Toddler shoots parent dead in Super Market

Sheep Lover

MadsL wrote: »

Is there the possibility that he chooses to put the knife down?

It's a hypothetical question so anythings possible I suppose.

I just don't see how the addition of a gun will calm the situation is all. If anything it will make tensions more strained which leads to irrational decisions

MadsL

Sheep Lover wrote: »

It's a hypothetical question so anythings possible I suppose.

So your assumption that I wish to blow this guys head off is in fact not correct?

I just don't see how the addition of a gun will calm the situation is all. If anything it will make tensions more strained which leads to irrational decisions

Because we are in the arena of the rational when someone has a knife at their throat? Really?

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

So you cannot explain your non-lethal scenario.

Thought so. Bye now.

Right so lets see how people get on without a gun. Lets see can people survive without shooting people


http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/hero-neighbour-helps-family-fight-off-knife-intruders-26545941.html

intruder with knife wrestled and restrained. Not a gun in sight.


From America
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/15-year-old-girl-and-stepmom-fight-off-intruders
15 year old fights off gun toting intruder. Wow not a gun in sight


Uk
http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/story/2014-09-08/great-grandfather-fights-off-armed-intruders/

man fights off crowbar wielders not a gun in sight.

Not even a weapon for those three above let alone a gun

This is my favourite

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-grandma-fights-home-intruder-stick-boiling-water-article-1.1858075

83 years old. Saves herself with hot water and a stick after being in a chokehold. (although this intruder doesn't have weapon himself)



So please tell me again how people cant fight off weapon wielding intruders without a gun and its "zen fantasy" not to want to end peoples lives. Not a single death in any of my examples. Aside from the 83 year old not even a "defence" weapon. Cmon tell me again how its fantasy not to have to kill someone?



Are all these people fantasists and that its not possible? Non life ending means look it happens not everyone feels a need to kill.

Sheep Lover

MadsL wrote: »

Because we are in the arena of the rational when someone has a knife at their throat? Really?

Exactly, so pointing a gun at his head seems logical to you?

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote:

Right so lets see how people get on without a gun. Lets see can people survive without shooting people

You are still struggling to understand. How, in the scenario I described would YOU disarm the attacker?

I have a strength of force advantage. You do not.

Sheep Lover

MadsL wrote: »

I have a strength of force advantage. You do not.

He has a hostage, you've nothing. He makes the decisions

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

You are still struggling to understand. How, in the scenario I described would YOU disarm the attacker?

I have a strength of force advantage. You do not.

And you obviously cannot read the examples I posted of people surviving without a gun or not having to kill people. Like I said I dont need to kill people. Others may feel that need. Case closed. You want discussion but when evidence is shown of non lethal also working you ignore it to further shooty shooty agenda. Thats not discussion. Gluck



(altho you use you own use of links few pages ago to show how people need guns as supermarkets are dangerous, links to support gun agenda fine, other links = ignore)

MadsL

Is it very sticky in the corner you painted yourself into?

Again, non or your links describe the situation. How do YOU proceed?

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

Is it very sticky in the corner you painted yourself into?

Again, non or your links describe the situation. How do YOU proceed?

I masterbate. Then the corner gets sticky. Its not sticky now. I tried talking but you are obsessed with knowing what I would do. Its not like what I'd say would make a difference. You would just say it wouldnt work guns are better or too slow shes dead (even tho shes already dead) its a dead horse you've been flogging for two pages. Gluck to ya. This is just boring. I'm not gunna get in **** with mods over likes of you.

giles lynchwood

We have strict firearms laws which prevent criminals from getting access to guns and shooting each other in public endangering law abiding people going about their business everyday.:rolleyes:

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote:

I masterbate. Then the corner gets sticky. Its not sticky now. I tried talking but you are obsessed with knowing what I would do. Its not like what I'd say would make a difference. You would just say it wouldnt work guns are better or too slow shes dead (even tho shes already dead) its a dead horse you've been flogging for two pages. Gluck to ya. This is just boring. I'm not gunna get in **** with mods over likes of you.

Oh Dear. Asking you to explain your position is not obsession, it is the way discussion works.

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

Is it very sticky in the corner you painted yourself into?

Again, non or your links describe the situation. How do YOU proceed?

Indeed he did. Im sure many do - what-iffery is cheap and in endless supply.

Manic Moran

pmasterson95 wrote: »

So please tell me again how people cant fight off weapon wielding intruders without a gun and its "zen fantasy" not to want to end peoples lives. Not a single death in any of my examples. Aside from the 83 year old not even a "defence" weapon. Cmon tell me again how its fantasy not to have to kill someone?

Are all these people fantasists and that its not possible? Non life ending means look it happens not everyone feels a need to kill.

Absolutely it's possible. It doesn't, however, mean that it's as likely or easy. There was an eighty-something year old woman hired by the Italian Army to beat up its recruits. (look up The Samurai Granny). That does not mean that I would feel in anyway confident that -I- could beat up Italian recruits at my age, let alone when I'm in my eighties. Situations are never equal. However, having a sidearm does tilt the balance a bit more in your favour. (You've heard the term "God created all men. Sam Colt made them all equal"? Phrase was invented for a reason.)

If it were such a given that one can defend oneself without a sidearm, then why does almost every police force in the world arm their officers with sidearms? It's not so that they can blast away at people they want dead, it's for their personal protection as not other tool can do the same job.

Trigger Happy wrote: »

If everyone is going round ready to shoot everyone else all the time then lots of innocent people will get killed.

I would honestly hate to live my life in such fear that I needed to carry a gun.
If I get mugged I would rather give the $100 I have on me then have the guilt on my conscience of having killed someone, no matter how horrible that person may have been.

But I also know that I will never convince the pro-gun lobby that I am right, and the pro-gun lobby will convince me that they are right. So we agree to differ.

With respect to your first paragraph, that has proven to be not true. Over the past three decades, most of the US's States have started issuing concealed weapons permits, and in not a single case has the murder rate gone up. Indeed, CCW holders as a group are one of the most law-abiding demographics in the country.

With respect to your second paragraph, that's a moral decision I will not try to talk you out of. It's actually the exact same statement that one of my soldiers came to me with when we were told we were going to Afghanistan. It limited his duties, but as he was a medic, we found a job for him which did not entail routinely carrying a weapon. That said, -somebody- needed to carry a weapon, so he swapped with another medic with different opinions on the matter. What was that phrase from Lords of the Rings? Those who refuse to live by the sword can still die by the sword.

pmasterson95

Manic Moran wrote: »

Absolutely it's possible. It doesn't, however, mean that it's as likely or easy. There was an eighty-something year old woman hired by the Italian Army to beat up its recruits. (look up The Samurai Granny). That does not mean that I would feel in anyway confident that -I- could beat up Italian recruits at my age, let alone when I'm in my eighties.

While I dont agree with your views on guns I can respect you. Its not just a rabid bloodlust that you have. You were capable of acknowledging that people can survive without a gun. Not everyone thinks as smart or as logically as you.

2011

Bog Standard User wrote: »

ok so she left her handbag with a loaded gun in reach of a two year old.

what kinda of dumbass doesnt think the child wouldnt wanna open the handbag to look inside while sitting bored in the child seat on the trolley

I think that the problem is that some people become so used to carrying a firearm they become complacent. I have seen this with some armed police. After many years of carrying a firearm they take their gun off and leave it lying around their house or car. I am not suggesting that all do this, but certainly some do.

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

While I dont agree with your views on guns I can respect you. Its not just a rabid bloodlust that you have. You were capable of acknowledging that people can survive without a gun. Not everyone thinks as smart or as logically as you.

Of course people can survive violent attacks without a gun. I gave you a account of a woman I know who did. The question that you are still struggling with is that in some scenarios the only thing that makes a weak person stronger than their attacker is a gun. This is why people carry them.

I have given up hope of you answering the question I put to you, at least Sheep Lover pointed out that a hostage balances the forces at play. But not everyone thinks as smart or as logically as him.

AlanS181824

Awful, why does a grown women need go carry around a gun in the first place though?

MadsL

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Awful, why does a grown women need go carry around a gun in the first place though?

To defend herself and her child in public. She has that right, and following appropriate training and background checks, she has the legal right to do so.

AlanS181824

MadsL wrote: »

To defend herself and her child in public. She has that right, and following appropriate training and background checks, she has the legal right to do so.

Isn't that what the police service are for though?

BattleCorp

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Isn't that what the police service are for though?

It can be hard to get Gardai quickly here in Ireland if you need them urgently and this is a small place.

America is so vast that it could take a day in some parts to get a cop if you needed one.

I have no problem with the woman being armed. My problem is with how careless she was to leave it where a child could access it.

MadsL

BattleCorp wrote: »

It can be hard to get Gardai quickly here in Ireland if you need them urgently and this is a small place.

America is so vast that it could take a day in some parts to get a cop if you needed one.

I have no problem with the woman being armed. My problem is with how careless she was to leave it where a child could access it.

I agree in the sense that she left it near the child without her full attention, however I can see how a hidden concealment pocket could have lulled her into a false sense of security.

Tragic mistake.

MadsL

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Isn't that what the police service are for though?

Would you wait for the cops and do nothing if you were attacked in the street or public place, or would you try to defend yourself?

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

Would you wait for the cops and do nothing if you were attacked in the street or public place, or would you try to defend yourself?

what if what if what if.

what if someone went into a cinema and had a really fast really high capacity weapon and splattered a crowd of 50 people all over the place in mere seconds.

that what if never sees the light of day in your world.

the only what ifs from you run along the lines of what if you're a granny in a wheelchair hunting a bear that broke in to your house.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

what if what if what if.

what if someone went into a cinema and had a really fast really high capacity weapon and splattered a crowd of 50 people all over the place in mere seconds.

that what if never sees the light of day in your world.

the only what ifs from you run along the lines of what if you're a granny in a wheelchair hunting a bear that broke in to your house.

???

I fail to see how asking if someone would defend themselves or wait for AGS to show up is whatifery?

Do you not believe someone has the right to take all legal steps to defend themselves including lethal force?

FISMA

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Isn't that what the police service are for though?

Point of fact, you are wrong.

The Police in the States are there to keep the peace in general. They are not your bodyguard.

They are not there to protect you as an individual. They are not responsible for your life, nor are they liable.

This has been decided in several cases by supreme courts: the Police are to keep the peace in general.

When, for example, a riot, like that in Los Angeles or natural disaster, like Katrina occurs, the Police have every right to walk off the job in order to protect their safety. They will neither be liable nor negligent if you are robbed, murdered, beaten, or raped, while they walked off the job.

That is in stark contrast to the role of the Garda Síochána in Eire.

Also, in contrast is that in the States, we believe that an individual has the right to defend themselves. In Ireland, you do not legally believe so.

BoatMad

MadsL wrote: »

???

I fail to see how asking if someone would defend themselves or wait for AGS to show up is whatifery?

Do you not believe someone has the right to take all legal steps to defend themselves including lethal force?

Indeed you do, but that "right" in most countries is surrounded by severe restraints and protections.

Otherwise you get the situation that in the US, the people feel abandoned by their police and feel they must defend themselves against all comers.

more of this will occur, as the carry laws expand.

2011

My own belief is that if we were allowed to carry firearms for self defence in Ireland the net result would be that the chances of being a victim would be far greater.

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

???

I fail to see how asking if someone would defend themselves or wait for AGS to show up is whatifery?

Do you not believe someone has the right to take all legal steps to defend themselves including lethal force?

For any hypothetical situation, or any anecdote or news story that you can give which shows a gun rescuing the helpless children, I can give or find one showing a nutter using a gun to kill the helpless children.

It proves nothing. Its hot air.

Theres at least one person out there in the US who died needlessly because landmines are restricted. Had he/she been allowed to wire the house up like a responsible registered and legally trained landmine owner the burglar boogieman wouldn't have killed them.
Ergo legalize landmines, save the public from criminals.

AlanS181824

MadsL wrote: »

Would you wait for the cops and do nothing if you were attacked in the street or public place, or would you try to defend yourself?

I would try to get out of there as quick as possible and let the police do their job.

Violence is never the answer IMO.

MadsL

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I would try to get out of there as quick as possible and let the police do their job.

Violence is never the answer IMO.

Self defence isn't violence IMO.

AlanS181824

FISMA wrote: »

Point of fact, you are wrong.

The Police in the States are there to keep the peace in general. They are not your bodyguard.

They are not there to protect you as an individual. They are not responsible for your life, nor are they liable.

This has been decided in several cases by supreme courts: the Police are to keep the peace in general.

When, for example, a riot, like that in Los Angeles or natural disaster, like Katrina occurs, the Police have every right to walk off the job in order to protect their safety. They will neither be liable nor negligent if you are robbed, murdered, beaten, or raped, while they walked off the job.

That is in stark contrast to the role of the Garda Síochána in Eire.

Also, in contrast is that in the States, we believe that an individual has the right to defend themselves. In Ireland, you do not legally believe so.

And America is a whole lot safer because of it right?(!)

Look on the news right now and you'll see... Shooting in America, cinema, shopping centre etc.

I think the right to carry a weapon is stupid, it really just encourages violence.

The Gardaí are far from perfect but not carrying guns is definitely a plus for Ireland as a country IMO.

BoatMad

FISMA wrote: »

Point of fact, you are wrong.

The Police in the States are there to keep the peace in general. They are not your bodyguard.

They are not there to protect you as an individual. They are not responsible for your life, nor are they liable.

This has been decided in several cases by supreme courts: the Police are to keep the peace in general.

When, for example, a riot, like that in Los Angeles or natural disaster, like Katrina occurs, the Police have every right to walk off the job in order to protect their safety. They will neither be liable nor negligent if you are robbed, murdered, beaten, or raped, while they walked off the job.

That is in stark contrast to the role of the Garda Síochána in Eire.

Also, in contrast is that in the States, we believe that an individual has the right to defend themselves. In Ireland, you do not legally believe so.

In europe, fundamentally the people mandate the state to protect them. In Ireland as in other countries, the state has specific obligations to ensure the safety of its citizens. ( which it carries out with mixed results )

While I understand your point of view I do not believe the legal situation is much different in the USA. What is different is the attitude to self defence.

Howver one cannot seperate US history, where law enforcement often was applied to territories many years after colonies were established, hence in the states defending oneself is caught up in that history, even though today , there are more police per capita in the US then many countries.

One might speculate that without the 2nd amendment, the situation in the US, and the justifications would be similar to the European experience.

Whats clear however, is that both societies have not eradicated violence, in fact , while different statistics give different answers, its not at all clear that the US version of the process is any better in protecting its citizens.

AlanS181824

MadsL wrote: »

Self defence isn't violence IMO.

IMO violence is wrong in all forms, if you are defending yourself you are choosing to be violent, I believe that the better option would be to just get yourself out of harms way.

If that's not possible well then that is where the police system should come in I believe.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

For any hypothetical situation, or any anecdote or news story that you can give which shows a gun rescuing the helpless children, I can give or find one showing a nutter using a gun to kill the helpless children.

It proves nothing. Its hot air.

Theres at least one person out there in the US who died needlessly because landmines are restricted. Had he/she been allowed to wire the house up like a responsible registered and legally trained landmine owner the burglar boogieman wouldn't have killed them.
Ergo legalize landmines, save the public from criminals.

Now you are into the whatifery...and the absurd.

I'm giving you realistic situations, you are simply doing ridicule, it's been done to death, give it a rest.

BoatMad

AlanS181824 wrote: »

IMO violence is wrong in all forms, if you are defending yourself you are choosing to be violent, I believe that the better option would be to just get yourself out of harms way.

If that's not possible well then that is where the police system should come in I believe.

I would argue , unfortunately , there has to be a middle ground, You cannot " get out of harms way" when somebody is intent on harming you.

There are clearly situations that require you to defend yourself, and you may be required to use force upto and including lethal force.

That in reality however is not a justification for owning pre-emptive forms of lethal self defence.

AlanS181824

BoatMad wrote: »

I would argue , unfortunately , there has to be a middle ground, You cannot " get out of harms way" when somebody is intent on harming you.

There are clearly situations that require you to defend yourself, and you may be required to use force upto and including lethal force.

That in reality however is not a justification for owning pre-emptive forms of lethal self defence.

I cannot personally condone any sort of violence however regardless if self defence or not.

I also believe that if you're carrying a gun you'd almost look for reasons to use it, like it might be the difference between getting robbed, having a gun and shooting the perpetrator versus not having one and just getting out of harms way and to safety.

Everyone is of course entitled to differentiating opinions and I welcome further discussions!

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

Now you are into the whatifery...and the absurd.

I'm giving you realistic situations, you are simply doing ridicule, it's been done to death, give it a rest.

As have these hypothetical answer-questions of yours on this topic.

The truth is that someone always loses on a policy decision.

If pistols were restricted then yes the granny who couldn't handle a shotgun and was living alone and didn't have security locks and who the cops couldn't get to on time would die.

... but on the other hand the gangster who didn't have a pistol available to him couldn't calmly stroll into a shop kill the shop clerk and two customers.

But very well - no more hypotheticals. No more anecdotes.

The Diabolical Monocle

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I cannot personally condone any sort of violence however regardless if self defence or not.

I also believe that if you're carrying a gun you'd almost look for reasons to use it, like it might be the difference between getting robbed, having a gun and shooting the perpetrator versus not having one and just getting out of harms way and to safety.

Everyone is of course entitled to differentiating opinions and I welcome further discussions!

Too obvious. You have to make it more believable.

Guy:Incognito

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Isn't that what the police service are for though?

Unless they happen to be there when a murderer selects you, then all the investigation and court cases in the world won't bring you back from the dead.

AlanS181824

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I cannot personally condone any sort of violence however regardless if self defence or not.

I also believe that if you're carrying a gun you'd almost look for reasons to use it, like it might be the difference between getting robbed, having a gun and shooting the perpetrator versus not having one and just getting out of harms way and to safety.

Everyone is of course entitled to differentiating opinions and I welcome further discussions!

Could I just ask you , AlanS181224, say for example , if a few men were going to rape you, would you just lie back and allow it?

You would not retaliate in any way, because you believe violence is wrong?

AlanS181824

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Too obvious. You have to make it more believable.

Huh?

BoatMad

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I cannot personally condone any sort of violence however regardless if self defence or not.

I also believe that if you're carrying a gun you'd almost look for reasons to use it, like it might be the difference between getting robbed, having a gun and shooting the perpetrator versus not having one and just getting out of harms way and to safety.

Everyone is of course entitled to differentiating opinions and I welcome further discussions!

Thankfully the law in Ireland recognises my sort of middle ground. SItuations can occur that require you to act. Thats a fact of life

Your argument is a familiar one, but in reality, I don't think people " go looking for reasons to use it". Gun use in the US is a cultural thing, a function of history and custom and practice.

The fact is should you be ejected from your home by a burglar, should you abandoned your partner or children in extremis, because you must withdraw from a potential conflict. The fact is the Law in Ireland recognises that violence may be justified in certain circumstances.

I believe that is a correct interpretation. A purely non-violent approach simply flies in the face that their are violent confrontations that you may have to deal with.

none of this justifies an armed carry culture

The Diabolical Monocle

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Huh?

"I cannot personally condone any sort of violence however regardless if self defence or not."

would ya stop.

if you'd like to '..... elicit an emotional response online from someone by means of expressing opinions in contradiction to theirs .....' you need to use more suggestion, tease a little, not so blatant.

its a fine art.

steddyeddy

Everyone keeps mentioning hypothetical scenario. It's the envisaging of this "siege mentality" scenarios that is resulting in all the unnecessary gun deaths in America. Everyone seems afraid of their own shadow.

BoatMad

steddyeddy wrote: »

Everyone keeps mentioning hypothetical scenario. It's the envisaging of this "siege mentality" scenarios that is resulting in all the unnecessary gun deaths in America. Everyone seems afraid of their own shadow.

thats a point of view, equally you could say cause everyone has a burglar alarm, that everyone is afraid of burglary, yet statically most will never be burgled. Is that the thruth , no, people simply view it as a form of insurance, IN the US the view amongst many is a gun is the same.

steddyeddy

BoatMad wrote: »

thats a point of view, equally you could say cause everyone has a burglar alarm, that everyone is afraid of burglary, yet statically most will never be burgled. Is that the thruth , no, people simply view it as a form of insurance, IN the US the view amongst many is a gun is the same.

But you see you're comparing infants shooting parents dead to a burglar alarm. The intent to protect might be the same but burglar alarms aren't causing the same problems as guns are.

Guy:Incognito

steddyeddy wrote: »

But you see you're comparing infants shooting parents dead to a burglar alarm. .

AN infant shooting A parent to death in an accidental incident cause by negligence.

BoatMad

steddyeddy wrote: »

But you see you're comparing infants shooting parents dead to a burglar alarm. The intent to protect might be the same but burglar alarms aren't causing the same problems as guns are.

Thats a different argument, whether guns are an effective form of self defence given the issues that can arise with their proliferation. That argument is very different on each side of the atlantic.

what I was dealing with was the " fear" argument .

and know I not comparing an infant that accessed a gun being carried by a negligent person, who paid for that negligence with her life.

If the toddler had blown up their home cause she was negligent with the gas, perhaps we should ban all gas appliances.


The issue is complex

steddyeddy

Guys this argument could go around in circles because a common stream in these defenses of gun ownerships is the lack of acknowledgement that this is a problem in American society. Every thread people are being pedantic with expressions like "negligence" or "it wasn't the gun it was a person" well I hate to tell you but all of these were avoidable gun deaths. Something is wrong with this and part of the problem is people are refusing to accept it's a problem.

lightspeed

AckwelFoley wrote: »

I was in america for thanksgiving. We were at a house watching a football game


The next day a hunter missed a shot and a slug went straight through the window into the wall.

In Ireland you find said hunter and kick his face off. In America, it amounted to a strong finger wagging exercise

Did the slug survive? the auld lad pours some salt around the garden to get rid of them but suppose the Mericans do things differently.

My brother recently married a merican and emigrated to USA. Does anyone know if South Carolina has as much of a gun fetish as Florida?

I kinda just thought it was mostly Texas and the ghetto neighbourhoods that had the most gun crime or random trigger happy incidents.