RE: britain wants guns back

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: britain wants guns back

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: britain wants guns back

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: britain wants guns back - 1/23/2009 5:35:54 PM

variation30

Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

Self defence isn't classed as a pre-emptive strike by many sane people. If you are attacked you can defend yourself but fear of attack isn't being attacked. You feeling threatened isn't a good enough reason, we all feel threatened from time to time. If a group of teenagers walks towards you you'll feel threatened; should you be able to kill them before they’ve actually done anything to you though?

um...all actions are executed on imperfect knowledge. let's look at tresspassing first. am I suffering from a fear of attack or an actual attack if someone has broken in and entered my home? I would suggest that them trespassing on your property is in itself an attack.

and yes, I agree. there are instances to where you may make a wrong decision. if I hear a woman screaming, run into an alley, see him raping her with a knife to her throat, and shoot him. I am running the risk that they are actually a couple into exhibitionism and rapeplay and I just committed murder. in the end, I alone am morally responsible for my actions. you assess the risk and the benefit and you act. if someone breaks onto my property or my woman's property...I will assess this as a threat and they'll get shot. that's all there is to it.

quote:

Some people especially forensic science types have this thing known as professional credibility. You also seem to assume that they are all part of the same department and so share the gossip of the ins and outs of a case rather than just the evidence as it's observed. Any police officer no matter how corrupt would have to be quite a character to be able to convince everyone involved in the investigation to turn a blind eye because the guy was bad and got what he deserved.

I'm not assuming anything. there may be someone who tells the truth and she gets busted (good thing to, we can't have those 35 year old women running around shooting people who are trying to break into their houses and rape them). and I don't like to think of this officer as a corrupt officer. he had my mothers safety in mind and realized that beauracracies stood in the way of her safety.

quote:

Once again you have to realise the difference between historic accuracy and getting across an idea of something. It doesn't matter who has or doesn't have a government. The image I want to convey is: chaos due to there being virtually every man for himself type of law. You can quibble over historic facts but they are not the point.

I"m sorry for thinking you were serious in what you typed. I know the image you want to convey is that lawlessness equates to chaos. so you used the wild west. unforutnately for you, the lawlessness in the wild west didn't equate to chaos and you had to change your 'metaphor' I understand completely.

quote:

Out of interest though on this subject are you suggesting Iraq would be better without a Government?

yes. but making iraq better than it is now is setting the bar quite low.

quote:

Unless they 'feel threatened by the postman who is really an agent of the government on their land, to plant misinformation in their head.

as I said...you are morally responsible for your actions. if you invite people over to your house and kill them, there will probably be repercussions.

quote:

I've seen too many criminals turn their life around to believe a dead petty thieve is a good outcome. As to your 'people should have what they want and can afford argument' this would mean you'd legalise all highly addictive drugs without thinking why drug addicts become thieves and prostitutes? You’re not really thinking what your hands off approach would really lead to are you? Your world sounds hypocritical, I'd rather live in a world where people were protected from exploitation. Not all criminals are fundamentally bad people some are just in a dire situation due to a path they once took or someone lead them down. If you've lived a life and never been touched by any of those problems then lucky you but some people are not as lucky or clever but they don’t deserve to die. If you have the gun they don’t need to die.

a murderer can turn his life around to. that doesn't legitimize his previous actions. and yes, I would legalize all 'highly addictive drugs'. people don't become thieves because they are addicted to a drug. sorry, but that's not a causal relationship.

_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to Raechard)