MadsL wrote: » Would you stop short of killing someone who attacked your family/spouse/child such that you felt their life was in danger?
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.
MadsL wrote: » Now, if it is your family, would you not kill someone threatening their lives?
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.
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.
pmasterson95 wrote: » Answered above.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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"
MadsL wrote: » Maybe one who thought the hidden zipper was beyond the child's ability. Clearly she was wrong.
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?
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?
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.
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.
MadsL wrote: » Big fan of martial arts movies perhaps?
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.
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.
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?
pmasterson95 wrote: » I'm off now.
