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

Forums - Politics Discussion - BREAKING NEWS: “Game Over” For Game Stop Gunmen

Lafiel on 30 May 2014
DarkWraith said:


moral absolutism is an absolute joke. consider a nation filled with people exactly like you, only some people are criminals and will not hesitate to kill anyone in their way. consider everyone will react as you do, in a non-lethal way when encountering a criminal. the criminal will kill you and everyone else, until there is no one left but criminals. if you're going to subscribe to moral realism, you might as well consider consequentialism, and not the fantasy land virtue ethics you employ. "WAHHHH KILLING IS BAD" yeah, makes no sense to put down a serial killer to save innocent lives right? OT: could've been petty theft, instead some dimwit made it an armed robbery and attempted murder.

what you are saying is that non-lethal methods are always drastically inferior for self-defence than lethal methods, which is wrong



Around the Network
RenCutypoison on 30 May 2014
spurgeonryan said:
Xenostar said:
Better hope no one ever sees his concealed weapon, screams for there life and shoots him.


I am sure the armed robbers fired at him first, and he probably saw that they were robbing the joint.

 

Thank god for American Gun laws! I feel safer already. Especially living near Chicago.

 

@Callum

 

Even when they have a gun and fire on you? You should not shoot their brains out?


As a Belgian, I can say they don't have a gun to begin with. And if they have a gun they won't just shoot someone unarmed. (Armed robberies happens like 3-4 times a year here)

We've been resolving our conflicts with good mood and beer for the last 184 years, with less than half the murder "ratio" than america.



Burek on 30 May 2014
DarkWraith said:


moral absolutism is an absolute joke. consider a nation filled with people exactly like you, only some people are criminals and will not hesitate to kill anyone in their way. consider everyone will react as you do, in a non-lethal way when encountering a criminal. the criminal will kill you and everyone else, until there is no one left but criminals. if you're going to subscribe to moral realism, you might as well consider consequentialism, and not the fantasy land virtue ethics you employ. "WAHHHH KILLING IS BAD" yeah, makes no sense to put down a serial killer to save innocent lives right? OT: could've been petty theft, instead some dimwit made it an armed robbery and attempted murder.

In case you are not informed, there are criminals everywhere. But almost nowhere in a civilized society do criminals just go around shooting innocent bystanders just for the fun of it. (Well, there is one country, we all know which one). Usually, if criminals even shoot somebody, it is another criminal.

I had to google to see when the last murder in my city took place (it's medium sized - population 75,000). It was in 2011, and it was a crime of passion, a guy banged another guy's head into the wall several times and he died. There was a gun murder in 1996, and those were two guys on drugs that watched too many movies.



antfromtashkent on 30 May 2014

I typically am for the 2nd amendment, but the article says that the gunman was trying to escape and died behind the steering wheel... at that point the vigilante is wrong...



Xenostar on 30 May 2014
dahuman said:

You DO NOT just draw your gun on people without preparing for the aftermath, it's perfectly legal to walk around with a gun if you have a permit to carry(also different per State, some areas are gun free zones, most are not, where I live, Washington State, you don't need a permit to own any firearms, but you need a permit to carry a concealed loaded pistol, and you can carry rifles without permit because you can't conceal them, the point is so people can see them, cops might drive up and ask you some questions, but as a responsible gun owner, you don't be a dick about it and cops will leave you be.) The moment you draw that thing for the wrong reasons at people due to stupidity, your life is already mostly forefit.


But the story didnt say he drew his gun it said the pedestrian drew his gun, and he died trying to escape.



Around the Network
dahuman on 30 May 2014
antfromtashkent said:
I typically am for the 2nd amendment, but the article says that the gunman was trying to escape and died behind the steering wheel... at that point the vigilante is wrong...


Prolly got shot then died behind the wheel after getting into the car.



dahuman on 30 May 2014
Xenostar said:
dahuman said:
Xenostar said:

So its because hes carrying a gun while commiting a crime is the reason you think he deserved to die, best not be carrying a gun when illegally parking then, or you deserve to die!

You DO NOT just draw your gun on people without preparing for the aftermath, it's perfectly legal to walk around with a gun if you have a permit to carry(also different per State, some areas are gun free zones, most are not, where I live, Washington State, you don't need a permit to own any firearms, but you need a permit to carry a concealed loaded pistol, and you can carry rifles without permit because you can't conceal them, the point is so people can see them, cops might drive up and ask you some questions, but as a responsible gun owner, you don't be a dick about it and cops will leave you be.) The moment you draw that thing for the wrong reasons at people due to stupidity, your life is already mostly forefit.


But the story didnt say he drew his gun it said the pedestrian drew his gun, and he died trying to escape.

Read again, the guy was already holding the gun, it was out. I have no sympathy for idiots like that.



Lafiel on 30 May 2014
dahuman said:
antfromtashkent said:
I typically am for the 2nd amendment, but the article says that the gunman was trying to escape and died behind the steering wheel... at that point the vigilante is wrong...


Prolly got shot then died behind the wheel after getting into the car.

prolly was sitting in the car with the gun on the dash board or sth and then got shot to death - 2 can play that game



Xenostar on 30 May 2014
dahuman said:

Xeno man, you make it sound like being an Olympic pistol shooter is so easy that you can just aim at their leg and get them right there without killing them, anybody who's had proper gun training knows that you can never assume that you'll always hit your target so you always aim for the largest areas for self defense or rescue which are the chest and abdominal areas or the whole back side, things like arms, legs, and head are so much harder to hit unless you practice on moving targets at the range everyday. The other issues is that if you don't kill the asshole/s, US laws might still fuck you over after the fact, you really don't want some asshole suing you after you defended yourself in the proper situation according to US State/Federal laws because you didn't finish them off while you had the chance.

And to whoever else saying we shouldn't kill anybody "period" is just in the zone of self indulgence, what we shouldn't be are mass murderers or serial killers, you are NOT a murderer if you do it for the right reasons and abide to the laws as a civilian.


Yes i realise you can still kill someone shooting them in the leg, i was just indulging in his rediculous fantasy question, you can defend yourself without going for the intentional kill is what i meant. It is possible that there are people that would defend themselves in the world without killing, in fact alot of people.



Mr_No on 30 May 2014
HoloDust said:
Well, thanks Lord no innocent bystanders were hurt. He's such a hero. /sarcasm

Seriously, I'm pretty sure this would be considered murder in most (civilized) countries in the world.

It definitely is murder. People can paint it however they want, but that person killed another person.