Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: perdid- I was speaking more of the personal insults flung at me by airo, but you are also demonstrating some bottled up anger toward me. I don't think it is necessary and it really has no effect on me and what I will say here.

Yes, I understand fully that killing is an instinct. But you should understand that it is one of the baser instincts that can be fulfilled in ways which don't do harm to others. We as modern humans have given up many of our baser instincts in the interest of our fellow man. Warring is also an instinct of our species but that doesn't mean that we should continue to practice it with wars against other innocent people. <b>Do you realize that what you are saying here is that killing of one's own species is an instinct that should be practiced?</b> In not so many words but surely this is what you are conveying.

Hmm, I discussed predation, not war. No predators kill their own kind, except for in defense/territorial disputes. War is a necessity. Some think that it is a necessity for social animals to have "others" to war against. Without those others, our societies will break apart.

shrub buster wrote: I was pretty sure that you would use the instincts of the cat as an example of the instinct to kill. It's one of the few examples of killing for no purpose other than what you see as the apparent joy of killing. Even though you have incorrectly interpreted the instinctual killing by housecats and purposely use those unnatural instincts of a domesticated animal to illustrate your point. I can assure you, the feral cats in my pasture do not kill for fun, they kill out of need.

My point is that killing of prey is fun. Nature intended it to be. Just because those feral cats need to kill, doesn't mean it's not also enjoyable for them. Nature makes things that are necessary for survival to be enjoyable.

shrub buster wrote: But do you kill out of need? No, you don't and very, very few hunters do. You kill for sport and I suspect that the actual event of killing an animal is an anticlimax for you. You have killed and now you want somebody to witness the kill or you want somebody to see your kill. Can you be honest enough to admit that you don't feel a sense of accomplishment for the sake of the meat that it is going to provide you. Can you be honest enough to say that I am right about your need to demonstrate your manhood to others in the fact that you are capable of hunting down an animal and killing it. Let's concentrate on that first and then we will get into it deeper for you.

Why are you obsessed with my manhood? Do you have some unfulfilled need in yourself to be a man?

I hunt because it's fun. I hunt because wild-killed meat is ecologically the best. I hunt because I like the taste of game. I hunt because I love nature.

shrub buster wrote: Or- If all you are feeling is anger toward me then perhaps we shouldn't continue to talk to each other. I think it's a longshot that I can help you on a talk forum because you will be hesitant to reveal your true feelings. I am willing to try though, but more importantly, I think I want to concentrate more on substitutes for your need to have your handguns. For the betterment and the interests of all.

My handguns are a force for good, not evil. What would I substitute for a handgun? Should I substitute my shotgun? If I use my 12-gauge, I am even more lethal than with my handgun. Handguns in my possession are of no danger to any law-abiding citizen. As I said in either this thread or another, I've owned one particular handgun for almost 20 yrs. It has injured no one. My father has owned handguns for over 40 yrs. They have injured no one. Why do you fear them? Why can't you just leave gun owners alone? LEt us own our guns in peace, help us to pass laws to severely punish the misuse of guns. Wait, you can't do that, you feel that there is some sort of unfortunate circumstance that forces criminals to commit violent crime, it's not their fault.......

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: Tnbiologist- You said a lot which I have no interest in responding to but you did say something worthwhile which I find interesting.

"No sane person would wish to kill another person and no one here has said they wish to do such. Explain the "pent up hate" to me, please? The primary reason people have guns (hunting, target shooting, personal protection, etc...) varies from person to person so your lump reason as to why people have guns is a little bigoted."

Yes, I agree with you that no sane person would wish to kill another person. Those who wish to kill another person are truly insane to some degree. So my question to you is: If you were in the position of the woman in the store who killed the old man, what would you have done. Would you have let him run out the door and get away or would you have locked the door so he couldn't escape and then point your gun at him and kill him? Tell me because this is critical to the conversation and is dead on topic!

Neither, I would have locked the door (which I honestly think is bull, I don't think convenience stores have "panic locks" that lock people in.), and leveled my handgun at the criminal and told him to drop the knife and put his hands behind his head, while I called the cops. Why should his escape be an option? After all, he may be mentally ill, and need therapy, and they will provide that for him in jail. :roll:

shrub buster wrote: This is what is so attractive about this topic. She didn't need to kill the old man because he was running away. Why did she kill him? I know that in your country she probably had a right to kill him and I know that you may think he deserved to be killed, as others here on this thread have made clear, but why did she do it?

I don't buy the story, honestly. It sets off my bulls**t detector.

shrub buster wrote: Was she suffering from some kind of mental illness? Was she insane, as you put it, and is that what caused the death of the old man?

Well, if she was, institutionalize her.

shrub buster wrote: I think we are going to make some progress here if you are capable of answering honestly.

There won't be any progress made. I enjoy these types of discussions, but they rarely change anybody's minds. I mainly like to see the way other people rationalize their views. I know I won't change them, and they won't change mine.

[shrub buster]

perdid, you said: "Neither, I would have locked the door (which I honestly think is bull, I don't think convenience stores have "panic locks" that lock people in.), and leveled my handgun at the criminal and told him to drop the knife and put his hands behind his head, while I called the cops. Why should his escape be an option? After all, he may be mentally ill, and need therapy, and they will provide that for him in jail."

Excellent perdid! You would have locked the door because you didn't want him to escape but you also didn't want to kill him and have to live with the fact that you had taken a life.

I think you are attempting to shrug this off as bull because it is causing you some discomfort and inconvenience. Now that you have admitted that you would not shoot the old man down in coldblood, you need to start considering why the lady did so. I think britboy chose the topic very wisely and was asking for someone to carry the obvious questions to their logical conclusions. So just disregard for now whether or not you think it's 'bull' and take it for a real factual story. Even if it isn't, it is indicative of the emotions of those who pack handguns, and some of those people here on this thread have betrayed that feeling with their hatefilled comments. Now I'm very interested in hearing what others would have done, but I have a feeling that they are not going to say that they would have done exactly the same as the lady did.

Indeed we are making progress, even though you fervently wish that we don't!

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: perdid, you said: "Neither, I would have locked the door (which I honestly think is bull, I don't think convenience stores have "panic locks" that lock people in.), and leveled my handgun at the criminal and told him to drop the knife and put his hands behind his head, while I called the cops. Why should his escape be an option? After all, he may be mentally ill, and need therapy, and they will provide that for him in jail."

Excellent perdid! You would have locked the door because you didn't want him to escape but you also didn't want to kill him and have to live with the fact that you had taken a life.

I think you are attempting to shrug this off as bull because it is causing you some discomfort and inconvenience.

I know a little bit about logic and common sense. It makes no common sense to have a "panic lock" that keeps people from leaving a building. Heck, I think it's against fire safety codes to have such a thing.

shrub buster wrote:
Now that you have admitted that you would not shoot the old man down in coldblood, you need to start considering why the lady did so.

I said I wouldn't. That doesn't mean I don't think she was in her rights to do so. I do. I have no problem with her doing that, and if I were a prosecutor, I wouldn't charge her, if I were on the jury, I would vote not guilty in terms of murder or manslaughter.

shrub buster wrote: I think britboy chose the topic very wisely and was asking for someone to carry the obvious questions to their logical conclusions. So just disregard for now whether or not you think it's 'bull' and take it for a real factual story.

The facts that he gave didn't fit what I know in real life. I don't know of convenience stores that have panic buttons that keep people out. I do know some that have doors that don't allow people from the outside in, unless they are buzzed in. However, those all allow people to leave freely.


shrub buster wrote: Even if it isn't, it is indicative of the emotions of those who pack handguns, and some of those people here on this thread have betrayed that feeling with their hatefilled comments. Now I'm very interested in hearing what others would have done, but I have a feeling that they are not going to say that they would have done exactly the same as the lady did.

Indeed we are making progress, even though you fervently wish that we don't!

I don't see the progress. I had the same opinion when I started. Shooting someone to me is the last resort. It isn't for all, and provided the law allows for it, I have no problem with it.

[TNBiologist]

shrub buster wrote: Tnbiologist- You said a lot which I have no interest in responding to but you did say something worthwhile which I find interesting.

"No sane person would wish to kill another person and no one here has said they wish to do such. Explain the "pent up hate" to me, please? The primary reason people have guns (hunting, target shooting, personal protection, etc...) varies from person to person so your lump reason as to why people have guns is a little bigoted."

Yes, I agree with you that no sane person would wish to kill another person. Those who wish to kill another person are truly insane to some degree. So my question to you is: If you were in the position of the woman in the store who killed the old man, what would you have done. Would you have let him run out the door and get away or would you have locked the door so he couldn't escape and then point your gun at him and kill him? Tell me because this is critical to the conversation and is dead on topic!

To begin with, I would not have locked the door with crazy, knife weilding guy inside the store with me. That was stupid. That being said, if I were being robbed, by an armed robber in this case, I would either try to get to a gun before I gave them the money, if I thought I could do so without myself or another person being injured, and then use that gun (IF you pull a gun be prepared to use it, otherwise you have just made the situation more volitile). If I could not get to a gun without endangering myself or another person then I would have given the robber the money and tried to pull a gun after he had the money and was leaving, trying to hold him for the police (if he released the knife) or shoot him (if he still had the knife but was not running away).

Quote: This is what is so attractive about this topic. She didn't need to kill the old man because he was running away. Why did she kill him? I know that in your country she probably had a right to kill him and I know that you may think he deserved to be killed, as others here on this thread have made clear, but why did she do it?

Yes I do think that someone who is stealing and threatening another person deserves to be shot if the person being threatened is armed. Both for the safety of the person being threatened and that the money/items being stolen were the result of hard work by an honest person and no one has the right to make a living by being lazy,not working then stealing what others have worked for. As for why she did it, She may have been scared.

Quote: Was she suffering from some kind of mental illness? Was she insane, as you put it, and is that what caused the death of the old man?

I doubt she was insane. SHe was probibly scared from being threatened with a knife. People react in different ways to fear. She may have been scared that after she locked the door (again a stupid thing to do but she may not have been thinking straight after being threatened) the old man would came at her with a knife (he was armed, thus dangerous to her).

Quote: I think we are going to make some progress here if you are capable of answering honestly.

[Onevote]

shrub buster wrote: britboy (and other decent people)- You are absolutely right, it was manslaughter at the least and probably murder. In fact by the description you give, it sounds like it could have been premeditated murder because the woman seems to have thought out exactly how she would handle a situation such as that. I think in Canada she would not have been celebrated as a hero and probably been charged with manslaughter instead.

I don't know if your intent in posting this story was to bring out the hate of the gun-gun people here but it certainly has served that purpose. They will invariably comment on the happiness they feel at hearing of the gun related death of some person. They will never look at the bigger picture as you have so wisely done and then feel compassion for some poor old guy who was probably destitute and needed some money or had a drug related illness which caused him to resort to crime.

Those people who express their glee about the death of the old man are expressing their own pent up hate. But they are IMO also secretly wishing it could have been them that did the killing. This is primarily the reason why they have their guns and they carry them around and show them off to their friends. When they go to their shooting ranges they wouldn't even stay and enjoy their sport if it wasn't for them having an audience of other shooters all showing off their big guns. I know this is true because I have been part of the way there to some degree. When I was young I had a bb gun and I shot at targets with it. Soon this wasn't enough and there was a need to kill something, such as a little birdie or a rodent. I killed a little bird and then it struck me that this was not leading in the right direction. I think if I hadn't come to my senses at that point, I would perhaps have graduated to bigger animals as the sickness progressed in me. I thank my lucky stars that I had enough smarts to give up the guns then. I think they're all the same and most of them graduate to larger animals which don't have a chance of fighting back against their guns. I think this makes them feel powerful. Some need to graduate to people before they truly feel like full comlete men.

I post here because I think that we must start to do something to change them. Not because I could care less if they all shot each other but because they are corrupting the rest of our societies with their gun-gun ignorance. What can we do to stop them?

I have considered the possibility of some program to introduce them to the martial arts when they are young and impressionable. I know that those of us who have trained at some time in our lives are given an inner confidence which makes it unnecessary for us to have big handguns as an extension of our manhood. Perhaps if these little tykes are not taken to the range and had handguns stuck in their little hands at a young age, they would grow up as normal peaceloving individuals who would feel pity for an old man getting needlessly killed with a gun. An introduction to one of the martial arts could maybe be a useful substitute.

Your ideas? While I'm sure your description of the killing progression may in fact fit a very small percentage of gun owners, it certainly doesn't fit the personalities of the gun owners I know. First: I have been a hunter since I was about 10, I have "NEVER" killed an animal that didn't end up on the dinner table, Rats excluded. Unless you are a vegetarian you are complicit in the killing of animals.

As far as Martial Arts, I studied Aikido three days a week from 1996 to 1999, and I currently train 4-5 days a week in a local gym with a trainer. I have no confidence that I could take a knife from someone without getting cut. If a man can punch you, he can stab you.

[britboy]

perdidochas wrote: shrub buster wrote: perdid- I was speaking more of the personal insults flung at me by airo, but you are also demonstrating some bottled up anger toward me. I don't think it is necessary and it really has no effect on me and what I will say here.

Yes, I understand fully that killing is an instinct. But you should understand that it is one of the baser instincts that can be fulfilled in ways which don't do harm to others. We as modern humans have given up many of our baser instincts in the interest of our fellow man. Warring is also an instinct of our species but that doesn't mean that we should continue to practice it with wars against other innocent people. <b>Do you realize that what you are saying here is that killing of one's own species is an instinct that should be practiced?</b> In not so many words but surely this is what you are conveying.

Hmm, I discussed predation, not war. No predators kill their own kind, except for in defense/territorial disputes. War is a necessity. Some think that it is a necessity for social animals to have "others" to war against. Without those others, our societies will break apart.

shrub buster wrote: I was pretty sure that you would use the instincts of the cat as an example of the instinct to kill. It's one of the few examples of killing for no purpose other than what you see as the apparent joy of killing. Even though you have incorrectly interpreted the instinctual killing by housecats and purposely use those unnatural instincts of a domesticated animal to illustrate your point. I can assure you, the feral cats in my pasture do not kill for fun, they kill out of need.

My point is that killing of prey is fun. Nature intended it to be. Just because those feral cats need to kill, doesn't mean it's not also enjoyable for them. Nature makes things that are necessary for survival to be enjoyable.

shrub buster wrote: But do you kill out of need? No, you don't and very, very few hunters do. You kill for sport and I suspect that the actual event of killing an animal is an anticlimax for you. You have killed and now you want somebody to witness the kill or you want somebody to see your kill. Can you be honest enough to admit that you don't feel a sense of accomplishment for the sake of the meat that it is going to provide you. Can you be honest enough to say that I am right about your need to demonstrate your manhood to others in the fact that you are capable of hunting down an animal and killing it. Let's concentrate on that first and then we will get into it deeper for you.

Why are you obsessed with my manhood? Do you have some unfulfilled need in yourself to be a man?

I hunt because it's fun. I hunt because wild-killed meat is ecologically the best. I hunt because I like the taste of game. I hunt because I love nature.

shrub buster wrote: Or- If all you are feeling is anger toward me then perhaps we shouldn't continue to talk to each other. I think it's a longshot that I can help you on a talk forum because you will be hesitant to reveal your true feelings. I am willing to try though, but more importantly, I think I want to concentrate more on substitutes for your need to have your handguns. For the betterment and the interests of all.

My handguns are a force for good, not evil. What would I substitute for a handgun? Should I substitute my shotgun? If I use my 12-gauge, I am even more lethal than with my handgun. Handguns in my possession are of no danger to any law-abiding citizen. As I said in either this thread or another, I've owned one particular handgun for almost 20 yrs. It has injured no one. My father has owned handguns for over 40 yrs. They have injured no one. Why do you fear them? Why can't you just leave gun owners alone? LEt us own our guns in peace, help us to pass laws to severely punish the misuse of guns. Wait, you can't do that, you feel that there is some sort of unfortunate circumstance that forces criminals to commit violent crime, it's not their fault.......

Hi perdidochas,

Yes maybe the women locked the door using the normal 'keep people out' button -- I dunno .. I've been filling up with petrol and the bloke behind the counter has had the door locked (very late at night), then a quick button under the counter once he's seen I look safe and the door has clicked open. Perhaps the button to lock and unlock was indeed originally intended to keep people out and, just the same as my car, can be used incorrectly to lock people in the thing.

Maybe there was a damn big sign next to the door saying 'If your locked in, press this button and door will open' but the guy was too panicky to think straight -- cos he definately, absolutely, was trying to kick 6 shades of s**t out of that door.

Also I used provocative language in the original post when I said she 'calmly' drew a gun. It was a shi**y grey CCTV camera I made the assumption she was calm because she did it about 10 seconds after he had retreated from the counter to the door. But in retrospect who knows? Perhaps she was just in shock, got her wits about her, then plugged the guy.

I found this about the show:

Show it was on

It says:

'Currently rescreenings of Police Camera Action are made on ITV4, 9.00pm-10.00pm Wednesday and Thursday (UK time). ' I might be able to track down some kind of 'clip information' or something I'll keep trying. Its not BS I've tried here to correct any of my original post which I may have distorted accidentally by using the word 'calmly'.

[perdidochas]

Onevote wrote: shrub buster wrote: britboy (and other decent people)- You are absolutely right, it was manslaughter at the least and probably murder. In fact by the description you give, it sounds like it could have been premeditated murder because the woman seems to have thought out exactly how she would handle a situation such as that. I think in Canada she would not have been celebrated as a hero and probably been charged with manslaughter instead.

I don't know if your intent in posting this story was to bring out the hate of the gun-gun people here but it certainly has served that purpose. They will invariably comment on the happiness they feel at hearing of the gun related death of some person. They will never look at the bigger picture as you have so wisely done and then feel compassion for some poor old guy who was probably destitute and needed some money or had a drug related illness which caused him to resort to crime.

Those people who express their glee about the death of the old man are expressing their own pent up hate. But they are IMO also secretly wishing it could have been them that did the killing. This is primarily the reason why they have their guns and they carry them around and show them off to their friends. When they go to their shooting ranges they wouldn't even stay and enjoy their sport if it wasn't for them having an audience of other shooters all showing off their big guns. I know this is true because I have been part of the way there to some degree. When I was young I had a bb gun and I shot at targets with it. Soon this wasn't enough and there was a need to kill something, such as a little birdie or a rodent. I killed a little bird and then it struck me that this was not leading in the right direction. I think if I hadn't come to my senses at that point, I would perhaps have graduated to bigger animals as the sickness progressed in me. I thank my lucky stars that I had enough smarts to give up the guns then. I think they're all the same and most of them graduate to larger animals which don't have a chance of fighting back against their guns. I think this makes them feel powerful. Some need to graduate to people before they truly feel like full comlete men.

I post here because I think that we must start to do something to change them. Not because I could care less if they all shot each other but because they are corrupting the rest of our societies with their gun-gun ignorance. What can we do to stop them?

I have considered the possibility of some program to introduce them to the martial arts when they are young and impressionable. I know that those of us who have trained at some time in our lives are given an inner confidence which makes it unnecessary for us to have big handguns as an extension of our manhood. Perhaps if these little tykes are not taken to the range and had handguns stuck in their little hands at a young age, they would grow up as normal peaceloving individuals who would feel pity for an old man getting needlessly killed with a gun. An introduction to one of the martial arts could maybe be a useful substitute.

Your ideas? While I'm sure your description of the killing progression may in fact fit a very small percentage of gun owners, it certainly doesn't fit the personalities of the gun owners I know. First: I have been a hunter since I was about 10, I have "NEVER" killed an animal that didn't end up on the dinner table, Rats excluded. Unless you are a vegetarian you are complicit in the killing of animals.

I didn't notice his stuff about the "killing progression." The thing is that the killing progression is true, however not in the way he implies. Most boys I knew with BB guns did the same that shrub did--shoot targets, then progress to shooting a bird, then feeling somewhat guilty, not because the progression was happening, but because the bird's death was a waste. If that had been a squirrel's death, and (as it was at the turn of the century) it ended up in the frying pan, that feeling wouldn't have been guilt, but pride in providing for the family. The next step would be either killing more squirrels, again in providing, or maybe killing a deer. Serial killers (which of course, is what shrub is implying that all hunters really are, at least down deep in our psyches), however, don't fit this theory. They never get to the useful killing stage, and are derailed in the killing for kicks stage. In the hunter (not the serial killer) progression, meat hunting is followed by selective hunting, either for trophies or for game management (i.e. not shooting just any animal but a particular animal for a particular reason). My point is that progression is natural, but the problem is not that people learn to kill animals, but that they don't learn the proper context for such, which is in being useful and providing.

[Onevote]

perdidochas wrote: Onevote wrote: shrub buster wrote: britboy (and other decent people)- You are absolutely right, it was manslaughter at the least and probably murder. In fact by the description you give, it sounds like it could have been premeditated murder because the woman seems to have thought out exactly how she would handle a situation such as that. I think in Canada she would not have been celebrated as a hero and probably been charged with manslaughter instead.

I don't know if your intent in posting this story was to bring out the hate of the gun-gun people here but it certainly has served that purpose. They will invariably comment on the happiness they feel at hearing of the gun related death of some person. They will never look at the bigger picture as you have so wisely done and then feel compassion for some poor old guy who was probably destitute and needed some money or had a drug related illness which caused him to resort to crime.

Those people who express their glee about the death of the old man are expressing their own pent up hate. But they are IMO also secretly wishing it could have been them that did the killing. This is primarily the reason why they have their guns and they carry them around and show them off to their friends. When they go to their shooting ranges they wouldn't even stay and enjoy their sport if it wasn't for them having an audience of other shooters all showing off their big guns. I know this is true because I have been part of the way there to some degree. When I was young I had a bb gun and I shot at targets with it. Soon this wasn't enough and there was a need to kill something, such as a little birdie or a rodent. I killed a little bird and then it struck me that this was not leading in the right direction. I think if I hadn't come to my senses at that point, I would perhaps have graduated to bigger animals as the sickness progressed in me. I thank my lucky stars that I had enough smarts to give up the guns then. I think they're all the same and most of them graduate to larger animals which don't have a chance of fighting back against their guns. I think this makes them feel powerful. Some need to graduate to people before they truly feel like full comlete men.

I post here because I think that we must start to do something to change them. Not because I could care less if they all shot each other but because they are corrupting the rest of our societies with their gun-gun ignorance. What can we do to stop them?

I have considered the possibility of some program to introduce them to the martial arts when they are young and impressionable. I know that those of us who have trained at some time in our lives are given an inner confidence which makes it unnecessary for us to have big handguns as an extension of our manhood. Perhaps if these little tykes are not taken to the range and had handguns stuck in their little hands at a young age, they would grow up as normal peaceloving individuals who would feel pity for an old man getting needlessly killed with a gun. An introduction to one of the martial arts could maybe be a useful substitute.

Your ideas? While I'm sure your description of the killing progression may in fact fit a very small percentage of gun owners, it certainly doesn't fit the personalities of the gun owners I know. First: I have been a hunter since I was about 10, I have "NEVER" killed an animal that didn't end up on the dinner table, Rats excluded. Unless you are a vegetarian you are complicit in the killing of animals.

I didn't notice his stuff about the "killing progression." The thing is that the killing progression is true, however not in the way he implies. Most boys I knew with BB guns did the same that shrub did--shoot targets, then progress to shooting a bird, then feeling somewhat guilty, not because the progression was happening, but because the bird's death was a waste. If that had been a squirrel's death, and (as it was at the turn of the century) it ended up in the frying pan, that feeling wouldn't have been guilt, but pride in providing for the family. The next step would be either killing more squirrels, again in providing, or maybe killing a deer. Serial killers (which of course, is what shrub is implying that all hunters really are, at least down deep in our psyches), however, don't fit this theory. They never get to the useful killing stage, and are derailed in the killing for kicks stage. In the hunter (not the serial killer) progression, meat hunting is followed by selective hunting, either for trophies or for game management (i.e. not shooting just any animal but a particular animal for a particular reason). My point is that progression is natural, but the problem is not that people learn to kill animals, but that they don't learn the proper context for such, which is in being useful and providing. I can buy the progression to larger animals, as is typicaly the case as a hunter improves his skill. It's the part of feeling somehow powerfull due to the kill or the need to kill a human to satisfy some sort of feeling of dominance. I was taught to hunt with the expectation that nothing should ever be killed for sport.

here is a story for the bunny huggers: I own a auto repair shop, that sits very close to an alley. On the other side of the alley is a small apartment complex. They have a dumpster sitting no more than 20' from the rear door to the shop, as a result we get these big rats that manage to get into the shop all the damn time. these suckers eat everything, including the engine harness of the cars we are trying to repair. As a result I keep a 10 shot Co2, BB gun around to shoot them with. here is the thing, the fact that they are there doesn't bother me at all and if it were only that they were present and not that they were so destructive, I would leave them alone. I.E I wouldn't even shoot a damn Rat unless I had to.

[shrub buster]

I think most of you are smart enough to figure out where this is going by now. At least one of you admits that he wouldn't shoot the old man if it wasn't necessary. And that one thinks that if somebody shoots another person and kills the other person when it is not necessary, then the shooter is mentally unbalanced, insane, etc. in some way. That is undoubtedly correct and I think everyone agrees. So in the scenario which britboy lays out for us, it appears that the lady shot and killed the old man unnecessarily.

So we have established that it is legal to shoot and kill somone if they are on your property and are robbing you. (In the U.S.) (I think we have established that) But it is obviously not necessary to shoot and kill a person just because the law says you can. Therefore, can we be safe in saying that the lady used undue force and killed the old man unnecessarily? Can we now conclude that she was suffering from some form of mental illness? And if we can conclude that, can we now say that those who applaud the shooting and killing of the old man are perhaps stricken with the same mental illness as the lady in the store?

Once again: Does anyone still applaud the lady's actions? Would anyone here do the same thing if they were in a situation where they didn't have to shoot and kill a person? And if any admit that they would because they were legally allowed by the law to do so, should the rest of us consider that person as being mentally ill to some degree?

Let's deal with the scenario as laid out and not attempt to change it in any way. It may not be the exact scenario but it surely is indicative of some shooting in the U.S. and the public reaction to them. That kind of killing is applauded by many because they don't take the time to think that it was a waste of a human life for no good and valid reason. It was possibly hate motivated along with the knowledge that it was a legal thing to do. And it has added to the huge number of gun related deaths that occur in the U.S. which is far in excess of most other modern industrial countries. And perhaps it wouldn't have happened at all if som many people didn't have handguns. I'm almost certain that it wouldn't have happened that way in Canada for that exact reason.

Anyh comments so far handgunners?

[Jefferson]

CrossEyedMary wrote: britboy wrote: I was watching one of these 'Police Camera Action' programs on telly yesterday .. it had some CCTV footage.

What happened is this guy comes into this convenience store carrying a knife and asks for the cash. She gave him the cash. They he turned and started trying to run out of the store. No way! This woman had used the 'panic' button to lock the store door.

She then calmly picks up a revolver from behind the desk, as this bloke is trying to kick through the door she has locked to desperately get away, and she shot the guy through his spine, and out through the chest. The guy died instantly.

Now the thing was that this show was saying she was a hero, the town had given her a medal, and she was the main deal. The sheriff was laughing about it on telly. She was saying this bravado s**t 'No-one messes w' me or my business'. WHAT??

Now -- I personally would have locked her up for a very long time. This was murder or at best manslaughter. The guy was trying to run away with his stash, he had no intension to cause her any more grief (that night). She forced him to stay there, then blew him away. Now the poor old desperate man is dead. And she has absolutely no fear of facing any kind of punishment whatsoever.

What's your take on this?
I probably wouldn't have shot, but that's not to say I pity the man.

You got things all backward.

I pitty all his previous crime victims. A person just does not do this, if this was his first time, I guarantee you that he has done much more before graduating to this.

If the shooter goes to jail. So be it. If she goes free, so be it too, but this thief does not get my sympathy, he is scum. Why do you feel sorry for scum? Do you agree with me that there are many previous victims before this incident? Then he is scum, right?

[Jefferson]

[quote="shrub buster"]That kind of killing is applauded by many because they don't take the time to think that it was a waste of a human life for no good and valid reason.[quote]

Once you learn that there are some animals that walk this earth on two legs and human skin, you will get over that concept I quote you above.

Try this little experiment:

Look into the eyes of any criminal that has been in prison for more than 5 years for violent crime. Record your thoughts.

These are mine:

This creature is not human. It makes human sounds, moves like a human, and looks human; but it is not human. There is no thought in it's brain other obtaining gratification in the next 30 minutes. There is no planning or thought to anything beyond then next 30 minutes. It has intelligence, but no humanity. This creature will kill you if it though it could get away with it, do it easily, and give him some pleasure.

[Onevote]

shrub buster wrote: I think most of you are smart enough to figure out where this is going by now. At least one of you admits that he wouldn't shoot the old man if it wasn't necessary. And that one thinks that if somebody shoots another person and kills the other person when it is not necessary, then the shooter is mentally unbalanced, insane, etc. in some way. That is undoubtedly correct and I think everyone agrees. So in the scenario which britboy lays out for us, it appears that the lady shot and killed the old man unnecessarily.

So we have established that it is legal to shoot and kill somone if they are on your property and are robbing you. (In the U.S.) (I think we have established that) But it is obviously not necessary to shoot and kill a person just because the law says you can. Therefore, can we be safe in saying that the lady used undue force and killed the old man unnecessarily? Can we now conclude that she was suffering from some form of mental illness? And if we can conclude that, can we now say that those who applaud the shooting and killing of the old man are perhaps stricken with the same mental illness as the lady in the store?

Once again: Does anyone still applaud the lady's actions? Would anyone here do the same thing if they were in a situation where they didn't have to shoot and kill a person? And if any admit that they would because they were legally allowed by the law to do so, should the rest of us consider that person as being mentally ill to some degree?

Let's deal with the scenario as laid out and not attempt to change it in any way. It may not be the exact scenario but it surely is indicative of some shooting in the U.S. and the public reaction to them. That kind of killing is applauded by many because they don't take the time to think that it was a waste of a human life for no good and valid reason. It was possibly hate motivated along with the knowledge that it was a legal thing to do. And it has added to the huge number of gun related deaths that occur in the U.S. which is far in excess of most other modern industrial countries. And perhaps it wouldn't have happened at all if som many people didn't have handguns. I'm almost certain that it wouldn't have happened that way in Canada for that exact reason.

Anyh comments so far handgunners? If it happens that she shot the robber in the back, then I would say she did the wrong thing. But let's keep one thing in mind, she was just robbed at knife point! Most of the time when something like this happens the scenario plays out something like this. Give me your F#@@ing money or I'll slit your F#@king throat! while holding out the knife in a threatening manner. If you have ever had anything like this happen to you then you know the situation becomes surreal. Adrenaline kicks in the heart races in most cases the mind goes cuckoo for a moment. I would think this would be even more prevalent in a female facing a man that could more than likely beat the crap out of her with or without a knife. Insane? probably not! Bad judgment, yes! she would be Charged with Manslaughter, in most States!

[lilwolf]

I'd say she's a pretty good shot and buy her another box of ammo. Dirt bag robs people and intends to get away. I kinda figure he threatens me and when he's done, I'm not dead. Then in my book the SOB made a bad mistake. He left me alive. She capped his happy butt. Bravo.
No more victims. One less dirt bag that tax payers have to support and one less person gets hurt ..... :lol:

[TNBiologist]

shrub buster wrote: I think most of you are smart enough to figure out where this is going by now. At least one of you admits that he wouldn't shoot the old man if it wasn't necessary. And that one thinks that if somebody shoots another person and kills the other person when it is not necessary, then the shooter is mentally unbalanced, insane, etc. in some way. That is undoubtedly correct and I think everyone agrees. So in the scenario which britboy lays out for us, it appears that the lady shot and killed the old man unnecessarily.

So we have established that it is legal to shoot and kill somone if they are on your property and are robbing you. (In the U.S.) (I think we have established that) But it is obviously not necessary to shoot and kill a person just because the law says you can. Therefore, can we be safe in saying that the lady used undue force and killed the old man unnecessarily? Can we now conclude that she was suffering from some form of mental illness? And if we can conclude that, can we now say that those who applaud the shooting and killing of the old man are perhaps stricken with the same mental illness as the lady in the store?

No we cannot say the lady was using undo force because none of us were there and we do not have anything but a TV show to go off of. We cannot conclude she was suffering from some form of mental illness because as far as we know she has not been examined by a professional (if you believ in the phsyco-babble bullsh*t) sense someone in that situation is liable to be suffering from shock/extreme fear/etc.. We cannot conclude that those you appluaded her for defending herself (myself included) are suffering from a mental desease/defect.

Quote: Once again: Does anyone still applaud the lady's actions? Would anyone here do the same thing if they were in a situation where they didn't have to shoot and kill a person? And if any admit that they would because they were legally allowed by the law to do so, should the rest of us consider that person as being mentally ill to some degree?

Yes, I still applaude this ladies ladies actions for taking a stand and not letting herself be victimized. I would not kill unless I had to but I cannot speak of the mindset of the lady that was robbed. She may have felt the need to disarm/demobalize her attacker even after he had turned. No, I would not assume anyone that did kill in "iffy" situations such as the one talked about were mentally ill because the law (at least here) states that I can use "deadly force" if I am in "fear of great bodily harm" and I cannot state what anothers state of mind concerning fear for themselves. If taken to trail on these exact circumstances a jury may find her guilty but that is for the courts to decide. Either way I still applaude her actions if they were motivated by fear.

Quote: Let's deal with the scenario as laid out and not attempt to change it in any way. It may not be the exact scenario but it surely is indicative of some shooting in the U.S. and the public reaction to them. That kind of killing is applauded by many because they don't take the time to think that it was a waste of a human life for no good and valid reason. It was possibly hate motivated along with the knowledge that it was a legal thing to do. And it has added to the huge number of gun related deaths that occur in the U.S. which is far in excess of most other modern industrial countries. And perhaps it wouldn't have happened at all if som many people didn't have handguns. I'm almost certain that it wouldn't have happened that way in Canada for that exact reason.

Anyh comments so far handgunners?

Some deaths from handguns "may" be eliminated if handguns were harder to buy for the average citizens but I speculate that these deaths that "may" be saved would be in cases such as the above, where a citizen uses a handgun to protect life/property. A criminal is not going to go to the trouble of buying a handgun legally where they have to complete a purchase form, show ID, get thumprinted, and have am FBI background check run on them (if they could pass). I also noticed something about Canada, some of your citizens have come to thier senses and voted for the conservative party with a strong platform to do away with the long-gun registry. Ya'll north of the border have taken a step in the right (no pun intended) direction and hopefully it will continue until you get some of your freedoms back.

[airo]

I think Shrub fails to realize that a human life was waster long before that poor, pathetic, apathy-deserving man ever set foot inside that store.

[Wolverine]

shrub buster wrote: perdid- I was speaking more of the personal insults flung at me by airo, but you are also demonstrating some bottled up anger toward me. I don't think it is necessary and it really has no effect on me and what I will say here.
That usually happens when you either:
A. Come across as arrogant and looking down upon the patriots.
B. Don;t know what you are talking about
C. Think we are out to kill everyone
D. All of the above

Quote: Yes, I understand fully that killing is an instinct. But you should understand that it is one of the baser instincts that can be fulfilled in ways which don't do harm to others. We as modern humans have given up many of our baser instincts in the interest of our fellow man. Warring is also an instinct of our species but that doesn't mean that we should continue to practice it with wars against other innocent people. <b>Do you realize that what you are saying here is that killing of one's own species is an instinct that should be practiced?</b> In not so many words but surely this is what you are conveying.
Tell the crminals that if they stop robbing houses, they stop dieing. Its very simple, protecting the agrressors is not the way to fix things.

Quote: But do you kill out of need? No, you don't and very, very few hunters do. You kill for sport and I suspect that the actual event of killing an animal is an anticlimax for you.
You are speaking from assumption, this tells me you do not know a thing about firearms or even hunting. Please, save your reputation and tell me I am wrong.

Quote: You have killed and now you want somebody to witness the kill or you want somebody to see your kill. Can you be honest enough to admit that you don't feel a sense of accomplishment for the sake of the meat that it is going to provide you. Can you be honest enough to say that I am right about your need to demonstrate your manhood to others in the fact that you are capable of hunting down an animal and killing it. Let's concentrate on that first and then we will get into it deeper for you.
Its called prise, the bigger the animal, the more points is worth. Yes, there is a point system for deer and elk.

Quote: Or- If all you are feeling is anger toward me then perhaps we shouldn't continue to talk to each other. I think it's a longshot that I can help you on a talk forum because you will be hesitant to reveal your true feelings. I am willing to try though, but more importantly,
Why not allow us to fix your paranoia of inanimate objects eh?

This is a gun.


Notice how it is not shooting anyone.

Quote: I think I want to concentrate more on substitutes for your need to have your handguns. For the betterment and the interests of all.
Self-defense.

Quote: Yes, I agree with you that no sane person would wish to kill another person. Those who wish to kill another person are truly insane to some degree.
Not really no. Self-defense is a natural right, it would be insane to allow another person to violate your own rights for the sake of protecting his. What you are saying by doing that is that your life, liberty, and property is worht less than the criminals rights.

Quote: So my question to you is: If you were in the position of the woman in the store who killed the old man, what would you have done. Would you have let him run out the door and get away or would you have locked the door so he couldn't escape and then point your gun at him and kill him? Tell me because this is critical to the conversation and is dead on topic!
He wasn't getting out, I wouldn't shoot him. I would hold him at gun point until the police arrived.

Quote: This is what is so attractive about this topic. She didn't need to kill the old man because he was running away. Why did she kill him? I know that in your country she probably had a right to kill him and I know that you may think he deserved to be killed, as others here on this thread have made clear, but why did she do it?
Cause' he stole from her? What country are you from?

Quote: think you are attempting to shrug this off as bull because it is causing you some discomfort and inconvenience. Now that you have admitted that you would not shoot the old man down in coldblood, you need to start considering why the lady did so.
Lets use some common sense ok? Why would the door lock the criminals inside the store exactly?

Quote: I think britboy chose the topic very wisely and was asking for someone to carry the obvious questions to their logical conclusions. So just disregard for now whether or not you think it's 'bull' and take it for a real factual story.
The media is hardly the best place to get your facts.

Quote: Indeed we are making progress, even though you fervently wish that we don't!
What is this progress you speak of? I am still pro-gun as I was this morning, I am still a Libertarian, and I still think you do not know what you are talking about.

Quote: So we have established that it is legal to shoot and kill somone if they are on your property and are robbing you. (In the U.S.) (I think we have established that) But it is obviously not necessary to shoot and kill a person just because the law says you can.
Of course not, but I do not see a single reason for laws that protect the rights of criminals.

Quote: Therefore, can we be safe in saying that the lady used undue force and killed the old man unnecessarily?
Nope.

Quote: Can we now conclude that she was suffering from some form of mental illness?
Nope.

Quote: And if we can conclude that, can we now say that those who applaud the shooting and killing of the old man are perhaps stricken with the same mental illness as the lady in the store?
Nope.

Quote: Once again: Does anyone still applaud the lady's actions?
Yep.

Quote: Would anyone here do the same thing if they were in a situation where they didn't have to shoot and kill a person?
Nope.

Quote: And if any admit that they would because they were legally allowed by the law to do so, should the rest of us consider that person as being mentally ill to some degree?
Nope.

Quote: And perhaps it wouldn't have happened at all if som many people didn't have handguns. I'm almost certain that it wouldn't have happened that way in Canada for that exact reason.
You are right, she should have blown a hole the size of a plate in him with a shotgun. Gotcha. :ok:

Quote: Anyh comments so far handgunners?
I do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

[Thrilla]

britboy wrote: I was watching one of these 'Police Camera Action' programs on telly yesterday .. it had some CCTV footage.

What happened is this guy comes into this convenience store carrying a knife and asks for the cash. She gave him the cash. They he turned and started trying to run out of the store. No way! This woman had used the 'panic' button to lock the store door.

She then calmly picks up a revolver from behind the desk, as this bloke is trying to kick through the door she has locked to desperately get away, and she shot the guy through his spine, and out through the chest. The guy died instantly.

Now the thing was that this show was saying she was a hero, the town had given her a medal, and she was the main deal. The sheriff was laughing about it on telly. She was saying this bravado s**t 'No-one messes w' me or my business'. WHAT??

Now -- I personally would have locked her up for a very long time. This was murder or at best manslaughter. The guy was trying to run away with his stash, he had no intension to cause her any more grief (that night). She forced him to stay there, then blew him away. Now the poor old desperate man is dead. And she has absolutely no fear of facing any kind of punishment whatsoever.

What's your take on this? the laws for using deadly force differ from state to state... but the differences are normally minimal.

technically.. this lady is in the right.... she has the power and authority to detain a criminal .....which she did by locking the doors.... she also has the power and authority to defend her person by using deadly force ... which she did as well.
acting within the law , she created a scenario in which deadly force is authorized..... "acting within the law" being the key phrase.

the lady was right.. the Sheriff was right not to charge her... and it was a bad day for the criminal.... good riddance

[shrub buster]

biologist- IMO you alone have provided some remarks that are worth my time responding to. The rest just demonstrated anger and frustration.

You said: "No we cannot say the lady was using undo force because none of us were there and we do not have anything but a TV show to go off of. We cannot conclude she was suffering from some form of mental illness because as far as we know she has not been examined by a professional (if you believ in the phsyco-babble bullsh*t) sense someone in that situation is liable to be suffering from shock/extreme fear/etc.. We cannot conclude that those you appluaded her for defending herself (myself included) are suffering from a mental desease/defect."

I asked you to accept the scenario as laid out and as we understood it at that point. That was in the interest of examining it for the purpose of this discussion. Therefore I will continue to do so. So I repeat, 'if' undue force was used then I think it's safe to say that you wouldn't applaud her actions because you yourself wouldn't use undue force and kill a person when it wasn't necessary. This is a simple concept I'm asking you to understand and the reason I ask it is because I am in the process of illustrating some basic facts to you. And I think that if we accept the scenario which could have been factually told and indeed does happen in that manner quite frequently, then it's not going to do any harm to consider it as such. Just keep in mind that for the moment I am questioning the reasoning of those who appear to be saying that they would do the same as the lady even though it wasn't necessary and they would do it gleefully if we read them right. Therefore I am going to conclude that a person who kills unnecessarily is suffering from some kind of mental defect. I wouldn't do it and I assume from what you have said so far that you wouldn't either.

You said: "Yes, I still applaude this ladies ladies actions for taking a stand and not letting herself be victimized. I would not kill unless I had to but I cannot speak of the mindset of the lady that was robbed. She may have felt the need to disarm/demobalize her attacker even after he had turned. No, I would not assume anyone that did kill in "iffy" situations such as the one talked about were mentally ill because the law (at least here) states that I can use "deadly force" if I am in "fear of great bodily harm" and I cannot state what anothers state of mind concerning fear for themselves. If taken to trail on these exact circumstances a jury may find her guilty but that is for the courts to decide. Either way I still applaude her actions if they were motivated by fear."

Again I have to ask you to consider the scenario as laid as being accurate. The old man tried to get out the door and escape and he was shot dead. This in all fairness does lead one to believe that the killing was not necessary and indeed as you (someone) stated, she would be tried for manslaughter in most states. Most certainly in Canada if it was found to be not a necessary killing. I think you may not accept this easily but the law is the law and there are good reasons for our laws. We portend to be civilized human beings and some of us even claim to be Christians.

I'll repeat my words here for continuity: Let's deal with the scenario as laid out and not attempt to change it in any way. It may not be the exact scenario but it surely is indicative of some shooting in the U.S. and the public reaction to them. That kind of killing is applauded by many because they don't take the time to think that it was a waste of a human life for no good and valid reason. It was possibly hate motivated along with the knowledge that it was a legal thing to do. And it has added to the huge number of gun related deaths that occur in the U.S. which is far in excess of most other modern industrial countries. And perhaps it wouldn't have happened at all if som many people didn't have handguns. I'm almost certain that it wouldn't have happened that way in Canada for that exact reason.

You said: "Some deaths from handguns "may" be eliminated if handguns were harder to buy for the average citizens but I speculate that these deaths that "may" be saved would be in cases such as the above, where a citizen uses a handgun to protect life/property. A criminal is not going to go to the trouble of buying a handgun legally where they have to complete a purchase form, show ID, get thumprinted, and have am FBI background check run on them (if they could pass)."

I will rely on the statistics for the U.S. and it's horrendous number of gun related deaths. Canada doesn't have near as many handguns floating around and therefore there are far fewer shootings. Therefoe I urge you to rethink your speculations and offer another reason for why lives may be saved. The statistics don't lie and they don't lie about the rest of the countries where the shootings are far less than in your country. Why do I care? I have told you that I care because your handguns are leading over the border to Canada and we are experiencing a rise in handgun violence.

YOu said: " I also noticed something about Canada, some of your citizens have come to thier senses and voted for the conservative party with a strong platform to do away with the long-gun registry. Ya'll north of the border have taken a step in the right (no pun intended) direction and hopefully it will continue until you get some of your freedoms back."

In fact Canadians probably have more freedoms than do Americans, and especially noticably so since the inception of your patriot act. In can think of no areas where we have less. In fact we have the freedom to go out of our homes at night and not have to worry about getting shot. The statistics in your country tell me that you don't in a lot of cases.

But we are leaving the topic at hand and I really would ask that you don't do that yet.

[shrub buster]

Jefferson, lil wolf, thrilla, etc. - IMO you are all demonstrating the kind of behaviour I would expect from those of your persuasions who carry guns and don't understand completely why they need to do so. Nothing any of you has said has added anything to the topic of gun control. In fact lil wolf changes his avatar to demonstrate his frustration at the mere thought of someone attempting to carry on a conversation which is not consistent with his beliefs.

Why do all you people bother to post here if you have no interest in gun control? Are you all afraid that you will learn some unpleasant truths that will make you uncomfortable with your gun-gun mentality? I suggest that you all try responding with politeness and civility if you want to be taken more seriously.