next

9/14/2006 3:32:15 PM

heres his photo gallery

http://vampirefreaks.com/gallery.php?u=fatality666

9/14/2006 7:38:27 PM

That place is fuckin weird

9/14/2006 7:51:09 PM

Quote :

""also if u see a girl being raped u can legally use deadly force to stop the threat" "

^as originally posted^ (and incorrect)

Quote :

"omghax ^ Yes, it's true. If Person A is in a situation that allows the use of lethal force in defense, bystander B can also use lethal force to defend Person A. Rape, death, or severe injury fall into the realm of lethal force. Quote : "gotta love tww....all sorts of misinformation smartasses that think they know everything " "

As you further defined the rape (victim allowed to use lethal force to defend herself) you are correct. However, as legally defined - a rape occurring does not necessarily justify lethal force. You shot yourself in the foot in sentence 3 of your post. You further owned yourself by attempting to be clever about it.

Regardless of my personal opinions - rape, in of itself, does not qualify for an execution. You can use the amount of force reasonably necessary to stop the attack and protect the victim. That amount of force does not automatically rise to lethal force, and as a private citizen if the attacker runs away as you respond you must not be proactive in your efforts to capture him. At that point the offense is stopped, so you can assist and protect the victim. (this is the short version of a hypothetical scenario w/ lots of variables. Point being - don't give advice that could result in a good samaritan sitting in prison)

Quote :

"wolfmantaxi ^^pwnt "

not hardly, unless you remove one "^"

9/14/2006 8:28:36 PM

Why we should NOT be allowed to have guns on campus

Quote :

"Gunman wounds 20 at Montreal college "

9/14/2006 8:39:21 PM

If only guns had of been banned on that campus












oh wait...

9/14/2006 8:45:30 PM

before I completely finish, here you go - see if you can figure out why you cannot make a blanket statement like that:


14-27.2. First-degree rape
14-27.3 Second-degree rape

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/pdf/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_7A.pdf

9/14/2006 8:47:31 PM

^^^
They were already banned. Point we're trying to make here is that "gun free zones" are only free of legally carried guns. There's nothing keeping someone from just driving onto campus and pulling a rifle out of his trunk and just opening up.

And if you think that the answer to THAT is checkpoints everywhere, then this country is a lost cause.

9/14/2006 9:03:24 PM

I think this country is already becoming a lost cause

9/14/2006 9:35:34 PM

9/14/2006 11:52:34 PM

Quote :

"The solution to one or two people with a gun is obviously to put guns in everyone's hands. "

This is the problem with gun-haters in general. Notice that this sentence implies that the problem is that one or two people HAVE guns, not that one or two people want to go insane and murder people. It is the guns themselves that are the problem in the mind of an idiot.

9/15/2006 7:25:50 AM

Here's a good article from the University of Utah's newspaper. They recently passed a law allowing carry on campus.

http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/media/storage/paper244/news/2006/09/14/Opinion/Dont-Shoot.The.Messenger.But-2271151.shtml?norewrite200609150851&sourcedomain=www.dailyutahchronicle.com

Quote :

" Don't shoot the messenger, but… Guns may have helped in Montreal By: Aaron Zundel Students have a right to defend themselves. Wednesday morning, a man in a trench coat walked into the cafeteria at Dawson College in Montreal, pulled out a gun and proceeded to shoot the place to pieces. At least two students were killed and 13 were wounded, some critically. This comes on the heels of the news that the U will continue to fight against a ruling that allows students to carry guns on campus. In an interview with CNN, Devansh Smri Vastava, an eyewitness to the shooting said, "We all ran upstairs. There were cops firing. It was so crazy, I was terrified. The guy was shooting at people randomly. He didn't care; he was just shooting at everybody. I just got out." Another witness told CNN, "He just started shooting up the place. I ran up to the third floor, and I looked down and he was still shooting. He was hiding behind the vending machines, and he came out with a gun and started pointing and pointed at me. So I ran up the stairs. I saw a girl get shot in the leg." This should come as a chilling wake-up call to all those fuzzy anti-gun people who believe that there's no reason to carry a gun on campus. University of Utah President Michael K. Young recently sent out a statement to the student body concerning the school's stance on carrying guns. In his anti-carry statement he said, "The university's concern throughout this dispute has been to maintain our campus as a safe learning environment where students and faculty can do their work without a threat to their safety and well-being." Though well intended, this sort of thinking is misguided. Perhaps things would have been different in Montreal if some students had had the capability to defend himself or herself. Now some of those students won't be going home tonight…or ever. I hope that the Dawson shooting will cause some people to pull their heads out of the sand and start listening to reason. I, for one, believe that guns do not belong in a classroom, and that a campus should be a safe place for everyone. But I'm also a realist. We live in a real world-one in which people do rotten stuff. As evidenced in Montreal, things can go south in an instant. Until the U builds a 12-foot high barbed wire fence around its property and posts metal detectors and guards at every entrance, students should not be forced to give up their own security for the pseudo-security of illogical policy. No matter what bans are enacted, if someone decides to shoot up the U campus, there's nothing that can prevent it. Only law-abiding students will be affected by such a ban. So instead of acting as a deterrent, all a ban does is turn the campus into a pond of sitting ducks. Many people don't like guns because of what they represent-as such, they don't want to be around them or others who have them. It's a frame of mind that's easy to identify with. But just like primitive peoples who are afraid of lightning, people who are against guns usually don't understand or know anything about them. Because of that, they fail to see that a gun is only as dangerous as the person wielding it. Since North Carolina began keeping statistics 10 years ago, less than .02 percent of the 263,102 people who have been issued a concealed carry permit have had it revoked (meaning they committed a crime, not even necessarily violent or with a gun). That's less than the crime rate among North Carolina police officers. The truth is, if guns are illegal, only people already willing to commit a crime will carry them. As long as the U remains open to everyone, you can't expect or ask students to not defend themselves. "

9/15/2006 8:57:16 AM

Quote :

"There is a correlation b/w gun ownership + intelligence quotient. I'll give you a hint: it's a negative correlation."

Wrong. I would go so far as to say that people who own guns legally comprise some of our country's most intelligent and productive citizens. Actually, I would say that almost all people who own large collections of guns (more than 10 or 15 weapons) are probably just as educated, intelligent, and much more wealthy than you are.
The ATF keeps a database of everyone in this country who legally owns machine guns. The average income for these folks (there are about 100,000 people in this country who own machine guns legally) is more than $200,000 a year.

Just because your favorite self riteous news anchor, Hollywood star, liberal professor, or congresscritter considers gun ownership taboo doesn't mean that people who actually own guns are not intelligent and productive citizens.

Oh, you are worried about the lower income guy who lives in a trailer and keeps several guns in his closet and grills chicken and drinks beer every weekend? You're probably almost as likely to die in a spacecraft crash as you wuold from anything he would do.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 9:06 AM. Reason : ..]

9/15/2006 9:03:50 AM

Quote :

"I would go so far as to say that people who own guns legally comprise some of our country's most intelligent and productive citizens. "

is that an actual stat, or just something you made up?

9/15/2006 9:05:14 AM

I could have guessed you would ask for statistics. Actual stats for ALL gun owners in this country are almost impossible to obtain for obvious reasons, but just to help illustrate my point I will give you some info on handgun target shooters:

http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?AoI=LL&PRloc=common/PR/&PR=060806.cfm

Facts: Handguns in the U.S.

Of the estimated 192 million gun owners, 65 million are handgun owners.

One in every four households has one or more handguns.

Handgun types owned: revolvers -- 31 million; semi-automatic -- 26 million; other -- 8 million.

Handgun sales rose 3 percent in 2005.Firearm crimes, suicides and accidents are trending downward.

There are 2.7 million active female handgun target shooters.

Handgun target shooter demographics:81 percent male, 19 percent female; average income -- $68,800; average age -- 39; percent with education beyond high school -- 56 percent.

40 states allow concealed-carry handguns for personal protection.

Handguns are legal for hunting in 48 states.

9/15/2006 9:13:34 AM

Quote :

" Actual stats for ALL gun owners in this country are almost impossible to obtain for obvious reasons"

then why are you even bringing it up then? if its impossible to get that kind of statistic, don't try to use it in an argument.

thats nice that you have stastics on target shooters, but thats not the demographic you are argueing about.

as a side note, i dont even think that those statistics about target shooters are very impressive...certainly not enough to convince me that they are some of the "most intelligent and productive" people in the country.



[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 9:21 AM. Reason : df]

9/15/2006 9:17:06 AM

Quote :

"This is the problem with gun-haters in general. Notice that this sentence implies that the problem is that one or two people HAVE guns, not that one or two people want to go insane and murder people. It is the guns themselves that are the problem in the mind of an idiot."

I have no problems with guns. Do I think you need to have one on you 24/7? No. The only thing it will lead to will having relatively calm altercations turn into gun waving battles and there's no need for that.

What I do have a problem with is:
A) people trying to be heroes
B) Every time a thread like this, gun owners always seem waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too excited to use them and that's what makes me uncomfortable.

9/15/2006 9:20:29 AM

I'm not excited about using a gun to prevent something bad from happening, nobody wants to do that... I am however ecstatic about defending the lives of myself and loved ones..


you know, that freedom we were granted back in the day

9/15/2006 9:23:14 AM

Quote :

"then why are you even bringing it up then? if its impossible to get that kind of statistic, don't try to use it in an argument. thats nice that you have stastics on target shooters, but thats not the demographic you are argueing about. as a side note, i dont even think that those statistics about target shooters are very impressive...certainly not enough to convince me that they are some of the "most intelligent and productive" people in the country."

Well I sure as hell offered a whole lot more statistics than that idiot who was saying that there was a negative correlation between gun ownership and intelligence level.

Target shooters are not only gun owners, but gun enthusiasts. I am offering statistics on people who own and enjoy firearms perhaps even more than the average firearms owner. I beleive that my statistics prove that they are not "rednecks" or "hotheaded butt-crack Rambo types"

What other berometer do you think I should use to prove that the members of an entire subculture in this country are not dimwits, but productive citizens?

Since you people love statistics so much, I'm waiting for someone to supply some statistics (not isolated incidents) which prove that gun owners, in general, are less inteligent than their unarmed counterparts.

9/15/2006 9:41:12 AM

Quite honestly, I'm more worried about getting shot by some hotheaded cop or stumblefuck federal agent than any peaceably armed American citizen.


http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

9/15/2006 9:43:56 AM

Quote :

"Well I sure as hell offered a whole lot more statistics than that idiot who was saying that there was a negative correlation between gun ownership and intelligence level. "

thats fine, but if they don't back up your claim (in this case, all legal gun owners), then you might as well have not even brought it up. im not saying he was in the right, but you're not offering any more relevent information then he is.

Quote :

"Target shooters are not only gun owners, but gun enthusiasts. "

exactly my point. do you really think that the majority of gun owners are gun enthusiasts?

Quote :

"What other berometer do you think I should use to prove that the members of an entire subculture in this country are not dimwits, but productive citizens?"

relevent stats. if you don't have those, then you can't prove it. my point is that you shouldnt claim something as the truth when you really don't know if it is or not.

Quote :

"Since you people love statistics so much, I'm waiting for someone to supply some statistics (not isolated incidents) which prove that gun owners, in general, are less inteligent than their unarmed counterparts."

i agree 100%....but lets keep in mind that you are doing the same thing.

ps. im all for legal gun ownership, i just hate it when people throw out their opinions as if they are facts.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 9:48 AM. Reason : df]

9/15/2006 9:47:16 AM

Quote :

"I'm not excited about using a gun to prevent something bad from happening, nobody wants to do that... I am however ecstatic about defending the lives of myself and loved ones.. you know, that freedom we were granted back in the day"

Do you think it's more important to carry a gun for the protection of your family and friends when just a tiny group of people are carrying them because they're insane or when a large portion of the population is carrying as well?

Personally, I feel safer with no guns around than a ton of guns around (if I had to pick one side or the other), since sooner or later the wrong person is going to get pissed off for a moment and someone else is going to get shot instead of just punched in the face.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 9:48 AM. Reason : .]

9/15/2006 9:47:25 AM

Quote :

"Do you think it's more important to carry a gun for the protection of your family and friends when just a tiny group of people are carrying them because they're insane or when a large portion of the population is carrying as well? Personally, I feel safer with no guns around than a ton of guns around (if I had to pick one side or the other), since sooner or later the wrong person is going to get pissed off for a moment and someone else is going to get shot instead of just punched in the face."

ideally, yes I'd prefer no guns be around, but I'm also a realist and understand that there are guns everywhere, legal and illegal... and I'd be willing to bet there are numerous firearms on campus at this moment

I feel that since there is no way of getting firearms out of the hands of bad people, that decent law abiding people should be able to protect themselves

the same person that shoots someone instead of punching them is the same guy that will stab or beat someone with something instead of punching them also

9/15/2006 9:54:02 AM

Quote :

"What I do have a problem with is: A) people trying to be heroes B) Every time a thread like this, gun owners always seem waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too excited to use them and that's what makes me uncomfortable."

No. We are very excited and adament about protecting our rights from people who want to legislate them out of existence, however.
Carrying a concealed firearm is a tremendous responsibility, and that is the way we view it. If you think that people who carry are actually looking for an opportunity to shoot someone, you are just plain ignorant.

9/15/2006 9:56:51 AM

we definitely should be allowed to have guns on campus guys!!

NOTHING BAD WOULD EVER HAPPEN, I PROMISE

AWESOME IDEA

9/15/2006 10:01:04 AM

Man, people who buy fire extinguishers and then practice dealing with house fires make me nervous. They seem way too eager to use them. I hope they don't catch my house on fire by accident.

^
JWB, in case you haven't noticed, school shootings are carried out by morons who illegally bring guns on campus.

Read this. Consider what might have happened if the VP hadn't had to run a quarter mile to get his gun, and had instead been able to just pull it from his CC holster.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 10:03 AM. Reason : .]

9/15/2006 10:01:19 AM

Quote :

"ideally, yes I'd prefer no guns be around,"

But if I cant have guns, then I'd prefer my government not to have them either. An armed citizenry guarantees a free state, the founding fathers said so many times and history has proven this over and over again. Anywhere you find a totalitarian state, the people were first disarmed. Ask Joe Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot how this works.

9/15/2006 10:03:18 AM

Quote :

" we definitely should be allowed to have guns on campus guys!! NOTHING BAD WOULD EVER HAPPEN, I PROMISE AWESOME IDEA"

a law abiding CC holder could have prevented this from happening maybe

that and maybe the two criminals shouldn't have come onto state property carrying a firearm, especically with the intent of using it

some of yall just don't get it

9/15/2006 10:09:38 AM

less guns on campus = less chance i have of getting blasted

thats what i think


[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .,]

9/15/2006 12:57:44 PM

Quote :

"yes - this is great evidence as to why guns should be allowed on campus - which farm did you grow up on"

9/15/2006 12:59:42 PM

Quote :

"Personally, I feel safer with no guns around than a ton of guns around (if I had to pick one side or the other), since sooner or later the wrong person is going to get pissed off for a moment and someone else is going to get shot instead of just punched in the face."

It's not the guns, it's the company you keep. Personaly I would feel quite safe in a police station or military barracks surrounded by guns.

By contrast, I wouldn't feel so safe in a warehouse in harlem surrounded by guns.

9/15/2006 2:02:34 PM

TREMENDOUS INSIGHT

9/15/2006 3:53:06 PM

Quote :

"Personally, I feel safer with no guns around than a ton of guns around (if I had to pick one side or the other), since sooner or later the wrong person is going to get pissed off for a moment and someone else is going to get shot instead of just punched in the face."

Feel safer with no guns around...absofreakinglutely

Is it possible to create an environment where no-one has guns? NO! Fucking NO!

It is better for law abiding citizens to also have guns than just the drug dealers, gangsters, whackos, and suicidal teenagers.

9/15/2006 4:01:47 PM

Everybody wants to talk about the danger of gun owners. Please take a look at this e-book. One of many statistics in this book. “ Fact: The four year violent crime rate for CCW holders is 128 per 100,00. For the general it is 710 per 100,00. In other words, CCW holders are 5.3 times less likely to commit a violent crime.” There are also numerous others statistics showing that in states that allow concealed carry violent crimes are less. Murders, rape and assault were all lower in areas that issues concealed carry permits.

http://www.gunfacts.info/index.html

9/15/2006 5:46:46 PM

wouldnt the fact that someone shot 20 people be a reason NOT to have guns on campus.

if we allow guns then if im a killer I wont really have to hide the fact that im packin my mother fuckin glock.

9/15/2006 5:52:13 PM

the last thing I want is to be in class with someone toting a gun. Guns facilitate someone to do something they wouldn't normally do.

9/15/2006 6:03:14 PM

^^ the reports said he used a rifle, i highly doubt that a person that carries on a regular basis is gonna walk around w/ a rifle. most of the people i know carry some thing that is small and barely noticable. if u carry everyday u don't want alot of extra baggage, just enough to do the job if u have to.

^ thats not true, i have found myself to be less abrasive when i carry. if i start the altercation I can not legally use deadly force to stop it if it escalates to that point. Most ppl I have talked to are the same way, when they carry they are less abrasive.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 6:13 PM. Reason : ]

9/15/2006 6:09:50 PM

Quote :

"^ thats not true, i have found myself to be less abrasive when i carry. if i start the altercation I can not legally use deadly force to stop it if it escalates to that point. Most ppl I have talked to are the same way, when they carry they are less abrasive."

I don't care what your demeanor is. I fucking care about the guy who might use his gun's demeanor.

9/15/2006 7:05:06 PM

(looking for citation, post to follow)

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 11:57 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2006 11:46:30 PM

Too many of the resources are spent tracking if jackleg is going to Idaho, and not enough is spent looking for clear and present threats like that guy's entire site before he blew up on the world.

9/15/2006 11:53:47 PM

Quote :

"originally posted by omghax before deleted OK, smartass. When you have either taken classes dealing with the laws explicitly concerning justified use of lethal force on said laws, or become a lawyer, come back and argue. It's obvious your desire to be a self-made lawyer does not make your reasoning correct, and it has apparent flaws as noted. Also, plz to note case law. If not, contact Steve Johnson with the NC Department of Justice, and ask if those cases are justified. Another thing - please don't continue to cite irrelevant technicalities and unprofessional analyses of law in order to support your argument. "

you just spilled stupid all over yourself, go wash up.

[stop]

[Edited on September 16, 2006 at 12:04 AM. Reason : clownsmack]

9/15/2006 11:57:11 PM

Keep it up, noob. I'll pull the exact justification circumstances from the manual printed by the Department of Justice. Then perhaps the truth will hit you hard enough to knock some objectivity into your arguments.

Alright, straight from the manual

Quote :

" Deady Force in Defense of Others A citizen may intervene and use deadly force in defense of another person when, under the facts and circumstances, it reasonably appeared necessary to save the other person from an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault but only to the extent the other person was entitled to use deadly force in self-defense. Excessive force in defense of others is not allowed, and neither the intervenor nor the person threatened can be an instigator voluntarily provoking the conflict for deadly force to be used. "

It's exactly what I said earlier.

That is the pertinent information. Period. I don't care what your fucking opinion on it is, those are the guidlines set by caselaw by the DoJ. If you have anything else to argue about this, it doesn't belong in this forum.


[Edited on September 16, 2006 at 12:04 AM. Reason : read, bitch]

9/15/2006 11:58:08 PM

I love how so many people here seem to think that guns make people want to kill. :rolleyes:

People can get a hold of guns ridiculously easy. If I wanted to just go on campus one day and start shooting people up, there isn't a single thing in my way—the simple fact that I'm out to commit murder indicates blatant disregard for law, so why would some silly "no guns allowed within 1000ft of schools kthx" rule change anything?

If you think that someone who's gone through the hoops and is legally carrying (concealed) a handgun is somehow making your life more dangerous because you're afraid that he/she is going to just fly off the handle and start shooting people up, maybe you should take a good look at yourself first.

9/16/2006 12:00:57 AM

good stuff

Quote :

"Keep it up, noob. I'll pull the exact justification circumstances from the manual printed by the Department of Justice. Then perhaps the truth will hit you hard enough to knock some objectivity into your arguments. "

just to clarify your position -

your belief is that if a rape is occurring, you are authorized to use deadly force no matter what

correct?


again, [stop]

9/16/2006 12:01:16 AM

[Edited on September 16, 2006 at 12:21 AM. Reason : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

9/16/2006 12:02:52 AM

How about you read what I edited and wait for the official pwnting, asshat.

9/16/2006 12:04:19 AM

just verify - whats your position?

that if a rape is occurring you are automatically authorized to use deadly force


is that correct? thats what you believe you were taught?

9/16/2006 12:05:59 AM

IF the person being sexually assaulted is able to use deadly force to stop it, a bystander is also allowed to use deadly force in defense of that person - says so right in the guide. However, excessive force (like if someone is obviously about to get raped, you can't just shoot them). Also, you are not required or obligated to use deadly force, but the option is undoubtedly there if SHTF.

9/16/2006 12:07:32 AM

Quote :

"Also, you are not required or obligated to use deadly force, but the option is undoubtedly there if SHTF. "

thats what was missing in your original post, and the point I was trying to get across.


you can use the amount of force reasonably necessary to stop the offense, and you can go up and down the 'use of force continuum' - something that can be forgotten in the heat of the moment.

9/16/2006 12:11:37 AM

"Escalation of force" was assumed in the explanation, as that's what permits someone the use of deadly force. The escalation is defined as:

Physical Presence
Verbal
Soft Hands
Hard Hands
Chemical (Pepper Spray, Mace)
Impact Weapon (Stick, Club)
Deadly Force

In a genuine rape, it's pretty safe to assume that the first levels have been bypassed.

9/16/2006 12:18:39 AM