• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teen shot to death during home invasion

Pfft. Rookies.

250px-Purple_Smurfs.jpg

49282814_12aece0a91_o.jpg

smurf%20400%25%20black.jpg
When you choke a smurf what color does it turn?


.
 
I agree, and it is probably making it a heck of a lot worse for the guy who shot him.

That guy didn't know what the boy was capable of, and had to protect his family.
I wish (and I'm sure he wishes) that there were a way he could've incapacitated the boy without killing him.
It sounds like he tried to stop him with a non-lethal shot.

He probably does feel bad, but there's really nothing he could've done differently.

This whole case pretty much exemplifies the word "tragedy", as there was probably no ill intent on anyone's part, not even that of the people who sold the boy the drugs; just a series of foolish choices that led to a tragic death.
 
The arguments in favor of drug prohibition are the exact same one's in favor of gun prohibition.

They are liberal nanny-statism, and nothing more.
 
The arguments in favor of drug prohibition are the exact same one's in favor of gun prohibition.

They are liberal nanny-statism, and nothing more.

More drugs = less crime?

Source please?
 
Stupid hurts.... This time it cost this kid his life. The homeowner I am sure is feeling like crap, but he did the right thing.... This is a sad story all around...

Not to me.:lol: Aim for the head next time.
 
The target market would be more likely to utilize such a facility if- instead of touting "safety" as its main attraction- one made it really "fun". You know, lots of psychedelic stuff to look at and play with, cool music, trippy movies to watch, black light and body paint. Padded walls are fine; hell, put a moonwalk in there.
The "staff" would need to just sort of blend into the woodwork, unless needed, otherwise they'd cause inhibition and paranoia.

I think your onto something there, though seeing people blend into the woodwork could be highly disconcerting:lol:

I was thinking more convinience then anything else. In that its easyer to buy something then walk around a muddy field looking for it. Though i think the safety element could pull people in when it comes to other drugs. Personally speaking i tend feel uneasy taking pills etc. as i can never know for sure whats in them [not that it stops me;)] If an option was availiable were i had better idea of what was in then ild certainly go for it
 
Last edited:
More drugs = less crime?

Source please?

But we,re not talking so much about the amount of drugs here, we,re talking about who is producing and selling them

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition]Prohibition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Who said anything about more drugs?

Source please.

That was a play on words from:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636]Amazon.com: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics) (9780226493633): John R. Lott Jr.: Books[/ame]

Don't latch onto one word when the point was an entire title.

Where is your equivalent?
 
Alcohol =/= "drugs" just as pistol =/= 50cal belt-fed machine gun.

What difference is their between the two that means the same principle wont apply? Are you saying that the latter is more harmful?
 
That guy didn't know what the boy was capable of, and had to protect his family.
I wish (and I'm sure he wishes) that there were a way he could've incapacitated the boy without killing him.
It sounds like he tried to stop him with a non-lethal shot.

He probably does feel bad, but there's really nothing he could've done differently.

This whole case pretty much exemplifies the word "tragedy", as there was probably no ill intent on anyone's part, not even that of the people who sold the boy the drugs; just a series of foolish choices that led to a tragic death.
Don't take my post wrong. I am all for gun ownership and I agree that the home owner was trying to protect his family, even that the kid was stupid for doing drugs in the first place and it really doesn't matter to me that he died.
I was just expressing an opinion. Because I can just imagine being the guy that shot him and hearing him call me dad. I would have started crying.

Now being who I am, as soon as you said, "there's really nothing he could've done differently.", I call bs.
 
My point being that the prohibition of something can make it more dangerous and fuel organised crime.

Well, sure. Human sex trafficking is largely dangerous and fueled by organized crime, as are other illicit activities such as weapons trafficking, gambling, and certain types of pornography.

No doubt we could 'reduce crime' by making these activities legal.

:2wave:
 
What difference is their between the two that means the same principle wont apply? Are you saying that the latter is more harmful?

Hey I'm pro-2nd amendment but that doesn't mean I support private ownership of missiles and explosives.

I want pot legalized, that doesn't mean I support all these other drugs.

Pot is a pistol, tobacco is a rifle, alcohol is machine gun.

Shrumes are stinger missiles, cocaine = VX gas, meth = hydrogen bomb.

Anyone, without exception, who supports legalizing hard drugs are no better then the loony kooks who support private ownership of ICBMs.
 
Last edited:

Don't present strawmen if you don't want them to be called out as the idiocy they are.

I said the arguments given for the prohibition of drugs are the same as the arguemnts given for the prohibition of guns.

You decided to falsely portray that this would mean that the arguments against the prohibition of drugs should therefor be the same as those against the prohibition of guns.

Thus, I must ask again who said anything about more drugs equaling less crime?

I'm not making any commentary about similarities between the arguments AGAINST both forms of prohibition.
 
Don't take my post wrong. I am all for gun ownership and I agree that the home owner was trying to protect his family, even that the kid was stupid for doing drugs in the first place and it really doesn't matter to me that he died.
I was just expressing an opinion. Because I can just imagine being the guy that shot him and hearing him call me dad. I would have started crying.

Now being who I am, as soon as you said, "there's really nothing he could've done differently.", I call bs.

Mentally ill people and people acting psychotic and disconnected from reality because of drugs are extremely unpredictable and frightening.
I can't imagine what was going through the shooter's mind when this boy entered his house, obviously delusional, and refused to leave. I imagine the man was merely concerned about the safety of his family.
True, there are things he could've done differently; but then we might be discussing a tragedy of another kind. The psychotic boy might have killed the man's wife, for example.
 
Well, sure. Human sex trafficking is largely dangerous and fueled by organized crime, as are other illicit activities such as weapons trafficking, gambling, and certain types of pornography.

No doubt we could 'reduce crime' by making these activities legal.

:2wave:

The difference being that human trafficking would still harm people if it were legal. This isnt the case with drugs and alcohol as the harm is reduced. Legalised alcohol in the United State reduced Alcohol poisioning. And a relaxation of drug legislation in Portugal produced these results.

In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession. In addition, drug users were to be targeted with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute and led by Glenn Greenwald found that in the five years after the start of decriminalisation, illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled. However, Peter Reuther, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, while conceding that Portuguese decriminalization met its central goal of stopping the rise in drug use, suggests that the heroin usage rates and related deaths may have been due to the cyclical nature of drug epidemics[4].

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization[/ame]
 
Thus, I must ask again who said anything about more drugs equaling less crime?

I don't know that anyone is, which is why I asked. As soon as you realize that I included a "?", indicating a question, you might understand that I made no such claim.
 
Mentally ill people and people acting psychotic and disconnected from reality because of drugs are extremely unpredictable and frightening.
I can't imagine what was going through the shooter's mind when this boy entered his house, obviously delusional, and refused to leave. I imagine the man was merely concerned about the safety of his family.
True, there are things he could've done differently; but then we might be discussing a tragedy of another kind. The psychotic boy might have killed the man's wife, for example.
I really was not discussing those 'what if's', merely stating an opinion about how the shooter may feel after. That is all.
I only hope he eventually comes to the conclusion that he did the 'right' thing, because of those what if's. I know I would.
 
Last edited:
I really was not discussing those 'what if's', merely stating an opinion about how the shooter may feel after. That is all.
I only hope he eventually comes to the conclusion that he did the 'right' thing, because of those what if's. I know I would.

He will.
People are adaptable, and capable of believing whatever they need to believe in order to go on.
 
Alcohol =/= "drugs" just as pistol =/= 50cal belt-fed machine gun.

Alcohol is a drug.

A drug, by definition, is "a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body"



Also, the correct logical analogy, using a specific term compared to a general term would be:

Alcohol is to drugs what a pistol is to guns.

Thus Alcohol = drug as Pistol = gun

You compared a specific to a general and then a specific to a specific.

Obviously that is a false analogy.
 
Back
Top Bottom