• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Wave gun at car, get shot

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HAL9000 said:
As I've said time and time again in this thread I'm not arguing about legality or the ease of which laws can be enforced I'm arguing about morality.
Click to expand...


HAL9000 said:
FDF12389 said:
According to you: No one has the RIGHT to respond to a lethal threat with lethal force, even when confronted with a firearm.
Click to expand...
Agreed
Click to expand...

If the assilant would have shot and killed a bystander before the gun owner shot him, would you view this shooting as moral?
 
Last edited:
HAL9000 said:
The point is to evaluate how I feel or why I feel about this subject, learn what others think about the subject, learn why they feel that way, perhaps find some logic behind it and modify what I think based on things I hadn't considered.
Click to expand...

Why do you need ATOT to evaluate how or why you feel about this subject? From what I've seen, this is a repeat subject, so now what else do you expect to learn from others? Why do you care why they think a certain way? It seems fairly obvious to me, having refrained from any of your discussions, that you don't really want to modify your opinion. You are very dead set.

Therefore, I don't understand the purpose of this debate.
 
Avalon said:
Why do you need ATOT to evaluate how or why you feel about this subject? From what I've seen, this is a repeat subject, so now what else do you expect to learn from others? Why do you care why they think a certain way? It seems fairly obvious to me, having refrained from any of your discussions, that you don't really want to modify your opinion. You are very dead set.
Click to expand...

It's not for others to evaluate me, its for me to evaluate what I think, the more you discuss it the more you analyse your own thoughts. I'm looking for logic in others opinions, when found I confront my own opinions to see if they need changing. I'm very dead set because I'm yet to see any logic that nullifies or modifies mine.
 
HAL9000 said:
It's not for others to evaluate me, its for me to evaluate what I think, the more you discuss it the more you analyse your own thoughts. I'm looking for logic in others opinions, when found I confront my own opinions to see if they need changing. I'm very dead set because I'm yet to see any logic that nullifies or modifies mine.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood.

My first question, was not meant to say others evaluating you, but why you use ATOT as an engine for evaluating yourself? I don't see how this forum has anything to do with self evaluation, given the divided nature of your opinion and the rest of the forum.

Being dead set by definition means not being minded to change, regardless of what comes your way. I have not found your opinion on this subject movable, but dead set. Therefore, I don't see the point.
 
Last edited:
Avalon said:
You misunderstood.

My first question, was not meant to say others evaluating you, but why you use ATOT as an engine for evaluating yourself? I don't see how a forum has anything to do with self evaluation.

Being dead set by definition means not being minded to change, regardless of what comes your way.
Click to expand...

Discussion is the tool. It doesn't matter where it comes from, as long as it is intelligent and sometimes ATOT does result in intelligent discussion.

That's true. Perhaps dead set is the wrong term then, perhaps confident in my points of view is a better way of expressing it. Until I am confronted with a reasoned argument to make me question my own I will stay that way.

Incidentally this is the exact thing I'm looking for, you've made me question my use of the term "dead set" and now I will modify how I use it in conversation!
 
Scotteq said:
(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?


HAL9000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The point here - Which You have thus far completely, totally, and willfully ignored, is that The Other Person Does Not Have The Right To Put You Into That Situation In The First Place.


But no.


You would have us in the ridiculous situation where we are not allowed to defend against someone else.


Scotteq said:
(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?
Click to expand...


HAL9000 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Firstly - Police do that every day.

Secondly - That is not the law here in the USA

Thirdly - Learning the rules on where/when you may and may not use a weapon is mandatory for a Concealed Carry licence. Which the shooter had.

Fourth - The person who defended against the threat will answer for his action at a Grand Jury. That is the law here, as well. If wrongdoing is found, then he will proceed to trial. Again, according to our laws.


Lastly - Thank you for your opinion on a matter which you have no authority over. Not by position. Nor Birth. Nor Citizenship. But thanks anyhow.


HAL9000 said:
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.
Click to expand...


We are saying that the other guy is in the wrong for drawing/brandishing a weapon in the first place. And that in doing so, He is the one who got himself killed. Had he drawn/brandished a weapon to a Police Officer, the Officer's reaction would be the same.

Again - Thank you for your opinion.
 
Scotteq said:
The point here - Which You have thus far completely, totally, and willfully ignored, is that The Other Person Does Not Have The Right To Put You Into That Situation In The First Place.
Click to expand...

I've said that already.

Firstly - Police do that every day.

Secondly - That is not the law here in the USA

Thirdly - Learning the rules on where/when you may and may not use a weapon is mandatory for a Concealed Carry licence. Which the shooter had.

Fourth - The person who defended against the threat will answer for his action at a Grand Jury. That is the law here, as well. If wrongdoing is found, then he will proceed to trial. Again, according to our laws.


Lastly - Thank you for your opinion on a matter which you have no authority over. Not by position. Nor Birth. Nor Citizenship. But thanks anyhow.
Click to expand...

No problem. I never claimed to have any authority so I don't understand your point..?

We are saying that the other guy is in the wrong for drawing/brandishing a weapon in the first place. And that in doing so, He is the one who got himself killed. Had he drawn/brandished a weapon to a Police Officer, the Officer's reaction would be the same.

Again - Thank you for your opinion.
Click to expand...


Well, no he isn't the one doing the killing in this situation. Why do you keep thanking me?
 
HAL9000 said:
Well, no he isn't the one doing the killing in this situation.
Click to expand...


That's where you are wrong. The Brandisher is the one who elevated the situation to the point where where was a (perceived - yet to be debated in court) need to draw and fire.

Hence the Police example: Even in the UK, if (you) were to brandish a firearm at a Policemen, he would remove you from the gene pool - permanently. And he would be perfectly justified in doing so. Why? Because (you) created the situation with (your) actions.


In your view: The Policeman would be put in prison because he was the one who fired.

In our view: The Policeman would stand (at an inquest), and be made to justify his actions.



And "Thank You For Your Opinion" is a dismissive in the context I used it in.
 
Scotteq said:
That's where you are wrong. The Brandisher is the one who elevated the situation to the point where where was a (perceived - yet to be debated in court) need to draw and fire.

Hence the Police example: Even in the UK, if (you) were to brandish a firearm at a Policemen, he would remove you from the gene pool - permanently. And he would be perfectly justified in doing so. Why? Because (you) created the situation with (your) actions.

In your view: The Policeman would be put in prison because he was the one who fired.

In our view: The Policeman would stand (at an inquest), and be made to justify his actions.
Click to expand...

In the UK a policeman would be arrested if the shot someone who was just holding a gun not aiming it at anyone or being threatening.
 
Scotteq said:
That's where you are wrong. The Brandisher is the one who elevated the situation to the point where where was a (perceived - yet to be debated in court) need to draw and fire.

Hence the Police example: Even in the UK, if (you) were to brandish a firearm at a Policemen, he would remove you from the gene pool - permanently. And he would be perfectly justified in doing so. Why? Because (you) created the situation with (your) actions.


In your view: The Policeman would be put in prison because he was the one who fired.

In our view: The Policeman would stand (at an inquest), and be made to justify his actions.


And "Thank You For Your Opinion" is a dismissive in the context I used it in.
Click to expand...




HAL9000 said:
In the UK a policeman would be arrested if the shot someone who was just holding a gun not aiming it at anyone or being threatening.
Click to expand...


(1) I said he would stand at inquest to justify his actions, did I not?

(2) You are changing the facts of the situation to suit your views.



Thank you for your opinion, though.
 
HAL9000 said:
In the UK a policeman would be arrested if the shot someone who was just holding a gun not aiming it at anyone or being threatening.
Click to expand...

That isnt what happend in the article. No way you are this fucking dense.

In the UK if you start an argument with a law enforcement officer in a vehicle, follow said law enforcement officer until he stops his vehicle, then get out of yours with anything but pleasant body language and start walking directly towards him with a firearm he is going to shoot you.

Doesn't fucking matter if its pointed or not. You know this. Quit being a fucking douche.
 
Last edited:
FDF12389 said:
That isnt what happend in the article. No way you are this fucking dense.

In the UK if you start an argument with a law enforcement officer in a vehicle, follow said law enforcement officer until he stops his vehicle, then get out of yours with anything but pleasant body language and start walking directly towards him with a firearm he is going to shoot you.

Doesn't fucking matter if its pointed or not. You know this. Quit being a fucking douche.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah of course, but that is a definite threat. Although the police don't carry guns over here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top