Wave gun at car, get shot

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
a threat is something that may or may not happen. hence the reason it's a threat.

again, please die.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
When talking about ethics I am a utilitarian, the world would be better off if gun ownership is illegal. Some innocents would die, but the death toll would drop. I would rather kill 1 innocent person who couldn't defend themselves in exchange for saving 5 people who get accidentally shot.

People should not be able to assume something, then kill someone.

What you are saying is that people should not be able to defend themselves because they may make a mistake, but, rather, criminals should be the only ones armed so we are at their mercy.

You seem to have more faith in criminals than you do in the law abiding, since you seem to be advocating a situation that will only empower them.

Edit: furthermore, I challenge you to propose a solution for removing guns from the hands of those who would intentionally use them to do evil (we call them criminals) or never again even mention the idea of limiting personal gun ownership by law abiding citizens (like yourself).
 
Last edited:

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,165
1,637
126
I'm not, I'm here to debate. I have been proven wrong on certain topics. this isn't one of them.



I know what a definite threat is, and it doesn't involve the word may

So, a handgun pointed at you by a stranger in a car that has been tailgating you is not a definite threat?

I think most people would recognize a handgun pointed at them to be a definite threat under any/every circumstance.

I think you may not understand the definition of "threat" .... which can include "may"
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
A definite threat is something that will happen.

again, no.

a threat is the intent to cause harm. which means it may or may not happen. a definite threat means you are dead. you didn't even get a chance to react because the definite threat already happened.

it's ok you're to fucking stupid to understand any of this so just kill yourself. you'll feel better honestly.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
What you are saying is that people should not be able to defend themselves because they may make a mistake, but, rather, criminals should be the only ones armed so we are at their mercy.

You seem to have more faith in criminals than you do in the law abiding, since you seem to be advocating a situation that will only empower them.

I'm saying neither I'm saying removing legal gun ownership decreases gun deaths, and thus the overall death rate, Criminals need to be dealt with by the police, those who are qualified to carry a gun, not joe blogs. I'm saying that by removing supply less and less criminals own guns (although I'll grant you that this is more of a UK argument than American)
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
So, a handgun pointed at you by a stranger in a car that has been tailgating you is not a definite threat?

I think most people would recognize a handgun pointed at them to be a definite threat under any/every circumstance.

I think you may not understand the definition of "threat" .... which can include "may"

People would absolutely think that, which is why people shouldn't have guns.

a threat is the intent to cause harm. which means it may or may not happen. a definite threat means you are dead. you didn't even get a chance to react because the definite threat already happened.

it's ok you're to fucking stupid to understand any of this so just kill yourself. you'll feel better honestly.

It's ok, I don't feel like this is worth a valid response as it is rife with trolling.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
What you are saying is that people should not be able to defend themselves because they may make a mistake, but, rather, criminals should be the only ones armed so we are at their mercy.

You seem to have more faith in criminals than you do in the law abiding, since you seem to be advocating a situation that will only empower them.

Read my sig. This is what the argument boils down to. He's ran his scripted lines plenty of times. I wish we could have callout threads so I could start a campaign to put Hal on everyone's ignore list.

He's already managed to pervert a thread about a responsible gun owner defending the lives of his group into a debate about basic self defense that an 8 year old would understand.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I'm saying neither I'm saying removing legal gun ownership decreases gun deaths, and thus the overall death rate, Criminals need to be dealt with by the police, those who are qualified to carry a gun, not joe blogs. I'm saying that by removing supply less and less criminals own guns (although I'll grant you that this is more of a UK argument than American)

You cannot prove this at all. In fact we can prove the opposite as well. Switzerland for example. EVERYONE is armed and EVERYONE knows how to use a gun. I guess their murder rate must be higher than the USA and UK combined! oh wait it isn't.... guns don't kill people, people kill people.


you should take that little bit of advice and kill yourself. maybe then you'll understand the people kill people thing.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,165
1,637
126
A definite threat is something that will happen.

again, no.

A definite threat means a certain threat.

Uncertain threat: "I think the guy has a gun", but it's possible that it could be a sausage or umbrella.

You aren't sure if it's a real threat. If it's a sausage or umbrella, then it's not a threat, if it's a gun, then it is a threat.

Definite threat: Guy has gun pointed at you, while you are not certain that he/she will shoot, they are posing a threat, and it's definitely a threat because it's a gun.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Read my sig. This is what the argument boils down to. He's ran his scripted lines plenty of times. I wish we could have callout threads so I could start a campaign to put Hal on everyone's ignore list.

He's already managed to pervert a thread about a responsible gun owner defending the lives of his group into a debate about basic self defense that an 8 year old would understand.

This guy was not responsible, he saw a gun and tried to kill someone.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
A definite threat means a certain threat.

Uncertain threat: "I think the guy has a gun", but it's possible that it could be a sausage or umbrella.

You aren't sure if it's a real threat. If it's a sausage or umbrella, then it's not a threat, if it's a gun, then it is a threat.

Definite threat: Guy has gun pointed at you, while you are not certain that he/she will shoot, they are posing a threat, and it's definitely a threat because it's a gun.

Uncertain threat: Man is holding a gun.
Certain threat: Man aims gun at my face.

This guy was holding a gun to show it to the other car (based on my understanding of the OP) In either event people shouldn't have the right to make snap decisions that end lives.
 

Numenorean

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2008
4,442
1
0
I completely disagree.

And you are being completely irrational.

If someone threatens you with serious bodily injury or death, then they are the ones who forfeit their right to live, and I have no problem with others killing them in self defense. That's exactly what this situation was. A person defended themselves and the others around them from a deadly threat. It doesn't matter that the guy MAY NOT have shot them. By threatening to do so, they are in the wrong. That's why brandishing is a crime.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,165
1,637
126
People would absolutely think that, which is why people shouldn't have guns.

I agree, all guns should be banned and purged from this earth.
However, I live in reality, and recognize that as an impossibility.

Therefore, since you can not remove ALL guns, it's best to maintain some semblance of a balance of power, therefore, people should have the freedom to own guns provided they learn how to use them responsibly, and follow through by ACTING responsible as well.
 

guyver01

Lifer
Sep 25, 2000
22,135
5
61
This guy was holding a gun to show it to the other car (based on my understanding of the OP)


:eek:

MattCarGun1.jpg



So... is this guy just going.. "Hey Hal... look at my pretty gun"

????
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
And you are being completely irrational.

If someone threatens you with serious bodily injury or death, then they are the ones who forfeit their right to live, and I have no problem with others killing them in self defense. That's exactly what this situation was. A person defended themselves and the others around them from a deadly threat. It doesn't matter that the guy MAY NOT have shot them. By threatening to do so, they are in the wrong. That's why brandishing is a crime.

Neither of them should have had guns in the first place, but aside from that given that they did. He was not certain that the guy in the car was about to open fire on the car next to him, therefore he shouldn't have intervened, until it is completely clear that the guy intends to kill you, you should have no right to kill them.

I agree, all guns should be banned and purged from this earth.
However, I live in reality, and recognize that as an impossibility.

Therefore, since you can not remove ALL guns, it's best to maintain some semblance of a balance of power, therefore, people should have the freedom to own guns provided they learn how to use them responsibly, and follow through by ACTING responsible as well.

Of course, it is impossible to un-invent guns, it is however possible to minimise them.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
:eek:

MattCarGun1.jpg



So... is this guy just going.. "Hey Hal... look at my pretty gun"

????

No, No he isn't is that what was happening in the article from the OP?

The two SUVs, friends of each other, decide to get off of the Intersate and get gas. Police say the driver of the minivan, 53-year-old Su Hong Springer, also from Tennessee, followed them and showed a gun at the gas station.

According to the information at hand he showed a gun, not aimed a gun.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
This guy was not responsible, he saw a gun and tried to kill someone.

Yes, he saw a gun pointed as his group by an angry unstable individual and eliminated the immediate lethal threat. Details are a bitch aren't they troll?

Grow up, and learn some basic safety rules. Maybe you should start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjq-KxO-7lQ#t=07m40s

Get back to us in a few years.
 
Last edited:

Numenorean

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2008
4,442
1
0
This guy was not responsible, he saw a gun and tried to kill someone.

He was very responsible. He saw a threat and dealt with it in an appropriate manner.

The guy who threatened him and was waving a gun around at him was the irresponsible one.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
neckbeard, guns will never not exist. your entire argument is shit, so shut up. guns exist and they will always exist. if they disappeared tomorrow we would invent another way to kill people. that's what we're good at, killing shit. we're the best at it. so instead of being a dumbass blaming the law abiding citizens for owning guns. why don't you talk about what we can do to stop criminals from attacking non-criminal citizens. I mean if that stopped completely, we wouldn't need guns right? So why don't you attack thta issue instead of your stupid emotional bullshit responses to guns.

You hypocritical piece of shit, I hope you choke on your boyfriend cock.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,165
1,637
126
Uncertain threat: Man is holding a gun.
Certain threat: Man aims gun at my face.

This guy was holding a gun to show it to the other car (based on my understanding of the OP) In either event people shouldn't have the right to make snap decisions that end lives.

Holding a gun to show it to the other car, to scare them, to make them feel threatened. That is pretty much the textbook definition of a threat.... Even if it's not pointed directly at the other person's face (assuming he's holding in by the handle as if he's ready to use it... )

If they have time to aim and point it at you, it's too late, you're already a goner.

If you are going to defend yourself, you need to do it BEFORE it gets to that point.
 

Numenorean

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2008
4,442
1
0
Neither of them should have had guns in the first place, but aside from that given that they did. He was not certain that the guy in the car was about to open fire on the car next to him, therefore he shouldn't have intervened, until it is completely clear that the guy intends to kill you, you should have no right to kill them.

There was no law that prevented them from having a gun, from what was stated.

Deadly threat met with appropriate force. End of story.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Yes, he saw a gun pointed as his group by an angry unstable individual and eliminated the immediate lethal threat. Details are a bitch aren't they troll?

Grow up, and learn some basic safety rules. Maybe you should start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjq-KxO-7lQ#t=02m45s

Get back to us in a few years.

He was very responsible. He saw a threat and dealt with it in an appropriate manner.

The guy who threatened him and was waving a gun around at him was the irresponsible one.


Where are you guys getting these details?

The two SUVs, friends of each other, decide to get off of the Intersate and get gas. Police say the driver of the minivan, 53-year-old Su Hong Springer, also from Tennessee, followed them and showed a gun at the gas station.

It says showed a gun, not aimed a gun.