True crime story

This is the place for ON or Off topic conversations. Almost anything goes - but be kind, and no trolling.
Forum rules
While the rules in this forum are more relaxed than in other parts of the Expat site, there are still a few things we’d like you to remember: No name calling, no insults – be civil to each other!
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

True crime story

Postby gringito » Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:32 pm

You may not like this story (a true story, BTW) because it may derogate your nice impression you have from Peru when looking through your rose-colored glasses sitting in the Haiti in downtown Miraflores & Co, sipping your Piscito, or on a touristic folklore tour with all these nice people in their colorful costumes and the plushy Lamas & Alpacas.
I cannot help it.

If you live and work in Peru and you have to travel to remote rural areas from time to time (even as a national tourist) you may have a different point of view.
ok…

I have a good Peruvian friend who is an agricultural engineer. He is working in the field of certification of coffee and cacao.
Eight years ago this friend had to do a job in a remote area of the selva in San Martin. He and 3 of his colleagues (2 men, 1 woman) were travelling with a pickup. After having finished their job they headed back to their hotel in the nearest small town which was about 4 - 5 hours away. They started early in the afternoon such that they would be back before darkness.

After 2 or 3 hours on the dirt track through the selva they were ambushed by 3 thugs.
One was armed with an old revolver, the others with machetes.

The thugs dragged them out of the car and robbed all the notebooks and the cameras they were carrying for their job.
They robbed the jerry cans and all the little cash my friend and his colleagues were carrying.
When my friend thought it was nearly over the guy with the revolver turned to the young women, lowered his pants and raped her in front of her colleagues while threatening them with the gun and ordering them to keep their hands up.

One of the colleagues of my friend began talking with the rapist pleading that he should stop.
The rapist did not stop.
The colleague continued pleading.
Finally, the rapist got angry.
He turned to said colleague and without any warning fired one single shot at his chest which hit his heart and killed him immediately.
The thugs escaped with their booty. They were never seized.
The young woman never recovered psychologically from this incident. She quit her job and never resumed it again.

After my friend had recovered from this incident, the first thing he did was purchasing a gun and obtaining some training. During the last years he was assaulted twice during job-related trips in the Peruvian selva. Each time he had to fight his way out in a shooting. He does not like to talk much about these incidents. When he has one Pisco too much, sometimes he recalls these incidents and has to talk about it. He cannot forget it, and while he told me his story I felt the terror he had suffered. He is a father and has two teenage daughters.

Why am I telling you this?
Because some users feel that carrying a gun is bad and that it is a nice and harmless world out there, filled with people that will do you no harm if you hand over what they demand and that will intelligently listen to you and your ideas and smart proposals. Having a gun would have made a difference in the assault I reported on, two guns would have made a big difference. Naturally, this only happens hundreds of miles away from the happy islands of Miraflores & Co. Surely you feel save in your green ghetto and you do not have much motivation leaving it. I mean, what for?

Yes, this is a TRUE story made in Peru.


PS:
When I recover the reports about the German bicycle tourist that was murdered in Loreto and the two tourists that were shot by two thugs during a canoe tour in the Amazonas region some years ago I will translate and post them.


User avatar
chi chi
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 6060
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:28 pm
Location: Granada, Andalusia

Re: True crime story

Postby chi chi » Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:12 pm

Do you think if they had a gun that they might have got out of the situation unharmed?

Criminals that have a gun are big losers who won't be anything without a gun. If they didn't have a gun, they would be lost.

I am not scared of losers with a gun, I would be more scared of criminals without a gun, Fools don't carry a gun but they are fare more dangerous.
User avatar
KenBE
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:25 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby KenBE » Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:44 am

What a horrible story. Just getting robbed is one thing but what happened to those people must be hell. I heard a similar story from some girls I know in Chimbote. They were in a colectivo and some armed choros got in and robbed everyone. Then they told the men who were in the car that they could leave, but the women had to stay. Pretty obvious what was going to happen... One guy was very brave and just told the choros he wouldn't leave without the girls and they let everyone go in the end. It is easy to forget how dangerous Peru can be...
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: True crime story

Postby teamoperu » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:42 am

True crime story. In 1534 Pizzaro and his conquistadores came to Peru and killed and thousands of Peruvians, raping many women. If only the Inkas would have had guns!!! then maybe we wouldn't have gringos sneaking firearms into concerts.
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby gringito » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:54 pm

chi chi wrote:Do you think if they had a gun that they might have got out of the situation unharmed?

Maybe not unharmed but most probably all alive and the woman not raped.

Being raped, slaughtered, massacred etc. will deprive you of your human dignity and degrade you to slaughter cattle while being able to defend yourself will preserve your dignity even if you die fighting for your live. This is what I was told by people that survived deadly attacks.

chi chi wrote:Criminals that have a gun are big losers who won't be anything without a gun. If they didn't have a gun, they would be lost.
I am not scared of losers with a gun, I would be more scared of criminals without a gun, Fools don't carry a gun but they are fare more dangerous.

Chi CHi: IMHO this is quite absurd. It does not matter if you consider these thugs loosers or not. If a looser shoots you with a gun you are dead as well. Maybe you will think in your afterlife "Hey, but he was a losser!" but you will still be dead. With this type of bizarre argumentaion every policeman hat carries a gun would also be a looser.


teamoperu wrote:True crime story. In 1534 Pizzaro and his conquistadores came to Peru and killed and thousands of Peruvians, raping many women. If only the Inkas would have had guns!!!

RIGHT! If the Inkas would have had guns, or "modern, contemporary weapons", most probably they would not have been conquered!
History teaches this lessons quite clearly.

teamoperu wrote:...then maybe we wouldn't have gringos sneaking firearms into concerts.

???

KenBE wrote:... One guy was very brave and just told the choros he wouldn't leave without the girls and they let everyone go in the end...

Waoh..this fellow was brave ..and I am surprised that he is still alive. Usually, Peruvian thugs don not hesitate to shoot ...
User avatar
KenBE
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:25 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby KenBE » Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:43 pm

gringito wrote:
KenBE wrote:... One guy was very brave and just told the choros he wouldn't leave without the girls and they let everyone go in the end...

Waoh..this fellow was brave ..and I am surprised that he is still alive. Usually, Peruvian thugs don not hesitate to shoot ...


Yeah me too... That guy deserves a medal or something and I am sure those girls were very grateful. Very admirable but, yeah he basically risked his life.
gringuano
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:35 am

Re: True crime story

Postby gringuano » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:53 pm

Loser - person or thing that loses or has lost something, especially a game or contest.
Looser - not firmly or tightly fixed in place

PS: Sorry, this is one of my biggest pet peeves
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby gringito » Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:01 pm

gringuano wrote:Loser - person or thing that loses or has lost something, especially a game or contest.
Looser - not firmly or tightly fixed in place

PS: Sorry, this is one of my biggest pet peeves


Did I miss something???
gringuano
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:35 am

Re: True crime story

Postby gringuano » Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:08 am

Chi CHi: IMHO this is quite absurd. It does not matter if you consider these thugs loosers or not. If a looser shoots you with a gun you are dead as well. Maybe you will think in your afterlife "Hey, but he was a losser!" but you will still be dead. With this type of bizarre argumentaion every policeman hat carries a gun would also be a looser.
panman
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:05 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby panman » Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:29 am

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that not everyone on this forum speaks English as a first language. :D
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: True crime story

Postby teamoperu » Mon Oct 06, 2014 11:18 am

panman wrote:Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that not everyone on this forum speaks English as a first language. :D


There is a spell checker that helps reduce this problem.
Lone Rider

Re: True crime story

Postby Lone Rider » Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:27 pm

Who spelled anything wrong. Loser and looser are both spelled correct.
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: True crime story

Postby ironchefchris » Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:49 pm

Spell check won't pick up misuse of the words to, too, and two, or there, they're, and their. For this one needs a grammar checker. Being this is a forum with members whose (as opposed to who's) first language isn't English, I try not to get upset over grammar issues, though it's interesting that some who I know speak English as their first language have trouble with the usage of the words in the first sentence of this post.
Lone Rider

Re: True crime story

Postby Lone Rider » Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:57 pm

You never get upset do you.
How about the use of capitals. Boy howdy those sure set you off, didn't they.
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: True crime story

Postby ironchefchris » Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:46 pm

A lot of people get upset by that. I wasn't the only one at the time. Several old threads show that many people thought it was rude and/or disrespectful; long before I ever said a word about it. In fact, before I was even a member here. One or two got upset because I dared to ask the opinions of others to see if we were being unreasonable or in the minority as far as our opinions. When it was put to the members (democratically, as chi chi might say), the overwhelming majority who anonymously voted and expressed their opinions felt the same. For me it was more the lack of respect towards the opinions of others than shouting and harder to read posts. That, to me, is entirely different than getting upset (or not) about a non-native English speaker's innocent grammar mistakes. You're comparing apples to bicycles. Such an old issue, no longer relevant in the present. Nobody cares anymore. If you care, maybe you should start a new thread on the topic as I don't see what this has to do with this thread and those who feel like discussing the past can do so in a thread devoted exclusively to that topic. If you do start a thread maybe you'll see me there, maybe you won't.
Lone Rider

Re: True crime story

Postby Lone Rider » Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:52 pm

You seemed to be the most vocal. Don't you remember sending an 11 page PM? You bullied the poor man to death. You can try and pass responsibility by being a child and say "well they did it too" but it does not absolve you from your lie that you never get upset.
You were beyond upset, it was amazing how you obsessed over him and still do. Want proof? Look at how well you remember the details of 'capital letters gate'.
I bet you conveniently forgot one detail though, you were the one to even bring up the use of capitals and make a big deal about it.
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: True crime story

Postby ironchefchris » Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:51 pm

Lone Rider wrote:You seemed to be the most vocal. Don't you remember sending an 11 page PM? You bullied the poor man to death. You can try and pass responsibility by being a child and say "well they did it too" but it does not absolve you.

With numerous orders to "cease and desist" and threats of physical violence and lawsuits, you could say he bullied us for expressing our opinions on his behavior and lack of concern or respect for anyone's opinion but his own. Perhaps that lack of concern and respect for anyone else partly explains any 'hard cheese' stories that may or may not have followed. Wives usually don't tolerate spouses who behave like that for long - nor should they. As far as being "the most vocal" - perhaps. Puting the subject to an opinion poll seemed fair, inclusive, democratic, and allowed everyone to express their opinion in a silently anonymous way. Contrary to what you say, plenty of others raised the issue long before I did, so I started nothing. A simple search would bear that out and if you're willing to wager at least S/. 600 I'd be willing to dig those threads up for you and post them as proof, but short of a wager where I'm sure to win at least that much it's nothing I'm interested in spending time on. All I did was introduce the polling function into the discussion. I have no regrets about being vocal and expressing myself, especially when the topic was someone's being vocal to the point where many considered it shouting. Look at the doggie kingdom - if a dog/you bark(s) at people you can't credibly be upset if a dog/people bark(s) back. Unsurprisingly, and as is usual with bullies, that little doggie was all bark and no bite when it came to actually following through on threats of violence or lawsuits. You're complaining about the librarian raising their voice a bit after politely and repeatedly whispering to the person shouting and disturbing others in the library to please tone it down. I'm not looking for absolution (nor I'm guessing is anyone else) for stating my opinion and asking others to anonymously state theirs, but if you want to hold it against me and everyone else who stated their opinions, have at it. But again, if this more than a year old topic interests you, why not start a thread devoted to it for those other than yourself still interested in the topic?
Last edited by ironchefchris on Mon Oct 06, 2014 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby gringito » Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:57 pm

Spelling?! Waoh...this turns into a REAL crime story...! :|
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: True crime story

Postby ironchefchris » Mon Oct 06, 2014 3:21 pm

Lone Rider wrote:I bet you conveniently forgot one detail though, you were the one to even bring up the use of capitals and make a big deal about it.

Nothing forgotten and something else you're wrong about. If you do a word search on this thread you'll see your below quoted post contains the first mention of the word 'capitals,' so once again you're wrong in saying I started something I didn't. In fact, you're the only one using the word at all and raised the subject in the first place. No one else mentioned anything about it. I'd love to win S/. 600 or whatever you're willing to wager over that amount if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Lone Rider wrote:You never get upset do you.
How about the use of capitals. Boy howdy those sure set you off, didn't they.

It's been a long time but that brought back childhood memories. Was Boy Howdy from 'Cream' or 'Circus' magazine? I'm thinking 'Cream.'
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby gringito » Mon Oct 06, 2014 3:46 pm

Dear @Admin:
Could you pease split the thread and get the spelling discussion out of it?
Thanks.
User avatar
Alan
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2840
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:10 pm
Contact:

Re: True crime story

Postby Alan » Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:06 am

Hey all.... Let´s just get back on track. Thanks.
marthajesty
Member
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:17 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: True crime story

Postby marthajesty » Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:21 am

I am so sorry to hear about the stories of your friends. Bad people are every where in the world and WE SHOULD NOT TRUST anyone and take all precautions. What happened with the British couple in Tailand recently? You will hear stories like this all the time and that saddens me. But there is hope for those who stay with trauma, trauma can be healed, the brain (and the healing of emotions) is powerful to heal himself but need techniques to do it by specialist in the field.
User avatar
tupacperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3350
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Pimentel Beach-Chiclayo- Sanford NC
Contact:

Re: True crime story

Postby tupacperu » Thu Oct 09, 2014 10:38 am

Who draws/shoots first.. wins.

I am not a gun advocate nor hater. I just try not to go where there is crime. Traveling back roads in any country is dangerous. A young girl in Chicago was killed the other day for refusing to give a guy her number. I am not saying that people should be restricted to where they travel, but I believe in avoiding places where you know there is trouble. THis lady was up in the club... and you know that clubs are places where fights break out and guns are drawn.

I lived in various cities and I am Afro-American (Black), Not even I dare walk through, Compton, LBC, North Philly etc... even with a gun. These types are heavily armed.

Lately other than the movies, I have not heard cases where someone shot a robber in self defense, even here in the US, not too many of these reports. So that says to me, the bad person got the shot off first in most cases.
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby gringito » Thu Oct 09, 2014 3:33 pm

@tupacperu:
I agree: A gun or any other weapon is neither a guaranty for survival nor for winning the day.
Unfortunately, a thug always has the advantage of surprise or ambush.
What you may have had in mind is the so called “amulet thinking”, i.e. an irrational belief of some gun owners (in particular novices) that their gun will “magically” protect them against “evil” thereby leading to a false sensation of security.
Naturally, any rationally thinking person, and in particular persons who already had to experience an attack, knows that this is not true.
Nearly everybody I know who had to suffer an assault lost his “innocence” and began to train hard in order to be less vulnerable the next time.
A gun does not guaranty anything; it only gives you a choice and a better option for defending yourself when things run out of the rudder. Just my 2 Cents.
User avatar
chi chi
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 6060
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:28 pm
Location: Granada, Andalusia

Re: True crime story

Postby chi chi » Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:07 pm

tupacperu wrote:I lived in various cities and I am Afro-American (Black), Not even I dare walk through, Compton.


I was in Compton 2 years ago. We were visiting friends. Compton has cooled down a lot. After the infamous riots, things have changed. There a large percentage of Latinos living there now.

I heard less gangsta (unfortunately, cos I love gangsta rap) but more Mariachi, Cumbia and Salsa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqnM-IyYYDs

One of my favourites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X54bodBFxmc
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: True crime story

Postby teamoperu » Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:36 am

I have reflected on this topic. I do not want to shoot anyone dead. I cannot imagine how I bad I would suffer with second thoughts, nightmares, guilt for killing someone's son, brother, husband, father. Just to protect my money or things? I have lots of money and things.

Military soldiers kill people during war for far better reasons. Lots return with PTSD. I think I would have PSTD if I shot and killed someone for trying to rob me. I'd have visions forever of the blood and his life oozing onto the street.

My father fought in the war. He was a religious man. He suffered from what he did during the war until his death, God bless him.

I know the feeling of loss of dignity and the feeling of violation from being robbed. I have been robbed in my home country more times than in Peru. I recovered. I fear if had I had a gun I was angry enough to use at the time. I know now that would have been a mistake, I would have suffered for shooting someone dead for stuff that I hardly miss now.

Sicko gun nuts kill people all the time without even trying to rob anyone. If a sicko gun nut mugger shoots me, even after I relinquish my stuff, so be it, God's will.
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: True crime story

Postby ironchefchris » Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:06 am

It's all just stuff. None of my stuff is worth killing or dying for, though you may feel differently about your stuff. I'll never know because I have no interest in other people's stuff and certainly would never try to take anyone else's stuff. I have enough stuff of my own. I try to keep it to a minimum and have done a pretty good job of eliminating the dumb stuff, which really just gets in the way of truly enjoying life. YMMV.

User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby gringito » Fri Oct 10, 2014 3:14 pm

teamoperu wrote:I have reflected on this topic. I do not want to shoot anyone dead. I cannot imagine how I bad I would suffer with second thoughts, nightmares, guilt for killing someone's son, brother, husband, father. Just to protect my money or things? I have lots of money and things.
….
I think I would have PSTD if I shot and killed someone for trying to rob me


1)
I feel there is an enormous misconception about a) killing and b) murdering.
First of all, nearly all religions and jurisdictions in this world allow legitimate killing in self-defense (and sometimes even in defense of physical things).
However, all outlaw murdering.

I would have considerable ethical reservations killing someone in self-defense for avoiding merely material loss of things.

However, if my life or my physical health or the life or physical health of my loved ones are in imminent danger, the thugs have crossed the borderline!
These are usually the only types of situations in which you are legally entitled to use lethal force and the only ones in which society (and religion) absolves you (as a private person) for killing.

This is due to the fact that it serves for your natural and fundamental right of self-preservation.

2)
Does this make anything easier? Surely not! At least not for a humanistic and ethically educated person. They WILL suffer post traumatic stress disorder or post shooting trauma!

3)
However, there is another misconception: You apply your ethics and moral perceptions and standards to the thug or even murderer. Let´s call him the “bad guy” (BG). BG does NOT care about you, your physical health, your life and those of your loved ones. He does not care about normal social conventions at all. BG made the conscious decision to harm or murder somebody to get what he wants. He is not a poor and deplorable victim. He knows what he is doing and he is comfortable with it.

4)
What will happen to you and/or your loved ones if you meet BG on the street and he is after you? You will get murdered, badly injured or will spend the rest of your life in a wheel chair.
If you are comfortable with this, this is ok – for you!
However, do not restrict the right of self-defense of anybody else who does not share your opinion.
I have the strong feeling you have never been physically victimized in your life. Talk with victims, for example rape victims, and ask them how their attitude of life and their opinion about self-defense changed.

5)
teamoperu wrote:Military soldiers kill people during war for far better reasons. Lots return with PTSD. I think I would have PSTD if I shot and killed someone for trying to rob me

This is another misconception, and according to my personal point of view the most dangerous one.
NO! Military soldiers do NOT kill people during war for far BETTER reasons.
Wars between human beings are usually the most stupid things that happen in mankind, and they are mostly fought for very base reasons.
Why you may feel more comfortable with killing in war is because society absolves its soldiers for killing! The reason usually given is that this killing protects the tribe, the group, the society, the State. You may also have heard of the just war doctrine. Just war…the big illusion since Cicero and Augustinus! However, the main reasons for wars are power, political interests, territory, greed, money, oil, etc.

War is the darkest place you can imagine, and bad things happen there. First of all, there is no clean or surgical war! War is always mean and dirty, even in times of drones and electronic warfare. Soldiers that shall protect their society do all kinds of dirty little things for their own pleasure and enrichment. They steal, they rape, they murder and the chaos of war helps them to cover their acts. The good, heroic soldier? Surely the majority does their job...but Hijo, have you seen too many John Wayne films???

6)
So, maybe there is the police left for legitimately killing the thug – and you surely feel much more comfortable about it. I mean, they are the authority, aren´t they?
While society entitles them to do so when the necessity arises, you have to face the fact that they only do the dirty work the rest of the society does not want to do!
So if BG shoots you he may get shot by the police. In the end, they did the job and freed society from a scumbag that would not have hesitated to murder the next person.

The only difference is that you did not value your own life (or the wife of your wife or your kids), did not assume sufficient responsibility for it... and you are dead.

Amen.
Last edited by gringito on Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby gringito » Fri Oct 10, 2014 3:24 pm

ironchefchris wrote:I try to keep it to a minimum and have done a pretty good job of eliminating the dumb stuff, which really just gets in the way of truly enjoying life. YMMV.


I really liked this one, @Chris!
This is also why I like Peru: I can live here with little stuff.
Apart from that I like tiny cars, tiny houses and tiny women.
Yes, it is about stuff! :roll:
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: True crime story

Postby teamoperu » Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:24 am

gringito wrote:
teamoperu wrote:I have reflected on this topic. I do not want to shoot anyone dead. I cannot imagine how I bad I would suffer with second thoughts, nightmares, guilt for killing someone's son, brother, husband, father. Just to protect my money or things? I have lots of money and things.
….
I think I would have PSTD if I shot and killed someone for trying to rob me


1)
I feel there is an enormous misconception about a) killing and b) murdering.
First of all, nearly all religions and jurisdictions in this world allow legitimate killing in self-defense (and sometimes even in defense of physical things).
However, all outlaw murdering.

I would have considerable ethical reservations killing someone in self-defense for avoiding merely material loss of things.

However, if my life or my physical health or the life or physical health of my loved ones are in imminent danger, the thugs have crossed the borderline!
These are usually the only types of situations in which you are legally entitled to use lethal force and the only ones in which society (and religion) absolves you (as a private person) for killing.

This is due to the fact that it serves for your natural and fundamental right of self-preservation.

2)
Does this make anything easier? Surely not! At least not for a humanistic and ethically educated person. They WILL suffer post traumatic stress disorder or post shooting trauma!

3)
However, there is another misconception: You apply your ethics and moral perceptions and standards to the thug or even murderer. Let´s call him the “bad guy” (BG). BG does NOT care about you, your physical health, your life and those of your loved ones. He does not care about normal social conventions at all. BG made the conscious decision to harm or murder somebody to get what he wants. He is not a poor and deplorable victim. He knows what he is doing and he is comfortable with it.

4)
What will happen to you and/or your loved ones if you meet BG on the street and he is after you? You will get murdered, badly injured or will spend the rest of your life in a wheel chair.
If you are comfortable with this, this is ok – for you!
However, do not restrict the right of self-defense of anybody else who does not share your opinion.
I have the strong feeling you have never been physically victimized in your life. Talk with victims, for example rape victims, and ask them how their attitude of life and their opinion about self-defense changed.

5)
teamoperu wrote:Military soldiers kill people during war for far better reasons. Lots return with PTSD. I think I would have PSTD if I shot and killed someone for trying to rob me

This is another misconception, and according to my personal point of view the most dangerous one.
NO! Military soldiers do NOT kill people during war for far BETTER reasons.
Wars between human beings are usually the most stupid things that happen in mankind, and they are mostly fought for very base reasons.
Why you may feel more comfortable with killing in war is because society absolves its soldiers for killing! The reason usually given is that this killing protects the tribe, the group, the society, the State. You may also have heard of the just war doctrine. Just war…the big illusion since Cicero and Augustinus! However, the main reasons for wars are power, political interests, territory, greed, money, oil, etc.

War is the darkest place you can imagine, and bad things happen there. First of all, there is no clean or surgical war! War is always mean and dirty, even in times of drones and electronic warfare. Soldiers that shall protect their society do all kinds of dirty little things for their own pleasure and enrichment. They steal, they rape, they murder and the chaos of war helps them to cover their acts. The good, heroic soldier? Surely the majority does their job...but Hijo, have you seen too many John Wayne films???

6)
So, maybe there is the police left for legitimately killing the thug – and you surely feel much more comfortable about it. I mean, they are the authority, aren´t they?
While society entitles them to do so when the necessity arises, you have to face the fact that they only do the dirty work the rest of the society does not want to do!
So if BG shoots you he may get shot by the police. In the end, they did the job and freed society from a scumbag that would not have hesitated to murder the next person.

The only difference is that you did not value your own life (or the wife of your wife or your kids), did not assume sufficient responsibility for it... and you are dead.

Amen.


You are not listening. I decided I do not want to carry a gun and shoot people dead in Peru. And throwing darts at me about some antiquated macho idea that I have responsibility to protect my womenfolk isn't going to cut it. What wife? The Ex? Haha, nope, not gunna happen.

I can solve quadratic equations like going through soft butter. I excelled in my logic and philosophy classes. I can easily wade through tiny legals distinctions of Peruvian law, fine differentiating definitions between murder, homicide, justifiable homicide, killing and even genocide and mass murder. I can dismantle arguments about angels on a pinhead... and even see gobbledygook when it presents. I am a clear thinking intelligent adult... who knows who he is. I read your arguments and see absolutely nothing convincing therein. I have decided not to carry a gun and shoot someone dead in Peru. I cannot imagine the guilt and self-doubt that I would forever suffer. Nothing you have written has convinced me that I am wrong. Indeed, your lack of a tenable argument has convinced me that you are wrong.
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby gringito » Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:58 pm

teamoperu wrote:I decided I do not want to carry a gun and shoot people dead in Peru. And throwing darts at me about some antiquated macho idea that I have responsibility to protect my womenfolk isn't going to cut it. What wife? The Ex? Haha, nope, not gunna happen.

I can solve quadratic equations like going through soft butter. I excelled in my logic and philosophy classes. I can easily wade through tiny legals distinctions of Peruvian law, fine differentiating definitions between murder, homicide, justifiable homicide, killing and even genocide and mass murder. I can dismantle arguments about angels on a pinhead... and even see gobbledygook when it presents. I am a clear thinking intelligent adult... who knows who he is. I read your arguments and see absolutely nothing convincing therein. I have decided not to carry a gun and shoot someone dead in Peru. I cannot imagine the guilt and self-doubt that I would forever suffer. Nothing you have written has convinced me that I am wrong. Indeed, your lack of a tenable argument has convinced me that you are wrong.

1)
As I already said: it is your decision and I do not intend to convince you. Naturally, this does not imply that I share your opinion or that I do not hold my view. We are in a discussion in a public forum about a serious matter. That´s all.

If somebody carries a gun or any other weapon or not is his/her very own decision (including ethical, moral and personal considerations) and nobody else can take this burden from you.

What is “wrong” or “right” is a human and social definition/convention, in particular an individual definition. What is morally right for you may be morally wrong or inadequate for another person or in another society.

2)
So, you have explained in an entire paragraph what a self-proclaimed smart, eloquent and competent guy you are. Though I cannot verify these characteristics I understand that these statements were obviously necessary for your own ego and self-image; and this is ok for me. However, I also do not mind at all interchanging opinions with people who do not dispose of a doctor´s degree.
Anyway: As the smart guy that you are you will have surely noticed that you repeatedly avoid dealing with certain aspects or questions by simply ignoring them or intending to trivialize, choke or ridicule them. This is known in the art as “killer rhetoric”. In contrast thereto, respecting other people’s decisions and opinions, even if you do not agree with them, and maintaining a dialogue is usually an adumbration of an open mind.

So, if I may return to the subject matter:

3)
teamoperu wrote:“some antiquated macho idea that I have responsibility to protect my womenfolk”

No, it is not about macho ideas at all (but what a nice Freudian slip) but rather about responsibility as such.
Protecting yourself or defending yourself in a life threatening situation, i.e. staying alive or physically unharmed, may not only be necessary for mere self-preservation but also may be a moral or social obligation because you are responsible for e.g. your children, your old parents or (yes!) even your wife or girlfriend. What I do as a Single is my own egocentric decision, my personal ego trip – what I do as a father, a husband, a son, a company boss, etc. requires more than that, in particular it requires solidarity and assuming responsibility for other persons, even if the decisions I have to take are severe.

Defending a third person in a life threatening situation has nothing to do with a pubertal macho monkey dance in a discotheque or bar.

Moreover, I do not advocate that women should “carry” a guy as a self-defense tool!
Unfortunately, in our modern society and in comparison to men in general, women have been socially conditioned to be nice, non-assertive and non-offensive. This makes them easy prey for persons that do not stick to social rules.
Therefore, I embrace any measure that allows women to gain their full potential, including their full potential of verbal and physical self-defense!

4)
If you (you in general) do not value your own life how can you value anybody other´s life???
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby gringito » Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:49 pm

PS:
Some people are comfortable with assuming the victim role.
http://www.expatperu.com/expatforums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26458&start=60
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: True crime story

Postby teamoperu » Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:52 pm

gringito wrote:
teamoperu wrote:I decided I do not want to carry a gun and shoot people dead in Peru. And throwing darts at me about some antiquated macho idea that I have responsibility to protect my womenfolk isn't going to cut it. What wife? The Ex? Haha, nope, not gunna happen.

I can solve quadratic equations like going through soft butter. I excelled in my logic and philosophy classes. I can easily wade through tiny legals distinctions of Peruvian law, fine differentiating definitions between murder, homicide, justifiable homicide, killing and even genocide and mass murder. I can dismantle arguments about angels on a pinhead... and even see gobbledygook when it presents. I am a clear thinking intelligent adult... who knows who he is. I read your arguments and see absolutely nothing convincing therein. I have decided not to carry a gun and shoot someone dead in Peru. I cannot imagine the guilt and self-doubt that I would forever suffer. Nothing you have written has convinced me that I am wrong. Indeed, your lack of a tenable argument has convinced me that you are wrong.

1)
As I already said: it is your decision and I do not intend to convince you. Naturally, this does not imply that I share your opinion or that I do not hold my view. We are in a discussion in a public forum about a serious matter. That´s all.

If somebody carries a gun or any other weapon or not is his/her very own decision (including ethical, moral and personal considerations) and nobody else can take this burden from you.

What is “wrong” or “right” is a human and social definition/convention, in particular an individual definition. What is morally right for you may be morally wrong or inadequate for another person or in another society.

2)
So, you have explained in an entire paragraph what a self-proclaimed smart, eloquent and competent guy you are. Though I cannot verify these characteristics I understand that these statements were obviously necessary for your own ego and self-image; and this is ok for me. However, I also do not mind at all interchanging opinions with people who do not dispose of a doctor´s degree.
Anyway: As the smart guy that you are you will have surely noticed that you repeatedly avoid dealing with certain aspects or questions by simply ignoring them or intending to trivialize, choke or ridicule them. This is known in the art as “killer rhetoric”. In contrast thereto, respecting other people’s decisions and opinions, even if you do not agree with them, and maintaining a dialogue is usually an adumbration of an open mind.

So, if I may return to the subject matter:

3)
teamoperu wrote:“some antiquated macho idea that I have responsibility to protect my womenfolk”

No, it is not about macho ideas at all (but what a nice Freudian slip) but rather about responsibility as such.
Protecting yourself or defending yourself in a life threatening situation, i.e. staying alive or physically unharmed, may not only be necessary for mere self-preservation but also may be a moral or social obligation because you are responsible for e.g. your children, your old parents or (yes!) even your wife or girlfriend. What I do as a Single is my own egocentric decision, my personal ego trip – what I do as a father, a husband, a son, a company boss, etc. requires more than that, in particular it requires solidarity and assuming responsibility for other persons, even if the decisions I have to take are severe.

Defending a third person in a life threatening situation has nothing to do with a pubertal macho monkey dance in a discotheque or bar.

Moreover, I do not advocate that women should “carry” a guy as a self-defense tool!
Unfortunately, in our modern society and in comparison to men in general, women have been socially conditioned to be nice, non-assertive and non-offensive. This makes them easy prey for persons that do not stick to social rules.
Therefore, I embrace any measure that allows women to gain their full potential, including their full potential of verbal and physical self-defense!

4)
If you (you in general) do not value your own life how can you value anybody other´s life???


I want to give what you wrote the consideration it deserves, but I need your help. You wrote: “This is known in the art as “killer rhetoric”.” It is not an art of debate known to me so I googled it... and came up short, no luck. So could you provide me a reference to a definition and modern usage of the art of “killer rhetoric".
User avatar
tomsax
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1394
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:28 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby tomsax » Sun Oct 12, 2014 4:57 pm

Gringito, there is sometime a tension between what is right for someone individually and what is right for society as a whole. For one individual in Peru I can see that carrying a gun might mean they are safer or at the very least, feel safer. So no, I would not condemn that in the terms that you assume.

But in the UK you might then suppose that we would all be individually safer if we all carried a gun to protect ourselves and protect those dear to us who might otherwise be robbed, raped and killed. But unfortunately that would then mean so many more people carrying a gun. And so we might end up more in danger of being robbed/raped by people with guns and more likely to be killed by someone with a gun because there would then be so many guns around. And by comparing the statistics of somewhere like the UK, which has strict gun control, and the US where it is more lax, then its pretty obvious that this would indeed happen.

So yes, controlling the individuals right to protect themselves and their loved ones can be justified if it makes society as a whole safer. If you only see things from the individual perspective then the end result can be self defeating.
Tom
Solo Angel

Re: True crime story

Postby Solo Angel » Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:37 pm

If you read the sentence prior to the one that contains 'killer rhetoric' you will find it defined quite eloquently. Quote 'intending to trivialize, choke or ridicule'.
User avatar
tupacperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3350
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Pimentel Beach-Chiclayo- Sanford NC
Contact:

Re: True crime story

Postby tupacperu » Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:23 am

chi chi wrote:
tupacperu wrote:I lived in various cities and I am Afro-American (Black), Not even I dare walk through, Compton.


I was in Compton 2 years ago. We were visiting friends. Compton has cooled down a lot. After the infamous riots, things have changed. There a large percentage of Latinos living there now.

I heard less gangsta (unfortunately, cos I love gangsta rap) but more Mariachi, Cumbia and Salsa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqnM-IyYYDs

One of my favourites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X54bodBFxmc


Yeah Compton the latino section has cooled, but not the LBC (Long Beach Compton), Black neighborhoods.
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: True crime story

Postby teamoperu » Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:10 pm

gringito, I have taken time to consider what you wrote. I find it a difficult read. I understand English may not be your first language, that is OK, but not only that, your writing style is very hard to follow. But I made the effort. I'll just bypass the difficult to understand parts about killer rhetoric, victimization etc. because the debate really isn't about how we debate, it is about guns and shooting people.

Your argument about guns contains some clearly incorrect statements, sexist statements, and irrelevant (to me) examples, so I'll bypass those as well. What is left fails the test of logic. Your arguments are not solid. They do not convince me and I doubt they convince many others. I think shooting someone dead in Peru would be abhorrent to me and I would suffer second thoughts and doubts forever after.
Solo Angel

Re: True crime story

Postby Solo Angel » Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:23 pm

Perfect example of killer rhetoric. Kill the actual topic of discussion with rhetoric.
User avatar
gringo from uk
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:50 am

Re: True crime story

Postby gringo from uk » Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:23 pm

Hi to all. What every I comment it is not enough to share my sadness. I have an opinion, if You legally own the fire arm ( as small caliber as possible to alter the person in attack ) , it may save your life. I am against to kill the person.

Jaanus
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: True crime story

Postby teamoperu » Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:52 am

tomsax wrote:Gringito, there is sometime a tension between what is right for someone individually and what is right for society as a whole. For one individual in Peru I can see that carrying a gun might mean they are safer or at the very least, feel safer. So no, I would not condemn that in the terms that you assume.

But in the UK you might then suppose that we would all be individually safer if we all carried a gun to protect ourselves and protect those dear to us who might otherwise be robbed, raped and killed. But unfortunately that would then mean so many more people carrying a gun. And so we might end up more in danger of being robbed/raped by people with guns and more likely to be killed by someone with a gun because there would then be so many guns around. And by comparing the statistics of somewhere like the UK, which has strict gun control, and the US where it is more lax, then its pretty obvious that this would indeed happen.

So yes, controlling the individuals right to protect themselves and their loved ones can be justified if it makes society as a whole safer. If you only see things from the individual perspective then the end result can be self defeating.



Firearm deaths per 100000:

USA 10.30 / 100000
UK 0.25 / 100000
Peru 3.73 / 100000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby gringito » Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:55 pm

Solo Angel wrote:Perfect example of killer rhetoric. Kill the actual topic of discussion with rhetoric.

I agree!
Moreover, picking onto another person’s language (in particular when it is not his/her mother tongue) is neither an argument nor responding to the issues raised but rather vulgarism, lack of education and last but not least lack of arguments.

@tomsax:
I fully (!) agree that there has to be an equilibrium between the rights and the freedom of an individual and the right for society as a whole. However, the right of society as a whole is based on the right of the individuals which form the society. The right to life and the right to self-defense in order to preserve an individual’s life overrule everything! If society begins to sacrifice people and/or their right to life and self-defense (for example by prohibiting the access to effective means of self-defense) thereby leaving several groups of people (for example elder people) helpless and rendering them prey for human predators, the right and freedom of society as a whole is corrupted because ANY person could then be sacrificed for ANY ARBITRARY reason, starting with "the security" of society - a stage we have already reached!
This means that society no longer follows the basic principles of the Constitution but rather has become hypocritical and to some extent despotic.

Self-defense (with ANY available means) has to take place where the incident happens - not where society says it MAY happen!

teamoperu wrote:Firearm deaths per 100000:

USA 10.30 / 100000
UK 0.25 / 100000
Peru 3.73 / 100000


Death by car accident:
USA 11.6/100000
UK 3.5/100000
Peru 15.9/ 100000


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

If death toll was the real decisive factor for "safety" and/or the right of society as such, automobiles were already prohibited. Amazingly this is not the case!

Hypocrisy?

@tomsax:
Yes, I was talking about Peru in this expatperu.com forum.
I never felt the necessity to carry a gun in my own home country though we have about 50 million private firearms for sport and hunting....but nearly no incidents.
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby gringito » Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:59 pm

@teamoperu:
Up to now you have not told us
WHY
it would have been a "macho thing" to protect the woman that was raped in my true crime story, or her colleague.


Do you think her life, her physical and psychic integrity and her dreams were "irrelevant" or had no value?

Do you think the life of the colleague who was executed by the thug was "irrelevant" and had no value?

Do you think you could have helped them by telling the thug "You know man...I do not want to shoot you dead. I cannot imagine how bad I would suffer with second thoughts, nightmares and guilt for killing you. Better you slaughter my colleagues!" ?!

Speak!


gringo from uk wrote: as small caliber as possible to alter the person in attack

Unfortunately, you need the biggest possible (and permitted) caliber that STOPS the attack as soon as possible. Otherwise the attack will continue and your chances to get hurt or even killed will increase.
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: True crime story

Postby teamoperu » Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:49 am

gringito wrote:@teamoperu:
Up to now you have not told us
WHY
it would have been a "macho thing" to protect the woman that was raped in my true crime story, or her colleague.


Do you think her life, her physical and psychic integrity and her dreams were "irrelevant" or had no value?

Do you think the life of the colleague who was executed by the thug was "irrelevant" and had no value?

Do you think you could have helped them by telling the thug "You know man...I do not want to shoot you dead. I cannot imagine how bad I would suffer with second thoughts, nightmares and guilt for killing you. Better you slaughter my colleagues!" ?!

Speak!


On the contrary, I stated I understand English is not everyone's first language, but pointed out I took the special effort to try to understand what you wrote, showing the respect to you that you deserve. Instead of responding that you appreciated that I undertook that special effort (instead of dismissing what you say as incomprehensible) you responded in a mean-spirited way. Why are you so aggressive and angry? Anyway, that is a side issue.

I find that some of your comments could be construed as sexist. The idea that men have the responsibility to protect their womenfolk is outdated.

“Moreover, I do not advocate that women should “carry” a guy (sic) as a self-defense tool! Unfortunately, in our modern society and in comparison to men in general, women have been socially conditioned to be nice, non-assertive and non-offensive. This makes them easy prey for persons that do not stick to social rules.”

So you should carry a gun, but women should not. Yet there are women police officers who carry. There are women soldiers who are armed. My Israeli friend did her military service and could break down and use an Uzi just as well as any man. A well-trained women can carry just as well as a well-trained man.

“in our modern society... women have been socially conditioned to be nice, non-assertive and non-offensive.” Well, in my modern society I have met many women who resisted being conditioned and some are quite assertive and some even offensive.

There are many single women living alone out there. They do not have a “man” to protect them. But, by your thinking, they cannot carry and defend themselves?

In your example if she was carrying maybe she could have defended herself instead of relying on a man.
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: True crime story

Postby ironchefchris » Sun Oct 19, 2014 8:25 am

gringito wrote:
teamoperu wrote:Firearm deaths per 100000:

USA 10.30 / 100000
UK 0.25 / 100000
Peru 3.73 / 100000


Death by car accident:
USA 11.6/100000
UK 3.5/100000
Peru 15.9/ 100000


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

If death toll was the real decisive factor for "safety" and/or the right of society as such, automobiles were already prohibited. Amazingly this is not the case!

Hypocrisy?

I already stated my opinion on this thread (or was it the taser thread?) so I'm not going to address anything else recently stated, but I don't think you can compare gun deaths to car deaths. Cars are not designed and manufactured to injure or kill, whereas guns are. The statistic doesn't say how many of those gun deaths were intentional shootings and how many were accidental, due to a child playing with a gun, a careless gun owner shooting themselves while cleaning their gun, etc., but I'd bet there are far more intentional deaths caused by guns than there are by automobiles, whose related deaths tend to be accidental. Of course it's possible to use a car to commit a homicide, but a gun is the better and more likely of the two options if that's one's intent. One thing I'll take from the above statistics; the UK sure seems safer overall than either the US or Peru.
User avatar
tomsax
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1394
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:28 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby tomsax » Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:21 pm

gringito wrote:@tomsax:
I fully (!) agree that there has to be an equilibrium between the rights and the freedom of an individual and the right for society as a whole. However, the right of society as a whole is based on the right of the individuals which form the society. The right to life and the right to self-defense in order to preserve an individual’s life overrule everything! If society begins to sacrifice people and/or their right to life and self-defense (for example by prohibiting the access to effective means of self-defense) thereby leaving several groups of people (for example elder people) helpless and rendering them prey for human predators, the right and freedom of society as a whole is corrupted because ANY person could then be sacrificed for ANY ARBITRARY reason, starting with "the security" of society - a stage we have already reached!
This means that society no longer follows the basic principles of the Constitution but rather has become hypocritical and to some extent despotic.

Self-defense (with ANY available means) has to take place where the incident happens - not where society says it MAY happen!


You say that you agree that a balance must be struck but then go on to say say that the individual's right for self defence must always trump the need for greater safety through gun control. That point of view is bound to lead to an imbalance.

I understand the point you are trying to make – that people are more in danger without guns if they are old, disabled or physically weak. But, even if only those people had guns in the UK, it would be more dangerous than it is now for those people as well. I would certainly feel less safe getting older in a country with less gun control.

I know it is tempting to use words like “sacrifice people” to make your case but that is just rhetorical. I could just as easily say that you are “sacrificing” all those people who die from guns in the name of individual freedom. But I won’t.

Individual freedom and rights are important and must always be considered but the impact of the execution of those rights on others must also be considered. In this case, the execution of the right to bear arms actually puts other individuals in greater danger. This is especially pertinent since the the whole point of an individual bearing arms is to increase individual safety. That’s what I mean by self defeating.

I don’t live in the US so for me there is no constitutional right to bear arms. I am only considering the issue from first principles.
Tom
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby gringito » Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:37 pm

ironchefchris wrote:I don't think you can compare gun deaths to car deaths.
Cars are not designed and manufactured to injure or kill, whereas guns are.

The “designed to kill-argument” is well known. While you may call it “designed to kill” I may call it designed to protect. The one who may kill or murder is the person – not the gun!
Does it make a difference for the person that gets killed/murdered by which means it is killed/murdered?
My answer is: NO! Dead is dead! There is no shading of "dead"!
If cars kill more people than guns then cars are more dangerous.
The difference between a car and gun is that many people somehow think a gun has a life of its own and that it is somehow evil – while a car is not. However, what you do with a gun or a car exclusively depends on yourself!

tomsax wrote:You say that you agree that a balance must be struck but then go on to say say that the individual's right for self defence must always trump the need for greater safety through gun control. That point of view is bound to lead to an imbalance.

I fear it is not that simple.
What I intended to say was that you cannot guarantee the people`s natural and constitutional right to their individual life and self-defense (which preserves their individual life) by merely stating such right in the Constitution while at the same time applying the argumentation that the “greater safety” is more valuable than the individual safety and the individual right to life. More valuable means that you are willing to sacrifice (as I called it) the people`s individual right to life and self-defense for the safety of society, i.e. for a “higher or greater” value.

When I read such comments, this makes my hair stand on end!!!!
Why? Because this is an argument tyrannies have ALWAYS applied!
WHO defines what is a “higher or greater value” and WHO defines WHICH persons will be sacrificed for this higher value?! WHO defines WHICH persons are NOT valuable enough that they should be used as prey for the muggers and thugs and murderers? The SS man at the ramp of the train to Auschwitz or the genius who created the heard of defenseless people, following the swarm theory/principle that the one (the weak one) that gets eaten safes the rest of the swarm/herd???!!

Don`t get me wrong: I do not say that YOU favor or preach tyrannical ideas or thoughts!
However, I say that you may have not paid enough attention to what has frequently (!) happened in history.
The smallest unit of society is the individual person! If you sacrifice the natural and constitutional rights of this smallest unit of society, of one single innocent person, you create a society that is vulnerable to arbitrariness, tyranny and genocide! Therefore, what I called “sacrifice people” is NOT rhetorical! It reflects my worst nightmares and my concerns in view of history of mankind and in view of politicians and individuals that intend to sell safety by civil disarming in exchange for governmental "protection and public safety" !!!!
The ottoman Turks did it, Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Mao did it, they did it in Uganda and Guatemala and they are doing it right now in Mexico! The list is endless.
Image

tomsax wrote:Individual freedom and rights are important and must always be considered but the impact of the execution of those rights on others must also be considered. In this case, the execution of the right to bear arms actually puts other individuals in greater danger. This is especially pertinent since the the whole point of an individual bearing arms is to increase individual safety. That’s what I mean by self defeating.

Yes, the whole point of an individual bearing arms is to increase individual safety – and there is nothing wrong with that because it is a greater danger to criminals – while you consider it as a greater danger to society (thereby distrustig your armed fellow citizens) – whereas I consider criminals a greater danger to society (thereby distrusting the criminals).
Ban guns and legalize criminals???
(Sorry, you can imagine that I don`t mean this seriously; it is only a drop of irony).


@teamoperu:
How about a simple answer without any further deviations on the absurdity lane?

Do you think her life, her physical and psychic integrity and her dreams were "irrelevant" or had no value?
User avatar
chi chi
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 6060
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:28 pm
Location: Granada, Andalusia

Re: True crime story

Postby chi chi » Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:05 pm

gringito wrote:Yes, the whole point of an individual bearing arms is to increase individual safety – and there is nothing wrong with that because it is a greater danger to criminals



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrlUWh2ZlHo
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: True crime story

Postby ironchefchris » Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:36 pm

gringito wrote:
ironchefchris wrote:I don't think you can compare gun deaths to car deaths.
Cars are not designed and manufactured to injure or kill, whereas guns are.

The “designed to kill-argument” is well known. While you may call it “designed to kill” I may call it designed to protect. The one who may kill or murder is the person – not the gun!
Does it make a difference for the person that gets killed/murdered by which means it is killed/murdered?
My answer is: NO! Dead is dead! There is no shading of "dead"!
If cars kill more people than guns then cars are more dangerous.
The difference between a car and gun is that many people somehow think a gun has a life of its own and that it is somehow evil – while a car is not. However, what you do with a gun or a car exclusively depends on yourself!

Sorry, but your take on the "designed to kill(protect)-argument" sounds to me more an argument of semantics than logic. Fine by me - I'll agree to disagree. Statistically you could say that cars are more dangerous than guns because more people die of auto accidents than by gunfire. Following that logic, you could also say autos are more dangerous than hand-grenades for the same reason. Or bombs or missiles or biological/chemical weapons or even a nuclear weapon. The difference being that hand-grenades, bombs, missiles, biological/chemical weapons, nuclear weapons and guns are not used for benign purposes, whereas autos generally are. Of course there's the outlier where someone decides to use a car as a weapon, but it is rather infrequent. I bet the statistics would show that the number of intentional deaths caused by cars is far less than deaths caused by guns, which by your logic would make guns more dangerous than cars. Does it matter to the individual if he dies by gunfire or car accident? Perhaps, perhaps not. Depends if they're a gun advocate or critic I suppose. For the vast majority it probably doesn't. Dead is dead, as you said. An argument can be made that though it may not matter to the individual, it matters to society as a whole how people die. Accidently through an automobile accident, or intentionally because of a gun. Losing a loved one to an automobile accident might feel different than losing a loved one to gunfire. In the first case one might feel that "accidents happen" whereas in the other they might feel more anger that their loved one suffered an unnecessary, violent death. If an out of control car crashes into a bank and kills a loved one I'd feel differently than I would if they died in a shootout crossfire between bank robbers, guards, and a bunch of armed citizens - all to "protect" a bunch of paper. Do the loved ones left behind want to be considered part of a society and culture where accidents happen and people die because of unfortunate accidents, or one where we run around shooting each other over pride, hatred, jealousy and other emotions, or printed on paper and other inanimate objects we feel we need to protect?

A car is designed to get you from point A to point B. Sometimes there are accidents, a result of which is that people die, through product or human error. It makes sense that there are more automobile deaths than gun deaths simply because cars are owned and used by far people than own and use guns. I used to drive my car nearly every day, but I never used my guns everyday. Other than occasional target practice, I never used them at all. Statistically I was more likely to die by auto than by gun. If there are no accidents, the car successfully fulfills its purpose and gets you safely from point A to point B.

A gun is designed to fire a metal projectile at a very high velocity, sufficient enough to penetrate a body causing injury or death. Certain ammunition is designed to cause more damage than other types of ammunition, such as hollow-point bullets which expand upon penetrating a body and cause more tissue damage than your plain old, run of the mill bullet. Sometimes there are accidents, a result of which people die, through product or human error. If people owned and used guns as frequently as they drove their cars, there would be far more deaths by guns than deaths by auto. If there are no accidents, the gun successfully fulfills its purpose and fires a metal projectile with enough velocity to successfully penetrate a body causing injury or death.

I've never thought an inanimate object had a life of it's own or ascribed any kind of moral value or judgement on an inanimate object, be it a car or a gun. Both are tools. Both are designed with very different intended uses.
teamoperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am

Re: True crime story

Postby teamoperu » Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:30 pm

I wrote:
“Please prove to me you hypothesis that people are more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the armed thug/criminal. Yes, you did say more afraid:
“gringito wrote:What makes people be more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the illegally armed thug/criminal?!”

You responded:
“@teamoperu:
I understand from your deviating answers that you are not honestly interested in dealing with an honest question.”

I wrote:
“Nope, you are wrong. I haven't deviated one itsy bitsy teeney weeny even one standard deviation. You asked “What makes people be more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the illegally armed thug/criminal?!” Yes, you did say more afraid. I rejected your statement and asked you to prove what you wrote because I doubt very much that people are more afraid of legally armed citizens than they are of illegally armed thugs. Probably the reverse.
You pretended you wanted a serious discussion to improve your understanding. Apparently not.”

You responded:
“@teamoperu: Many empty words, compadre. ”

I wrote:
“I find that some of your comments could be construed as sexist. The idea that men have the responsibility to protect their womenfolk is outdated.

“Moreover, I do not advocate that women should “carry” a guy (sic) as a self-defense tool! Unfortunately, in our modern society and in comparison to men in general, women have been socially conditioned to be nice, non-assertive and non-offensive. This makes them easy prey for persons that do not stick to social rules.”

So you should carry a gun, but women should not. Yet there are women police officers who carry. There are women soldiers who are armed. My Israeli friend did her military service and could break down and use an Uzi just as well as any man. A well-trained women can carry just as well as a well-trained man.

“in our modern society... women have been socially conditioned to be nice, non-assertive and non-offensive.” Well, in my modern society I have met many women who resisted being conditioned and some are quite assertive and some even offensive.

There are many single women living alone out there. They do not have a “man” to protect them. But, by your thinking, they cannot carry and defend themselves?

In your example if she was carrying maybe she could have defended herself instead of relying on a man.”

You responded:
“ @teamoperu:
How about a simple answer without any further deviations on the absurdity lane? ”

I'll let that stand as proof that when you are confronted with a valid argument where you have no valid counter argument, you respond by ignoring the other person's valid argument and instead sidestep it by throwing out a non-reply. If you can't argue against a valid message, you ignore it and shoot at the messenger.
User avatar
gringito
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: True crime story

Postby gringito » Thu Nov 20, 2014 9:30 pm

@teamoperu:
1)
First of all, you are not reciting my comments completely and/or in the right correct context but rather ripped out of different threads and/or reciting only some isolated parts and putting them together in a way which is convenient to you.

For example:
teamoperu wrote:I wrote:
“Please prove to me you hypothesis that people are more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the armed thug/criminal. Yes, you did say more afraid:
“gringito wrote: What makes people be more afraid of their legally armed fellow citizens than of the illegally armed thug/criminal?!”

My cited question was made in the “”The magic question” thread and NOT in the present thread.
While I let that stand as proof that you are obviously a bit lost and mix up certain things and aspects I will nonetheless give you an honest answer in the Magic question thread.

2)
Returning to the PRESENT thread:

Without referring much to the presented crime case as such or other related aspect that were discussed quite in detail before you repeatedly mentioned that YOU decided not to carry a gun and shoot people dead in Peru:

teamoperu wrote:I have reflected on this topic. I do not want to shoot anyone dead. I cannot imagine how I bad I would suffer with second thoughts, nightmares, guilt for killing someone's son, brother, husband, father. Just to protect my money or things? I have lots of money and things.
Military soldiers kill people during war for far better reasons.


First of all, teamoperu, it is ok that YOU do not want to shoot or kill ANYone.
However, the cited crime case did NEITHER refer to simple robbery of money and things NOR to war.
I let that stand as proof that you did not capture the content of the cited case.
A woman was RAPED and her colleague was MUREDERED!
Nonetheless, as the polite person I am I spent some thoughts about what you said and answered in detail in 6 paragraphs.

You responded:
teamoperu wrote:You are not listening. I decided I do not want to carry a gun and shoot people dead in Peru.

Honestly, teamoperu: I´ve already GOT it!

3)
Nonetheless, in the same breath you introduced YOUR macho and SEXIST concerns and YOUR ego into the discussion. Let´s have a look at your statement in this context:
teamoperu wrote:You are not listening. I decided I do not want to carry a gun and shoot people dead in Peru. And throwing darts at me about some antiquated macho idea that I have responsibility to protect my womenfolk isn't going to cut it. What wife? The Ex? Haha, nope, not gunna happen.

I can solve quadratic equations like going through soft butter. I excelled in my logic and philosophy classes. I can easily …
etc.

My response was that I respect your personal decisions and answered in 4 detailed paragraphs with respect to the subject matter and YOUR macho thoughts. In particular, I stated that it is NOT about macho ideas at all but rather about responsibility as such, for oneself and for OTHER persons and about protecting yourself or defending yourself and OTHER persons in a LIFE THREATENING SITUATION.

With regard to YOUR macho concerns I also mentioned:

gringito wrote:Moreover, I do not advocate that women should “carry” a guy as a self-defense tool!
Unfortunately, in our modern society and in comparison to men in general, women have been socially conditioned to be nice, non-assertive and non-offensive. This makes them easy prey for persons that do not stick to social rules.
Therefore, I embrace any measure that allows women to gain their full potential, including their full potential of verbal and physical self-defense!


4)
From this statement you reached the following conclusion:
teamoperu wrote:So you should carry a gun, but women should not.
….
There are many single women living alone out there. They do not have a “man” to protect them. But, by your thinking, they cannot carry and defend themselves?

Honestly, teamoperu, are you wrongly wired or is this a result of your self proclaimed genius?
My aforementioned comment clearly and unambiguously reveals my opinion that women should better NOT rely on men when it comes to self-defense!
Moreover, “ANY measure that allows women to gain … full potential of verbal and physical self-defense!” includes carrying a GUN (as well as knifes, sticks, etc. and even a kick into the family jewels!!!!).
So, which part of these comments did you not understand?

Obviously you did not understand something since in your next post you asked what is “killer rhetoric”.

5)
Subsequently, you mentioned the following:
teamoperu wrote:gringito, I have taken time to consider what you wrote. I find it a difficult read. I understand English may not be your first language, that is OK, but not only that, your writing style is very hard to follow. But I made the effort. I'll just bypass the difficult to understand parts about killer rhetoric, victimization etc. because the debate really isn't about how we debate, it is about guns and shooting people.

Your argument about guns contains some clearly incorrect statements, sexist statements, and irrelevant (to me) examples, so I'll bypass those as well. What is left fails the test of logic. Your arguments are not solid. They do not convince me and I doubt they convince many others. I think shooting someone dead in Peru would be abhorrent to me and I would suffer second thoughts and doubts forever after.

Ok…YOUR comprehension problems and hacking on the language of other people…
Meanwhile, I really got it for the THIRD time that YOU cannot and will not shoot ANYbody.
But you STILL did not get it that this crime case and carrying a gun is not about shooting ANYbody or robbery of money and things or war.
It is about self defense in case of life-threatening situations, in particular in case of RAPE and MURDER such as in my story and shooting THESE THUGS.
Moreover, I never intended to convince you or anybody else.
I let that stand as proof that you skip aspects that YOU consider as irrelevant, that you bypass things, that you assert that arguments lack logic or are not solid without even mentioning WHAT precisely lacks logic or what is not solid and WHY.

6)
Next thing you did was a little excursion to the death toll by gun. I answered to it.

7)
However, I also wrote the following:
gringito wrote:@teamoperu:
Up to now you have not told us
WHY
it would have been a "macho thing" to protect the woman that was raped in my true crime story, or her colleague.

Do you think her life, her physical and psychic integrity and her dreams were "irrelevant" or had no value?

Do you think the life of the colleague who was executed by the thug was "irrelevant" and had no value?

You answered (I have deleted your quotations of my own answers in order to shorten this citation):
teamoperu wrote:On the contrary, I stated I understand English is not everyone's first language, but pointed out I took the special effort to try to understand what you wrote, showing the respect to you that you deserve. Instead of responding that you appreciated that I undertook that special effort (instead of dismissing what you say as incomprehensible) you responded in a mean-spirited way. Why are you so aggressive and angry? Anyway, that is a side issue.

I find that some of your comments could be construed as sexist. The idea that men have the responsibility to protect their womenfolk is outdated.

So you should carry a gun, but women should not. Yet there are women police officers who carry. There are women soldiers who are armed. My Israeli friend did her military service and could break down and use an Uzi just as well as any man. A well-trained women can carry just as well as a well-trained man.

There are many single women living alone out there. They do not have a “man” to protect them. But, by your thinking, they cannot carry and defend themselves?

In your example if she was carrying maybe she could have defended herself instead of relying on a man.


Summarizing, you said: If SHE was carrying a GUN she could have defended HERSELF!
I agree as far as the SELF-defense of herself is concerned since this corresponds with what I said before:
gringito wrote:Therefore, I embrace any measure that allows women to gain their full potential, including their full potential of verbal and physical self-defense!

However, did your aforementioned answer respond to my aforementioned questions?
NO!!!
You bypassed these important aspects.

Why were these aspects “important”?
Because they not only referred to SELF-defense but also to the protection and defense of OTHER innocent persons and how YOU (or anybody else!) consider and VALUE the live and the physical and psychic integrity of the VICTIMS. The victim was not only a WOMAN but also a MAN and THEIR lifes, THEIR physical and psychic integrity and THEIR families WERE IMPORTANT.
You considered it a "macho thing" that a man protects the woman that was raped and did not even explain why. Because she COULD have protected HERself but SHE didn’t?! That is cynic!
It does not matter at all which GENDER the person has that protects another person and/or himself/herself!!! It matters that SOMEONE actuates and that he/she is able to actuate.
So, there was NO macho thing at all!
Nonetheless, you explicitly confirmed that a GUN could have saved her – and if the gun could have saved HER it could also have saved HIM!
The fact that you did not even consider the questions regarding the relevance and the value of the lives and the physical and psychic integrity of the victims, however, tells stories about your own value system.

THIS was, in the right context and the right sequence, the reason why in my next post I asked you:
gringito wrote:How about a simple answer without any further deviations on the absurdity lane?
Do you think her life, her physical and psychic integrity and her dreams were "irrelevant" or had no value?


What was your answer? You can read the complete text it in your own last post; it starts this way:
teamoperu wrote:“Please prove to me you hypothesis that people are more afraid of their legally armed fellow …..”

Jesus…I have nothing to add.

9)
Oh…sorry, there is still your sexist “argument”.
As already mentioned, I wrote:
gringito wrote:Unfortunately, in our modern society and in comparison to men in general, women have been socially conditioned to be nice, non-assertive and non-offensive. This makes them easy prey for persons that do not stick to social rules.

So, this is a sexist comment?
Not at all! Even people utilizing their daily life experience may agree to this finding. However, in your case I suggest having a look at the corresponding literature, such as, but not limited to, Siegel, Criminology, 10th edition, page 54 ff, chapter: "Explaining gender differences in the crime rate" as well as chapter "socialisation and development", page 73 ff.; chapter: "victim characteristics, gender", page 134 ff; and chapter: "Hormonal influences".
These findings that fully correspond with my statements are recognized in current sociology and criminology.

Please also note that I said “in COMPARISON to men in GENERAL”.
Regarding the female police officers and female soldiers you mentioned please bear in mind that they do not represent the female population in general but rather a specific minority or group of females that have been highly trained to deal with criminals and/or violence in social and military conflicts. They do NOT represent the average female.

So, where is the sexist? Where is the macho?
I fear they exist in the haunted place of your own brain and in your own way of thinking or in your immature giggling hiccups such as
teamoperu wrote:… some antiquated macho idea that I have responsibility to protect my womenfolk isn't going to cut it. What wife? The Ex? Haha, nope, not gunna happen.

Yes, teamoperu, I have the strong feeling that you will never take the responsibility and the risk to protect anybody.

Return to “Expat Conversations”

Login  •  Register