By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Victory for the Constitution... in Illinois?!

the2real4mafol on 12 December 2012
ninetailschris said:
the2real4mafol said:

I just don't see why ordinary people want or need guns, at least not to carry around in public anyway. Surely if they didn't have them, then we wouldn't hear constant stories of shootings, especially in America. Gun laws should at least be separate from the codified constitution anyway.

What also makes no sense to me is that people think liberal gun laws make sense, and yet prostitution and most drugs shouldn't be legal at all.


Explain why no gun zones have the highest in murders by guns? 

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2012/07/doing-math-guns

having a gun on you doesn't mean your out to kill people. I live in Florida and carry a gun on me all the time just for the protection of my family and myself.

Just because you have a gun doesn't make a person a killer. If your a killer you will kill legal or not.

But if you carry a gun, you are more likely to use it in the given circumstance

As for no gun zones, Japan and a few other countries have low amounts of murders and No guns either. While, others like Australia and Turkey have 15 guns to a 100, but also low amount of murders. Also, only some countries have lower murder rates but i doubt thats to do with gun ownership, just look at the USA's high gun ownership and high murder rate.



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

Around the Network
ninetailschris on 12 December 2012
Mr Khan said:
ninetailschris said:
gamelover2000 said:
ninetailschris said:
gamelover2000 said:

So when United States citizens get raped from privacy and economic freedom noone cares but when they're GUNS get taken away they go 'muh freedom'?

 

The constitution was made by the founding fathers who wanted a free country, but they owned slaves.

The founding fathers we're all deists/atheists or agnostic and now the United States is the most christian country on Earth with a few exceptions.

 

The constitution is not being upheld and you can not shoot someone that is stealing your property because that is a crime. I have no problem with baseball bats as they are (with exceptions) non-lethal.

 

Shooting someone for stealing your pink pelican from your front jard is fucking ridicilous.

All were deist they were in a group called masons. None where atheist please post your facts because I remember doing a project on the founders in high school where they were in fact mason which was deist a group.

"So when United States citizens get raped from privacy and economic freedom noone cares but when they're GUNS get taken away they go 'muh freedom'?"

Many complain about privacy and economic freedom stop pretending like your the only one who cares or is doing anything about to make yourself feel like special or making a point.

"The founding fathers we're all deists/atheists or agnostic and now the United States is the most christian country on Earth with a few exceptions."

your point of irony tells us nothing about what is right or wrong is shows your lack of ability to give a support point. If you were right it doesn't change the fact that because x personal beliefs mean the opposite is wrong. There is no relation of two from the data to tells anything. This is common fallacy of the hitler fallacy in which if hitler believe x than x is wrong which is for simple minded people.

"The constitution is not being upheld and you can not shoot someone that is stealing your property because that is a crime. I have no problem with baseball bats as they are (with exceptions) non-lethal."

Wait what? Are you just ignorant or lying? You do realize in Florida if someone is caught trespassing on someone property for stealing or the harm a family member your aloud to kill the person? This is only one example.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

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) 
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

"Shooting someone for stealing your pink pelican from your front jard is fucking ridicilous."

 Yup crazy that a guy came into someone house with a knife or weapon and kills your children.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-in-spider-man-mask-robs-domino-s-driver-in/article_7c4ad546-9380-52c9-aa22-87ceeab1c019.html

Man gets killed for pizza and money. He is then put in car.  All for pizza but hey no way someone would go in a house and kill someone whole family for more than that.

Because that never happens.

Stop pretending that giving everyone weapons can be justified due to violent crimes.

 

I am not from the United States and I Have never seen or heard a gun(shot) in my life. I life in a country that is pretty much better in every way possible as the United States. Stop acting like your country works differently and try our system and you will soon find improvement.

 

If you want to act like everyone having weapons is a good idea then go ahead, people will die because that is all guns do: Kill people.

 

Switzerland has many guns and few murders. Don't like facts don't argue against it.
Switzerland has the most guns and the lowest crime everyone has a gun.
Your logic and arguments have been proven false.
You can accept the facts or live in a world that is made of misinformation.
I don't care for your personal experience as I lived in a gun control and saw people get killed all time. Your subjective experience isn't reality as whole accept that and grow from it.

 

You need to learn basic rules of argument before arguing. Correlation != Causation


I have already showed earlier that studies show that in fact taking away gun control lowers crimes in causation. The example I gave is because he said if everyone had guns there would more deaths. Why don't you read more carefully next time not to be rude.



"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max

ninetailschris on 12 December 2012
the2real4mafol said:
ninetailschris said:
the2real4mafol said:

I just don't see why ordinary people want or need guns, at least not to carry around in public anyway. Surely if they didn't have them, then we wouldn't hear constant stories of shootings, especially in America. Gun laws should at least be separate from the codified constitution anyway.

What also makes no sense to me is that people think liberal gun laws make sense, and yet prostitution and most drugs shouldn't be legal at all.


Explain why no gun zones have the highest in murders by guns? 

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2012/07/doing-math-guns

having a gun on you doesn't mean your out to kill people. I live in Florida and carry a gun on me all the time just for the protection of my family and myself.

Just because you have a gun doesn't make a person a killer. If your a killer you will kill legal or not.

But if you carry a gun, you are more likely to use it in the given circumstance

As for no gun zones, Japan and a few other countries have low amounts of murders and No guns either. While, others like Australia and Turkey have 15 guns to a 100, but also low amount of murders. Also, only some countries have lower murder rates but i doubt thats to do with gun ownership, just look at the USA's high gun ownership and high murder rate.

Bad use of data because you have states in USA that have gun control and some that don't.

When using data make sure all the conditions are made for the point to be valid.

There many problems with graph to add like Switzerland have a higher average than USA in which wouldn't be obvious because of population.



"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max

timmah on 12 December 2012
Soleron said:
ninetailschris said:
Soleron said:
leatherhat said:
...


Just last year thousands of British were forced to watch their homes and businesses burn to the ground because they couldn't do anything against oppurtunistic, thieving rioters. 

Um. You think. That it's OK to shoot people who are looting?


Umm yes?

if someone came in my house and started looting me do you want me to have a nice conversation in which he could kill me with anything?

Yes. Morally it's only acceptable to me to use reasonable force, i.e. equal to what they're using on you. So if they're using a gun you can use a gun, but that's the only situation. If they're just stealing stuff your job is to get away, phone the police and call your insurance about what was taken.

I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone thinks it's OK to shoot people who are just stealing things and not threatening you with a weapon. There has to be rule of law.

I have friends in law enforcement and EMS, and I know that a lot of robberies turn into murders because many criminals are nuts. They could be high on hard drugs, or just stone cold psychopaths. There's no way for me to know if the criminal has a gun or other weapon, what his intentions are with me and my family, if he intends to kill any potential witnesses, whatever. Are you suggesting that I should wait until he kills me before I kill him? You've got to be kidding me. I have two young daughters and a wife, if somebody breaks into my house, there's a chance they could end up killing me and my family, raping my wife, or any number of terrible things. That's why they won't get past the front door. If they turn tail and run, fine, I'll just call the cops. If they make any move at all besides out the door, they're dead. Period.



Max King of the Wild on 12 December 2012
timmah said:
Soleron said:
ninetailschris said:
Soleron said:
leatherhat said:
 

 

 

 

 

I have friends in law enforcement and EMS, and I know that a lot of robberies turn into murders because many criminals are nuts. They could be high on hard drugs, or just stone cold psychopaths. There's no way for me to know if the criminal has a gun or other weapon, what his intentions are with me and my family, if he intends to kill any potential witnesses, whatever. Are you suggesting that I should wait until he kills me before I kill him? You've got to be kidding me. I have two young daughters and a wife, if somebody breaks into my house, there's a chance they could end up killing me and my family, raping my wife, or any number of terrible things. That's why they won't get past the front door. If they turn tail and run, fine, I'll just call the cops. If they make any move at all besides out the door, they're dead. Period.



The morally right thing to do is to challenge them to a duel and slap them across the face with a glove. DUH! Anyway, I feel the same as you do. However, I would try to aim for the shoulder instead of any vital organs first.



Around the Network
timmah on 12 December 2012
Max King of the Wild said:
timmah said:
Soleron said:
ninetailschris said:
Soleron said:
leatherhat said:
 

 

 

 

 

I have friends in law enforcement and EMS, and I know that a lot of robberies turn into murders because many criminals are nuts. They could be high on hard drugs, or just stone cold psychopaths. There's no way for me to know if the criminal has a gun or other weapon, what his intentions are with me and my family, if he intends to kill any potential witnesses, whatever. Are you suggesting that I should wait until he kills me before I kill him? You've got to be kidding me. I have two young daughters and a wife, if somebody breaks into my house, there's a chance they could end up killing me and my family, raping my wife, or any number of terrible things. That's why they won't get past the front door. If they turn tail and run, fine, I'll just call the cops. If they make any move at all besides out the door, they're dead. Period.



The morally right thing to do is to challenge them to a duel and slap them across the face with a glove. DUH! Anyway, I feel the same as you do. However, I would try to aim for the shoulder instead of any vital organs first.

I'd agree except for a few things.

1. It's insane, but criminals can actually sue you for their injuries if you shoot them in the commission of a crime. They can't sue you if they're dead.

2. If I injure him and he holds a grudge, what's to stop him from exacting revenge when he's out of prison?

3. Your best chance of stopping an intruder is always to aim for center of mass, less chance of a miss. If he survives that, ok, but I'm not going to risk a miss by aiming for the shoulder or leg.



Max King of the Wild on 12 December 2012
timmah said:
Max King of the Wild said:
timmah said:
Soleron said:
ninetailschris said:
Soleron said:
leatherhat said:
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd agree except for a few things.

1. It's insane, but criminals can actually sue you for their injuries if you shoot them in the commission of a crime. They can't sue you if they're dead.

2. If I injure him and he holds a grudge, what's to stop him from exacting revenge when he's out of prison?

3. Your best chance of stopping an intruder is always to aim for center of mass, less chance of a miss. If he survives that, ok, but I'm not going to risk a miss by aiming for the shoulder or leg.



I wouldn't worry about the criminals winning the law suit though. If it was a justified shooting you should be alright. I've seen many crazy things though and some cases where the burglar wins. That definatly needs to be changed. I think the first point is more likely. Dude would be stupid to go back for seconds after getting shot lol. As for your last point, I don't know how big your living room is but I wouldn't worry about missing the shoulder in mine and I've never fired a weapon.



Soleron on 12 December 2012
ninetailschris said:
...

Bad use of data because you have states in USA that have gun control and some that don't.

Concealed carry or needing a permit is not  really gun control. People still, like, have guns.



Soleron on 12 December 2012
timmah said:
...

I have friends in law enforcement and EMS, and I know that a lot of robberies turn into murders because many criminals are nuts. They could be high on hard drugs, or just stone cold psychopaths. There's no way for me to know if the criminal has a gun or other weapon, what his intentions are with me and my family, if he intends to kill any potential witnesses, whatever. Are you suggesting that I should wait until he kills me before I kill him? You've got to be kidding me. I have two young daughters and a wife, if somebody breaks into my house, there's a chance they could end up killing me and my family, raping my wife, or any number of terrible things. That's why they won't get past the front door. If they turn tail and run, fine, I'll just call the cops. If they make any move at all besides out the door, they're dead. Period.

Again, I don't care abut likelihoods or psychology, to me it is always wrong to shoot someone unless they are literally pointing a gun at you.

Also why do forum people always fucking resort to emotional arguments like 'suppose your female family members were being raped'. We can have a discussion without resorting to that.



Max King of the Wild on 12 December 2012
Soleron said:
ninetailschris said:
...

Bad use of data because you have states in USA that have gun control and some that don't.

Concealed carry or needing a permit is not  really gun control. People still, like, have guns.


It really is. Because in Illinois you had to jump through hoops which made it near impossible to get a gun for a while. Which was deemed unconstitutional also.