Should people be able to own firearms for self-protection?

[Oryx]

See, I hate how nowadays there is really no "right or wrong" everyone can justify everything. Makes me wish I could go back in time to the 50s where everything was clear cut and people knew how to act and behaved and those that violated it were shunned/punished accordingly.

Just because it was clear cut doesn't mean it was right. For example, it was wrong for a woman not to conform to gender roles in the 1950s, they were widely criticized for not being womanly enough. Yet we've evolved enough now to know that just because a woman doesn't want to be a housewife doesn't mean that she's picking the "wrong" thing. Unless you also believe that no women should be allowed to not be housewives, then this argument is lost on you.

Yes, so clear cut back in the 50s.

Even if things were so clearly defined, what would make those definitions correct.

What is wrong with being able to justify something if it can be rightly justified accordingly? You are quick to not recognise someone who breaks the law as human, when I do not see any indication that you could adequately explain why.

My question is, what law is big enough to say "that's a criminal, let me go shoot him"? If someone pirates music, they're a criminal, are they human? What if they stole food from a convenience store? What about a family friend of mine, who stole her parent's car when she was 16 and now has it on her permanent record even though she didn't hurt anything? Does she deserve to be shot under your idea of morality?

It's really boggling my mind that you have so little respect for life that you think you have the right to judge someone else not worthy of living when there is no danger to yourself.

 

[RedLeopard]

Just because it was clear cut doesn't mean it was right. For example, it was wrong for a woman not to conform to gender roles in the 1950s, they were widely criticized for not being womanly enough. Yet we've evolved enough now to know that just because a woman doesn't want to be a housewife doesn't mean that she's picking the "wrong" thing. Unless you also believe that no women should be allowed to not be housewives, then this argument is lost on you.



My question is, what law is big enough to say "that's a criminal, let me go shoot him"? If someone pirates music, they're a criminal, are they human? What if they stole food from a convenience store? What about a family friend of mine, who stole her parent's car when she was 16 and now has it on her permanent record even though she didn't hurt anything? Does she deserve to be shot under your idea of morality?

It's really boggling my mind that you have so little respect for life that you think you have the right to judge someone else not worthy of living when there is no danger to yourself.

You may have quoted the wrong person.

Okay, then how are people supposed to act and behave then? By your logic I should be able to go and kill someone and get off by saying "Well, what's right and wrong is subjective to you killing that person may be wrong, but to me it's okay". It's this thinking that has led to the moral decay in our society.

You have misrepresented my argument, and instead attempted to refute a strawman argument.

I see no correlation between what you are saying. But you have not understood that by definition, a criminal is stripped of their status of being human merely because they have broken a law. As the poster above me has so rightly observed, committing a crime may be against the law, but in doing so does not necessarily make the act an immoral one.

 

[Azureth]

Blatant disregard for human life is to blame for the moral decay in this society, as noted by your post saying returnable merchandise is worth more than the criminals life. What makes you think you get to pass judgement?

How so? The west holds human life up very high yet we still have all kinds of moral decay.

Just because it was clear cut doesn't mean it was right. For example, it was wrong for a woman not to conform to gender roles in the 1950s, they were widely criticized for not being womanly enough. Yet we've evolved enough now to know that just because a woman doesn't want to be a housewife doesn't mean that she's picking the "wrong" thing. Unless you also believe that no women should be allowed to not be housewives, then this argument is lost on you.

It was different back then, women were NEEDED to be housewives to take care of children, but soon things changed so they didn't need to anymore. However, I will say women going in the work force has greatly contributed to the death of the nuclear family and thus why you see so many kids nowadays so mean and disrespectful, no longer are kids raised by parents but by tv/internet etc. Women want to have a career? Good for them, but if they get married and have children they need to put them first, not their careers.

My question is, what law is big enough to say "that's a criminal, let me go shoot him"? If someone pirates music, they're a criminal, are they human? What if they stole food from a convenience store? What about a family friend of mine, who stole her parent's car when she was 16 and now has it on her permanent record even though she didn't hurt anything? Does she deserve to be shot under your idea of morality?

Oh please, I think it's a big difference between someone stealing candy from a store and someone breaking and entering or rape/murder.

It's really boggling my mind that you have so little respect for life that you think you have the right to judge someone else not worthy of living when there is no danger to yourself.

And it really boggles my mind you have so much respect for horrible people that are a drain and menace to society. Even though there are many things I don't like about them, one part I do like about many Middle Eastern societies is their "eye for an eye" belief. I remember reading a story where a man threw acid in this womans face, she got to throw acid in his, perfect example of how it should be, I'm pretty sure many people will think twice before throwing acid in anyones face now!

 

[RedLeopard]

I remember reading a story where a man threw acid in this womans face, she got to throw acid in his, perfect example of how it should be, I'm pretty sure many people will think twice before throwing acid in anyones face now!

Excellent! A perfect example of a society which one should strive to emulate. A more perfect example would be one of pacifism and where no one threw acid in another person's face.

 

[Azureth]

Excellent! A perfect example of a society which one should strive to emulate. A more perfect example would be one of pacifism and where no one threw acid in another person's face.

That would require people being perfect which will never happen, so only when people realize when there are harsh consequences will they learn not to do such things.

You give people far too much credit, you may be one of those "always see the good in people" types but I am sure not.

 

[Oryx]

You may have quoted the wrong person.

I was quoting you to say I agreed with you, sorry if that didn't come out that way, lol.

It was different back then, women were NEEDED to be housewives to take care of children, but soon things changed so they didn't need to anymore. However, I will say women going in the work force has greatly contributed to the death of the nuclear family and thus why you see so many kids nowadays so mean and disrespectful, no longer are kids raised by parents but by tv/internet etc. Women want to have a career? Good for them, but if they get married and have children they need to put them first, not their careers.

Yeah, men can't possibly stay home and raise a child, it must be a woman. I guess I can add oppression to the list of negative traits you're giving yourself here. This is going to be my last post replying to you, because you're just digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole and I'm going to get out of this before I actually get angry over someone who doesn't have any respect outside of his own (excepting possibly other people exactly like him).

Oh please, I think it's a big difference between someone stealing candy from a store and someone breaking and entering or rape/murder.

You didn't say murder, or rape. You said breaking and entering with no intent to harm. You need to specify where the line is, since you're the one who insists it's alright to shoot someone that has no intent to harm you whatsoever. What if you see them stealing from a store? What if you own the store and see them walking about with a book they didn't buy? How much is the criminal's life worth? A candy bar? A necklace? What if they attempt to break in but run away once they realize you're home, before they get inside? They were intending to take your things, so they're a criminal, can you shoot them then? What crime makes it alright for you to kill them?

And it really boggles my mind you have so much respect for horrible people that are a drain and menace to society.

I have respect for everyone until they give me reason not to. Unlike you, I don't jump at the chance to harm or kill someone. I'm not sure why you're so insistent that you want to shoot to kill, maybe because you've never been in that situation, but I can honestly say that I don't enjoy the idea of shooting someone. If I can keep from killing someone, I will. That kind of thing would haunt me for the rest of my life. I guess I just have different morals than you - I'm immoral for thinking a woman's place isn't necessarily at home (even if she has kids), and for not wanting to kill. Go figure.

 

[RedLeopard]

That would require people being perfect which will never happen, so only when people realize when there are harsh consequences will they learn not to do such things.

You give people far too much credit, you may be one of those "always see the good in people" types but I am sure not.

I do not, I am stating that deciding what is right and wrong in morality is not a matter of law.

But the solution to an imperfect world is violence against violence? An eye for an eye and the world will go blind. I'm glad you draw your principles from The Bible, it would explain a lot.

 

[Azureth]

I do not, I am stating that deciding what is right and wrong in morality is not a matter of law.

But the solution to an imperfect world is violence against violence? An eye for an eye and the world will go blind. I'm glad you draw your principles from The Bible, it would explain a lot.

Then if morality is not a matter of the law then why do we have laws against murder/rape etc. if there are undoubtedly people out there that could find it morally fine?

So what do you expect people to do, just turn the other cheek when someone does something wrong? Gee, if someone broke in and started raping my wife I guess I'll just remember violence against violence is wrong!

 

[Mr. X]

And I'm sure with that attitude you'd end up getting lots of people killed, please don't join the police/military.

Police and the military use a system called reasonable force. Its REASONABLE for a cop to shoot a crminal in the leg if he attempts to run, but not REASONABLE for him to INTENTIONALLY kill him. Its also REASONABLE for a cop to kill a criminal if he/she attempts to kill him FIRST, or shows undoubtable intent to.

And it really boggles my mind you have so much respect for horrible people that are a drain and menace to society.

And it boggles my mind that you have so little respect for human life. But hey, if your kid breaks into my property i'll be sure to strap him to a table and torture him to death. Its not wrong, according to you, since he is a menace to society and im just doing my part to remove this menace to society.

Even though there are many things I don't like about them, one part I do like about many Middle Eastern societies is their "eye for an eye" belief.

Gee, if someone broke in and started raping my wife I guess I'll just remember violence against violence is wrong!

Eye for an eye, go rape his wife. That said, reasonable force. If he attempts to inflict physical harm on yourself and your family then defend yourself and your family. Were not agenst defend ourselves from harm, were just agenst needlessly murdering someone who attempts to run away.

 

[Azureth]

Police and the military use a system called reasonable force. Its REASONABLE for a cop to shoot a crminal in the leg if he attempts to run, but not REASONABLE for him to INTENTIONALLY kill him. Its also REASONABLE for a cop to kill a criminal if he/she attempts to kill him FIRST, or shows undoubtable intent to.

Police don't "shoot in the leg" if they have to shoot they're trained to shoot in the chest, if they happen to die by it so be it.

And it boggles my mind that you have so little respect for human life. But hey, if your kid breaks into my property i'll be sure to strap him to a table and torture him to death. Its not wrong, according to you, since he is a menace to society and im just doing my part to remove this menace to society.

Hey, if my kid broke into your house he deserves what is coming to him, and it's ultimately his fault, he shouldn't have done it.

Eye for an eye, go rape his wife. That said, reasonable force. If he attempts to inflict physical harm on yourself and your family then defend yourself and your family. Were not agenst defend ourselves from harm, were just agenst needlessly murdering someone who attempts to run away.

No, because she had nothing to do with it, besides I'd just tell some inmates what he did then they'd rape him haha.

 

[Mr. X]

So what if she had nothing to do with it? He raped your wife. Since you support an eye for an eye then the only responce is for you to rape his wife. Your wife was innocent, yet he still raped her.

And, fine then. Let me rephrase that.

Police use a system called reasonable force. Its not reasonable for them to shoot a criminal that is running away. Chase them down, tackle them, accidently breaking a few bones is reasonable but shooting and killing them isnt. That said, if the criminal starts shooting at them then yes, they can shoot back.

Now, lets just see how far you will take letal self defence. A ten year old kid gets dared to break into someones house. Just to break into it, not to steal anything. Youi catch him. Following your logic I can only assume that you will kill him, although I truly hope you are not that twisted to murder a innocent child,

And im just sicked that you find rape funny.

That said, im now convinced that your nothing more then a immature little troll. Go die. Painfully.

 

[Azureth]

So what if she had nothing to do with it? He raped your wife. Since you support an eye for an eye then the only responce is for you to rape his wife. Your wife was innocent, yet he still raped her.

And, fine then. Let me rephrase that.

Police use a system called reasonable force. Its not reasonable for them to shoot a criminal that is running away. Chase them down, tackle them, accidently breaking a few bones is reasonable but shooting and killing them isnt. That said, if the criminal starts shooting at them then yes, they can shoot back.

Now, lets just see how far you will take letal self defence. A ten year old kid gets dared to break into someones house. Just to break into it, not to steal anything. Youi catch him. Following your logic I can only assume that you will kill him, although I truly hope you are not that twisted to murder a innocent child,

And im just sicked that you find rape funny.

That said, im now convinced that your nothing more then a immature little troll. Go die. Painfully.

I just stick by my beliefs, as they say if you don't stand for something then you'll fall for anything. I admit, I am a misanthrope, if an advanced alien race came and said due to our immorality they were going to wipe us from existence I couldn't say I'd blame them. You can't trust people to do the right thing anymore.

 

[Mr. X]

So in other words you WOULD murder a inocent child who walks into your house because you forgot to close the door? After all, he IS tresspassing on your property and MIGHT pose a danger to yourself, your family, and your property.

And, speaking of aliens, if they decided to kill all of humanity it would most likely be because of sick people like you.

 

[Azureth]

So in other words you WOULD murder a inocent child who walks into your house because you forgot to close the door? After all, he IS tresspassing on your property and MIGHT pose a danger to yourself, your family, and your property.

And, speaking of aliens, if they decided to kill all of humanity it would most likely be because of sick people like you.

Very rarely do I wish death on someone, but please go die. Painfully.

Umm...A small child that just walks in is very different then an adult that breaks in.

Also, aren't you the one that's been all "You shouldn't judge others" so why judge me? If no one has the right to judge others than everyone should be able to do as they please according to you.

 

[Mr. X]

Does it matter to you what his age is? After all, no matter what his age is, he still entered into your home without your permission and MIGHT pose a threat to yourself, your family, and your property.

I call a situiation like this, seeing how far you will take your beliefs. Will you stand by what you believe in, not matter the situiation, or will you forgo those beliefs dependent upon the situiation.

And I can't seem to recall ever saying not to judge others. Please, show me what post you are refering to.

 

[Livewire]

Let's avoid turning this into a flame war, both of you. Thank you. ;)

 

[Azureth]

Does it matter to you what his age is? After all, no matter what his age is, he still entered into your home without your permission and MIGHT pose a threat to yourself, your family, and your property.

I call a situiation like this, seeing how far you will take your beliefs. Will you stand by what you believe in, not matter the situiation, or will you forgo those beliefs dependent upon the situiation.

And I can't seem to recall ever saying not to judge others. Please, show me what post you are refering to.

Oh come on you know by breaking in we're talking about teenager/adult how often do small kids just come in an unlocked door and kill someone? Not to mention with a child it is MUCH easier to just knock them out.

I will bend my beliefs for some rare circumstances but rarely, things are a lot simpler when they're black and white and you have no grey areas to deal with. People are more likely to fall in line with societal expectations as well. Is it any surprise how in the 60s you saw a large decline in ethics in morality with all the hippie and "free love" garbage going around? It was a horrible time if you were a person of good character and had any morales whatsoever.

But again, I bet you have no problem with America enforcing "democracy" in Iraq/Afghanistan/Liibya/Yemen, do you?

 

[Mr. X]

Personally, I think the middle east conflicts we are in are a waste of time and money. That said, I also think that we have no hope of ever ending the wars over there. Unlike most wars, this one is a war of ideals that can only by won by the complete iradication of those ideals and/or the ones that beleive in them.

That said, im all for pulling out all troops in those area's and letting the people kill each other off.

 

[Azureth]

Personally, I think the middle east conflicts we are in are a waste of time and money. That said, I also think that we have no hope of ever ending the wars over there. Unlike most wars, this one is a war of ideals that can only by won by the complete iradication of those ideals and/or the ones that beleive in them.

That said, im all for pulling out all troops in those area's and letting the people kill each other off.

Wow, something we both agree on, I'm happy. Unfortunately, pulling out all our troops would be a smart reasonable thing to do, so obviously it won't happen. Sigh.

 

[Livewire]

None of this is on topic, so I suggest getting back to it.