He's a cartoon tiger.Oh, OK. That's the problem with posts. Sarcasm isn't as evident as face to face. Glad we're on the same page.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
shooting in OKC
- Thread starter David1967
- Start date
We primarily just have a difference in labeling what happened.
Aye, the desire to defend oneself & others is fundamentally differentThat makes no sense whatsoever.
from the desire to harm others. To equate these desires because of
the common factor of gun use is incredibly wrong.
PureX
Veteran Member
No, he is a killer in a very real and absolute sense. Whether or not he saved lives is unknowable, and in any case does not justify his taking a life.
The problem here is that we think killing human beings that do things that we don't like, is justified. But it's exactly this kind of thinking that is driving all these mass shootings in the first place. Everyone of these shooters think they're the hero of the story, and that their insane acts of vengeance are "justified" because they don't like the way the world is treating them. The value of other people's lives becomes irrelevant, and it's all about what the shooter thinks is "justified".
We don't know what would have happened if he did not intervene. And this is not about intervening. It's about labeling the killing of a human being "a good thing", when in fact it was only an apparently necessary thing. And there was nothing "good" about it.
PureX
Veteran Member
Yes, too many of us are labeling a possibly necessary killing of a human being "heroic", "good", and "justice". When it is none of those things. It's a sad outcome to a sad incident that has brought pain and sorrow to everyone involved.
Ummmm. OK
I'm not clear on how you see this.
You'd be happier if the gunman hadn't been shot, & continued killing?
The outcome prevented a great deal more sorrow and pain to innocent people. Would you have preferred innocent people defenseless and dead? I know you wouldn't. So the only alternative was an intervention meeting force with equal force. In a perfect world that nut wouldn't have showed up with murderous intent. But he did and paid the price. Is it unfortunate that it had to end this way for him? Sure. But it is better for the bad guy to go down than it is for the intended victims to. So all criticism aside. In your opinion, what should have been done differently, at that moment, not about his intent or bad childhood or bad girlfriend that hurt his feelings or whatever may have set this guy off. If you were there, bad guy with gun shooting into the crowd. Would you want someone to stop the guy?
PureX
Veteran Member
It's not about what makes me happy. I'd be happier if this had never occurred at all and everyone that was alive were still alive. And everyone that was not a killer were still not a killer. But this isn't about what makes me or anyone else happy. This isn't about what "feels good". This isn't about knowing what would have happened had things not happened as they did. One man did what he thought was "good and just", and killed two people. Another man did what he though had to be done, and killed the first man. Now everyone is claiming that what the second man did was "good and just". Which only adds to the insanity out there by affirming that killing people can be "good and just" so long as we think they deserve it.
No one deserves it. Even though it may occasionally become necessary.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Exactly. Or incompetence will cause ricochets and incur mass casualties.
Only police can shoot straight and avoid ricochets. Nobody else can shoot a gun right except the police.
Everyone would be happy if bad guys didn't attack.
But if one does, would you be willing to use deadly
force to stop the rampage?
Of course
PureX
Veteran Member
No one knows how they will react until it happens. And spewing a bunch of phony heroics isn't going to change that.
Still, you keep avoiding my point.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
No! You've got it all wrong about here!
If you kill an intruder or attacker here you will get detained or arrested for further investigation or questioning for discovery of facts that lead to the death, but that is quite different to your ideas about arrest or detention.
Arrests here do not get included on any criminal records, and by far the vast majority of arrests are to do with 'suspicion', not 'wrongdoing'.
You can't kill somebody here and just carry on with your day.
I suspect that you couldn't, either.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Well, I think that you might have made one.....
where did you get 'Never apply that rationale to (mistake & abuse prone) cops being armed, eh.' from any post of mine? I just don't write like that.
I'm not anti-gun....... another mistake, I just believe in mandatory gun safes, mandatory training, testing and licensing, mandatory gun insurance, criminal/health reviews and snap police visits to ensure that gun safes are being used.
Rubbish. Not true.
But you have 'crowed' about London deaths in the past, I seem to remember, and also 'crowed' because of this recent incident of a member of public shooting a murderer. We also have had members of public shoot armed robbers before, I remember..... it can happen.
"Spewing"?
Geeze Louise....
You're just bound & determined to see no value in self defense, are ya.
You made a clear point?
You are anti-gun...just not as extreme as the total banners.
The symptom is your bonkers reasoning flung at me.