Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
Is this the one where the kid found the gun in her purse from the back seat and shot her in the back?
US mother accidentally shot dead by two-year-old son
- Thread starter vostok
- Start date
Iwannagethigh780
Member
Damn that's just sad imagine this kid has to grow up knowing he killed his mom but would never remember it
SoOLED
Well-Known Member
it was...
topic wise: I still can not find much about the incident, no statement from the boyfriend, no TOD by emergency responders and no charges brought on anyone.
in the Jamie gilt (who is white) case, she is an ardent pro-gun activist( its all over her facebook and has lots of twitter followers, post frequently about gun safety) will now face charges. when her 4 year old shot her with a 1911 under almost identical circumstances. she did thankfully survive, thought she might loose her kids. TBH, which is worse?
Mount
Well-Known Member
Maybe I don't quite get the question, but is it really a threat of force to enact a reasonable punishment for the crime? If someone commits a heinous crime against another should they be held accountable for their actions or given a time-out to think about it? Just food for thought... of course many will take the side that they can be rehabilitated, others will say the punishment should fit the crime. Much like the legalization of cannabis, some will say it is harmless and has medicinal qualities, others will say it is the gateway drug... The world is ever changing and problems have become more complex, but we should approach it to fix the problem and not just treat a symptom.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Any person should be able to respond to offensive force with defensive force.
No person(s) or group of persons should be able to apply offensive force and if they do, they shouldn't be surprised when their victim(s) responds with defensive force.
Therefore, asking an entity which employs offensive force as its primary means of operation, to be the arbiter of justice is an illogical process.
Yes we agree that striking root causes is better than flailing in the branches and addressing symptoms.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you called it offensive force when they desegregated lunch counters though.
either you don;t know what words mean or you are a klansman.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Offensive force is used when people INITIATE aggression against a person or their justly acquired property.
Which would mean offensive force was applied if a person OTHER THAN THE OWNER was making the choices about the property use. You sometimes champion OFFENSIVE FORCE, especially when it is sponsored by the government, I do not.
Defensive force is used to repel offensive force. You sometimes fail to comprehend what defensive force is, I do not.
When a nonproperty owner applies EITHER forced segregation or forced integregation edicts, they become the aggressor. If you disagree with that, I'd love to hear your well thought out and consistent argument countering it.
If the non property owners (government) had stayed out of the situation, the people involved would be able to interact or not on a mutual and voluntary basis.
Moral of the story, you are a hypocrite who often fails to distinguish between offensive and defensive force.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
The moral of the story is that offensive force and defensive force are often a matter of perception. Of course your society has no 2nd tier so there is no one to figure out who's perception is more likely to be right, nor which person used what sort of force.
So you got a mishmash of he said she said where the victor is the strongest. Welcome to society on planet earth ;]
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Not quite, at least in the instance Uncle Buck and I were referring to. The ownership of the subject property was not in question, therefore your argument isn't on point.
A matter of perception could exist under different circumstances, but not in the ones where there is consistent agreement on who owns what etc.
As far as other situations which you refer to, sure there can be differences in perception as to who owns what, that's why a clear understanding of what a property right is becomes important when adjudicating disputes.
ColoHead
Well-Known Member
I take it you're an Anarchist?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I say the ownership of the subject property was in question.
I say it is my property. What body now decides the dispute?
You cannot have property rights without some body granting you property rights. Again, a wild animal has as many property rights as you do without some form of government.
I say it is my property. What body now decides the dispute?
You cannot have property rights without some body granting you property rights. Again, a wild animal has as many property rights as you do without some form of government.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
He is a Panarchist, which is wierder and more dysfunctional.
I agree with many of his points but a society of the nature he wants to design is not workable.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I prefer to use the term Voluntaryist.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
It seems like you are now referring to a different circumstance than the one Uncle Buck and I were politely discussing and have posed a hypothetical situation / question for me?
Nature, by your existence has endowed you with a property right in your physical self. Would you agree?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Except I don't want to design a society, per se, which is sort of the point. That would mean, I would be imposing on other persons wouldn't it?
I want YOU to live your own life, but not dictate the terms others will live their life. So in that regard, how you live your life only becomes my concern when / if your life intersects with mine.
Also, I appreciate that you agree with many of my points.
ColoHead
Well-Known Member
Got it. From what I've seen in your interactions here your beliefs seem to align well with the definition you gave.
Why all the racist accusations? Voluntary principles could really only work if men treated each other with respect and dignity...
Also, how do you handle those that don't wish to volunteer to respect the rights of others?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Your last sentence is the crux of the problem.
ColoHead
Well-Known Member
If we're unwilling to elect some outside force to settle the dispute, this is where voluntaryism would become anarchy I imagine.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Uncle Buck and I have a long history of "debating" (for lack of a better term) . When his intellect abandons him, (frequently) he goes to his innuendo and falsification toolbox. He's had some fun straw manning my beliefs and others have jumped on board his train. I don't take the jabs too seriously and give back what I get.
Voluntary principles?
There will never be a perfect world as long as there are imperfect people. So, there is no "perfect system" when the components, people, are imperfect.
However, if at the onset a group of people use means which arise from involuntary associations as their primary institutions, governments etc., (which happens presently) there is a systemic flaw built in from the beginning. So that creates an assurance that involuntary means can't work and they certainly are not based in justice or freedom.
I appreciate your reasonable demeanor when asking questions.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I am trying to elect Trump. The other candidates have been politicians for decades.