NationStates

Tubbsalot wrote:

Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen wrote:Quibbling based off of the example given. An armed intruder most certainly is menacing and a source of danger.

So presumably you'd say that if a drunk driver went past, you'd accuse him of threatening you? Just having the potential to cause harm does not mean something has threatened you.

Of course, since you have a gun in this example, it's more like a drunk driver going past your fully operational tank, and you shelling the car for its impudent threats.

It is certainly threatening to me, yes, although your analogy would be improved if the drunken driver were heading directly towards me instead of past.

Tubbsalot wrote:

Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen wrote:It is not at all the same; one and three require verbal or written communication of intent; four merely requires that its nature as a threat be apparent. Which it, you know, is since you have an armed intruder who has broken into your property, and a robber isn't likely to arm themselves unless they're willing to use the weapon, precisely because possessing a weapon is an explicit demonstration of danger.

See previous reply to Big Jim: can you seriously not think of one possible reason that a thief might arm themselves other than to attack you without provocation?

Given that they have tons of reasons to not arm themselves (reducing the chance of an armed confrontation, helping to ensure that an overzealous home defender goes to jail if things go south, etc), then by far the most likely reason that they would arm themselves in a home invasion is that, yes, they are perfectly willing to use the weapon in its intended role.

Cromarty wrote:

The Republic of Lerasia wrote:
Oh I dunno, okay why would a thief be armed when breaking into my home?

Self-preservation. With so many wannabe murderers around, he'd be stupid not to.

Oh the poor dears, the world is so full of conscientious burglars these days needing to protect themselves from nasty home-owners and their blatantly homicidal tendencies. What is the world coming to?

The Republic of Lerasia wrote:

Cromarty wrote:Self-preservation. With so many wannabe murderers around, he'd be stupid not to.

Oh the poor dears, the world is so full of conscientious burglars these days needing to protect themselves from nasty home-owners and their blatantly homicidal tendencies. What is the world coming to?

You seem to have mistaken my post for defending them. It was not.

Tubbsalot wrote:

The Republic of Lerasia wrote:blah blah blah

I'm not about to waste time talking to someone who speaks in strawmen.

The Republic of Lerasia wrote:Oh I dunno, okay why would a thief be armed when breaking into my home?

For defence, in case they're attacked by the homeowner.

No you'll just speak to me long enough to change my text to blah blah blah huh? And you need to define your definition of "straw men" friend. You can use that dictionary that seems to be so popular around here. Aaaand I don't "speak in straw men", well not the last time I checked anyhow, I speak in words, you?

Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen wrote:It is certainly threatening to me, yes, although your analogy would be improved if the drunken driver were heading directly towards me instead of past.

Unfortunately, I was arguing about when a person qualified as "having threatened" another person, so that's a bit of a weak argument. Though I'm sure you didn't bother reading back to check - that's not some sort of 'pithy insult', you'd have to be insane to actually bother reading back through all my posts to examine exactly what I meant by a word. If I might make a suggestion, you don't have to keep arguing about this incredibly limited point which really doesn't matter if you don't want to (I know once you've started arguing it's hard to stop because it feels like losing somehow).

That wouldn't improve the analogy though - a murderer would be heading straight for you, a thief is just travelling past.

Tubbsalot wrote:Given that they have tons of reasons to not arm themselves (reducing the chance of an armed confrontation, helping to ensure that an overzealous home defender goes to jail if things go south, etc), then by far the most likely reason that they would arm themselves in a home invasion is that, yes, they are perfectly willing to use the weapon in its intended role.

I don't think a thief would be very comforted that the homeowner was in jail for murdering them. The entire point of thieving is to steal valuables and get out with minimum penalties (where penalties refers to things like police attention, physical injury, and so on). These aims are only facilitated by arming oneself, especially with a knife, since being armed with a gun also tends to attract police attention.

The Republic of Lerasia wrote:

Cromarty wrote:Self-preservation. With so many wannabe murderers around, he'd be stupid not to.

Oh the poor dears, the world is so full of conscientious burglars these days needing to protect themselves from nasty home-owners and their blatantly homicidal tendencies. What is the world coming to?

Yeah, he was clearly condemning homeowners, the thief-apologist bastard. Why he's probably Evil von Hitlerfuck and eats children for lunch, then pisses on the mass grave of African orphans.

hint: sarcasm is only funny if you're hitting the mark in some way

I would attempt first to disable an intruder. As of right now, I keep a handaxe in my bedroom that has a roughly 18" haft. I would use that, if possible, for disabling strikes to the head, and chest. When or if I keep a firearm in the room, I would shoot for center mass. Shooting at a limb is goofily whimsical, and nonsensical. It would be less likely to disable them, and significantly more likely to miss.

Anyway, I would try not to kill a home invader. I would like them to live to serve time in prison. That being said, I would shed no tears over an intruder's death.

Cromarty wrote:

The Republic of Lerasia wrote:
Oh the poor dears, the world is so full of conscientious burglars these days needing to protect themselves from nasty home-owners and their blatantly homicidal tendencies. What is the world coming to?

You seem to have mistaken my post for defending them. It was not.

Lol no don't worry, I know what you meant. No worries. When I start rolling it just comes, wasn't starting with you or anything.

Hell yes.

Pump him with 30 rounds from my AK-103, no one steal's my shit and gets away with it... ALIVE.

Petrovsegratsk wrote:Hell yes.

Pump him with 30 rounds from my AK-103, no one steal's my shit and get away with it... ALIVE.

And then you go to prison.

Shoot a limb and proceed to contact the police and hospital immediately. It's the only sane thing to do.

The Republic of Lerasia wrote:No you'll just speak to me long enough to change my text to blah blah blah huh? And you need to define your definition of "straw men" friend. You can use that dictionary that seems to be so popular around here. Aaaand I don't "speak in straw men", well not the last time I checked anyhow, I speak in words, you?

Yes, long enough to make fun of your awful posts, basically. Perhaps it's unjustified, and you're usually top stuff, but if so you should know that your performance in this thread has been underwhelming.

A strawman is a restatement of others' views such that you've altered it to be weaker and more ridiculous than it actually is. This artificially weakened argument is then torn down, and you pretend that the other's point is somehow invalid because you destroyed the argument that you made up. That is essentially what you're doing, and your entire post was a series of strawman.

So yeah, I'm right and you're wrong. I dunno, if you want to do this properly it has to be a lot more subtle than this (or you have to be dealing with someone genuinely insane).

Petrovsegratsk wrote:Hell yes.

Pump him with 30 rounds from my AK-103, no one steal's my shit and get away with it... ALIVE.

What we really need is a massive, obnoxious ITG emote.

Cromarty wrote:

Petrovsegratsk wrote:Hell yes.

Pump him with 30 rounds from my AK-103, no one steal's my shit and get away with it... ALIVE.

And then you go to prison.

Nope, it's self defence.

Petrovsegratsk wrote:Nope, it's self defence.

No, that's murdering a person who wasn't attacking you.

Petrovsegratsk wrote:

Cromarty wrote:And then you go to prison.

Nope, it's self defence.

There is not court retarded enough to say someone who shoots 30 rounds into someone else's body is using reasonable force, which is the test for self-defence.

Petrovsegratsk wrote:

Cromarty wrote:And then you go to prison.

Nope, it's self defence.

*facepalm*

Tubbsalot wrote:

Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen wrote:It is certainly threatening to me, yes, although your analogy would be improved if the drunken driver were heading directly towards me instead of past.

Unfortunately, I was arguing about when a person qualified as "having threatened" another person, so that's a bit of a weak argument. Though I'm sure you didn't bother reading back to check - that's not some sort of 'pithy insult', you'd have to be insane to actually bother reading back through all my posts to examine exactly what I meant by a word. If I might make a suggestion, you don't have to keep arguing about this incredibly limited point which really doesn't matter if you don't want to (I know once you've started arguing it's hard to stop because it feels like losing somehow).

That wouldn't improve the analogy though - a murderer would be heading straight for you, a thief is just travelling past.

Tubbsalot wrote:Given that they have tons of reasons to not arm themselves (reducing the chance of an armed confrontation, helping to ensure that an overzealous home defender goes to jail if things go south, etc), then by far the most likely reason that they would arm themselves in a home invasion is that, yes, they are perfectly willing to use the weapon in its intended role.

I don't think a thief would be very comforted that the homeowner was in jail for murdering them. The entire point of thieving is to steal valuables and get out with minimum penalties (where penalties refers to things like police attention, physical injury, and so on). These aims are only facilitated by arming oneself, especially with a knife, since being armed with a gun also tends to attract police attention.

The Republic of Lerasia wrote:Oh the poor dears, the world is so full of conscientious burglars these days needing to protect themselves from nasty home-owners and their blatantly homicidal tendencies. What is the world coming to?

Yeah, he was clearly condemning homeowners, the thief-apologist bastard. Why he's probably Evil von Hitlerfuck and eats children for lunch, then pisses on the mass grave of African orphans.

hint: sarcasm is only funny if you're hitting the mark in some way

Umm ok "hint", if you don't see the mark I'm aiming for, that's a personal problem.

The Republic of Lerasia wrote:Umm ok "hint", if you don't see the mark I'm aiming for, that's a personal problem.

Yeah, see, you're still not doing very well here. Firstly, you're running a little close to the rules about personal attacks (admittedly, I've made the same mistake). Secondly, you can't just act smug and expect to look cool - you have to actually have a point, or people are just going to dismiss you as being called out on your bullshit. In this case, it's readily apparent that you don't have any point, because - as mentioned - you've just misrepresented everything about me and pretended that was some hilarious indictment of my argument.

Third, if you're going to make a post that short, make sure you cut out any excess quotes above it - it makes the comment punchier and pithier, which is basically what you want.

Cromarty wrote:

Petrovsegratsk wrote:
Nope, it's self defence.

There is not court retarded enough to say someone who shoots 30 rounds into someone else's body is using reasonable force, which is the test for self-defence.

Well, I'm sorry for taking no chances in making sure the guys dead.

The guy was in my house, stealing my stuff, I think that is a perfectly legit reasons to pump him full of 30 metal slugs.

Russian Law Enforcement & Justice Systems are so corrupt anyway, they won't give a shit.

I would go on NSG, and ignore it all.

Tubbsalot wrote:

The Republic of Lerasia wrote:No you'll just speak to me long enough to change my text to blah blah blah huh? And you need to define your definition of "straw men" friend. You can use that dictionary that seems to be so popular around here. Aaaand I don't "speak in straw men", well not the last time I checked anyhow, I speak in words, you?

Yes, long enough to make fun of your awful posts, basically. Perhaps it's unjustified, and you're usually top stuff, but if so you should know that your performance in this thread has been underwhelming.

A strawman is a restatement of others' views such that you've altered it to be weaker and more ridiculous than it actually is. This artificially weakened argument is then torn down, and you pretend that the other's point is somehow invalid because you destroyed the argument that you made up. That is essentially what you're doing, and your entire post was a series of strawman.

So yeah, I'm right and you're wrong. I dunno, if you want to do this properly it has to be a lot more subtle than this (or you have to be dealing with someone genuinely insane).

Petrovsegratsk wrote:Hell yes.

Pump him with 30 rounds from my AK-103, no one steal's my shit and get away with it... ALIVE.

What we really need is a massive, obnoxious ITG emote.

Yeah, my "awful post" that was SO bad that you went and modified it on a forum where free speech is the general order of things, so much for your liberal love boat guy. And underwhelming? Compare that to "Oh I'm right and you're wrong" and you make the ass-burgers that I just baked look like gold buddy. And I didn't need to alter much to make your argument seem weak and ridiculous, it already was.

Der Teutoniker wrote:Shooting at a limb is goofily whimsical, and nonsensical. It would be less likely to disable them, and significantly more likely to miss.

That depends on where you aim. It's not very difficult to hit a thigh for example. Average person also drops from that, if not, just repeat the process for the other leg.

Tubbsalot wrote:

The Republic of Lerasia wrote:Umm ok "hint", if you don't see the mark I'm aiming for, that's a personal problem.

Yeah, see, you're still not doing very well here. Firstly, you're running a little close to the rules about personal attacks (admittedly, I've made the same mistake). Secondly, you can't just act smug and expect to look cool - you have to actually have a point, or people are just going to dismiss you as being called out on your bullshit. In this case, it's readily apparent that you don't have any point, because - as mentioned - you've just misrepresented everything about me and pretended that was some hilarious indictment of my argument.

Third, if you're going to make a post that short, make sure you cut out any excess quotes above it - it makes the comment punchier and pithier, which is basically what you want.

Oh, and there it goes, the personal attack card. Where was that exactly?

Kardelia wrote: One day a robber breaks into your house and starts stripping it to the walls.

Then he's NOT a robber.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbery

Robbery requires the use of a threat or of violence. So far, he's just a THIEF.

You notice the robber also has a large knife. You have a gun. Assuming the robber is dangerous-you don't know if he really wants to kill you or just harm you but nevertheless you must decide what to do.Do you shoot to kill?,Do you shoot to wound?, or you just let him strip your house to the walls?

There are other options. Like staying in the dark, blinding him with a flashlight, and intimating him to leave. Should he fail to comply, warning shot in the ceiling.
Violence on a human should be used only in response. Of course, once it comes to shooting at a human, you shoot to kill unless you're a professional marksman who knows how to disable someone with a firearm.
Also, other options, like sneaking to his back and attacking him with a less-lethal weapon, like a club.

Remember he is armed and poses a threat.

He does not pose a threat to life/limb until he threatens or attack me/someone else with his knife.

Personally, id probably shoot to kill if I really have to but that is my own opinion.

Congratulations for being a potential cold-blood killer.

The Republic of Lerasia wrote:so much for your liberal love boat guy.

What are you even talking about?

The Republic of Lerasia wrote:Oh, and there it goes, the personal attack card. Where was that exactly?

"You don't see the point I'm making, so you have personal issues." That's the sort of thing which does tend to run along the line in the sand.

Petrovsegratsk wrote:

Cromarty wrote:And then you go to prison.

Nope, it's self defence.

You are not your money.