Since the government of Pakistan has proven inept at dealing with the Taliban problem, and since apparently the Taliban didn't get the memo that people don't appreciate their loved ones being killed in Mosque bombings, the civilians of Pakistan are actually standing up for themselves. In the latest of pissed of Pakistan civilian moments, they killed 7 militants and demolished houses that were used as Taliban bases.

Yahoo News Link.

"We are Muslims, we pray regularly and read the Koran. We don't want them, they have to go," resident Samiullah Khan said by telephone. "Attacking a mosque is not Islam. They're not Muslim."

Looks like the logical Muslim's are tired of the BS they have to deal with thanks to radicals. If this could happen everywhere(with all radical groups) then maybe the middle east could become a safe, self-determined place. Here's to hoping. Salam.

Although I would probably go on a rampage too if someone killed my family for their own political agenda, I probably wouldn't support civilians taking the law into their own hands.  Theres always the danger that they too could kill innocents in the process. 

Also whats the point of succumbing to tit for tat violence? 

Course there's no problem with violence used to defend yourself at the time of an attack, killing if it was the only way.  But I would like to think I would never go out of my way to kill someone if they weren't an immediate threat, even if they were my enemy.

I probably wouldn't support civilians taking the law into their own hands.  Theres always the danger that they too could kill innocents in the process.

When did defending yourself from things that want to kill you become crazy vigilantism?

The police aren't there to protect you dude. At best, their primary job is to bring wrongdoers to justice post-crime. I'll take a pump-action in my closet over a phone with 911 on speed-dial any day.

Eddie_the_Hated

I probably wouldn't support civilians taking the law into their own hands.  Theres always the danger that they too could kill innocents in the process.

When did defending yourself from things that want to kill you become crazy vigilantism?

The police aren't there to protect you dude. At best, their primary job is to bring wrongdoers to justice post-crime. I'll take a pump-action in my closet over a phone with 911 on speed-dial any day.

People with guns are more likely to be killed by guns.

On a separate note, the police aren't in Taliban controlled Pakistan at all.

When did defending yourself from things that want to kill you become crazy vigilantism?

I just feel as though I personally can't be the judge, jury and executioner for another person, no matter how much sick, crazy stuff they do.

That said it wouldn't stop me from defending myself with lethal force if necessary, if that sick crazy person was trying to kill me at the time.

I feel safe enough in this country not to have to hide a gun away somewhere.  Guns for recreation are different, but to keep one out of fear is a sad state of affairs, and only promotes more fear.  And I think fear is our worst enemy in these modern times.  Yet the media, government and even ourselves seem to want to spread it as much as we can, for some vein notion of short-term benefit to ourselves.  People are controllable when they're scared after all.  But a world in fear is an irrational and unstable one.

But y'know I might feel differently if I lived in gaza and my sister had been raped and killed.  It's not that I don't empathise.

Choupolo, you may feel safe in your country, but Pakistan is a big difference. Entire sections of the country are controlled by Taliban. There is no standing army or police force to protect those people.

I feel they were justified in their actions, and I feel anyone in ANY extremist group that plots do blow up civilians deserves death whenever it lands on them, regardless of rather or not it was occurring at the time.

As for keeping a gun; it is a constitutional right in Eddies country, and particularly a common thing in Michigan, where hunting and marksmanship are popular pastimes. I feel that every male adult has not only the right, but the obligation, to protect his family and have the means to do so with deadly force if necessary. Its naive to believe that someone else is always going to be there to protect you.

On a related note, what is everyone's opinion on use of deadly force on an intruder?

immortaldanmx

As for keeping a gun; it is a constitutional right in Eddies country, and particularly a common thing in Michigan, where hunting and marksmanship are popular pastimes. I feel that every male adult has not only the right, but the obligation, to protect his family and have the means to do so with deadly force if necessary. Its naive to believe that someone else is always going to be there to protect you.

On a related note, what is everyone's opinion on use of deadly force on an intruder?

I have an American friend on Xbox live who is a complete gun-nut and I just don't get it at all.

I believe in proportionate force against an intruder.  If there is a chance he is going to kill you, then okay.  Shooting a 14 year old in the back as he runs out your front door isn't.  I don't imagine many cases where someone breaks into a family home with the specific intention of killing the family inside.  Your house insurance will pay for anything he takes, that's what it's there for. 

Kicking the shit out the guy then call the cops?  Fine.

Tie the guy up, torture him, then set him on fire?  Bad.


On a related note, who here kills animals for a hobby?

Iad umboros

immortaldanmx

As for keeping a gun; it is a constitutional right in Eddies country, and particularly a common thing in Michigan, where hunting and marksmanship are popular pastimes. I feel that every male adult has not only the right, but the obligation, to protect his family and have the means to do so with deadly force if necessary. Its naive to believe that someone else is always going to be there to protect you.

On a related note, what is everyone's opinion on use of deadly force on an intruder?

I have an American friend on Xbox live who is a complete gun-nut and I just don't get it at all.

I believe in proportionate force against an intruder.  If there is a chance he is going to kill you, then okay.  Shooting a 14 year old in the back as he runs out your front door isn't.  I don't imagine many cases where someone breaks into a family home with the specific intention of killing the family inside.  Your house insurance will pay for anything he takes, that's what it's there for. 

Kicking the shit out the guy then call the cops?  Fine.

Tie the guy up, torture him, then set him on fire?  Bad.


On a related note, who here kills animals for a hobby?

Kill the kids, but for the love of all that is good, leave the dog out of this!

Actually, alot of gangs have a policy of killing the people inside the houses they rob, even if they don't get in their way.

People with guns are more likely to be killed by guns.

People with guns, who engage in high risk activities like gang violence are more likely to be killed by guns. Not with their own guns though, a fact that every study that has presented those results has glossed over.

The largest study to present findings like that was proven inaccurate, because the study didn't account for the behavior of those with guns. It's a no brainer that people who are doing dangerous things run the risk of being killed, isn't it?

On top of that, studies like that rarely account for the detterent nature of guns. Americans pull guns in self-defense 2.5 million times every year, on average. 90% of those times, all the gun-owner ever does to prevent the crime is brandish their weapon.

Effective gun-control in the US shares a flat with the Easter Bunny and Count Chocula.

If you're going to nitpick what this and that study took into account then theoretically no study would ever be correct, which is false.

I just feel as though I personally can't be the judge, jury and executioner for another person, no matter how much sick, crazy stuff they do.

If a man pulls a gun on an unarmed woman or child, I hold not a single reservation in my heart about putting a bullet between his eyes.

I believe in proportionate force against an intruder.  If there is a chance he is going to kill you, then okay.  Shooting a 14 year old in the back as he runs out your front door isn't.

That's a strawman, dude. Nobody ever supported shooting 14 year olds in the back. Religiously, I can't support anything but proportionate force, but it boils down to this: Proportionate Force doesn't mean that you wait for the man with the other gun to pull the trigger. You "respond" in due measure, by dealing with him the way he intends to deal with you.

I don't imagine many cases where someone breaks into a family home with the specific intention of killing the family inside.

If a waiter walks to my table picking his nose, I don't give him the benefit of the doubt.

If a man walks into the white house with a stick of dynamite, they don't give him benefit of the doubt.

If a man breaks into my house with a gun, I don't give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's a pretty simple logical progression Iad. The potential loss for me is too great to relenquish control of my environment, by allowing an unknown variable to gain control the situation.

Kicking the shit out the guy then call the cops?  Fine.

Tie the guy up, torture him, then set him on fire?  Bad.

Heh. That's a false equivalence, but then there's the age old question.... what if he's got a gun?

On a related note, who here kills animals for a hobby?

I've never been a hunter. The guns aren't nearly cool enough. I might hunt, but only on the condition that I'd use whatever I shot. I don't really believe in sport killing.

If you're going to nitpick what this and that study took into account then theoretically no study would ever be correct, which is false.

But we're not speaking theoretics Emo. The study was accurate in what it found. The flaw is in how it's applied and referenced.