Reasons Citizens Should Own Guns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Once, a law was passed to allow car owner's to use deadly force to prevent the carjackings, the carjacking rate dropped overnight

---

Of course it did . . . in your head, mate, just like all your 'facts' without sources or links

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

four in the chest and two in the head, repeat as needed.

---

I wonder if he had an orgasm as he wrote that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

I trust my kamma will not suffer too badly

---

Not to worry, your 'kamma' won't suffer . . . just because you're a good buddhist who advocates killing 15% of the human population . . . in the US that would be 50 million people . . . one of these, by your own criteria, would be you.
You really know very, very little, don't you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

I believe the root cause of most crimes is due to a lack of an individual having any moral values and a lack of respect for others. Perhaps criminal tendencies are also genetic (as supported by some studies).

---

Quite right!!! We must repsect the rights of others!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Even if it means killing up to 15% of an area's population

---

Oh . . . :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Even if it means killing up to 15% of an area's population

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

You are insane Rick. Get some help.

---

yep..

---

double yup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Funny, isn't he? He has lower moral values than a thief or rapist, but believes he's one of the good guys.

---

That's because he is a simpleton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troy

However the killing of the 15% would be a criminal act and so recursively you end up with nobody...and no crime. I think that maybe you didn't think this all the way through...

---

He hasn't thought . . . period

Imagine, this guy procreates . . . or maybe not:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

I always keep a loaded .40 caliber Sig Sauer under my pillow at night

---

Sweet dreams, weirdo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Even if it means killing up to 15% of an area's population (which is the usual percentage of habitual criminals found within any given population) I think the remaining 85% of honest and decent people deserve to be able to live peaceably and safely in their neighborhoods, especially their own homes.

---

However the killing of the 15% would be a criminal act and so recursively you end up with nobody...and no crime. I think that maybe you didn't think this all the way through...

---

Yes, but remember 79.25% of statistics are made up on the spot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

. Even if it means killing up to 15% of an area's population

---

Do you know who else advocated killing a sizeable segment of the population in order to prevent future crimes?

You are insane Rick. Get some help.

---

For years criminalogists in the USA have stated that approximately 80% of all non-traffic-related crimes (robbery, rape, murder, etc) are committed by the same 10-15% of a given population. (In predominately Negro populations it is generally higher for some reason - perhaps as a Negro woman you may have some insight as to why the descrepancy??)

I think decent, honest people have the right to live out their life without the fear of being attacked by predators.

In many large cities in the USA, crime has gotten so bad, that decent people are afraid to drive their cars in certain areas at night.

Detroit, Chicago, Oakland, St. Lous, New Orleans, and even Washington DC have become so dangerous that even stopping for a red light at night in certain areas of those cities will get you shot, robbed, or raped. Crime has basically destroyed those cities.

Neither incarceration or rehabilitation is working. Decades of liberal judges and liberal attempts at social engineeriing have only made the problem worse. The only thing left to stop the increase of violent crime is killing off all the violent criminals or keeping them locked up forever. (Liberals are already crying about how many people are currently incarcerated.)

If someone had killed the dirbag in the video, the first time he committed a serious crime, that woman and her child (and probably a whole lot of other victims) would never have had to undergone that ordeal, which will affect them both for the rest of their lives.

Kill enough of those dirtbags and even the stupidest criminal will eventually catch on, or be killed. Either way the problem will be solved. Having spent time in Saudi Arabia, I know firsthand that harsh penalties deter criminals from committing crimes.

So maybe I am insane in that I don't think decent people should have to put up with predation by people like the guy in the video, and I also don't think taxpayers should have to spend billions of dollars every year keeping people like him locked up for decades.

As a Negro woman you should be fully aware of the problems facing young negro children growing up in the battlezones of ganglands throughout large cities in the USA. Almost everyday you read about some child who was killed by some gangbangers spraying a house with bullets in a driveby.

The problem is not the guns nor the bullets, it is the individuals who kill without any reason. Why liberals refuse to face the issue directly is beyond me. Instead of blaming the individuals who do these criminal acts, they blame the tools or society or George Bush!

So if you have a better idea on how to prevent these dirbags from acting out their crimes on innocent people, please share it with the forum.


RickThai

Killing off the 15% who regularly commit violent crimes, whether by shooting in self-defense, or by capital punishment after being convicted, would not be considered a crime, hence Troy's "However the killing of the 15% would be a criminal act and so recursively you end up with nobody...and no crime" is a totally unfounded (and apparently not well thought-out) and illogical statement.

It's amazing how so many liberal responses are nothing more but emotional diatribes and namecalling without any apparent rational thought or premise associated with the statements.

RickThai

"It's amazing how so many liberal responses are nothing more but emotional diatribes and namecalling without any apparent rational thought or premise associated with the statements."

Projection is a typical right-wing disease, Rick.

What is amazing is that the guy actually writes quite well - it doesn't, however, disguise the fact that he is quite a sad and frightened little man who sleeps with a loaded gun under his pillow and dreams of killing 50 million people . . . then there are the mentally challenged, of course, to be dealt with after that and then . . .

. . . reminds me of Niemöller's famous utterances

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

In many large cities in the USA, crime has gotten so bad, that decent people are afraid to drive their cars in certain areas at night. Detroit, Chicago, Oakland, St. Lous, New Orleans, and even Washington DC have become so dangerous that even stopping for a red light at night in certain areas of those cities will get you shot, robbed, or raped. Crime has basically destroyed those cities.

---

Ignoring the facts again, are we?

The crime rate in Chicago has been dropping.

I can't cut and paste these graphs, so go have a look yourself.

Crime rate in Chicago, Illinois (IL): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Killing off the 15% who regularly commit violent crimes, whether by shooting in self-defense, or by capital punishment after being convicted, would not be considered a crime, hence Troy's "However the killing of the 15% would be a criminal act and so recursively you end up with nobody...and no crime" is a totally unfounded (and apparently not well thought-out) and illogical statement.

---

I don't think you understand the circular reference here:

If the State is allowed to kill someone then what crime has a person committed by doing the same. What allows it to be okay at the State level but not at the personal level?

This is the simple paradox of being against the Death Penalty. Nothing to do with being Liberal or "Politically Correct".

So if killing is a crime then so is the Death Penalty, since it is killing someone.

My case for the killing by Death Penalty being a Criminal Act is therefore not unfounded and not illogical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

harsh penalties deter criminals from committing crimes.

---

Not .

Google

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Killing off the 15% who regularly commit violent crimes, whether by shooting in self-defense, or by capital punishment after being convicted, would not be considered a crime, hence Troy's "However the killing of the 15% would be a criminal act and so recursively you end up with nobody...and no crime" is a totally unfounded (and apparently not well thought-out) and illogical statement.

It's amazing how so many liberal responses are nothing more but emotional diatribes and namecalling without any apparent rational thought or premise associated with the statements.

RickThai

---

Is there some other response you expect from liberals?

There you go, bringing facts into his world . . . you do know he sleeps with a loaded, silver-plated Sig-Sauer with hollow-point bullets under his pillow and dreams of popping people 'four taps in the body, two pops in the head - repeat if necessary'.

How he sees himself

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/07/333.jpg

. . . what he really is:

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/07/335.jpg

(There were studies done on this and they overwhelmingly support this assertion as FACT - please don't ask for links, or sources, however)

RethugliKKKlans are against street crime as long as that street isn't Wall Street!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Killing off the 15% who regularly commit violent crimes, whether by shooting in self-defense, or by capital punishment after being convicted, would not be considered a crime, hence Troy's "However the killing of the 15% would be a criminal act and so recursively you end up with nobody...and no crime" is a totally unfounded (and apparently not well thought-out) and illogical statement.

---

I don't think you understand the circular reference here:

If the State is allowed to kill someone then what crime has a person committed by doing the same. What allows it to be okay at the State level but not at the personal level?

This is the simple paradox of being against the Death Penalty. Nothing to do with being Liberal or "Politically Correct".

So if killing is a crime then so is the Death Penalty, since it is killing someone.

My case for the killing by Death Penalty being a Criminal Act is therefore not unfounded and not illogical.

---

You have stepped around the subtle difference between lawful and unlawful killing. But I suppose that's ok if you really need to make an illogical point and proudly announce it is logic.

And should you wish to make a lawful killing unlawful, the polite and civilised place to start is at the ballot box.

Btw I hope you're not religious, because following your own flawed logic above I could just as logically accuse your god of being the ultimate serial killer.

Yesterday, Arkansas officially joined Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont as a Constitutional Carry state.

Arkansas law will now consider people carrying guns the same way many state laws handle possession of any kind of hand tools, so-called “tools of burglary.” Normally, you can get away with carrying common hand tools anywhere you otherwise have a right to be. But if you are caught trying to use them in an attempt of breaking and entering or even trespassing, you can be charged with a crime based on obvious intent to use that tool in a crime. As long as you are not harming, or attempting to harm others with a weapon, then possession alone should not be a crime.

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/07/337.jpg

^
Why were the red states late to the party?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pickel

^
Why were the red states late to the party?

---

Good question.

Perhaps like TX for example, private individuals already 'packed' so maybe there was no 'rush' to make it legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Killing off the 15% who regularly commit violent crimes, whether by shooting in self-defense, or by capital punishment after being convicted, would not be considered a crime, hence Troy's "However the killing of the 15% would be a criminal act and so recursively you end up with nobody...and no crime" is a totally unfounded (and apparently not well thought-out) and illogical statement.

---

I don't think you understand the circular reference here:

If the State is allowed to kill someone then what crime has a person committed by doing the same. What allows it to be okay at the State level but not at the personal level?

This is the simple paradox of being against the Death Penalty. Nothing to do with being Liberal or "Politically Correct".

So if killing is a crime then so is the Death Penalty, since it is killing someone.

My case for the killing by Death Penalty being a Criminal Act is therefore not unfounded and not illogical.

---

Bit of a middle that one.
Killing isn't the crime. Murder is. Unlawful killing.
Following that logic putting someone in jail would be kidnapping and unlawful detention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leemo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Killing off the 15% who regularly commit violent crimes, whether by shooting in self-defense, or by capital punishment after being convicted, would not be considered a crime, hence Troy's "However the killing of the 15% would be a criminal act and so recursively you end up with nobody...and no crime" is a totally unfounded (and apparently not well thought-out) and illogical statement.

It's amazing how so many liberal responses are nothing more but emotional diatribes and namecalling without any apparent rational thought or premise associated with the statements.

RickThai

---

Is there some other response you expect from liberals?

---

What's the point of debating the delusions of right-wing nutters? Zimmerman is on trial. Welcome to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rainfall

What's the point of debating the delusions of right-wing nutters? Zimmerman is on trial. Welcome to reality.

---

Would Rick-Duh-Thai say that Zimmerman be killed as one of the 15% or is he the good guy who murdered a kid he was stalking?

[QUOTE=pickel;2497933].

Ignoring the facts again, are we?

The crime rate in Chicago has been dropping.

I can't cut and paste these graphs, so go have a look yourself.

Crime rate in Chicago, Illinois (IL): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics[/QUOTE

Ah crime stats. They are really interesting. In Denver it was proudly announced that the crime rate was falling. A closer look showed that the areas of crime that had dropped drastically were "theft of services", such as putting your trash in someone else's trash can, using your neighbor's WIFI, etc. Carjackings were actually up almost 30%. Other serious crimes were up as well.

Since Chicago had over 500 murders last year, the fact that this year's murder rate wasn't quite on par to last year's doesn't really mean a lot if you or your loved ones is one of the hundreds of people murdered this year. And hey, the year has a long way to go. Considering that at least several hundred of the deceased were gangbangers and many of the shooters were probably arrested and are in custody, it makes the less crime stats even more meaningless.

Just look through the current stats on homicide in Chicago and it will break your heart (if you have one), as innocent children and others are randomly killed by stray bullets fired by dirtbags that have no sense of value or decency.

If that is your idea of a "safe environment" then you are the one living in fantasy land.

Last year NYC had the lowest murder rate in several years. only 432! Wow, that must make everyone there feel warm and cozy, knowing that only 400 or so people were murdered that year!

Once all the law enforcement people decide the USA is safe enough that they don't need firearms, than I will consider revising my opinion.

RickThai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Necron99

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

Killing off the 15% who regularly commit violent crimes, whether by shooting in self-defense, or by capital punishment after being convicted, would not be considered a crime, hence Troy's "However the killing of the 15% would be a criminal act and so recursively you end up with nobody...and no crime" is a totally unfounded (and apparently not well thought-out) and illogical statement.

---

I don't think you understand the circular reference here:

If the State is allowed to kill someone then what crime has a person committed by doing the same. What allows it to be okay at the State level but not at the personal level?

This is the simple paradox of being against the Death Penalty. Nothing to do with being Liberal or "Politically Correct".

So if killing is a crime then so is the Death Penalty, since it is killing someone.

My case for the killing by Death Penalty being a Criminal Act is therefore not unfounded and not illogical.

---

Bit of a middle that one.
Killing isn't the crime. Murder is. Unlawful killing.
Following that logic putting someone in jail would be kidnapping and unlawful detention.

---

Well stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rainfall

What's the point of debating the delusions of right-wing nutters? Zimmerman is on trial. Welcome to reality.

---

Would Rick-Duh-Thai say that Zimmerman be killed as one of the 15% or is he the good guy who murdered a kid he was stalking?

---

No. All evidence (and current testimony) points to the fact that Zimmerman was lawfully following Martin, and Martin hid in some bushes and ambushed Zimmerman. It was only after Zimmerman was being pounded that he shot Martin.


Certainly self-defense, and charges were only filed to pacify the "black horde". Once Zimmerman is cleared, I expect some Negros will go out and attack "whitey" because of their dis-satisfaction with the verdict.

RickThai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

There you go, bringing facts into his world . . . you do know he sleeps with a loaded, silver-plated Sig-Sauer with hollow-point bullets under his pillow and dreams of popping people 'four taps in the body, two pops in the head - repeat if necessary'.

How he sees himself

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/07/332.jpg

. . . what he really is:

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/07/334.jpg

(There were studies done on this and they overwhelmingly support this assertion as FACT - please don't ask for links, or sources, however)

---

Ockie,

So now you are clairvoyant and can actually see into the persona of other posters from afar and diagnose personality disorders.

With these gifts you must be extremely wealthy and busy. However do you find the time to post on a forum?



RickThai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickThai

harsh penalties deter criminals from committing crimes.

---

Not .

Google

---

Spend some time in Saudi Arabia and you might change your mind irrespective of what Google turns up.

Another good example was the Republic of South Africa. When under apartheid, the crime rate in most South African cities was fairly low. This was because the conservative government would not tolerate crime and dealt harsh sentences to law breakers. Once apartheid was abolished and a more liberal government installed, Johannesburg quickly surged into the top three most dangerous cities in the world in terms of the number of rapes, murders, and robberies.

It was a total shame that the apartheid government actually made the country safer for all its citizens, than what followed after apartheid.

Still, believe what you want, but one thing is for sure; kill a criminal (either in self-defense or via capital punishment) and that dirtbag will never commit another crime.

RickThai

I grew up in a communist state. The crime rates were extremely low, maybe 50 times lower than now. Murder did virtually not happen. Not a single case in my town of 30,000 between 1950 and 1990. No drug related crimes because drugs were just not obtainable. Therefore, communism is better than Apartheid, and also better than US capitalism, courtesy to logic by Rickthai.