afraid?

should the man be killed for killing a woman?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 45.5%

  • No

    Votes: 24 54.5%
  • Total voters
    44
Status
Not open for further replies.
The logic of the poll is seriously flawed!

The poll gives no correct option.
Therefore is cannot be accurately answered.

The sex of the shooter versus the sex of the shootee should have absolutely no bearing on guilt or innocence.

If the shooter was in fear of their life or grevious bodily harm then the shooting is justified.






A real Gentleman would never have the need to shoot a real Lady.
So the question is moot. :neener:
 
The reason antis don't own guns is irrational fear. You should be asking this question on some place like demokratic underground.
 
There is one quote that I would like to say:
"An eye for an eye would leave the world bind"
Click to expand...
Again more flawed logic. :rolleyes:

An eye for an eye finishes it. "Justice" has then been served.
It's akin to both sides of the equation balancing each other.
-1 + -1 = -2

If another eye is taken afterwards, then it becomes revenge and not justice.
 
Loud Dogg,

You're post is really too scattered to make a lot of sense. Your topic says "afraid?" but then your poll and your question are kind of two different things. Is it about guns? Is it about the death penalty? Most of us who carry don't carry for fear or vengeance and it's not about shooting someone who has done you wrong. Personally I was raised around guns and grew up shooting. My uncle has been a law enforcement officer and department shooting instructor all my life and has taught me a lot about shooting and my dad is a safety professional and a shooter so of course his focus with me has been gun safety. This naturally progressed into me carrying a gun. If I have guns and I know them through and through and could use them to protect my wife from being raped or murdered then why not carry a gun? The point of it though is to PROTECT, not to seek vengeance. If someone is threatening the life of myself or my wife then I will do whatever I can to stop that threat. Why shouldn't I? Should one just lay down and be killed or watch someone else be killed? That is the act of a coward. I do not walk around in fear. I just put the gun on and sort of forget about it...not that I forget that it's there but I just don't really think about it. If I ever need it (God forbid) it's there.

An eye for an eye might leave a world blind but if we would all make an effort to stop the hand before it reaches the eye then we'll all be seeing just fine because all the eye pokers will have broken fingers. :p

brad cook
 
I'll try to take this question to the most base level , I am there and I have a gun , the woman is already dead and I know who did it but he is not intent on harming me or anyone else, then yes he should be killed , by a Judge , Jury and ultimately the gas chamber or electric chair. You see by law I would in most jurisdictions not be justified in shooting this man because the immediate threat had passed and no one else was in imminent danger. At that point it is up to the Justice system to kill him.

Now change the circumstance a bit from your question , I am there with a gun and the woman is not dead yet , but the offender is in the process of killing her , then absoloutely I should shoot him to try and preserve the life of the woman and neutralize the threat.

You want clear answers to how law abiding gun toters will act in a given situation then you have to give clear and well thought out scenarios/questions. Ray
 
There is one quote that I would like to say:
"An eye for an eye would leave the world b[l]ind"
Click to expand...

No. The only ones who would be blind are those who did not learn the correct lesson after the loss of their FIRST eye.

We are not in the business of hunting down criminals and bringing them to justice. That is a task for the courts and those who enforce our laws.

Allow me to pose a question to you LoudDogg. Let us say you are in a store, or on the street somewhere and are approached by a person who points a gun at your head and robs you. Then this person decides that you are a possible witness and you must die. How would you view a fellow armed citizen, who witnessed the entire episode and defended YOU by killing the criminal who would have just killed you? Do you see a distinction between those two people? You should.
 
Capital Punishment

I recently used to be a strong proponent of capital punishment. I am no longer in support of it as it stands. I am not against killing the guilty, I am against killing the innocent.

Our prisons occassionally convict wrongfully. It happens. Not often, but it happens. When a mistake is discovered, a wrongfully convicted man may be released to pick up the pieces of his shattered life. Capital Punishment is about revenge and punishment. The State which kills a person may not un-kill him.

I could be in favor of Capital Punishment if that verdict is made after a more strict criteria is examined. Right now we have "reasonable" doubt. I would propably be in support of a death penalty in the case of unquestionable guilt. If there is no other slightly possible answer, then death (revenge) may be warranted.

This is an entirely seperate issue from using firearms to protect yourself. Killing a man who may be guilty does not protect a single life. Using a firearm to defend your life, preserves the innocent. It is noble.
 
The poll indicates a mindset that is difficult to penetrate. It makes certain assumptions that have to be accepted in order to answer it.

Let me start out by saying I have killed men -- I served two tours and a bit more in Viet Nam. I have two Purple Hearts, so I know what it's like to be on the receiving end.

Am I afraid? No, not in any sense you would recognize. I understand and appreciate danger -- from fire, from traffic accidents, from disease, and from criminals. I take precautions to deal with all of these -- but I do not get into my car with fear and trembling, I do not break out into a cold sweat when I light the fireplace.

In dangerous situations, I rely on myself first and foremost. I carry tools and a first aid kit in my car, have a fire extinguisher in the house, and carry a gun. I am confident in my ability to deal with about anything that comes up, because I am ready and properly equipped.

I am NOT confident that some government agent will swoop down and save me in danger. The police, ambulance, or fire department may not get here in time, so I prepare to protect myself.

Quote:
---------------------------------------------
Should someone who kills a lady be killed?
---------------------------------------------

What does that mean? Do you want to know if I would kill someone I saw kill someone else? Or do you ask about the death penalty?

If I saw a murder take place in front of me, I'd act. If I believed my life or that of others was in immediate jeopardy, I'd use appropriate force.

As has been pointed out by several posters, you do not shoot to kill -- you shoot to stop. When the threat is neutralized, you stop shooting.
 
You are confusing justice with self defense. Shooting someone in self defense is not a form of justice. So I'm not sure why you're mixing up issues of carrying firearms with death penalty issues. They are entirely distinct and have nothing to do with each other. Even someone who is against the death penalty may still find themselves in a situation where they must use deadly force.
 
Our prisons occassionally convict wrongfully.
Click to expand...

I will assume that this is just a result of hurried composition. If not, please go take a remedial civics class, immediately!:D
 
Is the reason why people own guns themselves because they are scared?
Click to expand...

yes, but i'm not 'scared' in the sense that you assume me to be.
i'm not jumping at every shadow or bump in the night.
i'm not pulling the trigger on people who ask me for spare change.
i'm not fearful because i'm paranoid.

what i am afraid of is not being able to lawfully defend my life or defend someone elses.
what i am afraid of is becoming a victim to a determined criminal.

that FEAR however, sparked a sense of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in myself (and probably everyone else who posts here that supports the right to self defense).

i have dealt with my fears. if i didnt, i'd hole myself up in my home and never leave the house. instead, i get out of my home, and walk with a sense of heightened awareness. i know there are situations i may find myself in that i may not be able to escape unharmed. i may even be killed. i might not even get the chance to draw my weapon.

but since there are far more defensive uses against violent crime by use of a firearm each year than there are murders, suicides, accidental firearm discharges, i know that i have a greater chance of survival just by having this non-victim-mindset.
 
Yes, an eye for an eye. No if ands or buts about it with me. You inflict suffering unto another, you get the same suffering back. I don't care if it is through karma, the justice system, the wrath of a higher power, or the victim (or victims family). Do unto others as you have done unto you.


Is the reason why people own guns themselves because they are scared?
Click to expand...

Not everyone. I own guns because it is my constitutionally protected god given liberty to. Also Logic dictates that if criminals don't play by the rules and can get a $15 pistol from their local dope dealer.... I should go to my local FFL dealer and level the playing field.
An Armed man is a secure, polite, disciplined man. (or woman).
 
Loud Dogg,

First, seeing how so many good folks here have offered excellent counter arguements/disgussion/opinions on your first thread, why don't you go back there and finish up what you started?

Second, as most have pointed out, your poll is flawed.

Third. The "fear" thing. Well, you admit to being 15 years old. I would like to assume that you are basically a good young man even though your current opinion on gun ownership is probably 180 degrees out of phase with most on this board. For argument's sake I'll figure you to be good.

The one problem with most "good" people is this that they can't fathom how bad "bad" people can really be.

Take my wife for example. For years I tried to get her to carry a revolver for protection on her way to work. She would have none of it no matter how much I tried. She disliked guns from the the get-go. She worked for years as an emergency room nurse. One morning she came home scared/crying and all she said was "Get me a pistol, show me how to shoot it and I'll get a permit to carry it." That night she treated what was left of a family that had been home invaded. Particularly ghastly scene. I will spare details, but this family's children saw rape, sodomy and murder of one of the parents. My wife vowed to never let that happen if she can help it.

There are "boogeymen". Problem is they look just like us. Nice to know that you have something that they don't like.
 
What about if a woman murders a man, should she be executed?

I'd love to live in a place where people are always nice to one another, but sadly we're in the real world here. Things happen, people get murdered, people get executed. As BluesBear said, and I quote, the sex of the shooter versus the sex of the shootee should have absolutely no bearing on guilt or innocence.
 
DigitalWarrior

I recently used to be a strong proponent of capital punishment. I am no longer in support of it as it stands. I am not against killing the guilty, I am against killing the innocent.

Our prisons occassionally convict wrongfully. It happens. Not often, but it happens. When a mistake is discovered, a wrongfully convicted man may be released to pick up the pieces of his shattered life. Capital Punishment is about revenge and punishment. The State which kills a person may not un-kill him.
Click to expand...
The anti-death penalty crowd cannot cite a single instance of an innocent person being put to death in the United States. Neither can you. It seems that you have fallen for the anti-death penalty agendists' propaganda.

Cases can be cited in other countries such as 49 Rillington Place, in Britain, wherein the widow of a murdered woman confessed to her murder and was hanged. It was not until the real murderer was apprehended that he was absolved and his body exhumed and interred in hallowed ground.

You know, that used to be part of the punishment. The judges used to say "You will be removed to a place of execution where you will be <enter descriptive phraseology on specific execution style> until you are dead; your body will then to be taken and buried in unhallowed ground. May God have mercy on your soul." Nowadays, the family recovers the body and has it buried wherever they please.

There have been many instances of lynchings of innocents in America. The Ox Bow Incident comes readily to mind. But the anti-death penalty agendists cannot cite a single instance of the state doing any such thing.

As for the justice/vengence argument over the death penalty? It is for vengence. It is done in the guise of justice but justice requires more than the simple removal of the perp from the sphere of influence.

Thodse who are convicted of non-capital crimes have a chance to respond to their crimes. They are made to work foir the benefit of society during their incarceration. Death penalty inmates do nothing while in captivity but wait.

Lesser criminals can get out and reoffend. Not so with capital offenders. If they are predisposed to committing the ultimate crime, they should be removed forever by the surest means possible to assure they never have an opportunity again.

So in the context of the death penalty it is vengence that is sought, not justice; and I am very much okay with that.
 
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------
The anti-death penalty crowd cannot cite a single instance of an innocent person being put to death in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------

Death penalty cases (for better or for worse) are the BEST justice we have. People facing the death penalty have all sorts of special protection (such as automatic appeals, etc.)

If innocent people are being convicted in death penalty cases, how many MORE are being convicted in lesser cases?

Who says we are executing innocent people is saying, willie-nillie, that the Emperor has no clothes -- our entire justice system has failed.

And if he believes THAT, the moral imperative is not just to end the death penalty and walk off feeling good -- it is to revamp the ENTIRE justice system from top to bottom.

How many death penalty opponents do you see working on that?

When they start pushing for a complete overhaul of the justice system, THEN I'll believe they're sincere.
 
Loud Dogg, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why some of us choose to carry a gun.

I voted "no", if a man kills a lady, he should not necessarily be killed. He should be tried, and sentence passed. If the sentence is death, that is the law. If the sentence is life in prison, that's fine. (If he is released again in 5 years, and kills again, that is NOT fine.)

The gun should not be used to kill the man who killed the woman, after the fact.

The gun should be used BY THE WOMAN to prevent the man from killing her in the first place.

90% of the time, when a criminal finds out the victim is armed, the attack ceases immediately. 90% of the time, when a victim draws a gun on a criminal, the gun is not fired. The criminal is smart enough to stop and leave. My opinion is, only in those cases where the criminal is not rational--maybe because of drugs or heavy alcohol intoxication or blind rage--will the criminal continue the attack on an armed victim.

So the gun exists to STOP THE ATTACK. Most of the time, it works as a deterrent. A few times, the victim must shoot the attacker to stop the attack. That is a terrible thing, but the right of self defense is the most basic of human rights.
 
I can't cast a vote because I don't understand the poll. If you are not a troll, and I am not saying you are, you need to get back on here and explain yourself. You are obviously trying to make some sort of point to someone but I am not sure who. Also, according to your profile you are 15 years old. If that is true you should be very proud of yourself for finding this forum and asking these questions. I'm serious. I hope you find reasonable answers. Please, come back and explain your poll. As far as your fear question, I never live in fear for myself. However, I am very concerned about the well being of my wife, friends, and family.

John
 
I heard this claim that people who own guns think quickly in giving justice to someone. ) Imp not taking sides. But I am trying to figure out how both sides win and loose at the same time.

I understand it as this: if stricter rules and licenses where made then both sides would be more satisfied.
 
I understand it as this: if stricter rules and licenses where made then both sides would be more satisfied
Click to expand...
Not entirely true. There are several problems with licensing.
First, it does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. By definition, criminals do not follow the rules and willfully break the ones that take away an advantage. As a sidenote, if you examine the ever popular car example, there are many (very many) unlicensed drivers out there.
Second, many rules are arbitrary. Whereas driver's licensing tests ability to drive and recognize signs, gun licensing tends to measure hours in a classroom. I personally have spent more time researching safety and usage than any class will add up to. Does anybody really need more than good safety skills, mental balance, and lack of criminal intent to own a gun? If so, what?
Licensing will certainly not measure my ability to restrain my temper or future criminal behavior.
Third, it is actually a fairly simple matter to build a limited use gun. You actually cannot ban the technology. Anybody who wants to put in the effort can do this.
Fourth: Such licensing can (and has) been used to keep guns out of the hands of arbitrary groups. So, for instance, before Krystalnacht Nazi's would want to remove guns from the hands of Jews, Gypsies, and Gays et. al.
At the very least, it keeps guns out of the hands of people who probably need it the most - those honest people who live in poor neighborhoods. Those areas have the most violent crime, yet the honest residents there have the least ability to buy a gun.

As for something else you asked: Fear is not a reason to do things. It leads to very bad decisions. There are obvious times when this is not true, but as a long term motivation, it is very poor. Also, to say that it is an understandable reason to own a gun is to say that it is understandable, but paranoid and irrational - just the type of person who shouldn't own a gun.

Zedicus said:
Why do I Smell a Troll...?
Click to expand...
I don't thinks so, though I may be wrong. Most trolls would't spend the time to post nine times. His posts do show evidence of reading at least some of the posts placed in responce to his threads. Even it it is, why not respond in an informative and level headed manner? In otherwords take it at face value. Nothing is really lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
News of the Weird
Replies
2
Views
668
Aleko
A
T
  • Locked
A brief intro and a long review.
Replies
7
Views
710
sturmruger
sturmruger
B
  • Locked
How to Talk to Your Neighbors About Guns
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
geekWithA.45
G
G
  • Locked
Just sayin' hello, and a story
Replies
23
Views
1K
Gurnard
G
D
  • Locked
My response to a fence-sitter...
Replies
15
Views
945
bogie
B
Back
Top