You know Alexander was a homosexual, right? Fighting without firepower = gay.
Well Alexander was a married man (to a woman) as for bonking men I'm sure he may well of done so. Some might say that man was cowardly to attack a nine year old and probably insane to use a shotgun. Whereas you'd class him as a red blooded hetrosexual male doing the right thing? Well he's gonna be sharing a cell with Bubba for the rest of his life and be getting beaten up by a bunch of inmates everday of his life. But since those inmates are using fists and not guns I'm sure a red blooded right wing hetrosexual has nothin to fear from those tree hugging hippy liberal homosexuals right?
im also a NRA member and also republican, but i dont agree with this. little kids do things like throw rocks and such. unless there wee about 20 of them trying to stone him to death old testament style then he needs to fry. or better yet let the neighborhood go ahead and stone him to death.
So you would be OK with kids from the neighbourhood throwing stones through your window? Think about it, there's gotta be a way to stop such things from happening, and raw firepower still produces the best results, in any conflict.
Well of course, calling the police is just an option.
But I guess shooting kids because they are throwing rocks is the quick solution.
Next time let's shoot kids cause they are making noise playing basketball outside (Oh my ears, I could not take it anymore)
Or how about shooting dogs cause they pissed on the wheel of my car (You.....dirty bastard)
Or maybe shooting your wife because she cheated on you (the bitch...........she deserved it)
So where do you draw the line eh?
WTF are you thinking people?
How insane is to react with such disproportionate use of force and worse of it, why we are still discussing if he was right or wrong.
There are laws for a reason, and the reasons are to avoid anarchy which means people taking matters in their hand and resolving to killing each other for the more stupid reasons.
Using guns to solve petty issues is homicide and rightly so.
First, ordinary people should not be able to buy guns.
Secondly if they can be bought by any retard (as it is now), guns should be used in self-defence (as in life or death situation)
Throwing few rocks may be distressing but it is hardly a matter of life and death.........or is it?
This is 1st degree murder. He go out, get his gun, and exact revenge. There is no discussion, and to top it, he murder a child who supposedly throw him rocks...I dunno what this guy is smoking...but a 9 year old kid...easy as hell to scare and teach him a lesson, with the help of the policemen if you want. This guy should be hanged.
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this statement?
I admitted that to be a fact. I never said children are angels.
Then will you admit that it is possible that the child in this particular case is possibly not entirely blameless? I'm not saying that whatever he did justified being gunned down, not by any means. However, the general feeling in this thread is that this is a cut and dry issue, that the man should be hung. What I've been trying to argue here is that we have a tendancy to leap to conclusions. We know almost nothing about this incident but that a man who was well known for throwing bricks and kids who throw stones at him finally snapped and shot one of them. Shouldn't we care about why it happened, learn more details, before we instantly condemn the man as a hate-breathing monster? We should know what the children had been doing to him that set him off like this, and we should know whether or not he is stark-raving mad before we pass judgement.
I believe that with the little information that we got we can still conclude the guy that shot the kid was way out of order.
I wouldn't have so strongly reacted to this article: "Man shoots 9-year old"
Splendid. Now, if the man who shot the child was deranged/insane/just plain nasty, why couldn't the child also be? You asserted that it is entirely the fault of the parents for whatever their child potentially did earlier in this thread. I agree that whatever led to a child's current mental state is the responsibility of those who raised him. However, can there not be a point where so much emotionally damage has been done, that a person cannot remain free in society? That a child could be so warped by horrific circumstances and upbringing, that he becomes a danger to all around him, and becomes the thing that raised him so?
I believe that with the little information that we got we can still conclude the guy that shot the kid was way out of order.
I wouldn't have so strongly reacted to this article: "Man shoots 9-year old"
Splendid. Now, if the man who shot the child was deranged/insane/just plain nasty, why couldn't the child also be? You asserted that it is entirely the fault of the parents for whatever their child potentially did earlier in this thread. I agree that whatever led to a child's current mental state is the responsibility of those who raised him. However, can there not be a point where so much emotionally damage has been done, that a person cannot remain free in society? That a child could be so warped by horrific circumstances and upbringing, that he becomes a danger to all around him, and becomes the thing that raised him so?
Of course. It happens all the time and I've seen it dozens of times. When someone reaches a certain age then all hope is lost. But then they're not children anymore are they? But of course I admit children can become so warped that nobody can help them. Of course in our society (yours and mine) children aren't judged to be fit for more psycholgical help on their condition, but on the available funds. It's much cheaper to drug someone for life (or imprison them) than to help them. In the short term that is. But who gives a fuck about long term these days?
BTW, there isn't a single mental problem that can make a 9-year old an unstopable killer when given a rock.
No I don't go to SCI-FI conventions dressed as Darth Vader.
I go as Leia.
I need to find my medication before this gets worse!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
. If you treated John Wayne Gacy with the best of the best, with unlimited funding, you still couldn't fix him, still couldn't make him a decent human being. He was a monster, and monsters are not the domain of fantasy, they are real and among us.
John Wayne Gacey had an abusive alcoholic dad, who physically abused his mother and verbally the kids.
Although his dad was a very unpleasant person, John Wayne Gacey tried real hard to get his devotion and attention. Unfortunately, he was never able to do that before his dad died.
When John Wayne Gacey was eleven years old, he was hit in the head by a swing. This accident caused a blood clot in his brain, however, it was not discovered until he was sixteen years old.
He was no more a monster, than you and i. You do not know what effects his upbringings had upon him. You cannot, and should not, dehumanize him with a title such as monster. You should realise that there are people capable of doing such things in our society, and they might look no different than the girl next door. Remember how John Wayne Gacey used to work as a clown at the hospital?
The Saint, the Genius, the Sports Star, and the Mad Man is all created by the same society.
Some people are capable of doing tremendous self-sacrifice to help other people - To take it far further, than most could ever do. Yet would you not call these people humans? Perhaps even feel proud about them? Nobody dehumanize the good guys, only the bad. We do not wish to think our society is capable of creating this type of person.
Comments
You know Alexander was a homosexual, right? Fighting without firepower = gay.
Well Alexander was a married man (to a woman) as for bonking men I'm sure he may well of done so. Some might say that man was cowardly to attack a nine year old and probably insane to use a shotgun. Whereas you'd class him as a red blooded hetrosexual male doing the right thing? Well he's gonna be sharing a cell with Bubba for the rest of his life and be getting beaten up by a bunch of inmates everday of his life. But since those inmates are using fists and not guns I'm sure a red blooded right wing hetrosexual has nothin to fear from those tree hugging hippy liberal homosexuals right?
gotcha. gnight.
So you would be OK with kids from the neighbourhood throwing stones through your window? Think about it, there's gotta be a way to stop such things from happening, and raw firepower still produces the best results, in any conflict.
Well of course, calling the police is just an option.
But I guess shooting kids because they are throwing rocks is the quick solution.
Next time let's shoot kids cause they are making noise playing basketball outside (Oh my ears, I could not take it anymore)
Or how about shooting dogs cause they pissed on the wheel of my car (You.....dirty bastard)
Or maybe shooting your wife because she cheated on you (the bitch...........she deserved it)
So where do you draw the line eh?
WTF are you thinking people?
How insane is to react with such disproportionate use of force and worse of it, why we are still discussing if he was right or wrong.
There are laws for a reason, and the reasons are to avoid anarchy which means people taking matters in their hand and resolving to killing each other for the more stupid reasons.
Using guns to solve petty issues is homicide and rightly so.
First, ordinary people should not be able to buy guns.
Secondly if they can be bought by any retard (as it is now), guns should be used in self-defence (as in life or death situation)
Throwing few rocks may be distressing but it is hardly a matter of life and death.........or is it?
Indeed...
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this statement?
So, what I was saying earlier about not all children being angels....
Boys beat up the homeless!
I admitted that to be a fact. I never said children are angels.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
I admitted that to be a fact. I never said children are angels.
Then will you admit that it is possible that the child in this particular case is possibly not entirely blameless? I'm not saying that whatever he did justified being gunned down, not by any means. However, the general feeling in this thread is that this is a cut and dry issue, that the man should be hung. What I've been trying to argue here is that we have a tendancy to leap to conclusions. We know almost nothing about this incident but that a man who was well known for throwing bricks and kids who throw stones at him finally snapped and shot one of them. Shouldn't we care about why it happened, learn more details, before we instantly condemn the man as a hate-breathing monster? We should know what the children had been doing to him that set him off like this, and we should know whether or not he is stark-raving mad before we pass judgement.
Is that not reasonable?
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Splendid. Now, if the man who shot the child was deranged/insane/just plain nasty, why couldn't the child also be? You asserted that it is entirely the fault of the parents for whatever their child potentially did earlier in this thread. I agree that whatever led to a child's current mental state is the responsibility of those who raised him. However, can there not be a point where so much emotionally damage has been done, that a person cannot remain free in society? That a child could be so warped by horrific circumstances and upbringing, that he becomes a danger to all around him, and becomes the thing that raised him so?
Of course. It happens all the time and I've seen it dozens of times. When someone reaches a certain age then all hope is lost. But then they're not children anymore are they? But of course I admit children can become so warped that nobody can help them. Of course in our society (yours and mine) children aren't judged to be fit for more psycholgical help on their condition, but on the available funds. It's much cheaper to drug someone for life (or imprison them) than to help them. In the short term that is. But who gives a fuck about long term these days?Splendid. Now, if the man who shot the child was deranged/insane/just plain nasty, why couldn't the child also be? You asserted that it is entirely the fault of the parents for whatever their child potentially did earlier in this thread. I agree that whatever led to a child's current mental state is the responsibility of those who raised him. However, can there not be a point where so much emotionally damage has been done, that a person cannot remain free in society? That a child could be so warped by horrific circumstances and upbringing, that he becomes a danger to all around him, and becomes the thing that raised him so?
BTW, there isn't a single mental problem that can make a 9-year old an unstopable killer when given a rock.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
I think we should just bury this discussion.
I CREATED MYSELF!
"<Claus|Dev> i r pk"
SW:TOR|War40K:DMO|GW2
Then why did you bring it back after 2 months?
Schutzbar - Human Warrior - Windrunner Alliance - World of Warcraft
Nihilanth - Kerra Paladin - Blackburrow - EverQuest II
XBL Gamertag - Eagle15GT
Believe it or not, most prison convicts hate people who commit crimes against children. (molestation, homicide)
Going to prison is his death sentence.
Eye for an eye, best criminal justice system ever.
It was buried but you exhumed the corpse!
BTW your avatar is very sexy.
Yes I am a disturbed twisted pervert.
No I don't go to SCI-FI conventions dressed as Darth Vader.
I go as Leia.
I need to find my medication before this gets worse!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
Although his dad was a very unpleasant person, John Wayne Gacey tried real hard to get his devotion and attention. Unfortunately, he was never able to do that before his dad died.
When John Wayne Gacey was eleven years old, he was hit in the head by a swing. This accident caused a blood clot in his brain, however, it was not discovered until he was sixteen years old.
He was no more a monster, than you and i. You do not know what effects his upbringings had upon him. You cannot, and should not, dehumanize him with a title such as monster. You should realise that there are people capable of doing such things in our society, and they might look no different than the girl next door. Remember how John Wayne Gacey used to work as a clown at the hospital?
The Saint, the Genius, the Sports Star, and the Mad Man is all created by the same society.
Some people are capable of doing tremendous self-sacrifice to help other people - To take it far further, than most could ever do. Yet would you not call these people humans? Perhaps even feel proud about them? Nobody dehumanize the good guys, only the bad. We do not wish to think our society is capable of creating this type of person.