RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm?

RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 12:19:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Excessive force to prevent you or your family from being killed, raped or tortured? Really? So in the middle of that, one should calmly step back, consider all the options and carefully shoot the animal in the knee. Right. This is especially effective when the animal is on PCP and insensate to pain. Now, you're right, in the UK, what you describe can happen. And that is an indictment of human rights, rights of the innocent, in and of itself. Any force that is deemed 'excessive' by the police (or a court of law), in that the amount of harm (or death) inflicted upon an assailant is disproportional to the perceived or actual threat, then yes, you would receive a jail sentence. And yes, you should consider your options prior to delivering any harm. And no, that doesn't necessarily mean to step back either. The point being, you are responsible for your actions regardless of the circumstances and most laws (outside of the US) would make sure you are fully accountable for whatever action you take. Unfortunately, many people in the US are using a very lax interpretation of the term "imminent" to make a defense and get away with what I consider to be murder, or manslaughter at the very least. To use Bama's example of his drug dealer episode, 4ft away is still way too far to be thinking of using a gun. Unless that person was armed and pointing at you or otherwise charging at you with a weapon of some description, should anything have happened, Bama would have been jailed. If he had done that over here, the assailant could (and probably would) have sued him for pulling a gun and using threatening behaviour which would almost certainly carry a fine and a small amount of time at Her Majesty's pleasure as well as compensation payments to the other person. Close proximity is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour at all. Idiot if you aren't ready at 20 ft experts say they can cut you. Idiot I didn't pull my weapon out, and said so. Idiot since I didn't pull it out I couldn't point it at him. Idiot in Alabama not only would I not have been charged if what you said was true, I wouldn't have been charged if I had shot him.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 12:20:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Why haven't you told me how your +5 holy avenger 2x4 is going to protect you from 6 guys with baseball bats, and don't give me any crap about making up situations because it happened very near my house. Because that scenario happens so rarely that I don't need to consider it. That's why. Also, because our police appear to be far better, more efficient, more responsive and more alert than your lot, the chances are, any group like that is likely to get reported by some nosy neighbour and they'd get arrested or dispersed within minutes.

thompsonx -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 12:21:41 PM)
ORIGINAL: darkwanderer3305 Firstly, here in the Communistwealth of Virginia, Are you in prison? If not why do you live with communist in a communistwealth of virginia? Secondly, if my previous post was not sufficient to understand, IF you run into a life or death situation, where it is necessary to resort to weapons, 'injury' is "NOT my goal - EVER! If there were such a situation the only testimony in my grand jury hearing will be from the coroner, not from the wanna-be attacker turned victim. And of course this post which has the life span of somewhat longer than nuclear reactor rods. In short if you kill someone now you are on record as having phoqued yourself for any lethal force defense re: "i was in fear for my life". No you are not annonymous.[8\|] Too violent? I think not. IF everyone were willing to defend themselves, their family, and their property to such an extent there would be far fewer violent crimes in this country. According to the fbi violent crime is down in this country and has been on a downward trend for some time. In fact, IF I had the power to dictate policy, EVERY child in this country would be REQUIRED to obtain a high school diploma Isn't that the law now?[8\|] (and a college degree is they have the aptitude). And, during that mandatory education, in order to get their diploma, every child would be required to obtain a black belt in at least one martial art. Would they also be required to pass courses in logic , ethics and diplomacy? Along with that requirement, every child would be required to become proficient with various firearms. Then, upon graduation, every child, on their 18th birthday, would be issued one .45 cal pistol and one M-16 with a lifetime supply of ammunition for each. In their stock condition neither is suitable for defense or offense....one is acceptable as a device for delivering blunt force trauma...if substantial amounts of money and talent are applied to the club it makes an acceptable firearm out to about shit house ranges.[8\|] IF EVERY adult citizen is trained in armed and unarmed combat, and IF every adult citizen is required to be armed at all times --- how many people do you think would continue breaking into homes? How many would assault women? How many would try to rob 7-11? The same ones that do now...only they will have a black belt in whup-ass of some sort and two guns and ammo supplied by the taxpayers...what a hoot[8\|] Sure, there will be a lot of dead bad guys in the first few years. But, once the new system is stable the problem of violent crime in America (and the overcrowding of the prison system) would be all but eliminated... A short trip over to google could disabuse you of your ignorance. Violent crime is going down and has been for quite some time. Seventy percent of those in prison are in prison for drug related charges. Make dope legal and bingo we have 70% more cops to deal with the declining crime and 70% more prison space to lock them up. Seventy percent more open court time for the many civil cases which drag on for years enriching only lawyers. I'm positive that this post will open the flood gates of insanity - but, those negative replies just show me how right I am in my thinking that the problem with America is the lack of balls to do what is right and necessary to end the fear that our citizens have come to accept. You seem to be speaking about some place like iraq or afgahnistan...what fear have our citizens come to accept...are you talking about the poor people in furgerson? It is pure and utter bullshit that, in a country built on freedom, blood and ideals, And the dead bodies of millions of native americans and the land that they used to reside on. The labor of black slaves. The land stolen from other weaker nations. The freedom to take what force will permit? The blood of the enslaved and disenfranchised? The ideal that might makes right? we have become so pussified that any schoolyard bully can run rampant taking what he wants while we wait for someone else to save the day. Is the schoolyard bully still taking your lunch money? So yes, shoot - shoot to kill. And, in the words of my company commander from years ago --- 'sailor, your job is to eliminate the enemy and protect the citizens of the United States, so, shoot, shoot straight, fk em all and let god sort em out'... This proves one of two things. Either your company commandr(never heard of the navy having companie except ships company which is the whole crew)was an ignoarnt fool who has no clue about combat (protocol calls for disabling as opposed to lethal shot placement as it takes more of them to take care of a wounded person than a dead body) or you are mistaken about having been in the military.[8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 12:25:10 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD Shooting to wound is only in the movies. No it is not moron. It is called marksmanship. If you lack the ability to hit your target turn in your gun.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 12:28:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Idiot if you aren't ready at 20 ft experts say they can cut you. Hmmmm.... so all your assailants have stretch-armstrong limbs or go-go-gadget arms. Huh?? I dunno who or where your 'experts' are but here, until you actually get within contact distance, it is not an "imminent" threat - unless you know people with 4ft long arms??? [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Idiot I didn't pull my weapon out, and said so. Yes, you did. My bad. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Idiot since I didn't pull it out I couldn't point it at him. You don't have to actually 'point it' to be a threat with it. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Idiot in Alabama not only would I not have been charged if what you said was true, I wouldn't have been charged if I had shot him. And why we think the US gun laws are idiotic and out of date with modern-day first-world countries. Even O'bama said so himself. Only in America do you get these problems and it's about time it stopped.

thompsonx -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 12:35:32 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD Shooting to wound means firing at a relatively small moving target. When in the National Guard Omg...the national fraud....not the real army[8\|]color me so surprised[8\|] they taught us to tell the investigators that we were shooting to disable, and to put 3 .45 acps in their chest, The actual written orders say one thing but the defendent claims to have been given verbal orders that contravene the written orders so he would necessarily know that that was an illegal order and not to be followed. [8\|] that was the only way to be sure to disable them. I will bet real money that if someone shot you in the big toe with a .45 you would be disabled instantly. If you knew half what you pretend to you would know this. I have sand in my back yard that knows more than you.

thompsonx -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 12:37:29 PM)
ORIGINAL: darkwanderer3305 perhaps, but, a prison sentence for me, while my family is safe - AND - that particular criminal is dead and unable to harm or threaten anyone else is a scenario I can live with... Who will support your family while you and your new bff play....chess for the next 8-10 years? Fortunately, in America, you do not get a prison sentence for a justifiable act of self/family defense... I have first hand knowledge that you can and will.[8\|]

subrosaDom -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 12:38:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Are you suggesting that, rather than buying a gun, we each make our houses into fortresses, with walls, fences and barbed wire? More so, when we go outside our house, should we walk about in barbed wire cages on wheels, so as to ensure our safety? If everyone followed the example of not buying a gun... there wouldn't be any on the streets and such measures would not be necessary. True. If all parents never beat their children, there would be no abused children. If no one were an anti-Semite, Hitler would never have existed. If everyone following the example of decent men and didn't rape women, there would be no rapists. Have you considered changing your name to Pangloss?

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 12:39:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Idiot if you aren't ready at 20 ft experts say they can cut you. Hmmmm.... so all your assailants have stretch-armstrong limbs or go-go-gadget arms. Huh?? I dunno who or where your 'experts' are but here, until you actually get within contact distance, it is not an "imminent" threat - unless you know people with 4ft long arms??? [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Idiot I didn't pull my weapon out, and said so. Yes, you did. My bad. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Idiot since I didn't pull it out I couldn't point it at him. You don't have to actually 'point it' to be a threat with it. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Idiot in Alabama not only would I not have been charged if what you said was true, I wouldn't have been charged if I had shot him. And why we think the US gun laws are idiotic and out of date with modern-day first-world countries. Even O'bama said so himself. Only in America do you get these problems and it's about time it stopped. Idiot look up the 20' rule. It is taught world wide to the police. Evidence is mounting that if you are tired or older 20' isn't enough of a distance. If the bad guy is inside 20' he can get to you before you can react and stop him. Not just your bad, it was a blatant and stupid lie. It isn't a gun law, if I had your magical 2x4 and bashed his head in I wouldn't have been charged. Over here we understand that eliminating the self defense plea turns things over to the thugs. There is no better reason to do bodily harm that in defense of yourself or another person. Your argument on this is what I would expect from someone who can't even comprehend speed signs on the highways.

subrosaDom -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 12:42:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Oh yes since you brought up ancient history are you going to admit that when pressed you said it was better to send your stepson to the emergency room than for me to run off a drug dealer with no one being hurt, or are you going to lie about that too? I don't deny that... and yes, I did. He got hit by me because he was threatening to stab everyone with a very sharp steak knife. Was that drug dealer threatening you to the point where your life was in danger?? If not, then your use of a firearm in that instance was overkill and unnecessary. You tell me what he was up to. Just passing the time of day? If so why did he try to sneak up on me? Not a sign of good will is it? I had already, as you proclaimed that you knew I wouldn't do, told him to get off my property. He was having none of that. But... you didn't have to use a gun to do it. That was my point. It seemed he wasn't threatening you... he just got a little closer. That in itself is not an excuse to threaten use of a gun. That's just a paranoid manic response. This is not a game of percentages. If at 10' away the threat of personal harm to me is 10%, that's sufficient. If at 4', it's 50%, you're saying that's not good enough? Rather, I should wait until the odds are that I will get seriously injured before even pulling out a gun and stopping the incident from occurring? That is a completely inverted morality that confers rights on an assailant who is invading my space while making a proximate threat. Remember, he's not supposed to be there in the first place. This isn't a sports game where it starts out 50/50. There is no equality between criminal and innocent and it is a moral inversion to assert that.

subrosaDom -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 12:44:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BamaD Shooting to wound means firing at a relatively small moving target. When in the National Guard Omg...the national fraud....not the real army[8\|]color me so surprised[8\|] they taught us to tell the investigators that we were shooting to disable, and to put 3 .45 acps in their chest, The actual written orders say one thing but the defendent claims to have been given verbal orders that contravene the written orders so he would necessarily know that that was an illegal order and not to be followed. [8\|] that was the only way to be sure to disable them. I will bet real money that if someone shot you in the big toe with a .45 you would be disabled instantly. If you knew half what you pretend to you would know this. I have sand in my back yard that knows more than you. My sand is smarter than your sand.

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 12:59:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BamaD Shooting to wound means firing at a relatively small moving target. When in the National Guard Omg...the national fraud....not the real army[8\|]color me so surprised[8\|] they taught us to tell the investigators that we were shooting to disable, and to put 3 .45 acps in their chest, The actual written orders say one thing but the defendent claims to have been given verbal orders that contravene the written orders so he would necessarily know that that was an illegal order and not to be followed. [8\|] that was the only way to be sure to disable them. I will bet real money that if someone shot you in the big toe with a .45 you would be disabled instantly. If you knew half what you pretend to you would know this. I have sand in my back yard that knows more than you. My sand is smarter than your sand. Since he knows I won't see the post unless someone responds to it he is displaying a shortage of spinal material.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 1:07:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Idiot look up the 20' rule. That's not in our rule book. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It is taught world wide to the police. No, it isn't. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Evidence is mounting that if you are tired or older 20' isn't enough of a distance. Maybe your police are incompetent and can't handle unarmed defense?? [8\|] Our police (and many citizens that do self-defense classes) are taught this - even for young kids. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If the bad guy is inside 20' he can get to you before you can react and stop him. Really??? You are THAT slow?? quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Not just your bad, it was a blatant and stupid lie. Nope. Our laws and standards are different. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It isn't a gun law, if I had your magical 2x4 and bashed his head in I wouldn't have been charged. And that is why the US have such feeble laws that murderers get away with such despicable behaviour. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Over here we understand that eliminating the self defense plea turns things over to the thugs. Only in America! In our country, that situation doesn't happen. The law doesn't turn things over to the thugs. Which means that: 1) your laws are not adequate, 2) not enforced properly, 3) it is your opinion stated as fact. Citation?? quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD There is no better reason to do bodily harm that in defense of yourself or another person. There is NO good reason to ever inflict harm or death to any human in a disproportionate amount. Even international war treaties have that condition in-built into international laws. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Your argument on this is what I would expect from someone who can't even comprehend speed signs on the highways. I ignore speed signs - I drive to the road conditions. [:D]

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 1:14:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Not just your bad, it was a blatant and stupid lie. Nope. Our laws and standards are different. I was talking about your claim that I had drawn my weapon.

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 1:18:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If the bad guy is inside 20' he can get to you before you can react and stop him. Really??? You are THAT slow?? What a moron, this is what the 20' rule says. If you could read you would know that a "rule" taught to police would have been established by people who never heard of me so it wouldn't be based on how fast, or slow I am. By the time you see it react and pull it is to late to stop them.

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 1:20:34 PM)
I ignore speed signs - I drive to the road conditions. Yes you ignore the law when it suits you. But your "personal observations" told you that there is no where in the US where you can drive over 45mph

BamaD -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 1:23:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Why haven't you told me how your +5 holy avenger 2x4 is going to protect you from 6 guys with baseball bats, and don't give me any crap about making up situations because it happened very near my house. Because that scenario happens so rarely that I don't need to consider it. That's why. Also, because our police appear to be far better, more efficient, more responsive and more alert than your lot, the chances are, any group like that is likely to get reported by some nosy neighbour and they'd get arrested or dispersed within minutes. But you are telling me that a magical 2x4 like you use is all I should need so you need to tell me how it would help me in that situation. We both know the answer is that I wouldn't have a snow balls chance with it. Police response time doesn't count if nobody reports it. In that situation you would be dead before even your God like police could get there.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 1:23:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Not just your bad, it was a blatant and stupid lie. Nope. Our laws and standards are different. I was talking about your claim that I had drawn my weapon. And I acknowledged it. But of course you will keep harping on about it as if it were a blatant lie on my part.... it wasn't. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD What a moron, this is what the 20' rule says. If you could read you would know that a "rule" taught to police would have been established by people who never heard of me so it wouldn't be based on how fast, or slow I am. By the time you see it react and pull it is to late to stop them. I don't care what it says... we don't have that rule here. And you are telling me that an assailant, from a standing start, can outrun and attack someone before they can pull a trigger??? I don't think Hussain Bolt could do that.... Seriously! [:D]

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 1:25:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Why haven't you told me how your +5 holy avenger 2x4 is going to protect you from 6 guys with baseball bats, and don't give me any crap about making up situations because it happened very near my house. Because that scenario happens so rarely that I don't need to consider it. That's why. Also, because our police appear to be far better, more efficient, more responsive and more alert than your lot, the chances are, any group like that is likely to get reported by some nosy neighbour and they'd get arrested or dispersed within minutes. But you are telling me that a magical 2x4 like you use is all I should need so you need to tell me how it would help me in that situation. We both know the answer is that I wouldn't have a snow balls chance with it. And I'll tell you again (altho I know it falls on deaf ears).... that scenario is sooo rare that I don't need to consider it. No more than wearing a NBC suit.... just in case. Ain't gonna happen. I don't do "what if's" when the chances are sooo slim that I'd die of old age first.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anyone agree that it is better to harm with any other weapon than to avoid violence with a firearm? (10/5/2014 1:28:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I ignore speed signs - I drive to the road conditions. Yes you ignore the law when it suits you. But your "personal observations" told you that there is no where in the US where you can drive over 45mph I said 55, not 45! And no, I didn't encounter any at all... nowhere that I traveled. Max 55mph is the best I found.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02