Little Punks tried to Rob the wrong MAN

[slycat]

Howard Stern just talked to the guy and gave him a hella bunch of gifts...ski vacation..etc..

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve

Originally posted by: djheater
It's not acceptable to enforce your standards of behavior via execution. It was wrong of them to threaten his life, it would have been equally wrong of him to kill them. There are other ways to resolve conflict.

Yes, they could discuss their differences over coffee, get in touch with their inner-victims, hug, cry, go on Oprah, get civil-unioned and live happily ever after.

On second thought, the guy being robbed could just shoot them, as anyone being threatened in such a manner ought to have the right to do.

You're missing the point, deliberately I imagine. I recognize your right to your opinion and your right to protect your personal property under the law.

The perpetrators acted incorrectly regardless of the rationale the behavior should not be either condoned or allowed, however, executing those who act in an undesirable manner is akin to not treating Aids sufferers. There are other ways the behavior can be modified or corrected. That being said it is not one's job to correct the behavior of other's but simply to act in a correct manner oneself, which I do not believe includes taking human lfe. Your standard of correct action may vary from mine, but I will not debate that with you.

Criminal behavior rarely gets corrected. Prison generally just produces better criminals. Anybody have figures on how many people currently in prison are repeat offenders?

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve

Originally posted by: djheater
It's not acceptable to enforce your standards of behavior via execution. It was wrong of them to threaten his life, it would have been equally wrong of him to kill them. There are other ways to resolve conflict.

Yes, they could discuss their differences over coffee, get in touch with their inner-victims, hug, cry, go on Oprah, get civil-unioned and live happily ever after.

On second thought, the guy being robbed could just shoot them, as anyone being threatened in such a manner ought to have the right to do.

You're missing the point, deliberately I imagine. I recognize your right to your opinion and your right to protect your personal property under the law.

The perpetrators acted incorrectly regardless of the rationale the behavior should not be either condoned or allowed, however, executing those who act in an undesirable manner is akin to not treating Aids sufferers. There are other ways the behavior can be modified or corrected. That being said it is not one's job to correct the behavior of other's but simply to act in a correct manner oneself, which I do not believe includes taking human lfe. Your standard of correct action may vary from mine, but I will not debate that with you.

Criminal behavior rarely gets corrected. Prison generally just produces better criminals. Anybody have figures on how many people currently in prison are repeat offenders?

None of my posts were meant to legitimize the criminal justice system. I would agree that it is broke. I'm not proposing a solution but solution's needs must start with the acceptance of the problem.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: djheaterNone of my posts were meant to legitimize the criminal justice system. I would agree that it is broke. I'm not proposing a solution but solution's needs must start with the acceptance of the problem.

Haha, acceptance of the problem? I'm sorry, rational people will never "accept" criminal behavior. If you're a criminal, be prepared to deal with the consequences.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: djheaterNone of my posts were meant to legitimize the criminal justice system. I would agree that it is broke. I'm not proposing a solution but solution's needs must start with the acceptance of the problem.

Haha, acceptance of the problem? I'm sorry, rational people will never "accept" criminal behavior. If you're a criminal, be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Are you seriously implying that any behavior labeled criminal should be solved by lethal force. I can't imagine you actually practice that in your daily life.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve

Originally posted by: djheater
It's not acceptable to enforce your standards of behavior via execution. It was wrong of them to threaten his life, it would have been equally wrong of him to kill them. There are other ways to resolve conflict.

Yes, they could discuss their differences over coffee, get in touch with their inner-victims, hug, cry, go on Oprah, get civil-unioned and live happily ever after.

On second thought, the guy being robbed could just shoot them, as anyone being threatened in such a manner ought to have the right to do.

You're missing the point, deliberately I imagine. I recognize your right to your opinion and your right to protect your personal property under the law.

The perpetrators acted incorrectly regardless of the rationale the behavior should not be either condoned or allowed, however, executing those who act in an undesirable manner is akin to not treating Aids sufferers. There are other ways the behavior can be modified or corrected. That being said it is not one's job to correct the behavior of other's but simply to act in a correct manner oneself, which I do not believe includes taking human lfe. Your standard of correct action may vary from mine, but I will not debate that with you.

I am not the one missing the point. If they are holding me up, it is not about a threat to my property, the money in my wallet, etc. It is about a threat to ME. It is not as if they broke into my house when I was not there and stole something, they are holding me at gunpoint, and I would not have any qualms about removing them from this existence.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Nitemare
surprised no one is whining about the 14 y/o getting shot.

If the DEA had shot him would that be wrong?

The really sad part is there are people thinking this man fought them over $120.

What price do you put on your rights? How much money does a person have to take from you before you think it's too much?

If it was purely the principle, what did he take out his wallet, see how much he had, then decide to put up a fight?

It matters when he decided he wouldn't lay down and be vilolated?

Tell me, if you mother or sister was being threatened with rape, and waited until they had their panties off before they decided to fight back, would you think any less of them?

Not when, but WHAT motivated him to fight back. He only decided to once he saw that he had 120 bucks in his wallet, which makes it pretty obvious that he only made the decision to fight once he saw how much money he had - and figured it was worth fighting for. If he took them on purely on principle, he wouldn't have even bothered to pull out his wallet in the first place.

If your mom decided not to be raped, she would have let him rip her panties off.

You are making a judgement call based on when he decided to fight back. It's irrelevant.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: dolph
am i really the only one who thinks this guy wasn't too bright? even if i'm carrying like keanu in the lobby of the matrix, if someone's pointing a rifle at me they're getting my wallet. especially when there are 3 of them. you might think i'm a coward, but i think that anyone else is insane for risking their life for $120.

It's not the money. It's the principle.

amish

damn straight it's the principle. i don't care if it's $120, $1.20, or $1,200,000. my life is priceless. i'd die to protect my family, friends, or possibly innocent people, given the situation. but over money? or any material possesion? too much pride will kill you. so yes, it is the principle. are you willing to die on the chance that you'd survive a run-in with punks like this? is your life worth so little? dying for this principle is not one of my principles.

This is why crime is rampant. We are being raised as victims, blindly handing over our BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS to any thug with a gun.

This is not about money, or pride. It is about our basic human and civil rights. Theft and robbery are crimes because they violate the rights of another. Because we are not a police state, the government cannot, and will not be able to protect us on an individual basis.

Soldiers die on the battle field for our rights. Why are we not allowed to fight for them on an individual basis? If EVERYONE stood up to criminals, how long do you think violent and property crime would last in any great numbers? Not long at all. It's been proven time and time again that criminals fear armed victims more than anything else.

Finally, do NOT mistake this with vigilantism. It is far from it. Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands AFTER THE FACT. Vigilantism is NOT protecting your self, your rights, and your property from criminals.

let's put it this way - if you were the guy in the story, but you were unarmed, would you still hold your ground?

Probably not. This is why I support concealed carry on demand licensing laws. In EVERY state in which they've been passed, crime has plummeted. In Vermont, a citizen with no criminal history doesn't even need a license to carry a concealed weapon. It's his right as a law abiding citizen. I see no wave of gun crime in Vermont, do you?

The fact is, concealed carry laws keep criminals guessing and deter crime. Armed victims are the worst nightmares of criminals.

and yet by your own admission, if you weren't carrying a weapon you would violate your own principle to save your life. what if you were armed, but there were 3 guys with at least one gun, but you didn't know if the other ones had them too? sort of like this incidenct?

my point, which you helped me illustrate, is that the highest principle we stand for is self preservation. as a soldier, i'm sure your motivation was not to die for our country, but to fight so you can live for it. very few of us want to be martyrs for no reason.

It's called "assessing the situation." I'm willing to fight for my rights, but I'm not stupid. You can pull up all the "what ifs" you want. Fact is, I've faced this situation before, and know what to do. Self preservation is important, yes, but not so important we should disarm ourselves and lay down to every thug with a gun. The individual must assess the situation, and fight back if he has a chance. If I'm unarmed, there isn't much chance, is there?

I refuse to give up my liberty for safety. Because as Franklin pointed out, I'll end up with neither

if i hear that fvcking franklin quote one more time on this board, i'm going to become violently ill.

would your solution for street crime for us to all be armed at all times to discourage criminals? would the benefits outweigh the costs? if not, when should we be armed?

i don't know if crime is inevitable in every society, or if there's a way to eliminate it without arming citizens at all times. but i'm confused where we're in disagreement - if i'm unarmed and someone holds me up with a gun, it'd be difficult for me to imagine a situation to be as such that i wouldn't give up my wallet. it seems you feel the same. i don't want criminals any more than you do, but we can't predict when we will be mugged, so how can we take measures to prevent it from happening? again, is it from us all being armed at all times? if not, then what?

I should be my right, as a law abiding citizen, to arm myself to protect my individual rights from thugs. Choosing to not arm yourself in a world in which criminals will be armed no matter what your laws are is choosing to lay down and be a victim.

Yes, if I am not armed I would most likely not fight back againsyt an armed criminal. But being unarmed would not be my choice.

CC laws have been proven to lower crime, so yes... the solution is to allow law abiding citizens to CC. CC keeps the criminals guessing, and even protects those who are not armed.

I'm sorry you don't like the Frankilin quote, but it's very applicable to this situation. At least I didn't quote it verbatim.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: djheater
It's not acceptable to enforce your standards of behavior via execution. It was wrong of them to threaten his life, it would have been equally wrong of him to kill them. There are other ways to resolve conflict.

When someone threatens my rights with threats of death, there is but one way to respond to that at the time. It is not an execution, it is responding to force with same. It's sad that the man would die, but he chose that possibility when he decided to threaten the life of another. You give up your rights when you violate the rights of another.

In the words of Clint Eastwood, "deserve's got nothing to do with it."

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: djheater
It's not acceptable to enforce your standards of behavior via execution. It was wrong of them to threaten his life, it would have been equally wrong of him to kill them. There are other ways to resolve conflict.

When someone threatens my rights with threats of death, there is but one way to respond to that at the time. It is not an execution, it is responding to force with same. It's sad that the man would die, but he chose that possibility when he decided to threaten the life of another. You give up your rights when you violate the rights of another.

In the words of Clint Eastwood, "deserve's got nothing to do with it."

hmmm...

That's the best rationale I've ever heard and in that sense is enlightening. You've put it in a perspective I've never considered, thanks.

Personally I am deeply conflicted about taking human life, it's difficult for me to rationally conceive of a circumstance in which I would choose to use it. However I'm a father and if someone threatened or hurt my children or wife... well I wouldn't be entirely rational in my response.

It's not an easy question, though. I'm disturbed by people answering it in such an off-handed "criminals deserve death" manner.

 

[dolph]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: dolph
am i really the only one who thinks this guy wasn't too bright? even if i'm carrying like keanu in the lobby of the matrix, if someone's pointing a rifle at me they're getting my wallet. especially when there are 3 of them. you might think i'm a coward, but i think that anyone else is insane for risking their life for $120.

It's not the money. It's the principle.

amish

damn straight it's the principle. i don't care if it's $120, $1.20, or $1,200,000. my life is priceless. i'd die to protect my family, friends, or possibly innocent people, given the situation. but over money? or any material possesion? too much pride will kill you. so yes, it is the principle. are you willing to die on the chance that you'd survive a run-in with punks like this? is your life worth so little? dying for this principle is not one of my principles.

This is why crime is rampant. We are being raised as victims, blindly handing over our BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS to any thug with a gun.

This is not about money, or pride. It is about our basic human and civil rights. Theft and robbery are crimes because they violate the rights of another. Because we are not a police state, the government cannot, and will not be able to protect us on an individual basis.

Soldiers die on the battle field for our rights. Why are we not allowed to fight for them on an individual basis? If EVERYONE stood up to criminals, how long do you think violent and property crime would last in any great numbers? Not long at all. It's been proven time and time again that criminals fear armed victims more than anything else.

Finally, do NOT mistake this with vigilantism. It is far from it. Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands AFTER THE FACT. Vigilantism is NOT protecting your self, your rights, and your property from criminals.

let's put it this way - if you were the guy in the story, but you were unarmed, would you still hold your ground?

Probably not. This is why I support concealed carry on demand licensing laws. In EVERY state in which they've been passed, crime has plummeted. In Vermont, a citizen with no criminal history doesn't even need a license to carry a concealed weapon. It's his right as a law abiding citizen. I see no wave of gun crime in Vermont, do you?

The fact is, concealed carry laws keep criminals guessing and deter crime. Armed victims are the worst nightmares of criminals.

and yet by your own admission, if you weren't carrying a weapon you would violate your own principle to save your life. what if you were armed, but there were 3 guys with at least one gun, but you didn't know if the other ones had them too? sort of like this incidenct?

my point, which you helped me illustrate, is that the highest principle we stand for is self preservation. as a soldier, i'm sure your motivation was not to die for our country, but to fight so you can live for it. very few of us want to be martyrs for no reason.

It's called "assessing the situation." I'm willing to fight for my rights, but I'm not stupid. You can pull up all the "what ifs" you want. Fact is, I've faced this situation before, and know what to do. Self preservation is important, yes, but not so important we should disarm ourselves and lay down to every thug with a gun. The individual must assess the situation, and fight back if he has a chance. If I'm unarmed, there isn't much chance, is there?

I refuse to give up my liberty for safety. Because as Franklin pointed out, I'll end up with neither

if i hear that fvcking franklin quote one more time on this board, i'm going to become violently ill.

would your solution for street crime for us to all be armed at all times to discourage criminals? would the benefits outweigh the costs? if not, when should we be armed?

i don't know if crime is inevitable in every society, or if there's a way to eliminate it without arming citizens at all times. but i'm confused where we're in disagreement - if i'm unarmed and someone holds me up with a gun, it'd be difficult for me to imagine a situation to be as such that i wouldn't give up my wallet. it seems you feel the same. i don't want criminals any more than you do, but we can't predict when we will be mugged, so how can we take measures to prevent it from happening? again, is it from us all being armed at all times? if not, then what?

I should be my right, as a law abiding citizen, to arm myself to protect my individual rights from thugs. Choosing to not arm yourself in a world in which criminals will be armed no matter what your laws are is choosing to lay down and be a victim.

Yes, if I am not armed I would most likely not fight back againsyt an armed criminal. But being unarmed would not be my choice.

CC laws have been proven to lower crime, so yes... the solution is to allow law abiding citizens to CC. CC keeps the criminals guessing, and even protects those who are not armed.

I'm sorry you don't like the Frankilin quote, but it's very applicable to this situation. At least I didn't quote it verbatim.

based on your premise that the best solution is to arm everyone...

if concealed weapon permits have proven to lower crime, why aren't they in effect in more places? if they're proven to lower crime, why don't legislators make it law? why haven't more politicians ran on the promise of allowing citizens to carry weapons to lower crime? just some things to think about.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: dolph
am i really the only one who thinks this guy wasn't too bright? even if i'm carrying like keanu in the lobby of the matrix, if someone's pointing a rifle at me they're getting my wallet. especially when there are 3 of them. you might think i'm a coward, but i think that anyone else is insane for risking their life for $120.

It's not the money. It's the principle.

amish

damn straight it's the principle. i don't care if it's $120, $1.20, or $1,200,000. my life is priceless. i'd die to protect my family, friends, or possibly innocent people, given the situation. but over money? or any material possesion? too much pride will kill you. so yes, it is the principle. are you willing to die on the chance that you'd survive a run-in with punks like this? is your life worth so little? dying for this principle is not one of my principles.

This is why crime is rampant. We are being raised as victims, blindly handing over our BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS to any thug with a gun.

This is not about money, or pride. It is about our basic human and civil rights. Theft and robbery are crimes because they violate the rights of another. Because we are not a police state, the government cannot, and will not be able to protect us on an individual basis.

Soldiers die on the battle field for our rights. Why are we not allowed to fight for them on an individual basis? If EVERYONE stood up to criminals, how long do you think violent and property crime would last in any great numbers? Not long at all. It's been proven time and time again that criminals fear armed victims more than anything else.

Finally, do NOT mistake this with vigilantism. It is far from it. Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands AFTER THE FACT. Vigilantism is NOT protecting your self, your rights, and your property from criminals.

let's put it this way - if you were the guy in the story, but you were unarmed, would you still hold your ground?

Probably not. This is why I support concealed carry on demand licensing laws. In EVERY state in which they've been passed, crime has plummeted. In Vermont, a citizen with no criminal history doesn't even need a license to carry a concealed weapon. It's his right as a law abiding citizen. I see no wave of gun crime in Vermont, do you?

The fact is, concealed carry laws keep criminals guessing and deter crime. Armed victims are the worst nightmares of criminals.

and yet by your own admission, if you weren't carrying a weapon you would violate your own principle to save your life. what if you were armed, but there were 3 guys with at least one gun, but you didn't know if the other ones had them too? sort of like this incidenct?

my point, which you helped me illustrate, is that the highest principle we stand for is self preservation. as a soldier, i'm sure your motivation was not to die for our country, but to fight so you can live for it. very few of us want to be martyrs for no reason.

It's called "assessing the situation." I'm willing to fight for my rights, but I'm not stupid. You can pull up all the "what ifs" you want. Fact is, I've faced this situation before, and know what to do. Self preservation is important, yes, but not so important we should disarm ourselves and lay down to every thug with a gun. The individual must assess the situation, and fight back if he has a chance. If I'm unarmed, there isn't much chance, is there?

I refuse to give up my liberty for safety. Because as Franklin pointed out, I'll end up with neither

if i hear that fvcking franklin quote one more time on this board, i'm going to become violently ill.

would your solution for street crime for us to all be armed at all times to discourage criminals? would the benefits outweigh the costs? if not, when should we be armed?

i don't know if crime is inevitable in every society, or if there's a way to eliminate it without arming citizens at all times. but i'm confused where we're in disagreement - if i'm unarmed and someone holds me up with a gun, it'd be difficult for me to imagine a situation to be as such that i wouldn't give up my wallet. it seems you feel the same. i don't want criminals any more than you do, but we can't predict when we will be mugged, so how can we take measures to prevent it from happening? again, is it from us all being armed at all times? if not, then what?

I should be my right, as a law abiding citizen, to arm myself to protect my individual rights from thugs. Choosing to not arm yourself in a world in which criminals will be armed no matter what your laws are is choosing to lay down and be a victim.

Yes, if I am not armed I would most likely not fight back againsyt an armed criminal. But being unarmed would not be my choice.

CC laws have been proven to lower crime, so yes... the solution is to allow law abiding citizens to CC. CC keeps the criminals guessing, and even protects those who are not armed.

I'm sorry you don't like the Frankilin quote, but it's very applicable to this situation. At least I didn't quote it verbatim.

based on your premise that the best solution is to arm everyone...

if concealed weapon permits have proven to lower crime, why aren't they in effect in more places? if they're proven to lower crime, why don't legislators make it law? why haven't more politicians ran on the promise of allowing citizens to carry weapons to lower crime? just some things to think about.

Some politicians prefer unarmed peasants.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Nitemare
surprised no one is whining about the 14 y/o getting shot.

If the DEA had shot him would that be wrong?

The really sad part is there are people thinking this man fought them over $120.

What price do you put on your rights? How much money does a person have to take from you before you think it's too much?

If it was purely the principle, what did he take out his wallet, see how much he had, then decide to put up a fight?

It matters when he decided he wouldn't lay down and be vilolated?

Tell me, if you mother or sister was being threatened with rape, and waited until they had their panties off before they decided to fight back, would you think any less of them?

Not when, but WHAT motivated him to fight back. He only decided to once he saw that he had 120 bucks in his wallet, which makes it pretty obvious that he only made the decision to fight once he saw how much money he had - and figured it was worth fighting for. If he took them on purely on principle, he wouldn't have even bothered to pull out his wallet in the first place.

If your mom decided not to be raped, she would have let him rip her panties off.

You are making a judgement call based on when he decided to fight back. It's irrelevant.

No, I'm making a judgement based on what he did immediately before resisting. Which is completely relevant. Nothing he did or said afterward leads me to believe that he did it based on principle.

And get off the rape analogy - it's not a very good one, not to mention that it's disturbing.

 

[Zebo]

Dumbass almost a darwin award winner. I'm sure the only reason he was'nt killed it the robbers had no intention of actually shooting someone so they did'nt fire once the victim decided to be physical.

The cops are right, Kids don't try this at home>

 

[Stifko]

That is a great story, thanks !

 

[dquan97]

Where's that 50cal pistol when you need it?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: dolph
am i really the only one who thinks this guy wasn't too bright? even if i'm carrying like keanu in the lobby of the matrix, if someone's pointing a rifle at me they're getting my wallet. especially when there are 3 of them. you might think i'm a coward, but i think that anyone else is insane for risking their life for $120.

It's not the money. It's the principle.

amish

damn straight it's the principle. i don't care if it's $120, $1.20, or $1,200,000. my life is priceless. i'd die to protect my family, friends, or possibly innocent people, given the situation. but over money? or any material possesion? too much pride will kill you. so yes, it is the principle. are you willing to die on the chance that you'd survive a run-in with punks like this? is your life worth so little? dying for this principle is not one of my principles.

This is why crime is rampant. We are being raised as victims, blindly handing over our BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS to any thug with a gun.

This is not about money, or pride. It is about our basic human and civil rights. Theft and robbery are crimes because they violate the rights of another. Because we are not a police state, the government cannot, and will not be able to protect us on an individual basis.

Soldiers die on the battle field for our rights. Why are we not allowed to fight for them on an individual basis? If EVERYONE stood up to criminals, how long do you think violent and property crime would last in any great numbers? Not long at all. It's been proven time and time again that criminals fear armed victims more than anything else.

Finally, do NOT mistake this with vigilantism. It is far from it. Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands AFTER THE FACT. Vigilantism is NOT protecting your self, your rights, and your property from criminals.

let's put it this way - if you were the guy in the story, but you were unarmed, would you still hold your ground?

Probably not. This is why I support concealed carry on demand licensing laws. In EVERY state in which they've been passed, crime has plummeted. In Vermont, a citizen with no criminal history doesn't even need a license to carry a concealed weapon. It's his right as a law abiding citizen. I see no wave of gun crime in Vermont, do you?

The fact is, concealed carry laws keep criminals guessing and deter crime. Armed victims are the worst nightmares of criminals.

and yet by your own admission, if you weren't carrying a weapon you would violate your own principle to save your life. what if you were armed, but there were 3 guys with at least one gun, but you didn't know if the other ones had them too? sort of like this incidenct?

my point, which you helped me illustrate, is that the highest principle we stand for is self preservation. as a soldier, i'm sure your motivation was not to die for our country, but to fight so you can live for it. very few of us want to be martyrs for no reason.

It's called "assessing the situation." I'm willing to fight for my rights, but I'm not stupid. You can pull up all the "what ifs" you want. Fact is, I've faced this situation before, and know what to do. Self preservation is important, yes, but not so important we should disarm ourselves and lay down to every thug with a gun. The individual must assess the situation, and fight back if he has a chance. If I'm unarmed, there isn't much chance, is there?

I refuse to give up my liberty for safety. Because as Franklin pointed out, I'll end up with neither

if i hear that fvcking franklin quote one more time on this board, i'm going to become violently ill.

would your solution for street crime for us to all be armed at all times to discourage criminals? would the benefits outweigh the costs? if not, when should we be armed?

i don't know if crime is inevitable in every society, or if there's a way to eliminate it without arming citizens at all times. but i'm confused where we're in disagreement - if i'm unarmed and someone holds me up with a gun, it'd be difficult for me to imagine a situation to be as such that i wouldn't give up my wallet. it seems you feel the same. i don't want criminals any more than you do, but we can't predict when we will be mugged, so how can we take measures to prevent it from happening? again, is it from us all being armed at all times? if not, then what?

I should be my right, as a law abiding citizen, to arm myself to protect my individual rights from thugs. Choosing to not arm yourself in a world in which criminals will be armed no matter what your laws are is choosing to lay down and be a victim.

Yes, if I am not armed I would most likely not fight back againsyt an armed criminal. But being unarmed would not be my choice.

CC laws have been proven to lower crime, so yes... the solution is to allow law abiding citizens to CC. CC keeps the criminals guessing, and even protects those who are not armed.

I'm sorry you don't like the Frankilin quote, but it's very applicable to this situation. At least I didn't quote it verbatim.

based on your premise that the best solution is to arm everyone...

if concealed weapon permits have proven to lower crime, why aren't they in effect in more places? if they're proven to lower crime, why don't legislators make it law? why haven't more politicians ran on the promise of allowing citizens to carry weapons to lower crime? just some things to think about.

Because some people deny reality, and some in power are uneasy ruling an armed population (as they should be).

Pacifism denies the reality of human nature. Pacifists believe that if all the good people would simply disarm, there would be no more conflict. This is a blind denial of the reality that is human nature.

Still others will hold to their beliefs in the face of undeniable proof. There is not one viable, repeatable and peer reviewed study showing an increase in crime after CC laws were passed. But this does not stop the fanatical anti-Second Amendment activists.

Liberals in the country are going through the same denial with guns, that conservatives have been going through with sex and drugs. "Just say no" and denomination education is an abject failure, no matter what subject you apply it to.

Finally, to arm or not to arm should be a personal choice. It is a choice, and a right, best left to the individual.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Nitemare
surprised no one is whining about the 14 y/o getting shot.

If the DEA had shot him would that be wrong?

The really sad part is there are people thinking this man fought them over $120.

What price do you put on your rights? How much money does a person have to take from you before you think it's too much?

If it was purely the principle, what did he take out his wallet, see how much he had, then decide to put up a fight?

It matters when he decided he wouldn't lay down and be vilolated?

Tell me, if you mother or sister was being threatened with rape, and waited until they had their panties off before they decided to fight back, would you think any less of them?

Not when, but WHAT motivated him to fight back. He only decided to once he saw that he had 120 bucks in his wallet, which makes it pretty obvious that he only made the decision to fight once he saw how much money he had - and figured it was worth fighting for. If he took them on purely on principle, he wouldn't have even bothered to pull out his wallet in the first place.

If your mom decided not to be raped, she would have let him rip her panties off.

You are making a judgement call based on when he decided to fight back. It's irrelevant.

No, I'm making a judgement based on what he did immediately before resisting. Which is completely relevant. Nothing he did or said afterward leads me to believe that he did it based on principle.

And get off the rape analogy - it's not a very good one, not to mention that it's disturbing.

The rape anology is disturbing because you can't see my point. You mom's right to not be raped is the SAME right you and I have to not be robbed. BOTH are a violation of a basic civil and human rights.

My point is that when the policy is to lay down and allow criminals to have their way, we create an open season on victims. A person being robbed of $120 has just as much right, and responsibility to defend his rights as a woman being raped.

In fact, by the twisted "it was only $120" logic presented here, he has more right to defend himself. Since the woman is only losing her dignity, and he is losing both his dignity AND $120.

It matters not when he chose to fight back, as it was his right and responsibility to do so if he had the means. And it appears he had plenty of means.

 

[Orsorum]

God, i love this guy. If he lived around here I'd stop by and give him kudos.

Oh, wait, I live in Seattle, he'd be picketed by now... "but guns are dangerous! They're all big and mean and scary and they mean that we actually have to be educated when we use them... oh, god, no!"

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Amused

The rape anology is disturbing because you can't see my point. You mom's right to not be raped is the SAME right you and I have to not be robbed. BOTH are a violation of a basic civil and human rights.

My point is that when the policy is to lay down and allow criminals to have their way, we create an open season on victims. A person being robbed of $120 has just as much right, and responsibility to defend his rights as a woman being raped.

In fact, by the twisted "it was only $120" logic presented here, he has more right to defend himself. Since the woman is only losing her dignity, and he is losing both his dignity AND $120.

It matters not when he chose to fight back, as it was his right and responsibility to do so if he had the means. And it appears he had plenty of means.

I don't think the rape analogy is necessarily appropriate. Robbery is not the same as sexual assault.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: djheater
It's not acceptable to enforce your standards of behavior via execution. It was wrong of them to threaten his life, it would have been equally wrong of him to kill them. There are other ways to resolve conflict.

When someone threatens my rights with threats of death, there is but one way to respond to that at the time. It is not an execution, it is responding to force with same. It's sad that the man would die, but he chose that possibility when he decided to threaten the life of another. You give up your rights when you violate the rights of another.

In the words of Clint Eastwood, "deserve's got nothing to do with it."

hmmm...

That's the best rationale I've ever heard and in that sense is enlightening. You've put it in a perspective I've never considered, thanks.

Personally I am deeply conflicted about taking human life, it's difficult for me to rationally conceive of a circumstance in which I would choose to use it. However I'm a father and if someone threatened or hurt my children or wife... well I wouldn't be entirely rational in my response.

It's not an easy question, though. I'm disturbed by people answering it in such an off-handed "criminals deserve death" manner.

Sometimes we are put in the unfortunate position of taking one life to save another. It's not a position we choose, but it's one we are forced into by the criminal acts of others. I know some people act cavalier about taking a life, and I agree that is sad. Though, something tells me that's more bravado than actual feelings that they have.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Amused

The rape anology is disturbing because you can't see my point. You mom's right to not be raped is the SAME right you and I have to not be robbed. BOTH are a violation of a basic civil and human rights.

My point is that when the policy is to lay down and allow criminals to have their way, we create an open season on victims. A person being robbed of $120 has just as much right, and responsibility to defend his rights as a woman being raped.

In fact, by the twisted "it was only $120" logic presented here, he has more right to defend himself. Since the woman is only losing her dignity, and he is losing both his dignity AND $120.

It matters not when he chose to fight back, as it was his right and responsibility to do so if he had the means. And it appears he had plenty of means.

I don't think the rape analogy is necessarily appropriate. Robbery is not the same as sexual assault.

It's not? Does not both violate the basic civil and human rights of another citizen?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Amused

The rape anology is disturbing because you can't see my point. You mom's right to not be raped is the SAME right you and I have to not be robbed. BOTH are a violation of a basic civil and human rights.

My point is that when the policy is to lay down and allow criminals to have their way, we create an open season on victims. A person being robbed of $120 has just as much right, and responsibility to defend his rights as a woman being raped.

In fact, by the twisted "it was only $120" logic presented here, he has more right to defend himself. Since the woman is only losing her dignity, and he is losing both his dignity AND $120.

It matters not when he chose to fight back, as it was his right and responsibility to do so if he had the means. And it appears he had plenty of means.

I don't think the rape analogy is necessarily appropriate. Robbery is not the same as sexual assault.

It's not? Does not both violate the basic civil and human rights of another citizen?

Sexual assault is a physical assault on another person, completing robbing someone of their dignity - the best example I can think of for men to look at is the scene from "American History X".

Robbery can be humiliating and degrading, but nowhere near rape.

That being said, I support the full use of force in deterring both types of crimes.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Amused

The rape anology is disturbing because you can't see my point. You mom's right to not be raped is the SAME right you and I have to not be robbed. BOTH are a violation of a basic civil and human rights.

My point is that when the policy is to lay down and allow criminals to have their way, we create an open season on victims. A person being robbed of $120 has just as much right, and responsibility to defend his rights as a woman being raped.

In fact, by the twisted "it was only $120" logic presented here, he has more right to defend himself. Since the woman is only losing her dignity, and he is losing both his dignity AND $120.

It matters not when he chose to fight back, as it was his right and responsibility to do so if he had the means. And it appears he had plenty of means.

I don't think the rape analogy is necessarily appropriate. Robbery is not the same as sexual assault.

It's not? Does not both violate the basic civil and human rights of another citizen?

Sexual assault is a physical assault on another person, completing robbing someone of their dignity - the best example I can think of for men to look at is the scene from "American History X".

Robbery can be humiliating and degrading, but nowhere near rape.

That being said, I support the full use of force in deterring both types of crimes.

To me, a right is a right is a right. To violate my rights by taking my money, or my dignity is all the same to me.

This is not to belittle victims of rape, but to highlight the violation of basic human rights that robbery and theft really is.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Amused

To me, a right is a right is a right. To violate my rights by taking my money, or my dignity is all the same to me.

This is not to belittle victims of rape, but to highlight the violation of basic human rights that robbery and theft really is.

I think we both agree that both rape and robbery are horrible crimes.



That also being said, my wife and children will know how to safely use firearms.