StarGateWars Forums

ROCKY wrote:Well, since you are saying this from your point of view which i guess is from the unites states where in some states, its legal to own a gun and its very easy to obtain one, also tell me what happened to this person who killed the criminal? he most likely was sentenced for life to jail for either manslaughter or murder, doesn't matter who it is that was killed, thats 25years minimum.

These percentages are also only because a gun gives you such an easy opportunity to kill someone without thinking much, a valid reason to not allow people to own guns in itself, when you think of how the world is developing, how new medecine is allowing people to live for longer, survive past lethal diseases, does that really mean we have to squander these new opportunities and also develop new weapons to the complete opposite effect and make them available the same way, some times even more available?

As for your point lone dragon, its true that crinimals will always defy the law and somehow probably always be able to get their hands on a gun, thats life and i can understand that, but making gun possession legal surrely increases these armed robberies where the end result is a killing. What if in the credit crunch someone looses their job and everything they own, some will turn to robbery, this does not mean they will carry a gun and kill, however with guns legal, a lot of people will own one naturally, put a gun into the picture and all of a sudden the homeowner wakes up on this robbery and with part of his dignity still intact, not wanting to end up in jail this person comits the murder. There are many examples, its of course always the person who comits the murder, however the gun just helps and aids these killings and therefore its not doing a lot of good at all...

There is a law on the books in Oklahoma called the "Make My Day Law". I am serious it isn't a joke. It is designed to protect home owners protecting their domain from criminals breaking in. If they kill the person and that person had the means to do harm to the victim, the homeowner is protected from any sort of prosecution UNDER the law, including Wrongful Death Lawsuits that idiot families of the robber try to press. So he was someones brother, dad, husband, or son. Who cares? He should have thought of that BEFORE committing 1st degree burgalry and getting his clock cleaned by usually an elderly victim.

you missed a few bits there jack

* An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
* The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
* The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
* The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

anti gun crowd??, im 17, i just don't understand the obsession, shows your weak in my opinion if you must carry a gun, either physically, mentally, gods knows.

to point 1, it depends where these take place, how big the knife is, or how powerful the gun is...etc not really making a point here
to point 2 i pointed out its not just social reject, but normal people who may have been unlucky, loosing their jobs and all they have, you have no idea, people have comitted suicide because of loosing their jobs, these are not looneys.
to point 3 your just backing up about the whole macho thing about carrying a gun, there is no need to kill someone who steals, they are two completely different planes, have you ever killed someone jack? could you live with it? of course you could i doubt it.

and to your last point, when people act irrationally, there needs to be no reason, truth is that this does occur whether its justified or not

your not backing up your view very well jack i have to say, most of your points to my arguments are quite irrelevant, like this one for example

Jack wrote:I don't care how old you are, you've taken the anti-gun stance thus making you a part of the anti-crowd. Furthermore your argument is grounded in ignorance.

ignorance?? back it up, give me a reason why im being "ignorant, empty argument there

* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home

this point here especially in your little example is a contradiction to what that man did, the crinimals did not want to kill him, or at least i don't think so , because he was on the phone talked to the police, highly unlikely anyway

Jack wrote:Of course being stabbed with a half inch blade is going to be less dangerous than being shot in the head with buckshot or a .50 round. But then again, being assailed with a machette is much more dangerous than being shot with a .22. However I was not talking about such comparisons, but rather the average gunshot wound compared with the average stab wound.

the point is that a gun only kills, where a knife has other useful purposes, also it is easier to kill with a gun as someone above pointed out, (99% of the cases the person with the gun kills the other person) therefore the fact that a knife wound wether its more lethal or not plays less of a role.

Jack wrote:And as I've stated, losing your job is not justification for putting me or my family in danger.

justification has absolutly nothing to do with it, get that in your head, people act irrational when things like this happen, in hindsight things might have been different in the persons head but at that current point it may seem like the best reason to put yourself in danger

Jack wrote:It has nothing to do with machoness and everything to do with protecting my house and family, like a real man should. Being a man != being macho. It's clear there is no one in your life to teach you the difference between being macho and being a man, which is quite sad. Every male should be taught the difference between being a man and being macho, unfortunately feminism has blurred the two and fooled people into believing there is no difference. Truly a sad state of affairs.

But I digress. No, I have not killed anyone and of course I could live with it. I do not subscribe to the BS theory that every life is sacred regardless of any crimes they have committed.

once again you completely irgnore my argument, your just mad at me calling people with guns macho, who here is being ignorant?? the point is burglary is a completely different plane to killing someone, a burglar will not kill your family so you need not fear, if you start shooting at him and he has a gun however you are putting your family in danger, if material goods are worth that much to you...need i say more??

Also big words for somone who has not made the experience, so in actual fact you have no idea if you could live with it yet,
and with a little bit of prejudice on my part, your posts are sounding very american, not an insult, just an observation

Jack, please dont say you could live with killing someone until you have actually done it and lived with it.

I know as I'm plenty of others do people who have had to kill others because they were in some armed forces or other such profession and they havent been able to just live it as you put it.

Your over simplying that issue just a tad you know

EDIT: I'd just like to point out to both you & rocky that is irrelevant how big the knife is or what size bullet is used. Both are 100% lethal in the correctly trained hands 100% of the time.

And guns just like knives rocky have more than one purpose, although that purpose is again to kill something its to kill it to provide food (otherwise known as hunting) something you arent doing when killing a human

I agree with Jack you can live with it; if your dead you cant...

you take this much to lighthearted jack, arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall, you will not listen to reason or be pursuaded by evidence, and ill probably not be able to pursuade you any time soon, mostly out of stubborness though i believe and not down to the lack of my points.

i have not contradicted myself once, killing someone whether they are in your yard or not is wrong.
That situation you give there only prooves either that something went wrong with that investigation or we are missing part of the story.

ive never justified anyone's crime, i was merely giving you a situation to ponder on, that not all criminals are in the right state of mind and killing them would not necessarily be ridding the earth of scum.
please stop with that lame and repetitive argument that justification is everything, just because you are allowed to kill someone in your yard doesn't make it the right thing to do choice.

And yes i am saying you shouldn't shoot bob if he breaks into your house, a much to common trigger happy approach that never ends well. Im really glad this hasn't happened in your home tbh, im not sure where you would be right now if it had, you would have probably lost your wife and kids but who cares as long as you killed the burglar, sometimes its better to think of the greater good eh.

don't care if your from america, nice place tbh mostly...

Anyway the point of this topic is actually if a gun should be legal, atm all we have talked about is about self defence and killings, probably not the best way to go if you want to defend the right to own a gun

bob would be shoot once he step foot in my house, in my yard i personaly dont care. I would say "HEY BOB WTH?" about it realy.

For the argument about control, do you know most people being robbed dont live (in the US). its a 40 year prison term but i can rap a 5 year old boy that i took from school and only get 10 years. So robbery takes a hit and they kill if you can see there face unless they are wearing a mask.

Now for the people sayin a bat or a piece of wood is just the same. Realy come on. yea its better but no. I take it you never fought off a junkie.

I seen some pretty messed up stuff in my day and when one it hit me to weild a weapon in hand, have you ever seen a personal friend murder in front of you? i have, I know if let say i had a gun would possible been able to save him, or been killed my self in the act, regardless i would have tried.

Rocky when you grow up and have kids to protect your more likly to understand. I have a family i look after i would not or will not let them come into harm by all matters possible..



*

[spoiler][/spoiler]

OMG sorry for the double post

the point is that without the legal availability of a gun, none of these situations would have to occur, the castle doctrine wouldn't exist because it would not be necessary, these people not in their right mind would not have guns because it would be illegal and as we've stated the irrational people would not have guns because they would not need one before that point.

and i have said before i don't think risking your life over your property is worth it, if material goods are worth more than your own life, sure go for it.

morality is what keeps us human and stops us, hopefully from being barbarians, morality is very important and does not vary much, just like most religions are in fact very similar, more similar than you probably would think, they have the same morals.

your story about when this happened in your home, im glad it didn't turn out badly, but im afraid mentioning it is more of an argument in my favor, if you had a gun you would have killed him, and im glad you decided to beat him instead of killing him btw did this burglar have a gun?

Societal morality is flawed, and corrupt and complete BS.. Morality in people is not flawed Jack.

*Goes slightly back on topic*

I still think a paintball gun or, MARKER is a better defence than a firearm, in the breaking and entering situation

why is everyone fixated on the defence side of the firearms issue?


this topic is supposed to be about having the RIGHT to keep and bear arms responsibly for whatever reason...hell, if someone wanted to use a gun to stir a pot i couldn't careless so long as their not some schizo out to kill a bunch of people.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:why is everyone fixated on the defence side of the firearms issue?


this topic is supposed to be about having the RIGHT to keep and bear arms responsibly for whatever reason...hell, if someone wanted to use a gun to stir a pot i couldn't careless so long as their not some schizo out to kill a bunch of people.

Then I will say YES, if you pass the normal phsycological exam, prove you know how to care for and handle them properly (say through a Federal acredited instructor), and pass a federal background check then you should have the RIGHT to keep and bear firearms of any kind.

which is what i've been saying all along

[KMA]Avenger wrote:which is what i've been saying all along

You have I will give you that. It's Rocky and Kit that have my dander up.....

Ridd1ck wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:why is everyone fixated on the defence side of the firearms issue?


this topic is supposed to be about having the RIGHT to keep and bear arms responsibly for whatever reason...hell, if someone wanted to use a gun to stir a pot i couldn't careless so long as their not some schizo out to kill a bunch of people.

Then I will say YES, if you pass the normal phsycological exam, prove you know how to care for and handle them properly (say through a Federal acredited instructor), and pass a federal background check then you should have the RIGHT to keep and bear firearms of any kind.