Каморка

Игорь Николаевич писал(а):Самооборона вполне законное право. Часто фигурирует в судебных разбирательствах.

Buddy human right of life is a legal right too in some countries, in some countries there were historical times that it was not a legal right under certain circumstances, but it's a HUMAN RIGHT at first.

Right of self defense was there before the first court on this earth, it was even there before the first organized country or community. If a country A accepted this ALSO as a legal right that does not mean it is not a HUMAN RIGHT, something being a human right means it has precedence to any legal sentence.

Even if say in country A there is a law stating that self defense is not legal that still does not make self defense lawless, it is HUMAN right, countries can accept it as a part of their underlying ideology but that does not change the fact that this is at first a human right.

Cannot even believe that I have to explain this to a human being

ereksa писал(а):Our measurements are based on experience so called precedents.

You should be allowed to if you can point to previous incidents of mass murder cases in United States with machine guns and self-guided missiles. There were numerous incidents of mass murders with semi-automatic weapons, in particular AF15s. Thus you as a law abiding citizen should be allowed to use a type of weapon that is likely be used against you as a self defense. See bud don't manipulate the reality. Over 3/4 of weapons that were used in mass shootings in USA were obtained legally. So if a killer is able to obtain a tank legally you should be able to obtain a tank legally too to protect yourself.

So do not take it to the extremes, the top weapon types used by criminals in mass shootings in USA were AF15, Glock 40, but never a machine gun or a self guided missiles.

Стоп, стоп, стоп, как это мое неотъемлемое право на самооборону может зависеть от каких-то там прецедентов и статистик?
"self defense ... is a HUMAN right" в конце концов, и никто кроме меня не имеет права ограничивать это мое право! Согласны?
Или все-так вы считаете, что нужен контроль государства в праве на приобретение и ношение оружия ?

ereksa писал(а):

Игорь Николаевич писал(а):Самооборона вполне законное право. Часто фигурирует в судебных разбирательствах.

Buddy human right of life is a legal right too in some countries, in some countries there were historical times that it was not a legal right under certain circumstances, but it's a HUMAN RIGHT at first.

Right of self defense was there before the first court on this earth, it was even there before the first organized country or community. If a country A accepted this ALSO as a legal right that does not mean it is not a HUMAN RIGHT, something being a human right means it has precedence to any legal sentence.

Even if say in country A there is a law stating that self defense is not legal that still does not make self defense lawless, it is HUMAN right, countries can accept it as a part of their underlying ideology but that does not change the fact that this is at first a human right.

Cannot even believe that I have to explain this to a human being

Ничего не понял. Извините.
Речь идет о праве человека на самооборону. В юриспруденции это будет законное право. При судебном разбирательстве оперируют законом, а не общечеловеческими понятиями. В общечеловеческом понимании, это будет человеческое право. Зачем это смешивать? Белиберда какая-то.

To gun control advocates.

Why is there I cannot find a SINGLE case of mass shooting and mass murder in USA in court rooms, police stations, shooting ranges and so ?

Logically if more guns means more violence the shooting range will be the number one mass killing place. How come by some magic the majority of mass murder cases are in gun free zones ? I say arm and train teachers when every gun free zone is under target of criminals, maniacs and psychopaths.

Игорь Николаевич писал(а):

ereksa писал(а):

Игорь Николаевич писал(а):Самооборона вполне законное право. Часто фигурирует в судебных разбирательствах.

Buddy human right of life is a legal right too in some countries, in some countries there were historical times that it was not a legal right under certain circumstances, but it's a HUMAN RIGHT at first.

Right of self defense was there before the first court on this earth, it was even there before the first organized country or community. If a country A accepted this ALSO as a legal right that does not mean it is not a HUMAN RIGHT, something being a human right means it has precedence to any legal sentence.

Even if say in country A there is a law stating that self defense is not legal that still does not make self defense lawless, it is HUMAN right, countries can accept it as a part of their underlying ideology but that does not change the fact that this is at first a human right.

Cannot even believe that I have to explain this to a human being

Ничего не понял. Извините.
Речь идет о праве человека на самооборону. В юриспруденции это будет законное право. При судебном разбирательстве оперируют законом, а не общечеловеческими понятиями. В общечеловеческом понимании, это будет человеческое право. Зачем это смешивать? Белиберда какая-то.

For instance Hitler said it is not everybody's right to self defense and there were laws according to that. All I am saying is people defended themselves before LAWS, COUNTRIES, and so. It's natural right. Do you know what natural right means?

ereksa писал(а):To gun control advocates.

Why is there I cannot find a SINGLE case of mass shooting and mass murder in USA in court rooms, police stations, shooting ranges and so ?

Вы просто не очень хорошо информированны
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

Marmot писал(а):

ereksa писал(а):Our measurements are based on experience so called precedents.

You should be allowed to if you can point to previous incidents of mass murder cases in United States with machine guns and self-guided missiles. There were numerous incidents of mass murders with semi-automatic weapons, in particular AF15s. Thus you as a law abiding citizen should be allowed to use a type of weapon that is likely be used against you as a self defense. See bud don't manipulate the reality. Over 3/4 of weapons that were used in mass shootings in USA were obtained legally. So if a killer is able to obtain a tank legally you should be able to obtain a tank legally too to protect yourself.

So do not take it to the extremes, the top weapon types used by criminals in mass shootings in USA were AF15, Glock 40, but never a machine gun or a self guided missiles.

Стоп, стоп, стоп, как это мое неотъемлемое право на самооборону может зависеть от каких-то там прецедентов и статистик?
"self defense ... is a HUMAN right" в конце концов, и никто кроме меня не имеет права ограничивать это мое право! Согласны?
Или все-так вы считаете, что нужен контроль государства в праве на приобретение и ношение оружия ?

Can you please name a single case of mass murder in USA that has been executed by self-assigning missiles or machine guns ?

ereksa писал(а):

Игорь Николаевич писал(а):

ereksa писал(а):

Игорь Николаевич писал(а):Самооборона вполне законное право. Часто фигурирует в судебных разбирательствах.

Buddy human right of life is a legal right too in some countries, in some countries there were historical times that it was not a legal right under certain circumstances, but it's a HUMAN RIGHT at first.

Right of self defense was there before the first court on this earth, it was even there before the first organized country or community. If a country A accepted this ALSO as a legal right that does not mean it is not a HUMAN RIGHT, something being a human right means it has precedence to any legal sentence.

Even if say in country A there is a law stating that self defense is not legal that still does not make self defense lawless, it is HUMAN right, countries can accept it as a part of their underlying ideology but that does not change the fact that this is at first a human right.

Cannot even believe that I have to explain this to a human being

Ничего не понял. Извините.
Речь идет о праве человека на самооборону. В юриспруденции это будет законное право. При судебном разбирательстве оперируют законом, а не общечеловеческими понятиями. В общечеловеческом понимании, это будет человеческое право. Зачем это смешивать? Белиберда какая-то.

For instance Hitler said it is not everybody's right to self defense and there were laws according to that. All I am saying is people defended themselves before LAWS, COUNTRIES, and so. It's natural right. Do you know what natural right means?

Речь в топике идет о применении оружия. С этим связано законное право человека на самооборону. В случае судебного разбирательства есть такое понятие, оно фигурирует в суде, им оперируют. Если на Вас на улице напал человек с ножом и вы оборонялись и выбили ему глаз, то Вам ничего не будет, так как Ваше противоправное действие попадает под условие самообороны и вы освобождаетесь от ответственности.
Все остальные права, а их могут быть тысячи, скажем право быть счастливым, право на здоровый сон и тд. - это человеческие права, можете их естественными правами называть, как хотите. Но они не являются законными правами. Они не могут фигурировать в суде в качестве оправдания Ваших противоправных действий. Так Вам понятно?

Marmot писал(а):

ereksa писал(а):To gun control advocates.

Why is there I cannot find a SINGLE case of mass shooting and mass murder in USA in court rooms, police stations, shooting ranges and so ?

Вы просто не очень хорошо информированны
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

I know about this one bud, maybe we should ban guns in army too ? LOL )))))))))))))))))))))))))

ereksa писал(а):

Marmot писал(а):

ereksa писал(а):Our measurements are based on experience so called precedents.

You should be allowed to if you can point to previous incidents of mass murder cases in United States with machine guns and self-guided missiles. There were numerous incidents of mass murders with semi-automatic weapons, in particular AF15s. Thus you as a law abiding citizen should be allowed to use a type of weapon that is likely be used against you as a self defense. See bud don't manipulate the reality. Over 3/4 of weapons that were used in mass shootings in USA were obtained legally. So if a killer is able to obtain a tank legally you should be able to obtain a tank legally too to protect yourself.

So do not take it to the extremes, the top weapon types used by criminals in mass shootings in USA were AF15, Glock 40, but never a machine gun or a self guided missiles.

Стоп, стоп, стоп, как это мое неотъемлемое право на самооборону может зависеть от каких-то там прецедентов и статистик?
"self defense ... is a HUMAN right" в конце концов, и никто кроме меня не имеет права ограничивать это мое право! Согласны?
Или все-так вы считаете, что нужен контроль государства в праве на приобретение и ношение оружия ?

Can you please name a single case of mass murder in USA that has been executed by self-assigning missiles or machine guns ?

ereksa, причем тут... что было, а чего не было?
Мой вопрос конкретен: вы лично за или против государственного контроля и ограничения на право приобретения и ношения оружия? Да или нет?

ereksa писал(а):

Marmot писал(а):

ereksa писал(а):To gun control advocates.

Why is there I cannot find a SINGLE case of mass shooting and mass murder in USA in court rooms, police stations, shooting ranges and so ?

Вы просто не очень хорошо информированны
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

I know about this one bud, maybe we should ban guns in army too ? LOL )))))))))))))))))))))))))

Тогда зачем был задан процитированный мною вопрос? Что вы хотели этим сказать?

Marmot писал(а):

ereksa писал(а):

Marmot писал(а):

ereksa писал(а):Our measurements are based on experience so called precedents.

You should be allowed to if you can point to previous incidents of mass murder cases in United States with machine guns and self-guided missiles. There were numerous incidents of mass murders with semi-automatic weapons, in particular AF15s. Thus you as a law abiding citizen should be allowed to use a type of weapon that is likely be used against you as a self defense. See bud don't manipulate the reality. Over 3/4 of weapons that were used in mass shootings in USA were obtained legally. So if a killer is able to obtain a tank legally you should be able to obtain a tank legally too to protect yourself.

So do not take it to the extremes, the top weapon types used by criminals in mass shootings in USA were AF15, Glock 40, but never a machine gun or a self guided missiles.

Стоп, стоп, стоп, как это мое неотъемлемое право на самооборону может зависеть от каких-то там прецедентов и статистик?
"self defense ... is a HUMAN right" в конце концов, и никто кроме меня не имеет права ограничивать это мое право! Согласны?
Или все-так вы считаете, что нужен контроль государства в праве на приобретение и ношение оружия ?

Can you please name a single case of mass murder in USA that has been executed by self-assigning missiles or machine guns ?

ereksa, причем тут... что было, а чего не было?
Мой вопрос конкретен: вы лично за или против государственного контроля и ограничения на право приобретения и ношения оружия? Да или нет?

I am for a federal level of control on weapons that IS CURRENTLY in effect in USA. Is this eligible answer to your question?

Marmot писал(а):

ereksa писал(а):

Marmot писал(а):

ereksa писал(а):To gun control advocates.

Why is there I cannot find a SINGLE case of mass shooting and mass murder in USA in court rooms, police stations, shooting ranges and so ?

Вы просто не очень хорошо информированны
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

I know about this one bud, maybe we should ban guns in army too ? LOL )))))))))))))))))))))))))

Тогда зачем был задан процитированный мною вопрос? Что вы хотели этим сказать?

More legal guns less victims.
Less gun free zones, less victims.

ereksa писал(а): I am for a federal level of control on weapons that IS CURRENTLY in effect in USA. Is this eligible answer to your question?

Ок, значит вы, в принципе, за контроль и ограничение государством своего человеческого права? Я правильно понял?