Would a gun have made a difference?

Status
Not open for further replies.
308Enfield,

That's exactly where I am coming from too. I am all for guns for self defense and sport, but actions like SomeKid and others on here talk about, is childish, immature and dangerous. Lets just hope he is talking big but not acting out, innocent people get hurt when irresponsible people flaunt their guns. The whole gun community gets lumped in with these jerks, and we all inch closer to lessened gun rights.
 
The arguement then becomes...

I did not know they were dead, I simply thought they had fallen, and would get back up and attack me some more, but I could not flee with my woman because then this guy attacks us...

I know this. If it actually made it to trial, and I were on the jury, he would walk. Even if he executed the wounded with a shot to the temple. (I do not advocate this, in many Blue states this may be too much force, likely a few reds as well.)

Can anyone tell I am a big on Self-Defense and making sure criminals do not re-offend?
Click to expand...
Somekid, you're a freaking idiot. Why don't you look up what happened to Bernhard Goetz, and he didn't execute someone as you have suggested. Any semi-decent lawyer anywhere would take your statement (above) and fry you with it. It doesn't matter if you get beat the crimin charge, but you are pretty much guaranteed to loose the civil case.

I hope anyone who read the above post knows BS when they see it. And no, do not drag the body back into your house. That's another urban myth that can get you thrown into prison. JM2CW.
 
Even if he executed the wounded with a shot to the temple.
Click to expand...

Cool, let's freakin' murder everyone.
[sarcasm]
Here I thought I carried a firearm for defense. Hey, I've got an idea, why don't we take your idea even further, and start killing people before they attack you? That way they'll never have the opportunity to hurt anyone! This is brilliant! Lets get all the friggin' gun owners to go around howling about self-defense and blazing away with our heaters at suspicious looking people! The world would be a safe place, Jesus would come back for 1000 years of peace, and there would be no crime!
[/sarcasm]

We have a legal system for a reason. Part of that is to make sure people don't just go dispensing their own brand of justice, like tapping a defenseless person in the head, bad guy or no.
 
Exactly NRAhab,

Thats like that Tom (nutjob) Cruise movie where the police could see future crime with clairvoyants and just kill them BEFORE they even commited a crime. Eventually, we'll all be dead, perfect! :(
 
Last edited:
Really funny.

I stated HOW I WOULD RULE IF I WAS ON A JURY and you people, most of whom are supposedly older and wiser start crying and whining and saying I advocated it, even when I clearly stated that I do not advocate doing it, because even I acknowledge you will go to prison for it.

Even the liberals I deal with at college can understand the difference between advocate, and tolerating/not having a problem with.
 
Even the liberals I deal with at college can understand the difference between advocate, and tolerating/not having a problem with.
Click to expand...

Webster's dictionary defines tolerate as:

1. To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
3. To put up with; endure. See Synonyms at bear1.
4. Medicine. To have tolerance for (a substance or pathogen).

So SomeKid, by your own words, while you do not advocate executing wounded, non-threatening people you do not prohibit or oppose it, you recognize and respect other people's right, belief or practice in doing it, and you willingly permit it? It still seems that you're voicing the opinion that street executions are ok with you. I doubt that many, if any, others on this board will agree with that.

Just to be precise, let's include the Thesaurus entry for tolerate:

abide, accept, admit, authorize, be big, bear, bear with, brook, condone, consent to, countenance, endure, go, have, hear, humor, indulge, live with, permit, pocket, receive, sanction, stand, stand for, stomach, string along, submit to, suffer, sustain, swallow, take, tough out, undergo, wink at
 
Last edited:
308, let me run a scenario by you.

A man comes home, finds his 10 year old daughter being savagely raped by a gang of refugees from N.O., in front of the father they slit her throat, then when he produces his weapon, surrender.

He executes every one of them.

You are on the jury. What do you do?

I know what I would do.

Something you really may want to consider.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jury+nullification

As I stated, I do not encourage people to solve all their problems with 230 grains, but lets face it, sometimes it is appropriate, and sometimes the law is wrong. We have human juries for a reason.
 
So we're completely changing the scenerio where the shooting occurrs? Good job, that really helps to support your initial argument. How about a vote? How many people approve of SomeKid's argument and how many do not agree?
 
What completely change? We are talking about how one would vote on a jury. I am open about what I would do.

I specifically made that scenario for a reason. The thread starter might have been ganged, and if he was not killed outright, he might have gotten a front-row seat to his woman being raped.

Now I ask you again, if you were on the jury, what would your verdict be in regards to the hypo?
 
After seeing this pic of SomedumbKid, I don't think its fair to pick on him anymore, 308Enfield. ;)

dqj05s.jpg
 
I know the legalities and, in most circumstances, will follow those laws. In most circumstances. However, there are circumstances, such as the wounded, unthreatening man bleeding on the pavement just killed my mother, where I'm going to shoot as long as I see twitches.

People who don't want to be shot as many times as time and ammunition supply permits need to do one of two things: 1) Leave my friends and family in peace, or 2) make sure that I don't obtain a sight picture.

I'll respect the fact that MY assailant is wounded and no longer a threat in an attack on myself. After a successful assault on a friend or relative, resuliting in grave injury or death, I will have absolutely no regard for the fact that the poor assailant is injured, no longer a threat, and another human being. He won't be injured long. He'll never be a threat in the future. He doesn't fit my definition of "human being."

Personally, I'd like to see the self defense laws changed. I'm in favor of allowing legal lethal force in response to ANY unprovoked assault-whether armed or unarmed. I'd be willing to bet big money that the rate of unprovoked assaults would plummet after the bullies realized that a slap could get them shot to death-legally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top