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

first fucking comment and already done with this thread.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42787617]Except that one human's actions resulting in the death of another human are described as several different laws. Murder, Manslaughter, etc. Both are laws regarding the killing of another human, yes, but the intentions behind each are different. So your argument would be entirely changed by generalizing from the start, which you did not do. You specified "murder".[/QUOTE] You've lost me Guns are designed for killing which encapsulates murder, this doesn't change my argument. I could have also specified 'ban objects designed specifically for manslaughter' which would also be valid, but slightly odd

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42787571]The fact that they're largely unecessary. If a criminal has a gun, [B]they probably do not want to use it. [/B] You should just let them take what they want and call the police, YOU are not in danger. The last thing I'd want to do to someone with a firearm is pull a gun on them! That's just going to make them shoot you.[/QUOTE] And what if they [I]do[/I] want to use it? How do you know the difference? If its [I]absolutely clear[/I] that [I]all they want[/I] is my stuff and assuming said stuff they want isn't literally vital to my or my family's survival then sure yeah whatever take it and go. but if they start approaching family members, their intentions are a tad past just wanting stuff, and now you can't possibly be sure of their intentions.

[QUOTE=Bumrang;42787646]Unless I'm misreading nobody is arguing that guns are only not for killing and injuring, but they do have nonfatal purposes. Such as: Sport shooting Hunting (if you don't count it vs killing animals) It's just that a gun can also be used for self defense. Some people might want a gun purely for self defense, and I'm okay with that as long as people get the proper background/health checks and are taught proper gun safety if they haven't used a gun before.[/QUOTE] The whole self defense situation usually ends with someone being wounded or killed.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42787571]The fact that they're largely unecessary. If a criminal has a gun, they probably do not want to use it. You should just let them take what they want and call the police, YOU are not in danger. The last thing I'd want to do to someone with a firearm is pull a gun on them! That's just going to make them shoot you.[/QUOTE] You wake up in the middle of the night and hear someone rummaging through your house. What would you rather have: a knife or a gun? Sure you would also call the police, but the police cannot come instantly. How would you expect to protect yourself?

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42787694]And what if they [I]do[/I] want to use it? How do you know the difference? If its [I]absolutely clear[/I] that [I]all they want[/I] is my stuff and assuming said stuff they want isn't literally vital to my or my family's survival then sure yeah whatever take it and go. but if they start approaching family members, their intentions are a tad past just wanting stuff, and now you can't possibly be sure of their intentions.[/QUOTE] If they're being threatening, they'll [I]already [/I]have their weapon out. You suddenly producing yours isn't going to do anything but guarantee that somebody's gonna get shot. And it'll probably be you.

[QUOTE=Bumrang;42787646]Unless I'm misreading nobody is arguing that guns are only not for killing and injuring, but they do have nonfatal purposes. Such as: Sport shooting Hunting (if you don't count it vs killing animals) It's just that a gun can also be used for self defense. Some people might want a gun purely for self defense, and I'm okay with that as long as people get the proper background/health checks and are taught proper gun safety if they haven't used a gun before.[/QUOTE] It's the fatal purposes I have an issue with

[QUOTE=James*;42787693]You've lost me Guns are designed for killing which encapsulates murder, this doesn't change my argument. I could have also specified 'ban objects designed specifically for manslaughter' which would also be valid, but slightly odd[/QUOTE] Killing does not always equal murder, but murder always equals killing, what part of that are you getting confused on? You originally specified murder, which is killing [I]with intent,[/I] not just killing in general. Because of that difference, your argument changes. Or at least its interpreted differently.

[QUOTE=Last or First;42787420]I understand that taking away guns from America at this point would be pointless and actually harmful, since so many guns are in the market right now, many people are very defensive of their guns, and criminals would have easy access to them. That doesn't mean that they're not a problem though. It just means that we have to solve the problem intelligently, such as putting in better regulations, decreasing our output of them, removing our [I]need[/I] for guns by reducing crime rates (such as through better and more available education), and getting rid of our fetishization of guns.[/QUOTE]Or we could just focus on why people do crazy, stupid, and/or harmful shit like this. I'm going to address the thread in general from here on out. I'm not pro-gun because "the NRA says they're good!" but because when I got old enough, I carefully checked my stance and came to the conclusion that firearm availability, rate of ownership, or actual number of firearms in circulation means [i]jack shit[/i] in the grand scheme of things. I'm pro-gun because I like them, because there's a reason why we're supposed to have them, and because they're useful. Having a gun doesn't make you a crazy person, an instant criminal, or anything of the sort. On the other side, they don't make you some sort of anti-crime repellant that wanders around spreading hope and joy one 9mm round at a time. Firearms are merely the means, not the cause, solution, or problem. Especially since the rates of homicide, other violent crimes, and even suicide are completely fucking wild across the spectrum. In fact, according to UNODC, North America, Western/Northern/Southern Europe, and Australasia are the safest places to be (from least safe to most safe) and have wildly varying firearm laws. Meanwhile, some of the most restrictive countries on other continents are just chock-full of murder, rape, assault, and other terrible shit. Yet, there's equally, if not more restrictive, countries in Europe that have next to no violent crime. Let's look at suicide, according to the WHO Greenland and South Korea are apparently full of people who hate being alive. Yet, waaaaay down at the bottom of the list, you have a wide variety of countries that have suicide rates that seem entirely unaffected by the laws or availability of firearms. Hell, even some countries commonly regarded as hives of scum and villainy are there and they're not killing themselves. (probably too busy shanking wayward tourists, so maybe they just don't have the time in their busy lives to kill themselves) Ultimately any legislation against firearms are pointless, they're not going to actually [i]do[/i] anything. Sure, this guy wouldn't have [i]shot[/i] her in the head if he didn't have a shotgun (well, let's be honest here, if they were illegal and this being Detroit, he probably would have had some type of firearm) but that isn't excluding the possibility of him bashing her in the head with a ball-peen hammer for whatever reason. Remember, this is Detroit, it didn't gain it's reputation for violence because of a misunderstanding; it gained the reputation [i]by being a violent place.[/i] I don't think anything a society could do would prevent this from happening, he seems exceptionally stupid and that isn't something you can fix. You can educate, influence, hell even cajole, until you're blue in the face and there will still be stupid people doing stupid shit. This post is a great example, I can press "post quick reply" and there will be a select number of individuals who dismiss it completely because they think their opinion is infallible. I post it because no matter what they decide, or what conclusions they come to, I can say I have provided my viewpoint and why it is so. Anything taken from that is entirely up to the individual, I cannot make anyone think a certain way; nor would I do so if given the chance.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;42786964]I'm a gun owner and a vehement defender of my right and others' rights to own firearms, but shit like this is only getting more frequent. The fact is that if this guy didn't have a gun, this woman and many others like her would probably still be alive. I don't think a blanket ban is the right solution, but a license requiring a stringent psych evaluation and gun safety course would be worth implementing even if it doesn't take them away from people who already own them.[/QUOTE] I agree with this. Much more reasonable than forcing everyone to hand over weapons that are, in many cases, family heirlooms. Personally, I have no problem with regulating stuff like automatic/semiautomatic weapons (the former is already heavily regulated. The latter could use a little more regulation, but not to the same extent IMO). Handguns could also use more regulation, if only because they're often the weapon of choice in most murders. Shotguns, bolt action/lever action rifles, stuff like that? I don't believe they need regulation beyond psychological screening and criminal background checks. Background checks are already standard across the board, so why not psych screening? Many of the opponents to firearms in this thread seem to believe that the only way to be safe is heavy restriction. I disagree. I believe we can do this safely.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42787711]If they're being threatening, they'll [I]already [/I]have their weapon out. You suddenly producing yours isn't going to do anything but guarantee that somebody's gonna get shot. And it'll probably be you.[/QUOTE] And if I know they're in my house before we make contact then I'll [I]already[/I] have [I]my[/I] weapon out.

[QUOTE=James*;42787462]They wouldn't[/QUOTE] No? The police force still needs firearms, simply because it's THEIR JOB to stop crime. Be it by peaceful means or appliance of force.

[QUOTE=Bumrang;42787703]You wake up in the middle of the night and hear someone rummaging through your house. What would you rather have: a knife or a gun? Sure you would also call the police, but the police cannot come instantly. How would you expect to protect yourself?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't do anything. I'dlet them take what they want. Nothing in this house is worth putting myself in mortal danger over, and I doubt anything in your house is either.

[QUOTE=Bumrang;42787703]You wake up in the middle of the night and hear someone rummaging through your house. What would you rather have: a knife or a gun? Sure you would also call the police, but the police cannot come instantly. How would you expect to protect yourself?[/QUOTE] If this burglar is just stealing your stuff, then let him/her do it. If he/she was purely out to harm you, why bother breaking into someones house? Why bother steal stuff, at least BEFORE you even killed the poeple in the house. Chances are that the burglar is just out to steal. Now if you show up with a gun, as previously mentioned, chances are that someone is going to get shot. So instead of losing worthly possesions, that might be able to reclaim, you end up losing a life, or wounding someone badly. You do have the option to barricade yourself in your lets say bedroom while waiting for the cops. You'll buy time. And it might even prove unnescessary, if the burglar didn't want to hurt anyone at all.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42787715]Killing does not always equal murder, but murder always equals killing, what part of that are you getting confused on? You originally specified murder, which is killing [I]with intent,[/I] not just killing in general. Because of that difference, your argument changes. Or at least its interpreted differently.[/QUOTE] But how would an object be designed specifically for 'killing with intent', that wouldn't make any sense which is why I think it's fairly obvious I meant killing, including murder

Ok; so if you're hiding, what happens if they find you? How do you know they wouldn't use fatal force?

[QUOTE=James*;42787777]But how would an object be designed specifically for 'killing with intent', that wouldn't make any sense which is why I think it's fairly obvious I meant killing, including murder[/QUOTE] Well stop using murder and killing as if they're interchangeable then, because they're not. You became inconsistent in your argument and I called you on it, plain and simple.

[QUOTE=Bumrang;42787788]Ok; so if you're hiding, what happens if they find you? How do you know they wouldn't use fatal force?[/QUOTE] You can twist any hypothetical situation to prove any point if you keep adding footnotes to it. This is starting to become meaningless.

[QUOTE=maxumym;42787746]No? The police force still needs firearms, simply because it's THEIR JOB to stop crime. Be it by peaceful means or appliance of force.[/QUOTE] Cops (or at least the majority of them) get by in plenty of countries without them already ya know The only reason a minority need them is because guns can't be eradicated completely

[QUOTE=Bumrang;42787788]Ok; so if you're hiding, what happens if they find you? How do you know they wouldn't use fatal force?[/QUOTE] what's with this implacable culture of fear you people have. i wouldn't be surprised if some of you people thought everyone was out to specifically end your life. take a chill pill randy dandy

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42787800]Well stop using murder and killing as if they're interchangeable then, because they're not. You became inconsistent in your argument and I called you on it, plain and simple.[/QUOTE] And I reiterated it? So what's your problem? No one else seems to have struggled with it, you clearly have comprehension issues

[QUOTE=Chili Banan;42787765]If this burglar is just stealing your stuff, then let him/her do it. If he/she was purely out to harm you, why bother breaking into someones house? Why bother steal stuff, at least BEFORE you even killed the poeple in the house. Chances are that the burglar is just out to steal. Now if you show up with a gun, as previously mentioned, chances are that someone is going to get shot. So instead of losing worthly possesions, that might be able to reclaim, you end up losing a life, or wounding someone badly. You do have the option to barricade yourself in your lets say bedroom while waiting for the cops. You'll buy time. And it might even prove unnescessary, if the burglar didn't want to hurt anyone at all.[/QUOTE] This is a horrible fucking attitude. You are seriously saying people should just roll over and hide in their own home while their stuff is getting stolen? Because the burglar doesn't want to hurt anyone?

[QUOTE=Marlwolf78;42786421]Chances are, if the guy didn't have a shotgun, he wouldn't have used another method to kill her I hate to use the cliche statement, but if he didn't have the gun, she'd still be alive[/QUOTE] You can't assume things about a person you don't even remotely know. Regardless of people yelling about guns in this thread, he could've been just as likely to chase her down with a knife for all we know. He was certainly deranged enough to shoot an unarmed woman in the back. Too many people sit back in a comfey chair and make sweeping statements over a case like this with only what an article has given them. And a lot of people wish it was just as easy as going "guns are bad" to keep awful shit like this from happening, but unfortunately that's not the case.

[QUOTE=James*;42787851]And I reiterated it? So what's your problem? No one else seems to have struggled with it, you clearly have comprehension issues[/QUOTE] It looked like you were changing your argument, I called you on it. Turns out you just mistyped, glad we straightened that out. Good thing we didn't have to resort to insults to do so.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;42787723]I agree with this. Much more reasonable than forcing everyone to hand over weapons that are, in many cases, [B]family heirlooms.[/B][/QUOTE] why not just get them disabled kinda somewhat related owning a gun because you like guns shouldn't be a reason to have a live firearm, at all

[QUOTE=darkrei9n;42787865]This is a horrible fucking attitude. You are seriously saying people should just roll over and hide in their own home while their stuff is getting stolen? Because the burglar doesn't want to hurt anyone?[/QUOTE] Stuff getting stolen is better than people getting hurt, and when guns are in the equation it's not a massive jump from injury to death. You can replace or reacquire possessions, the same cannot be said of lives.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42787879]It looked like you were changing your argument, I called you on it. Turns out you just mistyped, glad we straightened that out. Good thing we didn't have to resort to insults to do so.[/QUOTE] I don't even think I was being inconsistent, it was clearly a rhetorical device since as I said objects can't [I]literally[/I] be designed to kill 'with intent'

[QUOTE=Bumrang;42787788]Ok; so if you're hiding, what happens if they find you? How do you know they wouldn't use fatal force?[/QUOTE] Did you even read my post? Because, someone that is breaking into your house is MOST LIKELY NOT out to kill/harm anybody. He or she could harm anybody else, anywhere else. Why BOTHER breaking into a house, just to harm anybody? I'd guess that is because he/she is out to steal things, wouldn't you agree? I don't think that person really wants to hurt anyone, seeing as if they did, they probably would have done it already, somewhere else. And why rob the place and make a lot of noise before you kill the inhabitants? Robbing and making noise before doing that only puts the robber him/herself in danger of facing gunpoint, if the burlgar would wake anyone with a gun. I doubt the criminal is actually looking for a standoff. The criminal is most likely out to steal, to get money, to do whatever. The criminal can't do this, whatever, if he/she is dead. So why risk facing a standoff in the first place, if the criminal is just out to hurt you? So you see, I don't think they want to hurt you, but if you pull a gun in their face, you might leave them no choice.

[QUOTE=Em See;42787892]why not just get them disabled[/QUOTE] Why?

[QUOTE=James*;42787810]Cops (or at least the majority of them) get by in plenty of countries without them already ya know [/QUOTE] Do they really?