|
| Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 30 40 ... 51 52 53 54 55 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted July 17, 2013 10:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Where does in your article say that he stole jewelry? Nowhere, you stop the article quote where it fits you and it is from 2011.
You are making false statements.
Quote:
The stolen property outlined in the Miami-Dade Police Report (PD111021-422483) matches the descriptive presented by SRO Dunn in his School Police report 2011-11477.
Why were no criminal charges filed against him? Because the school police were under orders to take it easy on blacks students. As a result, the regular police never found out about the stolen goods.
Quote:
However, there was ONE big issue. SRO Dunn never filed a criminal report, nor opened a criminal investigation, surrounding the stolen jewelry. Instead, and as a result of pressure from M-DSPD Chief Hurley to avoid criminal reports for black male students, Dunn wrote up the jewelry as “found items”, and transferred them, along with the burglary tool, to the Miami-Dade Police property room where they sat on a shelf unassigned to anyone for investigation.
....
The connections between the Police Burglary report and the School Report of “found items” were never made because the regular police detective in charge of the Burglary case had no idea the School Police Dept. had filed a “found items” report.
Two differing police departments, and the School Officer, Dunn, intentionally took the criminal element out of the equation – instead preferring “school discipline” and not “criminal adjudication”.
It was only when the M-DSPD Internal Affairs investigation kicked in, and six officers gave sworn affidavits, the manipulative scheme to improve criminal statistics within the School System were identified openly.
School Superintendent Alberto Carvalho gave his hire, Police Chief Hurley, instructions to reduce the criminal behavior of young black males. The chosen strategy between them, to insure optical success, was to stop using the Criminal Justice System to punish black student behavior. Instead they instructed the School Resource Officers to use school discipline in place of criminal justice.
Quote:
Was the drug level used in court? No, because too little, so why you bring it here and saying "was high on"? Is a lie too.
Nah, you are making false statements according to the doctor who did the autopsy. That doctor said Martin had enough weed in his system to influence his actions.
Quote:
Who initiated the fight, the guy making his way or the guy following him while armed to teeth? Eh?
The evidence points to Martin initiating the fight with a sucker punch and then was intent on beating Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on the ground. Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was bending over him, with Zimmerman on the ground, according to ballistics reports.
Quote:
Ironically you hope that Zimmerman will sue the media because they staged his phone call but you are doing exactly same thing here, pile a bunch of irrelevant facts, ignore some, invent others, and throw them as the proof, just to match your bloody satisfaction that a "gangsta" was annihilated. The fact that Zimmerman was freed just proves that there were not enough elements to incriminate him, not that morally he is innocent. He took an awful decision and will have to live with.
You are making false statements about what I hope and why I hope it. I did not start with a predetermined position. I determined my position based on the facts rather than based on hatred for guns or political correctness.
I hope everyone involved in the editing of the tape is sued and it would be nice if they were criminally prosecuted as well.
The evidence points to Zimmerman shooting Martin in self defense. Zimmerman was flat on his back with Martin bending over him. The only rational conclusion is self-defense.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 10:13 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 10:15, 17 Jul 2013.
|
JollyJoker said:
I mean - isn't everything the weapon lobby is claiming to be valid for free production and ownership of weapons also true for free ownership and production of drugs?
No, drugs are not useful in self-defense, hunting, or target practice. And drug use can impair a person's senses and can result in them doing things they normally would not do.
Gun ownership and possession is also a Constitutional right in the US.
@Doom
Quote:
You can blow someone's brains out in US, but I can legally download movies and music in Poorland from teh internet - guess which is more useful in life?
I'll take my freedom over yours, thank you
Being able to blow the brains out of someone who is attacking me.
Playing some tunes won't help you when somebody breaks into your house. 
____________
Revelation
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 10:58 AM |
|
|
Yes, because people are breaking into European houses left and right...
You know, my property is probably worth less than your pants, who would bother? it's Poorland, mate
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 11:05 AM |
|
|
Elodin said:
JollyJoker said:
I mean - isn't everything the weapon lobby is claiming to be valid for free production and ownership of weapons also true for free ownership and production of drugs?
No, drugs are not useful in self-defense, hunting, or target practice. And drug use can impair a person's senses and can result in them doing things they normally would not do.
Gun ownership and possession is also a Constitutional right in the US.
For your last point - individual freedom and pursuit of happiness is also a Constitutional right.
Weapons are not useful in self-defense, but useful only in preventive violence - preventive violence, brought about BY said weapons. A bulletproof vest is a lot better for self-defense than a gun. Hunting and target practice is just as part of individual freedom and pursuit of happiness as, say, drinking beer and visiting bars - which may impair a person's senses and can result in them doing things they would normally not do - which is true for owning a weapon as well, because ownership of a weapon may result in people doing things they would normally not do - like take a gun and shoot a dozen people.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 02:22 PM |
|
|
A bullet proof vest won't do anything to protect your property.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 02:29 PM |
|
|
A gun does neither, except for a spring gun, since a gun needs to be operated.
An alarm system will do a better job.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 02:36 PM |
|
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 03:11 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Weapons are not useful in self-defense, but useful only in preventive violence - preventive violence, brought about BY said weapons. A bulletproof vest is a lot better for self-defense than a gun. Hunting and target practice is just as part of individual freedom and pursuit of happiness as, say, drinking beer and visiting bars - which may impair a person's senses and can result in them doing things they would normally not do - which is true for owning a weapon as well, because ownership of a weapon may result in people doing things they would normally not do - like take a gun and shoot a dozen people.
Weapons are useful in self defense. When you are attacked you can defend yourself with a weapon. If I have a gun and you have a bullet proof vest you are dead if I want you dead. You can't defend your life or the lives of your loved ones or your property with a vest.
Drinking a beer won't leave you as impaired as smoking a joint or doing a line of coke and is not as addictive as the above either.
No, having a gun is not addictive and does not lead to impaired judgement and does not lead one to wanting to go out and shoot up crowds.
And as a further point, neither criminals nor loons will obey gun control laws. If a criminal or loon breaks in your house and you don't have a gun you are dead if he wants you dead.
Quote:
An alarm system will do a better job.
Oh please. Not everyone lives next door to a police station and lots of people live in rural areas or small towns. A cop car is unlikely to get to your house in time to stop something really bad from happening to you.
I love myself and my family too much not to have a gun. I'd be negligent in being the protector of my family if I did not have a gun.
Buglars can bypass alarms. Happens all the time. And quite often home owners forget to turn on the alarm, especially when they are home during the day or when a kid is out on a date or whatever.
Clicky
Quote:
OKLAHOMA CITY —Nichols Hills police warned residents that thieves have found a way to bypass security systems.
Resident Gerald Neff said burglars were able to enter his home Sunday without any alarm. He said he and his wife came back from a relaxing vacation only to be confronted with the stress of a home burglary.
"The drawers were all out and there was a mess on the floor. They had taken everything of value," Neff said.
The break-in at the Neff home was one of two recent burglaries in Nichols Hills. Police said both homes have security systems but the thieves managed to get in without tripping the alarm.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 03:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Drinking a beer won't leave you as impaired as smoking a joint or doing a line of coke and is not as addictive as the above either
Not exactly the topic but weed is not a heavy drug, there isn't any proven physical addiction it causes (so actually nicotine and alcohol are more addictive scientifically)and in some countries it is already legal. No society, including the US, treats weed smokers like they treat heroin or cocaine addicts and it can be even considered traditional to smoke weed during college years. Practically, it is as illegal as not fastening your seat belt.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 04:46 PM |
|
|
JJ:
I personally don't feel oppressed by not being allowed to use marijuana. It's not something I'd want to do even if it were legal. However, I recognize that it's an oppressive policy to many, and even if it weren't, it would still be a restriction of freedom.
artu:
As far as I know, there are no laws against walking on the moon, so I'm not less free for it.
Corribus:
A bulletproof vest will protect your body, which is your property. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 04:55 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 17:00, 17 Jul 2013.
|
Elodin said:
Oh please. Not everyone lives next door to a police station and lots of people live in rural areas or small towns. A cop car is unlikely to get to your house in time to stop something really bad from happening to you.
I've been on a school trip to the UK two years ago. We were living in a huge cottage with an antique palace nearby. The nearest village was located one or two miles away. It was a great place for burglars, the cottage owner however didn't have any guns - his only way to protect his estate was to set up some burglar alarms on buildings and on grass. It could be surprising for you, but it worked very well - when I've been talking with him about that in our free-time, it turned out that while there had been some burglars trying to break in, all of them failed.
There, in Poland where buying any real gun legally is very hard to do, almost none say they are "negligent in being the protector of family" without guns. Burglar alarms seem to work here. Now, if in the UK, Poland and many other European countries guns aren't necessary to protect families, why in the USA they are considered almost like something obligatory to live?
Besides, Elodin, maybe someone already asked you such question, but I need to know: have you ever shot any burglar?
Elodin said:
Buglars can bypass alarms. Happens all the time.
Do NOT generalise, please. One swallow doesn't make a summer. Also, read the WHOLE article you linked to - it isn't as black and white as you want it to be.
koco.com said:
Resident Gerald Neff said burglars were able to enter his home Sunday without any alarm. He said he and his wife came back from a relaxing vacation only to be confronted with the stress of a home burglary.
"The drawers were all out and there was a mess on the floor. They had taken everything of value," Neff said.
The break-in at the Neff home was one of two recent burglaries in Nichols Hills. Police said both homes have security systems but the thieves managed to get in without tripping the alarm.
In both cases, police said burglars remained in the one room of the home that did not have motion detectors -- the master's bedroom.
"What we should have had were glass breakage detectors in that room. If we had had them, then they would have set the alarm off," Neff said.
Police said many alarm systems are wired so that they only go off when a window is opened, but not necessarily if it's shattered or the glass pane is removed. They said many homes only have motion detectors in the interior rooms.
"It's a great system, but we just didn't have the protection we needed back here," Neff said.
Police said resident can have their security company double-check their wiring and pay about $200.
***
mvassilev said:
As far as I know, there are no laws against walking on the moon, so I'm not less free for it.
Sure, if you're able to go there, no one would stop you.
mvassilev said:
A bulletproof vest will protect your body, which is your property.
It won't protect your body from shotguns and assault rifles - unless you have enough money and strength to wear body armor (like army or police) and the aggressor is at least 15 meters away from you.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 06:29 PM |
|
|
Elodin said:
Oh please. Not everyone lives next door to a police station and lots of people live in rural areas or small towns. A cop car is unlikely to get to your house in time to stop something really bad from happening to you.
I love myself and my family too much not to have a gun. I'd be negligent in being the protector of my family if I did not have a gun.
Buglars can bypass alarms. Happens all the time. And quite often home owners forget to turn on the alarm, especially when they are home during the day or when a kid is out on a date or whatever.
We've been there before. It's established you never sleep, cannot be surprised, and NEVER leave your home. The criminals in your country are retarded and phone call you with the date of burglary so you can shoot their heads off from your balcony when they are 1km away. An alarm system is easy to trick, but Elodin & his shotgun are impossible to go through.
You know, if I could bet, I'd place my bet on three guys with shotguns vs. you and your shotgun. Sorry mate But yeah, I get it, criminals are so retarded that they break in alone and unarmed, and their "prey" is always 100% aware and has an armed shotgun in his hand. The "prey" cannot be outgunned, outsmarted, or surprised. When criminals break in, you just grab a shotgun and it all goes away!
Gee, more Hollywood, all that we need.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 07:11 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:13, 17 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
artu: As far as I know, there are no laws against walking on the moon, so I'm not less free for it.
Fair point. Are you less free for not being able to walk down a main street completely naked? While at it, in your utopian everything-is-free-long-as-you-dont-harm state, what will the policy on nudity be?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 07:59 PM |
|
|
Yes, nudity laws are a restriction of freedom. A free society would have no nudity laws. Obviously, private property owners would be free to make whatever clothing rules they want on their property - but on public property, such as roads, nudity would be legal.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 08:13 PM |
|
|
|
This is getting better everyday! So, how many people do you think WON'T make an effort to change the law on Mvassilevistan where any jerk can take a walk to the mall rattling the snake and buy some nerve gas?
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 08:16 PM |
|
|
artu, if I'm correct, mvassilev doesn't talk about restricting freedom as something always bad, which actually makes a lot of sense.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 08:24 PM |
|
|
artu:
I'm not making a prediction about the kinds of laws people would want. People want bad laws all the time. That doesn't mean that they should be enacted.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 09:15 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:16, 17 Jul 2013.
|
|
Oh, I don't care about that. What you have in mind is trying to apply the absolute. I'm just curious are you just debating your way to the end or do you really believe such a thing really can be applied. And don't give me "just because it has not been done before..." cause you know that's not my objection. Let me ask you this way: Do you sincerely think the ideal of freedom, if applied with absolute measures, will produce a happy and functioning society or is this just about not breaking "the rule"?" You know, like say, Muslims never eating pork, even if it's clean meat. Cause remember how I said these are how dictators born, not freedom, your last reply seems to verify that quite clearly.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 09:47 PM |
|
|
Yes, it would produce a happy and well-functioning society. People would be free to trade with each other and engage in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange, do whatever they want with their own property (as long as it doesn't harm others), and otherwise act in accordance with their preferences. If you want to marry 10 people, no one will stop you. If you want to sell your kidneys, no one will stop you. If you want to employ foreigners - well, you get the picture. It would be a very good society - it would be wealthier than the current one (because of more gains from trade), a more tolerant society (because there wouldn't be discriminatory laws), and a more peaceful society (with the restriction of the greatest aggressor of all, the State).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 10:15 PM |
|
|
|
You are forhetting that it was that way when things started-
|
| |
|
|
