Wave gun at car, get shot

[HAL9000]

He should still understand the scenario.
Some chav pulls a knife --> you can knock his teeth out with a baseball bat or any other object available

There is a difference between someone coming up to me with a knife and trying to mug me, to which I respond with beating them up with a baseball bat. And someone showing me a gun from another car, to which I respond with executing them.

Equate it to a friend showing me a knife and I knock their teeth out with a baseball bat.

 

[HAL9000]

(1) How are you supposed to know that that random, angry stranger who followed you off the highway and is now brandishing a gun at you doesn't really mean it?

You can't thats the point, which is why you shouldnt have the right to make a split second decision that will end someones life.

(2) Short excercise: Point your index finger at a nearby object, and then say "bang". Repeat several times, so you have a feel for the amount of time that motion takes.


(3) Consider, then, what you might possibly be able to say to (example #1) before he can accomplish (excercise #2) in the amount of time it takes to perform (excercise #2).


(4) Knowing how quickly (example #1) can perform (excercise #2), are you now inclined to ask (#1) questions? Or do you draw your own weapon and try to preserve your own life?

You shouldn't have a weapon, you shouldn't be able to make the decision to kill someone with limited data in a matter of seconds.

So if I put a knife to your throat but don't slice, you have no right to lethal self defense. After all, you don't know that my intent is to kill you. 🙄

That is a definite verifiable threat.

An assumption is what gun control advocates make when they call the cops over seeing a holstered gun. A pointed gun is an immediate lethal threat. Asking the man politely if he intends to kill you is laughable.

Grow up. Strangers are mean sometimes.

So people shouldn't have guns. Because they can't tell what is a threat and what isn't' this guy wasn't threatening anyone, but someone took it as a threat and shot him, a faulty assumption, forcing him to make a choice he had no right to make.

 

[Avalon]

I don't see the issue. What asshole tailgates someone, follows them to a gas station, pulls a gun out, and expects a friendly conversation? The "victim" sounds like a lunatic.

 

[Paladin3]

People shouldn't be able to assume and kill. People should not have the right to kill people because they assume there is a threat. If none of them had guns this wouldn't have been an issue and no one would have been shot.

And if you didn't have access to the Internet we'd all be happier, but I don't really see that happening any more than I see America, especially the criminals, ever being disarmed. You have to stop suggesting impossibilities as the best solutions.

 

[nick1985]

oh hey look, another gun thread by a conservative gun nut.

Oh hey look, a gun grabbing liberal who doesn't feel private gun ownership is a collective right.

 

[bfdd]

P.S. I own a shotgun.

This is why people are not capable of owning guns safely. People are morons.

so either 1. you think you're smarter than everyone and only you're capable of owning a gun 2. you're a fucking moron or 3. you're a hypocrite

i think it's 4. all of the above.

 

[HAL9000]

And if you didn't have access to the Internet we'd all be happier, but I don't really see that happening any more than I see America, especially the criminals, ever being disarmed. You have to stop suggesting impossibilities as the best solutions.

Oh I'm not saying it will happen, I'm just arguing about ethics. Not legality or practicality.

 

[HAL9000]

so either 1. you think you're smarter than everyone and only you're capable of owning a gun 2. you're a fucking moron or 3. you're a hypocrite

i think it's 4. all of the above.

I'm more capable. I have been licensed, checked out, psychologically evaluated, the police have come round my house to check that is locked securely so that six year olds don't find it.

 

[irishScott]

You can't thats the point, which is why you should have the right to make a split second decision that will end someones life.



You shouldn't have a weapon, you shouldn't be able to make the decision to kill someone with limited data in a matter of seconds.

That is a definite verifiable threat.



So people shouldn't have guns. Because they can't tell what is a threat and what isn't' this guy wasn't threatening anyone, but someone took it as a threat and shot him, a faulty assumption, forcing him to make a choice he had no right to make.

A pointed gun is a definite verifiable threat. If I hit you in the right spot I could kill you faster with a gun from a distance than I could with a knife to your throat. Every court and 90+% of the gun laws on the face of the planet agree with me.

As for your vision of no guns for anyone, we've covered this mucho times with the same result. Your opinions have been thoroughly trounced and have been repeatably proven to not be welcome here by the vast majority of the population. Yet you keep posting them, obviously getting off on the negative attention or on just hearing yourself talk I guess. Or, maybe, given the impossibility of your opinions, you see it as your duty to promote your views to a relatively small population on a tech forum, most of whom are on a different continent, and thus somehow uses ATOT as a vehicle to "change the world" (lol).

Or you're just trolling. Don't know, don't care.

Getting back on topic, :thumbsup: to the responsible gun owner for protecting the lives of those in his vehicle from a road-raging gun-slinger.

 

[Paladin3]

You can't thats the point, which is why you should have the right to make a split second decision that will end someones life.

You shouldn't have a weapon, you shouldn't be able to make the decision to kill someone with limited data in a matter of seconds.

That is a definite verifiable threat.

So people shouldn't have guns. Because they can't tell what is a threat and what isn't' this guy wasn't threatening anyone, but someone took it as a threat and shot him, a faulty assumption, forcing him to make a choice he had no right to make.

Not being able to defend yourself is to put yourself at the mercy of the threatening individual/criminal. You may be willing to accept such a risk in the name of your higher moral values, but I'm not.

Suppose someone was waving a gun in a threatening manner at the person you loved most in this world. Wouldn't you want to turn that person off as instantly as possible? Would you be willing to wait and see if the threat was serious, even if it turned out it be and that loved-one died because of your inaction? What would you say at their grave? "Sorry, I thought that guy with the gun was only fooling?"

I'd rather go to the funeral of the guy I shot and tell him he shouldn't have waved his gun around like an idiot.

And saying you'd rather we lived in a fantasy world where guns didn't exist, or everyone loved their fellow man, isn't an option, as much as I wish that were the case too.

 

[HAL9000]

A pointed gun is a definite verifiable threat. If I hit you in the right spot I could kill you faster with a gun from a distance than I could with a knife to your throat. Every court and 90+% of the gun laws on the face of the planet agree with me.

Which is the exact reason that you shouldn't be legally allowed to own one.

As for your vision of no guns for anyone, we've covered this mucho times with the same result. Your opinions have been thoroughly trounced and have been repeatably proven to not be welcome here by the vast majority of the population. Yet you keep posting them, obviously getting off on the negative attention or on just hearing yourself talk I guess. Or, maybe, given the impossibility of your opinions, you see it as your duty to promote your views to a relatively small population on a tech forum, most of whom are on a different continent, and thus somehow uses ATOT as a vehicle to "change the world" (lol).

Or you're just trolling. Don't know, don't care.

Getting back on topic, :thumbsup: to the responsible gun owner for protecting the lives of those in his vehicle from a road-raging gun-slinger.

I'm not trying to be "welcome"... It's not really a concern to me.

 

[bfdd]

I'm more capable. I have been licensed, checked out, psychologically evaluated, the police have come round my house to check that is locked securely so that six year olds don't find it.

Yup, you're just another "do as I say, not as I do" fucking cock sucker. Seriously, fuck you and everything you stand for. Also, YOU got psychologically evaluated and were OK'D to have a gun? That's a fucking joke. Unless the jokes on you and they had more devious intentions when they ok'd your gun ownership.

 

[HAL9000]

Not being able to defend yourself is to put yourself at the mercy of the threatening individual/criminal. You may be willing to accept such a risk in the name of your higher moral values, but I'm not.

Suppose someone was waving a gun in a threatening manner at the person you loved most in this world. Wouldn't you want to turn that person off as instantly as possible? Would you be willing to wait and see if the threat was serious, even if it turned out it be and that loved-one died because of your inaction? What would you say at their grave? "Sorry, I thought that guy with the gun was only fooling?"

I'd rather go to the funeral of the guy I shot and tell him he shouldn't have waved his gun around like an idiot.

And saying you'd rather we lived in a fantasy world where guns didn't exist, or everyone loved their fellow man, isn't an option, as much as I wish that were the case too.

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.

 

[irishScott]

Which is the exact reason that you shouldn't be legally allowed to own one.



I'm not trying to be "welcome"... It's not really a concern to me.

So you are around just to hear yourself verbalize in your own head and pat yourself on the back. Or just to troll. Good to know.

 

[HAL9000]

Yup, you're just another "do as I say, not as I do" fucking cock sucker. Seriously, fuck you and everything you stand for. Also, YOU got psychologically evaluated and were OK'D to have a gun? That's a fucking joke. Unless the jokes on you and they had more devious intentions when they ok'd your gun ownership.

You make me smile I love how upset you get a pointless shit. Dude I don't give a fuck what you think about me. :wub:

 

[HAL9000]

So you are around just to hear yourself talk and pat yourself on the back. Or just to troll. Good to know.

I'm here to debate.

 

[Numenorean]

Really? He killed someone (or seriously injured at least) someone because he saw a gun even though it posed no threat to him. Sounds like if he didn't have a gun no one would have been shot.

Yes really. The person was threatened by a person with a gun and shot him. Totally fine. If he didn't have a gun, the other person may have shot him. If you think that there was no threat at all, you're crazy.

 

[bfdd]

You make me smile I love how upset you get a pointless shit. Dude I don't give a fuck what you think about me. :wub:

Not upset, just hoping you kill yourself sooner rather than later so we don't have to read your stupid fucking nonsense any more.

 

[HAL9000]

Yes really. The person was threatened by a person with a gun and shot him. Totally fine. If he didn't have a gun, the other person may have shot him. If you think that there was no threat at all, you're crazy.

"the other person may have shot him" does not mean he should have the right to shoot him first. Based on what he MAY do.

 

[HAL9000]

Not upset, just hoping you kill yourself sooner rather than later so we don't have to read your stupid fucking nonsense any more.

I wont.

 

[irishScott]

I'm here to debate.

The hell you are. If you were you'd admit to having been proven wrong in mucho previous threads and left long ago. Or you would have left realizing you weren't getting anywhere.

You're here to spout your opinions, which you know no one agrees with, pat yourself on the back and get off on the reactions you receive. You are a troll.

 

[bfdd]

"the other person may have shot him" does not mean he should have the right to shoot him first. Based on what he MAY do.

oh the guy MAY have shot him, but that's not a threat....


do you even know what a threat is? what the definition of a threat is? if someone MAY cause harm to you, they are threatening you with harm. you just switched threatened to, with may, because you don't live in reality.

please die.

 

[thegimp03]

Well, next time maybe he won't get road rage and stupidly wave his gun at someone else.

 

[HAL9000]

The hell you are. If you were you'd admit to having been proven wrong in mucho previous threads and left long ago. Or you would have left realizing you weren't getting anywhere.

You're here to spout your opinions, which you know no one agrees with, pat yourself on the back and get off on the reactions you receive. You are a troll.

I'm not, I'm here to debate. I have been proven wrong on certain topics. this isn't one of them.

oh the guy MAY have shot him, but that's not a threat....


do you even know what a threat is? what the definition of a threat is? if someone MAY cause harm to you, they are threatening you with harm. you just switched threatened to, with may, because you don't live in reality.

please die.

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

 

[irishScott]

I'm not, I'm here to debate. I have been proven wrong on certain topics. this isn't one of them.

Only because you refuse to acknowledge facts and common sense in the name of continuing the debate. Even after it's been spelled out for you. You've already done it in this very thread and have refuted no one. Yet you continue. You are a troll.