Jesus Crom. Every single straw man, example, hypothetical argument, and counter-argument that are being presented were already covered ad nauseum in the other thread that was linked to upthread. Every single one. Even the ones like “what if he’s already down the street carrying your TV? Is it OK to shoot him then?”
This is like that movie Groundhog Day, except it’s about a message board topic and should be called “Straw Man Day.” I’m just waiting for someone to come in and start defending Prison Kittens with the “Poor Lil’ Timmy” argument. Enough already!
And just when you think it ready to die, the vehement anti-gunner walks in with another completely insane straw man that no one on any side the argument could possibly defend or think pertinent. :rolleyes:
I’m sort of anti-gun (I think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, but in the meantime I fully support the rights of gun owners) and I endorse this rant.
I read the thread you liked to. I saw the several references to a “prison kitten” or “prison kitty” and, from context, I think I understand what it means.
But what’s the “Poor Lil’ Timmy” argument? Just curious.
Glad you asked! The Poor Lil’ Timmy argument goes something like this; What if…Poor Lil’ Timmy lives with his Mom, who is dying of some disease and needs medicine badly. Timmy and his Mom can’t afford medical insurance or a prescription plan, so Timmy needs to steal your TiVo to sell to get money to buy medicine for his dying mother. Timmy mows lawns in your neighborhood, he likes taking long walks on the beach and likes to play checkers with his little sister. He dreams one day of becoming a pediatrician and he always picks up litter when he sees it. Now, even though it’s stealing, he feels forced to turn to crime, but only because he wants to help someone that he loves. But the Mean Ol’ Gun-Toting Homeowner doesn’t care about any of this story that he knows nothing about; Mean Ol’ Gun-Toting Homeowner has been keeping his shotgun oiled, loaded, and at the ready for years just WAITING for somebody to break into his place, so he can unload both barrels in the sap’s back while yelling, “YEE-HAW! NASCAR!!”
I’ve got a fresh question on the whole Castle Doctrine debate, Is Marvel’s Frank Castle, a.k.a. The Punisher, named after the Castle doctrine or was it named the Castle Doctirne after Frank Castle?
Neither I believe. The Law is named for the saying that a man’s home is his castle and the character is probably not named for the law. Castle Law is not about vigilantism. It is about the legal use of deadly force to protect ones home.
I know that Castle Law has nothing to do with vigilantism. I was just having a bit of fun. Trust me, I am happy to live in a state that recognizes an individual’s right to protect their home from uninvited intruders and have signed into law a Castle Doctrine to that effect.
Specifically, Castle Doctrine asserts that one’s home is the final retreat- the place no person should have to run from to be able to claim that they were unwillingly involved in a confrontation. In the event of the occupant wounding or killing an intruder, the burden of fault is presumed to be on the intruder.
I found a cite I would have posted in the “how bad is it, how bad could it be?” thread, but that thread was closed just after I discovered the cite, and I didn’t want to throw gasoline on any of the other gun threads. But as long as this one is in the Pit, I think it should be edifying: Gun Court - Wikipedia
What happened in Jamaica when it was declared “There is no place in this society for the gun, now or ever.”