• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

The PCNation

  • 25,560
    Posts
    12
    Years

    I wasn't aware that burglary was punishable by the death penalty.

    As for your statistics, every time you post some, Kanzler posts statistics to the contrary - generally accompanied by a far calmer argument.

    As for this stuff about leaving, if you have no intention of returning to PC I need to take your party off the registry since there won't be anyone in it. Or am I misunderstanding?
     

    Thepowaofhax

    Spectre
  • 357
    Posts
    8
    Years
    • Seen May 29, 2017
    I wasn't aware that burglary was punishable by the death penalty.

    As for your statistics, every time you post some, Kanzler posts statistics to the contrary - generally accompanied by a far calmer argument.

    As for this stuff about leaving, if you have no intention of returning to PC I need to take your party off the registry since there won't be anyone in it. Or am I misunderstanding?

    If you want to be technical, I posted statistics to the contrary to his and he missed the point that his Canada's homicide rate is much lower due to lower population density. If all of Canada was like Toronto in population desnity, it would likely be higher

    Anyways, you still don't understand. You're wanting our citizens to sit their like a bump on the log because we shouldn't shoot criminals that break into houses. That is completely illogical; a burglar should be shot dead on site by the property owner if they're caught. It's their fault, and saying that they should get a "free card" and punish the people defending their property will only bring more crime.

    And yes, you might as well.
     
  • 25,560
    Posts
    12
    Years
    If you want to be technical, I posted statistics to the contrary to his and he missed the point that his Canada's homicide rate is much lower due to lower population density. If all of Canada was like Toronto in population desnity, it would likely be higher

    Did you miss the point where he debunked that?
    I didn't.

    Anyways, you still don't understand. You're wanting our citizens to sit their like a bump on the log because we shouldn't shoot criminals that break into houses. That is completely illogical; a burglar should be shot dead on site by the property owner if they're caught. It's their fault, and saying that they should get a "free card" and punish the people defending their property will only bring more crime.

    This notion is ridiculous. A person who breaks into your house and steals your shit should be punished sure. However they shouldn't be shot. You don't give the death penalty to a thief tried in court. If you shoot a thief, you're not executing justice you're executing vengeance. Quite frankly, I believe that anyone who kills someone who tries to steal their wallet or TV should be the one who ends up in prison. It's this sort of ridiculous notion that is wrong with the gun culture in the US and I don't want that kind of craziness to be a part of the PCNation.

    You want an encounter with a thief to end safely, you let them do what they want and call the police once they're gone.

    And yes, you might as well.

    This is disappointing. We may very rarely agree, but it saddens me to lose such a regular contributor to this section.
     

    Thepowaofhax

    Spectre
  • 357
    Posts
    8
    Years
    • Seen May 29, 2017
    Did you miss the point where he debunked that?
    I didn't.



    This notion is ridiculous. A person who breaks into your house and steals your shit should be punished sure. However they shouldn't be shot. You don't give the death penalty to a thief tried in court. If you shoot a thief, you're not executing justice you're executing vengeance. Quite frankly, I believe that anyone who kills someone who tries to steal their wallet or TV should be the one who ends up in prison. It's this sort of ridiculous notion that is wrong with the gun culture in the US and I don't want that kind of craziness to be a part of the PCNation.

    You want an encounter with a thief to end safely, you let them do what they want and call the police once they're gone.

    Yes, punish the people who defend their property. Clearly this is the pinnacle of this thread, because we shouldn't protect our properties and submit to an authoritarian government because guns are clearly evil. Clearly. Because, you know, we should totally give a criminal the right to through anyone's shit scott-free because even looking against them with gun-in-hand will get you fined! Better just let them go through my house. Your notion is extremely ridiculous, absurd, and a prime example of totalitarianism. It is OUR property to protect, so people who commit burglary should get shot. It isn't a homicide and clearly self-defense.

    I'm calling for a political revolution. This authoritarianism is unreasonable. Any person who's in favor shall spearhead it because most likely I'll leave after a few days.

    Also, no I didn't. I'm saying that if we have more places like Nunavut, that it would drag down the averages when averaged out with places like Toronto (which would be likely to have a higher homicide rate compared to other places in Canada.)
     

    Neil Peart

    Learn to swim
  • 753
    Posts
    14
    Years
    You don't need to be telepathic to tell if an unarmed intruder is there to hurt you. Hell, if you walk into to your lounge room at midnight and there's a person standing there going through your ****, weapon or no, there's a good chance they aren't there intending to hurt you. You want to stay safe in that situation, you let them do what they came to do and you'll probably never see them again.

    I also never said you can't keep a gun. You just can't shoot someone unless they are a threat to your safety or your family's, which they're not unless they try make an aggressive move towards you or point a gun at you. The latter of which is highly unlikely in a society where it isn't easy to get one.

    "You don't need to be telepathic to tell if an unarmed intruder is there to hurt you." Sorry, try again. There are over a dozen different places a gun can be hidden on one's body. If you're saying you know for sure whether or not a burglar is packing heat and prone to violence, you're flat out lying to cling to your anti-gun beliefs as hard as you can.

    "There's a good chance they aren't there intending to hurt you." A good chance? Oh, that would make me feel so much better as I watch someone fumblefuck around with my belongings in the dark. If they see me, there's a GOOD chance they won't hurt me!

    "Let them do what they came to do." I have never seen something so absurd in my life when it comes to gun debates.

    "You just can't shoot someone unless they are a threat to your safety or your family's, which they're not unless they try make an aggressive move towards you or point a gun at you." Yes, you can. By the time they've pointed the gun at you, you're dead. By the time they've reached into their jacket or their waistband, you're probably dead. That "aggressive move" you speak of 10 times out of 10 is not going to be a playful pat on the ass. It's going to be a knife or a gun. Castle doctrines exist for a reason: there's no way of knowing whether or not an intruder is packing heat. They've already endangered your life by BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE to begin with.

    For the record, I am staunchly liberal with a general aversion to guns.
     
  • 25,560
    Posts
    12
    Years
    Yes, punish the people who defend their property. Clearly this is the pinnacle of this thread, because we shouldn't protect our properties and submit to an authoritarian government because guns are clearly evil. Clearly. Because, you know, we should totally give a criminal the right to through anyone's shit scott-free because even looking against them with gun-in-hand will get you fined! Better just let them go through my house. Your notion is extremely ridiculous, absurd, and a prime example of totalitarianism. It is OUR property to protect, so people who commit burglary should get shot. It isn't a homicide and clearly self-defense.

    I'm calling for a political revolution. This authoritarianism is unreasonable. Any person who's in favor shall spearhead it because most likely I'll leave after a few days.

    It's not self defence at all. Self defence is taking action to protect yourself, not your possessions. You have to be nuts to think shooting someone for stealing is okay. If someone trespasses, and you shoot them, you're not defending anything. You're taking the law into your own hands and being a vigilante.

    You call it authoritarianism, and maybe it is technically, but I call it logic. Why on Earth should someone die for theft when most places don't even have the death penalty in place for homicide? What about that person's right to due process? Their right to life? If you pull the trigger against a person who isn't seeking to harm you, then you're the criminal.

    I don't mean to offend you, but people like you are precisely why we need gun control. Because some people think it's okay to take things into their own hands and deal out vastly unjust "justice".

    Also, no I didn't. I'm saying that if we have more places like Nunavut, that it would drag down the averages when averaged out with places like Toronto (which would be likely to have a higher homicide rate compared to other places in Canada.)

    Honestly, I'm not going to bother debating this any further. No matter what evidence or logic you see, you're always going to be against anything remotely related to gun-control. I'm just going to hope that when this bill comes to a vote, most people see sense.
     

    Thepowaofhax

    Spectre
  • 357
    Posts
    8
    Years
    • Seen May 29, 2017
    It's not self defence at all. Self defence is taking action to protect yourself, not your possessions. You have to be nuts to think shooting someone for stealing is okay. If someone trespasses, and you shoot them, you're not defending anything. You're taking the law into your own hands and being a vigilante.

    You call it authoritarianism, and maybe it is technically, but I call it logic. Why on Earth should someone die for theft when most places don't even have the death penalty in place for homicide? What about that person's right to due process? Their right to life? If you pull the trigger against a person who isn't seeking to harm you, then you're the criminal.

    I don't mean to offend you, but people like you are precisely why we need gun control. Because some people think it's okay to take things into their own hands and deal out vastly unjust "justice".

    Shooting someone for breaking into private property and stealing is ok. You're assuming everything is black and white, and that they either won't do shit once they see you or they'll actually shoot if it's obvious they have a rifle strapped to their back. I'm no criminal when I'm shooting someone who breaks into a house, potentially armed and you think I should just sit there and let them do whatever they want. It's an illogicality.

    Besides, someone just pointed out all of the fallacies you've came up with.
     
  • 25,560
    Posts
    12
    Years
    Firstly, I apologise for not responding to you, I didn't notice you're response. On with the show!

    "You don't need to be telepathic to tell if an unarmed intruder is there to hurt you." Sorry, try again. There are over a dozen different places a gun can be hidden on one's body. If you're saying you know for sure whether or not a burglar is packing heat and prone to violence, you're flat out lying to cling to your anti-gun beliefs as hard as you can.

    You're correct, there's lots of ways to hide a weapon. The funny thing about hiding a gun in your pants though, is that it is pretty hard to shoot someone if its still concealed. I'm not lying, obviously I can't guarantee a person who seems to be unarmed is actually not carrying a weapon. If the weapon is not in a person's hand though, it is pretty safe to assume they don't intend to use it.

    "There's a good chance they aren't there intending to hurt you." A good chance? Oh, that would make me feel so much better as I watch someone fumblefuck around with my belongings in the dark. If they see me, there's a GOOD chance they won't hurt me!

    If you own a gun, and someone breaks into your house, you're welcome to hastily go to where you have responsibly stored your weapon, get it out and point it at the intruder who still has their gun or knife or whatever concealed. You can't pull that trigger unless they make a move for their own weapon though. The funny thing is though, if you're not carrying a freaking gun, they probably won't bother going for a weapon. You're not a threat to them. You showing up all gung-ho with your prized firearm, that's when the situation gets dangerous and someone is likely to die.

    "Let them do what they came to do." I have never seen something so absurd in my life when it comes to gun debates.

    You as a member of the public do not have the right to punish someone, certainly not with death. Even a criminal you have caught red-handed has the right to due process and people universally have a right to life. You can call it absurd as much as you like, you're entitled to that opinion, but I don't want a country where we pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't and give the general the ability to act as judge, jury and executioner.

    "You just can't shoot someone unless they are a threat to your safety or your family's, which they're not unless they try make an aggressive move towards you or point a gun at you." Yes, you can. By the time they've pointed the gun at you, you're dead. By the time they've reached into their jacket or their waistband, you're probably dead. That "aggressive move" you speak of 10 times out of 10 is not going to be a playful pat on the ass. It's going to be a knife or a gun. Castle doctrines exist for a reason: there's no way of knowing whether or not an intruder is packing heat. They've already endangered your life by BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE to begin with.

    Perhaps you can in the US where there's a messed up gun-culture, but in the vast majority of places you can't. As far as the PCNation is concerned, it's not actually been determined.

    Now let me explain something to you in simple logic. If a person breaks into your house intending to kill you, you are probably going to die. Unless you sleep with your gun, if someone breaks into your house fully intending to kill you, by the time you've fumbled around and found your gun, you'll probably be dead. Especially because even in a society with gun-control, plenty of people will have guns of their own.

    If a person breaks into your house intending to steal, they don't want to shoot you. They want to take your shit and get out. The situation doesn't become dangerous until you get out your own weapon, without knowing if they're even armed to begin with.

    You want a fallacy? A fallacy is assuming that you as a regular, normal human being have the right to enact lethal retaliation against someone committing a petty crime. Maybe you're American and have grown up in a culture that equates protecting property to self-defence but this isn't the US. I cannot fathom how you can claim to be averse to guns, but be okay with shooting someone for trespassing.
     

    OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire

    10000 year Emperor of Hoenn
  • 17,521
    Posts
    14
    Years
    I believe that it's alright to shoot at a burglar if they have a weapon on them. If it were me (and if I knew how to use a gun) I would go for the hands and feet, opposed to the head and/or heart, that way they will have a chance to survive and face justice at the hands of a jury.
     

    Sir Codin

    Guest
  • 0
    Posts
    I believe that it's alright to shoot at a burglar if they have a weapon on them. If it were me (and if I knew how to use a gun) I would go for the hands and feet, opposed to the head and/or heart, that way they will have a chance to survive and face justice at the hands of a jury.
    That's sadly a tremendous "what if" scenario. Even assuming you have fantastic aim, in the dark, possibly scared outta yer fucking wits, that's simply just you. A lot of people are probably not going to be so forgiving or subtle, assuming of course you could even call shooting someone in the foot "subtle" which in the grand scheme of things, it isn't. It's about as subtle as smacking someone in the dick with a hammer and yelling "jihad" to their face.

    If I absolutely had to stop a burglar myself, sneak attack with a bat will do the trick just fine.
     

    Neil Peart

    Learn to swim
  • 753
    Posts
    14
    Years
    Firstly, I apologise for not responding to you, I didn't notice you're response. On with the show!



    You're correct, there's lots of ways to hide a weapon. The funny thing about hiding a gun in your pants though, is that it is pretty hard to shoot someone if its still concealed. I'm not lying, obviously I can't guarantee a person who seems to be unarmed is actually not carrying a weapon. If the weapon is not in a person's hand though, it is pretty safe to assume they don't intend to use it.

    I had to sit here for about five minutes just in awe at this part in particular. If they don't intend to use it, then why do they have the damn thing? You're going to tell me that a criminal with a gun on his person is just carrying it around for good luck or something? It is NOT safe to assume anything when you're talking about armed criminals; this is why we have castle doctrines.

    If you own a gun, and someone breaks into your house, you're welcome to hastily go to where you have responsibly stored your weapon, get it out and point it at the intruder who still has their gun or knife or whatever concealed. You can't pull that trigger unless they make a move for their own weapon though. The funny thing is though, if you're not carrying a freaking gun, they probably won't bother going for a weapon. You're not a threat to them. You showing up all gung-ho with your prized firearm, that's when the situation gets dangerous and someone is likely to die.

    See, this language by anti-gun people... "all gung-ho with your prized firearm." It's kind of sickening, and you're talking to a liberal here. Stop trying to turn every situation in which a gun is useful in the defense of your life into some kind of "gun nut" fantasy.

    People do very hasty things when they're spooked, especially in a high-pressure situation like a robbery where you know there's a chance someone will find you and brandish a gun. I can imagine you saying "if you're not carrying a freaking gun, they probably won't bother going for a weapon" and not saying it with a straight face, because I think you know that's bull****, too. The spook level for an encountered burglar is just as high for an encountered homeowner.

    You as a member of the public do not have the right to punish someone, certainly not with death. Even a criminal you have caught red-handed has the right to due process and people universally have a right to life. You can call it absurd as much as you like, you're entitled to that opinion, but I don't want a country where we pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't and give the general the ability to act as judge, jury and executioner.

    Criminal lives matter, right? When you break into a house, YOU ASSUME ALL RISKS INVOLVED. This is simple. If you want to choose a criminal path that'll get you shot more than most other paths, choose burglary. People have a right to life, yes. They also have a right to protect their life if they're reasonably threatened.

    Perhaps you can in the US where there's a messed up gun-culture, but in the vast majority of places you can't. As far as the PCNation is concerned, it's not actually been determined.

    Couldn't care less what the PCNation determined. What does that even have to do with this argument? I'm aware the US is the gun-nut capital of the world, but on THIS issue, they have it right, as much as it pains me to say.

    Now let me explain something to you in simple logic. If a person breaks into your house intending to kill you, you are probably going to die. Unless you sleep with your gun, if someone breaks into your house fully intending to kill you, by the time you've fumbled around and found your gun, you'll probably be dead. Especially because even in a society with gun-control, plenty of people will have guns of their own.

    If a person breaks into your house intending to steal, they don't want to shoot you. They want to take your **** and get out. The situation doesn't become dangerous until you get out your own weapon, without knowing if they're even armed to begin with.
    You don't even consider the possibility of the homeowner strolling across the burglar and the BURGLAR pulling a gun? Let me ask you something: are you saying we shouldn't even be allowed to aim our guns at a burglar if we catch them in the act? Not allowed to cock the weapon? If I was a burglar, the sound of a Glock being clocked behind my head would send me running - THAT'S THE POINT. In the context of a home invasion, that is the ultimate deterrent.

    You want a fallacy? A fallacy is assuming that you as a regular, normal human being have the right to enact lethal retaliation against someone committing a petty crime. Maybe you're American and have grown up in a culture that equates protecting property to self-defence but this isn't the US. I cannot fathom how you can claim to be averse to guns, but be okay with shooting someone for trespassing.

    As I said, castle doctrines exist because there's no way of knowing if Jackass McGee with the black ski mask and crowbar has the intention of doing bodily harm to anyone he may encounter. Remember, burglars break into houses under the assumption that the inhabitants are asleep and won't be awakened. When Mr. McGee hears the cocking of that Glock, he won't feel so badass in his endeavors. The fallacy is upon you, Pie: I never explicitly stated it's OK to just start shooting in the event that you catch a robbery in progress. In some states here, it's not even legal. I believe it's prudent to at least give some kind of warning, such as getting a bead on them. What, you think saying "oggity boogity, be gone, robber!" is going to do anything? In some cases, maybe, but YOU CAN NOT ASSUME. Period.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
  • 25,560
    Posts
    12
    Years

    You know, I was going to give a nice, detailed response. Then I realised there's absolutely no point with you because we simply are never going agree and it would be a waste of effort. Especially when your method of arguing is primarily just hurling abuse and saying "Therefore I am right." Instead I'll just make a few quick points.

    1. I never said you can't aim your gun at an intruder. I said that unless they make a threatening move themselves, it is unreasonable to respond with an aggressive amount of force.

    2. I never discounted the possibility of someone pulling a gun on you, I would consider that an aggressive move.

    3. Repeatedly screaming horseshit is a terrible method of debate.

    One thing I will draw specific attention to though is the quote below.

    Couldn't care less what the PCNation determined. What does that even have to do with this argument? I'm aware the US is the gun-nut capital of the world, but on THIS issue, they have it right, as much as it pains me to say.

    This is the PCNation thread. All debates in here are relevant to the PCNation and what we as a "nation" have/haven't determined is important to any debate that takes place. If you want to discuss Gun Control in general without the context of the hypothetical nation, you're welcome to make a thread for it.
     

    Neil Peart

    Learn to swim
  • 753
    Posts
    14
    Years
    You know, I was going to give a nice, detailed response. Then I realised there's absolutely no point with you because we simply are never going agree and it would be a waste of effort. Especially when your method of arguing is primarily just hurling abuse and saying "Therefore I am right." Instead I'll just make a few quick points.

    1. I never said you can't aim your gun at an intruder. I said that unless they make a threatening move themselves, it is unreasonable to respond with an aggressive amount of force.

    2. I never discounted the possibility of someone pulling a gun on you, I would consider that an aggressive move.

    3. Repeatedly screaming horse**** is a terrible method of debate.

    1. Thanks for clarifying.

    2. Glad that's established.

    3. Oooh, my mistake. I never took a debate class, so the etiquette part just never occurred to me. Oh! One issue, though: saying "horseshit" doesn't invalidate my claims or points. As long as a person makes coherent points, the method with which they do it shouldn't matter. Invariably, people like you will come along in an informal situation and try to make it all formal and stuff. Killing my vibes, dude. Killing my vibes.

    Also, "abuse" is a very strong word used by people on the losing or neutral ends of debates as a form of sensationalism. Not a very impressive showing, yourself. But you're right; this is a waste of time.
     
  • 227
    Posts
    9
    Years
    • Seen Jan 28, 2017
    Just throwing around an idea that I thought of while watching a report about Port Arthur that showed an interview with Martian Bryant the perpetrator of the massacre and one of the things that came up was that he was able to buy the guns he used in the massacre even when he didn't have a gun license. One of which he brought from a licensed gun store and the other he brought out of a newspaper. So how would you guys feel if made it that guns can only be sold out of licensed gun stores or licensed websites all of these must be done by the book and all purchases must be recorded and put into a database that can be viewed by the government at any time these would also reordered on the gun license's registry and if the gun license's record and database don't match then the guns are confiscated and the license may be suspended.

    Oh and I know it doesn't all that much but here's a link to a transcript of the interview I mentioned above just if you want some reading material and want to learn a little more about the port Arthur massacre that I've been rambling on about in this thread.
    https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant_complete_interview
     
    Last edited:
  • 25,560
    Posts
    12
    Years
    Just throwing around an idea that I thought of while watching a report about Port Arthur that showed an interview with Martian Bryant the perpetrator of the massacre and one of the things that came up was that he was able to buy the guns he used in the massacre even when he didn't have a gun license. One of which he brought from a licensed gun store and the other he brought out of a newspaper. So how would you guys feel if made it that guns can only be sold out of licensed gun stores or licensed websites all of these must be done by the book and all purchases must be recorded and put into a database that can be viewed by the government at any time these would also reordered on the gun license's registry and if the gun license's record and database don't match then the guns are confiscated and the license may be suspended.

    Oh and I know it doesn't all that much but here's a link to a transcript of the interview I mentioned above just if you want some reading material and want to learn a little more about the port Arthur massacre that I've been rambling on about in this thread.

    I am inclined to agree with the addition of "guns should only be sold by a licensed dealer".

    We should definitely be talking more about the bill, not about the gun debate in general.
     
  • 227
    Posts
    9
    Years
    • Seen Jan 28, 2017
    To be honest I'm not too fussed about the whole database idea I was really just throwing about an idea off the top of my head for a way to regulate and track gun purchases.

    I agree we should move more toward actually talking about the bill.
     

    Killua

    Guest
  • 0
    Posts
    Maybe we could have a penalty sistem that accounts the mental state and how bad the situation was lets sayif you shot someone pointing any kind of weapon is just paid psychological treatment by he goverment and if you shoot someone who is not threatening you, you get 2 to 5 years in prisonand if they die 6 to 9
     
  • 25,560
    Posts
    12
    Years
    Maybe we could have a penalty sistem that accounts the mental state and how bad the situation was lets sayif you shot someone pointing any kind of weapon is just paid psychological treatment by he goverment and if you shoot someone who is not threatening you, you get 2 to 5 years in prisonand if they die 6 to 9

    If you shoot someone who poses no threat to you, you're no getting 6-9 years. You're going to be charged for homicide and spend a minimum of around 20 years in prison. That's how it works most places anyway I think.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Her
  • 5,983
    Posts
    15
    Years
    Let's try and keep the scope of the bill relatively narrow, lest we cannot come to agreement on anything at all.

    What are the main provisions of the bill again? The thing about actual bills that make them easy (haha) to work with is that they're clearly split up into sections and subsections.
     
  • 25,560
    Posts
    12
    Years
    There's essential two versions of the bill right now

    Version One

    -No semi-auto or full auto firearms
    -No pump action firearms
    -Firearms can only be sold by licensed dealers
    -No public carry (concealed or otherwise)
    -Firearms should only be used on registered firing ranges or rural property.
    -Buyback scheme where currently unlicensed firearms will be bought back by the government
    -Waiting period after purchase
    -License and psych evaluation required

    Version 2

    -No fully automatic weapons
    -Pump shotguns and semi-auto are okay
    -Public carry (unconcealed) is okay
    -Same buyback scheme
    -Only licensed dealers can sell firearms
    -Waiting period after purchase
    -License and psych evaluation required

    That's about it according to my memory. Are we all okay to vote between those two or have I missed something?
     
    Back
    Top