HOME | DD
Plowplot — If You Were Really Pro-Life
#guns #republican #parisattacks
Published: 2015-12-06 22:31:34 +0000 UTC; Views: 360; Favourites: 4; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Remember, to a Republican his right to own a AK-47 is more important than your right to keep breathing or the life of your family.Related content
Comments: 37
The biggest flaw in his argument being - "knife wielding attacker -vs- gunman"
One doesn't simply use a taser against a semi-automatic wielding gunman.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Using a taser or tranquilliser weapon against an automatic gunman is still effective. You only need to get one hit.
It would be nice to live in a world where guns would not be accessible to any old idiot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And also You only need to get one hit - from the gunman, to realize that your plan backfired.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I bet some companies would benefit greatly by producing semi-automatic taser rounds.
My point is that just because someone is using a gun, doesn't mean we should stoop down to their level. It's better to capture them alive and get justice than mercifully kill such a criminal, freeing them of the punishment they deserve.
And in the event of a false alarm, then it means that killing of innocents by police is kept to a minimum.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
and mind control pills.
It's easier said than done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, it is easier said than done, I agree, but it is ultimately worth it in the end, if we can develop ways to take out harmful violent people without killing them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Really? is it worth it to capture a violent criminal alive?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So they can stand trial, and the families can feel like they get justice. If we can convince them never to commit a crime again, then they could be rehabilitated into society. If it's clear that they can't change their ways, then they should be locked up for life. If they are locked up for life, it'd cost a lot though, so maybe it'd be better to give them electroshock therapy or a lobotomy to try and remove their aggressive tendencies, then release them back into society with a GPS chip implanted deep within them to keep an eye on them.
And if an innocent is mistaken for one or caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, then they have far less risk of getting shot needlessly, which happens far more often than it should. www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1ZXgK…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
and they can either walk free due to some legal technicality or they have to imprisoned which in fact is a huge drain on taxpayer dollars.
Take the case of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez as an example, he was arrested and deported many times, but that didn't stop him from killing a person. One life could have been saved if that criminal was not allowed to walk in the first place. This is not an isolated example, there are many cases like this where a repeat offender killed a person because the law allowed them to walk in the first place.
FYI, one cannot just lobotomize someone and release them back into society (with or without a GPS implant ).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't like the idea of someone like that walking free that easily.
Maybe restraining them and breaking their legs and dominant hand would help. If you're worried about the costs, don't let them get welfare for their broken limbs. Let them suffer as they deserve. Killing them means that we're stooping down to their level. Letting them suffer for their actions is harsh, but it's still better than ending their only life. Besides, they'd probably see death as merciful by that point, and they need to be punished for their actions, at the very least to put the victim's family's minds at ease.
In any case, I think it's better to keep them alive than to kill them. You've probably guessed by now but I'm against the death penalty. But I'm not against incapacitating them if needs be. If they are that dangerous, then they can still be kept alive. There's no need to kill them.
Lots of innocent people end up on death row, which I think is utterly horrendous. If it turns out later that they're innocent, then at least they have broken limbs, instead of being dead. Death is irreversible, but limbs can be worked around.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Torturing or mutilating them is against human rights. Are you out of your mind?
Most of these mass shooters attempt suicide when they're done shooting. Do we really have to wait for them to do it after they kill dozens of people or should we drop him before he does further damage?
I'm not talking about innocent people, I'm talking about degenerates who take a machine pistol to a school and tries to unload all of it's rounds on kids.
btw, death penalty is not the same as stopping a criminal using deadly force.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But so is murder. Killing someone (regardless of the fact that they also killed someone) is a breach of human rights.
Out of being tortured or being killed, torture sounds the more favourable, because at least they'd have some sort of a future rather than none at all.
I don't hold the view that that's what we should do, I only wanted to use it as an hypothetical idea of a possible alternative to the death penalty. Just an idea - I never said it was morally sound. 
Anyway, my point is, there are other ways of dealing with them other than killing. Even criminals do not need to die.
Yeah, maybe you're right... as much as I don't like the usage of deadly force, I'll admit from a utilitarian perspective it's the best.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Stopping criminals in their tracks is different from capturing them and then torturing them.
What future do they have? they will most probably become repeat offenders. By letting the criminal live you're only allowing them to kill again.
The fear of torture won't stop a bad guy. Take the case of war for example. Belligerents know that being captured will most likely lead to their torture. But that doesn't stop them from committing atrocities anyway.
Criminals do not need to die. Violent criminals do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To be honest, I've tried, quite weakly, to defend my stance on death penalties, but having talked to you, I'm starting to see why it might be a good idea after all. You've given me a lot to think about. Thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yep, cause the San Bernadino shooters were stopped with a tazer:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-R-x2…
You can taze(and also shoot) a knife wielding subject and not immediately incapacitate them. When one attempts to use lethal force against another a lethal application of force in self defense is warranted and appropriate.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R…
I love when the ignorant applies blanket logic to situations requiring the use of force lethal, or otherwise. Just shows their arrogance and inability to do basic research.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly, just like the Kunming attackers were stopped with tasers.
Excellent demonstration video, it also delivers a major blow to the "gentle giant" theory. I have also seen videos where tasers don't stop suspects at all.
Yepp, because in the end it's only a good guy with a gun who can stop a bad guy, it always has been, and always will be like that. And unless these retards learn to accept this fact, we can only expect to hear more whining from them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All it takes is a deflection of one prong, or the subject wearing thick enough clothes for one not to break skin then your "Perfect" less lethal option goes out the window.
Besides, if someone thinks it's a good idea to go around attempting to kill random people does it seem like a better idea to make an effort to keep them alive? I mean as soon as the threat is neutralized that's one thing, but if Hadji-baba is gunning people down in the streets I'm not going to try to put him in a chokehold if I have the ability to shoot him...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed, also in Germany a girl tried to use pepper spray on migrant rapist but instead he grabbed it from her and used it against her which only made his job much easier for him.
True that, but this is what happens after we neutralize them - www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmABAc…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
damn PC dhimmi youtube!!
here's alt upload-> www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDGajZ…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Send the Jawas back to Tatooine if it's such a bad place.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yepp, let the Tuskens take care of them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I cannot speak for the UK but the United States Constitution protects fire arms. Gun control is unconstitutional in the United States.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Speaking as someone who owns several handguns and rifles and doesn't want to lose that right, I must also say that this is not entirely true. The supreme court has ruled on the issue many times, and the latest rulings (D.C. v Heller, McDonald v Chicago, and Caetano v Massachusetts) were made with probably the most pro-gun, pro-conservative membership. They all affirmed that it is illegal, under the constitution, for any federal or state body to completely remove the ability of a citizen to own a firearm for lawful purposes including self defense, however states do have the right to regulate both the ownership and process of acquisition of firearms, as well as regulate the types of firearms that can be acquired. So banning firearm ownership = unconstitutional, but regulating firearms, which is also a form of gun control, is constitutional.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Think of when the constitution was made. They merely had muskets and simple pistols. Do you really think the founders could forsee guns such as say an ak47 or m911. We need sensible gun control, we not taking away guns we just need rules to help regulate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And that many folks who claim to be "Pro-Life" also have no issue with felons. domestic abusers or even terrorists having firearms.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In the US, " felons. domestic abusers" can't legally own weapons. Sorry to burst your bubble...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The Violence Policy Center would beg to differ. . .
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And the National Rifle Association would beg to differ with them... 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What do you expect fom AmericanDandelion? His arguments consist of spewing redneck stereotypes and other such bullshit (like what he posted here) because he lacks the brains to come up with an intelligent reply.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In some states, people with violent criminal records can legally purchase guns. And the ammosexuals are still stumped over why America has more gun violence than every other country in the first world.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"And the ammosexuals are still stumped over why America has more gun violence than every other country in the first world"
Love your still false application of the qualifier "First world". The UK and Australia have more "Gun violence" per capita regardless of reported statistics.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/560/me…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"In some states, people with violent criminal records can legally purchase guns."
Prove your lie, untruthful one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0