The dead of 2016

[drol 10,053]

Drawing the line may seem difficult to some but if someone breaks into my house, that person is going to get shot. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Then you will be condemned to give your house to the burglar if he's wounded or to his relatives if he's dead, at least in Italy, where everyone is concerned about the rights of poor robbers but no one cares about hones people (Not populism, only truth).

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/05/ermes-mattielli-morto-il-commerciante-condannato-per-aver-sparato-ai-ladri/2192908/

[The Mad Hatter 1,091]

 

Drawing the line may seem difficult to some but if someone breaks into my house, that person is going to get shot. It seems pretty obvious to me.

 

Then you will be condemned to give your house to the burglar if he's wounded or to his relatives if he's dead, at least in Italy, where everyone is concerned about the rights of poor robbers but no one cares about hones people (Not populism, only truth).

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/05/ermes-mattielli-morto-il-commerciante-condannato-per-aver-sparato-ai-ladri/2192908/

abolishing the death penalty is a slippery slope.

[drol 10,053]

 

 

Drawing the line may seem difficult to some but if someone breaks into my house, that person is going to get shot. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Then you will be condemned to give your house to the burglar if he's wounded or to his relatives if he's dead, at least in Italy, where everyone is concerned about the rights of poor robbers but no one cares about hones people (Not populism, only truth).

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/05/ermes-mattielli-morto-il-commerciante-condannato-per-aver-sparato-ai-ladri/2192908/

abolishing the death penalty is a slippery slope.

 

Death penalty may be very useful in some situations.

[rockhopper penguin 2,264]

 

 

Drawing the line may seem difficult to some but if someone breaks into my house, that person is going to get shot. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Then you will be condemned to give your house to the burglar if he's wounded or to his relatives if he's dead, at least in Italy, where everyone is concerned about the rights of poor robbers but no one cares about hones people (Not populism, only truth).

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/05/ermes-mattielli-morto-il-commerciante-condannato-per-aver-sparato-ai-ladri/2192908/

abolishing the death penalty is a slippery slope.

 

Shooting people is a slippery slope.. Jehovah's Witnesses, trick or treaters all become fair game. Anyway back on topic Dean Martin is dead http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-36404621

[En Passant 2,951]

 

 

 

Drawing the line may seem difficult to some but if someone breaks into my house, that person is going to get shot. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Then you will be condemned to give your house to the burglar if he's wounded or to his relatives if he's dead, at least in Italy, where everyone is concerned about the rights of poor robbers but no one cares about hones people (Not populism, only truth).

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/05/ermes-mattielli-morto-il-commerciante-condannato-per-aver-sparato-ai-ladri/2192908/

 

abolishing the death penalty is a slippery slope.

 

Shooting people is a slippery slope.. Jehovah's Witnesses, trick or treaters all become fair game. <snip>

 

You say that as if it's a bad thing .

 

More seriously, I have ranted about gun control on a few occasions around here. However even I have a problem with this one.

 

I fully understand Toasts viewpoint and anyone else who sees it that way. "If you don't want to get shot, don't break into my house, particularly at night whilst I'm in it and add a huge amount of fear to the intrusion and loss I would already feel if you did it whilst i was out at work".

 

If you do this in a country where the gun ownership is as high as it is in the US, and the right to defend ones property with firearms is enshrined in law, you have to at least consider that this may be the consequence.

 

This is in fact one of the key arguments that the NRA propound for gun ownership "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". Now I don't agree with that principle, we don't have it in this country, and I believe the NRA to be disingenuous about it in any case (they use this but actually they care about flogging guns), however, this is exactly the type of case that lends weight to their argument not detracts from it.

 

What concerns me more is the case where the gun that was held in the property ostensibly for the reason this one was used but is then found by little Jemima and used on little Johnny or Ralph comes home from the bar shitfaced and argues with Marge and one shoots the other etc etc.

 

So whilst any death is sad (I don't know why this guy was so badly off he felt he had to break into somebody elses house and scare the bejesus out of them whilst trying to steal their property, I should imagine that your circumstances have to be pretty dire to set out on this course, but even in America there must be better ways...) this one is unlikely to be used in any argument for gun control.

[Pedro67 227]

 

 

 

 

Drawing the line may seem difficult to some but if someone breaks into my house, that person is going to get shot. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Then you will be condemned to give your house to the burglar if he's wounded or to his relatives if he's dead, at least in Italy, where everyone is concerned about the rights of poor robbers but no one cares about hones people (Not populism, only truth).

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/05/ermes-mattielli-morto-il-commerciante-condannato-per-aver-sparato-ai-ladri/2192908/

 

abolishing the death penalty is a slippery slope.

 

Shooting people is a slippery slope.. Jehovah's Witnesses, trick or treaters all become fair game. <snip>

 

You say that as if it's a bad thing .

 

More seriously, I have ranted about gun control on a few occasions around here. However even I have a problem with this one.

 

I fully understand Toasts viewpoint and anyone else who sees it that way. "If you don't want to get shot, don't break into my house, particularly at night whilst I'm in it and add a huge amount of fear to the intrusion and loss I would already feel if you did it whilst i was out at work".

 

If you do this in a country where the gun ownership is as high as it is in the US, and the right to defend ones property with firearms is enshrined in law, you have to at least consider that this may be the consequence.

 

This is in fact one of the key arguments that the NRA propound for gun ownership "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". Now I don't agree with that principle, we don't have it in this country, and I believe the NRA to be disingenuous about it in any case (they use this but actually they care about flogging guns), however, this is exactly the type of case that lends weight to their argument not detracts from it.

 

What concerns me more is the case where the gun that was held in the property ostensibly for the reason this one was used but is then found by little Jemima and used on little Johnny or Ralph comes home from the bar shitfaced and argues with Marge and one shoots the other etc etc.

 

So whilst any death is sad (I don't know why this guy was so badly off he felt he had to break into somebody elses house and scare the bejesus out of them whilst trying to steal their property, I should imagine that your circumstances have to be pretty dire to set out on this course, but even in America there must be better ways...) this one is unlikely to be used in any argument for gun control.

 

Tazer's instead of guns in the house for self defence against burglars ? Effective, cut down on the clean up, end up with someone to have your day in court with and a chance little Johnny or Jemima might survive the play time accident.

Just a thought.

[rockhopper penguin 2,264]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drawing the line may seem difficult to some but if someone breaks into my house, that person is going to get shot. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Then you will be condemned to give your house to the burglar if he's wounded or to his relatives if he's dead, at least in Italy, where everyone is concerned about the rights of poor robbers but no one cares about hones people (Not populism, only truth).

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/05/ermes-mattielli-morto-il-commerciante-condannato-per-aver-sparato-ai-ladri/2192908/

abolishing the death penalty is a slippery slope.

Shooting people is a slippery slope.. Jehovah's Witnesses, trick or treaters all become fair game. <snip>

 

You say that as if it's a bad thing .

 

More seriously, I have ranted about gun control on a few occasions around here. However even I have a problem with this one.

 

I fully understand Toasts viewpoint and anyone else who sees it that way. "If you don't want to get shot, don't break into my house, particularly at night whilst I'm in it and add a huge amount of fear to the intrusion and loss I would already feel if you did it whilst i was out at work".

 

If you do this in a country where the gun ownership is as high as it is in the US, and the right to defend ones property with firearms is enshrined in law, you have to at least consider that this may be the consequence.

 

This is in fact one of the key arguments that the NRA propound for gun ownership "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". Now I don't agree with that principle, we don't have it in this country, and I believe the NRA to be disingenuous about it in any case (they use this but actually they care about flogging guns), however, this is exactly the type of case that lends weight to their argument not detracts from it.

 

What concerns me more is the case where the gun that was held in the property ostensibly for the reason this one was used but is then found by little Jemima and used on little Johnny or Ralph comes home from the bar shitfaced and argues with Marge and one shoots the other etc etc.

 

So whilst any death is sad (I don't know why this guy was so badly off he felt he had to break into somebody elses house and scare the bejesus out of them whilst trying to steal their property, I should imagine that your circumstances have to be pretty dire to set out on this course, but even in America there must be better ways...) this one is unlikely to be used in any argument for gun control.

Tazer's instead of guns in the house for self defence against burglars ? Effective, cut down on the clean up, end up with someone to have your day in court with and a chance little Johnny or Jemima might survive the play time accident.

Just a thought.

Yeah why not. I'm not against self-defence, far from it. My issue is you set out with the intention of executing someone. What if they run when discovered;do you shoot them in the back as they're jumping over the fence?

[deadsox 891]

 

 

 

Drawing the line may seem difficult to some but if someone breaks into my house, that person is going to get shot. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Then you will be condemned to give your house to the burglar if he's wounded or to his relatives if he's dead, at least in Italy, where everyone is concerned about the rights of poor robbers but no one cares about hones people (Not populism, only truth).

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/05/ermes-mattielli-morto-il-commerciante-condannato-per-aver-sparato-ai-ladri/2192908/

 

abolishing the death penalty is a slippery slope.

 

Shooting people is a slippery slope.. Jehovah's Witnesses, trick or treaters all become fair game. Anyway back on topic Dean Martin is dead http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-36404621

 

It is true that shooting people is a slippery slope. It should never be undertaken unless you're sure you need to defend yourself or others. I remain against the death penalty but here in NH, unlike Italy apparently, we still have the right to defend ourselves.

[deadsox 891]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drawing the line may seem difficult to some but if someone breaks into my house, that person is going to get shot. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Then you will be condemned to give your house to the burglar if he's wounded or to his relatives if he's dead, at least in Italy, where everyone is concerned about the rights of poor robbers but no one cares about hones people (Not populism, only truth).

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/05/ermes-mattielli-morto-il-commerciante-condannato-per-aver-sparato-ai-ladri/2192908/

 

abolishing the death penalty is a slippery slope.

 

Shooting people is a slippery slope.. Jehovah's Witnesses, trick or treaters all become fair game. <snip>

 

You say that as if it's a bad thing .

 

More seriously, I have ranted about gun control on a few occasions around here. However even I have a problem with this one.

 

I fully understand Toasts viewpoint and anyone else who sees it that way. "If you don't want to get shot, don't break into my house, particularly at night whilst I'm in it and add a huge amount of fear to the intrusion and loss I would already feel if you did it whilst i was out at work".

 

If you do this in a country where the gun ownership is as high as it is in the US, and the right to defend ones property with firearms is enshrined in law, you have to at least consider that this may be the consequence.

 

This is in fact one of the key arguments that the NRA propound for gun ownership "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". Now I don't agree with that principle, we don't have it in this country, and I believe the NRA to be disingenuous about it in any case (they use this but actually they care about flogging guns), however, this is exactly the type of case that lends weight to their argument not detracts from it.

 

What concerns me more is the case where the gun that was held in the property ostensibly for the reason this one was used but is then found by little Jemima and used on little Johnny or Ralph comes home from the bar shitfaced and argues with Marge and one shoots the other etc etc.

 

So whilst any death is sad (I don't know why this guy was so badly off he felt he had to break into somebody elses house and scare the bejesus out of them whilst trying to steal their property, I should imagine that your circumstances have to be pretty dire to set out on this course, but even in America there must be better ways...) this one is unlikely to be used in any argument for gun control.

 

Tazer's instead of guns in the house for self defence against burglars ? Effective, cut down on the clean up, end up with someone to have your day in court with and a chance little Johnny or Jemima might survive the play time accident.

Just a thought.

 

Yeah why not. I'm not against self-defence, far from it. My issue is you set out with the intention of executing someone. What if they run when discovered;do you shoot them in the back as they're jumping over the fence?

 

Most places in the US do not allow a civilian to shoot a suspect who is escaping under the assumption that he's no longer a threat. I think police are allowed to shoot escapees if there is an assumption that the person is an immediate threat to others (like a guy with a machine gun escaping a mass murder scene e.g.).

[deadsox 891]

 

 

 

 

 

Drawing the line may seem difficult to some but if someone breaks into my house, that person is going to get shot. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Then you will be condemned to give your house to the burglar if he's wounded or to his relatives if he's dead, at least in Italy, where everyone is concerned about the rights of poor robbers but no one cares about hones people (Not populism, only truth).

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/05/ermes-mattielli-morto-il-commerciante-condannato-per-aver-sparato-ai-ladri/2192908/

 

abolishing the death penalty is a slippery slope.

 

Shooting people is a slippery slope.. Jehovah's Witnesses, trick or treaters all become fair game. <snip>

 

You say that as if it's a bad thing .

 

More seriously, I have ranted about gun control on a few occasions around here. However even I have a problem with this one.

 

I fully understand Toasts viewpoint and anyone else who sees it that way. "If you don't want to get shot, don't break into my house, particularly at night whilst I'm in it and add a huge amount of fear to the intrusion and loss I would already feel if you did it whilst i was out at work".

 

If you do this in a country where the gun ownership is as high as it is in the US, and the right to defend ones property with firearms is enshrined in law, you have to at least consider that this may be the consequence.

 

This is in fact one of the key arguments that the NRA propound for gun ownership "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". Now I don't agree with that principle, we don't have it in this country, and I believe the NRA to be disingenuous about it in any case (they use this but actually they care about flogging guns), however, this is exactly the type of case that lends weight to their argument not detracts from it.

 

What concerns me more is the case where the gun that was held in the property ostensibly for the reason this one was used but is then found by little Jemima and used on little Johnny or Ralph comes home from the bar shitfaced and argues with Marge and one shoots the other etc etc.

 

So whilst any death is sad (I don't know why this guy was so badly off he felt he had to break into somebody elses house and scare the bejesus out of them whilst trying to steal their property, I should imagine that your circumstances have to be pretty dire to set out on this course, but even in America there must be better ways...) this one is unlikely to be used in any argument for gun control.

 

Tazer's instead of guns in the house for self defence against burglars ? Effective, cut down on the clean up, end up with someone to have your day in court with and a chance little Johnny or Jemima might survive the play time accident.

Just a thought.

 

The one advantage of a taser is that you probably won't kill someone by mistake. There are several disadvantages, however. What if you miss your first try or hit a chair or table in your excitement? You're probably finished. What if there is more than one intruder? (a likely chance) and in that case you're beaten. A multi shot handgun or shotgun in trained hands gives you a much better chance to defend yourself if the unthinkable occurs.

[En Passant 2,951]

That'll teach me to pay attention to what I'm quoting

 

I was replying to this one: http://bleacherrepor...-dies-at-age-23

not this one: http://www.ilfattoqu...-ladri/2192908/

 

Sorry bout that.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,132]

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This thread has gone off topic, there will be hangings and and stuff for that!!

[deadsox 891]

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This thread has gone off topic, there will be hangings and and stuff for that!!

It would be more appropriate if we had shootings.

[YoungWillz 19,054]

Jimmy Borges, Hawaiian personality who made appearances in Hawaii Five-O, Magnum PI and The Rockford Files, has died aged 80 from cancer. http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking-news/hawaii-entertainer-jimmy-borges-dies/

 

gcreptile had him in Shaun's DP, however I haven't seen a qualifying obit for that pool yet.

 

Likewise JiroemonKimura appears to have him the Hare's DP.

[drol 10,053]

Some days you just can't get notice of a death!

[drol 10,053]

Boring boring boring boring! (factorial of boring) days!!! (simply three exclamation marks).

 

26 May: Loris F. Capovilla, Angela Paton, Arturo Pomar. Ok, we expected more but who cares.

27 May: Girolamo Prigione. Unknown man for a boring day.

28 May: Giorgio Albertazzi, David Canada, Bryce Dejean-Jones. Small deal, but good if compared to the other days.

29 May: NOTHING.

30 May: NOTHING (don't try to say Thomas Fekete was a notable death)

31 May: Mohamed Abdelaziz. Unknown terrorist, still what I call NOTHING.

1 June: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

2 June: NOOOOOOTHING.

 

We're in the middle of a deth crysis, my friends. 2016 is slowing down and no one will die until 2017.

[The Mad Hatter 1,091]

Boring boring boring boring! (factorial of boring) days!!! (simply three exclamation marks).

 

26 May: Loris F. Capovilla, Angela Paton, Arturo Pomar. Ok, we expected more but who cares.

27 May: Girolamo Prigione. Unknown man for a boring day.

28 May: Giorgio Albertazzi, David Canada, Bryce Dejean-Jones. Small deal, but good if compared to the other days.

29 May: NOTHING.

30 May: NOTHING (don't try to say Thomas Fekete was a notable death)

31 May: Mohamed Abdelaziz. Unknown terrorist, still what I call NOTHING.

1 June: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

2 June: NOOOOOOTHING.

 

We're in the middle of a deth crysis, my friends. 2016 is slowing down and no one will die until 2017.

everyone dies every single day the whole world isn't going to suddenly stop dying.

[Bibliogryphon 8,657]

Boring boring boring boring! (factorial of boring) days!!! (simply three exclamation marks).

 

26 May: Loris F. Capovilla, Angela Paton, Arturo Pomar. Ok, we expected more but who cares.

27 May: Girolamo Prigione. Unknown man for a boring day.

28 May: Giorgio Albertazzi, David Canada, Bryce Dejean-Jones. Small deal, but good if compared to the other days.

29 May: NOTHING.

30 May: NOTHING (don't try to say Thomas Fekete was a notable death)

31 May: Mohamed Abdelaziz. Unknown terrorist, still what I call NOTHING.

1 June: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

2 June: NOOOOOOTHING.

 

We're in the middle of a deth crysis, my friends. 2016 is slowing down and no one will die until 2017.

 

Carla Lane was significant.

[Phantom 2,469]

 

Boring boring boring boring! (factorial of boring) days!!! (simply three exclamation marks).

 

26 May: Loris F. Capovilla, Angela Paton, Arturo Pomar. Ok, we expected more but who cares.

27 May: Girolamo Prigione. Unknown man for a boring day.

28 May: Giorgio Albertazzi, David Canada, Bryce Dejean-Jones. Small deal, but good if compared to the other days.

29 May: NOTHING.

30 May: NOTHING (don't try to say Thomas Fekete was a notable death)

31 May: Mohamed Abdelaziz. Unknown terrorist, still what I call NOTHING.

1 June: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

2 June: NOOOOOOTHING.

 

We're in the middle of a deth crysis, my friends. 2016 is slowing down and no one will die until 2017.

 

Carla Lane was significant.

 

 

Very few of those names listed, I barely even noticed. Carla Lane was significant for me purely from watching the comedies she wrote when I was younger.

[drol 10,053]

2 June: Corry Brokken and Tom Kibble. I did not know them. Still almost nothing.

3 June: Dave Swarbrick, who's not a big death indeed.

 

Carla Lane was significant only in Britain... You won't find any German or French or Italian who knows her.

[Spade_Cooley 9,022]

You are bad at posting to message boards. Stop posting to message boards.

[maryportfuncity 10,016]

2 June: Corry Brokken and Tom Kibble. I did not know them. Still almost nothing.

3 June: Dave Swarbrick, who's not a big death indeed.

 

Carla Lane was significant only in Britain... You won't find any German or French or Italian who knows her.

 

 

What, not even one amongst that flood of immigrants from the EU that Nigel Farage is always banging on about?

[drol 10,053]

You are bad at posting to message boards. Stop posting to message boards.

At least I don't create topics called " David Gest checks it out" when almost everyone is complaining about useless topics.

[Spade_Cooley 9,022]

Cool, neither did I.

 

[Paul Bearer 5,651]

 

You are bad at posting to message boards. Stop posting to message boards.

 

At least I don't create topics called " David Gest checks it out" when almost everyone is complaining about useless topics.

What was wrong with that headline?