Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those who steal, as well as those who put perversely high attachment to material items, are both disgusting and shameful.
lol - "perversely high attachment". I spend 71 years working for what little material items I have, and if you try to steal them, be prepared for whatever I have to do to stop you.
What is disgusting and shameful is the tacit approving of thieves.
lol - "perversely high attachment". I spend 71 years working for what little material items I have, and if you try to steal them, be prepared for whatever I have to do to stop you.
What is disgusting and shameful is the tacit approving of thieves.
Or: "Self-defence is a countermeasure that involves defending the health and well-being of oneself from harm. The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely".
The problem in this thread is that some posters think that the manner of self-defense is unlimited. It has to be reasonable. For example, if I take 3 steps onto your property to look at your roses, you'd be hard pressed to make a case that that justified homicide.
Actually, that is very true. Guns do NOT kill people!
I don't care how many guns you have in your house, if somebody breaks in nothing will happen unless a PERSON is there to pick up one of them and fire it at the invader.
Try this: Put a gun (any gun) on your table (any table). Beside it, put an empty magazine and a box of the proper size cartridges. Leave it there. Come back in 24 hours. Did the gun load itself and fire itself?
Come back in a week. Has the gun been loaded and fired? Come back in a month, or a year...
There is a 99.99999999999999% probability that the gun has not loaded itself and fired itself.
Now, pick the magazine up, load it with 7 rounds, put it in the gun, and chamber a round. Pull the trigger. There is a 99.9999999999% probability that it will fire. What changed?
YOU operated the machine!
A gun (any gun, even the dreaded AR-15) without a PERSON to operate it is simply a block of metal and plastic. It is totally harmless!
That is really an argument for gun safes and trigger locks honestly.
It is the thief that creates that “value†situation. By attempting to steal property from its rightful owner, the thief knowingly and willingly places himself in a situation where his life may be forfeit. I am 100% OK with that.
Attempting to shame those who are willing to defend their property is misplaced. You should be shaming those who would steal.
I don't know if you have a kid, but let's say you do. Let's say he's 12 years old. According to you the 7/11 clerk has a right to shoot him dead for shoplifting a candy bar.
lol - "perversely high attachment". I spend 71 years working for what little material items I have, and if you try to steal them, be prepared for whatever I have to do to stop you.
What is disgusting and shameful is the tacit approving of thieves.
And in all those 71 years you never once stole a single thing? Everyone steals, whether it's something big or a pen at work. So I guess virtually every person writing in this thread should have been shot to death.
Or: "Self-defence is a countermeasure that involves defending the health and well-being of oneself from harm. The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely".
The problem in this thread is that some posters think that the manner of self-defense is unlimited. It has to be reasonable. For example, if I take 3 steps onto your property to look at your roses, you'd be hard pressed to make a case that that justified homicide.
The biggest problem with this post is you believing that you have the right to trespass.
I don't know if you have a kid, but let's say you do. Let's say he's 12 years old. According to you the 7/11 clerk has a right to shoot him dead for shoplifting a candy bar.
It would be good for people to learn when they are young that stealing is wrong.
And in all those 71 years you never once stole a single thing? Everyone steals, whether it's something big or a pen at work. So I guess virtually every person writing in this thread should have been shot to death.
That is a strange conclusion to come to, based on your own history of thievery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
