Olathe shooting
-
I don't want to get into the debate about why guns for defense are wrong or not. My question is that if I shoot an intruder in my house the USA how do I prove this person was an intruder and it was not murder or manslaughter? Does he/she also have to be carrying a gun too, or will any weapon do, including fists? Is it always OK to shoot first and ask questions later? Genuine question, not really trying to cause an argument (honest :-) )
55378008 wrote:
Genuine question
It depends on the area. For example, Florida has a much more lenient law that allows you to protect yourself so it is easier to "prove" you were in danger. Each area will be different so there is no one answer.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
proof by example is a fallacious argument.
Depends. But I'm not interested anymore in arguing this.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
you have no evidence of this
Why not? I know plenty of people who have guns and I know where they keep them.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
even the most careful of drivers still sometimes has a crash...a concept I see you still struggle to understand
I see. Personal attacks. :zzz:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
But I'm not interested anymore in arguing this.
That's unfortunate as it is the basis of your whole argument. Me: Having a gun is statistically more dangerous You: No it's not because this one person will be safe with it You are using a single example (that you can't verify, how do you know this person is a safe gun owner?) to counter my statement that it is statistically more dangerous. If you are using a single specific example to disproof a general study then that is proof-by-example fallacy.
RyanDev wrote:
I see. Personal attacks.
Apologies, let me rephrase that; I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding or just not getting it. :)
-
55378008 wrote:
Genuine question
It depends on the area. For example, Florida has a much more lenient law that allows you to protect yourself so it is easier to "prove" you were in danger. Each area will be different so there is no one answer.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
RyanDev wrote:
But I'm not interested anymore in arguing this.
That's unfortunate as it is the basis of your whole argument. Me: Having a gun is statistically more dangerous You: No it's not because this one person will be safe with it You are using a single example (that you can't verify, how do you know this person is a safe gun owner?) to counter my statement that it is statistically more dangerous. If you are using a single specific example to disproof a general study then that is proof-by-example fallacy.
RyanDev wrote:
I see. Personal attacks.
Apologies, let me rephrase that; I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding or just not getting it. :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
That's unfortunate as it is the basis of your whole argument.
No, it wasn't at all. I guess that leads us back to earlier when I surmised that you were not understanding my point, and this now proves it.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
to counter my statement that it is statistically more dangerous
I never even countered your statement. I clarified and quantified it. So, again, it's clear you misunderstood. Perhaps I didn't explain it well, doesn't matter who is at fault, but we've not been on the same page of communication.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding or just not getting it.
Much better. :thumbsup:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
I don't want to get into the debate about why guns for defense are wrong or not. My question is that if I shoot an intruder in my house the USA how do I prove this person was an intruder and it was not murder or manslaughter? Does he/she also have to be carrying a gun too, or will any weapon do, including fists? Is it always OK to shoot first and ask questions later? Genuine question, not really trying to cause an argument (honest :-) )
55378008 wrote:
not really trying to cause an argument (honest :) )
Then you should be kicked out of the Soapbox and banned from internet forums. :-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
55378008 wrote:
not really trying to cause an argument (honest :) )
Then you should be kicked out of the Soapbox and banned from internet forums. :-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Well, these guys are apparently new, so they don't know that a) I'm probably the most heartlessly sarcastic person here, and b) I don't give a flyin' rat f*ck about their over-developed lady-boy sensitivities. The more experienced users have no f*ckin excuse. They know how I am.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Ohhkkkay, then. It was a *nice* post you made back there. :rolleyes: You see, ^ *that* line was sarcasm. I think you and den2k have got the meaning of "sarcasm" confused with "pachydermatous insensitive indurate jokey jokes wannabe". Why? Because the incident is one where an educated man murdered his countryman due to hatred, and went on to gravely injure two more (including one from his own race). Not the best topic for an adult to make jokes about their inability to distinguish between races. No, that's NOT sarcasm.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Y'all look the same to us.
By "us", are you referring to the European immigrants (or their descendants) in the US? The joke's on you: A Chinese man walks into a bar in America late one night and he saw Steven Spielberg. As he was a great fan of his movies, he rushes over to him,and asks for his autograph. Instead, Spielberg gives him a slap and says, "You Chinese people bombed our Pearl Habour, get outta here. "The astonished Chinese man replied, "It was not the Chinese who bombed your Pearl Harbour, it was the Japanese". "Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, you're all the same," replied Spielberg. In return, the Chinese gives Spielberg two slaps and says, "You sank the Titanic, my forefathers were on that ship. "Shocked, Spielberg replies, "It was the iceberg that sank the ship, not me." The Chinese replies, "Iceberg, Spielberg, Carlsberg, you're all the same."
Troll. You know the type, big ego, <small>dick</small>, macho online where nobody can kick him in his puny testicles. Don't dignify this shît with a reply next time.
-
Ohhkkkay, then. It was a *nice* post you made back there. :rolleyes: You see, ^ *that* line was sarcasm. I think you and den2k have got the meaning of "sarcasm" confused with "pachydermatous insensitive indurate jokey jokes wannabe". Why? Because the incident is one where an educated man murdered his countryman due to hatred, and went on to gravely injure two more (including one from his own race). Not the best topic for an adult to make jokes about their inability to distinguish between races. No, that's NOT sarcasm.
If you are trying to push John's buttons, or trying to make a point with him by keeping this absolutely pointless debate alive, then you are acting the fool. Just saying...
-
Sahir Shah wrote:
Why don't you guys read a book or something
To whom are you referring to as "you guys"? Edit: Common sense would dictate that most Americans don't walk into bars and restaurants and shoot people, despite what Hollywood says. So when you say "you guys", I have to take pause.
Your original post that you so urgently deleted before others could read it:
If you are trying to push John's buttons, or trying to make a point with him by keeping this absolutely pointless debate alive, then you are acting the fool. Just saying...
I don't give two fucks about John's buttons, whatever it could possibly mean. He made a derisory, and insensitive comment, and I had to point out that it was such. I do not think it's a pointless debate because it's about someone making an insensitive remark about a hate crime which involved the murder of one and the hospitalization of two. But you're entitled to an opinion of your own, so pointless it could be, for you. Why did you delete your message though? Is it because you realised it was incredibly stupid of you to respond on a thread which you are referring to as "pointless debate"? So, then you're the fool, by your own logic. Calling someone a fool and adding "just saying" still is a personal attack, and totally uncalled for, especially given that this is the first post of mine on this thread you responded to. I'm not going to continue discussing with you if you have nothing constructive to discuss about and/or cannot discuss without resorting to personal attacks because then, it really does become pointless.
-
Your original post that you so urgently deleted before others could read it:
If you are trying to push John's buttons, or trying to make a point with him by keeping this absolutely pointless debate alive, then you are acting the fool. Just saying...
I don't give two fucks about John's buttons, whatever it could possibly mean. He made a derisory, and insensitive comment, and I had to point out that it was such. I do not think it's a pointless debate because it's about someone making an insensitive remark about a hate crime which involved the murder of one and the hospitalization of two. But you're entitled to an opinion of your own, so pointless it could be, for you. Why did you delete your message though? Is it because you realised it was incredibly stupid of you to respond on a thread which you are referring to as "pointless debate"? So, then you're the fool, by your own logic. Calling someone a fool and adding "just saying" still is a personal attack, and totally uncalled for, especially given that this is the first post of mine on this thread you responded to. I'm not going to continue discussing with you if you have nothing constructive to discuss about and/or cannot discuss without resorting to personal attacks because then, it really does become pointless.
I think you missed the entire point of his comment. The initial poster made a generalized comment, and thus John followed up with a generalized comment to make a point. Now you are taking this to a whole new level of which it doesn't need to be, thus you are a fool for doing so.
-
Ohhkkkay, then. It was a *nice* post you made back there. :rolleyes: You see, ^ *that* line was sarcasm. I think you and den2k have got the meaning of "sarcasm" confused with "pachydermatous insensitive indurate jokey jokes wannabe". Why? Because the incident is one where an educated man murdered his countryman due to hatred, and went on to gravely injure two more (including one from his own race). Not the best topic for an adult to make jokes about their inability to distinguish between races. No, that's NOT sarcasm.
Answering vitriol to stupid should be required and lawfully enforced reaction. I udnerstand that, John does it better than me.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF * GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X * Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game. * I'm a puny punmaker.
-
I think you missed the entire point of his comment. The initial poster made a generalized comment, and thus John followed up with a generalized comment to make a point. Now you are taking this to a whole new level of which it doesn't need to be, thus you are a fool for doing so.
You're dragging a discussion which you claimed was "absolutely pointless" by having responded with personal attacks, and then deleted it, and then posting more responses, trying to prove that someone else is the fool.
-
I think you missed the entire point of his comment. The initial poster made a generalized comment, and thus John followed up with a generalized comment to make a point. Now you are taking this to a whole new level of which it doesn't need to be, thus you are a fool for doing so.
Just for the record, I thought this post of yours[^] was extremely meaningful, and I recorded my up vote in there; I would have responded with something like that, pointing out that detail to the OP if not for you.
-
Ohhkkkay, then. It was a *nice* post you made back there. :rolleyes: You see, ^ *that* line was sarcasm. I think you and den2k have got the meaning of "sarcasm" confused with "pachydermatous insensitive indurate jokey jokes wannabe". Why? Because the incident is one where an educated man murdered his countryman due to hatred, and went on to gravely injure two more (including one from his own race). Not the best topic for an adult to make jokes about their inability to distinguish between races. No, that's NOT sarcasm.
The News Story is irrelevant. JSOP's responding to the OP's comment "you all need to read a book". Basically lumping all Americans together and applying the stereotypical image that all Americans are dumb. John's, funnily pointing out the foolishness in that by responding with another stereotypical jibe, surely you didnt miss this?
-
The News Story is irrelevant. JSOP's responding to the OP's comment "you all need to read a book". Basically lumping all Americans together and applying the stereotypical image that all Americans are dumb. John's, funnily pointing out the foolishness in that by responding with another stereotypical jibe, surely you didnt miss this?
Almost everybody missed it. That's kind of excusable though since they're foreigners. I have a feeling that If the dude had actually got it right and killed Iranians (which he apparently thought he was doing), we wouldn't be hearing from the lady boys.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
The News Story is irrelevant. JSOP's responding to the OP's comment "you all need to read a book". Basically lumping all Americans together and applying the stereotypical image that all Americans are dumb. John's, funnily pointing out the foolishness in that by responding with another stereotypical jibe, surely you didnt miss this?
See this post: Re: Olathe shooting[^] It basically says how well I appreciate this post: Re: Olathe shooting[^] in which Slacker007 points out succinctly about the OP's unfair generalization. Now, John's post was made much later, and seemed to me like it was mocking the situation that left one dead, and two in the hospital. It could well be not what he had intended. But it looked like it was bordering on that to me. Looking back at the whole thing now, I think that I could have held myself back or at least been much more polite in stating my opinions. I've calmed down now though. Or, am I fucking calm? AM I? :mad: If this was a catch-all bait he laid, I certainly bit. :)
