Armed pizza deliveryman fights off 3 robbers, wounds one

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:21 pm

RedGlitter;1026209 wrote: Yes.

Yes.

God help America.....Your over whelming power has coloured your perception of Justice.

God help us all........

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:29 pm

Bruv;1026213 wrote: God help America.....Your over whelming power has coloured your perception of Justice.

God help us all........

You know this is exactly what's wrong with the world...

You take what two people have said and to use a word you like you've colored a picture and assume all of America feels this way...

I would personally appreciate it if you don't consider two peoples' logic to be the epitome of American ideal when the population of America exceeds 300,000,000...Quite frankly it leads to more ignorance...

People do not know others are breaking into their homes for a quick binge at the refrigerator and even though most will say they mean what they say it's completely safe to assume they might in all probability be speaking on points as opposed to being literal...You have every right to disagree with what people have said but you have no right to associate the minority with the majority, it's just not systematically pragmatic.

dubs · Post by **dubs** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:36 pm

Oscar asks for clarification on US nukes in the UK. Well as far as I know, there are 64 nuclear tipped missiles aboard UK SSBNs. These missiles aren't owned outright by the UK. They're in a shared pool of Trident IIs, kept and maintained by Lockheed Martin and shared between US Trident boats, and the Royal Navys Vanguard class SSBNs. I know this cos I've worked at RNB Devonport, and that's where British SSNs and SSBNs are re-fitted, and before that can happen, they go to the US to have their missiles removed.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:52 pm

Jester;1026225 wrote: Snyder your senarios dont make sense becasue they aren't real. There is no way you can tell me that my child would be safer if I wasn't armed. Thats just silly to even say in the US.

And yer a kid, you aint seen nothing yet, and I dont give a rats hiney if I impress you or anyone else... and when you make sense I'll be happy to admit it, but when you don't make sense dont expect folks to pat you on the back and tell ya whoopee.

It perfectly makes sense.

What is it about logic people are unable to follow on this forum?

There have been two variables presented. one asks "if eliminating guns reduced the amount of "unjustified" deaths in America would you help to eliminate them?". You'd said that you would not even if that meant your child would be killed you'd still keep your arms.

Perfectly realistic.

Fine;

A man was killed by a "bullet from his own gun" on the roof of a Midtown building at 30 East 40th Street. The police say the man, who was found with "rope, a hacksaw and three Dell laptops in the intruder's backpack," may be a man with a number of burglary and stolen property arrests.

A building employee called the police after discovering a break-in. Superintendent Joe Aguasviva told the Daily News he had seen the suspect from other break-ins over the years, "Just when I thought he wouldn't come back, boom! He comes up again."

Police found the suspect on the roof and asked him to stop, but he ran away. The police chased him into the elevator mechanical room, where, according to the NY Times, "lieutenant grabbed the man’s clothing to pull him out, and the sergeant, who approached from a different direction, saw the man raise his hand toward the lieutenant with something wrapped in a blue material that looked like a handgun." The gun turned out to be wrapped in a sock.

The sergeant then tried to beat the gun out of the suspect's hand with a police radio, and a shot from the suspect's gun fired, hitting the suspect in the head. http://gothamist.com/2008/05/05/man_killed_by_o.php

How is it that no one feels events such as this wouldn't increase by virtue of susceptibility?...

The simple fact of the matter is that there is less crime than there is human error which ultimately is the determining factor upon the entire conjecture...

If you're prepared to argue that more justice will be served by carrying a gun vs unjustified killings by virtue of human error, ignorance, and lack of care is one thing but I cannot see in the slightest the reasoning behind it.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:59 pm

Jester;1026225 wrote: Snyder your senarios dont make sense becasue they aren't real.

What's realistic about it is asking by virtue of divination if guns were illegal and reduced the amount of crime would you help to enact such a piece of legislation...The percentages associated with crime is not peculiar to all but you, your family, including your child. How would it be that you think your child would not hypothetically be apart of those percentages that is not otherwise effected by the very same crime reduction the scenario represents?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:04 pm

Jester;1026225 wrote: And yer a kid, you aint seen nothing yet,...

Well, I sure as hell don't judge a man to be a man by what he sees rather what he can do about what next he sees.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:14 pm

Jester;1026237 wrote: Maybe its your lack of logic that is in question, it's you buddy not us.

'If' is the key here Snyder, reduceing guns will not reduce 'unjustifed' deaths, because you cannot realistically reduce the guns that count, which are the guns from the criminals. And as I said, my child wont be killed because I'd still have my guns. Because your senario is bunk.

Prove there is less human gun error than crime.

No Jester, that's the entire point of hypothetical scenarios...A hypothetical scenario doesn't have to be realistic...What it does is act to explain logic to unquestionable detail...

From wiki...

# a hypothetical possibility, circumstance, statement, proposal, situation, etc.; "consider the following, just as a hypothetical"

# conjectural: based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence; "theories about the extinction of dinosaurs are still highly conjectural"; "the supposed reason for his absence"; "suppositious reconstructions of dead languages"; "hypothetical situation"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Based upon a hypothesis; conjectural

What you're doing is basing opinions off of example...Good for sustaining median outcome but very bad for perfecting future involvement...

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:43 pm

Jester;1026258 wrote: Fisrt my children know exactly what guns do and are for, they can probably shoot better than 90% of the cops in my city. Second, my weapons are secured. Thirdly I have trained my kids on what to do when a gun shows up uninvited.

And Snyder, stop with the what if's. It's a waste of time.

Guns are not illegal, and if they were it would not reduce crime, you cannot legislate guns away in the US. You can try and all it will get you is another civil war, even if the gun owners loose.

lucky you don't live in Canada......they are illegal here.

shocked that you needed to train your kids on how to use them when a gun shows up uninvited.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:46 pm

Jester;1026258 wrote: Fisrt my children know exactly what guns do and are for, they can probably shoot better than 90% of the cops in my city. Second, my weapons are secured. Thirdly I have trained my kids on what to do when a gun shows up uninvited.

And Snyder, stop with the what if's. It's a waste of time.

Guns are not illegal, and if they were it would not reduce crime, you cannot legislate guns away in the US. You can try and all it will get you is another civil war, even if the gun owners loose.

I don't doubt that...But you could just as easily assume that there are two people, doubly so, more incompetent in handling guns to your family's one...Upon such an instance a piece of legislation banning guns at the same time would hypothetically reduce crime as well as reduce the susceptibility of every citizen falling victim to crime I don't know how anyone could be against that but immoral people...It's like a mother dog calling another mother dog a bitch. You're arguing against the very same belief you uphold in wishing to keep your guns with a hint of shootin **** in the back yard...By your very same argument of you saying carrying guns will help reduce crime I'm giving you the other end of the spectrum in saying just as easily eliminating guns could help reduce crime yet you won't allow it...What's left is you liking guns to the point you'll allow other people to be victimized all because you have your right to shoot ****...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:08 pm

Jester;1026278 wrote: Snyder when you get every gun out of a criminals hand we'll talk, until then I'll keep my hands on my guns and you keep your hands where I can see them and we wont have any hypothetical trouble.

Guns are tools to a means for protection, safety and survival, I have some I like yes, tis true, keep sakes that I will pass on to my children.

You cannot eliminate guns, you can dance on desire or divine it anyway ya like kid but it aint gonna happen.

I'm for owning one hand gun, one shotgun, and one rifle with casing laws that does not undermine the integrity of their proper use.

I'm against people brandishing weapons in public at their will. Such increases incrementally upon the level of intoxication one is embodied to.

What I'm for is the minimization of victimization to it's utmost extent.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:12 pm

Agree with the guns. What I don't get is why the NRA is not opposed to people owning AK-47's? What is the point of hunting with that weapon?

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:15 pm

Jester;1026286 wrote: I carry at times, I usually carry semi-concealed. Most people never know its there, I seldom carry around my town its fairly safe here. If I walk my land I carry a 45 revolver holstered at my side.

I never drink alcohol.

You're reminding me of the Marlboro Man:wah:

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:17 pm

Jester;1026286 wrote: I carry at times, I usually carry semi-concealed. Most people never know its there, I seldom carry around my town its fairly safe here. If I walk my land I carry a 45 revolver holstered at my side.

I never drink alcohol.

I agree that the majority of the world is more moral than they are immoral but I do not however agree that the majority of the world is intelligible enough to know how to not only adequately use a firearm but for them to accurately assess when it is justifiable to use a gun with the capability of ending another human life.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:28 pm

JAB;1026294 wrote: Intelligible enough? OK....:rolleyes:

I think training in the use of a firearm would be a necessary prerequisite for owning and using one.

Agree plus a total background check and no guns to people who've been convicted of crimes or have been in & out of mental hospitals.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:35 pm

Jester;1026298 wrote: hehehe... But I dont smoke Ducks! :wah:

How about tobacco chewing?:wah:

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:37 pm

JAB;1026294 wrote: Intelligible enough? OK....:rolleyes:

I think training in the use of a firearm would be a necessary prerequisite for owning and using one.

Right, I do not agree that the majority of the world is intelligible enough to carry a gun and use it appropriately with unquestionable judgment...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:39 pm

Jester;1026302 wrote: Well I aint one of them world guys... Im just an American guy. The world outside the US can give thier guns up if they want to.

I think generally speaking folks know when they are threatened enough to use a firearm in self defense.

Oh well I don't know the difference between the world and the US...I consider myself human above all else...

I'll clarify my specific statement...

I agree that the majority of the US is more moral than they are immoral but I do not however agree that the majority of the US is intelligible enough to know how to not only adequately use a firearm but for them to accurately assess when it is justifiable to use a gun with the capability of ending another human life.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:42 pm

Jester;1026307 wrote: I re-read this Ducks, too funny to me, I do smoke ducks. I don't smoke cigarettes, Ducks.

:wah::wah:

Oh, naughty you:sneaky:

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:42 pm

JAB;1026308 wrote: Intelligible adj - capable of being understood. Wrong use of the word, K.

Oh ok...

Thank you...

I'm tired that's my excuse...

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:54 pm

Talk about armed robbery...here in Philly they are scalping tickets for the World Series tix...somebody just paid $1,500 for 2 tix:mad:

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:15 pm

Jester;1026330 wrote: Thats worth a leg shot, not a bone hit though, just a through and through. :wah:

Makes me happy that we've got tix. We had the season tix and great seats. Are you for the Boston or Tampa Bay?

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:42 pm

I am "old school" american on this particular subject. Though I don't really like guns, they are necessary.

If someone is in my house....he has got a big problem. Now ...I have never heard of anyone going to the trouble to break into a home to help themselves to the fridge. That does not happen here. Hungry people shoplift at the grocery store.

I think I read one post that stated that in Britain you can almost count on it that an intruder is not armed. Well I am glad that British theives obey the gun laws over there. American theives, on the other hand, are notorious for disobeying the gun laws. We need guns for security.

And I suscribe to the philosophy that if everyone had a gun then criminals would back off. Criminals prey on the weakest they can find...because they are cowards. If they know or suspect you are armed they run like little girls. That's the whole idea behind a guard dog....criminals are afraid to get bit. They will hit on an easier target. They will always look for the easiest target.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:23 am

Jester;1026274 wrote: I'm the last boyscout... be prepared.

prepard to shoot someone?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:43 am

Jester;1026870 wrote: If needs be, yes. Absolutely.

Would you not agree just by simply brandishing a loaded firearm would effect a majority's readiness to use it?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:58 pm

Bruv;1026207 wrote: Night night sleep tight Oscar....(Oscar is a blokes name)

Good evening America and Kent

Oscar's a bloke's name...... that's how i fool them all :wah:

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:00 pm

Jester;1026870 wrote: If needs be, yes. Absolutely.

then perhaps everyone should gave guns?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:01 pm

K.Snyder;1026303 wrote: Right, I do not agree that the majority of the world is intelligible enough to carry a gun and use it appropriately with unquestionable judgment...

Statistics prove that 'panic' contributes to more gunshot death than justifiable Intention.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:04 pm

Jester;1027318 wrote: Thats pretty much what the second amendment guarantees.

and if everyone was allowed to carry them, killing wars would be everywhere.