orlando shooting

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: orlando shooting

which is still what I'm pointing out
even if they shoot at you, shooting back is an act of revenge, not justice

[Rojaf]

Re: orlando shooting

which is still what I'm pointing out
even if they shoot at you, shooting back is an act of revenge, not justice

uhhhh

it's not like you disarm the dude, have him sit there handcuffed and then shoot him.

you shoot him while he's in the middle of shooting at you/others. prevent him from continuing to kill others.

it's not revenge or justice, it's necessity.

[Arch0wl]

Re: orlando shooting

which is still what I'm pointing out
even if they shoot at you, shooting back is an act of revenge, not justice

let me ask you a question

what do you think those police officers were doing the moment they, you know, stopped him by shooting him

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: orlando shooting

@rojaf: a necessity to kill?
even out of self-defense, you're committing the same crime as the other
you're shooting someone with the intent to murder him/her

@arch0wl: yes, I also disagree with the police giving the verdict of death, rather than the judicial system
and even in case of the judicial system I am (as said before) against capital punishment and death penalty

[Reincarnate]

Re: orlando shooting

SKG: Can't tell if serious.

[Rojaf]

Re: orlando shooting

a necessity to kill?
even out of self-defense, you're committing the same crime as the other
you're shooting someone with the intent to murder him/her

not necessarily. just an intent to stop him. you can shoot him and stop the massacre without killing him.

like it or not, self defense is not a crime. every human being has the right to meet force with force to defend themselves.

pacifism is unrealistic and shortsighted.

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: orlando shooting

not necessarily. just an intent to stop him. you can shoot him and stop the massacre without killing him.

Agreed, but that is not what happened

like it or not, self defense is not a crime. every human being has the right to meet force with force to defend themselves.

But like you said just before this, you can defend yourself with an intent to stop him/her. You can defend yourself without killing him/her.

pacifism is unrealistic and shortsighted.

I'll agree with unrealistic, but not with shortsighted.

@Reincarnate: Yes, I am serious

[xVaLoRx]

Re: orlando shooting

But as you said just before this, you can defend yourself with an intent to stop him/her. You can defend yourself without killing him/her.

but where's the fun in that ??

[KLiTz]

Re: orlando shooting

Prohibition, didnt work.

The war on drugs, isnt working.

Gun control, will never work.

The common denominator in prohibition and drugs, government illegality. Yet speakeasies were commonplace and heroin abuse is through the roof. Heroin abuse especially in my state of NJ.

I dont know what the answer is for guns but what I can say is: I am a legally owning, law abiding firearm holder and you havent seen my face on the news for a shooting and never will. To say background checks and such will stop this kind of garbage is ignorant. Even if all guns were to be outlawed, someone will be selling directions on a "DIY Handgun Kit". Keeping people defenseless is the wrong way to go about it. Do all those "Gun-Free Zone" signs REALLY do much of anything? No.

Folks need to wake up. Violence isnt always the answer to violence. But a violent reaction to violence, just might be enough of a deterrent. Areas of higher gun control = more shootings. Areas with less (concealed carry etc) = less shootings.

Be a sheep or a wolf. Ill stay a wolf and be fire back if necessary.

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: orlando shooting

it's fine for people to have opposing interests
but I won't agree with them
nor will I expect it from others

[KLiTz]

Re: orlando shooting

@rojaf: a necessity to kill?
even out of self-defense, you're committing the same crime as the other
you're shooting someone with the intent to murder him/her

So in your mind shooting ONE (1) person who had intentions of killing an infinite number of people isnt justification for turning that son of a bitch into swiss cheese? You cant be serious...

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: orlando shooting

that is exactly what I am saying yes, and I am serious
nobody deserves to have their life taken from them, even if they took the lives of others

[KLiTz]

Re: orlando shooting

that is exactly what I am saying yes, and I am serious
nobody deserves to have their life taken from them, even if they took the lives of others

Hypothetically if the victims were your family. Still the same mentality?

You can honestly say that the one thing you WOULDNT want is to end that persons life, because it wasnt "fair" to them?

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: orlando shooting

what I WANT is not the justice system
we've grown out of a justice system based on our emotions

[Arch0wl]

Re: orlando shooting

ALL RULE OF LAW DEPENDS ON THE EXISTENCE OF VIOLENCE TO UPHOLD ITS ENFORCEMENT

IF I VIOLATE A FINE, AND I SAY "LOL BYE", THERE IS NO NONVIOLENT PENALTY THAT WILL EQUAL PUTTING ME IN A CONCRETE BOX (JAIL) FOR A WHILE

100% OF LAWS CANNOT BE PRACTIALLY ENFORCED WITHOUT SOME EVENTUAL SCENARIO WHERE PHYSICAL FORCE RESTRAINS THE VIOLATOR; OTHERWISE, PEOPLE WHO DO NOT CARE CAN MERELY VIOLATE THE LAW FOREVER, SINCE EVEN STANDARDS OF POVERTY ARE COMFORTABLE FOR MANY IN THE US

caps for emphasis

pacifism not only does not work, it CANNOT work when you actually map out the decision trees

TIT FOR TAT IS ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE METHODS OF ENFORCEMENT OVER MANY, MANY GAME THEORETIC SCENARIOS

https://lawrules.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/the-axelrod-tournaments/

this is like when people say spanking "leaves a lesson of [xyz]" -- the lesson is not important. that's merely a belief, and beliefs can be changed through dialogue. spanking is an enforcement mechanism like anything else. children will, or will not do something based on the consequences they imagine plausible. spanking is merely a game-theoretic decision.

as is police enforcement.

I am opposed to the death penalty too, but only because of its expense and because of the possibility of wrongly sentencing others to death. if there were sufficient legal mechanisms in place to prevent an innocent dying, and the execution method was reduced to "shoot them in the head" for budgetary reasons, I'd support it.

it is immensely probable you are operating from a fairly sheltered, first-world perspective here.

for my perspective, see this essay: https://alfredmacdonald.com/2016/06/...burning-alive/