Good guy with an AK47 ...

[Derec]

Neither of us has enough information to say anything useful about any specific cases, unless we were present in court for the duration of any trial.

There is enough information publicly available to form an informed opinion I think.

What information do you think is missing from this case that you think you would have if you attended the trial?

 

[bilby]

Protection of private property is one of the core pillars of any civilization.

Protection of life is another; Yet you abandon it with great glee in favour of the protection of mere property. Which tells me that your biases make you a poor judge of morality.

You see the life of a human being as less valuable than property, because you downgrade the lives of people who are pushed into crime by the society you have built, and don't believe them to be really people at all. They are sub-human in your estimation, and therefore to be disposed of casually, even gleefully, if they make themselves a nuisance.

That's your choice, but it's not one you should expect everyone to agree with, and you shouldn't be surprised when people think very badly of you for having made it.

 

[bilby]

There is enough information publicly available to form an informed opinion I think.

I know you do. I think you are wrong, and I have good reason to think that.

 

[bilby]

What information do you think is missing from this case that you think you would have if you attended the trial?

How the fuck could I possibly know that?

 

[Derec]

Protection of life is another;

Yes. The homeowner is protecting his life from the threat posed by the home invader.

Yet you abandon it with great glee in favour of the protection of mere property. Which tells me that your biases make you a poor judge of morality.

On the contrary. But the homeowner has the right to protect his own life and limb.
The point about property was in reference to prideandfall's rambling screed (in the hidden text).
He seems to think that laws protecting property are not legitimate and are there "for the benefit of the few" while "fucking over" the many.

You see the life of a human being as less valuable than property, because you downgrade the lives of people who are pushed into crime by the society you have built, and don't believe them to be really people at all.

I do not value life as higher than property. On the other hand, people make choices. If you make a choice to rob somebody, you run the risk of your victim defending himself.
There is a difference between a stealthy burglary and a home invasion. There is a difference between theft and robbery.

They are sub-human in your estimation, and therefore to be disposed of casually, even gleefully, if they make themselves a nuisance.

If they threaten somebody, the victims may defend themselves. The robbers made their bed, and need to lie in it.

That's your choice, but it's not one you should expect everyone to agree with, and you shouldn't be surprised when people think very badly of you for having made it.

So what do you think a homeowner should do if he or she is a victim of a home invasion? Just let it be and hope for the best?
And what do you think should happen to home invaders?

 

[Derec]

How the fuck could I possibly know that?

You seem to think there is some vital information missing from the reporting of that case. What do you think that might be?

 

[bilby]

How the fuck could I possibly know that?

You seem to think there is some vital information missing from the reporting of that case. What do you think that might be?

No, I am just pointing out that your confidence is misplaced, and that you cannot possibly know enough to reasonably be as confident as you are.

You are indulging in the unsupported belief that you know what you are talking about. You don't. You are just spouting beliefs as though they were unassailable fact, a behaviour that is frowned upon on these boards.

 

[Derec]

No, I am just pointing out that your confidence is misplaced, and that you cannot possibly know enough to reasonably be as confident as you are.

So you are saying we cannot discuss any criminal case unless we served on the jury? That is absurd!

 

[bilby]

So you are saying we cannot discuss any criminal case unless we served on the jury?

I am saying you are foolish to make confident claims about such cases, because you cannot possibly have the necessary information for confidence.

You are ignorant, and ignorant of your ignorance, and your belief that you are knowledgeable is absurd and makes you look a fool.

Of course you are at liberty to do so, but appearing foolish is something many people try to avoid, and I strongly recommend avoiding it to you as a life strategy.

 

[Patooka]

Why should looks make a ban justifiable?

If you want to buy a gun to look tough, you are nowhere near responsible enough to own one. And yes it is that fucking simple.

Not wanting people to look tough on Insta is not a sufficient reason to restrict a constitutional right.

Spare me, just fucking spare with this "muh 2nd amendment rights" horseshit. Say with a straight face, "I believe convicted felons should be allowed to own guns. I also believe people who commit domestic violence should own guns. People with compromising mental health issues should be able to own a gun. 'Shall not be infringed' motherfuckers!" For fucks sake, try and buy a Saiga-12 and see if Homeland Security doesn't land on you with both feet. Guns are regulated and restricted all the time for numerous reasons. For instance notice how I said Homeland Security and not the ATF for a Saiga? I have pretty much adopted a zero tolerance for bullshit 2nd amendment arguments which always, always, FUCKING ALWAYS boil down to arbitrary inconsistencies.

It makes sense to ban the gun morons want. Fuck the constitution. Or more accurately your interpretation of it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Stop & frisk is horrendously unconstitutional.

If you frisk everybody you stop then I would agree. But the S&F programs also have the intermediate step of questioning, to establish probable cause.

The police need probable cause to stop and question someone. You're bass akwards.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why should looks make a ban justifiable?

If you want to buy a gun to look tough, you are nowhere near responsible enough to own one. And yes it is that fucking simple.

Not wanting people to look tough on Insta is not a sufficient reason to restrict a constitutional right.

Spare me, just fucking spare with this "muh 2nd amendment rights" horseshit. Say with a straight face, "I believe convicted felons should be allowed to own guns. I also believe people who commit domestic violence should own guns. People with compromising mental health issues should be able to own a gun. 'Shall not be infringed' motherfuckers!" For fucks sake, try and buy a Saiga-12 and see if Homeland Security doesn't land on you with both feet. Guns are regulated and restricted all the time for numerous reasons. For instance notice how I said Homeland Security and not the ATF for a Saiga? I have pretty much adopted a zero tolerance for bullshit 2nd amendment arguments which always, always, FUCKING ALWAYS boil down to arbitrary inconsistencies.

It makes sense to ban the gun morons want. Fuck the constitution. Or more accurately your interpretation of it.

I think Derec is basically saying the marketing of these weapons is meaningless. That is so far from the truth.

 

[Elixir]

Banning certain guns based on what they look like even though many more gun crimes are committed using handguns is not reasonable.

You're welcome to your opinion, regardless of its merit or lack thereof.
I feel that empowering every citizen of 18 or more years of age to kill or main tens or hundreds of fellow citizens in seconds or a few minutes, is sheer folly. Most civilized countries agree, and you are free to disagree.
Most civilized countries' politicians are not owned by gun manufacturers though, and that's the main difference.

 

[Elixir]

You see the life of a human being as less valuable than property

Easy there, podner. I got multiple warnings and wrist slaps for impugning the morality of he who elevates the seriousness of a above the value of human life.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I am just pointing out that your confidence is misplaced, and that you cannot possibly know enough to reasonably be as confident as you are.

So you are saying we cannot discuss any criminal case unless we served on the jury? That is absurd!

No, the argument is obviously about the level of confidence in your opinion, not the opinion,.

 

[Bomb#20]

Protection of private property is one of the core pillars of any civilization.

Protection of life is another; Yet you abandon it with great glee in favour of the protection of mere property. Which tells me that your biases make you a poor judge of morality.

You see the life of a human being as less valuable than property, because you downgrade the lives of people who are pushed into crime by the society you have built, and don't believe them to be really people at all. They are sub-human in your estimation, and therefore to be disposed of casually, even gleefully, if they make themselves a nuisance.

That's your choice, but it's not one you should expect everyone to agree with, and you shouldn't be surprised when people think very badly of you for having made it.

In the words of the master, "You are ignorant, and ignorant of your ignorance, and your belief that you are knowledgeable is absurd and makes you look a fool." Your claims about what's going on in Derec's brain are utterly unsupported by his posts. Read for content, not just for blasphemies against your ideology.

 

[Bomb#20]

In any case, whether it is 3%, 6% or 9% does not matter. What matters is that civilian AR15s and AK47s are semi-auto weapons, similar to other non-assaulty semi-auto rifles and they should not be banned just because they resemble military weapons.

Sigh. I am in favor of reasonable gun laws. Banning certain guns based on what they look like even though many more gun crimes are committed using handguns is not reasonable.

Those are excellent points. Makes for a pretty good argument for banning semi-auto weapons altogether. They should be banned not because they resemble military weapons but because self-reloading from clips makes it so easy to quickly fire off large numbers of bullets that it disincentivizes aiming, making a "good guy with a gun" more likely to kill an innocent bystander.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Stop & frisk is horrendously unconstitutional.

If you frisk everybody you stop then I would agree. But the S&F programs also have the intermediate step of questioning, to establish probable cause.

Police shouldn't be stopping people without already having probable cause. They can come and ask otherwise, but it's only a request, not a demand. (For example, the cop a few years back who correctly concluded that I had hiked a particular trail and he was interested in whether the snow was completely melted. Quite relevant information for someone working with the search and rescue team.)

 

[laughing dog]

Protection of private property is one of the core pillars of any civilization.

Protection of life is another; Yet you abandon it with great glee in favour of the protection of mere property. Which tells me that your biases make you a poor judge of morality.

You see the life of a human being as less valuable than property, because you downgrade the lives of people who are pushed into crime by the society you have built, and don't believe them to be really people at all. They are sub-human in your estimation, and therefore to be disposed of casually, even gleefully, if they make themselves a nuisance.

That's your choice, but it's not one you should expect everyone to agree with, and you shouldn't be surprised when people think very badly of you for having made it.

In the words of the master, "You are ignorant, and ignorant of your ignorance, and your belief that you are knowledgeable is absurd and makes you look a fool." Your claims about what's going on in Derec's brain are utterly unsupported by his posts. Read for content, not just for blasphemies against your ideology.

Are you trying to be ironic?

 

[Bomb#20]

In the words of the master, "You are ignorant, and ignorant of your ignorance, and your belief that you are knowledgeable is absurd and makes you look a fool." Your claims about what's going on in Derec's brain are utterly unsupported by his posts. Read for content, not just for blasphemies against your ideology.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Are you trying to prove you're just as disinclined to read for content as bilby is? If you seriously think bilby's rant was accurate, exactly which part of "On the other hand, if they start fleeing when confronted, I do not think it should be permissible to shoot the perps." don't you understand?