dead scumbags

I have to agree with that. Although I've haven't seen to many rich crack heads. Most of them resort to crime to obtain enough for their addictions.

 

Clearly, our founding fathers did not find hanging as cruel and unusual punishment so let us bring back hanging.

 

I guess if an aggressor wishes to screw you in the ass you will put up no resistance?

 

See this is what really scares me about our society today. People really think this way. I'm totally stunned.
What the **** would be your solution?

 

If you just talk nice enough they'll go away.

 

it demonstrates the socialist's contempt for private property rights.

 

I don't see where social contempt for stuff comes into play. But I see absolute ignorance on how to deal with violence. Protecting your stuff and protecting life is something different. However I would tend to lean toward self preservation (even stuff) if it came to pacifism as the alternative.

 

I kind of have to agree with Stedric on this one. If confronting burglars with violence becomes more of a norm or threat. The criminals will just take out anyone who might be a threat to them. Whether that means taking out the neighbors before or after a burglary. Just how many started to take out phone lines to prevent calls to 911 or alarms to alert the alarm companies. In the end the criminal will do whatever it takes. The innocent civilian who may happen to accidentally witness a crime and get killed for it, even if they had no intention of intervening in the act or not, will be the true victim.

The escalation is a fluid and mobile thing and unfortunately, usually the good guys are playing catchup.

 

Crims would not be around to reoffend if the system worked properly. They would be destroyed after the first court appearance.

Your escalation hypothesis can only be wrong where the state vigorously defends the citizen and upholds the law.

It is not working properly because of all the whining liberals challenging the law at every opportunity, and also because of all the grasping lawyers/solicitors.

There should be no hold up where proof of guilt is reasonably certain, for example DNA evidence. Also, there should be no free legal aid, where guilt is reasonably certain, ie where police inform the court they will use DNA evidence. Thirdly, where the above is in place, there should be no right to appeal. The sentence should be carried out within the week of being passed.

Escalation is what the state should be doing in its war on crime. With the funds and manpower available to the state, the state can only win.

 

The legal penalty for murder is much higher than for burglary. Also the threat of an armed homeowner reduces breaking and entering and therefore the odds of a confrontation. I have seen no statistical evidence supporting your claim.

 

A little info:

 

Very good read.
I like how they point out that some of the polls are tainted just because of bad gun laws which make criminals out of homeowners. There's a law I would break too. These gun laws keep you and I from protecting ourselves. I don't understand the mentality in them at all.

Buglers are not usually out for the violence. They're out for the loot. But even if they were out for the violence wouldn't it be prudent to be prepared?

If I arm myself with a gun IWS the crook is not gonna go out and get a tank. They're looking for a couple of bucks not a war.


PS: *You can have my gun when you pry it from my dead cold fingers*

 

I guess you better hope that your legal pistol/shotgun/rifle can beat their illegal machine gun/full auto assault rifle. That's how escalation works.

If Hugo's theory was true, burglaries would have stopped when the average homeowner obtained secruity systems. The burglars would never have escalated to armed violence, and we wouldn't have needed the law in Texas that allowed the execution of criminals of property crimes.

 

Thans for a god read Hugo.

It's clear having read it, that guns in the hands of citizens are certainly a deterent to US burglars.

 

I was responding to your claim that most scumbags were politicians, please try to stay in context.

Common knowledge, but Hugo posted a nice artical on it, 13 percent is about average depending on where you live.

If your paying more for things like insurance because some low lifes want to steal insted of getting a job, then yes, you are a victim. If your car is stolen, are you a victim or is it just what you deserve?

Of course we are all victims and your attempt to bring in starving people in other Countris just shows you understand how weak your arguement was so you tried to derail the discussion with some bleeding heart liberal garbage.

I am immune to that tactic so you may as well give it up.

Either my point about us all being victims of crime through things like increased insurance costs is correct or it is not, obviously you know it is correct or you would not have gotten so rediclious with that example.

I have no problem with a legal system, but the guy must make it to that point for it to go into effect.

Most criminals do not want to go quietly when they are busted, they want to get away. Scum like this who want to get away have a very high possibility to use deadly force to avoid the penalty they are facing.

After the guy is under control, sure, I agree with him going through the system, but there must be that measure of control to make the judicial system possible.

The point is we cannot pretend to care about the killing of life when we are killing over a million lives every year and accepting that as a good thing.

A human being does not just appear one day from nothing, it is a process that must have a long series of steps. Without the fetus, there is no life, so they are connected and the same, life.

Besides, out of that 1.4 million abortions, about 350,000 are late term abortions, children who could live outside of the womb if given a chance, so would you call that ended life my friend?

It is much more complicated than that but again, the ratio of cops to populace is almost nothing and that is why we have so much crime. If just having a police force was enough, why is crime still out of control.


Obviously we are helpless and the only thing cops can do it show up "after" we are victims and help pick up the pieces, they cannot prevent anything.

Letting someone get away with the property is not defending it. Clearly the attempt to not have a confrontation was made and the cops could not respond in time to protect the property, so the action was taken to defend property where the police failed.

The criminals were dangerious people, even the 911 operator said they would shoot him if he attempted to stop them so when they refused to stop, they were shot.



Only the criminals had the chance to avoid this, they could have decided to simply not be criminals, or they could have stopped when busted by the neighbor, but in both cases, they took actions that directly led to their deaths.


Why can't you liberals ever hold any responsibility to the criminals?

Your wrong on so many levels it is just silly.

The artical Hugo posted was great but you can also look at other factors.


Country areas where the owners tend to have guns, have almost no robbery calls. Using your assumption, these areas should be close to ww3 being as they are all armed to the teeth, they go hunting and sport shooting and have guns all over their homes, the robbers should be driving down the road in tanks by what your saying but what happens is they move on, move to areas where the people don't have guns and are easy victims.

 

This is what hapened to a family who did not have a gun at home. They got beaten, tortured and raped by burglars:


[ame= - Shock: Teens gang rape mother and forced her pre-teen son to watch & participate...[/ame]

 

People been shooting burglars since the invention of the gun. Don't see many burglars with assault rifles. Do you believe our police and military should also be unarmed? Would not want violence to be escalated.

 

I have never understood the liberal claim that if the honest resist, the criminals will just escalate.

On the whole, criminals are cowards, they trend to preying on those that are easy prey. Owning a gun gives you the ability to fight off any attacker, and that will cause cowards like robbers to back off most of the time.


In the use of force principle, having a gun is considered to be a type of force, it represents an ability to kill in the hands of it's owner. A crook does not want to face that force if there are other, weaker victims to prey upon especially when you are talking about robberies because the potential payoff for their successful robbery is so low, that the risk/reward factor does not make it worth death, or a murder charge just to steal some jewlery or a television set.



For those that simply want to roll over for criminals and be easy victims, I say fine, be the pacifist and allow yourself to be easy victims if you want. This is a free Country and you can decide to do what you want with your belongings. All I am asking is that you do not try and take away my right to defend what is mine, to not demand I let criminals take what they did not earn without a fight.