- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
rof There's a difference between thinking one is at home and actually being at home.
Joke fail :2razz:
I agree, and it is probably making it a heck of a lot worse for the guy who shot him.
When you choke a smurf what color does it turn?
.
The arguments in favor of drug prohibition are the exact same one's in favor of gun prohibition.
They are liberal nanny-statism, and nothing more.
Stupid hurts.... This time it cost this kid his life. The homeowner I am sure is feeling like crap, but he did the right thing.... This is a sad story all around...
The target market would be more likely to utilize such a facility if- instead of touting "safety" as its main attraction- one made it really "fun". You know, lots of psychedelic stuff to look at and play with, cool music, trippy movies to watch, black light and body paint. Padded walls are fine; hell, put a moonwalk in there.
The "staff" would need to just sort of blend into the woodwork, unless needed, otherwise they'd cause inhibition and paranoia.
More drugs = less crime?
Source please?
But we,re not talking so much about the amount of drugs here, we,re talking about who is producing and selling them
Prohibition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your link was to drugs like meth?
More drugs = less crime?
Source please?
Who said anything about more drugs?
Source please.
Soz i meant to link
Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My point being that the prohibition of something can make it more dangerous and fuel organised crime. See
Al Capone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alcohol =/= "drugs" just as pistol =/= 50cal belt-fed machine gun.
Don't take my post wrong. I am all for gun ownership and I agree that the home owner was trying to protect his family, even that the kid was stupid for doing drugs in the first place and it really doesn't matter to me that he died.That guy didn't know what the boy was capable of, and had to protect his family.
I wish (and I'm sure he wishes) that there were a way he could've incapacitated the boy without killing him.
It sounds like he tried to stop him with a non-lethal shot.
He probably does feel bad, but there's really nothing he could've done differently.
This whole case pretty much exemplifies the word "tragedy", as there was probably no ill intent on anyone's part, not even that of the people who sold the boy the drugs; just a series of foolish choices that led to a tragic death.
My point being that the prohibition of something can make it more dangerous and fuel organised crime.
What difference is their between the two that means the same principle wont apply? Are you saying that the latter is more harmful?
Don't take my post wrong. I am all for gun ownership and I agree that the home owner was trying to protect his family, even that the kid was stupid for doing drugs in the first place and it really doesn't matter to me that he died.
I was just expressing an opinion. Because I can just imagine being the guy that shot him and hearing him call me dad. I would have started crying.
Now being who I am, as soon as you said, "there's really nothing he could've done differently.", I call bs.
Well, sure. Human sex trafficking is largely dangerous and fueled by organized crime, as are other illicit activities such as weapons trafficking, gambling, and certain types of pornography.
No doubt we could 'reduce crime' by making these activities legal.
:2wave:
In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession. In addition, drug users were to be targeted with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute and led by Glenn Greenwald found that in the five years after the start of decriminalisation, illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled. However, Peter Reuther, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, while conceding that Portuguese decriminalization met its central goal of stopping the rise in drug use, suggests that the heroin usage rates and related deaths may have been due to the cyclical nature of drug epidemics[4].
Thus, I must ask again who said anything about more drugs equaling less crime?
I really was not discussing those 'what if's', merely stating an opinion about how the shooter may feel after. That is all.Mentally ill people and people acting psychotic and disconnected from reality because of drugs are extremely unpredictable and frightening.
I can't imagine what was going through the shooter's mind when this boy entered his house, obviously delusional, and refused to leave. I imagine the man was merely concerned about the safety of his family.
True, there are things he could've done differently; but then we might be discussing a tragedy of another kind. The psychotic boy might have killed the man's wife, for example.
I really was not discussing those 'what if's', merely stating an opinion about how the shooter may feel after. That is all.
I only hope he eventually comes to the conclusion that he did the 'right' thing, because of those what if's. I know I would.
Alcohol =/= "drugs" just as pistol =/= 50cal belt-fed machine gun.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?