Again, it's not like he just went around shooting random people. In that case, you'd be correct. Tony Martin was repeatedly burgled. Where were the police? Why weren't these repeated lawbreakers in jail? Why did they come back to a place they'd stolen guns from before? Wouldn't they perhaps think that if he'd had guns previously, he'd have them again? Yet they invaded his home again. If they weren't wanton lawbreakers, they wouldn't have been shot, and if you can't see that you're intentionally blind. I will NEVER support the 'right' of someone to break into my house and steal my things. Fuck them, and I'll shoot every fucking piece of shit that wants to invade MY home and steal MY shit and endanger MY family. If you don't agree, that's fine. Just don't break into my house.
But the evidence from the rest of the world is that it would (a) dramatically reduce it, and (b) make the cops lives easier
Please explain the sudden, massive upsurge in gun violence in the UK then. If, as you say, banning guns makes gun crime lower.
This means that any law banning them would have to face the sudden MONUMENTAL issue of illegal weapons out there.
That problem already exists. Why add to it by making millions of law-abiding citizens into overnight criminals? These people aren't the ones committing gun crimes right now, even though they already have the guns. Therefore, making them criminals is just stupid. You shouldn't be guilty of a crime until you actually act against someone else. Having a gun shouldn't be a crime...using it improperly should. Oddly enough, that's the setup that seems to work best.
As for the question of home defence, I kind of take the attitude that cowardice is good.
If you go to the gun range even once a month, you will become much more confident and comfortable with your weapon. Then you'll be able to handle your own if your home is invaded. Were it not for the large percentage of rape and murder that happens to the burgled, I might agree with you. However, you have no idea what the intentions are of the guy who just illegally entered your house. It's obvious that he does not respect the law, as he's already broken the law against entering others' homes. Is it really a good bet that he's harmless? Would you bet your kids' lives on that? I wouldn't. I'd rather lose my CD player than my life, true, but I'd rather lose my life than my child's life. No insurance in the world can bring back your kids.
It's one thing to do what you have to in self defense. But minimal use of force is imperative.
When you're awoken in the middle of the night by a burglar, you might not be able to cogitate for hours upon the proper level of force to use. If someone doesn't want to get shot by me, they don't break into my house. If they do, I will shoot them. If I don't kill them, terrific. The cops can come let them spend 10 minutes in jail while they work on their lawsuit against me. If I kill them, no big loss.
If someone is shoplifting and you catch them and they cooperate you have no cause to harm them.
And if they start grabbing your merchandise and running...what then? Let them go? Rely on the police to actively work a shopfilting crime? Cry? Once again, shooting might be an extreme reaction to shoplifting, and one rarely employed, but if you don't want to face the possibility, don't shoplift. It's absurdly easy.
If someone is robbing your house and you shoot them and incapacitate them and they're clearly unarmed, you call the police, you don't fire a second round into their body.
How is anyone ever 'clearly unarmed'? Pistols are small and fit in many locations around the body. Shoot them, and if they don't try to shoot you back, don't fire into them again. That's a more reasonable plan. I would also keep a very close eye on them until the cops got there. I guess if they're naked, I wouldn't shoot, as the threat alone should suffice...however, if they try to rush me or something, I'm going to fire.
Advocating the possibility of the death penalty for all crimes is a literally draconian law code. It would result in a lot of accidental and deliberate murders.
I'm not advocating the death penalty for all crimes. I'm saying that any time you are stealing someone else's property, there is the possibility that they will very very much NOT wish you to have it. One of the last resorts in this situation is the firearm. Should it be a last resort? Of course. Should it be a resort at all? Of course.
And if you do kill someone, the burden of proof should be on you (the supposed victim) to PROVE that you were threatened.
"I woke up at 2am with this guy in my house, I think he was stealing but he wouldn't stand still when I told him to."
Good enough for me. The underlying thread here is this: Don't break into someone else's house and don't take things that aren't yours. Then you don't have to worry about getting shot.
Yes, that was my point. If you wake up in the middle of the night and some stranger is in your kid's room, your thought is not 'oh he's a harmless burglar'. At least, mine wouldn't be. Mine would be 'kill that bitch, protect the kids'.
No. However, if they're threatening your family whilst advancing towards you menacingly with their hand in their pocket...I'd think it would be excusable then. Of course, I advocate warning first, but that's just my preference. As with most situations, if you aren't going around threatening people, you don't have to worry about getting shot.
The LAW states that you may not shoplift. The law states that property owners may protect their property. I'm not saying that the police should execute people for shoplifting, nor am I saying that it is the normal response. However, I'm saying that if you walk into a store to steal and you aren't prepared even for the possibility, you're dumb. What is your solution? To have no penalties at all? To force shopowners to watch people steal what they've worked hard for and never have anything happen to them? I'm not saying all shoplifters should be shot, I'm saying they shouldn't be shoplifting in the first place, and then they don't have to worry.
You're missing the point. I would rather shoot someone who has broken into my house and be wrong about his murderous intentions than not shoot someone who has broken into my house and be wrong about his benign intentions. If you don't want homeowners shooting you, DO NOT BREAK INTO THEIR HOUSES. How could it be any simpler? If you break into my house, I will shoot you. Period. It has nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with protecting my family. It isn't being a vigilante when someone's in YOUR HOUSE. It's not like I'm advocating driving around wasting muggers or prostitutes or anything. Don't want to get shot? Don't break into my house. It's very simple.
and there's no reason that the criminals shouldn't up the ante a little further, and come back fully armed and possibly with a bulldozer to protect themselves.
Bullshit. There's a very good reason: they shouldn't have been there in the first place. It doesn't matter how homicidal being robbed makes someone if they aren't robbed. Tony Martin did not just go out looking for people to shoot. He was tired of being burglarized over and over with the police doing nothing to stop it. I don't agree with his actions but I do understand them. Tony Martin was not breaking the law over and over, he was having it done to him over and over. Perhaps if the police did their jobs, or the criminals stopped robbing his house, things would be very different. I just don't believe that it is ok to rob someone's house under any circumstance and thus I have a very hard time feeling pity for the poor multiple-time burglar who finally got something that wasn't someone else's property.
For one thing, comparing raw numbers from two countries with a large population disparity is disingenuous. Also, using 10-year-old numbers from before your latest upsurge in gun violence is disingenuous. I'm not trying to scare anyone. It's the anti-gun crowd that indulges in that tactic. I'm trying to un-scare people. Guns truly don't kill people. Murderous intentions do, and they don't require guns. Stupidity does, and it doesn't require guns, either. Guns are not the problem, and removing them is no solution.
The death penalty is a thing of the courts. The right to defend yourself comes way before any courts could possibly be involved. Too, there are many burglars who are not killed, thus rendering your phrasing invalid. Nice try, though. If you don't want to get shot, don't break into my house. It's really very simple.
Well, that's glib. I rather think it's much easier to not break into someone's house, though. Not to mention that it isn't as easy to shoot as you apparently believe. You've been watching too much television. I dare you to take any police 'street course' and use disabling shots exclusively. In any case, it is MUCH easier to NOT break into a house than it is to shoot perfectly in the event someone breaks into your house.
Killed perhaps. Bur murdered in retribution? I think we're more civilised than this.
Aren't we more civilised than to break into other people's houses and steal what isn't ours? No? Then I believe your question is answered.
They'd brokwn in several times before to steal. It's reasonable to assume this was their plan. Even if it wasn't, they had been prevented from doing this.
So now we're expected to know not only *who* our burglars are (that they're the same ones who've broken in before) but also what their intentions are? Shouldn't we have then just prevented their entry? Since we know so much...
Is this likely? A burglar has access to weapons, commits a crime, but doesn't actually think perhaps the weapon may be useful. Having been shot at, rather than retreating, why would he go back?
Ummmmmmm yes. It is easily possible. Burlgars caught carrying guns get tougher sanctions. However, it is entirely possible that their gun is stashed somewhere nearby, in case they need it. Is it a certainty? Nope. But neither is it certain that they are simply running away.
So is it up to private individuals to convict and punish criminals?
Nope. You sure are a good talker, though. Nice phrasing. It is up to individuals NOT to break into my house. It is up to *me* to protect my family, myself, and my belongings. It is up to the police to prosecute in the event that I am not home or not shooting straight.
Why is the life of an attempted murderer and/or burglar more important, more sacred, to you than the life of the innocent homeowner? When do other people's actions against me become moot? I imagine if it were legal to kill those who assaulted you, assault would be less common. Would that be bad? Why am I forced to deal with the consequences of YOUR moral dilemma? Why should it be more OK for someone to break into my house than for me to protect myself, my family, and my belongings? How can I know what the intentions are of somoene who has already broken the law to enter my house without permission? How do I know he isn't there to kill me? Why should it fall to me to discern the motives of the person who has illegally broken into my house? What if I used a baseball bat to kill an attempted murderer? Would that be OK to you? Is it just guns with which you take issue, or is it with the entire notion of self-protection? To your question re: shoplifting: Yes, they should prepare for the possibility of being shot for shoplifting. Actions have consequences. Why do people seem to think it's OK to steal? I'm not advocating random shootings. I'm not advocating killing people who say mean things to you. I'm talking about protecting yourself, your family, and your belongings. It isn't me saying that my life, my family's lives, and my posessions are more important than someone else's life. It's those people who break into my house who are saying that their life doesn't matter *to them* as much as those things do. I'm not risking their life to break into my house...they are.
Per capita, it is very significant. The actual numbers may seem low, but comparing the per-capita rate is instructive. Comparing raw numbers for just about anything is silly. Also, I wonder at the disconnect between propaganda and reality: would the removal of all guns from existence reduce the murder/crime rate to zero? Well, it seems to be the anti-gun poisition that it would. However, I seem to recall stories of entire wars fought before the advent of guns. How does the removal of guns from non-criminals equal the removal of guns from criminals? Drugs are illegal in this country, and many others. They're completely banned. Yet they seem to still exist...how odd. Apparently, banning things doesn't make them disappear. In fact, making things illegal only results in the proliferation of black markets. Criminalizing things only makes people who were not previously criminals into criminals, without their having changed any behavior. Where I live, many people own guns. There is low crime here. You may choose to see that as an aberration. However, I'm not worried about people breaking into my house, because I know I have protection. Does that mean that I can't be killed in my house? Of course not. It just means I have a better chance than someone who is unarmed. If that, in your opinion, makes me a criminal, so be it. Police rarely stop crimes. More often, they arrive after the criminal is gone, or the crime has already been committed. I'd rather shoot and kill an attempted rapist, burglar, or murderer than have them eventually serve a few weeks or months after raping or stealing or murdering. Why should I resign myself to passivity just because you would?
So..um...so what? He shot a burglar. I don't give a flying fuck if the guy was on his way into the house, was breakdancing on the kitchen floor, or was running away. Here's a thought: don't enter other people's houses without their permission, and you won't get shot. Sounds kinda simple, to me. Yes, I believe you should be able to shoot and kill any burglar at any time. When did the burden suddenly become on the burgled? I doubt very seriously that Tony Martin invited the guy to rob his house. If the burglar didn't enter Tony Martin's house illegally, he wouldn't have been shot, period. How hard is it to *not* break in to someone else's house? If you decide burglary is the life for you, you must prepare for the possibility of being killed. Breaking and entering is a serious crime, and a serious violation of the homeowner, because they have NO IDEA whether the burglar is there to kill or simply steal. Maybe he's running to get his gun, how the hell do you know? Either way, that person shouldn't be there. Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again. Period.
My personal belief is about 20 seconds after the gold standard did, at least here in America. Perhaps it was the moment the country went bankrupt, or maybe it was the first time 'interstate commerce' was misused. Geez, so many possibilities.
I'm sure you're just trolling, but I'll answer you anyway. We'd be safer if we banned guns, is that what you're saying? Countries like England, which have totally banned guns, are still dealing with massive gun violence. How could that be? Guns are illegal there! Yet criminals still get them and use them. Also, English authorities are telling citizens that they have no right to protect themselves from home invaders and that they will be criminally charged if they do so. Perhaps that would make us all safer, in your opinion. Fact seems to have inconveniently contradicted your wonderful world of wishful thinking. Stiffer penalties for gun misuse combined with better gun safety training for everyone would do more to curb gun violence in this country. Of course, I doubt my words will fall on receptive ears. To your point about the number of people killed every year by 'guns': How many are murdered without the use of guns? How many lives are cruelly taken by household items such as bathutbs and automobiles? Should bathtubs be made illegal because they kill over 12,000 Americans per year? What about cars? They kill over 150,000 Americans every single year. Shouldn't they be banned, too? They kill more than twice as many people as guns! HOLY SHIT LET'S BAN THEM.
Re:Damn...must not be very high quality songs...
on
Napster Has Been Cracked
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"CDs" it is plural
It's always nice when someone doesn't get the joke. It's even better when they reply with broken English. It's best when they're trying to correct me using broken English while missing the joke. Thank you, sincerely.
I would be very surprised if they weren't even aware of the possibility. I imagine 'business-types' told 'techie-types' to shove off, after the 'techie-types' told the 'business-types' about the possible problems. I've been party to quite a few of those meetings. I have to say, though, that while I'm not likely to subscribe to any of these services (because there's a ton of free music out there that's actually good), I'm now more likely to pay for Napster than any of the others.
Re:Damn...must not be very high quality songs...
on
Napster Has Been Cracked
·
· Score: 2, Funny
You think?
I think so too. I also think the way it was phrased was ambiguous. I think that's why I made the joke.
It's not like networks have had much incentive to produce really good shows for a while now. People, it seems, will watch just about anything, despite the common complaint that 'there's nothing on'. Now we're going to have to start paying to watch fair-to-middling TV shows and *still* have to put up with commercials? Remember when cable TV came out and everyone talked about how awesome it would be to pay a monthly fee instead of watching commercials? Now we're going to be paying production costs and STILL getting 17-19 minutes of commercials per hour. Fucking terrific. What's next, paying ad agencies to produce the commercials? Paying them for the privelege of being lied to? It's getting ridiculous. No, I take that back. It's already ridiculous. We're paying to watch ads on cable, paying to watch ads before movies (and during them, in some cases *cough* demolition man *cough*). Next we'll be paying those fuckwad marketeers to let us watch their new 'original' commercial involving a) stupid males, b) obnoxious teens, c) men treated as meat, d) bizarre comparisons (one company's flagship product vs. competitor's budget product), e) non sequiturs which never show nor describe the product, or f) all of the above. Throw in the standard song from a formerly rebelious band (who either sold out or died and whose greedy inheritors have sold them out) and you have the vast majority of commercials today. I suppose they must be effective, but that thought makes my soul weep. What happened to 'This is our product. Here's what it's capable of. Here's our evidence.'? (note: that's a rhetorical question.)
What's the matter, Apple fanboys? Truth hurt? Go ahead, mod me down instead of responding to my point. That will certainly convince me that Apple fanboys aren't blind loyalists! WTG.
Actually, that's pretty much why I had the problem with the poster in the first place. Precisely because they denied that it would be tough, and indeed considered the question answered already. Like I said, I believe it is *possible*, but not likely. However, I'm not saying it's 100% impossible. In contrast, the poster assumed it was not only possible, but inevitable. That's why I posted. I'm all for cheerleading, but I'm getting sick and tired of fanboys of all stripes asserting things just because they wish them to be true. Logic dictates caution, in cases such as these.
I mean, begging the question of whether people will pay for a hard to upgrade Mac Mini when they already have a perfectly good PC...seems a bit arrogant. Oh wait, it's an Apple fanboy who posted. That explains it. I mean, sure, it's *possible* that some people will switch to Mac because of the Mini, but assuming that enough people will do so to change the shape of the market? Holy shit. Wasn't the Mac II supposed to do the same thing? And that one that looks like a fucking lamp? Whatever. I'm sure I'll get a billion angry replies to this post, but I don't care. I conceed the possibility that the Mac Mini will do what no other Mac has and give the PC a run for its money. However, I don't think it's very likely, let alone already established fact.
(I don't think this problem is confined to America nor do I believe it is worst in America, I'm just pointing out that your misread and/or misunderstood what the poster you complained about actually said)
Slashdot Mirror
Again, it's not like he just went around shooting random people. In that case, you'd be correct. Tony Martin was repeatedly burgled. Where were the police? Why weren't these repeated lawbreakers in jail? Why did they come back to a place they'd stolen guns from before? Wouldn't they perhaps think that if he'd had guns previously, he'd have them again? Yet they invaded his home again. If they weren't wanton lawbreakers, they wouldn't have been shot, and if you can't see that you're intentionally blind. I will NEVER support the 'right' of someone to break into my house and steal my things. Fuck them, and I'll shoot every fucking piece of shit that wants to invade MY home and steal MY shit and endanger MY family. If you don't agree, that's fine. Just don't break into my house.
But the evidence from the rest of the world is that it would (a) dramatically reduce it, and (b) make the cops lives easier
Please explain the sudden, massive upsurge in gun violence in the UK then. If, as you say, banning guns makes gun crime lower.
This means that any law banning them would have to face the sudden MONUMENTAL issue of illegal weapons out there.
That problem already exists. Why add to it by making millions of law-abiding citizens into overnight criminals? These people aren't the ones committing gun crimes right now, even though they already have the guns. Therefore, making them criminals is just stupid. You shouldn't be guilty of a crime until you actually act against someone else. Having a gun shouldn't be a crime...using it improperly should. Oddly enough, that's the setup that seems to work best.
As for the question of home defence, I kind of take the attitude that cowardice is good.
If you go to the gun range even once a month, you will become much more confident and comfortable with your weapon. Then you'll be able to handle your own if your home is invaded. Were it not for the large percentage of rape and murder that happens to the burgled, I might agree with you. However, you have no idea what the intentions are of the guy who just illegally entered your house. It's obvious that he does not respect the law, as he's already broken the law against entering others' homes. Is it really a good bet that he's harmless? Would you bet your kids' lives on that? I wouldn't. I'd rather lose my CD player than my life, true, but I'd rather lose my life than my child's life. No insurance in the world can bring back your kids.
It's one thing to do what you have to in self defense. But minimal use of force is imperative.
When you're awoken in the middle of the night by a burglar, you might not be able to cogitate for hours upon the proper level of force to use. If someone doesn't want to get shot by me, they don't break into my house. If they do, I will shoot them. If I don't kill them, terrific. The cops can come let them spend 10 minutes in jail while they work on their lawsuit against me. If I kill them, no big loss.
If someone is shoplifting and you catch them and they cooperate you have no cause to harm them.
And if they start grabbing your merchandise and running...what then? Let them go? Rely on the police to actively work a shopfilting crime? Cry? Once again, shooting might be an extreme reaction to shoplifting, and one rarely employed, but if you don't want to face the possibility, don't shoplift. It's absurdly easy.
If someone is robbing your house and you shoot them and incapacitate them and they're clearly unarmed, you call the police, you don't fire a second round into their body.
How is anyone ever 'clearly unarmed'? Pistols are small and fit in many locations around the body. Shoot them, and if they don't try to shoot you back, don't fire into them again. That's a more reasonable plan. I would also keep a very close eye on them until the cops got there. I guess if they're naked, I wouldn't shoot, as the threat alone should suffice...however, if they try to rush me or something, I'm going to fire.
Advocating the possibility of the death penalty for all crimes is a literally draconian law code. It would result in a lot of accidental and deliberate murders.
I'm not advocating the death penalty for all crimes. I'm saying that any time you are stealing someone else's property, there is the possibility that they will very very much NOT wish you to have it. One of the last resorts in this situation is the firearm. Should it be a last resort? Of course. Should it be a resort at all? Of course.
And if you do kill someone, the burden of proof should be on you (the supposed victim) to PROVE that you were threatened.
"I woke up at 2am with this guy in my house, I think he was stealing but he wouldn't stand still when I told him to."
Good enough for me.
The underlying thread here is this: Don't break into someone else's house and don't take things that aren't yours. Then you don't have to worry about getting shot.
Yes, that was my point. If you wake up in the middle of the night and some stranger is in your kid's room, your thought is not 'oh he's a harmless burglar'. At least, mine wouldn't be. Mine would be 'kill that bitch, protect the kids'.
No. However, if they're threatening your family whilst advancing towards you menacingly with their hand in their pocket...I'd think it would be excusable then. Of course, I advocate warning first, but that's just my preference. As with most situations, if you aren't going around threatening people, you don't have to worry about getting shot.
The LAW states that you may not shoplift. The law states that property owners may protect their property. I'm not saying that the police should execute people for shoplifting, nor am I saying that it is the normal response. However, I'm saying that if you walk into a store to steal and you aren't prepared even for the possibility, you're dumb. What is your solution? To have no penalties at all? To force shopowners to watch people steal what they've worked hard for and never have anything happen to them? I'm not saying all shoplifters should be shot, I'm saying they shouldn't be shoplifting in the first place, and then they don't have to worry.
You're missing the point. I would rather shoot someone who has broken into my house and be wrong about his murderous intentions than not shoot someone who has broken into my house and be wrong about his benign intentions. If you don't want homeowners shooting you, DO NOT BREAK INTO THEIR HOUSES. How could it be any simpler? If you break into my house, I will shoot you. Period. It has nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with protecting my family. It isn't being a vigilante when someone's in YOUR HOUSE. It's not like I'm advocating driving around wasting muggers or prostitutes or anything. Don't want to get shot? Don't break into my house. It's very simple.
and there's no reason that the criminals shouldn't up the ante a little further, and come back fully armed and possibly with a bulldozer to protect themselves.
Bullshit. There's a very good reason: they shouldn't have been there in the first place. It doesn't matter how homicidal being robbed makes someone if they aren't robbed. Tony Martin did not just go out looking for people to shoot. He was tired of being burglarized over and over with the police doing nothing to stop it. I don't agree with his actions but I do understand them. Tony Martin was not breaking the law over and over, he was having it done to him over and over. Perhaps if the police did their jobs, or the criminals stopped robbing his house, things would be very different. I just don't believe that it is ok to rob someone's house under any circumstance and thus I have a very hard time feeling pity for the poor multiple-time burglar who finally got something that wasn't someone else's property.
For one thing, comparing raw numbers from two countries with a large population disparity is disingenuous. Also, using 10-year-old numbers from before your latest upsurge in gun violence is disingenuous. I'm not trying to scare anyone. It's the anti-gun crowd that indulges in that tactic. I'm trying to un-scare people. Guns truly don't kill people. Murderous intentions do, and they don't require guns. Stupidity does, and it doesn't require guns, either. Guns are not the problem, and removing them is no solution.
The death penalty is a thing of the courts. The right to defend yourself comes way before any courts could possibly be involved. Too, there are many burglars who are not killed, thus rendering your phrasing invalid. Nice try, though. If you don't want to get shot, don't break into my house. It's really very simple.
About as hard as not shooting to kill.
Well, that's glib. I rather think it's much easier to not break into someone's house, though. Not to mention that it isn't as easy to shoot as you apparently believe. You've been watching too much television. I dare you to take any police 'street course' and use disabling shots exclusively. In any case, it is MUCH easier to NOT break into a house than it is to shoot perfectly in the event someone breaks into your house.
Killed perhaps. Bur murdered in retribution? I think we're more civilised than this.
Aren't we more civilised than to break into other people's houses and steal what isn't ours? No? Then I believe your question is answered.
They'd brokwn in several times before to steal. It's reasonable to assume this was their plan. Even if it wasn't, they had been prevented from doing this.
So now we're expected to know not only *who* our burglars are (that they're the same ones who've broken in before) but also what their intentions are? Shouldn't we have then just prevented their entry? Since we know so much...
Is this likely? A burglar has access to weapons, commits a crime, but doesn't actually think perhaps the weapon may be useful. Having been shot at, rather than retreating, why would he go back?
Ummmmmmm yes. It is easily possible. Burlgars caught carrying guns get tougher sanctions. However, it is entirely possible that their gun is stashed somewhere nearby, in case they need it. Is it a certainty? Nope. But neither is it certain that they are simply running away.
So is it up to private individuals to convict and punish criminals?
Nope. You sure are a good talker, though. Nice phrasing. It is up to individuals NOT to break into my house. It is up to *me* to protect my family, myself, and my belongings. It is up to the police to prosecute in the event that I am not home or not shooting straight.
Why is the life of an attempted murderer and/or burglar more important, more sacred, to you than the life of the innocent homeowner? When do other people's actions against me become moot? I imagine if it were legal to kill those who assaulted you, assault would be less common. Would that be bad? Why am I forced to deal with the consequences of YOUR moral dilemma? Why should it be more OK for someone to break into my house than for me to protect myself, my family, and my belongings? How can I know what the intentions are of somoene who has already broken the law to enter my house without permission? How do I know he isn't there to kill me? Why should it fall to me to discern the motives of the person who has illegally broken into my house? What if I used a baseball bat to kill an attempted murderer? Would that be OK to you? Is it just guns with which you take issue, or is it with the entire notion of self-protection?
To your question re: shoplifting:
Yes, they should prepare for the possibility of being shot for shoplifting. Actions have consequences. Why do people seem to think it's OK to steal? I'm not advocating random shootings. I'm not advocating killing people who say mean things to you. I'm talking about protecting yourself, your family, and your belongings. It isn't me saying that my life, my family's lives, and my posessions are more important than someone else's life. It's those people who break into my house who are saying that their life doesn't matter *to them* as much as those things do. I'm not risking their life to break into my house...they are.
Per capita, it is very significant. The actual numbers may seem low, but comparing the per-capita rate is instructive. Comparing raw numbers for just about anything is silly.
Also, I wonder at the disconnect between propaganda and reality: would the removal of all guns from existence reduce the murder/crime rate to zero? Well, it seems to be the anti-gun poisition that it would. However, I seem to recall stories of entire wars fought before the advent of guns. How does the removal of guns from non-criminals equal the removal of guns from criminals? Drugs are illegal in this country, and many others. They're completely banned. Yet they seem to still exist...how odd. Apparently, banning things doesn't make them disappear. In fact, making things illegal only results in the proliferation of black markets. Criminalizing things only makes people who were not previously criminals into criminals, without their having changed any behavior. Where I live, many people own guns. There is low crime here. You may choose to see that as an aberration. However, I'm not worried about people breaking into my house, because I know I have protection. Does that mean that I can't be killed in my house? Of course not. It just means I have a better chance than someone who is unarmed. If that, in your opinion, makes me a criminal, so be it.
Police rarely stop crimes. More often, they arrive after the criminal is gone, or the crime has already been committed. I'd rather shoot and kill an attempted rapist, burglar, or murderer than have them eventually serve a few weeks or months after raping or stealing or murdering. Why should I resign myself to passivity just because you would?
So..um...so what? He shot a burglar. I don't give a flying fuck if the guy was on his way into the house, was breakdancing on the kitchen floor, or was running away. Here's a thought: don't enter other people's houses without their permission, and you won't get shot. Sounds kinda simple, to me. Yes, I believe you should be able to shoot and kill any burglar at any time. When did the burden suddenly become on the burgled? I doubt very seriously that Tony Martin invited the guy to rob his house. If the burglar didn't enter Tony Martin's house illegally, he wouldn't have been shot, period. How hard is it to *not* break in to someone else's house? If you decide burglary is the life for you, you must prepare for the possibility of being killed. Breaking and entering is a serious crime, and a serious violation of the homeowner, because they have NO IDEA whether the burglar is there to kill or simply steal. Maybe he's running to get his gun, how the hell do you know? Either way, that person shouldn't be there. Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again. Period.
My personal belief is about 20 seconds after the gold standard did, at least here in America. Perhaps it was the moment the country went bankrupt, or maybe it was the first time 'interstate commerce' was misused. Geez, so many possibilities.
I'm sure you're just trolling, but I'll answer you anyway. We'd be safer if we banned guns, is that what you're saying? Countries like England, which have totally banned guns, are still dealing with massive gun violence. How could that be? Guns are illegal there! Yet criminals still get them and use them. Also, English authorities are telling citizens that they have no right to protect themselves from home invaders and that they will be criminally charged if they do so. Perhaps that would make us all safer, in your opinion. Fact seems to have inconveniently contradicted your wonderful world of wishful thinking. Stiffer penalties for gun misuse combined with better gun safety training for everyone would do more to curb gun violence in this country. Of course, I doubt my words will fall on receptive ears.
To your point about the number of people killed every year by 'guns':
How many are murdered without the use of guns?
How many lives are cruelly taken by household items such as bathutbs and automobiles?
Should bathtubs be made illegal because they kill over 12,000 Americans per year? What about cars? They kill over 150,000 Americans every single year. Shouldn't they be banned, too? They kill more than twice as many people as guns! HOLY SHIT LET'S BAN THEM.
"CDs" it is plural
It's always nice when someone doesn't get the joke. It's even better when they reply with broken English. It's best when they're trying to correct me using broken English while missing the joke. Thank you, sincerely.
I would be very surprised if they weren't even aware of the possibility. I imagine 'business-types' told 'techie-types' to shove off, after the 'techie-types' told the 'business-types' about the possible problems. I've been party to quite a few of those meetings. I have to say, though, that while I'm not likely to subscribe to any of these services (because there's a ton of free music out there that's actually good), I'm now more likely to pay for Napster than any of the others.
You think?
I think so too. I also think the way it was phrased was ambiguous. I think that's why I made the joke.
...if you can fit "hundreds of thousands" onto one CD.
Seriously, though, who didn't see this coming?
It's not like networks have had much incentive to produce really good shows for a while now. People, it seems, will watch just about anything, despite the common complaint that 'there's nothing on'. Now we're going to have to start paying to watch fair-to-middling TV shows and *still* have to put up with commercials? Remember when cable TV came out and everyone talked about how awesome it would be to pay a monthly fee instead of watching commercials? Now we're going to be paying production costs and STILL getting 17-19 minutes of commercials per hour. Fucking terrific. What's next, paying ad agencies to produce the commercials? Paying them for the privelege of being lied to? It's getting ridiculous. No, I take that back. It's already ridiculous. We're paying to watch ads on cable, paying to watch ads before movies (and during them, in some cases *cough* demolition man *cough*). Next we'll be paying those fuckwad marketeers to let us watch their new 'original' commercial involving a) stupid males, b) obnoxious teens, c) men treated as meat, d) bizarre comparisons (one company's flagship product vs. competitor's budget product), e) non sequiturs which never show nor describe the product, or f) all of the above. Throw in the standard song from a formerly rebelious band (who either sold out or died and whose greedy inheritors have sold them out) and you have the vast majority of commercials today. I suppose they must be effective, but that thought makes my soul weep. What happened to 'This is our product. Here's what it's capable of. Here's our evidence.'?
(note: that's a rhetorical question.)
What's the matter, Apple fanboys? Truth hurt? Go ahead, mod me down instead of responding to my point. That will certainly convince me that Apple fanboys aren't blind loyalists! WTG.
Noone's denying that it's going to be tough.[sic]
Actually, that's pretty much why I had the problem with the poster in the first place. Precisely because they denied that it would be tough, and indeed considered the question answered already. Like I said, I believe it is *possible*, but not likely. However, I'm not saying it's 100% impossible. In contrast, the poster assumed it was not only possible, but inevitable. That's why I posted. I'm all for cheerleading, but I'm getting sick and tired of fanboys of all stripes asserting things just because they wish them to be true. Logic dictates caution, in cases such as these.
I mean, begging the question of whether people will pay for a hard to upgrade Mac Mini when they already have a perfectly good PC...seems a bit arrogant. Oh wait, it's an Apple fanboy who posted. That explains it.
I mean, sure, it's *possible* that some people will switch to Mac because of the Mini, but assuming that enough people will do so to change the shape of the market? Holy shit. Wasn't the Mac II supposed to do the same thing? And that one that looks like a fucking lamp? Whatever.
I'm sure I'll get a billion angry replies to this post, but I don't care. I conceed the possibility that the Mac Mini will do what no other Mac has and give the PC a run for its money. However, I don't think it's very likely, let alone already established fact.
"especially in America"
and
"only in America"
ARE NOT EQUIVALENT.
Thank you, drive through.
(I don't think this problem is confined to America nor do I believe it is worst in America, I'm just pointing out that your misread and/or misunderstood what the poster you complained about actually said)