Teen Seeking Help After Car Accident Rang Doorbell, Was Shot In The Head

MadsL · 11-11-2013 04:04PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

They're nothing alike. Most civilised countries get by perfectly well without the right to bear arms, why can't the States?

Which countries, as Ireland doesn't, prevent their citizens from having firearms?

RasTa wrote: »

Let the yanks keep on killing each other, I don't particular care.

Although anyone who thinks assault riffles in the house are a right, deserves to be killed.

Well that's logical...what next, shoot people who have a different opinion to you?

Skylinehead · 11-11-2013 04:07PM

MadsL wrote: »

Which countries, as Ireland doesn't, prevent their citizens from having firearms?

You know what I meant. There's very few firearms in Ireland, the vast majority of households don't have them. The world hasn't ended as a result, so why does America need so many guns?

Bepolite · 11-11-2013 04:19PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

You know what I meant. There's very few firearms in Ireland, the vast majority of households don't have them. The world hasn't ended as a result, so why does America need so many guns?

The issues in the US are not down to general citizens having guns they are down to the massive and fundamental social problems faced by the country. This is borne out by countries such as Switzerland and Canada where the gun ownership is probably on par with the US.

Agreed that gun ownership doesn't help but frankly it's not the biggest issue. One has to bear in mind (around) 50% of all US gun death are suicides. Where I have to disagree with MadsL is the right for people to carry guns as some sort of protection against crime. Arming the police and carrying guns doesn't prevent crime it makes it more serious. Look at South Africa, South America and the US.

Ireland isn't perfect neither is the UK. Yes the individual is put at slightly more risk of something horrible happening but that risk could be negated by allowing non-lethal measures such as rape alarms, and even pepper spray, rather than a hand gun. I'd take the situation in Ireland/UK though rather than the US.

What I'd rather do of course is adopt the Scandinavian model but people are far too selfish to pay the required tax rates. Deal with the underlying social issues rather than picking at the symptoms.

MadsL · 11-11-2013 05:01PM

Bepolite wrote: »

The issues in the US are not down to general citizens having guns they are down to the massive and fundamental social problems faced by the country. This is borne out by countries such as Switzerland and Canada where the gun ownership is probably on par with the US.

Agreed that gun ownership doesn't help but frankly it's not the biggest issue. One has to bear in mind (around) 50% of all US gun death are suicides. Where I have to disagree with MadsL is the right for people to carry guns as some sort of protection against crime. Arming the police and carrying guns doesn't prevent crime it makes it more serious. Look at South Africa, South America and the US.

Chicken and egg in South Africa, and most whites I know in SA are terrified SA will turn into another Zimbabwe. They would rather drive, drunk, through red lights than take a taxi at night. I find South Africa to be a wonderful and safe place to visit as most crime is property based. I've managed to travel and work there three times and love the place. But if I lived there, I'd be packing.

Ireland isn't perfect neither is the UK. Yes the individual is put at slightly more risk of something horrible happening but that risk could be negated by allowing non-lethal measures such as rape alarms, and even pepper spray, rather than a hand gun. I'd take the situation in Ireland/UK though rather than the US.

Ughh. I find the US has a far, far better feel of safety to it, than the UK. Random violent crimes in the UK seem prevalent, but I understand that things have improved.

What I'd rather do of course is adopt the Scandinavian model but people are far too selfish to pay the required tax rates.

Deal with the underlying social issues rather than picking at the symptoms.

Absolutely. Poverty, lack of opportunity and social and income inequality are far more worthy targets than what caliber someone buys or the number of bullets in their magazine. Mental health now being covered on Obamacare should also help.

Lets not lose sight of the fact that US is a far, far less dangerous place than it was in the 70s and early 80s and homicide rates have dropped consistently and dramatically.

MadsL · 11-11-2013 05:05PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

You know what I meant. There's very few firearms in Ireland, the vast majority of households don't have them. The world hasn't ended as a result, so why does America need so many guns?

There are 220,000 firearms in Ireland.

You didn't answer my question, which countries actively ban citizens from owning guns?

And to answer your question, why does America need so many guns? Because America has so many guns. It has been evolving from a century of being your own police force. In many places in America, you call the cops to sort out what happened, rather than expecting them to protect you. Some people live on up to a 2 hour response time from a 911 call.

Skylinehead · 11-11-2013 05:10PM

MadsL wrote: »

There are 220,000 firearms in Ireland.

8 guns per 100 people. That's over 10 times less than the USA.

You didn't answer my question, which countries actively ban citizens from owning guns?

I phrased that wrong, not ban as such, more strictly control guns, ie Ireland or Britain.

And to answer your question, why does America need so many guns? Because America has so many guns. It has been evolving from a century of being your own police force. In many places in America, you call the cops to sort out what happened, rather than expecting them to protect you. Some people live on up to a 2 hour response time from a 911 call.

So America needs guns because guns. That's a good argument for getting rid of guns surely?

Shenshen · 11-11-2013 05:11PM

MadsL wrote: »

There are 220,000 firearms in Ireland.

You didn't answer my question, which countries actively ban citizens from owning guns?

And to answer your question, why does America need so many guns? Because America has so many guns. It has been evolving from a century of being your own police force. In many places in America, you call the cops to sort out what happened, rather than expecting them to protect you. Some people live on up to a 2 hour response time from a 911 call.

Which, in fairness, isn't all THAT different to some areas in Ireland.

But I think you do touch on the actual problem : the notion that everybody should be their own police, judge and jury. A notion that's being given credence and support by laws like the one in Florida, which explicitly allows for lethal force to be used if you feel threatened by someone.

Mix this notion with a socially very tense situation - let that be racial unrest, a great divide between the rich and the poor, a lack of perspective for large parts of the population, or even all of these - and you get a rather explosive situation in which people will feel threatened quite easily and react by killing.
The guns are just one enabling factor in all of that, they just make it that little bit easier.

MadsL · 11-11-2013 05:44PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

8 guns per 100 people. That's over 10 times less than the USA.

Yes, they still exist however in significant numbers.

I phrased that wrong, not ban as such, more strictly control guns, ie Ireland or Britain.

It is very arguable whether such measure actually have any effect on reducing violent crime.

So America needs guns because guns. That's a good argument for getting rid of guns surely?

Great. What's the plan?

MadsL · 11-11-2013 05:48PM

Shenshen wrote: »

But I think you do touch on the actual problem : the notion that everybody should be their own police, judge and jury. A notion that's being given credence and support by laws like the one in Florida, which explicitly allows for lethal force to be used if you feel threatened by someone.

Mix this notion with a socially very tense situation - let that be racial unrest, a great divide between the rich and the poor, a lack of perspective for large parts of the population, or even all of these - and you get a rather explosive situation in which people will feel threatened quite easily and react by killing.
The guns are just one enabling factor in all of that, they just make it that little bit easier.

Yep, pretty much describes it.

Now how do you back away from that position and put in place laws that force Americans to back down? If there is one thing I have learned in the US, many Americans simply do not back down when faced with a threat.

The problem for legislating for it, as was tried - many states had a duty to retreat law - was that you cannot put someone in the situation of having to have their backs to wall before firing.

Skylinehead · 11-11-2013 05:57PM

MadsL wrote: »

Yes, they still exist however in significant numbers.

I certainly wouldn't categorise it as "significant". We don't have a huge gun problem here.

It is very arguable whether such measure actually have any effect on reducing violent crime.

It certainly does depend on the mindset of a country, seeing as Switzerland has both guns and a low homicide rate. However, the USA has a considerably higher homicide rate as well as a higher homicide by firearm rate, so there's obviously something up there.

Great. What's the plan?[/QUOTE]

Therein lies the problem. It's got so far that I'm not sure what could possibly be done at this point.

MadsL · 11-11-2013 06:03PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't categorise it as "significant". We don't have a huge gun problem here.

Huh? Unless you happen to be mistaken for a rival drug dealer...

It certainly does depend on the mindset of a country, seeing as Switzerland has both guns and a low homicide rate. However, the USA has a considerably higher homicide rate as well as a higher homicide by firearm rate, so there's obviously something up there.

Take out the suicides by firearm...it looks a bit different then.

Therein lies the problem. It's got so far that I'm not sure what could possibly be done at this point.

And yet people continue to lecture the US...

listermint · 11-11-2013 06:11PM

MadsL wrote: »

And yet people continue to lecture the US...

They are open to be lectured and ridiculed because these type of cases are daily news and they continue to misread their own constitution on the subject.

For shame.

For shame.

MadsL · 11-11-2013 06:20PM

listermint wrote: »

They are open to be lectured and ridiculed because these type of cases are daily news and they continue to misread their own constitution on the subject.

It is being read fine...

For shame.

For shame.

Come back to me when you have a workable solution. In the meantime spare me the histrionics.

Ending hunger in the world is simple.

For shame
For shame...etc

Witcher · 11-11-2013 06:22PM

listermint wrote: »

They are open to be lectured and ridiculed because these type of cases are daily news and they continue to misread their own constitution on the subject.

For shame.

For shame.

I presume you're talking about the 'militia' part of the 2nd Amendment.

Under US law the entire population constitutes a national militia so it's not being misread.

MonaPizza · 11-11-2013 06:34PM

MadsL wrote: »

Yes, they still exist however in significant numbers.

It is very arguable whether such measure actually have any effect on reducing violent crime.

Great. What's the plan?

The majority of guns in Ireland are .22 caliber rifles for shooting vermin or shotguns for killing crows and other airborne "pests".

Now both of these weapons are lethal to a human if deployed in the right way (i.e. .22 shot to the heart would most likely be fatal as would a close range shotgun blast) but from a distance or fired erratically (without deliberate and calculated aim as would be the case in a "heat of the moment" self defence scenario) are almost never fatal.

By comparison the weapons in the US (5.56 mm, 9mm, .357 caliber, etc) are enough so almost certainly be fatal, especially if discharge multiple times like they are designed to do (assault weapons, etc). If not fatal then they certain have the capacity ot maim, cripple or paralyse.
In New Orleans when those cops fired randomly at people, one girl had her arm blown off and that was from a distance.

enfant terrible · 11-11-2013 06:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe Paraguay? There we have it, USA are only second, move along everyone.

Not going to be much fun hating on Paraguay

Witcher · 11-11-2013 06:48PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

The majority of guns in Ireland are .22 caliber rifles for shooting vermin or shotguns for killing crows and other airborne "pests".

Now both of these weapons are lethal to a human if deployed in the right way (i.e. .22 shot to the heart would most likely be fatal as would a close range shotgun blast) but from a distance or fired erratically (without deliberate and calculated aim as would be the case in a "heat of the moment" self defence scenario) are almost never fatal.

By comparison the weapons in the US (5.56 mm, 9mm, .357 caliber, etc) are enough so almost certainly be fatal, especially if discharge multiple times like they are designed to do (assault weapons, etc). If not fatal then they certain have the capacity ot maim, cripple or paralyse.
In New Orleans when those cops fired randomly at people, one girl had her arm blown off and that was from a distance.

A .22lr is still lethal at 400 yards, there's a lot more available here than .22lr..even AR15's and other centrefire semi autos. All calibres are available here, none are banned.

Her arm was blown off? I can tell you without even looking that that is BS unless they were using a .50 cal. No standard rifle or pistol calibre would tear a limb off, she probably got shot and later lost the arm and the story grew.

Her arm was amputated; www.peoplesworld.org/on-danziger-bridge-cops-shot-first-covered-up-later/

'Blown off'..for fuck sake

MadsL · 11-11-2013 06:55PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

The majority of guns in Ireland are .22 caliber rifles for shooting vermin or shotguns for killing crows and other airborne "pests".

Now both of these weapons are lethal to a human if deployed in the right way (i.e. .22 shot to the heart would most likely be fatal as would a close range shotgun blast) but from a distance or fired erratically (without deliberate and calculated aim as would be the case in a "heat of the moment" self defence scenario) are almost never fatal.

By comparison the weapons in the US (5.56 mm, 9mm, .357 caliber, etc) are enough so almost certainly be fatal, especially if discharge multiple times like they are designed to do (assault weapons, etc). If not fatal then they certain have the capacity ot maim, cripple or paralyse.
In New Orleans when those cops fired randomly at people, one girl had her arm blown off and that was from a distance.

Oh look we can start talking about calibres.

What a pleasant distraction from the actual issues.

MadsL · 11-11-2013 07:21PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

By comparison the weapons in the US (5.56 mm, 9mm, .357 caliber, etc) are enough so almost certainly be fatal, especially if discharge multiple times like they are designed to do (assault weapons, etc). If not fatal then they certain have the capacity ot maim, cripple or paralyse.
In New Orleans when those cops fired randomly at people, one girl had her arm blown off and that was from a distance.

Except that 95% of people who are shot regardless of calibre, if they get immediate medical treatment, survive.

Irlandczyk · 12-11-2013 03:07PM

MadsL wrote: »

Out of interest how do you know a stranger knocking on your door at 3am is unarmed?

So, what? Shoot first and ask later, right? Who cares if an innocent person was just killed.

You seem to be making the argument that disabling shots are reality rather than a fantasy. Good luck with making that case.

So in order to defend myself in a situation where there are guns, I pretty much have to kill someone. Great. Not exactly a winning argument for people being able to freely bear arms.

Oddly enough, the two times I have stared down the wrong end of a gun have been in a European country.

I've been all over Europe an thankfully have never had a gun pointed at me. Although a friend of mine once said he would feel safer walking around at 3am in Amsterdam wearing a hat made out of €100 notes, than walking to the nearest restaurant to where he lived for a time in Chicago.

I don't know the facts of the case, nor do you. I do however support the right to defend yourself if in fear of your life, if this guy was or not, I have no idea.

I too support a person's right to defend himself or his family when in fear of their life, however, it would have to be very extreme for me to accept taking someone's life. Frankly, a young girl knocking on the door at night does not suggest imminent danger to me. And even if he did feel there was something dangerous, why even answer the door?

I've deliberately avoided your other questions due to them being total bullshíte.

Irlandczyk · 12-11-2013 03:11PM

MadsL wrote: »

Oh look we can start talking about calibres.

What a pleasant distraction from the actual issues.

Mentions distracting from the issues at hand...

MadsL wrote: »

Except that 95% of people who are shot regardless of calibre, if they get immediate medical treatment, survive.

...talks about them anyway :rolleyes:

Well if it'll suit your arguments as to why America is just lovely, why not, sure..?

MadsL · 12-11-2013 04:33PM

Irlandczyk wrote: »

I've deliberately avoided your other questions due to them being total bullshíte.

Yes, one should ignore questions you cannot answer in case you look foolish trying to answer them.

MadsL · 12-11-2013 04:59PM

Irelandczyk wrote:

So, what? Shoot first and ask later, right? Who cares if an innocent person was just killed.

Where did I ever make the argument that you should shoot first and ask questions later? I'm merely pointing out that that just because someone who shows up at your house at 3am appears unarmed, it is foolish to assume they are not armed. You suggest that this householder should have based his judgement on her appearance, I would suggest that is not wise.

I have never in any of these threads suggested shooting anyone without justification defensible in court. Please don't misrepresent my viewpoint in such a crass manner.

Irelandczyk wrote:

So in order to defend myself in a situation where there are guns, I pretty much have to kill someone. Great. Not exactly a winning argument for people being able to freely bear arms.

If someone brings lethal force against you, you need for your own safety to make sure they are incapacitated before stopping your fire. I'm not suggesting that you execute people, I am saying that in a situation like that you cannot do as is often suggested by people like yourself simply put one bullet in someone's leg and expect them not to continue firing at you. It is simply a fantasy to suggest that anyone outside of the movies has either the accuracy or the nerve to attempt to shoot at non-critical body parts. It would be highly foolish and dangerous to do so.

Irelandczyk wrote:

I've been all over Europe an thankfully have never had a gun pointed at me. Although a friend of mine once said he would feel safer walking around at 3am in Amsterdam wearing a hat made out of €100 notes, than walking to the nearest restaurant to where he lived for a time in Chicago.

An anecdote for an anecdote. Moving on.

Irelandczyk wrote:

I too support a person's right to defend himself or his family when in fear of their life,

/thread. We agree.

however, it would have to be very extreme for me to accept taking someone's life.

So, how much "fear of their life" is acceptable? A whole fear, or 0.75 fears, perhaps 0.15 fears is not enough?

Frankly, a young girl knocking on the door at night does not suggest imminent danger to me.

I'm not the guy's defence attorney, and we do not know much of the facts of this case, and I'm not justifying his actions as I simply do not know the facts, nor do you. I thought we were clear on that.

And even if he did feel there was something dangerous, why even answer the door?

I have no idea. I'd be answering from the upstairs window - but that's me.

MadsL · 12-11-2013 05:01PM

Irlandczyk wrote: »

Mentions distracting from the issues at hand...

...talks about them anyway :rolleyes:

Well if it'll suit your arguments as to why America is just lovely, why not, sure..?

That's my argument?

You should try reading my posts.

Irlandczyk · 13-11-2013 12:23AM

MadsL wrote: »

That's my argument? You should try reading my posts.

I read them. It was also mentioned earlier in this thread that you often jump in very quickly to defend America in quite a lot of other threads. I assumed you had an agenda here, too.

MadsL wrote: »

Yes, one should ignore questions you cannot answer in case you look foolish trying to answer them.

I feel like I'm already wasting rather a lot of my time answering to you already. In fairness, we're both very much hanging on to our views and it seems neither of us are providing convincing enough arguments to change that. Bull**** questions deserve to be ignored. I did so. Spin it whatever way you wish, however.

Either way, I'm out. There's no arguing with you. You make comments implying one thing and then shift the goalposts as it suits you.

MadsL · 13-11-2013 06:29AM

Irlandczyk wrote: »

I read them. It was also mentioned earlier in this thread that you often jump in very quickly to defend America in quite a lot of other threads. I assumed you had an agenda here, too.

Assumption.

I feel like I'm already wasting rather a lot of my time answering to you already

.

Dismissiveness.

In fairness, we're both very much hanging on to our views and it seems neither of us are providing convincing enough arguments to change that. Bull**** questions deserve to be ignored. I did so. Spin it whatever way you wish, however.

No. Anything you deem to be bullshit you should generally in a debate try and show why it is bullshit, rather than refusing to answer and going la-la-la-la can't hear you.

Either way, I'm out. There's no arguing with you. You make comments implying one thing and then shift the goalposts as it suits you.

Ah the classic "shifting the goalposts" excuse for exiting the thread. Perhaps you found that I wasn't arguing what you assumed I was arguing...

Grayson · 13-11-2013 08:48AM

MadsL wrote: »

Dismissiveness.

The irony in that post

MadsL · 13-11-2013 09:45AM

Grayson wrote: »

The irony in that post

Do share if you have something to say...

BattleCorp · 13-11-2013 04:29PM

There are a lot of assumptions on this thread.

I don't know if the homeowner acted in self defence or maliciously shot the girl as I wasn't there.

The facts will come out though.

If he had no justifiable reason for shooting her, I'm sure the law will take its course.

theblaqueguy · 15-11-2013 05:52PM

So the homeowner has been charged with second degree murder

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/15/21476808-homeowner-in-renisha-mcbrides-killing-to-face-murder-charges

Only time will tell if there is enough evidence for a jury to convict him.

Teen Seeking Help After Car Accident Rang Doorbell, Was Shot In The Head

Comments