156 replies to this topic

[nekkidtruth]

Gerowen, on 05 December 2012 - 19:43, said:

Well that guy has lost his right to own firearms for life.

Right, because that's what's most important here. God forbid he lose his rights to own a firearm!

[Growled]

^ It is considered an important right here in the US.

[KingCracker]

nekkidtruth, on 06 December 2012 - 00:14, said:

Right, because that's what's most important here. God forbid he lose his rights to own a firearm!

He will now. He used a .22 and if we followed U.K standards he still could of got his hands on a .22 and did the same thing..

[Javik]

nekkidtruth, on 06 December 2012 - 00:14, said:

Right, because that's what's most important here. God forbid he lose his rights to own a firearm!

The replies here are quite mild by comparison, in the other thread about the guy that executed the burglars a lot of the gun nuts were defending him. Rationality and US gun culture aren't particularly good bedfellows.

[KingCracker]

Javik, on 06 December 2012 - 00:19, said:

The replies here are quite mild by comparison, in the other thread about the guy that executed the burglars a lot of the gun nuts were defending him. Rationality and US gun culture aren't particularly good bedfellows.

Who was defending him, Why do you insist in insulting people that own firearms?

[Rohdekill]

I'm sorry, but I busted out laughing at the line from the defense attorney: "the gun accidently went off". Yeah, just like it accidently ended up in his hands, accidently loaded and accidently aimed at her.

[psionicinversion]

dont think hes a very good call of duty player with that type of aim!!

[FloatingFatMan]

SPEhosting, on 05 December 2012 - 21:14, said:

technically, he asked her to leave and she didnt ... he then went and got the gun and shot her... he was within his rights to do so, regardless of how the situation came about.

I'm not sure where you're from where it's OK to shoot someone in the back just because they didn't leave right away, but it's not Earth.

pes2013, on 05 December 2012 - 21:45, said:

He may be technically correct....

(Varys from state to state) If someone envades your private property and you ask them to leave and they refuse, you have a right to shoot them. Now, it depends on state to state if you can "just do it" (sorry Nike) or if you can only do it if they pose a threat to you.

He might just get away with this one

The Castle Doctrine, right? That's only if you're in fear of your life. Otherwise you could just shoot door salesmen etc.

[Gerowen]

nekkidtruth, on 06 December 2012 - 00:14, said:

Right, because that's what's most important here. God forbid he lose his rights to own a firearm!

I was making a general statement about the situation, your comment is not appreciated. Gun ownership is a paramount right of every human being in today's world, much like the ability to carry and wield a sword in the days before guns were mass produced. Without the right to arm yourself, you are incapable of "really" defending yourself against tyranny in government, much less anything else. Try fighting a bobcat off your chickens with a machete, I dare you, you'll find out real quick a 5.56 round is much faster and safer. I mean really, if the government of the UK decided to enforce a curfew, confiscate privately owned land, and allow the sheriff of every town to rape one female citizen of his choosing every night, under the protection of armed guards, what could you "really" do since the majority of you are not allowed to own a gun? You could organize a little resistance, maybe kill a couple people when they weren't looking, but unless foreign governments started sending stuff to you, you would be totally helpless. What do you think happens to people without guns when they try to stand up to people with guns? Read your history man (generic, no gender specific term, in case you are a woman), this is a very important right that he just forfeited by making a very stupid and potentially lethal decision.

On the castle doctrine, you have to be in fear for your life, I'm fairly certain of that. There's all kinds of things you can do to remove somebody from your property before shooting them becomes a reasonable response. If the bullet struck her in the back, she obviously wasn't facing or attacking him.

[FloatingFatMan]

^ Most of the population in the UK don't WANT to own guns. Our society is, generally, much safer without them thanks.

As for your hyperbole about defending yourself from your government; it's just that. Hyperbole. If such a thing could happen, it already would have.

[TheLegendOfMart]

KingCracker, on 06 December 2012 - 00:17, said:

He will now. He used a .22 and if we followed U.K standards he still could of got his hands on a .22 and did the same thing..

The difference is our culture doesnt glorify guns so if this was in the UK he probably wouldn't have had a .22 in the first place.

[Tuishimi]

FloatingFatMan, on 06 December 2012 - 08:22, said:

^ Most of the population in the UK don't WANT to own guns. Our society is, generally, much safer without them thanks.

As for your hyperbole about defending yourself from your government; it's just that. Hyperbole. If such a thing could happen, it already would have.

http://www.dailymail...Africa-U-S.html

http://www.telegraph...itas-study.html

[TheLegendOfMart]

http://www.nationmas...me-total-crimes

[Som]

Charisma, on 05 December 2012 - 19:49, said:

This. God, what a complete idiot with no perspective whatsoever. Over a f**ing TV show to boot?? Unreal.

i'm sure there's more to the argument,they just stuck the walking dead in their so they'd get more people reading the article...

[HighwayGlider]

And no one mentioned that the gf looks nice.