Teenager Shot by Vigilante


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Teenager Shot by Vigilante

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next
Author Message
Profile Hev
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Jun 05
Posts: 995
Credit: 260,233
RAC: 131
Message 890189 - Posted: 1 May 2009, 15:03:11 UTC

I think I understand that the right to bear arms came out of forming a people's militia during revolutionary times. This is on a par with present day revolutionary party calls for an armed people's militia.

Therefore I can only think that having a people's militia in every country might be a good thing and lead to global revolution.

I might revise my opposition to a gun owning society and learn to shoot.

As John Lennon sang "Power to the People", being May Day and all..

Profile Robert Waite
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2195
Credit: 5,332,844
RAC: 5,021
Canada
Message 890215 - Posted: 1 May 2009, 16:14:35 UTC - in response to Message 890098.



Robert, why don't you close this thread until the trial, but open up a second amendment one if you want.


I ask for a news link and you give a link soliciting money to defend Batman?
Sorry, but I'm fresh out of wooden nickels.

As to your suggestion about closing this down.
Like all good conversations, the topic wanders as new points are brought up.
If someone wishes to start another thread on the 2nd amendment, go at it, but I'll leave this open in case anyone has anything else to say, no matter where it leads.


Profile KWSN Ekky Ekky Ekky
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 May 99
Posts: 922
Credit: 10,835,143
RAC: 12,902
United Kingdom
Message 890496 - Posted: 2 May 2009, 10:30:08 UTC - in response to Message 890172.

Guns are entirely neutral in intent. They may be used to attack or to defend. Since criminals by definition do not obey the law, only honest people will be restrained by laws controlling access to weapons, which puts us back to the unarmed victims situation. Not acceptable at all.

Oh come on, getting guns off the street only affects decent people? Criminals would not be affected by a change in the law and would still be allowed to keep them? That's why you have to bristle with fire-power every time you step out of your SUV? I've heard, seen and smelt better sense than this issuing from the posterior end of bulls.

Guns are not and never have been "neutral". Their sole purpose is to kill, never to defend. If you do not have a gun in your possession you are less likely to die because of it. There is no argument here the other way whatsoever, only childish attachment to dangerous toys. To pretend anything else is simply Maoist.

I used to play with toy guns but I grew out of it. Get rid of all of them. Once you get tired of stamping your tiny feet in anger you will feel much better and we'll all feel safer. The only harm will come to your friendly out-of-business gun seller. The benefits will be to people everywhere and a large amount of wildlife too.

____________

Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 890564 - Posted: 2 May 2009, 15:02:39 UTC
Last modified: 2 May 2009, 15:09:22 UTC

jay, the numbers do not support what you are saying
Homicides in 2005
you have to push "get table" button, sorry
and guns are neutral when they are melted to from solid metal to liquid one.

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12039
Credit: 6,368,124
RAC: 8,653
United States
Message 890603 - Posted: 2 May 2009, 17:22:57 UTC - in response to Message 890496.

Oh come on, getting guns off the street only affects decent people? Criminals would not be affected by a change in the law and would still be allowed to keep them?


How has the prohibition on drugs worked? Why do you think that a prohibition on guns will be any different? Do you think the prison terms for drug offenses aren't long enough to actually do any good? Does that mean that to be effective a prohibition will need to carry a death sentence? Even that hasn't worked in Thailand for drugs.

Face it, criminals do not care if they commit a crime. That's why they are called criminals. Prohibitions do not work.


____________

Profile Jay Loveless
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 16
Credit: 862,026
RAC: 0
United States
Message 891056 - Posted: 4 May 2009, 2:34:36 UTC - in response to Message 890564.

jay, the numbers do not support what you are saying
Homicides in 2005
you have to push "get table" button, sorry
and guns are neutral when they are melted to from solid metal to liquid one.



Near as I can tell, "the numbers" from the page you cite support nothing whatever, since no results are being returned for any combination of variables as of this evening.

Firearms are neutral just as are hammers, tongs, ropes or any other tool. Inanimate objects have no "intent" and are incapable of acting on their own. They may be used for aggression or self defense, and they neither know nor care which. God may have created man, but Sam Colt made him equal.
____________
Jay L
"Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"-

Profile Jay Loveless
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 16
Credit: 862,026
RAC: 0
United States
Message 891061 - Posted: 4 May 2009, 2:51:11 UTC - in response to Message 890496.

Guns are not and never have been "neutral". Their sole purpose is to kill, never to defend. If you do not have a gun in your possession you are less likely to die because of it. There is no argument here the other way whatsoever, only childish attachment to dangerous toys. To pretend anything else is simply Maoist.


Sometimes, self defense requires taking a life. Self defense is the most basic right of all regardless of what some socialist wonk from a neverland government may say. The right to self defense is less than meaningless without the appropriate tools to effectuate that defense. As far as being less likely to die if you are unarmed, numerous US government studies including a recent Department of Justice study show that intended crime victims who defend themselves with a firearm are the *least* likely of any to be injured during the episode. Further, the same DOJ study reported that 40% of incarcerated felons said they would always avoid choosing someone they believed to be armed as a victim.

____________
Jay L
"Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"-

Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 891071 - Posted: 4 May 2009, 3:43:28 UTC - in response to Message 891056.

jay, the numbers do not support what you are saying
Homicides in 2005
you have to push "get table" button, sorry
and guns are neutral when they are melted to from solid metal to liquid one.



Near as I can tell, "the numbers" from the page you cite support nothing whatever, since no results are being returned for any combination of variables as of this evening.

Firearms are neutral just as are hammers, tongs, ropes or any other tool. Inanimate objects have no "intent" and are incapable of acting on their own. They may be used for aggression or self defense, and they neither know nor care which. God may have created man, but Sam Colt made him equal.



sam colt, you are joker. but no, you are wrong, guns are made to kill people and nothing else, hammer etc are made for totally different purpose, even if you can use them to that too, but they were never invented for that.

Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 891072 - Posted: 4 May 2009, 3:47:47 UTC - in response to Message 891061.

Guns are not and never have been "neutral". Their sole purpose is to kill, never to defend. If you do not have a gun in your possession you are less likely to die because of it. There is no argument here the other way whatsoever, only childish attachment to dangerous toys. To pretend anything else is simply Maoist.


Sometimes, self defense requires taking a life. Self defense is the most basic right of all regardless of what some socialist wonk from a neverland government may say. The right to self defense is less than meaningless without the appropriate tools to effectuate that defense. As far as being less likely to die if you are unarmed, numerous US government studies including a recent Department of Justice study show that intended crime victims who defend themselves with a firearm are the *least* likely of any to be injured during the episode. Further, the same DOJ study reported that 40% of incarcerated felons said they would always avoid choosing someone they believed to be armed as a victim.


so 60% percent of them will rob you and your gun regardless of your weapons, so it is not effective and you have to carry 1-2 kilograms extra weight all the time, that is not clever. learn to use your arms and legs, and most importantly your eyes and brains.

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 891184 - Posted: 4 May 2009, 14:47:14 UTC - in response to Message 891072.

Guns are not and never have been "neutral". Their sole purpose is to kill, never to defend. If you do not have a gun in your possession you are less likely to die because of it. There is no argument here the other way whatsoever, only childish attachment to dangerous toys. To pretend anything else is simply Maoist.


Sometimes, self defense requires taking a life. Self defense is the most basic right of all regardless of what some socialist wonk from a neverland government may say. The right to self defense is less than meaningless without the appropriate tools to effectuate that defense. As far as being less likely to die if you are unarmed, numerous US government studies including a recent Department of Justice study show that intended crime victims who defend themselves with a firearm are the *least* likely of any to be injured during the episode. Further, the same DOJ study reported that 40% of incarcerated felons said they would always avoid choosing someone they believed to be armed as a victim.
Lets take this one step further. We are accepting Convicted Felons are telling us the truth. lets look even deeper. How many of those felons actually admitted their guilt in a court of law. Very few I'm betting. then theres the nifty videos of attempted robberies upon liquor stores and conmvenience stores. Knowing full well the clerks are most likely armed and yet that info didnt deter a thief. Weapons clearly make little difference to criminals. If they want to commit a crime they will no matter how many tanks and artillery pieces you have around you.

so 60% percent of them will rob you and your gun regardless of your weapons, so it is not effective and you have to carry 1-2 kilograms extra weight all the time, that is not clever. learn to use your arms and legs, and most importantly your eyes and brains.


____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12039
Credit: 6,368,124
RAC: 8,653
United States
Message 891225 - Posted: 4 May 2009, 16:49:52 UTC

It's happened again. Only this time the criminal didn't die.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/burglary-suspect-shot-by-resident-in-mar-vista-.html

Burglary suspect shot by resident in Mar Vista
5:30 PM | May 3, 2009

[Updated: 5:33 p.m. Two young men accompanying the suspected burglar fled before police arrived, Los Angeles Police Officer Rosario Herrera said. The shooting occurred in the 3800 block of Beethoven Street, and the gunshot victim was taken to a local hospital where he was in stable condition, Herrera said.

“The shooter wasn’t arrested, it was in self-defense,” Herrera said.]


A man suspected of burglarizing cars in the Mar Vista area was shot in the face by a resident early this morning, police said.

The man was breaking into vehicles when he was confronted by a resident at about 1:40 a.m., said Los Angeles Police Sgt. Dennis Beacham.

"He was subsequently shot and sustained a gunshot wound to the facial area," Beacham said. "It’s my understanding he’s in stable condition."

Police did not release the name or age of the victim, and would not say whether the resident who shot him was arrested.

-- Corina Knoll


____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12039
Credit: 6,368,124
RAC: 8,653
United States
Message 891226 - Posted: 4 May 2009, 17:07:04 UTC - in response to Message 891184.

Guns are not and never have been "neutral". Their sole purpose is to kill, never to defend. If you do not have a gun in your possession you are less likely to die because of it. There is no argument here the other way whatsoever, only childish attachment to dangerous toys. To pretend anything else is simply Maoist.


Sometimes, self defense requires taking a life. Self defense is the most basic right of all regardless of what some socialist wonk from a neverland government may say. The right to self defense is less than meaningless without the appropriate tools to effectuate that defense. As far as being less likely to die if you are unarmed, numerous US government studies including a recent Department of Justice study show that intended crime victims who defend themselves with a firearm are the *least* likely of any to be injured during the episode. Further, the same DOJ study reported that 40% of incarcerated felons said they would always avoid choosing someone they believed to be armed as a victim.
Lets take this one step further. We are accepting Convicted Felons are telling us the truth. lets look even deeper. How many of those felons actually admitted their guilt in a court of law. Very few I'm betting. then theres the nifty videos of attempted robberies upon liquor stores and conmvenience stores. Knowing full well the clerks are most likely armed and yet that info didnt deter a thief. Weapons clearly make little difference to criminals. If they want to commit a crime they will no matter how many tanks and artillery pieces you have around you.

[ed. quoting fixed]

You mean like the Pirates off Somalia. This is a good argument in favor of no mercy. If the person will not conform under the most severe threat then it becomes obvious that no amount of rehabilitation pr punishment is going to make them conform. It appears as if their brain is wired so that conforming isn't possible. Removing that trait, sociopath, from the gene pool appears desirable. If that means welding the criminal into a cage and tossing in food or if a quicker method is more humane is only a choice of method as the decision has already been made.

so 60% percent of them will rob you and your gun regardless of your weapons, so it is not effective and you have to carry 1-2 kilograms extra weight all the time, that is not clever. learn to use your arms and legs, and most importantly your eyes and brains.


____________

Profile Jay Loveless
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 16
Credit: 862,026
RAC: 0
United States
Message 891450 - Posted: 5 May 2009, 2:32:57 UTC - in response to Message 891072.

Sometimes, self defense requires taking a life. Self defense is the most basic right of all regardless of what some socialist wonk from a neverland government may say. The right to self defense is less than meaningless without the appropriate tools to effectuate that defense. As far as being less likely to die if you are unarmed, numerous US government studies including a recent Department of Justice study show that intended crime victims who defend themselves with a firearm are the *least* likely of any to be injured during the episode. Further, the same DOJ study reported that 40% of incarcerated felons said they would always avoid choosing someone they believed to be armed as a victim.


so 60% percent of them will rob you and your gun regardless of your weapons, so it is not effective and you have to carry 1-2 kilograms extra weight all the time, that is not clever. learn to use your arms and legs, and most importantly your eyes and brains.


Perhaps sixty percent claim to be willing to try. That does not mean they will succeed, and as I mentioned above, in any case, my chances of being injured are reduced if I am carrying a firearm and am willing and able to use it. I have used firearms to defend myself in the past, both in war and as a civilian. I am alive and healthy. A significant portion of those who attempted to harm me no longer are. That is the desired result. It is morally correct and causes me absolutely no loss of sleep.
____________
Jay L
"Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"-

Profile Jay Loveless
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 16
Credit: 862,026
RAC: 0
United States
Message 891452 - Posted: 5 May 2009, 2:38:07 UTC - in response to Message 891071.

Firearms are neutral just as are hammers, tongs, ropes or any other tool. Inanimate objects have no "intent" and are incapable of acting on their own. They may be used for aggression or self defense, and they neither know nor care which. God may have created man, but Sam Colt made him equal.



sam colt, you are joker. but no, you are wrong, guns are made to kill people and nothing else, hammer etc are made for totally different purpose, even if you can use them to that too, but they were never invented for that.


Actually, the best guess anthropologists have is that the hammer evolved from weapon to tool, with the first hammers being simply a hand sized rock that someone figured out might be useful for knocking things other than skulls about.
____________
Jay L
"Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"-

Profile Jay Loveless
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 16
Credit: 862,026
RAC: 0
United States
Message 891455 - Posted: 5 May 2009, 2:54:08 UTC - in response to Message 891071.

Firearms are neutral just as are hammers, tongs, ropes or any other tool. Inanimate objects have no "intent" and are incapable of acting on their own. They may be used for aggression or self defense, and they neither know nor care which. God may have created man, but Sam Colt made him equal.



sam colt, you are joker. but no, you are wrong, guns are made to kill people and nothing else, hammer etc are made for totally different purpose, even if you can use them to that too, but they were never invented for that.


Guns are a tool, a remote hole punch, if you will. They may be used to kill humans, certainly, but also to kill animals for food or to remove a non-human threat - poisonous reptiles being the primary category here in South Texas.

I choose to be armed, as is my unalienable right, recognized (not granted, recognized) by the US Constitution. Like many millions of other currently law-abiding gun owners in the US, I have made a firm decision that I will not be disarmed, nor will I be unduly hindered in my choice of firearms regardless of what some silly bozo politician may decide.

____________
Jay L
"Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"-

Profile Robert Waite
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2195
Credit: 5,332,844
RAC: 5,021
Canada
Message 891856 - Posted: 6 May 2009, 7:39:42 UTC - in response to Message 891455.



Guns are a tool, a remote hole punch, if you will. They may be used to kill humans, certainly, but also to kill animals for food or to remove a non-human threat - poisonous reptiles being the primary category here in South Texas.

I choose to be armed, as is my unalienable right, recognized (not granted, recognized) by the US Constitution. Like many millions of other currently law-abiding gun owners in the US, I have made a firm decision that I will not be disarmed, nor will I be unduly hindered in my choice of firearms regardless of what some silly bozo politician may decide.


A gun is a weapon, not a tool.
You would not use your "remote hole punch" if you lost weight and needed to make a new hole in your belt.

The only uses you listed for your "tool" are killing.

I always chuckle when some of you gun types make a big deal about being "law abiding" while going on to state that no one will take your guns away.

If gun control laws are passed in the U.S. are you still going to be proudly law abiding or are you going to choose to be a criminal by keeping your weapons?


Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12039
Credit: 6,368,124
RAC: 8,653
United States
Message 892059 - Posted: 6 May 2009, 19:26:13 UTC - in response to Message 891856.

If gun control laws are passed in the U.S. are you still going to be proudly law abiding or are you going to choose to be a criminal by keeping your weapons?


Of course they obey. They move or they sue over the unconstitutional restriction.

BTW a weapon is a tool.


____________

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 892071 - Posted: 6 May 2009, 20:20:56 UTC - in response to Message 892059.

If gun control laws are passed in the U.S. are you still going to be proudly law abiding or are you going to choose to be a criminal by keeping your weapons?


Of course they obey. They move or they sue over the unconstitutional restriction.

BTW a weapon is a tool.


A tool of destruction.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Jay Loveless
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 16
Credit: 862,026
RAC: 0
United States
Message 892169 - Posted: 7 May 2009, 1:50:04 UTC - in response to Message 891856.




I choose to be armed, as is my unalienable right, recognized (not granted, recognized) by the US Constitution. Like many millions of other currently law-abiding gun owners in the US, I have made a firm decision that I will not be disarmed, nor will I be unduly hindered in my choice of firearms regardless of what some silly bozo politician may decide.


A gun is a weapon, not a tool.
You would not use your "remote hole punch" if you lost weight and needed to make a new hole in your belt.


No I wouldn't. I do however use one to remotely punch holes in paper targets, bowling pins, and metallic silhouettes in competition, along with smashing clay pigeons remotely. Further, firearms are rightly considered tools when used to take game.

The only uses you listed for your "tool" are killing.


Yes, and? You say killing as though it were always a bad thing. Killing game to be eaten, killing enemy combatants in war time, and killing in defense of life and property are all good and necessary (not pleasant, but necessary). If you are a Jew, defending yourself even with lethal force is not only ok, it is a mitzvah. If your are a Christian, you should remember that Christ himself said "Let him who hath not a sword sell his cloak and buy one."

I always chuckle when some of you gun types make a big deal about being "law abiding" while going on to state that no one will take your guns away.

If gun control laws are passed in the U.S. are you still going to be proudly law abiding or are you going to choose to be a criminal by keeping your weapons?


First, notice that I said "currently law abiding". Second, an armed man is a citizen, a disarmed man is a slave. I would far rather die a citizen than live as a slave. Sure, I know there are more of them than of me, and that in an armed confrontation, no individual is going to beat the forces the Feds can bring to bear. But somewhere, sometime, you have to be willing to stand up for your beliefs. For me, that line is firearms confiscation. I will not be disarmed, period.
____________
Jay L
"Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"-

Profile Rhe
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Dec 99
Posts: 50
Credit: 488,837
RAC: 0
United States
Message 892175 - Posted: 7 May 2009, 2:50:51 UTC - in response to Message 892169.

First, notice that I said "currently law abiding". Second, an armed man is a citizen, a disarmed man is a slave. I would far rather die a citizen than live as a slave. Sure, I know there are more of them than of me, and that in an armed confrontation, no individual is going to beat the forces the Feds can bring to bear. But somewhere, sometime, you have to be willing to stand up for your beliefs. For me, that line is firearms confiscation. I will not be disarmed, period.


Jay, if someone stands up and believes that they are fighting and defending themselves within a "cultural war", then aren't they fighting against the very society that is within that culture?

No one is standing outside watching and waiting to disarm the masses at a moment's notice.

Someone who abides by federal laws has no risk of ever having to resort to using their lawful firearms to "beat the forces of the Feds"...



____________

Team SETI.USA Forums
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. ~~Carl Sagan

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Teenager Shot by Vigilante

Copyright © 2014 University of California