Texas Dad DUI Revenge Killing

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
122

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Above all, as a man, you have a duty at a bare minimum, to protect and defend yourself, your family, loved ones, children, and others in your proximity who cannot fulfill the role.[/quote]

Sure.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
If you choose to forgo the possession and use of a “socket set” that could save the life or limb of one of the above, i.e., if you neglect this most basic, fundamental responsibility that is the archetypal essence of a man then you ain’t much of a man.[/quote]

Do you apply the same logic to everything else?

Is it the duty of a man to be a life-guard? After all, what if your loved one is drowning in the open ocean?

Is it the duty of a man to be a doctor? What if your loved one is sick and could die out in a camping trip?

Is it the duty of a man to know how to operate a commercial airplane like a Boeing 787? What if the pilot and the copilot both got food poisoning from eating tainted food and the plane is going to crash?

(This is getting off-topic, I’m sorry).

123

** ANOTHER REASON WHY TEXAS IS AWESOME"

“Father who beat to death man he found raping his 5-year-daughter WILL NOT face charges because of Texas state laws regarding deadly force.”

Anyone got a problem with that? Anyone?

124

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Above all, as a man, you have a duty at a bare minimum, to protect and defend yourself, your family, loved ones, children, and others in your proximity who cannot fulfill the role.[/quote]

Sure.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
If you choose to forgo the possession and use of a “socket set” that could save the life or limb of one of the above, i.e., if you neglect this most basic, fundamental responsibility that is the archetypal essence of a man then you ain’t much of a man.[/quote]

Do you apply the same logic to everything else?

Is it the duty of a man to be a life-guard? After all, what if your loved one is drowning in the open ocean?

Is it the duty of a man to be a doctor? What if your loved one is sick and could die out in a camping trip?

Is it the duty of a man to know how to operate a commercial airplane like a Boeing 787? What if the pilot and the copilot both got food poisoning from eating tainted food and the plane is going to crash?

(This is getting off-topic, I’m sorry).[/quote]

You’re right, it is off topic.

However, while I don’t think everyone needs to be a doctor/lifeguard I do believe that a man (or any responsible adult really) has a duty to be able to perform basic rescues and emergency first aid/life support until the casualty can be handed over to a higher level of care (i.e. paramedics and/or doctors). Don’t you?

I see basic personal protection and weapons handling skills in the same light. you don’t need to be able to solve every conceivable problem yourself, but you should be able to everything reasonably within one individual’s power to keep yourself and those under your protection alive until additional help arrives or until you/they can escape the threat. How far removed you are from “additional help” will have an impact on the level of capability you need to maintain both in terms of life saving and defence.

Wherever you are, you need to be prepared to get everyone through the critical minutes between when something bad happens and when the folks in uniform show up.

Your 787 example is intentionally absurd and infinitely less likely than encountering a medical emergency and/or violent crime. That said, modern aircraft barely need an aircrew anyway. That’s mostly for the psychological welfare of the passengers.

125

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

…you best believe I’m getting the shot off if he had just finished raping my daughter.

[/quote]

Not in my case. A long, slow death high in the mountains is in store for the hypothetical rapist of my daughter.

Study the history of the Comanches for more info.
[/quote]

I wouldn’t kill him. I would cut his dick off and shatter his spine with sledgehammer so he would live a nice long life in agonizing pain.[/quote]

I just changed my mind about shooting the dude. I’m with Pat.
[/quote]

Thanks :slight_smile: After all killing is wrong. ;)[/quote]

Fella, if you break his spine he won’t be able to feel the loss of his junk.

Amateurs… [/quote]

Kinda got a point. I guess I would rip his eyes out, crush his balls with a sledgehammer, then put his penis in a meat grinder. Soder the bleeding with a hot iron so he doesn’t bleed out.

Blind with no dick would suck.

126

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Above all, as a man, you have a duty at a bare minimum, to protect and defend yourself, your family, loved ones, children, and others in your proximity who cannot fulfill the role.[/quote]

Sure.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
If you choose to forgo the possession and use of a “socket set” that could save the life or limb of one of the above, i.e., if you neglect this most basic, fundamental responsibility that is the archetypal essence of a man then you ain’t much of a man.[/quote]

Do you apply the same logic to everything else?

Is it the duty of a man to be a life-guard? After all, what if your loved one is drowning in the open ocean?

Is it the duty of a man to be a doctor? What if your loved one is sick and could die out in a camping trip?

Is it the duty of a man to know how to operate a commercial airplane like a Boeing 787? What if the pilot and the copilot both got food poisoning from eating tainted food and the plane is going to crash?

(This is getting off-topic, I’m sorry).[/quote]

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

â?? Robert A. Heinlein

127

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Kinda got a point. I guess I would rip his eyes out, crush his balls with a sledgehammer, then put his penis in a meat grinder. Soder the bleeding with a hot iron so he doesn’t bleed out.

Blind with no dick would suck.[/quote]

Death by a thousand paper cuts mate.

128

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Your 787 example is intentionally absurd and infinitely less likely than encountering a medical emergency and/or violent crime. That said, modern aircraft barely need an aircrew anyway. That’s mostly for the psychological welfare of the passengers.[/quote]

It was supposed to be a reference to “Airplane!”

But, ya, both you and angry chicken have a point. I personally just found pushharder’s point a bit too specific. If you need a gun to defend your loved ones, then you get a gun. If you don’t need one, then you don’t need one.

130

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You need one.

If for some reason you feel differently you should articulate why.[/quote]

Well, no. It was more of a knee-jerk reaction.

I mean, you’re not allowed to legally own guns in many parts of the world. Does that mean they’re not men?

But this was a stupid opposition from me in hindsight.

131

“Before all else, be armed.” As true now as it was 500 years ago when Machiavelli penned these words.

133

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You need one.

If for some reason you feel differently you should articulate why.[/quote]

134

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You need one.

If for some reason you feel differently you should articulate why.[/quote]

Well, no. It was more of a knee-jerk reaction.

I mean, you’re not allowed to legally own guns in many parts of the world. Does that mean they’re not men?

.[/quote]

No, they are men. Oppressed men, but men just the same. I’m sure they will fashion swords, knives, bats and hammers if need be. They are denied the best defense tools we have, but not completely neutered by their government into placated servants.

Be careful with the “need” argument. Because when you “need” a rifle, if you don’t already have one and know how to use it even at the most basic level, it will be too late.

135

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No, they are men. Oppressed men, but men just the same. I’m sure they will fashion swords, knives, bats and hammers if need be. They are denied the best defense tools we have, but not completely neutered by their government into placated servants.

Be careful with the “need” argument. Because when you “need” a rifle, if you don’t already have one and know how to use it even at the most basic level, it will be too late. [/quote]

If only we all had the money to purchase a Patton and drive those around.

136

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No, they are men. Oppressed men, but men just the same. I’m sure they will fashion swords, knives, bats and hammers if need be. They are denied the best defense tools we have, but not completely neutered by their government into placated servants.

Be careful with the “need” argument. Because when you “need” a rifle, if you don’t already have one and know how to use it even at the most basic level, it will be too late. [/quote]

If only we all had the money to purchase a Patton and drive those around.[/quote]

Slipper slope and you know it.

But the point stands… Often you won’t even see why you “need” that rifle/shotgun/pistol (although I’d say if you’re down to your pistol you’re pretty much fucked already) it will be too late to go back and learn them.

138

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Boggles my mind that someone who has a reasonable head on their shoulders would advocate willfully disarming (or never arming) themselves. It’s a defacto abrogation of an innate personal responsibility and duty to protect your own self and those who depend on you to the extent it is in your power. It places the onus on others who absolutely are less capable to do for you what you can do for yourself.

It is also foolish.[/quote]

I will add that I’m assuming a lot of anti people just haven’t spent enough time near the criminal minded, particularly those of the “you don’t need a modern sporting rifle for home defense” ilk.

You see some of this shit 15 and 16 year olds are packing at home enough times and you’ll quickly realize how dumb that is for anyone near that element. And I’m not even talking about how well equipped motorcycle “clubs” are, lol.

139

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No, they are men. Oppressed men, but men just the same. I’m sure they will fashion swords, knives, bats and hammers if need be. They are denied the best defense tools we have, but not completely neutered by their government into placated servants.

Be careful with the “need” argument. Because when you “need” a rifle, if you don’t already have one and know how to use it even at the most basic level, it will be too late. [/quote]

If only we all had the money to purchase a Patton and drive those around.[/quote]

Slipper slope and you know it.
[/quote]

Heh, now that you mention it I see it. I didn’t mean that at all though, it was just a funny thought I had at the time.

See, I feel that you’re more or less right. Besides a break-in (when no one was home) a very long time ago, my family has never faced any crime. Ergo, there seems to be no need for us to own a gun or otherwise find some method of self-protection beyond knives or a “big stick” (I actually do sleep with a “big stick” next to me at all times).

Of course, if you live in Oakland, CA or somewhere, then I’m sure you’d feel that purchasing and knowing how to use a gun is a wise investment.

My question then is, is it really necessarily the case that the person who lives in a very crime-free area is being irresponsible by not maximizing his/her self-defense capability?

I mean, technically speaking you could go buy a trained guard dog. You can place barbed wire on your fences (the home my parents bought actually has this, at least on the fence that isn’t shared by the next door neighbors). You can place hidden nails on your window-frame so that people who try to break in stab themselves with it (did this too when I lived in the dorms at college, I am paranoid)

You can place motion detectors. I mean, there’s tons of things you can do that don’t really cost a lot in the first place, is generally unobtrusive, and can be quite effective as a deterrent/safety measure.

I get the feeling that people like Pushharder think about guns because they grew up with guns. People who haven’t don’t think about guns. I think it’s really that simple. I don’t think it has anything people thinking that guns are murder tools and evil or anything. You are wary of anything you’re not familiar with after all. FFS I am creeped out by most bugs except ants or flies. I have absolutely no objection to picking up ants by my fingers and just crushing them for amusement (I am twisted). I see a tiny fucking spider and I go get toilet paper to squash it.

And it’s simply because I’m used to ants while I’m not really used to spiders.

I’m not going to go into who is right or wrong in this kind of situation. I just find it a little suspect when you say that you need guns for self-defense and that you’re not doing your best if you don’t buy one.

Honestly, I think you’re not doing your best if you don’t ring your fence with barbed wire. If I purchase a home of my own someday the first fucking thing I’m doing is placing barbed wire on the fence. I prefer to give people a warning to not fuck with me by placing an obvious and clear deterrent. I would much rather keep people out rather than having to deal with them inside the home.

The community association or w.e be damned.