Toddler shoots parent dead in Super Market

Menas

MadsL wrote: »

Would you stop short of killing someone who attacked your family/spouse/child such that you felt their life was in danger?

If everyone is going round ready to shoot everyone else all the time then lots of innocent people will get killed.

I would honestly hate to live my life in such fear that I needed to carry a gun.
If I get mugged I would rather give the $100 I have on me then have the guilt on my conscience of having killed someone, no matter how horrible that person may have been.

But I also know that I will never convince the pro-gun lobby that I am right, and the pro-gun lobby will convince me that they are right. So we agree to differ.

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

Would you stop short of killing someone who attacked your family/spouse/child such that you felt their life was in danger?

I prefer to just disable. You know you can injure/disarm people without the need for a gun? I dont have any bloodlust that needs sateing by executing people. Like I said above. I guess thats the difference the desire to kill easily. Case closed.

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I suppose thats the difference between those that want to blast people with guns and those who don't. Some people value life and dont want to blast peoples heads off just because its easier. This woman managed to defend herself without murdering anyone. Fair play to her. I respect those that dont feel compelled to have the need kill others.

I think I see the problem. You think self-defence is murder. By definition in most legal codes, including Ireland, it isn't.

Now, if it is your family, would you not kill someone threatening their lives?

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

Now, if it is your family, would you not kill someone threatening their lives?

Answered above.

Guy:Incognito

MadsL wrote: »

Would you stop short of killing someone who attacked your family/spouse/child such that you felt their life was in danger?

Sure it's better to take the high ground and continue fending off their fists and feet with your face till they decide you've hurt them enough.

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I prefer to just disable. You know you can injure/disarm people without the need for a gun? I dont have any bloodlust that needs sateing by executing people. Like I said above. I guess thats the difference the desire to kill easily. Case closed.

Disable how? Die Hard style shots?

You can disarm someone with a knife at your mother's throat. Describe how please?

Bloodlust? Desire to kill? Oh dear...when on the ropes resort to emotive insult.

The case is far from closed, you seem to have a fantasy that you will easily outwit these pesky villains, it doesn't stand much scrutiny.

shruikan2553

If I lived somewhere where I was worried enough about my families safety that I brought a gun when I went to tesco I would probably move or go to Dunne's instead.

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

I think I see the problem. You think self-defence is murder. By definition in most legal codes, including Ireland, it isn't.

I prefer self-defence mechanisms that does not involve the ending of someone elses life. There are many non life ended forms of self defence.

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Answered above.

Actually you haven't.

All you said was that you have a magic way to disable attackers. Please tell us more.

Guy:Incognito

Trigger Happy wrote: »

If everyone is going round ready to shoot everyone else all the time then lots of innocent people will get killed.

I would honestly hate to live my life in such fear that I needed to carry a gun.
If I get mugged I would rather give the $100 I have on me then have the guilt on my conscience of having killed someone, no matter how horrible that person may have been.

But I also know that I will never convince the pro-gun lobby that I am right, and the pro-gun lobby will convince me that they are right. So we agree to differ.

And if they don't just want $100, but are out to kill you? That's just your bad luck eh?

Plenty of innocent people murdered here in Ireland too. Is the world a better place because the victim got killed and the killer didn't?

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I prefer self-defence mechanisms that does not involve the ending of someone elses life. There are many non life ended forms of self defence.

Really, if pushed - knife at your mother's throat - you would be saying "actually I prefer self-defence mechanisms that does not involve the ending of someone elses life"

Please describe how you would proceed.

Sheep Lover

MadsL wrote: »

Really, if pushed - knife at your mother's throat - you would be saying "actually I prefer self-defence mechanisms that does not involve the ending of someone elses life"

Please describe how you would proceed.

Give it a rest, you were whining about emotive language yet you bring dear mammy into it.

Tell me for arguments sake, say there is a knife to her throat, your first instinct is to aim around her head and shoot the attacker?

MadsL

You know it is funny how the very people who claim gun owners have movie fantasies about killing are the one who are massively delusional when it comes to how they would somehow use non-lethal force and save the day with family and moral integrity intact.

Hoooray!!!

Bog Standard User

MadsL wrote: »

The woman in this incident wasn't letting her two year old play with her gun.

Be nice to see some actual real responses in this thread, instead of made up things that didn't happen.

ok so she left her handbag with a loaded gun in reach of a two year old.

what kinda of dumbass doesnt think the child wouldnt wanna open the handbag to look inside while sitting bored in the child seat on the trolley

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

The case is far from closed, you seem to have a fantasy that you will easily outwit these pesky villains, it doesn't stand much scrutiny.

As oppose to your fantasy where a woman in her fifties managed to stave off an attack without a gun while you would have preferred a gun at 1200 fps to end the life of the thugs. I prefer the 50 year old womans method where no one dies as oppose to the SHOOOT THEM ALL method. I dont get why you try to say I am using "emotive" examples. I am using your own example mon ami. Your own example showed that people without guns can still survive and the "thugs" get arrested. Its easier your pro-gun three gunshots job done style but I prefer the non gun approach. Now regarding your own emotive example can you show or tell me the example when a gun fired by a child saved the life of their mother who had a knife held to her throat?

I didnt try to pull heartstrings I used your own presumably true example. So I guess you can provide proof of guns preventing the slitting of a mothers throat? Or are you the one trying to pull on heartstings?

MadsL

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Give it a rest, you were whining about emotive language yet you bring dear mammy into it.

Tell me for arguments sake, say there is a knife to her throat, your first instinct is to aim around her head and shoot the attacker?

I have no illusions about my ability to make a shot like that, wouldn't dream of it, especially under stress. But I would say my negotiating position is stronger than Mr Non-Lethal Force once my mother's attacker knows he's dead if he make a move. Plus maybe only one family member dies that day.

The only way to get Mr Non-Lethal Force to examine his fantasy is by presenting him with a scenario where his loved one's lives are at risk.

Of course, this assumes they will be honest enough post the truth.

MadsL

Bog Standard User wrote: »

ok so she left her handbag with a loaded gun in reach of a two year old.

what kinda of dumbass doesnt think the child wouldnt wanna open the handbag to look inside while sitting bored in the child seat on the trolley

Maybe one who thought the hidden zipper was beyond the child's ability. Clearly she was wrong.

Sheep Lover

MadsL wrote: »

I have no illusions about my ability to make a shot like that, wouldn't dream of it, especially under stress. But I would say my negotiating position is stronger than Mr Non-Lethal Force once my mother's attacker knows he's dead if he make a move. Plus maybe only one family member dies that day.

The only way to get Mr Non-Lethal Force to examine his fantasy is by presenting him with a scenario where his loved one's lives are at risk.

Of course, this assumes they will be honest enough post the truth.

So in reality the gun makes no difference if mammy dies or not?

And it sounds like the attacker is going to get shot either way, you seem to have a lust for shooting things. Worrying.

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

You can disarm someone with a knife at your mother's throat. Describe how please?

Bloodlust? Desire to kill? Oh dear...when on the ropes resort to emotive insult.

MadsL wrote: »

Really, if pushed - knife at your mother's throat - you would be saying "actually I prefer self-defence mechanisms that does not involve the ending of someone elses life"

hmmmm Irony strong with this one yes

ardmacha

MadsL wrote: »

Maybe one who thought the hidden zipper was beyond the child's ability. Clearly she was wrong.

Any half responsible person wouldn't allow a 2 year old root in a bag with nail scissors never mind a loaded gun.

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

As oppose to your fantasy where a woman in her fifties managed to stave off an attack without a gun while you would have preferred a gun at 1200 fps to end the life of the thugs. I prefer the 50 year old womans method where no one dies as oppose to the SHOOOT THEM ALL method. I dont get why you try to say I am using "emotive" examples. I am using your own example mon ami. Your own example showed that people without guns can still survive and the "thugs" get arrested. Its easier your pro-gun three gunshots job done style but I prefer the non gun approach. Now regarding your own emotive example can you show or tell me the example when a gun fired by a child saved the life of their mother who had a knife held to her throat?

Have you considered the alternative middle position, where the attack STOPS as the thugs run away. Concealed carry trains you to avoid harm to you, not dispense vengeance.

You seem to have trouble reading my posts - please go back and show me where I advocated shooting all three of these thugs.

I didnt try to pull heartstrings I used your own presumably true example. So I guess you can provide proof of guns preventing the slitting of a mothers throat? Or are you the one trying to pull on heartstings?

I'm pointing out to you that your non-lethal zen fantasy is in fact a fantasy. Big fan of martial arts movies perhaps?

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

I have no illusions about my ability to make a shot like that, wouldn't dream of it, especially under stress. But I would say my negotiating position is stronger than Mr Non-Lethal Force once my mother's attacker knows he's dead if he make a move. Plus maybe only one family member dies that day.

The only way to get Mr Non-Lethal Force to examine his fantasy is by presenting him with a scenario where his loved one's lives are at risk.

Of course, this assumes they will be honest enough post the truth.

So in your fantasy the criminal surrenders. Criminal is ****ed either way. Just slit her throat as a "**** you" to you and then you kill him.....your mother is dead. You've blown his head off. He doesn't have to go to jail. If thats a "win" for you then okey dokey. God help whoever has to clean up that bloody mess.



Oh and since your so obsessed with it Mads my mother has been dead for years. Theres some truth for ya. No she wasnt shot. No a gun wouldnt have saved her life.

MadsL

Sheep Lover wrote: »

So in reality the gun makes no difference if mammy dies or not?

And it sounds like the attacker is going to get shot either way, you seem to have a lust for shooting things. Worrying.

Lust? Oh dear, more insults.

The gun means the consequences of mammy getting sliced escalate from he kills mammy and escapes to he kills mammy and dies.

He'd better really, really want to do it, because he's dead afterwards.

Sheep Lover

MadsL wrote: »

Lust? Oh dear, more insults.

The gun means the consequences of mammy getting sliced escalate from he kills mammy and escapes to he kills mammy and dies.

He'd better really, really want to do it, because he's dead afterwards.

Would you not prefer he sees the full force of justice and sees a possible life imprisonment instead of going all Rambo on him?

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

Big fan of martial arts movies perhaps?

No I'm not actually thank you for asking. I supose you love The Terminator, Die Hard, GTA etc. Lots of guns and blood and splendid fun.

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

So in your fantasy the criminal surrenders. Criminal is ****ed either way. Just slit her throat as a "**** you" to you and then you kill him.....your mother is dead. You've blown his head off. He doesn't have to go to jail. If thats a "win" for you then okey dokey. God help whoever has to clean up that bloody mess.



Oh and since your so obsessed with it Mads my mother has been dead for years. Theres some truth for ya. No she wasnt shot. No a gun wouldnt have saved her life.

I see you are still avoiding how your Mr Non-Lethal Force disarms this attacker? Could we have an explanation?

In my scenario there is the possibility that the attacker surrenders. I cannot see a reason why he would surrender in yours. Please explain.

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

No I'm not actually thank you for asking. I supose you love The Terminator, Die Hard, GTA etc. Lots of guns and blood and splendid fun.

Do you see how that works.

Now can we have a real discussion?

pmasterson95

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Would you not prefer he sees the full force of justice and sees a possible life imprisonment instead of going all Rambo on him?

Only one way results in blood shed. We both know which will be picked Mr.Sheep.



I'm off now.

MadsL

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Would you not prefer he sees the full force of justice and sees a possible life imprisonment instead of going all Rambo on him?

Is there the possibility that he chooses to put the knife down?

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I'm off now.

So you cannot explain your non-lethal scenario.

Thought so. Bye now.