So then what if two people shoot at each other because they perceive the other to be a threat? IE, a crip and a blood open fire on each other in neutral territory because they were both trying to stay out of trouble but they perceive the other as being the aggressor?
I recommend you read the discussion between myself and Vandeekree because it's gone into a lot more depth and I don't want to have to make the exact same points to you in a second discussion when they're right there.

Then they are both in the wrong, wrong being in illegal gangs, wrong for trying to kill the other without any actual physical threat. Wrong for both being the aggressor.

I read your conversation with him, neither of you really bring this up.

But what if the situation didn't ALLOW for change? You can't suddenly start loving thy neighbour when thy neighbour is trying to kill everybody around him, because they are all trying to kill him as well. What if he knows murder is wrong but is forced to kill people for his own survival? It's human instinct to survive even in the most dire of situations, he isn't just going to lie down and be killed.
You didn't really address any of my points in your comments.

Than its self defense.

Last time I checked self defense isn't wrong. Now if he were to kill an unarmed woman that wasn't a threat, but had something he needed to survive, or he was held at gunpoint, or whatever reason that would kill him that wasn't an act of aggression from her, than it would probably be wrong.

Also I answered all your points, accept apparently this one.

Surviving at the dire cost of an innocent is not justified. Self defense is.

So then what if two people shoot at each other because they perceive the other to be a threat? IE, a crip and a blood open fire on each other in neutral territory because they were both trying to stay out of trouble but they perceive the other as being the aggressor?
I recommend you read the discussion between myself and Vandeekree because it's gone into a lot more depth and I don't want to have to make the exact same points to you in a second discussion when they're right there.

Then they are both in the wrong, wrong being in illegal gangs, wrong for trying to kill the other without any actual physical threat. Wrong for both being the aggressor.

I read your conversation with him, neither of you really bring this up.

Was that a pun?

I honestly dont know how this got here, I thought I was posting on this funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4353701/Whose+line+is+it+anyway/

which would make sense because Wayne Brady and fighting words, I seriously don't know as to how I posted it here, on this content, it doesn't make any sense to me.

I really am sorry that you guys had to see this awful post guys, there's not but shame and failure in this red sea of thumbs.

soo many red thumbs, wow, you fucked up

ya dun failed good and hard.

I dont think i've ever seen that many red thumbs. You dun goofed.

Holy shit, you fucked up pretty bad.

Corinthians 1 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

found it

oh, well, guess that's that than

heres a cute picture for you aswell

alright, i was always wondering that, thanks

have a cute gif for ur troubles

Although to be specific I'm not actually sure about drunkenness. The whole body is a temple thing may be a reference to not being drunk.

However it is probably easy to conclude that substances that radically change one's thought process (through chemical means, or not just pure emotion/circumstance) are frowned upon. Jesus did drink wine, but he never drank in excess, only because Wine was healthier, probably.

Corinthians 1 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

found it

oh, well, guess that's that than

heres a cute picture for you aswell

I smell anal seepage