turtlespeed 212
Recommended Posts
rehmwa 2
tkhayesThat is why I state that the amount of force is the privilege and that most people (untrained and ill-equipped) are not really capable of making those type of decisions.
this is a great "everyone is an idiot but me" kinda thought, but what do you want to do about it?
would you have laws that allow some people to defend themselves, but require the stupid people to to just sit and take it until the cops come along? Who has the right to defend themselves and who doesn't since it seems some pigs are more equal than others.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
[Reply]That is why I state that the amount of force is the privilege and that most people (untrained and ill-equipped) are not really capable of making those type of decisions.
And happen to believe that people should be free to test their capabilities. Yours is a philosophy based on a mistrust of people. Meanwhile, for some reason, you seem to place trust on the very embodiment of the people as a whole.
Me? I put trust in individuals to make the best choices for themselves. If that choice is not to carry, then that's fine. If that choice is to carry, then that's fine, too. Make a decision not to carry, that person can deal with the prospective negative consequences. Make the decision to arm onesself, then that person can deal with those consequences, too.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
What's your plan if you wake up in the middle of the night to someone breaking into your house, probably carrying a weapon of some sort? Throw the lamp at him and curl up in a ball and cry?
"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52
normiss 622
IIRC, he had said earlier the correct thing to do is to call the authorities and wait in your car. 
turtlespeed***it's a right. The amount of force that you are given to defend yourself/family/property is dynamic and is a privilege.
And my argument is that most of us are not qualified in any way to make some of those decisions. Most of the time the qualification does not make any difference. We evade, we escape, we call 911, we confront, we do whatever. But when it comes to the use of deadly force, I think most people are not qualified to make a life or death decision.
Let me see you say that in the middle of a car jacking with a gun to your head.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
You see his finger tightening on the trigger and you have a gun in your hand . . . -----------------------------------------------
He won't have a gun. A banana? Highly possible.
Bignugget***************Both a drill and a hand gun are equally dangerous.
Negative.
Get someone to drill a 9mm hole on your head. Then you can speak from experience.
Let's have a duel at 20 paces. Me armed with a S&W 1911 .45. You armed with a drill of your choosing.
Neither one of them are dangerous by themselves as neither can jump off a table and cause you harm. However, from close range, both are capable of inflicting similar wounds.
So we agree. They are substitute goods.
Will you now please turn your guns over?
You can have all the cordless drills you want.
I hope the range you normally go to practice at is really really short.
You should make haste to your nearest ghetto and ask all the drug dealers to hand their weapons over to you.
Let me know how that works out for you.
turtlespeed 212
regulator******************Both a drill and a hand gun are equally dangerous.
Negative.
Get someone to drill a 9mm hole on your head. Then you can speak from experience.
Let's have a duel at 20 paces. Me armed with a S&W 1911 .45. You armed with a drill of your choosing.
Neither one of them are dangerous by themselves as neither can jump off a table and cause you harm. However, from close range, both are capable of inflicting similar wounds.
So we agree. They are substitute goods.
Will you now please turn your guns over?
You can have all the cordless drills you want.
I hope the range you normally go to practice at is really really short.
You should make haste to your nearest ghetto and ask all the drug dealers to hand their weapons over to you.
Let me know how that works out for you.
I think he should visit the gangs as well.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
DanG 1
QuoteWhat's your plan if you wake up in the middle of the night to someone breaking into your house, probably carrying a weapon of some sort?
Wake up my lazy ass pitbull and send him downstairs
- Dan G
chutem 0
In that scenario Nugget probably can't kill me in self defense since I'm winning the fight and he has said that he does not carry.wmw999At which point in that scenario do you think it's appropriate to use your weapon and shoot the other guy (or do you brandish it and hope he stops)
Wendy P.
The answer to the real question I think you ask.... It is appropriate to use my weapon to defend myself when I feel that my life is in danger.
wmw999 2,122
What I'm really asking is at what point in the scenario described (assuming you don't know the attacker doesn't carry) would you feel your life was in danger? And in enough danger to shoot your opponent dead?
Wendy P.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
quade 3
turtlespeed***[Reply]I am not quite as afraid of a murderous person with a drill as I am of a murderous person with a gun
Hasn't anybody here seen "Body Double?"
I saw Pi.
So did I. Self inflicted lobotomy that didn't kill him.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
chutem
The answer to the real question I think you ask.... It is appropriate to use my weapon to defend myself when I feel that my life is in danger.
There has to be a "reasonable" inquiry. A person can subjectively be in fear that his/her life is in danger. Meanwhile, the circumstances are that no reasonable person thinks that the girl scout was trying to give out a cookie bomb.
On the other hand, there may be circumstances where others can reasonably believe that a person's life is at risk when a person is involved in combat but the person is not subjectively afraid. For example, a person raises his fists and goes to pummel a guy, but the victim is Floyd Mayweather who can lick anyone and had no subjective fear.
There does have to be an element of subjective and one of objective.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
chutem 0
wmw999What I'm really asking is at what point in the scenario described (assuming you don't know the attacker doesn't carry) would you feel your life was in danger? And in enough danger to shoot your opponent dead?
Wendy P.
I don't think that question can really be answered until one is in the moment. I'd rather not deal with all that goes along with killing someone if I can avoid it.
chutem 0
lawrocket***
The answer to the real question I think you ask.... It is appropriate to use my weapon to defend myself when I feel that my life is in danger.
There has to be a "reasonable" inquiry. A person can subjectively be in fear that his/her life is in danger. Meanwhile, the circumstances are that no reasonable person thinks that the girl scout was trying to give out a cookie bomb.
On the other hand, there may be circumstances where others can reasonably believe that a person's life is at risk when a person is involved in combat but the person is not subjectively afraid. For example, a person raises his fists and goes to pummel a guy, but the victim is Floyd Mayweather who can lick anyone and had no subjective fear.
There does have to be an element of subjective and one of objective.
I consider myself a reasonable man. I'm sure most people also consider themselves the same, that's where it gets interesting.
chutem******
The answer to the real question I think you ask.... It is appropriate to use my weapon to defend myself when I feel that my life is in danger.
There has to be a "reasonable" inquiry. A person can subjectively be in fear that his/her life is in danger. Meanwhile, the circumstances are that no reasonable person thinks that the girl scout was trying to give out a cookie bomb.
On the other hand, there may be circumstances where others can reasonably believe that a person's life is at risk when a person is involved in combat but the person is not subjectively afraid. For example, a person raises his fists and goes to pummel a guy, but the victim is Floyd Mayweather who can lick anyone and had no subjective fear.
There does have to be an element of subjective and one of objective.
I consider myself a reasonable man. I'm sure most people also consider themselves the same, that's where it gets interesting.
I can understand. What is reasonable to one may be un-reasonable to another. I do believe that if, a person honestly feels at the time, their life is in danger and there is no other way, go ahead and shoot. I feel too, if you can 'escape' or talk your way out of it, that's the best way. A law enforcement officer told me years ago, 'your mouth is a powerful weapon. what you say carries a lot of weight.'
Chuck
normissIIRC, he had said earlier the correct thing to do is to call the authorities and wait in your car.
Wait, was Zimmerman asleep in his house while it was being broken into by Martin?!?!
Fuckin mainstream media got me again.
I thought he was outside playing super cop where simply calling 911 and sitting his apparently weakling (can't even win a fight against a 17 year old without a gun), killing ass in his car would have kept a young kid alive.
but to answer Linebackers question. If some crazed person with a weapon broke my door down in the middle of the night hell bent on murderous rape and pillaging, and had the balls to fight their way past my 2 80lb shepherds....well I would just run right out the back door.
If they launched some sort of NAVY SEAL attack where all my entrances and windows were covered by attackers...I would die....once the dogs did.
normiss 622
Now you think the attacker should have killed the person attacking them in order to defend themselves.
Since neither logic nor law play into your perspective or thoughts in anyway whatsoever, I say good day sir.
ETA: I'd like to change my first comment to "Now you think the attacker should have killed the person defending themselves from the attacker in order to defend themselves."
I misspoke. ;)
Since neither logic nor law play into your perspective or thoughts in anyway whatsoever, I say good day sir.
ETA: I'd like to change my first comment to "Now you think the attacker should have killed the person defending themselves from the attacker in order to defend themselves."
I misspoke. ;)
rushmc 18
normissNow you think the attacker should have killed the person attacking them in order to defend themselves.
Since neither logic nor law play into your perspective or thoughts in anyway whatsoever, I say good day sir.
I have come to understand that those who feel they are helpless want everyone else to feel and be the same too
That is a kind of logic I guess
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
SkyDekker 1,123
lawrocket***
The answer to the real question I think you ask.... It is appropriate to use my weapon to defend myself when I feel that my life is in danger.
There has to be a "reasonable" inquiry. A person can subjectively be in fear that his/her life is in danger. Meanwhile, the circumstances are that no reasonable person thinks that the girl scout was trying to give out a cookie bomb.
On the other hand, there may be circumstances where others can reasonably believe that a person's life is at risk when a person is involved in combat but the person is not subjectively afraid. For example, a person raises his fists and goes to pummel a guy, but the victim is Floyd Mayweather who can lick anyone and had no subjective fear.
There does have to be an element of subjective and one of objective.
And an element of time. And an element of other options available.
I find that it is with these later points that there can be a real difference in opinion.
Do you have a right to continue a confrontation and have it escalate to deadly force if you had an earlier opportunity to de-escalate or remove yourself from the situation.
Bignuggetwell I would just run right out the back door.
Is that what you would do if you had a family in your house too? Run for the back door and let them handle themselves? Someday you might change your mind and want the right to defend yourself and your family instead of run like a little pansy. Hopefully by then, people like you haven't stripped us from that right.
"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52
normissNow you think the attacker should have killed the person attacking them in order to defend themselves.
Since neither logic nor law play into your perspective or thoughts in anyway whatsoever, I say good day sir.
ETA: I'd like to change my first comment to "Now you think the attacker should have killed the person defending themselves from the attacker in order to defend themselves."
I misspoke. ;)
That was JGooses idea....that the attacker can become the victim mid fight.....I like it though. It certainly makes self defense claims made by an initial attacker more reasonable.
linebckr83***well I would just run right out the back door.
Is that what you would do if you had a family in your house too? Run for the back door and let them handle themselves? Someday you might change your mind and want the right to defend yourself and your family instead of run like a little pansy. Hopefully by then, people like you haven't stripped us from that right.
Maybe the problem is you consider avoiding violent conflict 'running like a pansy' and I consider it smart shit to do.
We are coming from two different starting points.
Hasn't anybody here seen "Body Double?"
I saw Pi.
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites