly a common occurence is it?

I'm shocked you even humoured it. He's used that line many times as if it makes his point. But you don't have children so you wouldn't understand apparently.

What is worrying however is that some woman saw fit to procreate with him.

 

[Skashion]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axJszKh0qC4[/youtube]
South Park did a cracking episode on the paranoia of parents called Wacky Molestation Adventure. It was predicated on the basis that most people who harm children in western countries are not strangers but people who know the child, the majority of the time either the parent/s themselves, another relative or a close family friend. So South Park's parents send their children away from the town so they are safe from their parents and everyone they know...

Mind you, I do not yet have children so I have no real right to comment, and seeing the idiots on here who use the old 'wait until you have kids and see how you feel then' argument, I don't want them. However, there's hope because the lefty parents haven't lost their mind yet, or the liberal parents, it's just the right-wing nutjobs. I wonder if there's a chance that they were right-wing nutjobs before they had children and simply use their parent protector badge as a justification for the bloodthirst they seem to hold in common...

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

My problem would be that a burglar would be quiet, but then so could someone who broke into your house with the intention of kidnapping your daughter.

Outside of Hollywood movies, this isn't exactly a common occurence is it?

I broke my New Years resolution not to debate with complete idiots.
I'll try harder next time.

 

[stony]

My problem would be that a burglar would be quiet, but then so could someone who broke into your house with the intention of kidnapping your daughter.

Outside of Hollywood movies, this isn't exactly a common occurence is it?

Tell that to the Mccans..........oh wait.........sorry carry on.