http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/21993610/robber-shot-dead-by-would-be-victim-outside-everman-store?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8780688

FORT WORTH, Texas -
A would-be robber was shot dead by a person with a concealed handgun license outside a Metro PCS store in the 7400 block of Wichita St. in Ft. Worth on Tuesday afternoon.

Investigators say Desmond Paige, 20, tried to rob a man using Craigslist. The would-be victim brought his gun to the sale just in case.

The man with the CHL was shot in the arm and the hand by the robber, but Paige was shot multiple times in the chest.

Paige died at the scene.

"When I got over to him I saw that he was bleeding out of his mouth and his chest. So I kneeled down next to him just to say you know hey I'm here you know, hold on. The ambulance and police are coming," said one witness.

Paige claimed on Cragslist he had a cell phone to sell. Police said when Paige tried to rob the man, the man pulled his gun and shot Paige several times.

Paige was recently released from prison after serving time for a violent crime and was on parole.



Read more: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/21993610/robber-shot-dead-by-would-be-victim-outside-everman-store?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8780688#ixzz2QhbMN800

So guy does stupid stuff and goes to jail, doesn't learn and tries it again and this time dies?

Good on him.

So...what is the point of this thread?

Shooting him was fully justified.

Wow, this was like a shoot out pretty sweet.

This is why the USA needs more surveillance cameras There really is no point shooting robbers dead if you don't get a clip for YouTube.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is why the USA needs more surveillance cameras There really is no point shooting robbers dead if you don't get a clip for YouTube.

Agreed. High-def video or it didn't happen

Is it too soon to comment on the use of 'get a clip' in Kilkrazy's post?

Good the CCL holder survived, that could have gone MUCH worse on his end. Guess he was just quicker on the draw.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
Is it too soon to comment on the use of 'get a clip' in Kilkrazy's post?

The correct term is magazines

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Is it too soon to comment on the use of 'get a clip' in Kilkrazy's post?

The correct term is magazines

I more meant 'what's the point of a shootout if you don't get a clip' 'well the robber still got his' badumpish

Not entirely sure how someone dying is better then someone getting robbed.

 Soladrin wrote:
Not entirely sure how someone dying is better then someone getting robbed.

Less of a burden on society now.

Had just left jail, had somehow managed to get his hands on a gun, attempted to rob someone, and shot that person. I'm not feeling an ounce of sympathy for his demise. He dug his own grave.

Coincidentally, this really highlights what control should really be targetting. A recently released criminal for a violent crime managed to quickly get his hands on a gun. That's what needs to be stopped, instead of continually writing laws that only target people who follow the law.

 Soladrin wrote:
Not entirely sure how someone dying is better then someone getting robbed.

Did you not read the part where Desmond Paige shot the guy in the arm and hand?

Yeah, I did, but it doesn't say who shot first and doesn't put any context on this. Unless he was planning to take stuff off the corpse.

 Soladrin wrote:
Yeah, I did, but it doesn't say who shot first and doesn't put any context on this. Unless he was planning to take stuff off the corpse.

Yeah, that is true it would be nice if there was more info, mind you I haven't googled it yet so there might be.

As written I have no issue with someone defending themselves from someone with a gun who is trying to rob them.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
As written I have no issue with someone defending themselves from someone with a gun who is trying to rob them.

Agreed.

 Soladrin wrote:
Not entirely sure how someone dying is better then someone getting robbed.

Criminal dying = good.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Not entirely sure how someone dying is better then someone getting robbed.

Criminal dying = good.

I would like to think it's a little more complicated than that, like if someone is caught speeding I don't think they should have to die. Actually the only time I'm OK with criminals dying is from self-defense from the victim or during warfare.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Not entirely sure how someone dying is better then someone getting robbed.

Criminal dying = good.

I would like to think it's a little more complicated than that, like if someone is caught speeding I don't think they should have to die. Actually the only time I'm OK with criminals dying is from self-defense from the victim or during warfare.

habitual violent criminal dying in commision of crime. = good.

Better?

I don't particularly accept an end result of dying as "good", but in cases like this as "acceptable".

 Soladrin wrote:
Yeah, I did, but it doesn't say who shot first and doesn't put any context on this. Unless he was planning to take stuff off the corpse.

How on earth could that possibly matter? Are we to imagine that this convicted criminal unfortunate victim of the system brought a gun along in his planned attempt to rob somebody redress through other means the inherently unfair wealth imbalance in this country, but did not actually pull it out until the victim NRA-loving, Republican-voting oppressor pulled his own?

Trying to rob someone without some sort of potential for violence in the face of non-compliance just results in the would-be victim wandering off. Of course the guy had his gun out. It doesn't matter at that point who shot first.

I'm generally against people having guns, but that he was shot was good. Not sure if he deserved death, but the would-be victim certainly hasn't done anything wrong.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Not entirely sure how someone dying is better then someone getting robbed.

Criminal dying = good.

I would like to think it's a little more complicated than that, like if someone is caught speeding I don't think they should have to die. Actually the only time I'm OK with criminals dying is from self-defense from the victim or during warfare.

No no, its pretty much that simple. Next topic?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Not entirely sure how someone dying is better then someone getting robbed.

Criminal dying = good.

I would like to think it's a little more complicated than that, like if someone is caught speeding I don't think they should have to die. Actually the only time I'm OK with criminals dying is from self-defense from the victim or during warfare.

No no, its pretty much that simple. Next topic?

Yeah, don't be stupid! Everyone knows that all criminals deserve death! I mean, if you disagree then that just tells us you've broken the law in the past and should be shot!

 p_gray99 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Not entirely sure how someone dying is better then someone getting robbed.

Criminal dying = good.

I would like to think it's a little more complicated than that, like if someone is caught speeding I don't think they should have to die. Actually the only time I'm OK with criminals dying is from self-defense from the victim or during warfare.

No no, its pretty much that simple. Next topic?

Yeah, don't be stupid! Everyone knows that all criminals deserve death! I mean, if you disagree then that just tells us you've broken the law in the past and should be shot!

Exactly.

No sympathy for this worthless piece of criminal trash whatsoever.

He was prepared to use a gun to commit a crime, so as far as I'm concerned he got what he deserved.

Also society benefits as well - no more expenses to keep him in jail, and zero percent chance of him re-offending.

Sounds harsh I know, I just think the law is far to soft.

 Seaward wrote:
How on earth could that possibly matter? Are we to imagine that this convicted criminal unfortunate victim of the system brought a gun along in his planned attempt to rob somebody redress through other means the inherently unfair wealth imbalance in this country, but did not actually pull it out until the victim NRA-loving, Republican-voting oppressor pulled his own?

Trying to rob someone without some sort of potential for violence in the face of non-compliance just results in the would-be victim wandering off. Of course the guy had his gun out. It doesn't matter at that point who shot first.

Thank you for that, it saves me reading the news later

It is always fun when you can't tell the Christians from the atheists in a thread because they are both wallowing in their love of killing people because of reasons. As Christ said "shoot a melon-fether because he gets away with that cash, yo".

 Ahtman wrote:
It is always fun when you can't tell the Christians from the atheists in a thread because they are both wallowing in their love of killing people because of reasons. As Christ said "shoot a melon-fether because he gets away with that cash, yo".

I've little use for anything Christ may or may not have said, but I generally don't think it's wise to trust in the benevolent intentions of a felon holding a gun on you.

 Ahtman wrote:
It is always fun when you can't tell the Christians from the atheists in a thread because they are both wallowing in their love of killing people because of reasons. As Christ said "shoot a melon-fether because he gets away with that cash, yo".

Religion and guns! Should I go and get the popcorn before this thread gets really good?
Maybe I missed the part in the Bible that said;
"And lo, when thine enemy pulleth a gat from the back of his jeans thou shalt turn the other cheek"

So what would have been the ideal result for you from the facts described?

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
It is always fun when you can't tell the Christians from the atheists in a thread because they are both wallowing in their love of killing people because of reasons. As Christ said "shoot a melon-fether because he gets away with that cash, yo".

I've little use for anything Christ may or may not have said, but I generally don't think it's wise to trust in the benevolent intentions of a felon holding a gun on you.

Which isn't really the same as being happy someone is shot. I'm not arguing against self defense, I'm aghast at the pleasure people are taking in his killing. It may have been necessary, but doing what you have to to defend yourself and salivating at the idea that someone killed another human being, both because it is convenient for scoring political points as well as general amoral attitude and love of violence aren't quite the same thing. Then to take those that argue about it being a Christian nation then reveling in the death, and you have amazing levels of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

 Soladrin wrote:
Not entirely sure how someone dying is better then someone getting robbed.

This entire thread is bait, there have been dozens and dozens of remarkably similar threads on these boards and they are posted for one simple reason. Its better to just ignore tham and let the trolls go hungry.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So what would have been the ideal result for you from the facts described?

You'll have to remind of the part where Jesus pulled out his sword when the Romans came and defended himself. It is odd that you can reference 'turn the other cheek', yet have no idea what it means, and also forget about the part where Jesus specifically told others that were armed to lay down there arms.

That was that specific situation, the plan involved getting taken by Jews, handed over to the Romans, and Crucified. There are also plenty of situations where God sanctioned outright genocide.

I do have to say i would have done the same in the position of the potential victim. There are to many violent criminals being given leniant sentences-effectively a slap on the wrist. Dont take this the wrong way but im entirely with the criminal being shot up.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So what would have been the ideal result for you from the facts described?

You'll have to remind of the part where Jesus pulled out his sword when the Romans came and defended himself. It is odd that you can reference 'turn the other cheek', yet have no idea what it means, and also forget about the part where Jesus specifically told others that were armed to lay down there arms.

I guess the standard response here is that Jesus was perfect and we are not, so that's an impossible standard to hold yourself to.

Anyway, I'm not going to say I'm happy someone got killed, but I do recall Jesus saying something about what happens to those who "live by the sword" which I feel is relevant in this context. I would have simply preferred that a repeat offender such as the one in the OP not have been wandering the streets in the first place.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That was that specific situation, the plan involved getting taken by Jews, handed over to the Romans, and Crucified. There are also plenty of situations where God sanctioned outright genocide.

Don't forget when Jesus told his disciples to sell the clothes off their backs to be able to buy swords to defend themselves. Luke 22.

 Ahtman wrote:
You'll have to remind of the part where Jesus pulled out his sword when the Romans came and defended himself. It is odd that you can reference 'turn the other cheek', yet have no idea what it means, and also forget about the part where Jesus specifically told others that were armed to lay down there arms.

You clearly missed the joke. Yes, I know what turning the other cheek means. But maybe I missed the part in the news story were the person who defended himself was the son of God and needed the robber to crucify him so he could ascend to the right hand of His Father

You're dodging my question though - what would have been the ideal outcome for you in that case?

 Grey Templar wrote:
That was that specific situation, the plan involved getting taken by Jews, handed over to the Romans, and Crucified. There are also plenty of situations where God sanctioned outright genocide.

God = Jesus in all occasions, and using Old Testemant Jewish angry God doesn't really work when compared to 'turn the other cheek', 'new covenant', 'love one another', and 'forgive them for they know not what they do' Jesus. If you are an Old Testament guy, and want to ignore that Jesus fella, that is fine and all, but you can't really call yourself a Christian then I would think.

And, for funsies, he wasn't 'taken by the Jews', he was, at best, set up by Pharisees, but he was arrested by Romans (and being arrested back then wasn't like today, it was more like the Old West), as well as his disciples pulling swords when they did show up. They could have fought and defended themselves, but Jesus said "NO".

 Ahtman wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That was that specific situation, the plan involved getting taken by Jews, handed over to the Romans, and Crucified. There are also plenty of situations where God sanctioned outright genocide.

God = Jesus in all occasions, and using Old Testemant Jewish angry God doesn't really work when compared to 'turn the other cheek', 'new covenant', 'love one another', and 'forgive them for they know not what they do' Jesus. If you are an Old Testament guy, and want to ignore that Jesus fella, that is fine and all, but you can't really call yourself a Christian then I would think.

And, for funsies, he wasn't 'taken by the Jews', he was, at best, set up by Pharisees, but he was arrested by Romans (and being arrested back then wasn't like today, it was more like the Old West), as well as his disciples pulling swords when they did show up. They could have fought and defended themselves, but Jesus said "NO".

Jesus knew what was instore for him. The situation demanded he say no. The crucifiction and ressurection was an essential part of the creation of Christianity. Where they to have defended him, they would have died, and then there would have been no one to spread the word.

His telling them no was not to state that self defense was not warranted. Luke 22 specifically shows him saying it is. His telling them no was an act of preservation of his teachings.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You're dodging my question though - what would have been the ideal outcome for you in that case?

I said that the man did what was unfortunately necessary, as he saw it, but my issue is more in the people salivating over the outcome. The idea that someone defended themselves with a gun seems to be getting a few people here aroused.

As for ideal, the guy would have just given him the money and he would later be tried and sent to jail. Life doesn't always allow for ideal, and no one is calling for perfection in all actions.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You're dodging my question though - what would have been the ideal outcome for you in that case?

I said that the man did what was unfortunately necessary, as he saw it, but my issue is more in the people salivating over the outcome. The idea that someone defended themselves with a gun seems to be getting a few people here aroused.

As for ideal, the guy would have just given him the money and he would later be tried and sent to jail. Life doesn't always allow for ideal, and no one is calling for perfection in all actions.

You can determine states of arousal by internet postings?

You sir, must be a genius.

 djones520 wrote:

You can determine states of arousal by internet postings?

You sir, must be a genius.

No, I just know how to read what people write.

To be fair, I'm connected to a penile plethysmograph.

Exactly what part of the OP made mention of, or had anything to do with religion? Ahtman, you are correct in pointing out the disappointing glee that some of Dakka is taking in this loss of life, but seriously, WTF does inserting religion into it serve beyond being obvious troll bait? Granted the OP is begging to be trolled...

Personally I agree with a previous post: That this is nothing to be happy or proud of, it is however an acceptable outcome to the situation.

 Ahtman wrote:
I said that the man did what was unfortunately necessary, as he saw it, but my issue is more in the people salivating over the outcome. The idea that someone defended themselves with a gun seems to be getting a few people here aroused.

Really? People here are "salivating" and getting "aroused"? Re-reading the thread that's not the impression that I get, the vast majority of the comments are saying that the would be victim did the right thing in defending himself. To say people are "salivating" or "aroused" by this news is being hyperbolic, unless you want to show a few quotes to back up your point.

 Ahtman wrote:
As for ideal, the guy would have just given him the money and he would later be tried and sent to jail. Life doesn't always allow for ideal, and no one is calling for perfection in all actions.

So a felon with a violent history, who is armed and intent on committing a crime shortly after leaving jail is likely not to use violence again? And no one has ever thought of using Craigslist to trawl for victims before...
http://www.citypages.com/slideshow/craigslist-murders-a-timeline-8235576/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Markoff
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/12/justice/ohio-craigslist-murders
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/craigslist_murder_plot_man_sho.html
http://www.19actionnews.com/story/16069758/two-summit-county-residents-arrested-in-connection-with-possible-craigslist-murder
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/07/craigslist.diamond.killing/index.html
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-11-29/story/murder-defendant-jacksonville-craigslist-case-says-he-did-it

Your version of ideal and the criminal's are obviously very different

 Lint wrote:
Exactly what part of the OP made mention of, or had anything to do with religion? Ahtman, you are correct in pointing out the disappointing glee that some of Dakka is taking in this loss of life, but seriously, WTF does inserting religion into it serve beyond being obvious troll bait? Granted the OP is begging to be trolled...

Personally I agree with a previous post: That this is nothing to be happy or proud of, it is however an acceptable outcome to the situation.

I didn't realized broader themes and trends could not be introduced into threads. As for why it was brought up, well, you listed it yourself right there: " the disappointing glee that some of Dakka is taking in this loss of life". I found it disturbing, even more so because many that are seemingly taking glee in the scenario also espouse a religion that condones such a callous attitude, so I made a provocative post because my intent was to provoke a little self reflection. Did I think everyone reading or posting would think about it would get it? No, I know better, but even if it made a few people think about the subject for a moment I feel justified in it. Being provocative isn't the same as trolling, but admittedly it can be a thin line.

That being said, I will drop the subject after this post..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So a felon with a violent history

Yes, becuase everyone goes around with full knowledge of everyone they come across. We know that, but the man in the scenario didn't, Javert.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Your version of ideal and the criminal's are obviously very different

And your idea of Christianity and Jesus seems far off from what is in the writings and teachings.

 Ahtman wrote:
Yes, becuase everyone goes around with full knowledge of everyone they come across. We know that, but the man in the scenario didn't, Javert.

Nope, but the fact that he was trying to rob someone with a gun is always a pretty good clue

 Ahtman wrote:
And your idea of Christianity and Jesus seems far off from what is in the writings and teachings.

Really? And what is my idea of Christianity and Jesus, because I sure didn't set out my over arching theological standing here. Lest we forget, you're the one who brought religion into this.

Still waiting on those quotes showing Dakka members "salivating" or being "aroused" by the death too

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
It is always fun when you can't tell the Christians from the atheists in a thread because they are both wallowing in their love of killing people because of reasons. As Christ said "shoot a melon-fether because he gets away with that cash, yo".

I've little use for anything Christ may or may not have said, but I generally don't think it's wise to trust in the benevolent intentions of anyone holding a gun on you.

fixed that for you

 Palindrome wrote:
This entire thread is bait, there have been dozens and dozens of remarkably similar threads on these boards and they are posted for one simple reason.

To counter all the hysterical anti-gun folks telling us that there's never a legitimate self-defense use for one?

 Seaward wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:
This entire thread is bait, there have been dozens and dozens of remarkably similar threads on these boards and they are posted for one simple reason.

To counter all the hysterical anti-gun folks telling us that there's never a legitimate self-defense use for one?

Except for the fact that no one has ever made that argument; it exists in the mind of hysterical gun lovers, which of course, do not make up the majority of gun owners. It is the same people that confuse discussing sensible gun legislation with OMG OBAMA WANNA GIT RID OF ALL GUNS and are easily manipulated by the industry into being afriad of something that isn't happening to increase gun sales.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You're dodging my question though - what would have been the ideal outcome for you in that case?

I said that the man did what was unfortunately necessary, as he saw it, but my issue is more in the people salivating over the outcome. The idea that someone defended themselves with a gun seems to be getting a few people here aroused.

As for ideal, the guy would have just given him the money and he would later be tried and sent to jail. Life doesn't always allow for ideal, and no one is calling for perfection in all actions.

Not really sure where you're seeing these posts.

Most people are saying they're glad the victim survived and the criminal is dead. I'll take a thousand dead criminals like the guy in the OP (violent repeat offenders, not people with trivial things like parking tickets, no idea why people are bringing that into it) over 1 dead innocent every day. Its unfortunate that anyone had to die, but if the criminal wanted to live he wouldn't be pulling guns on random people, so he has no one to blame but himself.

Also religion has nothing to do with it. Everyone should have the right to defend themselves against a person that would do them harm.

But this thread is quickly decending into trolling so I'm going to bow out. Pretty much anything worth saying at this point has been said.

Good on him for defending himself!

 Ahtman wrote:
Except for the fact that no one has ever made that argument; it exists in the mind of hysterical gun lovers, which of course, do not make up the majority of gun owners. It is the same people that confuse discussing sensible gun legislation with OMG OBAMA WANNA GIT RID OF ALL GUNS and are easily manipulated by the industry into being afriad of something that isn't happening to increase gun sales.

Have you just not bothered to actually read any of the many, many gun debate threads here? Or are you just doing a little internal selective editing when you do?

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Except for the fact that no one has ever made that argument; it exists in the mind of hysterical gun lovers, which of course, do not make up the majority of gun owners. It is the same people that confuse discussing sensible gun legislation with OMG OBAMA WANNA GIT RID OF ALL GUNS and are easily manipulated by the industry into being afriad of something that isn't happening to increase gun sales.

Have you just not bothered to actually read any of the many, many gun debate threads here? Or are you just doing a little internal selective editing when you do?

Because clearly this forum is the only forum with threads on gun legislation.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Except for the fact that no one has ever made that argument; it exists in the mind of hysterical gun lovers, which of course, do not make up the majority of gun owners. It is the same people that confuse discussing sensible gun legislation with OMG OBAMA WANNA GIT RID OF ALL GUNS and are easily manipulated by the industry into being afriad of something that isn't happening to increase gun sales.

Have you just not bothered to actually read any of the many, many gun debate threads here? Or are you just doing a little internal selective editing when you do?

He's either a troll, doesn't own guns, or he's completely oblivious to what's been going on the past 6 months, that's the only explanation I can come up with.

Wait. So, if you don't own a gun you're not allowed to comment on gun stuff? That's news to me.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Except for the fact that no one has ever made that argument; it exists in the mind of hysterical gun lovers, which of course, do not make up the majority of gun owners. It is the same people that confuse discussing sensible gun legislation with OMG OBAMA WANNA GIT RID OF ALL GUNS and are easily manipulated by the industry into being afriad of something that isn't happening to increase gun sales.

Have you just not bothered to actually read any of the many, many gun debate threads here? Or are you just doing a little internal selective editing when you do?

He's either a troll, doesn't own guns, or he's completely oblivious to what's been going on the past 6 months, that's the only explanation I can come up with.

Or, as always, Seawrd is giving us a text book case of cognitive dissonance and/or a master class in trolling. Having a divergent opinion and pointing out hypocrisy isn't trolling either.

I did read those threads, and people did not call for total gun bans or say people should never be allowed t defend themselves. Those are straw men arguments the more, shall we say, deficient, advocates of no gun regulation ever trot out to swat down, but they didn't really exist on any meaningful level. Most gun owners know the difference between a reasonable discussion on gun regulation, actual reasonable gun regulation, and confusing a tool with a symbol and/or penis enhancer.

 Ahtman wrote:
Most gun owners know the difference between a reasonable discussion on gun regulation, actual reasonable gun regulation, and confusing a tool with a symbol and/or penis enhancer.

Speaking of, where are the quotes from this thread that show Dakka members were "aroused" by the news?

 Ahtman wrote:
Or, as always, Seawrd is giving us a text book case of cognitive dissonance and/or a master class in trolling. Having a divergent opinion and pointing out hypocrisy isn't trolling either.

I did read those threads, and people did not call for total gun bans or say people should never be allowed t defend themselves. Those are straw men arguments the more, shall we say, deficient, advocates of no gun regulation ever trot out to swat down, but they didn't really exist on any meaningful level. Most gun owners know the difference between a reasonable discussion on gun regulation, actual reasonable gun regulation, and confusing a tool with a symbol and/or penis enhancer.

You're really gonna make me go link to some folks calling for all-out bans, aren't you?

Speaking of master classes in trolling...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Most gun owners know the difference between a reasonable discussion on gun regulation, actual reasonable gun regulation, and confusing a tool with a symbol and/or penis enhancer.

Speaking of, where are the quotes from this thread that show Dakka members were "aroused" by the news?

Look, if you need use dictionary.com to look up what aroused means and then go back and read the first page to try and understand what is being discussed, that is on you. Your laziness doesn't mean I should have to do your work for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
You're really gonna make me go link to some folks calling for all-out bans, aren't you?

And then link to where it is pointed out that they are extreme outliers that have no real say in the legislative process? It is akin to pretending that right wing extremists represent the mind set of all gun owners.

 Ahtman wrote:
Look, if you need use dictionary.com to look up what aroused means and then go back and read the first page to try and understand what is being discussed, that is on you. Your laziness doesn't mean I should have to do your work for you.

a·rouse (-rouz)
v. a·roused, a·rous·ing, a·rous·es
v.tr.
1. To awaken from or as if from sleep.
2. To stir up; excite:
3. To stimulate sexual desire in.
v.intr.
To be or become aroused.

Yeah, I can't say I say much, if any, of that in this thread. But please, don't let that stop you insisting that I have to somehow prove your argument because you're unable to

 Soladrin wrote:
Wait. So, if you don't own a gun you're not allowed to comment on gun stuff? That's news to me.

MrMoustaffa wrote:He's either a troll, doesn't own guns, or he's completely oblivious to what's been going on the past 6 months, that's the only explanation I can come up with.

How did you come to that conclusion, Soladrin?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Wait. So, if you don't own a gun you're not allowed to comment on gun stuff? That's news to me.

He's either a troll, doesn't own guns, or he's completely oblivious to what's been going on the past 6 months, that's the only explanation I can come up with.

How did you come to that conclusion, Soladrin?

Because in the list of things it would take to hold a 'correct' opinion was whether or not the person owns a firearm. It is right there in your quote and everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yeah, I can't say I say much, if any, of that in this thread.

Well, even if I didn't question your reading comprehension skills, which I strongly do, I also recognize that it could be biting you on the buttocks and you still wouldn't see it because it isn't what you want to see.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Wait. So, if you don't own a gun you're not allowed to comment on gun stuff? That's news to me.

He's either a troll, doesn't own guns, or he's completely oblivious to what's been going on the past 6 months, that's the only explanation I can come up with.

How did you come to that conclusion, Soladrin?

Because in the list of things it would take to hold a 'correct' opinion was whether or not the person owns a firearm. It is right there in your quote and everything.

Only if you don't know understand how "either....or" works in a sentence.

 Hordini wrote:
Only if you don't know understand how "either....or" works in a sentence.

I'm pretty sure he's doing the usual and trolling.

 Hordini wrote:
Only if you don't know understand how "either....or" works in a sentence.

I believe it is the point that it is even mention as an either/or in being able to formulate an opinion at all is what is problematic. You might as well say that people that own guns can't have an informed thought on the subject and it would sound just as ludicrous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
I'm pretty sure he's doing the usual and trolling.

You thinking someone is trolling is usually a sign of: a) that person not trolling, and b) that person being on the right track. I take it as a compliment.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Only if you don't know understand how "either....or" works in a sentence.

I believe it is the point that it is even mention as an either/or in being able to formulate an opinion at all is what is problematic. You might as well say that people that own guns can't have an informed thought on the subject and it would sound just as ludicrous.

But you admit that it wasn't said someone needs to own a gun to comment on guns, right? Because that's all that my post was concerned with.

 Ahtman wrote:
Well, even if I didn't question your reading comprehension skills, which I strongly do, I also recognize that it could be biting you on the buttocks and you still wouldn't see it because it isn't what you want to see.

So I ask you to back up a pretty bold statement, you refuse to do so several times, and now start slinging mud. Cool

Well, the simple fact is if he bothers to go through and explain it all to you, he knows you'll just go "Nah, not good enough", and waste his time and effort in getting the examples, explaining it thoroughly and then presenting it to you.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Only if you don't know understand how "either....or" works in a sentence.

I believe it is the point that it is even mention as an either/or in being able to formulate an opinion at all is what is problematic. You might as well say that people that own guns can't have an informed thought on the subject and it would sound just as ludicrous.

But you admit that it wasn't said someone needs to own a gun to comment on guns, right? Because that's all that my post was concerned with.

What a very semantic argument. Was it explicitly stated? No. Was it strongly implied, using almost those exact words? Yes. They only said it might be a criteria for it, they never said it was the only criteria.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Well, the simple fact is if he bothers to go through and explain it all to you, he knows you'll just go "Nah, not good enough", and waste his time and effort in getting the examples, explaining it thoroughly and then presenting it to you.

Not the case at all, if he can show me actual concrete examples of the behaviour that he claims in the posts in question then I'll stand corrected. Just brushing it off as essentially "doesn't matter, you won't believe me anyway" is a terrible way to conduct any sort of discussion.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Well, the simple fact is if he bothers to go through and explain it all to you, he knows you'll just go "Nah, not good enough", and waste his time and effort in getting the examples, explaining it thoroughly and then presenting it to you.

Not the case at all,

I have a lot of prime real estate on the beach in Florida I am willing to sell at low low prices for anyone that believes that.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Well, the simple fact is if he bothers to go through and explain it all to you, he knows you'll just go "Nah, not good enough", and waste his time and effort in getting the examples, explaining it thoroughly and then presenting it to you.

Not the case at all, if he can show me actual concrete examples of the behaviour that he claims in the posts in question then I'll stand corrected. Just brushing it off as essentially "doesn't matter, you won't believe me anyway" is a terrible way to conduct any sort of discussion.

Dismissing everything you don't agree with is also terrible conduct in any sort of discussion.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Well, the simple fact is if he bothers to go through and explain it all to you, he knows you'll just go "Nah, not good enough", and waste his time and effort in getting the examples, explaining it thoroughly and then presenting it to you.

Not the case at all,

I have a lot of prime real estate on the beach in Florida I am willing to sell at low low prices for anyone that believes that.

I know what you mean by that line, but I don't understand the origin. Is Florida landlocked or something?

No it's not landlocked, what is this I don't even.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Except for the fact that no one has ever made that argument; it exists in the mind of hysterical gun lovers, which of course, do not make up the majority of gun owners. It is the same people that confuse discussing sensible gun legislation with OMG OBAMA WANNA GIT RID OF ALL GUNS and are easily manipulated by the industry into being afriad of something that isn't happening to increase gun sales.

Have you just not bothered to actually read any of the many, many gun debate threads here? Or are you just doing a little internal selective editing when you do?

Because clearly this forum is the only forum with threads on gun legislation.

The only worth wearing the extra special aluminum headgear for!!!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Except for the fact that no one has ever made that argument; it exists in the mind of hysterical gun lovers, which of course, do not make up the majority of gun owners. It is the same people that confuse discussing sensible gun legislation with OMG OBAMA WANNA GIT RID OF ALL GUNS and are easily manipulated by the industry into being afriad of something that isn't happening to increase gun sales.

Have you just not bothered to actually read any of the many, many gun debate threads here? Or are you just doing a little internal selective editing when you do?

Because clearly this forum is the only forum with threads on gun legislation.

The only worth wearing the extra special aluminum headgear for!!!

I'll give you that.

 Ahtman wrote:
I have a lot of prime real estate on the beach in Florida I am willing to sell at low low prices for anyone that believes that.

Still playing the player and not the ball I see. Just as long as your remember - if you're throwing mud you're losing ground


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Soladrin wrote:
Dismissing everything you don't agree with is also terrible conduct in any sort of discussion.

Someone dismissing an argument just because they don't like it is one thing, not having evidence to back up their position is another thing entirely.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Only if you don't know understand how "either....or" works in a sentence.

I believe it is the point that it is even mention as an either/or in being able to formulate an opinion at all is what is problematic. You might as well say that people that own guns can't have an informed thought on the subject and it would sound just as ludicrous.

But you admit that it wasn't said someone needs to own a gun to comment on guns, right? Because that's all that my post was concerned with.

What a very semantic argument. Was it explicitly stated? No. Was it strongly implied, using almost those exact words? Yes. They only said it might be a criteria for it, they never said it was the only criteria.

I don't care about what was implied, Soladrin said "Wait. So, if you don't own a gun you're not allowed to comment on gun stuff? That's news to me.". That statement is not true, and I wanted Soladrin to answer how he came to that conclusion.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I don't particularly accept an end result of dying as "good", but in cases like this as "acceptable".

Yeah, that makes more sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the people who are glad for this criminal's death, that's a little weird, I'm not glad he died but I do feel he made some pretty bad decisions after his release.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Also the people who are glad for this criminal's death, that's a little weird, I'm not glad he died but I do feel he made some pretty bad decisions after his release.

He was a violent criminal who left prison and attempted to commit another violent crime. I'm glad he's dead even if it makes me weird.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Also the people who are glad for this criminal's death, that's a little weird, I'm not glad he died but I do feel he made some pretty bad decisions after his release.

He was a violent criminal who left prison and attempted to commit another violent crime. I'm glad he's dead even if it makes me weird.

Let's see, is the world better off without him? Check
Is the world safer without him? Check
Is he no longer a burden on the system? Check

Ok adds up, glad he's dead.

Put me on the weird boat as well. Everyone makes their own choices in life, and reaps their own rewards. This guy made a series of choices that led to him being introduced to a pine box.

I'm glad he's no longer a drain on, or a threat to society

 Cheesecat wrote:
Also the people who are glad for this criminal's death, that's a little weird, I'm not glad he died but I do feel he made some pretty bad decisions after his release.

I'm not glad at his death, but I'm not going to mourn his loss. He preyed on people, was violent and his ending was in a manner that befitted the choices that he himself made in life.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Not entirely sure how someone dying is better then someone getting robbed.

Exconvinicted repeater dying = good.

I would like to think it's a little more complicated than that, like if someone is caught speeding I don't think they should have to die. Actually the only time I'm OK with criminals dying is from self-defense from the victim or during warfare.

Agreed.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Not entirely sure how someone dying is better then someone getting robbed.

Exconvinicted repeater dying = good.

I would like to think it's a little more complicated than that, like if someone is caught speeding I don't think they should have to die. Actually the only time I'm OK with criminals dying is from self-defense from the victim or during warfare.

Agreed.

And I'm OK with it as well, having repeatedly said that I believe in self defense. Where I part ways, and what I find sad and pathetic, is when people are actively joyous that the man is dead. Being glad that the man being robbed is alive and well is not the same as tap dancing on the criminals grave. I tend to the former, and really feel pity for people that seemed hellbent to be focused on the latter.

 Ahtman wrote:
And I'm OK with it as well, having repeatedly said that I believe in self defense. Where I part ways, and what I find sad and pathetic, is when people are actively joyous that the man is dead. Being glad that the man being robbed is alive and well is not the same as tap dancing on the criminals grave. I tend to the former, and really feel pity for people that seemed hellbent to be focused on the latter.

I would never tap dance.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I would never tap dance.

Meet

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I'm glad he's dead

 Ahtman wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I would never tap dance.

Meet

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I'm glad he's dead

I meant literally tap dancing. I'm still glad a violent criminal is dead.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
You're really gonna make me go link to some folks calling for all-out bans, aren't you?

And then link to where it is pointed out that they are extreme outliers that have no real say in the legislative process? It is akin to pretending that right wing extremists represent the mind set of all gun owners.

Uhh... if Feinstein isn't an extreme outlier then I'm scared to see what is.

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Wait. So, if you don't own a gun you're not allowed to comment on gun stuff? That's news to me.

MrMoustaffa wrote:He's either a troll, doesn't own guns, or he's completely oblivious to what's been going on the past 6 months, that's the only explanation I can come up with.

How did you come to that conclusion, Soladrin?

Fixed your little quote to show what I said. Soladrin didn't call the guy a troll or a guy who didn't own guns, that was me. Just didn't want him getting blamed for something he didn't say.

My bad MrMoustaffa, fixed the original.

 Ahtman wrote:
And then link to where it is pointed out that they are extreme outliers that have no real say in the legislative process? It is akin to pretending that right wing extremists represent the mind set of all gun owners.

Who said they had any say in the legislative process? I highly doubt anyone on this forum does beyond voting. Most of the "ban them all" lunacy here comes from people who aren't eligible to vote, for that matter.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
You're really gonna make me go link to some folks calling for all-out bans, aren't you?

And then link to where it is pointed out that they are extreme outliers that have no real say in the legislative process? It is akin to pretending that right wing extremists represent the mind set of all gun owners.

Uhh... if Feinstein isn't an extreme outlier then I'm scared to see what is.

I think you might have mis-quoted there, because I don't think I said that, I'm pretty sure it was Athman

Just a simple question: when is being glad about something akin to being aroused? I am glad I woke up this morning, doesn't mean I am aroused by it, I am glad I still have a job, doesn't mean that I am aroused by that fact either..

I will say that I am happy with the outcome of this situation, I don't think that equates to "aroused".

*I am not injecting any religion here, nor have I in any post, I am just curious how "Glad and Aroused" made their way next to each other in your thesaurus.

Edit: Please don't take this as troll bait or anything(if I am using that term correctly), I am only attempting to see what it is in the first statements on the thread that brought you to that conclusion, as I am not seeing such it makes it difficult to see your point of view and decide if I disagree with the statement or not. ( I hope that makes sense lol)

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
You're really gonna make me go link to some folks calling for all-out bans, aren't you?

And then link to where it is pointed out that they are extreme outliers that have no real say in the legislative process? It is akin to pretending that right wing extremists represent the mind set of all gun owners.

Uhh... if Feinstein isn't an extreme outlier then I'm scared to see what is.

I think you might have mis-quoted there, because I don't think I said that, I'm pretty sure it was Athman

the quote system is acting up. I didn't know who made the statement I was just disagreeing with them

If you go up the page a bit you'll see I had to edit my name onto a quote because people thought someone else had said it

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
the quote system is acting up. I didn't know who made the statement I was just disagreeing with them

If you go up the page a bit you'll see I had to edit my name onto a quote because people thought someone else had said it

No worries, I've fallen foul of the quote system plenty of times myself