Why Texas didn't have any looting

[Billzie7718]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Billzie7718

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Proletariat
Folks stop whining.

In this current context, which I expected you to understand, killing is not appropriate and would make you a bad person according to normal societal rules.

Says you.

Says the government and the Bible.

Just to make sure I got this right, how does protecting your home and potentially the life of you and your family make you a bad person?

I didn't know looting had anything to do with human life.

I thought it was just possessions.

Ummm ... if I am standing in my house trying to punch the looters because I have no GUN, then I think it might escalate (as it did in N.O.).

So are you saying that I should not have a gun and when looters come to steal my stuff, I should what? ... help them carry it?

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Billzie7718

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Billzie7718

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Proletariat
Folks stop whining.

In this current context, which I expected you to understand, killing is not appropriate and would make you a bad person according to normal societal rules.

Says you.

Says the government and the Bible.

Just to make sure I got this right, how does protecting your home and potentially the life of you and your family make you a bad person?

I didn't know looting had anything to do with human life.

I thought it was just possessions.

Ummm ... if I am standing in my house trying to punch the looters because I have no GUN, then I think it might escalate (as it did in N.O.).

So are you saying that I should not have a gun and when looters come to steal my stuff, I should what? ... help them carry it?

He would, be he's an idiot troll.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: flashbacck

Originally posted by: brxndxn
That's how it oughta be in every state.. The more people with weapons, the safer society becomes, because MOST people are GOOD people. Shoot the bad people.

By definition, good people don't shoot bad people, that's what makes them good!

Being "good" means you don't shoot "bad" people?

I'm gonna have to disagree with him too.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
Folks stop whining.

In this current context, which I expected you to understand, killing is not appropriate and would make you a bad person according to normal societal rules.

Maybe where you live. Shooting a looter is legal in Texas, where *gasp* you have the right to defend your property.

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

Protection of the Property of Others

"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Proletariat
Folks stop whining.

In this current context, which I expected you to understand, killing is not appropriate and would make you a bad person according to normal societal rules.

Says you.

Says the government and the Bible.

Actually, in Texas the government says that shooting trespassers is not bad. That's one down.

Secondly, what difference does it make what the bible says? If god doesn't want looters getting shot, he can stop the bullet.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

I didn't know looting had anything to do with human life.

I thought it was just possessions.

Looters are often very violent. Any one unfortunate enough to get in their way often gets raped and killed.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: brxndxn
That's how it oughta be in every state.. The more people with weapons, the safer society becomes, because MOST people are GOOD people. Shoot the bad people.

rrrriiiiigghhttt. judging by the average intelligence/maturity level in this country I'd rather most poeple didn't have guns.

So would I. But as long as criminals/idiots can get guns, I want to be at least as well armed as they are.

Exactly. They should ban possession of all guns altogether.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: brxndxn
That's how it oughta be in every state.. The more people with weapons, the safer society becomes, because MOST people are GOOD people. Shoot the bad people.

rrrriiiiigghhttt. judging by the average intelligence/maturity level in this country I'd rather most poeple didn't have guns.

So would I. But as long as criminals/idiots can get guns, I want to be at least as well armed as they are.

Exactly. They should ban possession of all guns altogether.

So we should give up more rights for a "War on Guns" which will prove as ineffective as our current "War on Drugs"?

Banning 500 year old technology doesnt work very well.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: brxndxn
That's how it oughta be in every state.. The more people with weapons, the safer society becomes, because MOST people are GOOD people. Shoot the bad people.

rrrriiiiigghhttt. judging by the average intelligence/maturity level in this country I'd rather most poeple didn't have guns.

So would I. But as long as criminals/idiots can get guns, I want to be at least as well armed as they are.

Exactly. They should ban possession of all guns altogether.

So we should give up more rights for a "War on Guns" which will prove as ineffective as our current "War on Drugs"?
Q]

Actually it would be harder to dispose of a gun than drugs. Not ineffective at all as you put it. Lot of countries like Britain do not allow guns except for farmers or people who own property in the country side.
Banning 500 year old technology doesnt work very well.[/

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: brxndxn
That's how it oughta be in every state.. The more people with weapons, the safer society becomes, because MOST people are GOOD people. Shoot the bad people.

rrrriiiiigghhttt. judging by the average intelligence/maturity level in this country I'd rather most poeple didn't have guns.

So would I. But as long as criminals/idiots can get guns, I want to be at least as well armed as they are.

Exactly. They should ban possession of all guns altogether.

So we should give up more rights for a "War on Guns" which will prove as ineffective as our current "War on Drugs"?

Actually it would be harder to dispose of a gun than drugs. Not ineffective at all as you put it. Lot of countries like Britain do not allow guns except for farmers or people who own property in the country side.
Banning 500 year old technology doesnt work very well.

 

[BoberFett]

That ban on guns in England has really worked out well for them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

And before anyone whines about how old that article is, here's one from this year.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=agceOIMf5nfc&refer=uk

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: zoiks
Exactly. They should ban possession of all guns altogether.

So we should give up more rights for a "War on Guns" which will prove as ineffective as our current "War on Drugs"?

Banning 500 year old technology doesnt work very well.

Actually it would be harder to dispose of a gun than drugs. Not ineffective at all as you put it. Lot of countries like Britain do not allow guns except for farmers or people who own property in the country side.

Britain banned guns and their gun crime rate went... way the hell up. Banning guns and essentially banning the right to self defense has gotten them up a creek without a paddle, or a boat.

I can quote countries with high gun ownership rates and low gun crime rates. However, it's more to the point if you look at what happens when countries ban guns (the Brits and Aussies are the best examples)... crime rates go up.

EDIT: I'd love to debate this further, but I've got to go to work (bartending). I'll come back to this thread later (though it might not be till Sunday, when I'll be back to a broadband connection).

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: zoiks
Exactly. They should ban possession of all guns altogether.

So we should give up more rights for a "War on Guns" which will prove as ineffective as our current "War on Drugs"?

Banning 500 year old technology doesnt work very well.

Actually it would be harder to dispose of a gun than drugs. Not ineffective at all as you put it. Lot of countries like Britain do not allow guns except for farmers or people who own property in the country side.

Britain banned guns and their gun crime rate went... way the hell up. Banning guns and essentially banning the right to self defense has gotten them up a creek without a paddle, or a boat.

I can quote countries with high gun ownership rates and low gun crime rates. However, it's more to the point if you look at what happens when countries ban guns (the Brits and Aussies are the best examples)... crime rates go up.

Depends on the control really and how it is implemented. An old established society may have problems with gun control, but Singapore did it very well. They justestablished that from the get-go.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: DaShen
Depends on the control really and how it is implemented. An old established society may have problems with gun control, but Singapore did it very well. They justestablished that from the get-go.

It's useless to compare two different cultures when comparing something like crime, unless you're prepared to compare everything else simultaneously. What is the judicial system like? What is the punishment for various offenses? What percentage of GDP is spent on law enforcement?

In England we have the ability to view the same culture both with and without guns. In their case, it was more safe for the average Brit when they were allowed to own handguns.

 

[Deslok]

Originally posted by: Darkstar757
Looks like the Klan to me

Where are the white hoods?
Or white guys +guns +Texas =Klan?

 

[latino666]

Originally posted by: FrankSaucedo
PIC


High resolution picture for those who want to get a closer look HERE

That and the police were not the ones who looted too.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DaShen
Depends on the control really and how it is implemented. An old established society may have problems with gun control, but Singapore did it very well. They justestablished that from the get-go.

It's useless to compare two different cultures when comparing something like crime, unless you're prepared to compare everything else simultaneously. What is the judicial system like? What is the punishment for various offenses? What percentage of GDP is spent on law enforcement?

In England we have the ability to view the same culture both with and without guns. In their case, it was more safe for the average Brit when they were allowed to own handguns.

Read my post again. If England was a newly establish country, it could establish gun-control because its system would be made to back up the controls. It isn't an issue of culture. It works in some nations, it just wouldn't work here because it wasn't established that way.

Stop being so dang extremist. Go back to P&N.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DaShen
Depends on the control really and how it is implemented. An old established society may have problems with gun control, but Singapore did it very well. They justestablished that from the get-go.

It's useless to compare two different cultures when comparing something like crime, unless you're prepared to compare everything else simultaneously. What is the judicial system like? What is the punishment for various offenses? What percentage of GDP is spent on law enforcement?

In England we have the ability to view the same culture both with and without guns. In their case, it was more safe for the average Brit when they were allowed to own handguns.

Read my post again. If England was a newly establish country, it could establish gun-control because its system would be made to back up the controls. It isn't an issue of culture. It works in some nations, it just wouldn't work here because it wasn't established that way.

Stop being so dang extremist. Go back to P&N.

Extremist?

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: DaWhim
awesome.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DaShen
Depends on the control really and how it is implemented. An old established society may have problems with gun control, but Singapore did it very well. They justestablished that from the get-go.

It's useless to compare two different cultures when comparing something like crime, unless you're prepared to compare everything else simultaneously. What is the judicial system like? What is the punishment for various offenses? What percentage of GDP is spent on law enforcement?

In England we have the ability to view the same culture both with and without guns. In their case, it was more safe for the average Brit when they were allowed to own handguns.

Read my post again. If England was a newly establish country, it could establish gun-control because its system would be made to back up the controls. It isn't an issue of culture. It works in some nations, it just wouldn't work here because it wasn't established that way.

Stop being so dang extremist. Go back to P&N.

Extremist?

He doesn't what to call someone who's logical, other than "extremist". He lost, and knows it. It's the only way he can retaliate.

 

[shortylickens]

Am I the only person here who noticed most of those guys were muzzling each other?
OR....
Am I the only person here who cared?

Oh, and I guess I should state my opinion.

I am not a republican. I am not a conservative. I think christianity is one of the most evil things inflicted on the human race.
BUT, I feel much safer in America with guns than without. Everytime we make more guns illegal, crime goes UP, not down. I dont know why. I dont care why.
I've heard so many debates on the psychology of society and why it should be one way or the other, that I cant even keep track of it all. But I do know that getting rid of them doesnt improve things in America. Maybe that says something really dark about our society. I'm not sure.
And if I really thought giving up my guns would make America safer, I would do it. But it doesnt, so I wont.

The other point I wanted to make was about looting. I really dont care if the folks are having a hard time or not. I care about #1. Anyone that breaks into my house is considered a threat to my well-being, armed or not.
I have sympathy for these people. I have no problem donating to relief efforts, and I probably wouldnt complain if taxes were raised (temporarily) to deal with the situation.
But I will not allow my homeland to crumble simply because of a disaster. Disasters come and go, but society lives on. I'll take action in my own home to keep us (Americans) from becoming barbarians. I expect my neighbors to do the same.

 

[azazyel]

wow a meeting of the penis compensation club! I bet their cars are really fast too!


/backs out of thread slowly

 

[CraigRT]

that is freaking hilarious. seriously.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: azazyel
wow a meeting of the penis compensation club! I bet their cars are really fast too!
/backs out of thread slowly

I have a small penis and a slow car. And only enough guns in the caliber needed to defend myself. I dont read survivialist magazines and I dont wear camoflage.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: azazyel
wow a meeting of the penis compensation club! I bet their cars are really fast too!
/backs out of thread slowly

I have a small penis and a slow car. And only enough guns in the caliber needed to defend myself. I dont read survivialist magazines and I dont wear camoflage.

lol, that sounded like a start to an AA meeting for guns...


"hi my name is shortylickens I have a small penis and a slow car. And only enough guns in the caliber needed to defend myself. I dont read survivialist magazines and I dont wear camoflage"

"hi shortylickens"