US school shooting

Thursday 21st February 2013

smartphone hater said:

My answer wasn't a really serious methodically calculated one.

But as far as your link. Phillip Sailors used excessive force = bad dude in black hat. If Rodrigo Diaz was legally carrying a firearm he could have shot Sailors as he ran towards him brandishing his firearm & quite rightly claimed self defence. The results, dead bad dude in black hat, good live dude in white hat drives off into the sunset.

Edited.. I've answered your question so could you answer this, what might have happened if Sailors didn't have a firearm?

Edited by smartphone hater on Thursday 21st February 01:08

TBH i'm not too sure if you're being serious.

Sailors is not a "dead bad dude in black hat/good thing that he's killed". He's an old bloke with no previous convictions. Unfortunately the presence of a gun in this situation turns "get off my lawn" into "get off my lawn and take your brain splattered car with you".

If Sailors didn't have a firearm, he wouldn't now be a killer facing jail and Diaz would still be alive.

Edited by pokethepope on Thursday 21st February 01:24

smartphone hater

3,751 posts

145 months

Thursday 21st February 2013

pokethepope said:

1. Sort of serious. I like to look at both sensible sides of the argument, but if I'm honest as far as I'm concerned the pro gun side is winning the debate & I do believe everyone should have the choice to be armed or not.

2. Sailors became a bad dude wearing a black hat as soon as he ran out of his house brandishing a fire arm. Even a legally owned firearm does not automatically give anyone the right to start shooting indiscriminately at whoever crosses their property boundary line.

3. If Sailors had not owned a firearm who's to say he wouldn't of run out of his house brandishing a meat clever, kitchen knife, hammer, cricket bat, etc etc & Diaz could very well still be dead & Sailors would still be in the same position he is now. The gun is not the bad dude wearing the black hat, Sailors is. More people in America get killed yearly with things that don't go bang than with things that do.

23,378 posts

235 months

Thursday 21st February 2013

caine100 said:

smartphone hater said:

If Sailors had not owned a firearm who's to say he wouldn't of run out of his house brandishing a meat clever, kitchen knife, hammer, cricket bat, etc etc & Diaz could very well still be dead & Sailors would still be in the same position he is now. The gun is not the bad dude wearing the black hat, Sailors is. More people in America get killed yearly with things that don't go bang than with things that do.

Everyone knows that guns are possessed by evil spirits which force people to commit murder against their will. If you own a gun you're definitely going to kill someone, you have no choice. And it's OK, because don't worry, it's the gun's fault. The killer bears no responsibility because if it weren't for the guns and said evil spirits then no one would ever kill anybody and we'd all live long and happy lives full of good fortune.

Some people even seem to believe that it's not possible to kill someone with anything other than a gun. Like some vampire stake-through-the-heart-type s

why do these NRA types want guns for self-defence then?

why not just have meat cleavers, kitchen knives, hammers, cricket bats, etc etc

7,803 posts

233 months

Thursday 21st February 2013

Hugo a Gogo said:

why do these NRA types want guns for self-defence then?

why not just have meat cleavers, kitchen knives, hammers, cricket bats, etc etc

Because the ones you want to defend yourself from have guns?

23,378 posts

235 months

Thursday 21st February 2013

Finlandia said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

why do these NRA types want guns for self-defence then?

why not just have meat cleavers, kitchen knives, hammers, cricket bats, etc etc

Because the ones you want to defend yourself from have guns?

you seem to believe that it's not possible to kill someone with anything other than a gun. Like some vampire stake-through-the-heart-type s

7,803 posts

233 months

Thursday 21st February 2013

Hugo a Gogo said:

Finlandia said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

why do these NRA types want guns for self-defence then?

why not just have meat cleavers, kitchen knives, hammers, cricket bats, etc etc

Because the ones you want to defend yourself from have guns?

you seem to believe that it's not possible to kill someone with anything other than a gun. Like some vampire stake-through-the-heart-type s

A bit silly to go to a gunfight with a cricket bat though.

23,378 posts

235 months

Thursday 21st February 2013

as Oscar Pistorius said

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

257 months

Thursday 21st February 2013

Hugo a Gogo said:

as Oscar Pistorius said

He took both. Wise man.

7,803 posts

233 months

Friday 22nd February 2013

TheHeretic said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

as Oscar Pistorius said

He took both. Wise man.

What was it Meat Loaf sang again, getting away with murder?

NRA is advocating the right to arm yourself in defence against armed scum, while it is a spiralling cold war like arms-race, it would be silly to face armed-to-the-teeth-scum with a kitchen knife or hammer.
The violence and gang culture in the US, never mind the SA, is very different from that in the UK, I can fully understand that people feel the need to be tooled up.

Right or wrong, but guns are here to stay and will always be available for those who want them.

23,378 posts

235 months

Friday 22nd February 2013

we had a discussion on here before (about the 3 criminals in the car, one was killed by the police), the upshot was that 'armed' doesn't mean exclusively 'equipped with firearms' just any weapon

anyway, the point is on one hand people are saying "weapons other than firearms are just as dangerous, a killer could just as easily use a cricket bat, why not ban them?" then also saying "we definitely want the real thing, no way can we defend ourselves with just cricket bats!"

7,803 posts

233 months

Friday 22nd February 2013

Of course you can kill someone with a knife or a cricket bat, but probably not someone with a gun pointed at you.

23,378 posts

235 months

Friday 22nd February 2013

and everyone is Quick-Draw McGraw and can kill a man who's already got a gun pointing at them?

when there's already a gun pointing at you, you are a bit stuck

7,803 posts

233 months

Friday 22nd February 2013

Hugo a Gogo said:

and everyone is Quick-Draw McGraw and can kill a man who's already got a gun pointing at them?

when there's already a gun pointing at you, you are a bit stuck

Remember the cold war days, instead of thinking what's the idea when there are already nukes pointing at us, each side armed up even more. It's how we people roll. We want to be able to defend our loved ones and if the opposing side has more and better weapons than we have, then we feel the need to get more and better weapons too.

NRA plays on these fears, rightly or wrongly, and it seems they are winning, gun sales has gone up big time after Sandy Hook.

JDRoest

1,126 posts

152 months

Friday 22nd February 2013

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/22/th...

Ok, so the NRA suggested something that the Clinton Govt had already put into law 10 years earlier!

article said:

In an interview at the White House, hosted by Parents magazine and posted on Facebook, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said that when he wrote the “Biden crime bill” in 1994 as a senator from Delaware, it included the provision for putting police officers in schools. “We found that those school resource officers were of value in many schools,” he told the audience. “We haven’t been funding them of late. We think they should be funded.”

Skywalker

3,269 posts

216 months