Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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?