• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pro Gun? You should be Pro Self Defense

Crovax said:
indiana-jones-sword-vs-gun-gif.gif
Click to expand...

You know that was a fictional movie right ?
 
Rich2018 said:
No it's not, because what people think constitutes "self defense" varies wildly between different people
As the many murder convictions, against people who claimed "self defense", testifies.
Click to expand...
It depends on the situation. a bad guy might murder an innocent person and then lie and say that their victim attacked them first.
Rich2018 said:
Which is contrary to what you said before, but I'm glad your understanding of the law has improved.
Click to expand...
Once again you have failed to show where I had said that before.
 
Using extra leeway to defend against a robber threatening to kill you might be tolerable. However verbal threats often don't leave evidence unless you manage to record the incident. This would imply that you should err on the side of caution when determining the sincerity of the threatening statement or whether it was an empty threat. According to the NRA, having a concealed gun isn't threatening. So by their own logic a criminal who has a gun in their pocket doesn't pose a greater threat. The threat would only seem to occur if they raise the gun and try to keep you at gunpoint. However in such cases it's not really thievery that's the primary issue from a criminal justice standpoint; rather it's the threatening behaviour. In other words you could almost leave out the word thief even if that was one of the motives of the criminal and replace it with assailant. Hence killing people over property would still be unacceptable. Only criminals who are threatening or attempting to kill you could justify you to retaliate in kind depending on the circumstances. However far too many stand your ground cases fall far below this standard.

"Neither trespasser had a gun, but Burgarello told police Devine’s arm “came up like a gun.” His defense attorney said Burgarello may have mistaken a black flashlight found at the scene for a firearm."
https://www.presstelegram.com/gener...an-testifies-in-nevada-about-trespass-killing
 
Last edited:
For example a long time ago I was robbed twice in Portugal where the first time the group said they'd break my neck. Yet I could tell by the casual way they said it that they were unlikely to engage in life-threatening violence even if there was a risk they'd commit physical assault. It wasn't an empty threat but it wasn't a full threat either. The second time where I was robbed by a guy with a hammer, I knew he was potentially deadly by the way he held the weapon at head level (post 1,244 Minority Rights).

Screenshot_20220914_140818.jpg
(Photo taken from bottom of my medium article "Militias".)
 
Last edited:
Bodi said:
Any person that actually is worried about their lives should be Pro Gun Removal and would start taking Martial Arts Classes.
Click to expand...
How very ableist of you.

To do anything else is merely to condone gun violence, not care and to care more about your guns than innocent people's lives.
Click to expand...
How dare fat, disabled, and/or elderly people want to defend themselves? They should lay down and be murdered. FOR THE COMMON GOOD!
 
Grizzly Adams said:
How very ableist of you.


How dare fat, disabled, and/or elderly people want to defend themselves? They should lay down and be murdered. FOR THE COMMON GOOD!
Click to expand...
What drama...
 
Bodi said:
Lots of people in wheelchairs getting attacked, are they?
Click to expand...
Does the number make a difference as to whether you would say it or not?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Does the number make a difference as to whether you would say it or not?
Click to expand...
Does the number of mass shooters with disabilities matter to you when I say they they should not have guns?
 
Bodi said:
Does the number of mass shooters with disabilities matter to you when I say they they should not have guns?
Click to expand...
...what?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
You would tell someone in a wheelchair to go take a martial arts class?
Click to expand...

You don't see blind or paralysed soldiers fighting in a battlefield. Lots of soldiers get injured in battle but ideally they are rescued away. There are laws of physics that mean disabled people simply can't fight on an equal basis with able-bodied people. I'm all for representing disabled people in less physical roles in the military. However we've to be realistic when it comes to disabled people defending themselves. The onus is on society to defend disabled people; not the other way round.


Little Miss Sunshine - Dwayne's meltdown
 
Last edited:
Bodi said:
Seems a pretty simple question.
Click to expand...
Apparently it wasn't, so maybe you want to give it another ****ing try instead of making a useless post?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Apparently it wasn't, so maybe you want to give it another ****ing try instead of making a useless post?
Click to expand...
Does the number of mass shooters with disabilities matter to you when I say they they should not have guns?
 
Bodi said:
Does the number of mass shooters with disabilities matter to you when I say they they should not have guns?
Click to expand...
I can go back and read your previous post any time I want. I'm not sure why you think repeating it word for word is going to change anything.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
I can go back and read your previous post any time I want. I'm not sure why you think repeating it word for word is going to change anything.
Click to expand...
I made a statement.
You said "what?"
I said it was pretty simple
You said obviously not, or something.
I posted it again for you.
You complain.

I got an idea... how about you state what the **** you
don't understand about a question that is EXACTLY ,
word for almost ****ing word, like the one that you asked me?

If you understand the question you asked me you should
understand the question that I asked you in return, right?

mmmkay?

LOL
 
Bodi said:
I made a statement.
You said "what?"
I said it was pretty simple
You said obviously not, or something.
I posted it again for you.
You complain.

I got an idea... how about you state what the **** you
don't understand about a question that is EXACTLY ,
word for almost ****ing word, like the one that you asked me?

If you understand the question you asked me you should
understand the question that I asked you in return, right?

mmmkay?

LOL
Click to expand...
If I express confusion at your post, I really cannot fathom why you would think posting the exact same thing is supposed to clarify anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom