Robber shot dead by would-be victim outside Ft. Worth store

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.

**Seaward**

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...

**Ahtman**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

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?

**Ahtman**

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.

**Hordini**

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.

**Seaward**

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.

**Ahtman**

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.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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

**MrDwhitey**

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.

**Ahtman**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

**Ahtman**

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.

**Soladrin**

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.

**MrDwhitey**

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.

**Frazzled**

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!!!

**Soladrin**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

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.

**Cheesecat**

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.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

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.

**Andrew1975**

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.

**djones520**

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

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

**Asherian Command**

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.

**Ahtman**

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.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

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.

**Ahtman**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I would never tap dance.

Meet

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I'm glad he's dead

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

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.