Jump to content



Photo

Angry Neighbor Allegedly Kills 2 Over Dog Poop

texas balcony urination pitbull child protective services

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
79 replies to this topic

#16 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,553 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 05 February 2013 - 17:41

did you guys read the comments on that cbs site? go check it out


Yeah, some of them are pretty amusing.


#17 Richteralan

Richteralan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,359 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 03
  • Location: Madison, Wisconsin
  • OS: Windows 7 Pro
  • Phone: Nexus 4 E960

Posted 05 February 2013 - 17:41

The neighbor should have called 911. Would have saved their lives.

fixed

#18 Deleted Bye

Deleted Bye

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,781 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 09

Posted 05 February 2013 - 17:46

Ask anti gun nuts. Apparently police are all you need to protect you. I was just agreeing with them. Not saying I know the logic.

the logic is the crazy man shouldn't have been allowed to be owner of the gun. Not saying you know the logic.

#19 ILikeTobacco

ILikeTobacco

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,789 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 05 February 2013 - 17:54

Love the mentality of the pro-gunners. No credible arguments, lets poke fun at the "anti's". If the guy didn't have access to a gun, 2 people might be alive today.

Says the guy from England where apparently guns are legal. So you are arguing that no American should legally be allowed to own a gun since he legally owned the one he had. Yay for disarming everyone but criminals.

Love the mentality of the pro-gunners. No credible arguments, lets poke fun at the "anti's". If the guy didn't have access to a gun, 2 people might be alive today.

Credible argument... I have a right to defend myself. You have no credible argument that I don't have the right to defend myself with equal force but yet you claim otherwise. Try again. Try with an argument that doesn't require law abiding citizens to give up there right to defend themselves and maybe then you will get somewhere.

#20 Richteralan

Richteralan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,359 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 03
  • Location: Madison, Wisconsin
  • OS: Windows 7 Pro
  • Phone: Nexus 4 E960

Posted 05 February 2013 - 17:57

Says the guy from England where apparently guns are legal. So you are arguing that no American should legally be allowed to own a gun since he legally owned the one he had. Yay for disarming everyone but criminals.

Credible argument... I have a right to defend myself. You have no credible argument that I don't have the right to defend myself with equal force but yet you claim otherwise. Try again. Try with an argument that doesn't require law abiding citizens to give up there right to defend themselves and maybe then you will get somewhere.

LOL WUT

#21 ILikeTobacco

ILikeTobacco

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,789 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:01

LOL WUT

TheLegendOfMart is known for saying that he supports limited rights for guns and the going on to say that people, such as the criminal in this case, shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun. The laws required to have prevented this guy from owning a gun would mean nobody is legally allowed to own a gun which goes against what even the law in England allows for as well as what TheLegendOfMart claims he supports. TheLegendOfMart contradicts himself with his own arguments.

#22 Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,447 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:02

It's all the gun's fault. We should ban them, that way he would have stabbed his neighbors to death instead, which would have made everything so much better. :yes:

#23 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,303 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:09

the logic is the crazy man shouldn't have been allowed to be owner of the gun. Not saying you know the logic.


If somebody can't accept that restricting gun ownership would prevent situations like this then it's not worth bothering, as they're just not being reasonable or objective.

Disputes with neighbours are problematic at the best of times; the last thing you want is for angry people to have access to firearms. As for the suggestion that knives are equally dangerous to society, that's factually untrue - it's much harder to murder multiple people with knives and people are less likely to do it. It's why the US murder rate is so much higher than countries with firearms restrictions. Also, knives are restricted here - from age limits to certain designs being banned altogether, so the idea that knives aren't / shouldn't be restricted is patently absurd.

#24 spacer

spacer

    I'm awesome

  • 6,511 posts
  • Joined: 09-November 06
  • Location: Connecticut, USA
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Nexus 4

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:10

Not according to the law. Polices job is to respond, not protect.


Um, are you serious? The motto of police everywhere in this country is "To serve and protect". What "laws" are you referencing?

#25 ILikeTobacco

ILikeTobacco

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,789 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:14

If somebody can't accept that restricting gun ownership would prevent situations like this then it's not worth bothering, as they're just not being reasonable or objective.

Nobody isn't accepting that. What isn't being accepted is that the only restriction that would have prevented this was a total ban of all firearms. Something that not even the UK has and yet you choose to advocate it. If you say you support changes that prevent this, you are supporting a total ban of all firearms.

#26 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:14

TheLegendOfMart is known for saying that he supports limited rights for guns and the going on to say that people, such as the criminal in this case, shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun. The laws required to have prevented this guy from owning a gun would mean nobody is legally allowed to own a gun which goes against what even the law in England allows for as well as what TheLegendOfMart claims he supports. TheLegendOfMart contradicts himself with his own arguments.

Funny how you think you know me, I have said SEVERAL times that I would prefer if all guns were banned, I do support highly restricted access to them in the first option isn't feasible, we have special cases for people that NEED them such as pest control, army, etc.. self defence isn't a valid reason to own a gun in a place where 99% of people don't have access to one.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand.

#27 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,553 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:16

Please don't make this a gun debate thread. :pinch:

#28 ILikeTobacco

ILikeTobacco

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,789 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:18

Um, are you serious? The motto of police everywhere in this country is "To serve and protect". What "laws" are you referencing?

United State Supreme Court ruled that the police's job is not to protect any individual. No American has the right to police protection in any circumstance. This is what the Supreme Court had to say about it: "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones."

#29 1941

1941

    Banned

  • 18,175 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 06

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:19

That's non-sense.


Non sense you say. So then explain to me how the Police stopped this shooting, Columbine, The one in Connecticut, The one at the theater or any other murder? I, as am ex police office can stand by this statement. If Police prevented crime, then there would be no need for prisons. Police respond after a crime is permitted. Sure a beat cop may prevent some shoplifting or some other minor offense but Murder-No way.

#30 ILikeTobacco

ILikeTobacco

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,789 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:20

Funny how you think you know me, I have said SEVERAL times that I would prefer if all guns were banned, I do support highly restricted access to them in the first option isn't feasible, we have special cases for people that NEED them such as pest control, army, etc.. self defence isn't a valid reason to own a gun in a place where 99% of people don't have access to one.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand.

100% of Americans have access to guns, even if you ban them. 100% of Europeans have access to weapons, even with the bans. Fact of reality. Just because you ignore that you can make a gun very easily doesn't make it true. Just because you say it over and over doesn't make it true. Use facts when debating on the internet. Makes you look less ignorant.