Post deleted by User.
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Asura.Floppyseconds said: » The guy didn't just wake up and say "I wan't to have someone rob me and I want to shoot them as they are getting away with my valuables". Funny you say that, because I'm not so sure there aren't tons of people out there who secretly think that way. Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Everyone knows Nausi never strawman ever. Rarely, if ever. I'll ask questions in response to what I think are ridiculous opinions and statements to further clarify the position being stated, but I rarely if ever pretend someone said something they never said. Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Jassik said: » If your opinion is there are no disadvantages to guns being completely unregulated Again, where the frick is he actually saying that? You're proving his point by changing his argument into something more extreme. Low regulation is not the same thing as complete unregulation. Maybe I'm understanding what the "regulation" that's ok is? I'm being buried under a mountain of logical fallacies. And I'm not even taking the whole "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" BS literally. You don't want any restriction that doesn't strip more fundamental human rights from other people. So regulation of OTHER people is fine? Regulation of criminals and those with a high risk for violence? Uh, yes. That... shouldn't be too hard to grasp. It's not hard to grasp, it's impossible. A lot of the perpetrators exhibited either no signs or nothing actionable. What's more, of the people who exhibit any signs of violent behavior, only a very small fraction ever commit any violent crime. Add on that damn near everyone could be shown to exhibit some or most of the same signs if observed with any scrutiny and you're basically talking about half the country if not more. Not only that, but who is going to pay for the literal army of psychologists and submit themselves and everyone in the country to extensive mental health screening? It's Orwellian levels of oversight and control and you believe it's preferable to limiting access to guns or holding gun owners liable for crimes committed with their weapons? Is that what freedom looks like to you? LOL. Wow, we went from regulation of known criminals and people with known mental health problems and jumped right into Orwellian monitoring. I should take this post to the Museum of Spin and label it "Exhibit A".
[+]
Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » Life is considered more valuable than property pretty much everywhere. And he is a civilian so he cannot make justice by himself in his own way, he should have aimed to his legs if anything. You want justice you call authorities, you aren't Batman. If someone was raping my significant other, and was getting out my door after it was over. I would shoot them too. To be a criminal means you are putting your life at risk. It is ones personal choice if they wish to live with a clear conscience or not. Legally though people should be allowed to shoot criminals in their home actively doing things. Besides that wouldn't even be an eye for an eye, but rather an eye for an arm. Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Shiva.Nikolce said: » Asura.Floppyseconds said: » give us guns. we're angry monkeys that wear pants. and we have been killing each other with anything we could get our hands on for as long as anyone can remember. that it's more heavily concentrated on the continent we off loaded all of our criminals too for four hundred years really shouldn't suprise anyone. and if you are surprised, I blame stupidity. Yeah, but, but, Australia was for criminals too. we have 330 million loonies to their 23 million Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » I'll ask questions in response to what I think are ridiculous opinions and statements to further clarify the position being stated, but I rarely if ever pretend someone said something they never said. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Name 1 candidate who isn't a liar Nausi. "They all lie, therefore when Hilary lies, I don't have to care." Hilary 2016 This is the very definition of a "low information voter". That was just what I remember from yesterday, I'm sure you do a ton daily. The argument was that Hilary lies and you shouldn't vote for her because of that. You responded by rationalizing that all politicians lie did you not? I paraphrased your statement and called you a low information voter in response. This would only be a strawman if you weren't saying all politicians lie as a way to rationalize Hilary's lying. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Jassik said: » If your opinion is there are no disadvantages to guns being completely unregulated Again, where the frick is he actually saying that? You're proving his point by changing his argument into something more extreme. Low regulation is not the same thing as complete unregulation. Maybe I'm understanding what the "regulation" that's ok is? I'm being buried under a mountain of logical fallacies. And I'm not even taking the whole "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" BS literally. You don't want any restriction that doesn't strip more fundamental human rights from other people. So regulation of OTHER people is fine? Regulation of criminals and those with a high risk for violence? Uh, yes. That... shouldn't be too hard to grasp. It's not hard to grasp, it's impossible. A lot of the perpetrators exhibited either no signs or nothing actionable. What's more, of the people who exhibit any signs of violent behavior, only a very small fraction ever commit any violent crime. Add on that damn near everyone could be shown to exhibit some or most of the same signs if observed with any scrutiny and you're basically talking about half the country if not more. Not only that, but who is going to pay for the literal army of psychologists and submit themselves and everyone in the country to extensive mental health screening? It's Orwellian levels of oversight and control and you believe it's preferable to limiting access to guns or holding gun owners liable for crimes committed with their weapons? Is that what freedom looks like to you? LOL. Wow, we went from regulation of known criminals and people with known mental health problems and jumped right into Orwellian monitoring. I should take this post to the Museum of Spin and label it "Exhibit A". So, we combat the scourge of mass shootings by doing exactly what we already do? People convicted of violent crimes can't own a weapon and face severe consequences for possessing one. The people who commit mass shootings almost never have a criminal record to warrant that level of scrutiny in the first place. Do you not see why people don't take that position seriously or why they boil it down to no regulation? You're not even living in the same reality as everyone else. It's "we should do something" except every idea of "something" is just "nothing". It changed that your life was no longer in danger when the person was walking away.
[+]
Jassik said: » So, we combat the scourge of mass shootings by doing exactly what we already do? People convicted of violent crimes can't own a weapon and face severe consequences for possessing one. The people who commit mass shootings almost never have a criminal record to warrant that level of scrutiny in the first place. Do you not see why people don't take that position seriously or why they boil it down to no regulation? You're not even living in the same reality as everyone else. It's "we should do something" except every idea of "something" is just "nothing". We combat the scourge of mass shootings by finding something that will actually reduce the problem, not knee-jerking our way into new laws that will do more to punish law abiding citizens than it will to deter mass shooters. If that means doing nothing new in the meantime because we haven't figured it out yet, then that's exactly what we do.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Jassik said: » So, we combat the scourge of mass shootings by doing exactly what we already do? People convicted of violent crimes can't own a weapon and face severe consequences for possessing one. The people who commit mass shootings almost never have a criminal record to warrant that level of scrutiny in the first place. Do you not see why people don't take that position seriously or why they boil it down to no regulation? You're not even living in the same reality as everyone else. It's "we should do something" except every idea of "something" is just "nothing". We combat the scourge of mass shootings by finding something that will actually reduce the problem, not knee-jerking our way into new laws that will do more to punish law abiding citizens than it will to deter mass shooters. If that means doing nothing new in the meantime because we haven't figured it out yet, then that's exactly what we do. Feelz bro. Don't you have any?
[+]
Jassik said: » You're not even living in the same reality as everyone else. you should move to canada. You seem really unhappy here in the US. I agree, it's a shitty place full of ***. If you don't like it gtfo Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » It changed that your life was no longer in danger when the person was walking away. So basically we are reaching the point where if someone has just killed, raped, shot someone, etc in your house and turns to leave since they are no longer actively committing a crime you have no right to shoot them? or don't... the global warming is going to reduce everything to ash in five years anyways.
Shiva.Nikolce said: » Jassik said: » You're not even living in the same reality as everyone else. you should move to canada. You seem really unhappy here in the US. I agree, it's a shitty place full of ***. If you don't like it gtfo When the far right runs on about "taking their country" back, nobody tells them to move to north korea. It's just plain disregard for the will of the people. As long as you are working within our system of government, you should never be told to move somewhere else, period. You sound like a dad telling his gay son to be straight or get out. Asura.Floppyseconds said: » I don't believe in placing others lives and wellbeing on an equal or greater level to my own or others though Bahamut.Ravael said: » Jassik said: » So, we combat the scourge of mass shootings by doing exactly what we already do? People convicted of violent crimes can't own a weapon and face severe consequences for possessing one. The people who commit mass shootings almost never have a criminal record to warrant that level of scrutiny in the first place. Do you not see why people don't take that position seriously or why they boil it down to no regulation? You're not even living in the same reality as everyone else. It's "we should do something" except every idea of "something" is just "nothing". We combat the scourge of mass shootings by finding something that will actually reduce the problem, not knee-jerking our way into new laws that will do more to punish law abiding citizens than it will to deter mass shooters. If that means doing nothing new in the meantime because we haven't figured it out yet, then that's exactly what we do. We have identified plenty of things that can actually reduce the problem without punishing law abiding citizens. I've even mentioned one about a dozen times, it's called accountability. National registries and liability to registered owners of guns used in violent crimes. You let your deranged cousin have access to your gun, you get charged with the crimes he commits as well. Not only would that drastically limit the access to guns, it would not punish law abiding citizens at all. They can have as many guns as they want, as long as they are responsible and keep them secured. Valefor.Sehachan said: » Asura.Floppyseconds said: » I don't believe in placing others lives and wellbeing on an equal or greater level to my own or others though What are you talking about? I've seen enough movies to know exactly how it works in Italy. If you find out that Cousin Giovanni is a snitch, you are legally obligated to shoot him with a Tommy Gun. Shooting and killing a burglar running away from your house is not the same as defending yourself, it's just murder. You are no longer in danger and should call the police. I don't feel bad for him but you can't just shoot someone like that.
If you or someone else are being attacked then you can use force to defend yourself. Some countries have reasonable force laws though so you can't just kill a guy for slapping you even if it makes you feel scared Even if someone has raped your partner you can't just run after them and beat them to death, that's also murder though I would cheer the guy on for doing that
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » Asura.Floppyseconds said: » I don't believe in placing others lives and wellbeing on an equal or greater level to my own or others though What are you talking about? I've seen enough movies to know exactly how it works in Italy. If you find out that Cousin Giovanni is a snitch, you are legally obligated to shoot him with a Tommy Gun. Just because I personally don't have a problem with them killing the *** doesn't mean they didn't commit murder
If the person is attacking then swing away but if you find her after it's stopped and he's running away then it's just plain murder, even if I'd likely do the same |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.