GUN DEBATE

Quote:

How many crimes have actually ever been averted because a homeowner had a gun? I'd suggest that the figure is pretty damn close to zero.

Based on what exactly?

It's a loaded argument - you know it's purely anecdotal and there's no reliable way to compile statistics on it, so you have every bit as much chance of being dead wrong as you are of right.

You can sit here and offer your asinine arguments of Americans merely wanting guns out of some kind of vanity, but I reject that argument out of hand. The most fundamental of individual rights is the right to property - not only to just own it, but to be able to defend it, even with deadly force if the need arises. You don't have to agree with it - hell, I don't want you to, but don't you dare sit there and try to say that I'm a pussy because I value the right to defend myself and my property with a firearm.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Whether or not you think it's stupid or not is not the issue -- the issue is whether or not I should have the right to own that firearm to protect my shit. You don't think I should have that right and as a result, you know exactly what you can go do.

Quote:

I just can't imagine a situation where having a gun at home is in anyway helpful or a good idea for self defence purposes.

And maybe it's your lack of imagination here that hinders you in understanding a basic concept. If a criminal knows that he might run up on someone with a firearm when he goes into their house, it acts as an added deterrent. It allows me a way to effectively deal with an intruder - bullets can hit an attacker at range as opposed to having to get into melee with a bat or knife.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

there was no other rationale behind their myopia.

Why is it considered myopic to own a gun again other than you don't like the fact that someone else other than the government can wield one?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Pure texas filth. Shoots two unarmed men as they run away from him after choosing to confront them then plays the victim.....

....Not to mention that they don't bother to tell you in this article he was actually confronting them when they had been on his neighbor's property rather than his own.

They were on his property, sir.

Most amazing jew boots

Doesn't matter - they came on his property and they got fucked up. Grand jury didn't see it fit to indict him, therefore what's the problem?

As far as I'm concerned, justice was served. (That is, had he been indicted and eventually convicted, I would say the same)

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Couple of dudes were shot and killed for no real reason at all.

This is obviously false, because if it were true, then it meant that for all intents and purposes, you're saying that Joe Horn is a sociopath who kills people simply because he has the ability to do so.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Because it doesn't make sense with what we know about the man, obviously.

Stop grasping at straws here. The simple fact of the matter is this: Joe Horn was found to have reasonably believed that his life was in danger when he shot these two men, therefore no charges were brought against him.

End of discussion really.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

So the question is really mainly ethical, as legally he really should have been indicted.

Based on what? The grand jury interpreted the law far differently than you and many of the other liberal anti-gun nuts in this thread have. Precedent has been set, so throw this 'should have' business out the window.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

just want to remind everyone that the gentleman calling people "nuts" is doing his best to defend the action of fatally shooting nonthreatening petty thieves in the back.

The action needs no defense; it's been defended and upheld.

Most amazing jew boots

You can question it, but at the end of the day -- the grand jury determined that this guy didn't do anything worthy of prosecution, which in my book is just fine. If they had decided that he did in fact needed to be prosecuted, I would've been cool with that, too.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I just look at it like - the grand jury didn't indict him, therefore it's not that big of a deal to me anymore. In general principle, would I have done the same thing he did? Probably not, but I do think the guy had a reasonable belief that he was in some sort of danger and he went and did work. The grand jury felt the same way and to me that's the end of it. You wanna change the law after the fact? We have a process for that, but as it stands right now, it doesn't bother me that the guy wasn't prosecuted nor do I see it as an argument against civillian gun ownership.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.