Topic: 92 year old WWII veteran kills intruder with rifle - page 3. (Read 8645 times)

thank's for the advice.


still can't agree that there is any logic in that. it sure sounds nice though.


you state that as if it were some eternal law i just have to think about long enough to understand. it's not that i not understand, i just don't concur with it. i do not care if somebody dies by starvation or gunfire. i also do not care if you pushed somebody in the river or just didn't feel obligated to pull him out. dead is dead. i judge actions by their outcome and not by fact that you can say that, by some arbitrary code of conduct, you haven't done anything "wrong".


if all property belonged to society and can be rented by contract, where is the coercion? if it makes you feel better, imagine the government as an entity that was everywhere first, did the mixing and now offers you contracts just like any private person 


well, you can report me to the thought police.
your standard for what you consider "hard facts" is pretty low. i can't imagine what kind of desperation caused you to link to that guy btw. i skimmed over hthis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Women.27s_suffrage_and_government_growth and had a hard time not to eat my cat out of sheer amusement.
forgive me if i can't subcribe to your reality. where i live you can send a naked teenage girl to get you a burger and pay with a gold bar at 3am. except you can't sell burgers at 3am and the girl probably had a hard time avoiding getting arrested for indecent behaviour by one of the many bored police officers idling between settling noise complaints and showing people the way 
ok, a little over the top. but still, consider that societies can work differently from what you experience in your country.


because it works. as i said outcome > rules. in this case, a very diffuse freedom < protection against the very common reality of racism, sexism, religious fanatism, exploitation, de facto censorship and so forth.

Fornit, I really would appreciate it if you ceased to abuse the English language. Use the shift and apostrophe (') keys, if you please, it makes your writing that much more readable, and you look more intelligent than a 6th grader.

/sigh... You continue to argue patently false things, which if you had actually read the articles I linked, you would know were false. The definition of the "whole work-mixing-thingy" (Homesteading principle) was first stated by John Locke:
Oh but it does. If you remove or reduce the ability for someone to defend themselves, you are damaging their ability to protect their own right to life. I find it interesting that you both consider that one has a right to other's property, and that they should not be able to defend themselves or their property. That would rationally label you as a criminal. And my argument is not theoretical. It's backed up by hard facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime


Tsk... You didn't answer me. I'll ask again. Why do you consider that a person's right to "equal treatment" trumps an individual's right to choose who he associates with?

i did. i just dont agree.


yeah, except nothing of that can be deducted from self-ownership. its a very artificial, theoretically unsound construct on top of it. its unsound, because it effectively allows for those with farmland/water/etc to render the right to life of those without that meaningsless whenever they please. its also impractical, because there is no good definition of the whole work-mixing-thingy, making it an i-touch-i-own rule, allowing you to claim ridiculous amounts of land and resources with little to no effort.

a communistic approach is much more sound regarding self-ownership: no one can own land, society can give you land temporarily and demand that you share some part of the fruits of your labor on that land with the society. its a much more logical and practical solution to making self-ownership and right to life work together without any coercion.
of course, it doesnt fit liberitarian dogma, so it evil 


that still doesnt effect your right to life. countries with stricter fire arm regulations have much less homicides with firearms, despite the all those better-armed criminals. your argument is purely theoretical.



i understand you well enough. you have no problem with rights on paper as long as you dont have to do jack shit to honor them.
personally, the right for a woman to walk a street without a burka is more important to me than the rights of the muslim that owns the street. freedom of speech is more important to me than the rights of the owners of schools or "public" places. the right to equal payment for equal work is more important than the right of a factory owner to exploit desparate people. free education is more important to me than your wish not to share anything ever with society.
theres really nothing absolutist about that. i just prefer to live in a totally different society than you.

Should hire him for the bitcoin community, shoot the scammers in the chest.

Bravo to this old man. This is a reason to own a rifle, pump the guts/lungs/vital organs out of em with it.

I see you didn't read the article, nor any of the sources.
Defending oneself with a knife from someone with a gun is a notoriously poor decision... and there's a reason that firearms surpassed other ranged weaponry. The fact remains that if you make something illegal, by definition the only people with it will be criminals.


Re-read again the part that I've bolded. Maybe then you'll understand what I said.

I'd like to know, however, why you consider that a person's right to "equal treatment" trumps an individual's right to choose who he associates with.

there a a lot of rights that cannot be deducted from self-ownership. for example, i cant really see how you can deduct property rights from self-ownership. specifically the right to own land and natural resources seems problematic, since both arent part of the result of your labor and are limited in supply, so that ownership might very well interfere with other peoples right to life.
one could very well argue that access to the means to sustain ones life through your own labor follows directly from the right to life, and therefore access to farmable land and water cannot be denied.


many of those rights require an institution that promotes them or obligates others to follow them. for example all rights that guarantee equal treatment arent worth much when everybody can choose freely what kind of people he doesnt employ, doesnt trade with or doesnt give access to his infrastructure, or at least charge more.

Self-ownership.
Except that by banning one type of weapon you - by definition - ensure that only criminals have that weapon. And self defense also includes that against those who set themselves as your protectors, as evinced by the second story posted in this thread.


Again, self-ownership. If I own myself, and you own yourself, By what rationale do you claim part of me (or the result of my labor) as yours, or I claim part of you or your labor as mine?


Do I? Until I hit Article 25, I found almost nothing to disagree with (except those things which assumed a State), and after, I found little to disagree with. In specific, Article 25, and 26. Read it yourself, and see which ones impose obligations not to restrict or compel behavior, rather than imposing obligations to do so:

https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

for a rational investigation you still need some kind of axiom to start with. what should that universally accepted axiom be?


self-defense obviously is. the right to bear arms is not. a society could ban arms alltogether, or some kinds of it. or the society could just say it recognizes your right to life but its duty to protect your fellow citizens from you is considered more important than your improved capabilities of self-defense.


how is that rational? from what do you deduct the right to be free from any obligation?
btw: you realize that you disagree with pretty much all social rights from the universal declaration of human rights? just wondering why, if those absolute rights are so rational and easy to recognize, your set of rights is so very different from the most commonly accepted one...

Not even allowed to have replica guns here unless they are orange... (no criminal would ever paint their gun orange right?)

Illegal guns are common enough though. Seeing that is a lot of what made me change my mind on gun control. I know there are groups of hateful people out there collecting weapons, there are probably equal groups out there that would hate me, so I would much prefer if everyone here had guns rather than only those that plan on using them...

That said, If you break into someone else's home, You might as well be in a different country, If you go to Bali with drugs, you get the death penalty, If you break into a 92 year old WWII Vet's home, Then he is King of that land, and you will get judged by his standards, That is a risk he took breaking into houses in the first place...

one of the best explanations I ever read.

Well, the agreement was brief.

A rational investigation can, and will, discover what rights are inherent in the human condition. Most are rights from. For instance, the right to be free from murder (usually called the right to life). Some rights "Hang off of" these deeper rights, for instance, the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms require and are required by, the right to life.

The rational test is whether or not a proposed "right" imposes a positive obligation on another person. For instance, let us say we wanted to enshrine the right to food in the constitution of our new nation, rationalizing that you need food to live, and the right to life therefore requires a right to food. "A right to food" imposes a positive obligation on others to feed you. Clearly, that doesn't work. If we were to put that right into our constitution, you would be required to feed anyone who asked, even to the detriment of your own family. So that's a no-go.

even if there were rights given by something or someone even before a society exists, people would never agree on what those rights are. there is no universal moral compass all humans share or rights that are recognized universally all over the world and through history. effectively, rights are given by societies to people. those rights differ and often the groups they are given to also differ. some societies grant rights to every human being, others dont even grant all of their own citizens the same rights.

usually some of those rights are protected by law, others only manifest in social pressure. sometimes societies are unified in their perception of rights, sometimes not. sometimes this perception changes over time and previously highly accept laws start to feel like coercion.

in my opinion, assuming too many absolute rights a priori is a sure way to never understand your fellow men, or live with them. if you have the oppurtunity to found your very own country, that might be ok. otherwise you might consider the possibility that rights are not right or wrong but just a consent, often a least common denominator of people with very different opinions.

It is not "getting away with anything'.

It is noticing bad government, standing up against it, fighting it, then defending yourself against unlawful and tyrannical responses and repercussions.

Our founding documents NEVER gave us any rights.

The founding documents RECOGNIZED only SOME of what were, at the time, our most recognized and honored pre-existing rights by Birth/God/Creator... for being born onto this land.

The founding documents limit government.

Bad government will kill you to protect itself.

Good citizens stand up against it.

The story is about such a sign

I'm not American, however some things about the USA are awesome. Not in many places one can legally defend oneself from the police with deadly force and get away with it.

Obviously not. But this is not a country-wide issue.

Mark the date. I agree with you.

It sucks that the police feel that they can get away with stuff like this.

The story above is about a town were people live like savages. Police officers going on a rampage after decades of corruptions is not what I'd describe as a town where the law is enforced. Don't you have any government in the USA to take care of such things?
Of course if you want to live in the early ages of the conquest of the west, this kind of town and having a gun nearby at all times is OK, but please hang a sign warning civilized people that they are entering a death trap when entering such a town...

yeah, awesome to live in country where you have to...

It's awesome to be able to be able to defend your life in your land from even police officers with deadly force. It sure is.