Texas murder conviction overturned by Governor Abbott. (This is JUSTICE.)

[User]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't see why.  There wasn't any significant instance of that happening in Ottawa.  In fact, Canadians generally sympathized with the protests while also disagreeing with them.
2. I like that idea but it doesn't happen easily.  You'd have to address the concerns of many subgroups.

You are in a thread talking about the why you now can't see...

There are always concerns, that alone doesn't justify breaking the law to impact others... AND my point continues to be, if that if you are going to support breaking the law to impact others, don't be surprised when those others respond. 

Don't act appalled that someone acted in self-defense when they are surrounded and blocked in by protestors, with one of them threatening them while armed. 

[Aristides]

36 minutes ago, User said:

A big truck driving through a crowded area makes killing much easier and cleaner. You can ride safely inside in the air conditioning and never get any blood on you either. 

I am aware of the stupid lawsuit by Mexico. It is absurd. Its the same dumb arguments liberals try to push here to go after gun companies because we have the 2nd Amendment and they can't beat that. 

 

You have to have a license to drive a truck. The truck also has to be licensed. Almost 50% more people are killed by firearms in the US than all motor vehicles combined. Which is the greater threat?

Your 2nd Amendment isn't worth shit anywhere but your own country and it doesn't give your gun companies the right to dump guns in someone else's country. Get over yourself.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, User said:

1. You are in a thread talking about the why you now can't see...

2. There are always concerns, that alone doesn't justify breaking the law to impact others... AND my point continues to be, if that if you are going to support breaking the law to impact others, don't be surprised when those others respond. 

3. Don't act appalled that someone acted in self-defense when they are surrounded and blocked in by protestors, with one of them threatening them while armed. 

1. I don't see it as being something we should accept or see as inevitable.  It's a low bar, to say violence would happen if someone's way is blocked.  If that's what you are saying.

2. I can accept some responses, not others.

3. It doesn't seem like a principle that can be applied in any society that allows protest.  Do you believe trespassers should be subject to violence by police?  People breaking windows?  I don't.

[User]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

You have to have a license to drive a truck. The truck also has to be licensed. Almost 50% more people are killed by firearms in the US than all motor vehicles combined. Which is the greater threat?

Your 2nd Amendment isn't worth shit anywhere but your own country and it doesn't give your gun companies the right to dump guns in someone else's country. Get over yourself.

You have to have a license to drive a truck... on a public road. 

You can drive a truck all you want on your own property without a license. 

The truck has to be registered... to drive on a public road, or for property tax purposes, but again, you can have one on your own property all you want. 

Greater threat? If you are the person getting run down by a Ryder truck, that is the greater threat. The fact that 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides is no "threat" to me. I have a much higher risk of being killed by some dumb or drunk driver than I do by someone with a gun. I am not in a gang, not engaged in criminal activity, not suicidal, nor under any domestic violence... 

The point I was responding to was your snarky comment about killing people easily and not getting any blood on you. 

Our gun companies are not dumping guns in other countries. Criminals are transporting them there and Mexico is free to control their borders to stop them. 
 

Edited May 23, 2024 by User

[User]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't see it as being something we should accept or see as inevitable.  It's a low bar, to say violence would happen if someone's way is blocked.  If that's what you are saying.

2. I can accept some responses, not others.

3. It doesn't seem like a principle that can be applied in any society that allows protest.  Do you believe trespassers should be subject to violence by police?  People breaking windows?  I don't.

1. If you are going to "accept" the lawlessness in protesting that impacts other's travel, then be prepared for the consequences when people tire of the law not being enforced and take matters into their own hands. 

2. Well, what you are willing to "accept" or not here is meaningless, as others will not be willing to "accept" people blocking their paths and law enforcement doing nothing. 

3. Violence is a tool used by police to enforce the law on those who resist. Yes, if a trespasser refuses to leave and refuses lawful commands to leave, I 100% support "violence" in the escalation of force needed to remove them. I have a feeling if someone breaks the windows into your home, then comes inside and stands in the doorway to your kitchen or bathroom or bedroom and refuses to move, you are going to call the police and expect them to enforce some laws. If not, feel free to post your home address here... 

 

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, User said:

1. If you are going to "accept" the lawlessness in protesting that impacts other's travel, then be prepared for the consequences when people tire of the law not being enforced and take matters into their own hands. 

2. Well, what you are willing to "accept" or not here is meaningless, as others will not be willing to "accept" people blocking their paths and law enforcement doing nothing.  
 

1. I trust that our security employees should be able to manage that.
2. The irony is that you are accepting people breaking the law to commit violence against perceived lawbreakers.  So... I guess you like vigilantism ?  I don't know, just seems that way.

Does it feel to you like we don't have anything to discuss here ?  Feels like that to me.  I guess I'm finding out how you feel about things, but beyond that...

[Aristides]

53 minutes ago, User said:

You have to have a license to drive a truck... on a public road. 

You can drive a truck all you want on your own property without a license. 

The truck has to be registered... to drive on a public road, or for property tax purposes, but again, you can have one on your own property all you want. 

Greater threat? If you are the person getting run down by a Ryder truck, that is the greater threat. The fact that 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides is no "threat" to me. I have a much higher risk of being killed by some dumb or drunk driver than I do by someone with a gun. I am not in a gang, not engaged in criminal activity, not suicidal, nor under any domestic violence... 

The point I was responding to was your snarky comment about killing people easily and not getting any blood on you. 

Our gun companies are not dumping guns in other countries. Criminals are transporting them there and Mexico is free to control their borders to stop them. 
 

Firearms homicide rates have nothing to do with suicides. Yours is at least 5 times that of most European countries and 3 times Canada.

Killing people with a gun is easy and remote. 

Who is selling those guns to criminals? What is the difference between your gun manufacturers and dealers and drug dealers?

Edited May 23, 2024 by Aristides

[User]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I trust that our security employees should be able to manage that.
2. The irony is that you are accepting people breaking the law to commit violence against perceived lawbreakers.  So... I guess you like vigilantism ?  I don't know, just seems that way.

Does it feel to you like we don't have anything to discuss here ?  Feels like that to me.  I guess I'm finding out how you feel about things, but beyond that...

1. We have come full circle now... if you trust your security employees now, then you have changed your position on just letting people "protest"

2. There is no irony. If you want lawlessness, then you will get it. 

Oh, no response on what you would do if someone broke your windows and sat in your home blocking you? Figures. 

What is funny is that in the same post you ask me about vigilantism, you also act like there is nothing more to discuss. It seems this is your go-to schtick when your ideas are challenged to the point you can no longer justify/defend them. 

I do not support vigilantism in the true meaning of the word. Vigilantism has at its heart that you have set out to enforce your version of "justice" on people doing wrong. If you are just trying to get your wife to the Hospital and some dumb "protestor" is in your way, moving them out of your way is not vigilantism. 

[User]

33 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Firearms homicide rates have nothing to do with suicides. Yours is at least 5 times that of most European countries and 3 times Canada.

Killing people with a gun is easy and remote. 

Who is selling those guns to criminals? What is the difference between your gun manufacturers and dealers and drug dealers?

You claimed that 50% more people are killed by firearms than by vehicles. To get that number you are including all firearm deaths, not just homicides. 

That is why I responded about suicides. If you are only looking at firearm intentional homicide rates, then driving a car is more dangerous as I pointed out, especially if you factor in the other factors around firearm deaths. 

Killing people with a truck is easy. Killing people a hundred different ways is easy. 

Guns are a lawful product that are used for lawful purposes. The fact that criminals obtain them illegally or even lawfully and then illegally take them to Mexico is not the fault of gun manufacturers. Unless it is also the fault of spoon makers that people are fat... 

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, User said:

You claimed that 50% more people are killed by firearms than by vehicles. To get that number you are including all firearm deaths, not just homicides. 

That is why I responded about suicides. If you are only looking at firearm intentional homicide rates, then driving a car is more dangerous as I pointed out, especially if you factor in the other factors around firearm deaths. 

Killing people with a truck is easy. Killing people a hundred different ways is easy. 

Guns are a lawful product that are used for lawful purposes. The fact that criminals obtain them illegally or even lawfully and then illegally take them to Mexico is not the fault of gun manufacturers. Unless it is also the fault of spoon makers that people are fat... 

The vast majority of vehicle deaths are accidental, not homicide or suicide. 

Killing people is quite easy if you are given the right tool. Otherwise, not so much

Guns are not lawful in Mexico. I guess if Mexico made drug manufacturing and sales legal, that would make it OK to sell them to criminals who are smuggling them into the US. Fair is fair.

They obtain them illegally from Americans. 

[User]

Just now, Aristides said:

The vast majority of vehicle deaths are accidental, not homicide or suicide. 

Killing people is quite easy if you are given the right tool. Otherwise, not so much

Guns are not lawful in Mexico. I guess if Mexico made drug manufacturing and sales legal, that would make it OK to sell them to criminals who are smuggling them into the US. Fair is fair.

They obtain them illegally from Americans. 

Accidents in vehicles are a greater threat to people dying... when you are comparing firearm deaths to vehicle deaths as you were trying to do. 

No, if drugs were lawful in Mexico, then they would be lawful in Mexico. That doesn't make it "OK" to smuggle them into the US, but it is the smugglers who are in the wrong for doing wrong, not the drug companies for producing a legal product that is used lawfully. 

 

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, User said:

Accidents in vehicles are a greater threat to people dying... when you are comparing firearm deaths to vehicle deaths as you were trying to do. 

No, if drugs were lawful in Mexico, then they would be lawful in Mexico. That doesn't make it "OK" to smuggle them into the US, but it is the smugglers who are in the wrong for doing wrong, not the drug companies for producing a legal product that is used lawfully. 

 

 

You don't need a gun to drive to work or anything else constructive.

Just using your logic when it comes to guns being sold and smuggled into Mexico.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You don't need a gun to drive to work or anything else constructive.

Just using your logic when it comes to guns being sold and smuggled into Mexico.

Constructive? Self-defense is about as constructive as it gets. 

That was not my logic anyhow. I clearly stated a lawful product being used lawfully as the base of my argument. Guns are a lawful product used lawfully by almost half of all households in this country. 

The fact that bad people, do bad things, and illegally take those guns across the border is on them, not the gun manufacturers. 

[Aristides]

23 minutes ago, User said:

Constructive? Self-defense is about as constructive as it gets. 

That was not my logic anyhow. I clearly stated a lawful product being used lawfully as the base of my argument. Guns are a lawful product used lawfully by almost half of all households in this country. 

The fact that bad people, do bad things, and illegally take those guns across the border is on them, not the gun manufacturers. 

Why do you need guns for self defence, only because everyone has them?

it was your logic. Because it is legal to sell guns to anyone in the US, you bear no responsibility for those smuggled into other countries. If drugs were made legal in other countries, they should bear no responsibility for those smuggled into the US.

Same goes for the drugs coming the other way to pay for those guns.

Edited May 23, 2024 by Aristides

[reason10]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is an example of the normalization of political violence, ie changing social attitudes diminishing the seriousness of it.

Excuse me, but these animals

started that normalization of political violence and LIBERALS like you sat on your fat asses and said NOTHING.

[reason10]

21 hours ago, Aristides said:

An allegedly civilized country awash with guns and people shooting each other. What a f*cking disgrace. 

As opposed to Gaza? Iran?

A Texan military veteran DEFENDED HIS LIFE LEGALLY with deadly force. In civilized countries, citizens have a RIGHT to defend themselves.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, User said:

1. We have come full circle now... if you trust your security employees now, then you have changed your position on just letting people "protest"

2. There is no irony. If you want lawlessness, then you will get it. 

Oh, no response on what you would do if someone broke your windows and sat in your home blocking you? Figures. 

What is funny is that in the same post you ask me about vigilantism, you also act like there is nothing more to discuss. It seems this is your go-to schtick when your ideas are challenged to the point you can no longer justify/defend them. 

I do not support vigilantism in the true meaning of the word. Vigilantism has at its heart that you have set out to enforce your version of "justice" on people doing wrong. If you are just trying to get your wife to the Hospital and some dumb "protestor" is in your way, moving them out of your way is not vigilantism. 

1. ? No.  The Ottawa cops stood by for a long time.  They're not going to just crack down every time.

2. I just don't think there's anything else to discuss.  We have different opinions of the law is all.  I can't really tell what yours is exactly.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

As opposed to Gaza? Iran?

A Texan military veteran DEFENDED HIS LIFE LEGALLY with deadly force. In civilized countries, citizens have a RIGHT to defend themselves.

US equals Gaza? You aspire to be Gaza?

[User]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Why do you need guns for self defence, only because everyone has them?

it was your logic. Because it is legal to sell guns to anyone in the US, you bear no responsibility for those smuggled into other countries. If drugs were made legal in other countries, they should bear no responsibility for those smuggled into the US.

Same goes for the drugs coming the other way to pay for those guns.

No, as we have already established, violence, violent crime, and murder all still exist with or without guns. 

 

[Aristides]

Just now, User said:

No, as we have already established, violence, violent crime, and murder all still exist with or without guns. 

 

So let's make it more lethal by making sure everyone is armed.

[User]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

So let's make it more lethal by making sure everyone is armed.

No, people intent on killing others still do so. 

[Aristides]

Just now, User said:

No, people intent on killing others still do so. 

Your homicide rate compared to other developed countries proves it. Why can't you be honest and admit you think the body count is worth it. 

[User]

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

Your homicide rate compared to other developed countries proves it. Why can't you be honest and admit you think the body count is worth it. 

Violent crime across the board is higher here, guns or no guns. 

 

[Aristides]

7 hours ago, User said:

Violent crime across the board is higher here, guns or no guns. 

 

Maybe because there are so many guns.

[User]

11 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Maybe because there are so many guns.

Again, these are violent crimes across the board, and many happen without guns.