omega 616 said:
No, it's normal to assume a robber is there to rob ... that is why they are called robbers. If they where murderers, they wouldn't rob 'cos then they would be robbers ....
Robbers are there to rob, eh? Do they come with name tags? Are they members of a pseudo-noble gentlemanly...guild -let's say- whose motto is "Take everything but a life?" Thieves never murder? Never ever? Are you sure?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video?id=8835153 (No resistance)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/queens_jury_convcits_invasion_home_0XD1CSm2DxmDVQvr6V61vK (Execution at close range)
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8604262 (Yet another)
Hmm... I guess they don't have Google where you come from, cause that took 5 minutes of research for me.
Since you are all so very fond of slippery slopes, why not be hostile to everybody? "look at that ************ holding the door for me! Better shoot that sunofa!".
I don't know where you're getting a 'slippery slope' argument. I think you're confusing that with what's referred to as a 'judgement call'. I can, however, spot a straw man when I see one. Your suggestion that my way of thinking opens the posibility of considering someone simply opening the door for me a threat is idiocy at best, pure uncut disingenuousness at its worst. The whole speciousness of it really leads me to believe that you have no real counter-argument, so you're only going to put ridiculous arguments in my mouth to make yourself appear more credible.
No, if they get caught they want the smallest prison sentence, only people who love prison want more prison time. Why opt for more prison time if all you want is cash?
Why don't you ask the men in the above examples? Why opt for prison time at all when there are legal methods of making money? And, if prison time is really a motivator, why risk it by leaving witnesses?
This just sounds bloodthirsty, which you seem to forget is an opinion. I think it is and you think the opposite, get over it! Everything all you pro gun people say just sounds like rednecks after killing a buck. Just look at how nonchalantly you say this "If he does anything remotely threatening, however, I'll have to make an appointment with Stanley Steamer Carpet Cleaners. Clear enough?".
First you complain that you never get a straight answer, then you complain when you get answered directly. What do you want? And if you're going to dust off your opinion to show it off to the general public, the least you can do is back it up with a little bit of fact, or at least knowledge as to what the hell you're actually talking about.
Hey this is your crazy country who shoots law breakers 'cos we all know that if you break the law you might want to kill a family. Look you said it yourself "Perhaps. Maybe they're willing to risk it. They're willing to risk prison time just by being in my house, that's up to them not me." just change in my house to high.
It sounds like you're trying your best to make a counter argument here, but I don't see where the disconnect should be. Are you saying I shouldn't be prepared to deal with a potential threat if it presents itself? Are you saying that I should automatically assume that the men willing to force their way into my home don't mean me any harm based on a set of statistics somewhere?
More like apples and oranges
Your lapses in logic, your eagerness to begin name calling, your self-righteous air lead me to conclude one thing: You are more afraid of a piece of machinery -an inanimate object of plastic and metal that CANNOT hurt you without outside influence- than you are of your fellow man. That?s as tragic as it is horrifying.
See, what you call ?slippery slope logic? is actually historical precedent. What you call ?bloodthirsty? is a mockery to both those who have no particular desire to kill (but are willing, if forced) and those who genuinely enjoy killing.
Your world where one can fulfill one ?and only one- particular roll is not the world that exists outside your door. You asked when a gun would be useful to civilians, I provided examples. A thwarted potential robbery, a thwarted potential murder, a thwarted potential kidnapping. All of which must be qualified with the word ?potential? because the people in those examples would rather put guns in their hands than throw themselves upon the mercy of criminals. Were the criminal attempts made in those example more innocuous in fact than as I have painted them? Perhaps. But I wouldn?t bet my life on it, and 80,000,000 of my fellow Americans seem to agree with me.
We know what our fellow man is capable of. Crack open a history book and you will be drowning in examples of atrocities, brutality, and cruelty committed without firearms. Now that does not mean we live in fear, it means we live in readiness. We do not respond in panic, but with a plan. But, if nothing else, we cling to the universal concept understood by man and beast alike since time immemorial:
Don?t tread on me.
