Botellines

Dude you don´t really believe what you are saying, just want to prove a point .If you really think that you should never give up your rights for a promise of safety, you should REALLY be against GWB and his Patriot act. That the government is able to held you captive without informing you of the reason takes away more rights than that you have to do more paperwork to get a gun. Being more consistent with your ideas will help proving your points across the board.

No it is not. Don´t let your anger cloud your brain and think again. Most groups of friend have a range of ages of 2 or 3 years of diference. Is your birthday the same age than your friends? I didn´t think so. So when the oldest turn 18, he can buy alcohol to his 15 years old friends. However if the seller Voluntarily refuses to sell unless he is 21, it is more unlikely that he will pass that alcohol to a 15 years old guy. I mean, most 21 years old guys don´t go out with 15 years old guys.

Why is it based on a fallacy? can you prove it? The statistic we have are either way too biased or don´t include all of the variables that may affect the outcome, so they are pretty useless. My point is at least as valid as yours. Of course. However, you too advocate restricting something because of a gut feeling. Would you allow anyone to have hand granades at home? what about a lion for a pet? or weapon grade plutonioum. The only diference is were you draw the line, i think that overall it would be safer for everybody a more restrictive gun control.

I don´t know either, it was a rhetoric question. I know there has been some, but i am sure i can find on the net some statistics that will prove my point (so can you with your point) I was just pointing out the line of thinking that some people have for wanting a more strict control of guns. Anyway, it is obvious that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun than in a fist fight or with a knife.

I don´t think anyone denies the fact that maybe at some point of your life a gun can come handy. What anti gun people claim is that in general for the society, easy access to a gun gives more harm than good. This 6 guys may (or may not) be alive if they had a gun. But how many lives has been wasted when a driver with a bad temper shot another driver over a petty discussion? If he had no gun, he may kill him instead with a knife, but also if those murderers had guns the victims would most likely be dead anyway. It all comes down to that unstable people should have no acess to any short of weapon (gun or no gun), but how do you track all the unstable people? The point is that with a gun it is much easier to kill a person, although someone determined to do it will use any short of weapon.

Yeah, maybe giving a printed receipt to the citizen and keeping a printed version for backup.

Wrong again. what you just said is totally pointless and doesn´t add anything to the discussion. Just for the record, i have a black belt in Taekwondo (Federacion Española de Taekwondo. License 18517CN), I have practiced several others martial arts and several courses of self defense. Although probably i am not as knowledgeable as you are, right? . BTW i have had to act in self defense (i said it in another post in this thread) Maybe i didn´t explain myself correctly, i am talking about the range of the weapon, not the range of the attacker. The attacker was inside the car, so what you just said, does not apply. Actually, the woman put herself in danger by aproaching the car. If he had a knife (the baseball bat would be too cumbersome) he could have tried to strike at her through the window (in that case the efective range would be less than 2 meters) As i said, i don´t know much about guns (it is not of my interest). Anyway my claim is not false, don´t you think that i would double check this things before posting it here and let everybody jump at me if there is something incorrect? It would take him much longer to get out of the car, get close to her and strike than for her to get the gun out and shoot. Edited for clarification

yes, but is has a range of let´s say 3 meters, a knife maybe 2, and a gun 100 meters (of the last i have no clue), out of that range, regardless of size you shouldn´t feel so threatened that you feel you have to use deadly force on the attacker. Totally agree about the size. You don´t want to have a very short guy too close, he can jump and bite your balls.

Probably the problem is that not everybody feels comfortable being around guns, especially if those guns are being used. If there are childrens around, having weapons drawn is an invitation to disaster.

You didn´t answer my question! What is wrong with going to college? You seem to think that going to college unqualifies you to be an authority in the matter you studied Just for the record, when you finish college you have the theoretical knowledge to gather experience on your own. If you don´t know the theory, you will hardly be proficient enough to learn from experience.

A gun is not a toy.

Yes, i have. I received a hit in my head that rendered me unconscious for a short while. When i woke up i was totally confuse, that is why I find a bit suspicious (at least worth of investigation) that someone who received such blow can stand up, walk to the agressor, get the gun out, and fire. By the way, about your analogy with the acid trip... Man, ask your dealer for a refund, you shouldn´t feel that way at all. WRONG, you are taking a possibility as a fact. It is possible that she was so confused that she truly believed she was in danger. However, it is also a good posibility that she was searching for revenge after being beaten up. You absolutely have no clue what happened (neither do I) so although for the info we have it looks like she was conscious of what she was doing, I will concede both posibilities are 50% possible and will require further investigation. I did, and i still think so. Been there, done that. Only happened to me once, but i was capable (after some kicks on my head) to asses the situation as best as i could and take a decision. Had I had a gun, if i had shooted the guy trying to hit me with the chain or the guy getting a knife out, i may have had to give some explanations to the authorities. Luckily, if chased i run pretty fast. WRONG AGAIN. It may has not been the wrong choice, maybe it was the right thing to do (we DON´T know), that, a judge will decide. But for sure she was NOT FORCED to shoot the gun. Plenty of options.

He commited the crime, he should pay for it, right? So how does this relates to the thread of that woman killing her agressor. If it is proven that it wasn´t self defence, that would be a crime. Should she pay for it? The law is the law, period. On top of the law we MUST apply common sense, if not we will end up with kids being kicked out of school for taking a rubber band gun, etc, etc. What good does it make to the society to have this man executed when he is going to die soon anyway.

¿Is there anything wrong for going to college?

I don´t know what your point is. You think it was self defence, i think not. Someone who have all the facts should decide wat it was and see who was right. Well, that is what will be happening next month. If it was self defence she will declared inocent, if not, she will not be declared inocent. It is the LAW.

Agreed Undeniable Now you are talking about execution and no self defense. Let´s suppose it was execution. Execution is not legal. Where do we draw the line where you have to obey the law and where you can decide justice for yourself?

Yes it does. If it was a petite woman beating a 6 foot tall man, you wouldn´t be overreacting. A)she didn´t split open her skull B)To complete a book of logic is totally different (much harder) than to determine wether you are in danger or not. C) someone with her skull slpit open cannot stand up and walk towards a person, draw a gun, aim and blow his head up. (if she can, she can also run away or take cover or something else) You take a security guard job, you have a gun, you are paid for it, therefore you are responsible for your actions. period. What about if she had missed (likely since as you said had the skull split open) and had killed an innocent person? Wouldn´t she be responsible for her actions? what about if that inocent person was your fiancee? Wouldn´t you want to charge her with murder. What about if it was your pregnant wife. A judge will take into consideration that the person she killed was not innocent at all. NOTE: I am not talking wether he deserveed it or not. You forfeit your right to remain silent the very moment that you speak about it for money on a TV. By the way, if you remain silent you don´t get charged? Edited for spelling

I understand your reasons and i agree. A man beating a woman up is disgusting. However, she was a security guard (knew the risks) and had a gun (big responsability). It seems for the media that when it happened, she went towards the robber and shot him in the head. I am sure she must has been confused as hell, but if someone fears his/her life, wouldn´t move away from the attacker? This is a valid question and it is undeniable the fact that he died. If we add the she may not be fully cooperating with the police, i see perfectly normal that she gets charged with murder. A different issue is wether she should be condemned, i think not, but IMO it is necesary to find out exactly what happened even if it is only to clear her name and confidently giving her gun license back.

For what it seems with the info we have, none of them went with the law. He obviously is a criminal, but according to witness she shooted when he wasn´t threatening her life (the car was not heading towards her. Not sure about the law in that case. Here is spain she would be charged with murder for sure. I think she should be charged, and if condemned pay either a very lenient sentence or not any at all. But she shouldn´t be working again with guns. No pity for him, none at all, but shouldn´t she be helping the police intstead of making quick money on TV?

Dude, i am about to show you my nipple.

I think you may have forgotten the word "out" JAJAJAJAJA. Jaunesky, my friend, if you need help with your English, just let me know. Or spanish for that matter. Note to myself: Now be very careful with your english because everybody will be watching...

So if i change the title of this thread to: "Make up your mind, you MILITARIST" would it make a diference? However they mean the same. Don´t you honestly think that people is being overly sensitive? So war supporters are more than willing to go to fight in a desert in the worst conditions but they get offended if i call them war mongers. Better not let AQ read this thread, otherwise they will insult and hurt your feelings to death.

The point of this thread is not to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense. I wanted war supporters to support their claim that this war was necesary comparing it with other scenarios where if we aply the same logic we should go to war as well. Just for the record: War´mon`ger Noun 1. warmonger - a person who advocates war or warlike policies militarist adult, grownup - a fully developed person from maturity onward war hawk, hawk - an advocate of an aggressive policy on foreign relations http://www.thefreedictionary.com/warmonger So any of you, sensitive people, who where offended by the word Warmonger is not a person who advocates war, fully developed from maturity onward and advocate an aggressive policy on foreign relations? I think that you are just changing the subject because you can not defende your position. Edited for spelling

come on Ron, then all the world is at a cease fire with the rest of the world. We are at war then with the brits, the french, the US, the Romans, etc, etc. Do they know that the US is at war with them? And what do you think it is worse? equal to me in the worst case Like you give a shit about the UN. I mean, if you do, shouldn´t you have waited two more months to invade Irak? Fair enough, what about Pakistan who has WMD, and not only help terrorists but also have terrorists in their files? Are they willing to surrender ALL of them? if you don´t believe SH why would you believe Korea´s crazy dictator Only for politics. Are you saying that Korea watch Human rights? Does that give you any guarantee that they will never use it? there is always a first time. Should we take away WMD from the US because they have used them before on civilians?

Fair enough. I understand that, but lets suppose that we have found a decent stockpile of WMD, which we haven´t YET. My question is why go after IRAK when we THOUGHT that they had them and not after Korea that we KNOW already have them and is even more unstable than Irak. If it is a matter of order, is there any plans to invade Korea? what about Pakistan?