Oikos university shooting

[martyrdrebel27]

people, as americans our guns are (optimistically for a single purpose only) for the rise up and revolution against our government should the need arise. when the founding fathers were writing their new government, they realized that any institution is succeptable to tyranny and therefor must be overthrown. jefferson himself said this same thing. they realized that without the freedom to bear arms, they would have never been able to overthrow their oppressors, and realized in the future we may need that again.

so guns are out there, for better or worse. part of being in a free society is willingness to give up a little bit of safety. yes, we could be "safer" if guns were illegal, but we wouldn't be free. so our freedom costs us absolute safety. but even that safety is an illusion. hand held automatics (uzi's and whatnot) are illegal to own, but criminals still obtain and use them.

yes, occasionally things like this happen, but fucking deal with it, because the alternative is too orwellian for any of to support.

viva la revolution.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

stun gun, pepper spray, rape whistle, yelling. all methods that are non lethal and carry far less risk than a gun, not only that they also work just as well or better.

americas mind set on this issue is what one can only describe as fucked up. most of the developed world realised guns in the hands of civilians only makes things worse a long long time ago. just like with health care, when it comes to guns america is the retard of the developed world, they are just really slow to get it.

Right. Because if you use one of THOSE methods, it's sure to stop them. But a bullet in their chest? That'll just make 'em angry and escalate the situation!

No offense, but I'll stick with my guns, kay? (Also, that "Kay" was rhetorical)

As I said before, there's no sign that gun control is going to change any time soon, skippy. It's been four years since Heller. Your side lost. Move on.

Also, let me let you in on a little secret: One of the most fun part of using/owning guns is how much it pisses some people off. Not saying that you are one such person, but I will say there are a few on this forum who gave me glee when I shot my carbine for the first time.

 

[Darknacht]

Oh yeah, I forgot about that thought process of "break the law you are nothing but scum in a pond". Most human life is worth more than whatever you own in your home, especially if you can get all that stuff back for nothing.

Correct. *Most* human life. As in Folks who are able to go about their day without making victims of their fellow man. Of course what you fail to consider is that 'whatever you own' in your home also includes the lives and safety of yourself and your loved ones. Now life insurance exists, sure, but I somehow doubt it will quite cover the loss of your spouse or child.

When I say most, I mean the real scum ... not the guy who stole your $10 wallet with $20 inside, your phone and your ipod. I mean the guy who shot up the island in Norway (I think), the people who sell sex slaves or Fritzl.

When a person breaks into your house what do you think they are interested in? Your life or what you have? The only reason I can think of that a robber would take a life is if you confront him/her.

Which is why they say if you are mugged in the street don't hand your wallet over, throw it left and run right or vice versa.

Killing for possessions makes you just as bad as them.

So you should not be allowed to defend your self?
What about women, if they are attacked by a rapist should they just rollover and take it because it not worth killing someone to stop it?
Please tell me what you think you should be allowed to kill to defend your self from, or do you believe that you should just let people do anything they want to you?

stun gun, pepper spray, rape whistle, yelling. all methods that are non lethal and carry far less risk than a gun, not only that they also work just as well or better.

americas mind set on this issue is what one can only describe as fucked up. most of the developed world realised guns in the hands of civilians only makes things worse a long long time ago. just like with health care, when it comes to guns america is the retard of the developed world, they are just really slow to get it.

I know there are are other means of defending yourself and I don't own or carry a gun because I know that I can defend myself and my family in most situations with other mean, but The point was that omega 616 said that no matter the worth you should never defend you property with lethal force and I would like to know what he thinks you are allowed to defend with lethal force.

If you can successfully hold a man off with one arm, grab your gun, cock it, aim it, then fire ... I think you are a better person than me. Rape is either super fast and aggressive (maybe violent) or you get drugged, does either one sound like an easy situation to shoot a person?

I mean I assume it's super fast and aggressive with possible violence 'cos I doubt too many rapists do it gently and slowly without drugs.

Cock it what century do you live in? And that still does not answer what do you think you should be allowed to defend with lethal force?
And lots of rapist get fought off with guns, pepper spray, or tasers they all take some time to use but less time then rape.

 

[Vryyk]

They are trying to get money, they have nothing to gain from killing you. The only reason a person would be killed by them is if they try to stop them.

Be compliant and they wont do anything. It's when you start walking round like some spec ops guy, glock in hand, when shit escalates and bullets start flying.

You're making a lot of assumptions and generalizations here, I would say someone desperate enough to put a gun in my face for a few hundred might not be of the soundest mind.

Yeah, a lot of them won't execute you afterwards, but I'm the law-abiding citizen here, it shouldn't be up to the criminal to decide whether I get to live or die. Occasionally paranoid meth addicts simply shoot the guy after they get what they want around where I live, and plenty of burglaries go wrong as well. Simply put, I don't see it as my responsibility to give criminals the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, I don't believe in telling other countries what to do. You Europeans can do as you like and pass whatever laws you like concerning guns, it isn't my business. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

 

[omega 616]

They are trying to get money, they have nothing to gain from killing you. The only reason a person would be killed by them is if they try to stop them.

I have no guarantee that my money is all they're after. And if they die in the attempt they certainly won't be doing whatever they're doing to anyone else. The fact is: we'd both be fine if we both stayed home.

Now the people I used in my examples were down with that plan (staying home). So what's the problem? What makes my assailant's safety so much more important than mine?

What makes you think you are so great and awesome that the person wants to hurt you? If you are sat at home watching the TV alone, somebody kicks down your door, charges in with a gun pointed at you.

Are you going to get your gun and fire back? Get up and try to fight the guy? Or sit there and be like "yo dude, do what you gotta do then leave".

Fuck it, say you are the robber, you need to money for whatever, do you want to add murder to that list?

If they come at you and start punching and kick you, yeah defend yourself but fighting fire with fire only leads to a bigger fire.

You and the rest of the pro gun peeps are the reason I wont ever go to the USA, the most aggressive place I know of. I mean your last line there "What makes my assailant's safety so much more important than mine?" Judge, jury and executioner over here.

No wonder you have people saying video games cause violence, y'all sound like a bunch of blood thirsty psychos. You just automatically assume they want to hurt or kill you.

 

[Darknacht]

No wonder you have people saying video games cause violence, y'all sound like a bunch of blood thirsty psychos. You just automatically assume they want to hurt or kill you.

Its not that we assume that they want to kill us its that we know that people are illogical and unpredictable you don't know what they are going to do. You think you know what people are going to do all of the time, we don't make that assumption.

 

[Vryyk]

And that still does not answer what do you think you should be allowed to defend with lethal force?

If he gives you an honest answer he'll say "nothing", the civilian populace is so entirely defanged and powerless over there I don't think most Europeans even understand the concept of self-defense anymore. They basically just have to hope the criminals are feeling generous and the police are being competent, the right to protect your life is squarely out of your hands in most European countries.

 

[omega 616]

Why do you need to use lethal force? It's so action movie! "shoot first, ask questions later".

Fine turn the safety off, never touched a gun ... how the fuck would I know?

I would say if you super seriously had to kill another person, it would be if he was SERIOUSLY hurting a person. I mean hitting him with a baseball bat or doing some serious, serious damage somehow.

They are trying to get money, they have nothing to gain from killing you. The only reason a person would be killed by them is if they try to stop them.

Be compliant and they wont do anything. It's when you start walking round like some spec ops guy, glock in hand, when shit escalates and bullets start flying.

You're making a lot of assumptions and generalizations here, I would say someone desperate enough to put a gun in my face for a few hundred might not be of the soundest mind.

Yeah, a lot of them won't execute you afterwards, but I'm the law-abiding citizen here, it shouldn't be up to the criminal to decide whether I get to live or die. Occasionally paranoid meth addicts simply shoot the guy after they get what they want around where I live, and plenty of burglaries go wrong as well. Simply put, I don't see it as my responsibility to give criminals the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, I don't believe in telling other countries what to do. You Europeans can do as you like and pass whatever laws you like concerning guns, it isn't my business. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

Yeah 'cos the assumptions and generalizations like "I have no guarantee that my money is all they're after" are ok. Just read some of the pro gun things and all of them say the exact same thing, kill him before he hurts me.

There are others like "he's in my house, he must be killed" or "he is breaking the law, he must be killed" attitude, like 0 to extreme in no time at all.

You assume they will kill 'cos it has happened before? And you say "I am making a lot of assumptions and generalizations here".

Just look at the hypocrisy of your first line, you talk about "making a lot of assumptions and generalizations" and then immediately make one!

Its not that we assume that they want to kill us its that we know that people are illogical and unpredictable you don't know what they are going to do. You think you know what people are going to do all of the time, we don't make that assumption.

So it's just "fuck 'em all, let god sort them out"?

No trying to diffuse the situation or whatever, just "must kill law breaker"?

Who the fuck needs police!?

 

[Darknacht]

Its not that we assume that they want to kill us its that we know that people are illogical and unpredictable you don't know what they are going to do. You think you know what people are going to do all of the time, we don't make that assumption.

So it's just "fuck 'em all, let god sort them out"?

No trying to diffuse the situation or whatever, just "must kill law breaker"?

Who the fuck needs police!?

No, what ever god you believe in has nothing to do with it, and I did not say killing should ever be the first resort it should be the last, I'm saying that I would not simply rollover and let rapists/murderers/thieves do what ever they want to me and my family. And if there is a police officer there to take care of it then I would of course then them deal with it, I'm just not going to hope that the cops just happen to show up.
I would still like to know what you think should be allowed to be defended with lethal force.

 

[senordesol]

What makes you think you are so great and awesome that the person wants to hurt you? If you are sat at home watching the TV alone, somebody kicks down your door, charges in with a gun pointed at you.

Are you going to get your gun and fire back? Get up and try to fight the guy? Or sit there and be like "yo dude, do what you gotta do then leave".

Fuck it, say you are the robber, you need to money for whatever, do you want to add murder to that list?

If they come at you and start punching and kick you, yeah defend yourself but fighting fire with fire only leads to a bigger fire.

You and the rest of the pro gun peeps are the reason I wont ever go to the USA, the most aggressive place I know of. I mean your last line there "What makes my assailant's safety so much more important than mine?" Judge, jury and executioner over here.

No wonder you have people saying video games cause violence, y'all sound like a bunch of blood thirsty psychos. You just automatically assume they want to hurt or kill you.

Blood thirsty you say. Interesting. Strange even, since I am not breaking into the homes of others to threaten them or their families. But I'm the blood thirsty one... somehow.

Okay. So if someone has a gun drawn and pointed at my face before I can even react; owning a gun or not owning one doesn't matter. So I don't know what you're trying to prove with that scenario as the only way to resolve it would be without my firearm.

As to a thief's motivations; well since he did not send me any sort of written notice beforehand of what his intentions are, whether or not he'd be willing to add murder to his wrap sheet (if he hasn't already) is beyond my power to guess. Seems like it'd be a foolish thing to do, yes, but then I wouldn't call kicking in someone's door all that intelligent either. All I know is he's willing to break multiple laws just by being here, why not more?

If giving him the benefit of the doubt can get you killed, why risk it? What sense does it make? I'm no judge, jury, or executioner. I am not dispensing 'justice'. I am a man just trying to defend my home from an assailant of unknown intent.

Now just to be 100% clear. If I do not feel my life is in danger, then there is no need to kill anyone -I'll agree with that. If he bolts or surrenders, then he's now the police's problem. But I'm not going to stake my life or the lives of my loved ones on the assumption that he's no threat to me. No sir.

No, I am not blood thirsty. I value life. I sincerely hope I never have to take one. But NO ONE gets to threaten me. NO ONE gets to threaten my wife. NO ONE gets to threaten my children. Because I value our lives a Hell of a lot more than anyone else's. If that's too 'aggressive' for your European sensibilities...Hell, maybe we should start sending our criminals over there.

 

[Belaam]

guns are not the problem people are the problem and the sooner anti-gun people realise this the better

People with guns are the problem.

It is absurd that we license and register drivers and cars but not shooters and guns.

I say this as a veteran with a marksmanship ribbon who hunts, if you're curious.

 

[Darknacht]

guns are not the problem people are the problem and the sooner anti-gun people realise this the better

People with guns are the problem.

It is absurd that we license and register drivers and cars but not shooters and guns.

I say this as a veteran with a marksmanship ribbon who hunts, if you're curious.

This is true, I don't think guns should be banned but they should defiantly be licensed and registered in all cases.

 

[Vryyk]

Yeah 'cos the assumptions and generalizations like "I have no guarantee that my money is all they're after" are ok. Just read some of the pro gun things and all of them say the exact same thing, kill him before he hurts me.

There are others like "he's in my house, he must be killed" or "he is breaking the law, he must be killed" attitude, like 0 to extreme in no time at all.

You assume they will kill 'cos it has happened before? And you say "I am making a lot of assumptions and generalizations here".

Just look at the hypocrisy of your first line, you talk about "making a lot of assumptions and generalizations" and then immediately make one!

The difference between which is ok to make assumptions on is pretty obvious.

If someone puts a gun in my face and demands my money, and I assume they are only going to rob me and leave, and that assumption is wrong, I die, or put another way, a criminal murders an innocent person.

If someone puts a gun in my face and demands my money, and I assume they might kill me during or after the robbery and I shoot them, they die, or put another way, an intended victim kills a criminal, potentially saving his own life and preserving his rightfully owned property.

I still don't see why a violent criminal should get to decide whether or not I get to continue living, your argument that criminals are sane, levelheaded individuals who will calmly take only your money, tip their hats and bid you good day approaches willful ignorance of criminal mentalities.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that there are many types of criminals other than robbers and muggers. Rapists often murder their victims to avoid witnesses, gangbangers in big cities practically get off on beating the hell out of random people for "gang respect" and so on.

 

[2fish]

At this point school shootings are becoming common enough they don't really register emotion in me, this is a bad thing. Both with my lack of emotional response and how many of these I get to hear about.

I do hope the families find a way to deal with this.


I do love how these threads break down into There should be no guns and guns all the way. It is almost as if there is no middle ground. Such as maybe limiting the access to guns or putting some rules in place to limit gun misuse.

Oh well I wish the cops well as they have to deal with the crazies with guns more than I ever will.

EDIT Why are these people so bad at killing people? They only ever get a few kills despite being in a building with hundreds of people.

Lack of planning

 

[Vryyk]

guns are not the problem people are the problem and the sooner anti-gun people realise this the better

People with guns are the problem.

It is absurd that we license and register drivers and cars but not shooters and guns.

I say this as a veteran with a marksmanship ribbon who hunts, if you're curious.

This is true, I don't think guns should be banned but they should defiantly be licensed and registered in all cases.

I had to have a background check done on me and had to have each of my guns registered to me when I bought them, is it different in your state?