[Ripper]

Originally posted by Ghost


Of cousre isn´t OK!
But you think that you, having 11 years ,you would shoot to the boy? , the problem will not be solved with a free guns right, it´s the EDUCATION, that boy was stupid, must be sent to *reformatory* or some punsihment.
Laws like those, make those stupid teenagers,steal the weapons from their stupids parents and kill everybody in the school
Weapons+stupids=bad combo.
And saying *have the ability to defend myself and others from the likes of you.* is very funny, because you don´t know how *like* i´am!

I apologize, since you said that it wasn't O.K. But calm down a little, you dont have the rights I want you to have available to you, to use or not as you see fit, so dont get worked up!

The education stuff is all well and good, but at the time I really didnt have time for him to go to classes and such. I had about three choices, Try to fight my way to the phone and call for help, try to rationally convince the cretin that we would all be much happier if he had more respect for other peoples rights, (Im sure he would be held in rapt attention while pounding my face) Or, become the superior force in the confrontation and try and see if we could end it all peacefully. At 11 years of age, I am so glad that I didnt find out if I actually would have shot the piece of shit or not. Back then, I dont know. Now? Absolutely, if the attacker doesnt leave. Ill warn them, warn them again, but once the thumb safety comes off Im done talking. If someone values his life less than assaulting me or someone Im around, I would absolutely end his criminal career.

 

[Ghost]

Originally posted by Ripper


I apologize, since you said that it wasn't O.K. But calm down a little, you dont have the rights I want you to have available to you, to use or not as you see fit, so dont get worked up!

Apologize acepted
But i can!
If i want i can buy a weapon and get a license to carry it, after medical and psychiatric tests. (of course you can buy it in the black market, like most of the criminals do).

Originally posted by Ripper

The education stuff is all well and good, but at the time I really didnt have time for him to go to classes and such

You know what i mean, Education isn´t a school matter only but familiar and society teachings.
Most of the common criminals are people who doesn´t had education,their family was shit (drugs,alcohol, family abuse)
And i´m not saying that carrying weapons is worthless, just that isn´t the full solution., and by itself only will not solve the problem.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by Corsair(pilot)


11 year old kids get beat up and picked on. It happens to almost everyone, everywhere. 11 year old kids pulling guns on other 11 year old kids and getting off on the power it gave them... not so normal... I really think that you should try and give some careful thought to your views. Killing people is wrong. That poor bastard who was yelling obscenities at you and threatening to beat you up, that was a human being. There may have been a misunderstanding, he may have mistaken you for somebody else, he may have been intoxicated. He may have had a family. And you would have killed him. Nothing can justify that.

I didnt "get off" on the power, if you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I said I was scared to death.

You can have whatever beliefs you like when YOU are in the situation. You can handle it any way you like. Its your butt on the line.

But to tell me that I have to be beaten, threatened, murdered or whatever else the bad guy wants just because you dont believe in the use of deadly force in self defense will never enter into my thought process. I have a right to be left alone. To not be threatened. To not be murdered. Seems to me its O.K. to you for me to get dead, just as long as the bad guy doesnt get killed.

Maybe I dont handle these things right, but Im still alive, and twice in my life I didnt have to get in a fight, hurt someone else, or get hurt by them, and we all walked away from the confrontations a little smarter. Seems like a more civilized way of doing business, especially if theres now two less criminals walking around because they decided it wasnt worth their lives to threaten other people.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by Ghost

Apologize acepted
But i can!
If i want i can buy a weapon and get a license to carry it, after medical and psychiatric tests. (of course you can buy it in the black market, like most of the criminals do).




You know what i mean, Education isn´t a school matter only but familiar and society teachings.
Most of the common criminals are people who doesn´t had education,their family was shit (drugs,alcohol, family abuse)
And i´m not saying that carrying weapons is worthless, just that isn´t the full solution., and by itself only will not solve the problem.

Oh reeeeeaaallly, I didnt know that. I thought that the reason you were opposed to my rights was because you didnt have them available to you, and therefore didnt think I should have them either. Thats usually the case, from other countries. See? We all learned something here today. And Ill even admit when Im wrong.

Yeah, I know. But what are you going to do with the slimeballs that dont get the education, dont want it, still running around because they havent been caught yet, or whatever and they suddenly show up, and you dont know what theyre capable of, and theres no time to get professional help? Ive got my way, and its worked pretty good so far. You may not believe this, but I wish it wasnt necessary. 20, 30 years may go by with no problems, then suddenly someone's dragging you out of your truck and smashing your head with a brick.(Reginald Denny, LA riots 1991). How do you know when thats going to be? You dont. So you have to be prepared. I refuse to be a victim.

 

[Ghost]

Of course that if some slimeball come to my home and threatens me or my family, and i have a gun, and the other too, i will try to shoot him first (if he don´t have a gun, surely i will shoot in a leg or arm).
But my point is that is a poor solution in general (of course i saved me and my family), just think for a sec. in the whole matter, you can´t go around your country killing criminal,well you can,but if everyone that you met is a slimeball,criminal,rapist,etc there is a social problem that won´t be solved only by every member of your family carrying a gun.
Sooner or later you or your family will met someone faster and with more accuracy.
The problem will take years to be solved and it will be hard, but there is no other options. i think that the *weapon solution* is easier but not productive at long time.

 

[Ripper]

Thats cool. I can respect that. I just wish everyone would leave eveyone else alone. Respect the other persons rights. Treat everyone the way you would wish to be treated.

 

[Ripper]

Jeez! I sound like Calvin talking about Moe. (Calvin and Hobbes comic strip)

 

[Ghost]

Originally posted by Ripper
. I just wish everyone would leave eveyone else alone.

Hehe, but that is the game!
You live in a society, and the societey is full of different carachters the good neighbour, the rapist, the teacher, the drug dealer,etc.
But we are talking about sick people, there is a difference between the common bugglar and the guy who rapes a 10 year old girl, the buglar can be re inserted into the society, the other not, in the long term the goal of every society is to improve itself. separating the *bad apples* from the *good apples*. there are many ways, and i think that using weapons is the last option that the society must use, but it should be used if anything else fail.

 

[Ripper]

Oh, and the "perfect government" where no weapons are necessary because everyone lives in harmony wasnt my idea. It was someone elses, and was called Utopia. It really is too bad that it probably will never happen. It would be great to only have to look forward to the next meal or the next time you get laid!

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Ripper

We had one phone in the whole house, and he was between me and it. I went to my room, got my .22 bolt action rifle, put a loaded clip in it, went back to my living room, and told the bully to leave or I would shoot him.

Wait... he threatened to hit you... and then you threatened to quite possibly kill him and you're the one in the right?

The next thing I know, he's standing at the passenger door of my truck saying, "IM GONNA KICK YOUR ASS, MOTHERFUCKER! IM GONNA KICK YOUR ASS!" I took my .45 out, pointed it at him, and said "No, youre not". He then again walked rearward out of my line of sight. A couple minutes later, he's at my drivers side door, 2 feet away, saying "Go ahead! Shoot me!" I once again pointed my pistol in his face, took the thumb safety off, (I already had a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked) and said "I am NOT fucking with you." He looked at me for a few seconds, and then went back to the sidewalk and started walking down the street towards the service station.

Someone yelled at you, so you pulled a gun on them... Instead of just ignoring the dumbass... I've had crazy people come up to my car and yell at me, it's not a big deal, some people have problems. They generally just go away if you don't pay any attention to them. Instead, you directly challenged the guy, quite possibly resulting in him attacking you, great plan.

And yes, I would have dropped his dumb ass if he had so much as drawn back a fist. No one is hitting me in the face ever again. They dont have that right.

And you have the right to punish them for it by killing them? Why the hell should that ever be your right? You threatened a man with a gun before he actually made a violent action, in the middle of a packed street where you have a huge possibility of shooting some random person? What the hell is wrong with you?

and I am extremely proficient and safe in the use of firearms.

Yep, real safe. You're the guy that just said he would quite happily fire a weapon at a person for raising his fist when surrounded by people... Your safety is not more important that some random person's three feet away in another car that you could quite realistically shoot by accident.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by TC


Wait... he threatened to hit you... and then you threatened to quite possibly kill him and you're the one in the right?

Uh, yeah. I am in my home. I am not the intruder. Hey, just be happy that it all turned out all right and no one got hurt, and Im repeating myself..........

Someone yelled at you, so you pulled a gun on them... Instead of just ignoring the dumbass... I've had crazy people come up to my car and yell at me, it's not a big deal, some people have problems. They generally just go away if you don't pay any attention to them. Instead, you directly challenged the guy, quite possibly resulting in him attacking you, great plan.

Yeah, I know, but you never know when you might get dragged out of your truck.....repeating...repeating...

And you have the right to punish them for it by killing them? Why the hell should that ever be your right? You threatened a man with a gun before he actually made a violent action, in the middle of a packed street where you have a huge possibility of shooting some random person? What the hell is wrong with you?

Just dont want to be a Reginald Denny, thats all. Sorry if thats "something wrong with me" to not want to get my brains bashed in with a brick. I guess I dont have the right to use deadly force to prevent "greivous bodily harm" from happening to me.

Yep, real safe. You're the guy that just said he would quite happily fire a weapon at a person for raising his fist when surrounded by people... Your safety is not more important that some random person's three feet away in another car that you could quite realistically shoot by accident.

Yep. Real safe. Im an outstanding shot and two to three feet away I wouldnt even have to aim. But you probably dont believe that. Thats O.K. (Repeat Reginald Denny thing here). By the way, that little incident actually occoured about 4 0r 5 days before the LA riots. Must have been something in the air. Only I didnt hurt anyone. Hey, if Reginald Denny had done what I did, maybe he would have come out of the LA riots without a scratch on him. But then you would be bitching that he had no right to do that.... And if I had done what he did, plead for mercy, whatever, I may have ended up like him, and we wouldnt be having this discussion because I probably wouldnt have enough mental and motor skills left to work a computer. Guess well never know, will we?

 

[Corsair(pilot)]

I didnt "get off" on the power, if you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I said I was scared to death.

Hmmm... I like how you make whimsical assumptions about where my attention was while reading your posts... it's new, and fun.

And you did "get off" on it for lack of a better term... you weren't in control, and then you were... and you seemed to glorify that quite heavily in your post... or maybe that's just me.

But to tell me that I have to be beaten, threatened, murdered or whatever else the bad guy wants just because you dont believe in the use of deadly force in self defense will never enter into my thought process. I have a right to be left alone. To not be threatened. To not be murdered. Seems to me its O.K. to you for me to get dead, just as long as the bad guy doesnt get killed.

Hmmm, I'm just taking a moment here to revel in your complete lack of reason.....

...aaaand there, it's done. You do realize that there are MANY other alternatives when dealing with these situations? It doesn't strike you as extreme; Ahk! You punched me in the face! Now I'm going to shoot you through the head! Killing people doesn't solve anything. That's where your perception is a bit skewed. Seek help.

 

[Quarto]

Ripper, it seems that you are ignoring all my points - you reject them, not based on reason but based on your ideas, which seem to be as unreasonable as they are unmoveable.

I can understand that you had a tough childhood, but that's no excuse to think that you can shoot someone for threatening you. No beating is worth a death, period. You think that those of us who disagree with you simply haven't encountered such situations - this is also wrong. I lived for seven years in a country where break-ins, theft, and violence occured on a daily basis. On two occasions, people tried to rob me. Coming home after dark, I looked with suspicion at every person approaching. But still, I never felt the need to carry a gun or to have one at home.

It's interesting to note that in both incidents where you drew a gun, you did so without any need - doors can be locked, both house doors and car doors. But you did reach for a weapon, and you seem blissfully oblivious to what you could have done. Had you, as an 11-year old fired, you wouldn't be talking about it on the internet right now, you'd still be trying to recover your screwed-up life. You console yourself with the thought that you probably saved the bully from a life of crime, but that's bullshit and you know it. You, driven by fear, got yourself a weapon. And you think that he, faced with a greater fear, would turn pacifist?

This whole debate seems to be reaching an end, since replying to your posts seems increasingly pointless. One final issue which I'd like to address again is racial profiling. You think that it's acceptable to discriminate against, for example, Saudis, because a Saudi commited a crime. Yet, at the same time you tell us that it's wrong to take guns away from people just because a particular gun owner commited a crime. There's a huge contradiction there, which seems to stem from the fact that you don't mind the least breaking other people's rights, but would do anything to prevent people from breaking yours.

On the other hand, you might be wondering how I can support gun laws while being against racial profiling. Is that also a contradiction like yours? Well, from your point of view, it is. From mine, it isn't, because I don't consider gun ownership a right, so I don't see anything discriminatory in preventing innocent people from owning guns based on the fact that some people commit crimes with guns.

 

[Quarto]

By the way, Corsair, watch your tone. Debating is fine, but insulting people because they don't agree isn't - and there's a fine line between those two things. I don't think you went over that line yet, but you're getting mighty close to it.

 

[Corsair(pilot)]

Yes, that's true. But I rarely, if ever, go any farther than I did on that last post... I'll watch myself...

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by Quarto

On the other hand, you might be wondering how I can support gun laws while being against racial profiling. Is that also a contradiction like yours? Well, from your point of view, it is. From mine, it isn't, because I don't consider gun ownership a right, so I don't see anything discriminatory in preventing innocent people from owning guns based on the fact that some people commit crimes with guns.

I havent been ignoring what you said, and I havent been rejecting your points outright. As a matter of fact, the point you have here is correct. Your right. That is what Ive been saying. I wasnt explaining my position accurately, so you think what you wrote right here. But what I wrote, didnt explain what I meant. Ill get to all that a little later when I have more time.

 

[Ripper]

Lets alter this a little bit, and then I can work on a clarification for Quarto about the racial profiling. He made an excellent point.

Dispute Resolution 101

Ill take two high profile events, one of which I have already mentioned, and the three low profile events I have already mentioned, and look at actual and alternate outcomes.

1. The bully in the house 1971:

Actual outcome: When threatened with death or serious bodily harm, the intruder left, and no one was hurt.

Alternate outcome: I attempt to force the intruder to leave with inferior strength and skill, and would probably be beaten until he got tired of beating me.

I prefer the actual outcome, because no one was hurt.

2. The 300 pound slob in the jail 1979:

Actual outcome: We all go to the hospital. I with a smashed face and jaw broken in two places, he with a broken nose (hopefully, I dont know for sure, but I was trying to smash it into his brain) some missing teeth, at least badly sprained fingers, (I was trying to break them) a couple of real good bites on the arm. It was a pretty vicious fight.

Alternate outcome: I suck his dick. I think that as bad as the actual outcome was, I think that the other choice would have to be me getting dead for this to look good.

I prefer the actual outcome.

3. Reginald Denny attacked in the L.A. riots, 1991:

Actual outcome: Denny is dragged from his truck, beaten, smashed in the head with a brick, kicked repeatedly, shot at and left for dead. He didnt die, but got about as close as you could and not. The bad guys get away with it. And he is screwed up for life.

Alternate outcome: Denny defends himself with the threat of deadly force, and is at best left alone, at worst the bad guys get dead or seriously injured, and Denny runs out of ammo and we return to the actual outcome.

I would have preferred the alternate outcome, because at least there was a chance that no one would get hurt.

4. The idiot in the traffic jam 1991:

Actual outcome: When threatened with death or serious bodily harm, the idiot goes away, and no one is hurt.

Alternate outcome: Hopefully, if ignored, he will go away. He didnt appear to be ready to do that any time soon. So I must defend myself without a weapon. Now this guy is more my size, so unless he has some for real no B.S. martial arts training, or a knife or razor or something, hes got a guaranteed trip to the hospital coming. And of course, theres a good chance that he can dish it out as good as me, which means I might be headed to the hospital too.

I prefer the actual outcome. No one, especially me, got hurt.

5. Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman 1994:

Actual outcome: Simpson and Goldman get cut up and dead. The bad guy(s) got away with it.

Alternate outcome: One or both of them responds to the attack with deadly force, and the attacker ends up dead or seriously injured.

I think the alternate outcome would be best, at least therein lies the chance that they might still be alive. And in the event that it wasnt O.J. that did it, we would know for sure.

 

[Quarto]

For brevity's sake, I'll only examine one of the events you posted... I suspect that a detailed examination of the others would have a similar result.

Originally posted by Ripper
1. The bully in the house 1971:

Actual outcome: When threatened with death or serious bodily harm, the intruder left, and no one was hurt.

Alternate outcome: I attempt to force the intruder to leave with inferior strength and skill, and would probably be beaten until he got tired of beating me.

I prefer the actual outcome, because no one was hurt.

The alternate outcome you wrote certainly was a possibility. However, I think we must examine the other possibilities, too.

Alternate outcome 2: We assume that you lock the door as you enter the house. The bully doesn't bother you, and nobody's hurt. Prevention is better than cure, after all.

Alternate outcome 3: You fire. Maybe he thought you were bluffing with a toy, or maybe you just got nervous. Either way, you've got a wounded or dead kid on your hands. In your alternate outcome, you got hurt, but I'd say a death would be a far worse outcome for everyone involved.

When these three alternatives are considered together, it's difficult not to see the advantages of number 2. Although the result in this case is basically similar to what really happened (ie., nobody got hurt), the actions that bring about the result involve a lot less risk. In other words, guns are a preventative measure, but they are a risky one. Most of the time at least, less risky preventative measures are available.

 

[Millzy]

I think it's interesting that the police in the UK do not carry guns and as it turns out, less criminals in the UK do not carry guns... I just find that interesting... as for a gun ban... i don't think it would work... everything the US does messes up in their face... remember the whole "just say no to drugs"... look how well that worked out

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by TC


What makes me mad are people who condemn the ways of others without taking the time to understand them. In Britain it is not a right to be allowed to carry firearms. It is not a right to defend your property at all costs. I, personally, agree with this. Britain, as a result, has a much lower proportion of firearm related crime. Hell, many of the police in the UK don't carry guns and, quite frankly, don't need to. People in the UK have the right to speak out if they disagree with this. They aren't told to 'shut up' in any way that carries legal backing...

"Sir, I have messed up."

O.K., I couldnt find the specific reference, I apparently threw the magazine out that had the British press source. But, and due to my limited knowledge about internet stuff it will be ponderous, here is where you can look to see references to lost rights in Britain. I reccommend the "Lost battles, lost rights" story.

http://www.nraila.org/search.asp?ReQuery=1&FormMode=search&keywords=britain

I tried using the http thing but couldnt get it to work.

O.K., I guess it did

HAH! It even works! I just wish I knew what I did to get it to work...