• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Felony murder: why a teenager who didn't kill anyone faces 55 years in jail

Birc0014 said:
anyways...back in reality....

I think the fact a kid with no criminal record facing life in jail for being shot and witnessing his young friend dying as a result of an overzealous homeowner is pretty fucking sad. I dont really know who or how a law that allows for something like this is in anyones interest, certainly not the public, and definetely not the tax payer
Click to expand...

can't shoot down my post back there?
come on... we were in a debate?
 
Trying2Iso said:
The biggest problem with school shootings is when they happen there is nobody there to put up a fight against the shooter. Armed teachers would change that.
Click to expand...


I would say the biggest problem with School shootings is the fact that children are managing to get their hands on deadly weapons in the first place, more restrictive gun laws would change that. People can argue that criminals can buy guns illegally until they are blue in the face, and to a certain extent they are correct, but it does make things both considerably more difficult and expensive for the would be gun buyer.

When I was in High School I was constantly in trouble, I often hung out with some pretty bad people and some might even say I was one for a time, I was into drugs and had frequent contact with older criminals who sold drugs. Despite all that, I never had access to any illegal firearms because where I live they are heavily restricted. Since leaving School I have heard of some black market firearms going around here and there, because of their illegal status they are quite expensive and at the prices I have heard there is no way I could have afforded one as a teenager, even if they were available to me.
 
drug_mentor said:
I would say the biggest problem with School shootings is the fact that children are managing to get their hands on deadly weapons, people can argue that criminals can buy guns illegally til they are blue in the face and to a certain extent they are correct, but it does make things both considerably more difficult and expensive.

When I was in High School I was constantly in trouble, I often hung out with some pretty bad people and some might even say I was one for a time, I was into drugs and had frequent contact with older criminals who sold drugs. Despite all that, I never had access to any illegal firearms because where I live they are heavily restricted. Since leaving School I have heard of some black market fire arms here and there, because of their illegal status they are quite expensive and at the prices I have heard there is no way I could have afforded one as a teenager, even if they were available to me.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)
note many of these aren't with guns. People can still kill without guns, you know.
 
Trying2Iso said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)
note many of these aren't with guns. People can still kill without guns, you know.
Click to expand...

They can't generally kill anywhere near as efficiently without a gun as they could with one though, which I assume would be the reason School shooters in the US with free access to guns tend to go in shooting instead of stabbing. It is impossible to argue that restrictive gun laws would stop every School massacre but very easy to argue that any would be mass killer is going to have a much harder time finding success using melee weapons when compared to firearms.

You are the same person arguing that methods other than firearms are inadequate for home defense, it seems a bit ridiculous for you to also argue they do not make mass killers more effective...
 
drug_mentor said:
You are the same person arguing that methods other than firearms are inadequate for home defense, it seems a bit ridiculous for you to also argue they do not make mass killers more effective...
Click to expand...

Because mass killings are typically done by males attacking unarmed people in public places. Most of the victims of those Chinese school stabbings were children.
A women defending herself against a male intruder would need more than a knife, however.
 
I don't give a fuck if you have the size and strength of a silverback gorilla and are in a place as crowded as Mardi Gras, you are still going to kill more people with a gun than a knife before you are stopped. This is a fact that mass killers in America don't seem to have trouble grasping, since they all tend to use guns.

Also, having free access to guns doesn't stop an attacker using guns AND knives and whatever else. Restricting access to guns does ensure that the would be killer does not have access to the most deadly option in most cases and is forced to make do with a less efficient weapon. This not only means they will probably kill less people, but would likely serve as a deterrent to those considering such an offence.

I don't believe there have been any mass killings in Australia since the Howard Government introduced stricter gun laws, as you pointed out yourself in this very thread, prior to that there were a number of mass killings here that involved the use of firearms.
 
drug_mentor said:
Restricting access to guns does ensure that the would be killer does not have access to the most deadly option in most cases and is forced to make do with a less efficient weapon.
Click to expand...

Like Charlie Hebdo shooting?
Full-auto AKs and a rocket launcher?
In France, of all places. Shouldn't French Gun laws have stopped those weapons from being in the country in the first place?
 
Whats the point you are clearly arguing with someone that has no intention of seeing any point of view other than their own. There isn't a debate here just the ramblings of a deluded ass, who has failed to demonstrate any sense or continuity in their 'argument'.
 
Trying2Iso said:
Like Charlie Hebdo shooting?
Full-auto AKs and a rocket launcher?
In France, of all places. Shouldn't French Gun laws have stopped those weapons from being in the country in the first place?
Click to expand...

Show me where I said that restrictive gun laws stop EVERYBODY from obtaining firearms.

Restricting firearms does result in fewer criminals with guns, you don't need to dig very far to see that, the amount of gun deaths in the UK or Australia per capita compared to the US are next to nothing.

It is ridiculous to say that because gun laws don't stop everybody getting guns ever that we should hand them out like toys instead.
 
drug_mentor said:
Restricting firearms does result in fewer criminals with guns.
Click to expand...

And fewer women with guns to protect themselves though. Pepperspray is insufficient, read the link i posted earlier in this thread.
Guns stop sexual predators in their tracks.
If anyone should be allowed to have them, women should. A restraining order is just a piece of paper.
 
Trying2Iso said:
Guns stop sexual predators in their tracks.
Click to expand...


Shouldn't there be considerably more assaults on women in Countries with restrictive gun laws than in America then? According to wikipedia, rapes in Australia and the US per capita in 2010 were exactly equal (28.6 per 100,000) and the United Kingdom which also has restrictive gun laws had fewer at 24.1. If it was as simple as giving women guns to ward off their attackers why are there not fewer rapes in the US compared to places women cannot access guns for self defense?

If a man is intent on committing pre meditated rape against a woman that he has the ability to overpower then it isn't going to matter if the woman is armed or not 95% of the time. If you come up behind someone and grab or strike them and have considerably more physical strength than them the odds are not in favour of them being able to draw their weapon, turn the safety off and fire a shot into their attacker to prevent their assault.
 
drug_mentor said:
If a man is intent on committing pre meditated rape against a woman that he has the ability to overpower then it isn't going to matter if the woman is armed or not 95% of the time. If you come up behind someone and grab or strike them and have considerably more physical strength than them the odds are not in favour of them being able to draw their weapon, turn the safety off and fire a shot into their attacker to prevent their assault.
Click to expand...

So just let women get raped without them even having a chance? What about the case of home invasion, a man kicking in the front door of a single woman who lives alone.
 
^ Why don't you address the rest of my post mate? You were on NSA's case earlier in the thread for not addressing every single thing you had to say, seems pretty damn convenient you elected to skip over the half of my last post that proved your assertion to be blatantly false.

Why are less women raped in the UK where guns aren't allowed than in the US where they are?

Why is there no difference between the number of rapes in Australia and the US when guns are restricted in Australia?

Why is it that South Africa, a country that allows its citizens relatively free access to guns for the purpose of self defense and does not even require an additional licence to carry said guns in public, is the rape capital of the world with 114.9 rapes per 100,000 people?

Trying2Iso said:
Guns stop sexual predators in their tracks.
Click to expand...

Regardless of your opinion, the statistics I have just provided prove this statement to be both ridiculously simplistic and totally wrong.

One thing you obviously aren't accounting for is that a legal situation that allows free access to guns so would be rape victims can get guns also allows would be rapists to buy guns as well.
 
Are you not aware of the fact that more often than not an individual who attempts to protect themselves with a firearm is more likely to themselves to be the victim of a gun crime or accident? A firearm is not an effective or useful deterent to a rapist or attacker. If they dont know you have a gun how does it help? If they do know you have a gun and are still intent on doing you harm why do you believe they would risk an attack that would allow you to effectively use it??

"Hi Im going to rape you but first please by all means get your gun out and switch off the safety take a shooting stance and I'll give you one freebie"
 
Birc0014 said:
Are you not aware of the fact that more often than not an individual who attempts to protect themselves with a firearm is more likely to themselves to be the victim of a gun crime or accident?
Click to expand...

You're gonna have to cite that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top