Woman shot in the head after knocking on door and asking for help - Polidicks

The way I see it, you go onto someone's property at 2 am and ask them for "help" you are risking SOMETHING. How about mind your business and don't bug sleeping people who don't trust black people. The gun is not the issue here.

I mean not everybody is a rampant racist like yourself, if you need help you should be able to get it regardless of your skin color.

[QUOTE=tryhard;42791536]The way I see it, you go onto someone's property at 2 am and ask them for "help" you are risking SOMETHING. How about mind your business and don't bug sleeping people who don't trust black people. The gun is not the issue here.[/QUOTE] Fuck yes the gun is the issue. Along with the owner being a paranoid fuck. You're living up to your name.

There is not law that says I have to trust black people, sorry it hurts your faggot ass feelings. Black people break into houses at a high ass rate, I dont blame the guy and hope he doesn't get any jail time. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("troll" - postal))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42790901]Most suicides happen within 5 minutes of the decision, and having easy access to a firearm greatly increases the likelihood of the person going through it. Very few suicides are premeditated.[/QUOTE] A study conducted by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, found that [quote][b]a quarter of all attempts occur within five minutes of the initial impulse[/b] and about half within the first 20 minutes.[/quote] [url]http://www.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2013/09/04/new-study-gun-ownership-not-suicidal-behavior-is-strongest-predictor-of-death-by-suicide[/url]

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42791436]What's his intention? If it's burglary, just avoid fucking about too much with him, if you know you can't get the drop on him and subdue him, let him take shit and get it replaced on your insurance. Stuff isn't worth a life, and he'll likely get caught giving you a chance at getting shit back. If it's a purposefully violent encounter, he has a knife. Keep your distance, find other long reach objects and try and subdue him. Try and get him somewhere he's harmless (locked in a room perhaps?). For both situations, call the local police force ASAP and let them deal with it as best they can. If they don't turn up for 30 minutes, stop living in the third world. During that time, try anything to keep them from harming you (or let them then sue the shit out of them I guess). I'm not seeing a need for a gun here. Wait, hold on, he's a criminal, clearly not human any more, fuck it just kill him![/QUOTE] It's not your responsibility to be concerned about the other persons well being when you defend yourself or your property. I live in a country where it's illegal to defend yourself with a firearm, and cases do pop up where for example a man breaks into someones house, the homeowner pulls a shotgun on the guy who is holding a knife and acting aggressive. The man refused to drop the knife after he's been told to by the homeowner and he was shot dead. He was charged with manslaughter and went to court, the judge dropped all charges stating he was using reasonable force to defend himself. If you wana be some kind of vigilante and you think you can subdue a bunch of attackers while you're getting mugged or your house broken into all the power to you buddy. But this is real life and people die every day in situations like these. Id rather shoot a man who comes at me in my home with knife then get stabbed because ''I don't want anyone to get hurt''. also: ''I'm not seeing a need for a gun here. Wait, hold on, he's a criminal, clearly not human any more, fuck it just kill him!''. People don't use firearms to defend themselves because they see it as some kind of justice, they do it to protect their lives.

2:30 am, don't knock on random doors, its dangerous. THis is the lesson learned. [QUOTE=RichyZ;42791583]haha holy shit youre so fucking racist get banned you trash[/QUOTE] look up crime FACTS and statistics, its true even though it hurts your feelings. Again, be warry of black people, they are more likely to do crime period. EDIT, SNIP LOL

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;42791582]People don't use firearms to defend themselves because they see it as some kind of justice, they do it to protect their lives.[/QUOTE] [B]SO [/B]you're defending yourself against a [I]POTENTIAL [/I]threat by killing it? I know cities are often called urban jungles, but that doesn't mean you should act like Tarzan with a firearm.

[QUOTE=Tuskin;42787454]AFAIK, the 'Right to bare arms' in the constitution was aimed towards Militias not everyday citizens.[/QUOTE] When referred to in the United States Constitution, the Militia is the whole people, meaning all citizens. This was even clarified in a 2008 Supreme Court case.

[QUOTE=JDK721;42791566]A study conducted by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, found that [url]http://www.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2013/09/04/new-study-gun-ownership-not-suicidal-behavior-is-strongest-predictor-of-death-by-suicide[/url][/QUOTE] Thanks for the correction. Running statistics from the top of your head can be dangerous sometimes.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;42791582]It's not your responsibility to be concerned about the other persons well being when you defend yourself or your property. I live in a country where it's illegal to defend yourself with a firearm, and cases do pop up where for example a man breaks into someones house, the homeowner pulls a shotgun on the guy who is holding a knife and acting aggressive. The man refused to drop the knife after he's been told to by the homeowner and he was shot dead. He was charged with manslaughter and went to court, the judge dropped all charges stating he was using reasonable force to defend himself. If you wana be some kind of vigilante and you think you can subdue a bunch of attackers while you're getting mugged or your house broken into all the power to you buddy. But this is real life and people die every day in situations like these. Id rather shoot a man who comes at me in my home with knife then get stabbed because ''I don't want anyone to get hurt''. also: ''I'm not seeing a need for a gun here. Wait, hold on, he's a criminal, clearly not human any more, fuck it just kill him!''. People don't use firearms to defend themselves because they see it as some kind of justice, they do it to protect their lives.[/QUOTE] A manslaughter charge for shooting someone who [B]isn't[/B] an enemy combatant seems fair to me, you did just end a life of a civilian after all, criminal or not. Dropping the case in certain scenarios seems reasonable too, but should not be the norm for "self defence" as we tend to see coming out of the States. I understand this is real life, and in real life petty thieves, burglars, etc. tend to bug out if they know someone is aware of them, they aren't the bravest. You don't need a gun to get them out of the house unless they're insane anyway. This is less about "I don't want anyone to get hurt" and more about "how can we lower the amount of people dying needlessly?". Allowing civilian use of firearms for defence is a big contributor to deaths it seems, so lets fix that. And while we're at it, try and find ways to turn people off crime, such as not leaving them in the situation where it would pay off (so, get welfare systems in place that don't suck).

[QUOTE=Van-man;42791645][B]SO [/B]you're defending yourself against a [I]POTENTIAL [/I]threat by killing it? I know cities are often called urban jungles, but that doesn't mean you should act like Tarzan with a firearm.[/QUOTE] A potential threat? Yeah. Run up to a cop waving a machete at them and try not to get shot, because you are a ''potential threat'' to them. When my life is ''potentially'' in danger I'll take whatever reasonable steps it takes to protect it.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42791670]Thanks for the correction. Running statistics from the top of your head can be dangerous sometimes.[/QUOTE] Your point is still valid though because several studies have found that there is a positive correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates. One study even found that the main factor in whether someone commits suicide is whether there is a firearm in the household. Many people who committed suicide with a firearm did not have any history of mental illness and rather it appears that it was an impulsive act which was made easier by immediate access to a firearm. There is a 85-90% fatality rate with self-inflicted gunshot wounds, which is much higher than other suicide methods like hanging, overdoses, etc.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42791671]A manslaughter charge for shooting someone who [B]isn't[/B] an enemy combatant seems fair to me, you did just end a life of a civilian after all, criminal or not. Dropping the case in certain scenarios seems reasonable too, but should not be the norm for "self defence" as we tend to see coming out of the States. I understand this is real life, and in real life petty thieves, burglars, etc. tend to bug out if they know someone is aware of them, they aren't the bravest. You don't need a gun to get them out of the house unless they're insane anyway. This is less about "I don't want anyone to get hurt" and more about "how can we lower the amount of people dying needlessly?". Allowing civilian use of firearms for defence is a big contributor to deaths it seems, so lets fix that. And while we're at it, try and find ways to turn people off crime, such as not leaving them in the situation where it would pay off (so, get welfare systems in place that don't suck).[/QUOTE] Well some of the castle laws I've heard about in the united states seem silly, the only thing you could do to prevent unneccesary death/harm is to educate firearm owners. But the thing is, if you make firearm licenses and safety training mandatory in the united states, you violate the constitution by regulating firearms as I understand it.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;42791711]Well some of the castle laws I've heard about in the united states seem silly, the only thing you could do to prevent unneccesary is to educate firearm owners. But the thing is, if you make firearm licenses and safety training mandatory in the united states, you violate the constitution by regulating firearms as I understand it.[/QUOTE] Well isn't the constitution in the need for a update then? At best the issue is that firearms are viewed as a right, not as a privilege that requires actual effort to obtain, and is also easy to lose in case of misconduct with a firearm. Not to mention the fact that a private seller can sell a firearm to pretty much anybody legally. That's how most criminals acquire their firearms.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;42791711]Well some of the castle laws I've heard about in the united states seem silly, the only thing you could do to prevent unneccesary death/harm is to educate firearm owners. But the thing is, if you make firearm licenses and safety training mandatory in the united states, you violate the constitution by regulating firearms as I understand it.[/QUOTE] Living and dying by the constitution seems quite dangerous from what I've seen, laws are fairly fluid, they change, rights come and go. Sticking to what a piece of paper written centuries ago and that has been very rarely updated since could easily set you back if society changes but your laws can't. Besides, it's just that, a piece of paper. If the government wanted they could ignore it, and the citizens wouldn't be able to stop it seeing as the US has the best equipped armies in the world.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42791805] Besides, it's just that, a piece of paper. If the government wanted they could ignore it, and the citizens wouldn't be able to stop it seeing as the US has the best equipped armies in the world.[/QUOTE] That would be funny to watch, since almost the entire populace has access to firearms.

Having this country gun-free might be ideal but it is totally impossible. Argue all you want about how bad they are and you're probably right, but there is nothing anyone can do short of forcing every gun owner in the U.S to give up their firearms. We all know that wont happen any time soon. Now go on and continue these unnecessarily long arguments that only mean jack shit.

[QUOTE=Amez;42791911]Having this country gun-free might be ideal but it is totally impossible. Argue all you want about how bad they are and you're probably right, but there is nothing anyone can do short of forcing every gun owner in the U.S to give up their firearms. We all know that wont happen any time soon. Now go on and continue these unnecessarily long arguments that only mean jack shit.[/QUOTE] Nothing gets done with this attitude, sure. But the populace of the States have proven they will willingly hand over guns in the past. Only the crazies get massively defensive of their guns because communists. Most people who happen to have a gun in the house aren't gun-nuts, hobbyists or whatever. They don't care, they will readily hand over a majority of the guns that are easily taken and used in crime anyway.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;42786045]Guns enable bad people to very easily do bad things like what happened in the article. Don't even argue that.[/QUOTE] Couldn't he have just as easily ran at her and stabbed her to death or something? "Guns don't kill people, People kill people." Simple as that. The gun didn't get up and say "I HATE PEOPLE KNOCKING AT MY DOOR. DEATH TIMMMEEEE!". The owner of said weapon said to himself "I HATE PEOPLE KNOCKING AT MY DOOR DEATH TIMMMEEEE!" then went out and killed the person. Did the plane(s) that destroyed the twin towers get up and say "I HATE MURICA. TIME TO BLOW SHIT UP."? No. Terrorists trying to get an agenda across crashed the planes into the buildings. Did Uranium get up and say "I HATE PEOPLE. I SHALL BECOME A MIGHTY NUKE AND MAKE FRIED FACES!"? No. People came along looking for a way to cause a shitton of destruction and decided to make a bomb with Uranium.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42791939]Nothing gets done with this attitude, sure. But the populace of the States have proven they will willingly hand over guns in the past. Only the crazies get massively defensive of their guns because communists. Most people who happen to have a gun in the house aren't gun-nuts, hobbyists or whatever. They don't care, they will readily hand over a majority of the guns that are easily taken and used in crime anyway.[/QUOTE] No they haven't and no they won't.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42791939]Nothing gets done with this attitude, sure. [B]But the populace of the States have proven they will willingly hand over guns in the past.[/B] Only the crazies get massively defensive of their guns because communists. [B]Most people who happen to have a gun in the house aren't gun-nuts, hobbyists or whatever. They don't care, they will readily hand over a majority of the guns that are easily taken and used in crime anyway.[/B][/QUOTE] Could you please pass me some of what ever you're smoking?

[QUOTE=Lurker;42785885]This is why guns are bad.[/QUOTE] No, this is why dumbasses who own them and shoot people for no fucking reason are bad. Guns are fine, dipshits like this are not. [editline]7th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;42786045]Guns enable bad people to very easily do bad things like what happened in the article. Don't even argue that.[/QUOTE] Because a knife at close range on someone unsuspecting wouldn't do the same thing?

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42791959]No they haven't and no they won't.[/QUOTE] Such evidence. So compel. It seems that when they are held, people do willingly give up guns; [url]http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-blinq/Camdens-.html[/url] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/gun-buyback-la-2012_n_1515105.html[/url] While these numbers aren't super huge, they are still evidence enough that people do willingly hand in their weapons, if there is something in it for them it certainly helps mind.

[QUOTE=gk99;42792024]Because a knife at close range on someone unsuspecting wouldn't do the same thing?[/QUOTE] Nope. Knife attacks are very survivable. That is why no one uses them in successful spree attacks because it takes a lot of effort and many stabs to kill a single person. I think there has been three knife sprees in america and none of them were anything compared to firearm sprees. Like that chinese man, horrifically stabbed so many children at a school and on one died.

[QUOTE=gk99;42792024] Because a knife at close range on someone unsuspecting wouldn't do the same thing?[/QUOTE] "at close range" "someone unsuspecting" the fact that you need to specify this shows how much easier and more effective guns are tbh since knives can't do the same if either of those factors are gone.

[QUOTE=Lurker;42785885]This is why guns are bad.[/QUOTE] Did the agrees actually take over the dumbs on an anti-gun comment?! jesus christ if this was posted last year it'd be dumbed down to hell.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42792282]"at close range" "someone unsuspecting" the fact that you need to specify this shows how much easier and more effective guns are tbh since knives can't do the same if either of those factors are gone.[/QUOTE] Like, really. With a gun I could stand across the street, aim it at someone with them knowing it, and still hit them as bullets travel hella fast. With a knife, they just need to be faster than my running speed, it's not like throwing a knife is actually reasonable.

Gun culture is already too deeply embedded in the US that banning guns or even heavily regulating certain types (perhaps with the exception of semi-auto handguns) most likely wouldn't be as effective as a better thought out solution that attacks the issue at its core which is the people instead of the guns. The things that I can think of off the top of my head are DRAMATICALLY increased education on firearm safety and when they are to be properly used, stressing the fact that guns should be an absolute last resort in any self defense situation, introducing some type of mental screening when making purchases, etc. We should actively be tackling the social and economic factors that lead to people having the mindset that it is okay to shoot someone even when completely unnecessary. Maybe we can start by not glamorizing violence especially with guns in popular culture, which makes people think that it's okay to hurt or kill others for petty reasons when a conflict could have been resolved in a much more reasonable manner? Maybe that combined with improving the police's organization, reliability, and effectiveness could improve their image as seen by the people and make citizens prefer to rely on them more instead of wanting to take the situation into their own hands?

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42792164]Such evidence. So compel. It seems that when they are held, people do willingly give up guns; [url]http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-blinq/Camdens-.html[/url] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/gun-buyback-la-2012_n_1515105.html[/url] While these numbers aren't super huge, they are still evidence enough that people do willingly hand in their weapons, if there is something in it for them it certainly helps mind.[/QUOTE] Gun buybacks are an abysmal failure for their intended purpose and the numbers of guns handed in is laughable in comparison to those in circulation. Not to mention several states are now mandating all guns obtained in a buyback be re-sold, and there's been times the officials running the buyback have refused to take guns due to the significance, a prominent example was when a woman tried to turn in a $20,000 fully automatic STG-44. There's also been instances of the buybacks being subverted, such as when people have started impromptu gun shows outside, offering fair market value for the guns instead of a $50 Denny's gift card, and when an Illinois gun rights group turned in a bunch of rusty old broken guns to help finance some new youth rifles for their junior membership to use.