• 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!

Chased home: Mob attacks man in his house

OscarB63 said:
what is really sad, is all of these anti gun liberals who think the guy was better off being unarmed, would be the very same people complaining about the cops not doing their jobs if they hadn't arrived in time and the mob had beaten this guy to a pulp.

anyone here actually believe this mob wouldn't have severely beaten, if not killed, this guy had the cops not happened to have shown up? anyone want to bet that the violence wouldn't have escalated to involve everyone inside the home?
Click to expand...

The guy may very well have been dead and his family hurt had it went on longer...a mob builds momentum they dont calm on their own they feed of each others anger thats why police react strongly to any group things...they have to and fast..
Having said that I wont blame others opinions merely on them being liberal or conservative...everyone certainly has a right to believe what they may...
What I think is more in play here with the difference in opinions is most americans enjoy a threat free existence...they are oblivious to the reality of what can happen to them.. and their opinions reflect that
 
lpast said:
they are oblivious to the reality of what can happen to them.. and their opinions reflect that
Click to expand...
Including people who don't consider the possibility that the homeowner having gun could have made the situation worse and gotten everybody killed.

It's possible that a gun would have helped and it's possible that a gun would have made it worse. Discrediting either argument illustrates a poor analysis of reality (I'm not saying you specifically are discrediting either argument - I'm just making the point).
 
theplaydrive said:
Including people who don't consider the possibility that the homeowner having gun could have made the situation worse and gotten everybody killed.

It's possible that a gun would have helped and it's possible that a gun would have made it worse. Discrediting either argument illustrates a poor analysis of reality (I'm not saying you specifically are discrediting either argument - I'm just making the point).
Click to expand...

the mob had already chased him down, kicked in his door, invaded his home and pointed a gun at him. how much worse could it have gotten?

or will anyone argue that the crowd would have simply turned around and left if the cops hadn't shown up? at least if the guy or anyone in his family had been armed, he would have had some chance of defending himself.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
the mob had already chased him down, kicked in his door, invaded his home and pointed a gun at him. how much worse could it have gotten?
Click to expand...
considering that (at least) one of the mob guys had a gun, here's a potential scenario: homeowner grabs his gun, shoots, mob guy shoots, all hell breaks loose, kids dead off of stray bullets
 
theplaydrive said:
considering that (at least) one of the mob guys had a gun, here's a potential scenario: homeowner grabs his gun, shoots, mob guy shoots, all hell breaks loose, kids dead off of stray bullets
Click to expand...

and how is that worse than: guy doesn't have a gun, mob beats everyone in the house to death?
 
OscarB63 said:
and how is that worse than: guy doesn't have a gun, mob beats everyone in the house to death?
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was worse. I said that it was possible just like your situation is possible and that it was dumb to discount certain possibilities. Will you pay attention for once in your life?
 
Tettsuo said:
BTW, only cowards rely on guns to make them strong.
Click to expand...

Like the founders! Those ******s. I bet they could have worked out their differences with the British over tea.
 
Ikari said:
Like the founders! Those ******s. I bet they could have worked out their differences with the British over tea.
Click to expand...

Well, there was a tea party involved, if I recall correctly. :mrgreen:
 
theplaydrive said:
considering that (at least) one of the mob guys had a gun, here's a potential scenario: homeowner grabs his gun, shoots, mob guy shoots, all hell breaks loose, kids dead off of stray bullets
Click to expand...

All hell had already broke loose. As the police arrived, the victim was struggling with one of the criminals that was trying to shoot him. If the victim had a gun, maybe he could have scared the mob away. Without one, he was clearly a sitting duck just waiting to be shot.
 
theplaydrive said:
I didn't say it was worse. I said that it was possible just like your situation is possible and that it was dumb to discount certain possibilities. Will you pay attention for once in your life?
Click to expand...

if you are going to be beaten to death anyway, how is it worse to have a gun and take one or more of your attackers with you?
 
OscarB63 said:
if you are going to be beaten to death anyway, how is it worse to have a gun and take one or more of your attackers with you?
Click to expand...
What? My point is that there are many possible scenarios. One of those scenarios is that your find (the current one), another is that you get beaten to death, another is that you pull out a gun and then your entire family gets shot. It isn't a dichotomy of "get beaten to death" or "get shot to death". There are many possibilities and the possibility remains that having a gun would have gotten his entire family killed instead of just getting off with some bruises like he did in reality.
 
Anonymous1776 said:
All hell had already broke loose. As the police arrived, the victim was struggling with one of the criminals that was trying to shoot him. If the victim had a gun, maybe he could have scared the mob away. Without one, he was clearly a sitting duck just waiting to be shot.
Click to expand...
Opinion noted. Here's another possibility: he had a gun, situation escalates, he and his family die. Nothing that you've had does anything to stop that from being a possibility.

Why is it so hard for people to admit that a gun can make a situation worse? This coming from a person who grew up with guns in my house which were there for the purpose of protecting my family from situations like this.
 
theplaydrive said:
What? My point is that there are many possible scenarios. One of those scenarios is that your find (the current one), another is that you get beaten to death, another is that you pull out a gun and then your entire family gets shot. It isn't a dichotomy of "get beaten to death" or "get shot to death". There are many possibilities and the possibility remains that having a gun would have gotten his entire family killed instead of just getting off with some bruises like he did in reality.
Click to expand...

so you are going to argue that if the cops hadn't shown up, it is a realistic scenario that no one in the home would've been severely beaten or killed?
 
theplaydrive said:
Opinion noted. Here's another possibility: he had a gun, situation escalates, he and his family die. Nothing that you've had does anything to stop that from being a possibility.

Why is it so hard for people to admit that a gun can make a situation worse? This coming from a person who grew up with guns in my house which were there for the purpose of protecting my family from situations like this.
Click to expand...

all of your scenarios are predicated on the faulty assumption that the situation was not going to escalate anyway. it was already escalating
 
Tettsuo said:
I prefer no one except police and the armed forces have guns. Since that can't be the case, I'd prefer very few guns as opposed to more guns being in public circulation. I often read people saying "If he were armed...." that bravado is based completely on that person having the superior firepower. The often neglected fact is if more guns are out there, more people will have it, not just the "good guys". The result could potentially be more people killed, not just and "bad guys". In fact, the "bad guys" are more interested in superior firepower and more willing to take someone's like (thus making them the bad guys). So I'd wager more "good guys" will end up dead.
Click to expand...

Then you would prefer to be a victim.

ALL the gun owners I know (ALL law abiding) practice regularly and maintain their weapon and know how to use it. Most if not all criminals never practice and barley know enough to pull the trigger let alone do any maintenance and get all their knowledge from their equally ignorant friends.

If that was me and my home first pound on the door they would have been warned, first foot through the door the first shots get fired and not stopped until the threat is gone. Because in a mob like the one described I would consider it a life or death situation and act accordingly.

It's not as you say being an internet tough guy, it's just simple statement of fact. I prefer to stand my ground and fight, and not whimper in a corner hoping for the benevolence of the mob. If you do good luck with that.
 
theplaydrive said:
Why is it so hard for people to admit that a gun can make a situation worse? This coming from a person who grew up with guns in my house which were there for the purpose of protecting my family from situations like this.
Click to expand...

You can also die from an overdose of water. I'm not saying guns make people magically infallible. I'm saying they save lives more often than not in life threatening situations. And, that government doesn't have a right to make that determination for individuals. It is the individual at risk, not the government.
 
OscarB63 said:
all of your scenarios are predicated on the faulty assumption that the situation was not going to escalate anyway. it was already escalating
Click to expand...
i can't even answer this because i don't know how to begin with such a poor analysis of the scenarios i presented.
 
Anonymous1776 said:
You can also die from an overdose of water. I'm not saying guns make people magically infallible. I'm saying they save lives more often than not in life threatening situations. And, that government doesn't have a right to make that determination for individuals. It is the individual at risk, not the government.
Click to expand...
None of this has anything to do with anything I've said. My point has been to say that many scenarios can happen - the gun could have be good or bad or neutral - and that's it's stupid to ignore certain potential outcomes.
 
Ikari said:
Like the founders! Those ******s. I bet they could have worked out their differences with the British over tea.
Click to expand...
Too bad we aren't back in those days, then your comment would have some relevance.

People carry guns out of fear. Plain and simple. You're not brave because have a gun. This entire notion that strength is related to a firearm sickens me.
 
Tettsuo said:
Too bad we aren't back in those days, then your comment would have some relevance.

People carry guns out of fear. Plain and simple. You're not brave because have a gun. This entire notion that strength is related to a firearm sickens me.
Click to expand...

The notion that you attribute the carrying of firearms with wanting to appear strong sickens me. Do people who carry optional fire, flood, or theft insurance sicken you to? Shame on people for preparing for and attempting to mitigate as many harmful situations as possible! Those dirty cowards!
 
mtlhdtodd said:
Then you would prefer to be a victim.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense and isn't something you got from my post.
ALL the gun owners I know (ALL law abiding) practice regularly and maintain their weapon and know how to use it. Most if not all criminals never practice and barley know enough to pull the trigger let alone do any maintenance and get all their knowledge from their equally ignorant friends.
Click to expand...
Wow, you have no idea do you? You don't think criminals like guns as well? Like them enough to know how to take care of a gun? Seriously? If you're betting on that, you're betting on a longshot (pun intended).

If that was me and my home first pound on the door they would have been warned, first foot through the door the first shots get fired and not stopped until the threat is gone. Because in a mob like the one described I would consider it a life or death situation and act accordingly.
Click to expand...
Your entire senario depends on the criminals being unarmed or unable to retaliate. If you want to have a society were guns are commonplace, you have to start expecting that everyone would be just as fully armed as yourself. You will NOT have the advantage here. A mob of that size, armed and prepared to use it will simply shoot first and ask questions later. Much like you claim you would do.
It's not as you say being an internet tough guy, it's just simple statement of fact. I prefer to stand my ground and fight, and not whimper in a corner hoping for the benevolence of the mob. If you do good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Again, your bravado depends on your attackers NOT having the superior force at their disposal. That thinking is terribly flawed. So if you're only brave if you're the strong of the 2 forces, I'd call you a coward.
 
theangryamerican said:
The notion that you attribute the carrying of firearms with wanting to appear strong sickens me. Do people who carry optional fire, flood, or theft insurance sicken you to?
Click to expand...
Nice twisting there. Fire, flood and theft insurance doesn't require you to kill someone. Prattling on about what you would do if that were you is just fantasy and empty bravado.

Insurance is a fear based industry. That's a fact.
Shame on people for preparing for and attempting to mitigate as many harmful situations as possible! Those dirty cowards!
Click to expand...
Trying to tie carrying a firearm to having insurance is a rather weak comparison to me.
 
Tettsuo said:
Nice twisting there. Fire, flood and theft insurance doesn't require you to kill someone. Prattling on about what you would do if that were you is just fantasy and empty bravado.

Insurance is a fear based industry. That's a fact.

Trying to tie carrying a firearm to having insurance is a rather weak comparison to me.
Click to expand...

Ah yes! Fantasy and false bravado abounds. Guns Save Lives - Stories of Self Defense

... and you know, it's funny.. I can't find the word "fear" anywhere in Webster's definition of insurance.

Your deeply hoplophobic trolling needs work.
 
what we know is that no one was shot during that homeowner assault by a mob

what are the chances that would be true had the homeowner decided to use a weapon against the intruders



and kudos to the brave fellow for protecting the two teens ... who may have provoked an incident beyond proportion to their own misdeeds
 
theangryamerican said:
Ah yes! Fantasy and false bravado abounds. Guns Save Lives - Stories of Self Defense

... and you know, it's funny.. I can't find the word "fear" anywhere in Webster's definition of insurance.

Your deeply hoplophobic trolling needs work.
Click to expand...


He said that insurance was "a fear based industry." You looking up the definition shows that you either a) purposefully didn't comprehend what he said or b) were unable to comprehend what he said. What does his opinion that insurance is "a fear based industry" have to do with the definition? One would have to look at the insurance industry itself and how it operates, not a dictionary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom