News that makes you say WTF! (24 Viewers)

[Hust]

You'd go to jail for a very long time. It's manslaughter. It initially may have started as self defence, but there is a limit to it. You can't just beat a guy in a coma because he took your wallet.

Self-defense. I don't know if the guy is going to kill me because if he doesn't I can then identify him. I doubt I'd go to jail for manslaughter.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

Impossible. TV obviously doesn't effect people, according to some.

- - - Updated - - -

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/la-chicago-rank-1-and-2-gun-murders-no-has-highest-rate

Gun murders per 100,000 people:

1. New Orleans...........................19.0

2. Memphis...................................9.4

3. Detroit.......................................8.6

4. Birmingham..............................8.4

5. St. Louis...................................8.1

6. Baltimore..................................7.7

7. Jacksonville..............................7.4

8. Kansas City..............................6.8

9. Philadelphia..............................6.2
----------

Overall number of gun murders:

1. Los Angeles.......................1,141

2. Chicago..............................1,139

3. New York.............................1,101

4. Philadelphia...........................729

5. Houston..................................701

6. Detroit.....................................686

7. Miami.......................................594

8. Dallas......................................469

9. Washington.............................440

10. San Francisco......................439
-----------------

What do people think these cities have in common?

Hong Kong has 0.03 gun related deaths per 100,000 population. Face facts man, guns are just a bad idea.

 

[Hust]

And I don't have a history of violence or need for medications. Clearly, my self defense and need for it would be proven in court.

- - - Updated - - -

Hong Kong has 0.03 gun related deaths per 100,000 population. Face facts man, guns are just a bad idea.

Sure, facts are facts but they don't have the same societal issues we have.

Guns are a great idea and thank God we have em here in the states.

 

[Seven]

Self-defense. I don't know if the guy is going to kill me because if he doesn't I can then identify him. I doubt I'd go to jail for manslaughter.

The odds are quite high actually. Not in the USA I know, but that's only because your laws are ridiculously biased towards the victim. In a normal country the odds are high. And you know the guy is not going to kill you when he's unconscious and you're beating him to a bloody pulp.

No. What you're showing here is classic Republican and frankly retarded propaganda bullshit I thought only existed on Fox News.

 

[Dostoevsky]

10. San Francisco......................439
-----------------

What do people think these cities have in common?

Transvestites and gays?

Spoiler

@swag

 

[Ocelot]

You'd go to jail for a very long time. It's manslaughter. It initially may have started as self defence, but there is a limit to it. You can't just beat a guy in a coma because he took your wallet.

You're not very familiar with some of the stand your ground laws some US-states have. Florida I believe is especially notorious in that regard.

 

[Hust]

That argument doesn't strike me as very convincing though.
Terrorist organizations have proven they can kill plenty of people using conventional bombs & guns too. That doesn't mean that we should give 'em nuclear bombs.

I know I'm strawmanning here, but the bottomline is that even if the causes for violence are different, easier access to guns in general accentuates the problem and leads to more severe outcomes of situations where violence occurs.

Like I've said banning guns isn't going to happen here thankfully but I'm completely for making it harder to get a gun but not banning them outright.

 

[Dostoevsky]

I'm completely for making it harder to get a gun but not banning them outright.

But you know that won't solve the case. Nowadays everyone can get a gun, legal or not.

 

[Hust]

You're not very familiar with some of the stand your ground laws some US-states have. Florida I believe is especially notorious in that regard.

He isn't. He doesn't live here.

All one needs to do is look at cases like Travyon Martin or Michael Brown. All claimed self-defense and all were cleared.

 

[Seven]

And I don't have a history of violence or need for medications. Clearly, my self defense and need for it would be proven in court.

- - - Updated - - -



Sure, facts are facts but they don't have the same societal issues we have.

Guns are a great idea and thank God we have em here in the states.

Hong Kong has strict gun control and has 0.03 gun related deaths per 100,000 population.
California is lenient and LA has 1,141 gun related deaths per 100,000 people.

That you'd defend lenient gun laws when faced with that statistic is beyond my level of comprehension.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not very familiar with some of the stand your ground laws some US-states have. Florida I believe is especially notorious in that regard.

I am. I clarified in a later post that I referred to normal countries. Not the USA.

- - - Updated - - -

He isn't. He doesn't live here.

All one needs to do is look at cases like Travyon Martin or Michael Brown. All claimed self-defense and all were cleared.

Yes and it was outrageous. A travesty really.

 

[Ocelot]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state


Look at DC...guns are banned in DC and yet they have as many murders as other states with populations in the millions despite having a population in the 600k area.

Theoretically, if Guns are banned, shouldn't the gun murder rate drop?

Banning guns in particular cities probably doesn't even very much affect the gun prevalence in the cities very much if they can just be brought in from other regions around the city.

Concerning the "if guns are banned only criminals have guns", that's not completely right, as it's going to be much much more difficult for criminals to get guns, at least in the long run.

 

[Hust]

But you know that won't solve the case. Nowadays everyone can get a gun, legal or not.

It won't but it could help what people are arguing here, creating less gun related murders in cold blood.

But you will not ever see guns banned completely in this country. We wouldn't allow it.

In Mexico, guns are banned completely for anyone except police. You should look up their gun murder rate.

 

[Ocelot]

He isn't. He doesn't live here.

All one needs to do is look at cases like Travyon Martin or Michael Brown. All claimed self-defense and all were cleared.

Just because something's legal doesn't mean it should be though

Some of the stand-your-ground laws actually go way too far in my opinion.

 

[Seven]

It won't but it could help what people are arguing here, creating less gun related murders in cold blood.

But you will not ever see guns banned completely in this country. We wouldn't allow it.

In Mexico, guns are banned completely for anyone except police. You should look up their gun murder rate.

No one is talking about banning guns completely. It's about stricter gun laws. The statistics really do say it all in this case.

- - - Updated - - -

Just because something's legal doesn't mean it should be though

Some of the stand-your-ground laws actually go way too far in my opinion.

They are beyond ridiculous in some cases.

 

[Hust]

Banning guns in particular cities probably doesn't even very much affect the gun prevalence in the cities very much if they can just be brought in from other regions around the city.

Concerning the "if guns are banned only criminals have guns", that's not completely right, as it's going to be much much more difficult for criminals to get guns, at least in the long run.

Like I said, look at Mexico. They are banned and their murder rate is outrageous down there.

Criminals are the ones that don't obey the laws.

That's like saying cocaine is illegal so in the long run it would eventually go away. Has it? Nope. Cocaine industry is doing quite fine.

 

[Seven]

Just because something's legal doesn't mean it should be though

Some of the stand-your-ground laws actually go way too far in my opinion.

However, I quote Wikipedia:

In the United States, stand-your-ground law is a law that authorizes a person to protect and defend one's own life and limb against threat or perceived threat, and states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place he/she has a lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if he/she reasonably believe he/she face an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death

In the example given by Hustini he did not face any credible threat (anymore). He should go to prison for a very long time, because, quite obviously, he's a dangerous madman.

 

[Hust]

No one is talking about banning guns completely. It's about stricter gun laws. The statistics really do say it all in this case.

Then we agree, at least partially, no? I'm against banning guns, however, stricter gun laws like making it harder to buy one I am OK with.


As far as the "stand your ground laws"...hey, I have a family and kids and I will be doing everything I can to get back home to them. I'll let the guy's family worry about his dead body before my family has to worry about mine.

 

[Seven]

Like I said, look at Mexico. They are banned and their murder rate is outrageous down there.

Criminals are the ones that don't obey the laws.

That's like saying cocaine is illegal so in the long run it would eventually go away. Has it? Nope. Cocaine industry is doing quite fine.

You can't compare Mexico to the USA. Mexico does not have the means to enforce laws. Guns may be banned, but that is only symbolical.

- - - Updated - - -

Then we agree, at least partially, no? I'm against banning guns, however, stricter gun laws like making it harder to buy one I am OK with.


As far as the "stand your ground laws"...hey, I have a family and kids and I will be doing everything I can to get back home to them. I'll let the guy's family worry about his dead body before my family has to worry about mine.

There is a right to defend yourself. That right ends when the threat of dying or suffering bodily harm has disappeared however. If a guy takes your wallet and runs off, you cannot go after him and shoot him in the back. That is not okay.

 

[Hust]

However, I quote Wikipedia:

In the United States, stand-your-ground law is a law that authorizes a person to protect and defend one's own life and limb against threat or perceived threat, and states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place he/she has a lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if he/she reasonably believe he/she face an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death

In the example given by Hustini he did not face any credible threat (anymore). He should go to prison for a very long time, because, quite obviously, he's a dangerous madman.

I'm not a dangerous madman but if someone tries to mug me they will regret it if they live because I will make sure they will either walk with a limp the rest of their life and never mug anyone else again or they get buried. Either way, won't be my problem anymore.

 

[Seven]

I'm not a dangerous madman but if someone tries to mug me they will regret it if they live because I will make sure they will either walk with a limp the rest of their life and never mug anyone else again or they get buried. Either way, won't be my problem anymore.

It will be, because you'll be in jail. Clearly you don't understand what the right to self defence entails.