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

dahuman on 30 May 2014
antfromtashkent said:

It doesent say when he got shot or where he was ether... Im not saying that the guy was wrong to do it, im just saying that there is not enough to this story to draw a conclution. And before I start an argument I like to figgure out all the facts so it doesnt blow up in my face later :P

That's true, it all depends, if the guy was behind the wheel and shot at the guy and got killed behind the wheel then it's fine, or gun fire exchange, got in car, then passed out and died due to shock, then valid, but if the robber was just sitting behind a wheel with a gun out and didn't fire any shots or didn't point the gun at anybody, then it might be manslaughter, there can be a lot of different situations.



Around the Network
antfromtashkent on 30 May 2014
Burek said:

Callum, you are perfectly correct, don't worry about them. They probably never heard that you can use an electrical taser, pepper spray or many other non-lethal weapons and object to defend yourself.


Using pepperspray against a gunman, or pulling out a taser is a good way to get shot...



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


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.

No, what I said is shooting them in the leg is not so easy because the area is smaller, if you haven't actually shot guns before and get your information from movies/tv shows/anime/etcetc then you wouldn't know just how hard it is to actually aim that shit without practice. Chest is the most common area to aim at as a common theme due to that, the type of ammo also matters, a lot.


Play video games i know its easier to get body shots than head shots. Doesnt mean i would go for the kill shot over trying to just subdue an attacker. In the heat of the moment who knows im sure no one is thinking calmly and logically, its a tragic story. A life was lost over something pathetic. 

You don't know what it really means though, you can't stop somebody from fighting back if you just shoot their arms or legs anyways, you need something with more stopping power to knock them the fuck out or stop them in their tracks while impacting their core areas, in an exchange of gunfire of self defense, there are a lot more to think about. The point is that most people that own guns are not idiots and we actually learn about the facts and do the proper training to protect our family, it's not like people in the states just walk around with guns casually on the street cause I sure as hell don't. Dumb asses that go rob places went in either really retarded or are already aware of the risks involved, which either way, won't ever earn my sympathy, because I hate stupid people.



Mr Khan on 30 May 2014

Yeah, i'm going to move this thread to politics.

It is a really shitty linked article, if i may editorialize. Some gun rights group even more wing-nut than the NRA? Fuck.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Burek on 30 May 2014
Mr Khan said:
Yeah, i'm going to move this thread to politics.

It is a really shitty linked article, if i may editorialize. Some gun rights group even more wing-nut than the NRA? Fuck.

Thank you very much. On both points.



Around the Network
dahuman on 30 May 2014
Burek said:
dahuman said:

1mur·der

noun ˈmər-dər

: the crime of deliberately killing a person

: something that is very difficult or unpleasant

Full Definition of MURDER

1
:  the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2
a :  something very difficult or dangerous murder> b :  something outrageous or blameworthy murder>
See murder defined for English-language learners »
See murder defined for kids »

 

source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

 

IT'S ONLY MURDER IF YOU BREAK THE FUCKING LAW! Sigh....

You must be kidding? You have just quoted the dictionary that completely contradicts your point!

"the crime of deliberately killing a person". This murderer deliberately killed another person. And he did it unlawfully, because he is not a member of a legal police or army unit that is authorized to use force if necessary.

No matter what you may have warped this situation into, a person has been murdered...

You obviously don't know how the law works in the US, you are basing that off your country, hence your argument is invalid.



huiii on 30 May 2014
Mmmfishtacos said:
Its pretty sad to see people defending thives and armed robbers. Is this really what america has become?


So you say if i see someone hitt someone i should just whipe out my gun (if i had one) and shoot them dead, cause if i didn't i'd be deffending battery?



Burek on 30 May 2014
dahuman said:

You obviously don't know how the law works in the US, you are basing that off your country, hence your argument is invalid.


Oh, I know how it works. George Zimmerman case was publicized worldwide.



Mr_No on 30 May 2014
Soriku said:

I don't get it...did the gunmen point their gun at the Texas dude or did the dude just freak out because he saw someone was carrying a gun? If it was the latter and the gunmen were just trying to make a quick getaway, and weren't going to waste their time shooting random people, then the Texas guy is a moron for escalating things. Should've called the cops and let them handle it.

You might have a point there, since the article is pretty vague and doesn't offer too many details. I guess when the investigation is over, the police will release all the details, and probably the CHL will be made a hero by them.



DarkWraith on 30 May 2014
Xenostar said:
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.


You do realise despite not being allowed to own guns in the UK, were not all dead? You can stop a criminal without killing them, many countries do it. They also do it with less crime rate and death rates than america, possibly a link there.



Missed the point completely
Lafiel said:

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



wrong in what way?
Burek said:

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.



you're not getting it either, this isn't about what does happen. it's about meta-ethical scenarios. my god this forum is filled with some people who can't seem to read for content who like to setup strawmen. I even explicitly stated the scenario for you. I said (verbatim) "yeah, makes no sense to put down a serial killer to save innocent lives right?" for those oblivious to what just happened, this is a reductio ad absurdum to the individual's moral absolutism.