Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
Ehh, no one should be able to come steal your stuff you worked to pay for but I can kinda see why some would feel like throwing away a 'defense of property' law would feel like the law is, in a way, allowing burglars to just come in and take what they want as long as they aren't armed.
you can always just beat the ***out of a dude.
[+]
Anna Ruthven said: »
Ehh, no one should be able to come steal your stuff you worked to pay for but I can kinda see why some would feel like throwing away a 'defense of property' law would feel like the law is, in a way, allowing burglars to just come in and take what they want as long as they aren't armed.
This also means you don't get shot if you surprise a burglar
[+]
I woke up in the middle of the night to burglars in my room last spring, so I've kinda been there. But the last thing I wished for was I had a gun, I was extremely scared and only hoped for them not to hurt me.
I hate to say it, but there is an iota of merit in Castle Law, seeing as though no one can say definitively how they would react in the case of a break-in/intruder. Adrenaline can hold all the cards when you do not know the intent of the person and you have others in the household that could be at risk.
As a reminder, there have been people here who have made excuses for the Sandy Hook, UC Santa Barbara, etc. shooters citing mental illness. Why should an otherwise "altogether" person be condemned for losing themselves momentarily in defense of their selves and others?
As a reminder, there have been people here who have made excuses for the Sandy Hook, UC Santa Barbara, etc. shooters citing mental illness. Why should an otherwise "altogether" person be condemned for losing themselves momentarily in defense of their selves and others?
[+]
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
I woke up in the middle of the night to burglars in my room last spring, so I've kinda been there. But the last thing I wished for was I had a gun, I was extremely scared and only hoped for them not to hurt me.
Sorry to hear that.
You do realize that if you had a gun you could have gotten too, the chances of them not hurting you would have been higher right?
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Unless the burglars also had guns, then you'd be dead.
only if the gun jammed or something...
common sense dictates you would shoot them in the back when they weren't looking...
[+]
[+]
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Unless the burglars also had guns, then you'd be dead.
Would you not be capable of shooting first? Being at someone's mercy isn't really a "plan", although it is a choice.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
you could have gotten too
Caitsith.Zahrah said: »
I hate to say it, but there is an iota of merit in Castle Law, seeing as though no one can say definitively how they would react in the case of a break-in/intruder. Adrenaline can hold all the cards when you do not know the intent of the person and you have others in the household that could be at risk.
As a reminder, there have been people here who have made excuses for the Sandy Hook, UC Santa Barbara, etc. shooters citing mental illness. Why should an otherwise "altogether" person be condemned for losing themselves momentarily in defense of their selves and others?
As a reminder, there have been people here who have made excuses for the Sandy Hook, UC Santa Barbara, etc. shooters citing mental illness. Why should an otherwise "altogether" person be condemned for losing themselves momentarily in defense of their selves and others?
Why do you "hate to say it"?
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
you could have gotten too
Have you ever consider getting a hunting license?
I'd McCauly Culkin the ***out of them burglars... assuming I had stuff worth stealing.
Joking aside though, most of the time, even when guns are in the house for self-defense, someone breaks in, you're already *somewhat* at their mercy.
But that doesn't mean you can't turn it around - though not everyone is as capable of Ramboing the *** out of intruders like they see in the movies. Often times panic sets in first before the concept of mercy takes hold, regardless of giving mercy, or receiving it. It's the "Fight or Flight" instinct, and it's different for everyone.
Joking aside though, most of the time, even when guns are in the house for self-defense, someone breaks in, you're already *somewhat* at their mercy.
But that doesn't mean you can't turn it around - though not everyone is as capable of Ramboing the *** out of intruders like they see in the movies. Often times panic sets in first before the concept of mercy takes hold, regardless of giving mercy, or receiving it. It's the "Fight or Flight" instinct, and it's different for everyone.
Oh, and Nik? I'm already bitter and hate everything.
AND I DID IT WHILE I WAS YOUNGER THAN YOU!
AND I DID IT WHILE I WAS YOUNGER THAN YOU!
Caitsith.Zahrah said: »
Why should an otherwise "altogether" person be condemned for losing themselves momentarily in defense of their selves and others?
it's been my experience that in highly stressful situation everyone is a couple nuggets short of a happy meal and acts like you pressed the infinite improbability drive button...
[+]
Bloodrose said: »
Oh, and Nik? I'm already bitter and hate everything.
AND I DID IT WHILE I WAS YOUNGER THAN YOU!
AND I DID IT WHILE I WAS YOUNGER THAN YOU!
fat chance!
I was born evil!
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Have you ever consider getting a hunting license?
Anyway I also don't possess a fight or flight response...I have a freeze response.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Caitsith.Zahrah said: »
I hate to say it, but there is an iota of merit in Castle Law, seeing as though no one can say definitively how they would react in the case of a break-in/intruder. Adrenaline can hold all the cards when you do not know the intent of the person and you have others in the household that could be at risk.
As a reminder, there have been people here who have made excuses for the Sandy Hook, UC Santa Barbara, etc. shooters citing mental illness. Why should an otherwise "altogether" person be condemned for losing themselves momentarily in defense of their selves and others?
As a reminder, there have been people here who have made excuses for the Sandy Hook, UC Santa Barbara, etc. shooters citing mental illness. Why should an otherwise "altogether" person be condemned for losing themselves momentarily in defense of their selves and others?
Why do you "hate to say it"?
I think I "hate to say" the second paragraph more than the first, to be quite honest.
I understand both sides of the argument. Being from a family that regularly hunts I've grown up around guns, but not in the context of the gun culture that is usually associated with crime.
Our safe is stocked with firearm inheritances and four that were gifted to us throughout our lives. Do we need all of them? No. The thought of selling any of them puts us in a precarious position considering how laxed gun restrictions are in this state.
I get it, but I don't. I'll always be on the fence with this.
[+]
Jassik said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jassik said: »
So, we combat the scourge of mass shootings by doing exactly what we already do? People convicted of violent crimes can't own a weapon and face severe consequences for possessing one. The people who commit mass shootings almost never have a criminal record to warrant that level of scrutiny in the first place.
Do you not see why people don't take that position seriously or why they boil it down to no regulation? You're not even living in the same reality as everyone else. It's "we should do something" except every idea of "something" is just "nothing".
Do you not see why people don't take that position seriously or why they boil it down to no regulation? You're not even living in the same reality as everyone else. It's "we should do something" except every idea of "something" is just "nothing".
We combat the scourge of mass shootings by finding something that will actually reduce the problem, not knee-jerking our way into new laws that will do more to punish law abiding citizens than it will to deter mass shooters. If that means doing nothing new in the meantime because we haven't figured it out yet, then that's exactly what we do.
We have identified plenty of things that can actually reduce the problem without punishing law abiding citizens. I've even mentioned one about a dozen times, it's called accountability. National registries and liability to registered owners of guns used in violent crimes. You let your deranged cousin have access to your gun, you get charged with the crimes he commits as well.
Not only would that drastically limit the access to guns, it would not punish law abiding citizens at all. They can have as many guns as they want, as long as they are responsible and keep them secured.
Phoenix.Xantavia said: »
Jassik said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jassik said: »
So, we combat the scourge of mass shootings by doing exactly what we already do? People convicted of violent crimes can't own a weapon and face severe consequences for possessing one. The people who commit mass shootings almost never have a criminal record to warrant that level of scrutiny in the first place.
Do you not see why people don't take that position seriously or why they boil it down to no regulation? You're not even living in the same reality as everyone else. It's "we should do something" except every idea of "something" is just "nothing".
Do you not see why people don't take that position seriously or why they boil it down to no regulation? You're not even living in the same reality as everyone else. It's "we should do something" except every idea of "something" is just "nothing".
We combat the scourge of mass shootings by finding something that will actually reduce the problem, not knee-jerking our way into new laws that will do more to punish law abiding citizens than it will to deter mass shooters. If that means doing nothing new in the meantime because we haven't figured it out yet, then that's exactly what we do.
We have identified plenty of things that can actually reduce the problem without punishing law abiding citizens. I've even mentioned one about a dozen times, it's called accountability. National registries and liability to registered owners of guns used in violent crimes. You let your deranged cousin have access to your gun, you get charged with the crimes he commits as well.
Not only would that drastically limit the access to guns, it would not punish law abiding citizens at all. They can have as many guns as they want, as long as they are responsible and keep them secured.
That's obviously the answer I was expecting from the pro-gun crowd, but none of them seemed to notice it.
Here's the deal with that aspect. Yeah, people break into houses and steal stuff, occasionally they steal guns, but they basically never get into a gun safe without help. I'm not talking about a display cabinet with key lock, I'm talking about a SAFE.
Now, if someone broke into your house and stole your secured weapons, there would be some evidence of it, and obviously you wouldn't be held liable for that unless there was reasonable suspicion that the break-in was staged.
Laws like that generally will have some kind of due diligence clause. If you made a reasonable attempt to secure and hide the weapons, you would be exempt from liability. Case in point, leaving your car running in a parking lot with the doors unlocked could carry liability, but taking the keys and locking the doors is due diligence in preventing it.
*starts whistling Lupin theme*
[+]
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
you could have gotten too
It couldn't have anything to do with the gun bourses right next door in Belgium could it?
I'm italian, not dutch.
Ooops /blush
Green, not blue.
Green, not blue.
The dutch flag is horizontal too <.<
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Then pray tell why there are parts of Amsterdam where the police patrol squads of 4 with submachine guns?
they are hunting guster
YouTube Video Placeholder
The moderators at tonight's debate are so catty and out for blood lol they make Megyn Kelly look nice lol
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.