Zimmerman Trial

[BeecherVol]

So Jimmy McShooty breaks into my house with a gun. I'm a law-abiding guy, so I'm not armed. I have access to all kinds of things, but not a firearm. I've called 911, but the police are never going to get there in time.

I think we can agree that my chances of survival are pretty slim. So how does your dream ban handle my issue?

Skip the police and the ambulance.

Dream over?

 

[hndog609]

But, hey, what about the stuff you just mentioned? The "all kinds of things" to which you have access? Do you have a TASER? A baseball bat? A knife? A blowdart? Those are all things with which you can protect yourself. And, again, we don't know if he's even there to kill you. The criminal might be there to steal things, in which case your chances for survival are pretty high.

:lolabove:
Oh yeah, we're trolling now. So it's established that the bad guy has a gun but you're actually advocating the positive aspects of the would-be victim having a knife, bat or a blowdart?

Yeah...I think we've pretty much cleared up any troll ambiguity here. You just jumped the shark but at least you kept it entertaining.

 

[notabed22]

If this is the best argument you have then it should be apparent you have no actual argument at all. (and that's not even counting that a firearm could be very effective against someone with a rocket launcher)

Again, some of your points are so unwieldy it's nigh impossible to take you as anything but a troll.

My best argument is that you don't need a firearm to defend yourself. Referencing a rocket launcher just comes as a response to you claiming that you need firearms to avoid a disadvantage.

You have said that you think very few people would turn in their guns under your fantasy ban. So what is the point other than to manufacture criminals?

I never said that I think very few people would turn in their firearms; I stated that I don't reasonably expect criminals to give up their weapons en masse. The point is to reduce the number of guns/the number of people owning firearms.

 

[notabed22]

:lolabove:
Oh yeah, we're trolling now. So it's established that the bad guy has a gun but you're actually advocating the positive aspects of the would-be victim having a knife, bat or a blowdart?

Yeah...I think we've pretty much cleared up any troll ambiguity here. You just jumped the shark but at least you kept it entertaining.

I can see how a knife would be somewhat difficult to use as a defense tool, but it's possible. A blow dart seems like a fantastic self defense option to me. I was going to list arrows but that just seems a little too similar to a firearm so I left it off but I guess you could use that too.

I'm just trying to give you alternatives to guns on the incredibly rare chance you need to protect your home from invasion and haven't adequately fortified your perimeter.

 

[bamawriter]

Eh, I'm not sure I can agree there. If a guy with a gun breaks into your house with the intent to kill you and you don't have any good way with which to defend yourself then, yea, you're less likely to survive.

But, hey, what about the stuff you just mentioned? The "all kinds of things" to which you have access? Do you have a TASER? A baseball bat? A knife? A blowdart? Those are all things with which you can protect yourself. And, again, we don't know if he's even there to kill you. The criminal might be there to steal things, in which case your chances for survival are pretty high.

Sorry, I keep forgetting how specific you insist upon being. He's there to kill me. I have a bat, knives, wine bottles, stuff you'd expect to find in a regular guy's home.

 

[hog88]

My best argument is that you don't need a firearm to defend yourself. Referencing a rocket launcher just comes as a response to you claiming that you need firearms to avoid a disadvantage.



I never said that I think very few people would turn in their firearms; I stated that I don't reasonably expect criminals to give up their weapons en masse. The point is to reduce the number of guns/the number of people owning firearms.

You do realize the vast majority of firearms are owned by law abiding citizens and will NEVER be used on purpose or by accident to hurt another person, don't you?

 

[Carl Pickens]

Pollyanna Poindexter be trollin'

 

[OrangeBlood4life]

Basically, everyone, just hope and pray that the man holding the gun on your family while raping your wife and daughter , doesn't decide to actually shoot you. At least you're still alive :crazy:

 

[BeecherVol]

I'm just trying to give you alternatives to guns on the incredibly rare chance you need to protect your home from invasion and haven't adequately fortified your perimeter.

Bold makes sense to me. Ain't broke......

 

[SamRebel35]

I never said that I think very few people would turn in their firearms; I stated that I don't reasonably expect criminals to give up their weapons en masse. The point is to reduce the number of guns/the number of people owning firearms.

Fewer people having guns is not a logical purpose to ban guns in and of itself. Is there some underlying reason for you to prefer a disarmed citizenry? You have freely admitted that criminals will not give up their guns. So the reason can't possibly be to increase safety. What is the reason?

 

[BeecherVol]

Sorry, I keep forgetting how specific you insist upon being. He's there to kill me. I have a bat, knives, wine bottles, stuff you'd expect to find in a regular guy's home.

Offer him a drink. Offer him some more. Batting practice ensues?

 

[hndog609]

I can see how a knife would be somewhat difficult to use as a defense tool, but it's possible. A blow dart seems like a fantastic self defense option to me. I was going to list arrows but that just seems a little too similar to a firearm so I left it off but I guess you could use that too.

I'm just trying to give you alternatives to guns on the incredibly rare chance you need to protect your home from invasion and haven't adequately fortified your perimeter.

I could write a serious take on all the tactical disadvantages to any of the above but I just can't justify the time since I can't take you seriously on the topic any longer. Sorry, it just isn't possible.

Just to make it worth the post it IS worth mentioning that making one's home safer is a good idea regardless of what weapons one does/does not own. Oh, and for God's sake don't open the freaking door to a strange knock in the middle of the night.

 

[SamRebel35]

I can see how a knife would be somewhat difficult to use as a defense tool, but it's possible. A blow dart seems like a fantastic self defense option to me. I was going to list arrows but that just seems a little too similar to a firearm so I left it off but I guess you could use that too.

I'm just trying to give you alternatives to guns on the incredibly rare chance you need to protect your home from invasion and haven't adequately fortified your perimeter.

What if somebody fashioned a throwing star machine. Said machine could kill just as many people with as much ease as a fully auto assault rifle. Is this banned? Not an explosion powered projectile, so it isn't a fire arm. Do you object to this instrument of death and destruction?

 

[Carl Pickens]

Notabed why are you so terrified of guns?

 

[notabed22]

Sorry, I keep forgetting how specific you insist upon being. He's there to kill me. I have a bat, knives, wine bottles, stuff you'd expect to find in a regular guy's home.

Ok, then yea. If a guy is breaking into your house to kill you and you're defending yourself with wine bottles, you're probably screwed. Out of curiosity, why is a guy breaking into your home with the intent to kill you?

You do realize the vast majority of firearms are owned by law abiding citizens and will NEVER be used on purpose or by accident to hurt another person, don't you?

I realize that. Not good enough for me.

Fewer people having guns is not logical purpose to ban guns in and of itself. Is there some underlying reason for you to prefer a disarmed citizenry? You have freely admitted that criminals will not give up their guns. So the reason can't possibly be to increase safety. What is the reason?

It's a roundabout way to eventually increase safety.

Just to make it worth the post it IS worth mentioning that making one's home safer is a good idea regardless of what weapons one does/does not own. Oh, and for God's sake don't open the freaking door to a strange knock in the middle of the night.

Definitely. There are a lot of ways to avoid the intruder even entering your home.

What if somebody fashioned a throwing star machine. Said machine could kill just as many people with as much ease as a fully auto assault rifle. Is this banned? Not an explosion powered projectile, so it isn't a fire arm. Do you object to this instrument of death and destruction?

Yes, it is banned.

 

[bamawriter]

Ok, then yea. If a guy is breaking into your house to kill you and you're defending yourself with wine bottles, you're probably screwed. Out of curiosity, why is a guy breaking into your home with the intent to kill you?

Because he's clinically insane and picked my house at random.

Can you tell me how your ban helps my situation?

 

[OrangeBlood4life]

Wow notabed must be the most sheltered person in the world, with that comment"why is someone breaking in with the intent to kill you?"

 

[govols/cc]

Part of the reason I love VolNation is that there's no shortage of inbred yokels with whom I can discuss their ass-backwards view of politics.

The definition of "chase," directly from Merriam-Webster:



So, yes, Zimmerman chased him.

Next.

Did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon Martin?

Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmm, sure seems like it!

Did Trayvon Martin die?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/us/jurors-hear-zimmermans-taped-police-interview.html?_r=0

Maybe I'm misunderstanding of the word "fatal" here.

Your stance on home defense has been more than enough to realize your level of retardation.

 

[notabed22]

Because he's clinically insane and picked my house at random.

Can you tell me how your ban helps my situation?

Yea, dude, you're ****ed. Sorry. Bad luck.

Wow notabed must be the most sheltered person in the world, with that comment"why is someone breaking in with the intent to kill you?"

It's not that ridiculous a question. Bamawriter gave a great answer but, for the most part, people don't just casually break into your home with the intent to kill you.

 

[SamRebel35]

Yes, it is banned.

Ok, so we have established that the purpose of your fantasy ban is to "eventually" increase safety. And we have established that deaths by gun is the standard that shall not be exceeded. Therefore, it is logical to ban anything that causes more death and harm than guns in addition to guns themselves. Would you agree with this statement? Just trying to establish some parameters for your seemingly baseless stance on guns.

 

[notabed22]

Ok, so we have established that the purpose of your fantasy ban is to "eventually" increase safety. And we have established that deaths by gun is the standard that shall not be exceeded. Therefore, it is logical to ban anything that causes more death and harm than guns in addition to guns themselves. Would you agree with this statement? Just trying to establish some parameters for your seemingly baseless stance on guns.

No, I do not agree with that statement. It is not the end goal to ban anything that causes more death and "harm" than guns.

 

[govols/cc]

Yea, dude, you're ****ed. Sorry. Bad luck.



It's not that ridiculous a question. Bamawriter gave a great answer but, for the most part, people don't just casually break into your home with the intent to kill you.

It's not my bad luck & if somebody breaks in my home it's my intent to kill them regardless of there's.

 

[SamRebel35]

No, I do not agree with that statement. It is not the end goal to ban anything that causes more death and "harm" than guns.

Ok, so clearly safety is not the purpose of the ban. We must start over. What is the purpose of the ban?

 

[OrangeBlood4life]

Yea, dude, you're ****ed. Sorry. Bad luck.



It's not that ridiculous a question. Bamawriter gave a great answer but, for the most part, people don't just casually break into your home with the intent to kill you.

No maybe not. But they do break in with the intent of not getting caught or seen to be identified. Now he's busted and doesn't want to be caught. You think he's just gonna say" dang man you caught me, ill just wait here on the couch while you call the cops"

 

[Carl Pickens]

It's not my bad luck & if somebody breaks in my home it's my intent to kill them regardless of there's.

Exactly....they have NO right to be there and I cannot think of a good reason for some stranger wanting to gain entry to my home other than to steal from me or harm my family. As soon as they break in they've surrendered their right to breathe IMO.