5 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

If you’re in my home, you’re a threat. If you’re a threat, I’m taking your life and I won’t think twice about it. You’re right, taking a life may have a series of (negative) effects on someone, but that’s not the case for me. I’m not killing someone that’s innocent, I’m killing someone that had intentions to harm me and my family. I wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger to save my own life or a loved ones life. And I guarantee you that most Americans feel the same on that. I’m also not an average Joe. As cheesy as it sounds, I’m a soldier. I don’t have the same mindset as an average Joe that can’t be deployed to Afghanistan within the next few weeks if needed. 

 

If you were truly a soldier, you would not be saying anything such as "I wouldn't think twice about it", or justifying it as "I'm not killing someone innocent".  Yes, people often tell you "they weren't innocent, you were doing what's right", but that doesn't make it easier.  I'm not trying to call you a liar, I'm genuinely not, but I have serious doubts about you being a soldier if you're so callous about taking a life, regardless of why.  Even soldiers, who go to another country knowing they will kill someone, don't kill their enemy with glee and satisfaction.  There's a reason soldiers, including our enemies, don't keep tallies of how many men they have killed.  There's a reason PTSD is a thing, and yes, a huge part of that is having to kill other people.

I actually remember a veteran interviewed on US TV during some riots explaining that the army teaches to de-escalate situations rather than escalating them to have better relations with locals during operations. Guess that's not taught anymore.

54 minutes ago, Hystery said:

And obviously a soldier has a mind of steel. All those veterans coming back from war with PTSD must be wussies then.

PTSD is very complex and has a wide variety of differentiating circumstances from person to person. I don’t see how you’re logically comparing shooting a home intruder versus deploying overseas. I’m not going to get PTSD from shooting a man who may have had intentions on raping my wife, or my children, or murdering us cold blooded. Defending your home isn’t the same as deploying overseas, your argument is a fallacy. 

37 minutes ago, Hystery said:

I actually remember a veteran interviewed on US TV during some riots explaining that the army teaches to de-escalate situations rather than escalating them to have better relations with locals during operations. Guess that's not taught anymore.

It depends entirely on the circumstances of the situation. Sometimes eleminating the threat is de-escalating the situation. I’m not going to get into a debate about this because it’s a subject that clearly neither of us have much knowledge on, though I do have a little more than you do. 

45 minutes ago, Kallus said:

 

If you were truly a solider, you would not be saying anything such as "I wouldn't think twice about it", or justifying it as "I'm not killing someone innocent".  Yes, people often tell you "they weren't innocent, you were doing what's right", but that doesn't make it easier.  I'm not trying to call you a liar, I'm genuinely not, but I have serious doubts about you being a soldier if you're so callous about taking a life, regardless of why.  Even soldiers, who go to another country knowing they will kill someone, don't kill their enemy with glee and satisfaction.  There's a reason soldiers, including our enemies, don't keep tallies of how many men they have killed.  There's a reason PTSD is a thing, and yes, a huge part of that is having to kill other people.

I don’t care if you don’t believe that I’m in the Army. You’re free to believe in whatever you like man, I’m not here to brag or be pretentious about that. It’s something that I’m very prideful about, but it doesn’t make me better than people that decided not to join. 

 

Lol, you’ve clearly never met the US Army Infantry my friend. These guys are eager to deploy and eliminate threats. It’s almost crazy. Of course there are those that have issues when they come back, and even while they’re overseas. But I guarantee you that a significant majority of these guys (based on what I hear at my unit) don’t think twice and wouldn’t think twice. That type of mindset is what’ll get you killed overseas, is what my Battalion Sergeant Major said to us during a formation a while back. You do what you need to do to come home safely. If you’re not in that mindset, you’re in for a rude-awakening. Most of us aren’t happy and excited to kill people, but we won’t hesitate to do so for each other and to come back safely. If the mission is accomplished and all of our guys are safe, we’re up. That’s the reality of it. You wouldn’t understand because you don’t have the same mindset that we do. Maybe if you were deployable within the next few weeks you’d be able to relate more. 

Edited February 15, 20188 yr by TheDivineHustle

36 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

If you’re in my home, you’re a threat. If you’re a threat, I’m taking your life and I won’t think twice about it. You’re right, taking a life may have a series of (negative) effects on someone, but that’s not the case for me. I’m not killing someone that’s innocent, I’m killing someone that had intentions to harm me and my family. I wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger to save my own life or a loved ones life. And I guarantee you that most Americans feel the same on that. I’m also not an average Joe. As cheesy as it sounds, I’m a soldier. I don’t have the same mindset as an average Joe that can’t be deployed to Afghanistan within the next few weeks if needed. 

This x1000. As a Canadian the ability for us to obtain a weapon legally is more complex, thus that is why I own two big German Shepherds that on command will tear anyone apart that enters my home with ill intentions. If someone enters my home, with intentions beyond wanting to borrow a cup of milk....I won't hesitate to gut them where they stand. I have two kids and a wife to protect and I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger either. 

 

People seem to be overly pussified now, trying to rationalize and sympathize for someone that tries to hurt you or your family "but think of the criminal and the underlying 'negative' effects it may have". Or my favourite "That's what the judicial system is for" Is it? So when the criminal kills you and your entire family is that the resounding answer to that? Just let the judicial system work it out? This is probably the same type of people that would sit and watch as the rapist rapes their wife in front of them, too. 

3 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

Unfortunately that's not up to you to decide that. The judiciary system exists for a reason.

You're telling me a shooter like the one in Parkland will go through the judiciary system to decide if he should kill people or not?

 

Just look at Sutherland Springs. A bystander grabbed a rifle and stepped in, putting an end to the shooters rampage. A shooter with more guns, ammo, and who was most likely on his way to another target. A legally armed law abiding citizen stepped in, effectively engaged the shooter, and kept him at gunpoint for 7 minutes before police arrived to take over for him.

1 hour ago, Kallus said:

 

If you were truly a solider, you would not be saying anything such as "I wouldn't think twice about it", or justifying it as "I'm not killing someone innocent".  Yes, people often tell you "they weren't innocent, you were doing what's right", but that doesn't make it easier.  I'm not trying to call you a liar, I'm genuinely not, but I have serious doubts about you being a soldier if you're so callous about taking a life, regardless of why.  Even soldiers, who go to another country knowing they will kill someone, don't kill their enemy with glee and satisfaction.  There's a reason soldiers, including our enemies, don't keep tallies of how many men they have killed.  There's a reason PTSD is a thing, and yes, a huge part of that is having to kill other people.

The entire point of training is to make the act of taking a human life not only meaningless, but thoughtless. The only thoughts that should be running through a soldiers head when being engaged are on how to effectively eliminate the threat with the least friendly casualties possible. Any thought on justification or the value of human life is reserved until after they are in safety, the only thought in their heads is making sure their brothers returns to their family.

 

The mindset of infantry units is incredibly different from soft-skills, which are almost like civilians in comparison. Every time they go out the wire they are praying some one is dumb enough to shoot at them. The ones who don't have this mindset are taken off the line as quickly as possible.

 

I'm not saying there are not mental issues after the fact, just that it is something you don't worry about when you are in theater.

Edited February 15, 20188 yr by c13

1 hour ago, c13 said:

The mindset of infantry units is incredibly different from soft-skills, which are almost like civilians in comparison.

Oh let me guess, you’re going to call me a POG next? Lol

3 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Oh let me guess, you’re going to call me a POG next? Lol

Not really on topic or what I was getting at, just that the idea that there aren't units who go to war filled with glee is laughable.

57 minutes ago, c13 said:

Not really on topic or what I was getting at, just that the idea that there aren't units who go to war filled with glee is laughable.

Of course , I was just being a bit jocular to lighten the mood some. 

3 hours ago, c13 said:

You're telling me a shooter like the one in Parkland will go through the judiciary system to decide if he should kill people or not?

 

No. I said that it's not up to civilians to know if their assaulter should die or not, but up to the judiciary system to decide whether or not he has to be punished for what he's done.

1 hour ago, c13 said:

Not really on topic or what I was getting at, just that the idea that there aren't units who go to war filled with glee is laughable.

 

Anyone going to war with glee has serious mental issues in my eyes. War isn't funny. Killing people isn't funny.

2 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

No. I said that it's not up to civilians to know if their assaulter should die or not, but up to the judiciary system to decide whether or not he has to be punished for what he's done.

The problem with your entire premise is that it is inherently flawed. As humans, we are a tribal society. We work to advance the human race as a whole in the way we see best. Whether it is making scientific discoveries that improve longevity, cultivating food for nourishment, or adding numbers to our population so that they may advance the tribe should we not be able to.

 

Part of being in that tribe is defending it at all costs, especially those closest to you. If you are out with family, and some one starts opening fire and hitting people near you, there is no question whether he is guilty or not. Humanity has always had to fight predators seeking to destroy it-bears, saber-toothed tigers or wolves. Unfortunately, as technology advances the most dangerous threat to our survival we face is our fellow man.

 

When defending this tribe, it is not about taking life. It is about saving it. The moment some one kills innocents, he/she lowers himself from humanity. Ending that threat immediately, instead of waiting for him/her to run out of the means or enjoyment to continue, saves lives. That is a fact that can't be argued. Not only does it save the lives of those immediately there, it saves lives down the road. People that would've been parents. A doctor. A police officer. Some one who might make a major scientific discovery that moves us into the next age.

 

Tell me, if someone you cared about was caught up in one of these horrible acts, would you want someone to step in to save them by taking out the attacker?

 

This is why your argument is asinine to 10s of millions of Americans. When lives are at stake in the immediate moment, there is no time to wait for police or a judiciary process. A threat has to be taken out ASAP to save lives. If you truly believe that a wolf attacking your fellow man shouldn't be stopped, then you don't belong in the tribe.

 

3 hours ago, Hystery said:

Anyone going to war with glee has serious mental issues in my eyes. War isn't funny. Killing people isn't funny.

The world is a scary place, and scary men are needed in order to protect your comfort.

3 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

No. I said that it's not up to civilians to know if their assaulter should die or not, but up to the judiciary system to decide whether or not he has to be punished for what he's done.

 

Anyone going to war with glee has serious mental issues in my eyes. War isn't funny. Killing people isn't funny.

War may not be funny, but suggesting we trust in the judiciary system is. Why would I have trust in a system that’ll allow a rapist a small sentence with parole, but sentence a substance abuser to upwards of 15 years? 

5 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

No. I said that it's not up to civilians to know if their assaulter should die or not, but up to the judiciary system to decide whether or not he has to be punished for what he's done.

 

"Excuse me, Mr Violent Home Intruder? Mind if I get a jury of your peers in here to decide if I can defend myself before you brutally murder me?"

 

Fuck that, the only thing that determines punishment there are at least six little bangy bois. This anti-individual mindset is why I'd never move out of the US.

Edited February 16, 20188 yr by The Loot

7 hours ago, c13 said:

Tell me, if someone you cared about was caught up in one of these horrible acts, would you want someone to step in to save them by taking out the attacker?

 

And why, in your mind, taking out automatically equals to killing them in cold blood without a second thought? There's no alternative, like, ever? Yes, if someone attacked me, or my family, or my husband, I'd like them taken out. Possibly dead. But I wouldn't want to live in a country that allows me to, or helps me to do that because first, it opens the door to anarchy, and second, it's not up to us, citizens to know whether a man should have his life taken away or not, without any form of trial. That's the difference.

 

7 hours ago, c13 said:

The world is a scary place, and scary men are needed in order to protect your comfort.

 

I'm fine with normal men needed in order to protect my comfort, thank you very much. I don't need bloodthirsty psychopaths for that.

6 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

War may not be funny, but suggesting we trust in the judiciary system is. Why would I have trust in a system that’ll allow a rapist a small sentence with parole, but sentence a substance abuser to upwards of 15 years? 

 

Dude, the judiciary system isn't the one deciding of the laws and max or min sentences. The laws are made by the lawmakers. The judiciary system just works to apply them, they can't do more. If you want to not trust something, don't trust the lawmakers.

 

4 hours ago, The Loot said:

"Excuse me, Mr Violent Home Intruder? Mind if I get a jury of your peers in here to decide if I can defend myself before you brutally murder me?"

 

Fuck that, the only thing that determines punishment there are at least six little bangy bois. This anti-individual mindset is why I'd never move out of the US.

 

You seem to have barely read what I said and, as a result, reply to something I've never said. Good job, good sir.

 

Also, yes, an anti-individual mindset, what an atrocity. How can people be ANTI-INDIVIDUAL in a SOCIETY where we live in GROUPS, that's preposterous right? (I put the important words in capital letters and bolded so you don't miss the correlation between them this time) But don't worry, I personally wouldn't want you to move out of the US either. I wouldn't want a neighbor who'd be ready to shoot me dead would I just ask if I can borrow some sugar, just because he feels like a manly man with his guns and thinks he can be judge, jury and executioner all at once.

23 minutes ago, Hystery said:

I wouldn't want a neighbor who'd be ready to shoot me dead would I just ask if I can borrow some sugar, just because he feels like a manly man with his guns and thinks he can be judge, jury and executioner all at once.

 

I love when idiots assume that I own or even plan on owning a gun when I argue for them. Really shows the small-minded bigotry of the average anti-gun nut, if believing "shooting someone over a cup of sugar" is a thing or that people just want to "be judge, jury and executioner all at once" weren't enough already.

 

Quote

You seem to have barely read what I said and, as a result, reply to something I've never said. Good job, good sir.

Quote

No. I said that it's not up to civilians to know if their assaulter should die or not, but up to the judiciary system to decide whether or not he has to be punished for what he's done.

No, I nailed it pretty well.

Edited February 16, 20188 yr by The Loot

52 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

And why, in your mind, taking out automatically equals to killing them in cold blood without a second thought? There's no alternative, like, ever? Yes, if someone attacked me, or my family, or my husband, I'd like them taken out. Possibly dead. But I wouldn't want to live in a country that allows me to, or helps me to do that because first, it opens the door to anarchy, and second, it's not up to us, citizens to know whether a man should have his life taken away or not, without any form of trial. That's the difference.

A shooter wants nothing but the maximum body count. He doesn't care about you, your husband or your family, and he definitely doesn't give a damn about a jury of his peers. The only solution is putting an end to his violent intentions as fast as possible, whether that is subduing him at gunpoint or shooting him.

 

The fact that you equate equal force in self defense with a cold blooded killing because you don't trust yourself says everything about you.

 

Would you rather have a shooter kill 2 people and be killed himself by a citizen defending him/herself, or wait for police to arrive after 12 people have been killed? The answer is obvious to anyone who cares about humanity.

 

52 minutes ago, Hystery said:

I'm fine with normal men needed in order to protect my comfort, thank you very much. I don't need bloodthirsty psychopaths for that.

Talk to anyone in an infantry unit. They aren't bloodthirsty psychopaths, they are people looking to achieve a purpose of destroying the country's enemies since they trained their entire career for that moment. When they get back home, a vast majority are well rounded again, and tears shed are almost exclusively for lost comrades.

Edited February 16, 20188 yr by c13

Ya know, the most disgusting thing to me, about this event and others like it, is it's all about "duh ebil guhnz", but never about the one thing that would have actually prevented it: caring about and helping overcome the social, mental, and emotional issues suffered by the young man. People most likely knew this kid had issues his entire life, but no one cared. Society doesn't really give a shit about the issues of boys and men; usually they just kill themselves, but with enough untreated anger, hatred, resentment, and drive to "make people remember", these things happen. 

 

Maybe once society starts caring for them, helps them work through the issues they face, stops laughing at them, berating them, and coming up with endless pejoratives for them, this trend might reverse.

1 hour ago, The Loot said:

I love when idiots assume that I own or even plan on owning a gun when I argue for them. Really shows the small-minded bigotry of the average anti-gun nut, if believing "shooting someone over a cup of sugar" is a thing or that people just want to "be judge, jury and executioner all at once" weren't enough already.

 

Then explicitly state you don't plan on owning a gun or don't own a gun if you don't want people to assume you do by the way you defend the "MUH GUNZ" thing. It'd help people determine what is your stance in a clearer way. I still wouldn't want you as a neighbor still, I'm fine with friendly people who don't have the rights to own tools designed to kill people. Feels a lot safer.

 

1 hour ago, The Loot said:

No, I nailed it pretty well.

 

Nah, you didn't. I said that a criminal should be judged by competent people who know their job, you think I said "Let's see a judge to see if you can steal from me", which are to entirely different things.

 

1 hour ago, c13 said:

A shooter wants nothing but the maximum body count. He doesn't care about you, your husband or your family, and he definitely doesn't give a damn about a jury of his peers. The only solution is putting an end to his violent intentions as fast as possible, whether that is subduing him at gunpoint or shooting him.

 

The fact that you equate equal force in self defense with a cold blooded killing because you don't trust yourself says everything about you.

 

Would you rather have a shooter kill 2 people and be killed himself by a citizen defending him/herself, or wait for police to arrive after 12 people have been killed? The answer is obvious to anyone who cares about humanity.

 

What are we talking about here, a home invader or a mass shooter? Because the two things got entwined there. Mass shooter here only to kill as many people as possible? Yes, they have to be taken out the quickest possible, and if they can't be taken alive, then there's only one issue left. A home invader that most likely is here only to rob you? A good dog and you're fine, no need for guns or to kill anyone for that, and you certainly don't have the right to make the call of if this invader has the right to live or die just because you think you do. That's not how a civilized society works.

 

1 hour ago, c13 said:

Talk to anyone in an infantry unit. They aren't bloodthirsty psychopaths, they are people looking to achieve a purpose of destroying the country's enemies since they trained their entire career for that moment. When they get back home, a vast majority are well rounded again, and tears shed are almost exclusively for lost comrades.

 

That's nice and all, but when someone is eager to go to war, when someone goes abroad to slaughter people with glee, they're bloodthirsty to me, and I don't want people like that fighting for me. This world is enough of a shithole already with all the damn violence all over the place, we don't need more people eager to unleash even more violence.

11 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Then explicitly state you don't plan on owning a gun or don't own a gun if you don't want people to assume you do by the way you defend the "MUH GUNZ" thing. It'd help people determine what is your stance in a clearer way. I still wouldn't want you as a neighbor still, I'm fine with friendly people who don't have the rights to own tools designed to kill people. Feels a lot safer.

 

I'm not responsible for other people's ignorant assumptions, bub.

 

But hey, next time heavily-armed terrorists run through your baguette-scented streets, you can feel safe knowing that no one has the right to own a tool designed to "kill people".

Edited February 16, 20188 yr by The Loot

20 minutes ago, Hystery said:

What are we talking about here, a home invader or a mass shooter? Because the two things got entwined there. Mass shooter here only to kill as many people as possible? Yes, they have to be taken out the quickest possible, and if they can't be taken alive, then there's only one issue left. A home invader that most likely is here only to rob you? A good dog and you're fine, no need for guns or to kill anyone for that, and you certainly don't have the right to make the call of if this invader has the right to live or die just because you think you do. That's not how a civilized society works.

There's been no confusion up to this point. We have always been talking about mass shooters.  But since you lost that argument and want to change the subject, we are now talking about anyone who intends to cause harm to the innocent, physically or monetarily.

 

You don't know that a home invader is only there to rob stuff. Most likely, if they come at night, they expect people to be there, and are fully willing to commit violence.

 

If some one forcibly enters my home, they do not have good intentions. Your problem is that you assume everyone lives by the concepts of your imaginary world, and that no one wants to hurt you. They don't care about you buddy.

 

What many of you people refuse to understand is that not everyone is equal. An average career criminal has been in prison multiple times, fighting his whole life and leaves prison in amazing shape. An average male rarely works out. Then we talk about other potential victims- women, the elderly, children.

 

A majority of robbers work in teams, because it's hard to carry a TV out by yourself. So now we have multiple attackers in good shape against people already at a disadvantage in a one-on-one struggle for life. Being shot at scares the shit out of them and makes them run.

 

My state has a concept called Castle Law. Legally speaking, they recognize it is my natural right to kill anyone who forcibly enters my home, because some one who does that has no good intentions. I fully plan on exercising that right if I need to. And I live in the safest county in the state, so it's far from the wild west you imagine it to be.

 

God may have created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

26 minutes ago, The Loot said:

 

I'm not responsible for other people's ignorant assumptions, bub.

 

But hey, next time heavily-armed terrorists run through your baguette-scented streets, you can feel safe knowing that no one has the right to own a tool designed to "kill people".

 

And I'm not responsible for you not being clear enough on your stance. We can keep going like that for days.

 

As for the rest, yes, I do feel safe knowing that no one has the right to own a gun designed to kill people. No need to put quotes on that, because that's exactly what a gun is. It's an object designed to fire a projectile at someone in order to injure them, possibly in a fatal way. Crazy that the "MUH GUNZ" people can't admit that fact. I'm not afraid of terrorists, and I don't need a gun to feel safer. Because we learned to live without them. And while we, on very extended periods of time, occasionally have one or two maniacs trying to kill people in the name of whatever they believe in, you, on the other hand, have psychos shooting crowds every few weeks or so. Sorry, but between one place where no one owns guns, but we don't have use for them, and another place where everyone can have guns and shootings happen so often, my choice is made, in the blink of an eye.

Just now, c13 said:

There's been no confusion up to this point. We have always been talking about mass shooters.  But since you lost that argument and want to change the subject, we are now talking about anyone who intends to cause harm to the innocent, physically or monetarily.

 

I've not lost anything mate. The point of an argument is to exchange, not to win. And yes, there's been confusion, because some talk about mass shooters, some others talk about invaders, and in the thread of discussion, the things got mixed up, hence I cleared the two from my point of view.

 

2 minutes ago, c13 said:

My state has a concept called Castle Law. Legally speaking, they recognize it is my natural right to kill anyone who forcibly enters my home, because some one who does that has no good intentions. I fully plan on exercising that right if I need to. And I live in the safest county in the state, so it's far from the wild west you imagine it to be.

 

God may have created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

 

Nah, it's your right to fight it off. You've no right to take a life, whatever your state says. I mean, you quote God, isn't the church against abortion because it takes a life away or something? Because everyone has a right to live? You see, that's the issue. Most 'muricans who own guns or are favorable to guns don't value life as it is. It's just that thing you can take away if you feel like it has to. Except it's not. It's a life we're talking about. It's not something casual you can disregard with a shrug. If someone invades my home, I grab my baseball bat and shove it into their head to knock them out, and I won't be afraid of being shot while fighting off : because here, home robbers don't have guns. Convenient.