British Soldier Hacked/Chopped to Death

[Jenksismyhero]

WTF.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-23...l#ixzz2U3GYiaM4

 

 

Video is of the guy giving an "interview" after killing the man. Not of the actual killing.

[EvilMonkey]

The marksman should have been a better shot and saved everyone the time and expense of them living.

[Kyyle23]

What a terrible way to die. That soldier had no idea what was going on

[Quin]

WTF

[soxsoxsoxsox]

that's just insanity

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

The guy in the video looks just like the leader of the Chelsea firm in Green Street Hooligans

[Jenksismyhero]

that's just insanity

 

 

Is that the victim?

[soxsoxsoxsox]

Is that the victim?

 

nope

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/woman-...-235308411.html

[Chicago White Sox]

I've got to be honest, I'm literally blown away by how stupid some people are. Why on earth would you stick around the area when two bloodied psychopaths have just butchered someone in the middle of the street?

 

Hell, one woman actually walks right past the guy with the cleaver while he's giving that interview.

[Jenksismyhero]

We need to ban cleavers. CLEAVER WARS ON EVERY INTERSECTION.

[witesoxfan]

We need to ban cleavers. CLEAVER WARS ON EVERY INTERSECTION.

 

Even as a pro-gun conservative, I get tired of these responses. Guns are inherently more dangerous than cleavers/baseball bats/cyanide/packs of rabbits, and denying that is flat out wrong. Guns are also not dangerous when used by normal people, they are cared and used for properly.

Edited May 23, 2013 by witesoxfan

[IlliniKrush]

We need to ban cleavers. CLEAVER WARS ON EVERY INTERSECTION.

Nah, if the guy had a cleaver, he would have been able to defend himself and/or this never would have happened.

Edited May 23, 2013 by IlliniKrush

[Y2HH]

Nah, if the guy had a cleaver, he would have been able to defend himself and/or this never would have happened.

 

If he had any sort of weapon when a knife/cleaver wielding maniac approached him, he would have had more of a chance to defend himself than he did completely unarmed.

 

Just remember what you said if/when someone ever breaks into your home. Don't arm yourself with anything, because, you know...it doesn't help anyway, at least, according to your sarcastic reply here.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Y2HH

[mr_genius]

Even as a pro-gun conservative, I get tired of these responses. Guns are inherently more dangerous than cleavers

 

Tell that to the innocent victims. A ban is in order of both guns and knives/cleavers.

Edited May 24, 2013 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

Nah, if the guy had a cleaver, he would have been able to defend himself and/or this never would have happened.

 

We are banning cleavers, problem solved.

[Kyyle23]

and the shark has been jumped

[witesoxfan]

Tell that to the innocent victims. A ban is in order of both guns and knives/cleavers.

 

Victim. Singular. You avoided the point though, so I'm glad to see you can do that.

 

Anything can kill you at any given moment. The fact that people live until they're 70 or 80 or 110 is incredibly lucky to begin with. Perhaps we should start banning everything until all we have is a naked wasteland of people, right? Or maybe you can add something constructive to the debate instead of making convervatives look like reactionary idiots.

[Soxbadger]

Victim. Singular. You avoided the point though, so I'm glad to see you can do that.

 

Anything can kill you at any given moment. The fact that people live until they're 70 or 80 or 110 is incredibly lucky to begin with. Perhaps we should start banning everything until all we have is a naked wasteland of people, right? Or maybe you can add something constructive to the debate instead of making convervatives look like reactionary idiots.

 

Nope, that is impossible because their position is, as we know, based on hypocrisy.

 

Either we recognize that certain weapons are inherently more destructive and thus should be subject to greater scrutiny, or we do not.

 

The reason we know they are hypocritical is because almost no one is willing to argue that I should be allowed to have my own personal nuclear weapon.

 

Its basically arguing there should be no speed limit because you can die in a car fatality even if the car is only going 1 mile an hour, so why have a limit speed at all?

 

The inanity of the argument is mind blowing.

[Y2HH]

Nope, that is impossible because their position is, as we know, based on hypocrisy.

 

Either we recognize that certain weapons are inherently more destructive and thus should be subject to greater scrutiny, or we do not.

 

The reason we know they are hypocritical is because almost no one is willing to argue that I should be allowed to have my own personal nuclear weapon.

 

Its basically arguing there should be no speed limit because you can die in a car fatality even if the car is only going 1 mile an hour, so why have a limit speed at all?

 

The inanity of the argument is mind blowing.

 

The bold point was the only necessary point.

 

The rest of this is reductio ad absurdum.

 

I think the argument you'll get from them is that if the criminals are going to have guns, so should those they target. Or knives. Or cleavers. It's the same argument non-hunters often pose to hunters. Would you be as willing to shoot that deer if that deer also had a rifle and a scope it could use to shoot back?

[Soxbadger]

The bold point was the only necessary point.

 

The rest of this is reductio ad absurdum.

 

I think the argument you'll get from them is that if the criminals are going to have guns, so should those they target. Or knives. Or cleavers. It's the same argument non-hunters often pose to hunters. Would you be as willing to shoot that deer if that deer also had a rifle and a scope it could use to shoot back?

 

Terrorists may have a nuclear weapon, how can I protect myself without one?

 

Terrorists may have bombs, how can I protect myself without one?

 

 

We cant base our world on what criminals are doing. If we do, then we should have no laws, because the premise of the argument is that "criminals wont follow laws". So if they wont follow them, why have them?

 

Like I said, its inane. The best argument is "I want a gun because it makes me feel safe." And my counter argument is "I dont want you to have a gun, because you having a gun makes me feel unsafe."

 

At that point we have to make a societal decision. Right now we lean towards allowing someone to protect themselves at the risk to another.

 

Maybe that is the best way, maybe it is not. But at least its a sound argument that I wouldnt be embarrassed to argue.

 

Its why I cant take many pro-gun people seriously, they refuse to recognize the hypocrisy and discuss the issue on a meaningful level.

[Y2HH]

Terrorists may have a nuclear weapon, how can I protect myself without one?

 

Terrorists may have bombs, how can I protect myself without one?

 

 

We cant base our world on what criminals are doing. If we do, then we should have no laws, because the premise of the argument is that "criminals wont follow laws". So if they wont follow them, why have them?

 

Like I said, its inane. The best argument is "I want a gun because it makes me feel safe." And my counter argument is "I dont want you to have a gun, because you having a gun makes me feel unsafe."

 

At that point we have to make a societal decision. Right now we lean towards allowing someone to protect themselves at the risk to another.

 

Maybe that is the best way, maybe it is not. But at least its a sound argument that I wouldnt be embarrassed to argue.

 

Its why I cant take many pro-gun people seriously, they refuse to recognize the hypocrisy and discuss the issue on a meaningful level.

 

I agree.

 

But we need to start doing something about these criminals, especially around Chicago. The fact that Chicago has tough gun laws with no teeth isn't helping the matter. For all of our gun laws, we have no harsh mandatory minimal sentencing, and a vast majority of those arrested with illegal guns do almost no time whatsoever. When that changes, their argument of self-defense would be weaker, but right now, I can see their point.

 

I don't own a gun, nor do I want too. But their point is valid at the moment. If you're going to allow them to do it, you'd better allow us to do it, too. Our laws, our judges, and our system is allowing these criminals to carry, because of the near lack of consequences.

[Soxbadger]

I agree.

 

But we need to start doing something about these criminals, especially around Chicago. The fact that Chicago has tough gun laws with no teeth isn't helping the matter. For all of our gun laws, we have no harsh mandatory minimal sentencing, and a vast majority of those arrested with illegal guns do almost no time whatsoever. When that changes, their argument of self-defense would be weaker, but right now, I can see their point.

 

I don't own a gun, nor do I want too. But their point is valid at the moment. If you're going to allow them to do it, you'd better allow us to do it, too. Our laws, our judges, and our system is allowing these criminals to carry, because of the near lack of consequences.

 

The problem is we cant make harsher gun laws because pro-gun people fight every gun law tooth and nail.

 

I dont want to allow anyone to do it. I want the punishment to be so harsh that no one would ever consider doing it.

 

But I cant do that, if people fight tougher gun crime laws. Especially when the argument against the law is "But then criminals will be the only ones to have them".

[witesoxfan]

People will make the contitutionality argument, but we prohibited alcohol and gave African American's 3/5ths of a vote at one time too. The Constitution can and will change as times change.

 

Really, I have no problem with guns whatsoever, but I feel like owning and firing a gun is similar in power to owning and driving a car. You will almost always pay more for a car, but it's just as (if not more) dangerous than a gun and it takes extensive training to become skilled in the practice. Cars are more of a necessity than guns, but people can absolutely live without a car. Thus, much the same as cars, I believe people should be required to apply for a gun through the state - wherever - you should have to take a written test to have a gun "permit," and then you need to take a shooting test to have a gun "license." Every 3-5 years, people should have to go in and take a basic re-test to check for mental and physical stability to ensure that no dangerous changes have occurred.

 

There would also be different types of licenses - rifles, shotguns, handguns, automatics, bazookas, chicken-launchers - and for each different license, you would have to test for it. Once you have a license, you are free to purchase and use any type of gun of that classification pending it's registration.

 

Yes, it would be a pain in the ass, but that's the point - to actually get a gun legally, it is going to be a pain in the ass and you are going to have to make the economic decision as to whether it is worth it to wait and go through all that hassle to get a gun. If it is, then happy gun-owning.

[Y2HH]

The problem is we cant make harsher gun laws because pro-gun people fight every gun law tooth and nail.

 

I dont want to allow anyone to do it. I want the punishment to be so harsh that no one would ever consider doing it.

 

But I cant do that, if people fight tougher gun crime laws. Especially when the argument against the law is "But then criminals will be the only ones to have them".

 

Pro gun people fight the banning of guns and restrictions, not the consequences of using/having them illegally. The issue is, we never talk about consequences, we talk about bans or restrictions on legal ownership. That's backwards thinking.

 

Put consequences on actions, if you have a gun/use a gun illegally, you pay a very VERY heavy consequence. The problem will solve itself. Banning them or restricting them hasn't worked, that much is obvious. Right now the consequences in Chicago, specifically, are weak to the point criminals don't care about them.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

witesoxfan,

 

I think youre ideas are a fine compromise. It doesnt have to be all or nothing, but we should recognize that guns are extremely dangerous. And if you are a "law abiding citizen" you should have no problem taking steps to ensure youre gun use is safe.

 

It could save a life of someone that a person was trying to protect.