Where i live the only reason to break into someones house is to steal shit. Very few cases of people deliberately going into a house to beat or kill people unless they get caught robbing the house or they have a personal vandetta against said person. Its just to messy for your would be robber to brutalise someone. chances are they are just a junkie after their next score. They arent gonna go out deliberately to beat and kill someoneToy Master Typhus said:
Speaking from Texas, where everyone's armed to the teeth (and with good reason) you're living in a fantasy land. Are you saying that that woman shouldn't have killed that degenerate, poisonous fuckhead if she had the means to? Should she just hand over her two young children to the bastard because it would be wrong to "sink to his level"?shootthebandit said:
That's nice, seriously good for you. It's good to live in a safe place, I live in a fairly safe place as well and I certainly like it. But not everyone does, and saying everyone should act like they do is cretinous. Now my house has never been broken into but I knew a guy when I was at Uni who did have a home invasion. He was from a country in West Africa and while he was at Uni he got informed that his house had been broken into. The home invaders had broken his brothers legs, shot his parent dead and raped his sister (who was a child) they hadn't stolen anything, they hadn't given any reason, they'd just done this (in front of the brother) and left. These things happen, maybe they don't happen to you but that doesn't make it any less insulting or idiotic to claim that people under threat of these things shouldn't do everything they can to defend themselves.shootthebandit said:
Seriously? Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime? I am not cold hearted. I am realistic, because I have seen it and been a victim of it. The only reason I am alive today was because of my ability to outrun the man who raped me and thought it would be a good idea to put a knife to me.shootthebandit said:
perhaps the way i worded it was a bit harsh but ending someones life is still ending someones life. Killing is something that is difficult even for soldiers to deal with so just imagine an average joe or josephine coming to terms with killing someone no matter how vile that human was.Bernzz said:
No you don't. You think you do. There is a difference.shootthebandit said:
1) this is what i meant when is said "there used to be a slightly better class of criminal"Muspelheim said:
i do sincerely apologise but im massively anti-firearms, the way i worded it was very harsh. i suppose as you have been a victim before it gives you a different perspective on things and i can honestly understand your reactionShiningAmber said:
1) of courseAgayek said:
Except you can't know that. Maybe they'll just take your stuff and leave you alone, but there's a significant chance that they'll beat you bloody and throw you down some stairs just for shits and giggles. And there's absolutely no way you can determine that ahead of time. Preemptive, overwhelming violence to stop them in their tracks, regardless of the damage done to them, is not only a rational response, it's the only sane one.shootthebandit said:
That's entirely possible, but then at least you'd know you did everything you could to stop them. It's a cold comfort, but it's better than nothing when you're left lying bloody and beaten on the floor of your own home.shootthebandit said:
I always found the argument that 'all life is equal' to be quite interesting. In fact, I find it more frightening than the prospect of facing an assailant. To find just as much value in one who makes his living on the suffering of others; to expect those whom he victimizes to meekly accept their fates -- that's scary.shootthebandit said:
EDIT: Sorry, I misread. The thing is, even if you knock an intruder out (somehow) they could most likely take you to court for assault, it's just the way things work here. The line is so blurred, because when someone's in your house trying to steal things and threatening either you or your family it's very hard to make clear judgements.UltraPic said:
Its not necessarily the moral standpoint of them only wanting to steal your stuff and youve only killed a petty thief but take point 2 that i just made. What if someone breaks into your house and they only want to steal something and when they break into your house and you happen to be sat watching your TV. They threaten you with violence so you decide to fight back now the burglar is forced to use violence in "self defence" (i use that term VERY losely here) and he seriously injures you given that point 3 i made is relatively accurate. Chances are if you had left him alone and not stood up for yourself it would merely be an empty threat or a minor injury. So in effect you have made it worse for yourself by doing so. Like i said this isnt what happens all the time but thats the vast majority of cases. But the main point i was trying to get across through all of posts maybe not very clearly i suppose is that you could be worse of if you fight back if all they want is to rob you. Even in more seriously cases like depicted in the video can you imagine if she fought back he wouldve made it a lot worse for her if it wasnt bad enough already. Like i said in point 3 chances are the criminal whose "occupation" is violence will better you unless you spend every waken hour in the gym and have a black belt in 3 martial artsAgayek said:
At least Argentine politicians don't blame videogames for the violence. Oh wait, they do: http://www.clarin.com/policiales/Berni-sociedad-violenta-TV-videojuegos_0_864513709.htmlJohnny Novgorod said:
