6th Grader Shoots Potential Rapist

[CM156_v1legacy]

I don't get what you're saying. Burglars aren't a threat, and there was no indication the victim here was any sort of threat.

Try being a 12 year old girl hiding in a closet when an intruder with unknown intent opens it.

If you can honestly say there's "no threat", you're only fooling yourself

Congratulations, you are glad about the death of another human being, and lose 2 civilisation points as a result.

He's said he'd be happy if she wasn't charged with anything. Also, the burglar lived in this instance.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

So false, gun bans don't reduce crime.

Rubbish, since they compare US states. Which is retarded, because the US as a country is still flooded with guns, making it uncomparable.

In the meantime, the crime rates between gun-loving countries and countries with decent firearms bans speak for themselves. Even the flagship of the gun lobby, Switserland, has a skyrocketing family murder rate due to the presence of firearms in every home, much higher than surrounding countries with worse socio-economical circumstances.

The murder rate in the US is between 2 and 33 times higher than in comparable European countries. Even former eastern block countries are safer.

A "normal" situation would entail that there was zero intention and action on the part of the robber, basically meaning that the thief/ intruder never took action and therefore stayed a non-threat to everyone. This was not a "normal" situation.

I don't get what you're saying. Burglars aren't a threat, and there was no indication the victim here was any sort of threat.

As long as the girl isn't charged with anything (and I sincerely hope not, but you never know with lawyers) then I say ROCK ON!!!

Congratulations, you are glad about the death of another human being, and lose 2 civilisation points as a result.

Just a hint, robberies are violent with no death, kidnapping or rape, while burglaries happen when nobody is there. I would post the local news from the last two months where the very thing I described happened three times, but those aren't enough to convince I'm guessing since while they are three different incidents, they are only one story each.

Why not just admit I was right instead of turning around the issue like that?

how about you actually link sources to all your outlandish claims? i could sit here all day doing the same thing right back in your face, and it wouldn't do a damn thing without sources.

I'm a swat commander doctor military veteran space jump diver, and i know from personal experience that all the information you just gave is false. So there, you're wrong, we're right.

 

[spartan231490]

So false, gun bans don't reduce crime.

Rubbish, since they compare US states. Which is retarded, because the US as a country is still flooded with guns, making it uncomparable.

In the meantime, the crime rates between gun-loving countries and countries with decent firearms bans speak for themselves. Even the flagship of the gun lobby, Switserland, has a skyrocketing family murder rate due to the presence of firearms in every home, much higher than surrounding countries with worse socio-economical circumstances.

The murder rate in the US is between 2 and 33 times higher than in comparable European countries. Even former eastern block countries are safer.

False. If you actually looked at my sources, one of them compares European countries, it's the havard study titled "gun control is counterproductive", and countries with more guns per capita have fewer murders. The data does speak for itself, it shows that gun control and gun bans don't reduce crime or murder rates. Look at the UK, "the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]" That's from the Justfacts.com source I posted earlier. The data is not on your side.

 

[Spearmaster]

When someone invades your home that is what we call a criminal, they are operating outside the law and it cant be known how far they are going to go once they cross that line, here in the United States we remove the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible...we shoot them. It works for the police, it works for the military and it works for the people as well.

This hind sight is 20/20 justice that some subscribe to is almost insultingly naive, do people really want a country where she had to wait in the closet to be assaulted just so we could be sure...then she would not only have been a victim of the invader but the legal system as well, people that operate outside the law should not be protected by it IMO.

 

[JochemHippie]

Which rapist? There was no rapist, just a burgler.

I don't really have all that strong feelings with guns, I can see them being lifesavers in some cases and lifetakers in many others. Honestly I'd prefer a less lethal self-defence, a tazer or pepperspray or something.

Self defense is usually just putting yourself in harms way, better to just cooperate then die trying to defend your wallet.

 

[asinann]

Well, since the FBI doesn't track that specifically, I'll hand you their data.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_12_crime_trends_by_population_group_2010-2011.xls

Just a hint, robberies are violent with no death, kidnapping or rape, while burglaries happen when nobody is there. I would post the local news from the last two months where the very thing I described happened three times, but those aren't enough to convince I'm guessing since while they are three different incidents, they are only one story each.

By the way, each time, the bodies were found within a mile of the homes, and the FBI classifies those as murders, not robberies or burglaries.

On the previous page I posted a source of the Department of Justice that states that 26% of burglaries when a resident is at home end with a violent crime (that also includes rape, don't know if it includes homicide). "Residents at home" includes residents that are asleep when the burglary happens - if you are awake and a burglar is in your home it is pretty much guaranteed that he will attack you if you confront him. In most cases burglars have a weapon of some kind (here in germany a screwdriver is classified as a weapon in such cases).

Blahblab or whatever managed to ignore that source and stamp it off as unrealistic because "normal burglaries NEVER EVER EVER end with a violent crime. Yep, that is pretty much his whole argument.

Except I went to the DoJ site and it didn't say anything about it.

And for the last guy that quoted me and REMOVED my link so it looked like I was saying he was right http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_12_crime_trends_by_population_group_2010-2011.xls

 

[Gothproxy]

So false, gun bans don't reduce crime.

Rubbish, since they compare US states. Which is retarded, because the US as a country is still flooded with guns, making it uncomparable.

In the meantime, the crime rates between gun-loving countries and countries with decent firearms bans speak for themselves. Even the flagship of the gun lobby, Switserland, has a skyrocketing family murder rate due to the presence of firearms in every home, much higher than surrounding countries with worse socio-economical circumstances.

The murder rate in the US is between 2 and 33 times higher than in comparable European countries. Even former eastern block countries are safer.

A "normal" situation would entail that there was zero intention and action on the part of the robber, basically meaning that the thief/ intruder never took action and therefore stayed a non-threat to everyone. This was not a "normal" situation.

I don't get what you're saying. Burglars aren't a threat, and there was no indication the victim here was any sort of threat.

As long as the girl isn't charged with anything (and I sincerely hope not, but you never know with lawyers) then I say ROCK ON!!!

Congratulations, you are glad about the death of another human being, and lose 2 civilisation points as a result.

Just a hint, robberies are violent with no death, kidnapping or rape, while burglaries happen when nobody is there. I would post the local news from the last two months where the very thing I described happened three times, but those aren't enough to convince I'm guessing since while they are three different incidents, they are only one story each.

Why not just admit I was right instead of turning around the issue like that?

If I lost 2 Civilization points for being glad a little girl defended herself against someone who would have done her harm, I say ROCK ON!!!

Oh, and if I lost them cause I you think I'm glad someone is dead, you might as well take a few more because there are quite a few people that I'm glad are dead. No shame in my game.

 

[spartan231490]

False. If you actually looked at my sources, one of them compares European countries, it's the havard study titled "gun control is counterproductive", and countries with more guns per capita have fewer murders. The data does speak for itself, it shows that gun control and gun bans don't reduce crime or murder rates.

Oh, that for a change. That study is bullshit because they haven't controlled for a single relevant variable, and concluded that a correlation is the same as a causal relation.

Norway for instance has a population much thinner than other countries. Socio-economic circumstances aren't the same...

It wasn't a study, it was a political pamphlet; Controlling for exterior variables is about the first thing you learn when learning how to do academic writing.

Good to know that Norway and Western Europe are both US states for you... /facepalm.

Norway is a country, western Europe is a region within a continent. Neither contain any place with gun laws like in the US, and the crime rates are a lot lower as a result.

It's so good to know that people will just blatantly ignore data that opposes their position, and lie about things to distract people from noticing. They said right in the study that it's a correlation, not causation, "It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates" and it's far from the only study. I have provided you with MOUNTAINS of data, that you ignore from up on your high horse where you can just shoot down studies and data out of hand without providing data of your own, or for that matter without good reason. Russia has a low population density too, and an extremely low gun per capita, and their murder rate is almost 4 times higher than the US. As mentioned in the Harvard study.

Yes, you control for other variables, but that's kinda hard to do when you need to find a statistically significant number of countries that are similar in culture, population density, and average socio-political status. Furthermore, even when you don't control for variables, data such as this is pretty damn conclusive: "Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)." I bolded the important parts. This is not just a coincidence, and to cut you off at the pass, of course this doesn't prove causation, but it's pretty damning evidence against the suggestion that fewer guns is a cause for less crime.

Also, even more amusing to me is that you violate your own rule about not controlling for relevant variables by comparing the US to European countries, two places with radically different cultures, economic systems, race make-up, population densities, economic system, political system, and socio-economic make up.

The murder rate in the US is between 2 and 33 times higher than in comparable European countries. Even former eastern block countries are safer.

It's also amusing to me that you say eastern block countries are safer, directly in conflict with the data found by a Harvard study(at least with regards to Russia) in addition to it being completely irrelevant(by your own standards) because of all the uncontrolled variables as listed above.

I also like how you completely ignored fully half of the post you are quoting, and tried to cut it out of your post like it didn't exist. Maybe because you have no answer for this other damning piece of evidence?

Look at the UK, "the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]" That's from the Justfacts.com source I posted earlier. The data is not on your side.

Not to mention all of the various sources I posted earlier that you just blanket ignored by saying that they were comparing between US states and that somehow made them irrelevant. Guess what, it doesn't, it's one of the most relevant comparisons that can be made because of the relatively similar culture and socio-economic status across states. Still huge differences in these uncontrollable variables(due to the low number of available data points), but much closer than comparisons between European countries, and god in heaven better than comparing the US to European countries, our culture, economic system, social structure, and socio-economic status is so different from Europe any comparisons of that nature are meaningless.

How about you finally ball up and give us a study / sources to back up your claims.

Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Think of socio-economical circumstances yourself please. You'll note that the United States, because of its free availability of murder weapons, is right up there just below warzones, and even above Brazil and its favela wars between drug gangs.

Note how the Netherlands and Switserland are extremely close together, despite the Swiss very low population density and extreme affluence, compared to the Dutch very heavy population density and normal affluence for the region. This is because murder weapons are present in every single Swiss home, and Switserland is the nr 1 highest ranking country in Europe for 'family drama' murders.

Other than that I can of course build on the simple blunt, irrefutable fact, that you can't kill people without weapons, so without firearms, there will *always* be fewer murders and less severe violence. There's no point in even trying to refute that, unless you can prove firearms are less lethal than hitting someone with your bare hands. Good luck with that.

Wikipedia, that's convincing. Not to mention, it's just a list of unrelated data points, with far far far too many differences between countries for it to be relevant. Here, why don't you try reading some studies:
http://www.guncite.com/Kleck-Hogan.html
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.largo.org/klecksum.html
http://www.largo.org/Lott.html

 

[Terminate421]

26% of all cases WHERE A RESIDENT WAS AT HOME.
I did not speak of rape and murder, I spoke of attack.

Pointless comparison. Getting bitchslapped by a panicked burglar who's fearing for his life in a paranoid gun culture where he can be legally murdered, isn't proof that burglars are dangerous.

If you want to change this situation, you need to ban gun ownership, which is the source of this elevated level of violence, so the situation in the US will start to resemble a normal situation, where burglars run away at the least hint of trouble in 99,9% of the cases, with the 0,1% of cases being drug criminals trying to rip eachother off.

No really, tell me more about how right you are. Just taking away all guns from a culture that has had guns in civilian possession since the later 1700's will always make things better.

 

[Panda Mania]

Well. I abhor violence as a rule, and I'm not a huge fan of gun ownership, but I gotta say: this is pretty awesome/epic. That she kept calm in the face of terror and followed protocol, that she protected herself from possible harm, and that the gunshot wound was relatively minor and the guy was soon out of the hospital and in jail. I'll bet he'll think twice about robbing a home next time...

EDIT: Ok yeah, the first story was a tad sensationalist..."He tried to enter the closet? OMG RAEPIST!" He may have had no clue she was there, for all we know. :|

 

[DudeistBelieve]

1: Kick Ass is over rated and about as deep as a kiddie pool during a drought.
2: Aren't we glad that the girl is safe? I sure am!
3: This:

The intruder got a gunshot and he's about to get his booty violated in the cell block.

Job well done, 12 year old girl.

Is unacceptable.
So, is what your trying to tell me is that rape is a good thing in some cases?
Like, if it's an "ironic" punishment for a male criminal?
What if the intruder had been female? Would you have made the same "joke"?
No, because rape can't really be considered "appropriate" or "laughable" unless the victim's a man.
If we strip away the societal context of the joke, you've basically now said that SOME rape is ok. Of course, you basically get away with it, because the listeners are supposed to find the perpetrator reprehensible/sub-human and therefore an acceptable target for anything.
For example, I could reasonably be forgiven for saying "If I knew a Nazi, I'd decapitate him, peel the flesh from his face, place my fingers in his still dripping eye sockets, and bowl his recently scalped cranium into a woodchipper. I would then use the brain matter to feed other nazis". Sure, that example is extreme, but if we attach the word "Nazi" to the beginning why does it strangely feel more acceptable? Even with the word "nazi" added in as my "get out of jail free card", I've still just admitted to desiring the brutal murder, desecration, and mutilation of another man because I disagree with his personal philosophy.
Is that REALLY the society we want to live in?
Please reconsider this opinion.

Actually, I'd be for the joke even if said potential rapist was a female.

You know why?

CAUSE ITS A FUCKING RAPIST! Yeah a rape joke is okay if the butt of the joke falls on a RAPIST.

Also, did you just describe the desire to genocide entire groups of Gays, Gypsies and Jews as "Personal Philosophy"?

Let's leave the ex reality show hosts out of this...
1: We're not talking about rape jokes, we're talking about your amusement at the concept of rape being inflicted as an ironic or just punishment. Again, is some Rape ok in your mind?
2: Like I said, it's an extreme example. This was not meant to imply that atrocities committed by the Nazis were somehow excusable as a "point of view". However, what I'm tying to get across is that MAYBE it's a bad idea to answer ugliness with ugliness. Maybe, it's better to try and move forward as human beings, rather than satisfying ourselves with cheap cathartic crap.

1. Yes, Rape is okay if it befalls a person that is pro-genocide... committed an act of rape themselves.... or fucks a child. Or at least okay to the point that I do not care nor do I have any basic human sympathy for them. Seriously, they are bad people.

I don't support a society where we actively try to punish people, but if a villian prays upon a villian by sheer happenstance? I fail to see how that isn't the universe sorting out it's karma.

Barring the non-existence of "karma" or universal "order", of course.
I can't help but feel that the preservation of my humanity is somehow more important than paying imaginary tribute to likely fictional, highly subjective, philosophical construct.
Again, such as karma or any universal or objective interpretation of the concept of "justice".

Also, the fact that you can pretend to deprive yourself of humanity (while talking on the internet, how brave...) isn't so much a philosophical standpoint or even really a show of strength to the "harsh and unforgiving" world, as much as it is a cop out. Opposed, of course, to taking a hard and objective look at what amount to be difficult and heart rending subjects.

Yes how brave of me, with an account that has my real name... linked to not only my personal facebook account, twitter, but also a website where I show videos of myself, yes... Clearly I'm talking tough behind an anonymous shield. It's not like my name is Nicholas Rehfeldt or anything, and I'm certainly not from Long Island.


And really dude, Jesus Christ. No one is saying we lock the guy up in chains and tell a 400 pound man name tiny to go to town on his ass. But if so happens during the course of a potential rapist life he gets raped himself? Good. These aren't people like you and me, people that can have empathy for others. People that would go, sure it would be nice to lord my power over another individual for a while, but it would make the other person feel sad and upset and I don't want that.

The people that do such things lack basic humanity. They lack the ability to care about others. I don't understand why then it would be wrong of me to hear of a rapist getting raped by another and think anything other than good. They'll never rehabilitate. They'll never feel sorry for their crimes against humanity. If they could possibly understand that THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You act as though I callously came to this decision quickly. No, I do believe in the moral high ground. That we have to do the right thing simply because it is, but if tragedy happens to be fall someone so monstrous by sheer coincidence? I give not a fuck. In this case, the "victim" would be a potential child fucker. IF that's true, as someone pointed out I don't know, then I really wouldn't care if someone stabs him in prison. He fucked a kid, he's as evil as the fucker that shot that six year old watching Batman over the summer.

So, you have no empathy for people who have no empathy for other people...... ergo you wouldn't have empathy for someone like that (who has no empathy for people with no empathy) either?

Did they kill someone in cold blood, or fuck a kid?