noUzique wrote:
see to me from my liberal left-leaning and rather passive european perspective... i'd notch this up as another argument under the branch of 'legalising guns is fucking stupid'. it just escalates the stakes for petty, small-time busts like this. how often do you think the english police go into a suspected drug-property w/ a warrant armed to the teeth and trigger happy? hint: barely ever. in america, though, where everyone (especially criminals) are likely to have a gun and be prepared to use it, furthermore... it means even a small bust for a minor (i.e. non capital) crime can easily turn into a siege shootout or something nasty. i just don't see the need. protecting your home and property? yeah, sure. get a burglar alarm instead of an AR-15.
krazed wrote:
noUzique wrote:
see to me from my liberal left-leaning and rather passive european perspective... i'd notch this up as another argument under the branch of 'legalising guns is fucking stupid'. it just escalates the stakes for petty, small-time busts like this. how often do you think the english police go into a suspected drug-property w/ a warrant armed to the teeth and trigger happy? hint: barely ever. in america, though, where everyone (especially criminals) are likely to have a gun and be prepared to use it, furthermore... it means even a small bust for a minor (i.e. non capital) crime can easily turn into a siege shootout or something nasty. i just don't see the need. protecting your home and property? yeah, sure. get a burglar alarm instead of an AR-15.
just no
no but the innocent people mugged, robbed or killed for the addict to get money for his next fix does.Uzique wrote:
the fact that drug dealers perform business transactions involving cash doesn't make it a crime with a victim.
if you buy a tv from an electronics store and then drop it when you get home and break it, did the store perform a crime against you?
I am curious as to how you can logically apply the rationale to punish all people for the crimes of "A FEW" in no other circumstances accept gun ownership.Uzique wrote:
see to me from my liberal left-leaning and rather passive european perspective... i'd notch this up as another argument under the branch of 'legalising guns is fucking stupid'. it just escalates the stakes for petty, small-time busts like this. how often do you think the english police go into a suspected drug-property w/ a warrant armed to the teeth and trigger happy? hint: barely ever. in america, though, where everyone (especially criminals) are likely to have a gun and be prepared to use it, furthermore... it means even a small bust for a minor (i.e. non capital) crime can easily turn into a siege shootout or something nasty. i just don't see the need. protecting your home and property? yeah, sure. get a burglar alarm instead of an AR-15.
you can be mugged, robbed and killed by anyone that's poor or desperate. it's not a drug dealers responsibility (nor is it foreseeable, which is the operative and key word in all legal discussions). how can a drug dealer foresee that charlie-regular is going to go hold up a gas station and empty a 12-gauge on the attendant? of course he can't. you're just using your crude stereotype of drug users to make something unlikely seem plausible.lowing wrote:
no but the innocent people mugged, robbed or killed for the addict to get money for his next fix does.Uzique wrote:
the fact that drug dealers perform business transactions involving cash doesn't make it a crime with a victim.
if you buy a tv from an electronics store and then drop it when you get home and break it, did the store perform a crime against you?
why the inconsistency between wanting every american to have an individualistic and self-responsible role towards guns, yet all of a sudden a drug dealer has a responsibility for his entire client-base and their every-single action and decision?lowing wrote:
I am curious as to how you can logically apply the rationale to punish all people for the crimes of "A FEW" in no other circumstances accept gun ownership.Uzique wrote:
see to me from my liberal left-leaning and rather passive european perspective... i'd notch this up as another argument under the branch of 'legalising guns is fucking stupid'. it just escalates the stakes for petty, small-time busts like this. how often do you think the english police go into a suspected drug-property w/ a warrant armed to the teeth and trigger happy? hint: barely ever. in america, though, where everyone (especially criminals) are likely to have a gun and be prepared to use it, furthermore... it means even a small bust for a minor (i.e. non capital) crime can easily turn into a siege shootout or something nasty. i just don't see the need. protecting your home and property? yeah, sure. get a burglar alarm instead of an AR-15.
You argue vehemently, that not all Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, which I agree, but you insist all Americans are responsible for the act of "a few" criminals ( comparatively speaking) in America and therefore should all be punished. Make no mistake, trying to regulate guns out of responsible citizens hands is punishment for "a few". So why the inconsistency?
So lowing, you hear someone kicking down your door will you:lowing wrote:
You are correct, and when faced with an assault rifle, I will wait until the verdict in court before I condemn the police.Uzique wrote:
what a frightening conception of justice. very little warrants the death to a gun possessed by a 'protector of the peace'. it's a dangerous attitude to excuse or ignore the flippant killing of a citizen of your country by its armed state-forces. the police are meant to be there to bring people to justice... not to deal it out in a hail of bullets.
Ya know Dilbert, at my house, I know when someone drives down my street, let alone massing an army outside my front door. I find it hard to believe that the guy didn't know what was happening or who was there.Dilbert_X wrote:
So lowing, you hear someone kicking down your door will you:lowing wrote:
You are correct, and when faced with an assault rifle, I will wait until the verdict in court before I condemn the police.Uzique wrote:
what a frightening conception of justice. very little warrants the death to a gun possessed by a 'protector of the peace'. it's a dangerous attitude to excuse or ignore the flippant killing of a citizen of your country by its armed state-forces. the police are meant to be there to bring people to justice... not to deal it out in a hail of bullets.
[ ] Sit quietly and wait, its probably the Police who got the wrong house, you've done nothing wrong so they'll be on their way soon enough.
[ ] Grab one of your nearest assault rifles
then he wouldn't have time to grab an assault rifle and direct his wife to go hide then go find his kids and tell them the same thing.Dilbert_X wrote:
And if they walked quietly up to your house while you were asleep, as SWAT teams usually do?
neither do IUzique wrote:
not everyone lives on a survivalist ranch in colorado
There is no inconsistency, I do not give a shit about drug dealers or their clients. but to say drugs produces no victims is wrong in my opinion. Now your turn.Uzique wrote:
why the inconsistency between wanting every american to have an individualistic and self-responsible role towards guns, yet all of a sudden a drug dealer has a responsibility for his entire client-base and their every-single action and decision?lowing wrote:
I am curious as to how you can logically apply the rationale to punish all people for the crimes of "A FEW" in no other circumstances accept gun ownership.Uzique wrote:
see to me from my liberal left-leaning and rather passive european perspective... i'd notch this up as another argument under the branch of 'legalising guns is fucking stupid'. it just escalates the stakes for petty, small-time busts like this. how often do you think the english police go into a suspected drug-property w/ a warrant armed to the teeth and trigger happy? hint: barely ever. in america, though, where everyone (especially criminals) are likely to have a gun and be prepared to use it, furthermore... it means even a small bust for a minor (i.e. non capital) crime can easily turn into a siege shootout or something nasty. i just don't see the need. protecting your home and property? yeah, sure. get a burglar alarm instead of an AR-15.
You argue vehemently, that not all Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, which I agree, but you insist all Americans are responsible for the act of "a few" criminals ( comparatively speaking) in America and therefore should all be punished. Make no mistake, trying to regulate guns out of responsible citizens hands is punishment for "a few". So why the inconsistency?
I would.Shocking wrote:
So you guys would argue for legalizing stuff like heroin?
my argument is not about drugs being criminal; it's about drug-dealing (the DEALING part) being a victimless crime. obviously drug use has immediate victims, as well as societal problems on a wider level. but does the drug dealer create victims by selling drugs to people? no. they make victims of themselves.Shocking wrote:
So you guys would argue for legalizing stuff like heroin?
Last edited by Uzique (2011-05-18 05:32:15)
Cigarettes and alcohol are both fucking terrible but they're still legal. Education, enforcement and regulation can go a long way.Shocking wrote:
So you guys would argue for legalizing stuff like heroin?
Last edited by Shocking (2011-05-18 05:57:43)
Last edited by Uzique (2011-05-18 05:59:59)
