U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-17-2008, 07:12 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,321,196 times
Reputation: 2558

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by NVplumber You truly see a difference between killing someone in self-defence or killing out of mercy (read: euthanasia)?
In both cases people end up dead except the 1 who was killed in 'self-defence' never gave his consent to be killed but his killer still acted within the law, but the person who actually wanted to die was never given legal consent so the ‘murderer’ who administered the euthanasia is guilty by law?
You misquoted, it was GD said that.
Theres certainly a difference between the two.
In one case you take a life out of necessity to preserve your own.
While I'm not totally opposed to euthanasia the guy doing the deed is not doing it to save a life, just end one. You mentioned the Hippocratic oath earlier as a reason a Dr shouldn't defend himself. While absurd in that instance its pretty hard to rationalize a Dr killing a patient as being within the bounds of that oath. Let him kill himself.

The very need to be as convoluted & obscure in a discusion exhibits the lack of real substance to your position.


Quote:
Than your government should create adds which explains to your citizens that 911 is actually useless.
Most people are smart enough to understand that calling to report a crime wont prevent it. 911 is not primarilly for police response anyway, its for emergency response. Thats needed after an emergency & will never prevent one from happening.

Quote:
I believe that in America's case it would be better to draft everyone between 18-21 for law enforcement and other emergency personnel (pacifists could become fire-fighters or EMT).
This way everyone gets the same basic training in handling guns.
Except for people who have a criminal record or a medical record because they should not be drafted (or given guns).
I believe you dont understand the concept of free will.
What emergency personnel aside from police need guns?
If its mandatory why let pacifists off the hook?

Doesn't everyone have a medical record?
Why should people convicted of non violent crimes not be able to own guns?

Are you thinking that if we train criminals things would be better?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-17-2008, 07:15 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,321,196 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
If everyone gets to do what they want, then you don't have to worry about government; there won't be any. There'll be anarchy instead. And then having a gun won't be a right--it will be a necessary condition for survival. 260 million Americans running around doing whatever they please at the moment? You can't possibly suggest this would be a good thing.
You can already do whatever you want, but if its against the law you go to jail.
Those 260 million Americans can already own all the guns they like. Most choose not to but the fact that they can & dont should ease your brain a bit.

We all do what we want every day. Thankfully most of us want to live in peace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2008, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,253,000 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by NVplumber You truly see a difference between killing someone in self-defence or killing out of mercy (read: euthanasia)?
In both cases people end up dead except the 1 who was killed in 'self-defence' never gave his consent to be killed but his killer still acted within the law, but the person who actually wanted to die was never given legal consent so the ‘murderer’ who administered the euthanasia is guilty by law?


Originally Posted by NoahmaThan your government should create adds which explains to your citizens that 911 is actually useless.

I believe that in America's case it would be better to draft everyone between 18-21 for law enforcement and other emergency personnel (pacifists could become fire-fighters or EMT).
This way everyone gets the same basic training in handling guns.
Except for people who have a criminal record or a medical record because they should not be drafted (or given guns).
its not useless, but it is not as effective as you seem to want it to be, not because they cannot dispatch officers quickly, but because often times travel time to the area of the crime is at a great distance. see the thing about living in a free country is you are not required to serve the government, the government is required to serve you. Our army is an all voluntary service for a reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2008, 07:50 AM
 
Location: USA
13,366 posts, read 7,301,172 times
Reputation: 9689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Those 260 million Americans can already own all the guns they like.

In many states, like CA, NJ, NY, MA, IL, HI, etc many types of guns are banned. There are also limits on magazine capacity in some. So, Americans can not own all the guns they like unless you live in a state that allows it. I hope Heller can be used to overturn these gun bans as many of the guns that are banned are in common use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2008, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,366,957 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
You truly see a difference between killing someone in self-defence or killing out of mercy (read: euthanasia)?
In both cases people end up dead except the 1 who was killed in 'self-defence' never gave his consent to be killed but his killer still acted within the law, but the person who actually wanted to die was never given legal consent so the ‘murderer’ who administered the euthanasia is guilty by law?
The Victim of the attack never gave their permission to be attacked and killed -
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2008, 09:54 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,518,646 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Noahma
Quote:
see the thing about living in a free country is you are not required to serve the government, the government is required to serve you
And yet your government fails miserably when the response time to a 911 call is 48 minutes.
I assume your colleges (and college dorms) are still in a city area, so I reckon the government should've acted faster.

Then again guns are already too available in the US so most criminals in your country will have guns while this is not the case in The Netherlands.
I guess your court-system also plays a role in this problem because possession of a gun is not even a crime, especially when you have a gun licence.
I assume criminals who were never convicted of a crime (because they whacked every eyewitness) still have the right to have a gun licence in the US?
I can see why Americans believe they need a gun in order to feel safe.


Originally Posted by Greatday
Quote:
The Victim of the attack never gave their permission to be attacked and killed -
And this is your explanation why euthanasia is still illegal in the US?
You are truly ignorant of (medical) ethics are ya?
Let me explain it again: in 1 case it is illegal to kill someone who wants to die, but in another it is perfectly legal to kill someone who didn't want to die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2008, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,366,957 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Let me explain it again: in 1 case it is illegal to kill someone who wants to die, but in another it is perfectly legal to kill someone who didn't want to die.
You are mistaken - some states allow assisted suicide.

And if someone is attacking another (the victim), the victim has the right to defend their life up to and including the use of deadly force. And that is THE issue with you TD - you don't believe the victim should be allowed to use Deadly force to defend themselves or another. Why can't you, just for once, be honest and admit this ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2008, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,366,957 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
And yet your government fails miserably when the response time to a 911 call is 48 minutes
And the example was an EXCEPTION rather than the rule. But this is of no matter to you - as it does not meet with your agenda
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2008, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,366,957 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Then again guns are already too available in the US so most criminals in your country will have guns while this is not the case in The Netherlands. I guess your court-system also plays a role in this problem because possession of a gun is not even a crime, especially when you have a gun licence.
A) The "court system" has nothing to do with this inasmuch as they enforce laws - and our laws allow for ownership of firearms

B) No "gun license" is required in the United States
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2008, 10:06 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,518,646 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Greatday
Quote:
you don't believe the victim should be allowed to use Deadly force to defend themselves or another.
Just like ordinary civilians can't 'play' doctor (we can't even pronounce someone dead even when their head is removed from the neck), we also shouldn't be allowed to play judge and give someone an immediate death sentence.
Self-defence does not automatically mean that killing is involved.
Unfortunately using a gun does exactly that; it is designed to kill.

Quote:
B) No "gun license" is required in the United States
And therein lies the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top