No, I have a means of defense to prevent it. It's not foolproof, but it's better than legislation.

i disagree

I like guns because they are shiny!

Not really, I think that they are overly praised by gun advocates. They are not more effective then other means of self protection, learn self defense fighting, carry pepper spray or a stun gun if you're that scared of other people. Don't walk down a dark alley. Hell, I don't even go into our greenhouse because I'm scared that hobos live there (I dreamt it).

I did answer. You're just hard of listening. Again. Read the freaking law. If you have trouble with the hard words, we can explain them to you.
Well, the ref didn't have a gun, that we know about, so maybe it's just having a penis. We need to keep them out of the hands of criminals too...only the police should have penises.

You were kidding about rape, right?
Considering he flattened Derkotch, I think we can be certain he was aware it could get violent. So Derkotch is at fault for not retreating...still blaming the victim, I see. Derkotch is more guilty for having a gun he didn't fire than his assailant was for having a fist he did. Yes, indeed, by all means let's go back to the days when muscle and size made might.

Shiny guns are all well and good on display, but in darkness a subdued finish is less likely to betray your location.

So why exactly did the asshole get out of his seat and start the whole ball rolling? That kind of childish lack of self control about a fucking kids game is a perfect example of "who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun"

I submit that gun ownership should be a privilege, like driving a car. Not a right.

I want to know if Maggie thinks that whipping out his gun was justified. You did not answer that.

And then proceed to pull a gun in a fist-fight. What a "victim" this guy is.:violin:

To a certain extent (no pun intended) a gun is a penis. Just ask Freud. Hmmm. That explains a lot.

He got out of his seat because he was packing a big gun, not penis.:p

You're damn right!
:applause:

One man's answer, No Treason.

Having a firearm means you don't have to be a prisoner of fear and avoid places.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../Posters/9.jpg

Testy, much, rk? Clearly you didn't follow the link. My enthusiastic support of footfootfoot's post was specifically about the part.

You've read enough of my posts to know my respect for the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. We are a nation of laws and there are several scenarios where someone would be prohibited from owning a gun, in case you're tweaked about the "privleged" part.

As to your statement:
I'm not buying it.

Your gun is your security blanket?

*I* don't have a firearm, and *I* am no prisoner of fear. And I go where I want to, when I want to. And the places I avoid without a gun are places I would avoid with a gun. There's no place I can only go to with a gun.

There are people limited from owning guns. People who are violent criminals and have a history of violent mental illness. That is enough.
A right is a Right. That is all.

Is that a fair trade off for having to kill someone?

You know that logic is flawed.

That's probably because you've never been raped before lumber.

If you keep it a capital-R right, NOT a privilege granted to those favored by the State (Nazi Weapons Law of 1934, for an obvious instance) you reduce crime to the tune of a couple billion in assets and productivity preserved each and every year, and you make genocides impractical. These are always good things, and Spexx's manifest hoplophobia complex does not and cannot make them otherwise.

As a fair tradeoff for not having to be killed by someone, I'd call it more than fair. Stop asking people with more sense than you're showing to submit to murder, Spexx! It's unbecoming, immoral, unfair, and really pretty slimy! If you don't become an advocate of self-defense by all means, you cannot ever be a good man -- think about what that means.

Remember that Spexx is vigorously and repeatedly projecting his subconscious urge to kill -- subconscious because he cannot consciously accept it, however better adjusted he might be if he did -- onto gun-owning folk more sensible (on this matter) than he. It helps to invalidate his entire argument, and frankly, that's a good thing.

Blaming the victim is pretty much a reflex for you, isn't it? If someone "had to be killed", as you put it, who is responsible for creating that necssesity? Obviously it's the person who was attacked, that poor criminal had nothing at all to do with it.

Go get him Maggie! This kind of "thinking" has to be not merely defeated, but annihilated -- never held by persons not confined in an institution ever again!

Thanks for the laugh UG. lol

I think its funny how in every single case except gun control, the democrats are for staying out of it and letting the people have their freedom, and in every case except gun control, the republicans are for them telling you exactly what you can and cant do.

possibly. however, you said:

it seems to me, that if we worried about offending everyone that has had some misfortune in their lives, this would be a verrry boring place.

I don't want to belittle whatever experience you've had with this particular topic. I just want to point out that when a victim of a crime(or any bad mojo, for that matrter) experiences their victimization, it is their perception that changes, not the rest of the world. YOU may be better served if he did not make light of rape. you really can't expect people to see things through your eyes though. admonishing him for it is rather unfair, actually.

:2cents:

We all have a social responsibility to care for our fellow men and women.

To extrapolate that statement, we have a community here and it is a community which, from what I've seen, values respect in its posters with regard to personal issues.

As a poster, I feel it's not unfair to ask that other posters respect the fact that this is an issue which a) effects me personally and b) more than likely effects at least several others.

With that in mind, I don't think it's too much to ask people to lay off rape jokes.

I say so too.

Where we are not yet in agreement is that I say this is true regardless of how much violence the antisocialoids may bring to bear. And we must never impair the ability to repel even the most comprehensive violence.

Well, maybe that's because I'd rather solve the problem of violence in society before it begins rather than waiting for it to happen then blowing it up.

People blindly insist on believing that I'd like to wait that long, too. Nuh uh! It should go without saying that I believe in the holistic approach to these things -- right up to resisting to the death anyone who escaped being repaired before going homicidal. That's just plain morals.

Well it's nice to see a conservative willing to concede such a point although concede isn't exactly the right word. Maybe agree is better.

When I think about gun control laws in Australia, I'm always forced to remember when Martin Bryant shot 35 people dead which brought on a referendum and strict gun control laws were brought in. A knee jerk reaction which really hasn't solved anything. We still have the same levels of crime and in fact, they're higher than they were, but that's fairly standard across the board for most western countries at the moment. Mr Bryant is locked up in an institution and the 35 people are still dead. If members of the public had had weapons perhaps he would have been shot down sooner, or perhaps more people would have died.

The biggest problem with this argument is that it's almost impossible to resolve even between reasonable people simply because if you have it one way, you can't have it the other and if you can't make the comparison, then there's really only heresay and conjecture.

I believe this is why I don't think it really matters whether everyone or no one has access to guns. It's how people view society that matters, and that's the real problem that needs solving.

i don't disagree that it may be uncomfortable for you to hear even the word 'rape'. but can you really expect not to? would you be willing to lay off every topic that makes any one of us uncomfortable here? if I told you that the term 'heart attack' gives me pause, would you refrain from using it? if topics involving someone cheating on their spouse cause painfull associations for a dwellar, should we all stay away from jokes about it?

besides, spex's comment wasn't even a joke about rape, really. it was a word joke. you could have substituted any of the other words from that quote, and it would have been funny. and it WAS a quote. it's not like he really enjoys raping people.

if i seem low to you at the moment, you might consider riding a shorter horse.

Forget it lumber. Just go ahead and crack all the jokes you like...and stick up for those that do too. That's your right. It's also my right to express how I feel about things posted here which is what I did.

Spex didn't seem to have a problem with it. You do. Maybe you need to consider why you think it's wrong for me to ask people to be more thoughtful about this particular subject.

To answer your question. If someone asked me to refrain from speaking about a certain subject because it caused them discomfort then I don't think I'd have a problem with it, however, there are very few subjects that cause quite the same types of feelings in women as rape does.

No offense to you lumber, but you're not a woman, so I entirely accept that you don't understand the point.

This all comes back to something I say a lot.
Freedom always comes at one cost. You will be around other's expression of their freedom. They will partake of freedoms you will not choose to. Some will make you uncomfortable, some will not.
That is part of the package.
Truth is freedom is not for everyone... I am starting to think it is for very few.

I think there's a difference here rkz. If people want to discuss the issue and speak the truth then that's one thing and can be beneficial to all.

Anyway, you can all just forget I said anything.

I find it interesting that no women have commented on the subject. Only men who feel their freedom is being impinged upon.

I was talking about gun ownership. It is our right. If someone does not like it they don't have to own one.
Geez, everyone has to make shit about them.

should we then stay away from everything that might offend anyone of us? If i said to you that the mention of heart attacks makes me extremely uncomfortable, would you avoid that topic? it wasn't even a rape joke. it was a word joke.

Forget it lumber. Just do what you want.

sorry about the redundant posts. when i posted the reply initially, it had me logged off, and i didn;t think it went through. then, when i re-did it, i found that they had both made it.

and i will do whatever i want. having said that, i have no desire to make rape jokes in the first place. just don't expect everyone to change who they are because of something bad that happened to you.

you probably think i'm a dick now. sigh.

No, that's not what I think lumber.

Of course not. He's a cock, not a dick.

Are you two ignorant or just lacking creativity? Don't walk down a dark alley, don't travel in high crime neighborhoods, avoid trouble, walk away from an antagonist, secure your home. If you do these things, you won't be a victim AND you won't have to kill someone. In fact you won't need a gun at all!

Wolf is waiting for you to check in.

Did you read the news article? The f-ing moron was waving a gun around at a children's game. Who the fuck packs heat to a pee wee football game?

I wonder if you'd be singing a different tune if he'd let a few rounds go into the stands and took out a couple of kids. Not too small a price to pay for our freedom? As a father I'm astounded that you don;t find his behaviour at least a little questionable. I think it isn't just the felons, but the mentally and emotionally unstable who might serve the general population better by not owning guns.

That's why I don't own one. I'm not a felon, but my friends tell me I'm crazy.

After you.

Spexx, your responses and posts in all this demonstrate you are not rational on this topic. Hip deep in denial is a bad place to be if you don't want personal trouble with crocodiles.

A true, holistic approach to the troubles caused by evil behavior goes all the way up, legitimately, to countervailing violence. You do not possess a true, holistic approach.

MaggieL is in this thread, on my side of the fence. Her views are made abundantly clear, and in some volume.

Bad things don't only happen in bad neighborhoods.

I am an absolute proponent of personal freedom and the right to keep and bear arms.

God I wish people would read the whole post before they comment. I was talking about the sub topic which I've opened a different thread about in order to stop polluting this one with rubbish.

Quite obviously there have been women commenting on the issue of gun ownership during the course of this thread.

After all these gun-threads I still haven't seen one bit of proof that allowing civilians to carry concealed weapons makes the US a safer country. On the contrary...

I expect the usual suspects will use the widely critized junk-science of Lott and Mauser to proof that guns make the US a safer country. But the junk-science of these 2 people can be compared to a survey(*) in 1995 which suggests that 1,2 Mio US people have been in contact with aliens.


(*)A 1995 survey by NBC asked 1500 Americans "Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?". Extrapolating the results (0.6%) to the entire US population would suggest that 1.2 million Americans have been in actual contact with aliens.

Hell, dude, check out the Ouija thread. Apparently we've got a good number of superstitious nutcases right here on the board... :)

ha ha ha
reductio ad Roswell

When I was in Merced, CA, I was at the motel unloading my stuff. Because of the value of the items I was carrying in my vehicle, I carried a gun whenever transporting them. I took my suitcase up to the room, and when I returned, 2 guys approached my truck from different angles. One hopped over the fence by the pool and came from the rear, and the other was already peeking in the back windows when I came around the corner, so I don't know where he came from.

I'm normally pretty friendly to people when travelling, but these guys were up to no good. I said "how's it going" and started around to the passenger side to get the vehicle between me and them. They both moved to block me in, then suddenly they didn't seem interested in me at all. They took off running (literally) in 2 different directions. The reason? I had a Glock 21 on my hip that they apparently hadn't seen because of the stuff I was carrying in.

There was no cowboy music playing, I didn't feel like a tough guy nor did I feel overly freaked out or anything. I just went around to the desk and told the woman there that there were a couple of guys casing her customers. I dunno if she ever called the cops or not, or even if she understood me. I never saw the guys again, and the rest of the month went by without incident.

Did I "make the country a safer place" or "blahblahblah reduce crime blahblahblah"? No. But the presence of a weapon kept me from being a victim. And I don't care for people telling me that they don't think I should have that right. If other people are misusing their rights, take it up with them. I have nothing to do with it.

Absolutely. I you don't threaten me my guns will never be an issue. :thumb2:

It is not junk science. It has never been even rebutted, let alone debunked. Read More Guns, Less Crime and you will enjoy enlightenment. Until you do, you will be victimized by any crime and any genocidal episode that comes along. See Simkin, Zelman, and Rice for the connection between gun "control" and genocides. They haven't been rebutted either.

I have enjoyed this enlightenment, and am thereby proof against any and all antigun arguments -- the progun arguments are too solid and too good. Couple billion dollars too good. General gun ownership is also the only known genocide preventative, and genocide is best dealt with ahead of time. The force of the State is not, and cannot be, a bulwark against an episode of genocide.

Are you worried about genocide while living in the USA UG? I would have thought there'd be something in the constitution about the govt not killing everyone because of the colour of their skin or their religion or other beliefs.

The ultimate question is this:

If the two guys had persisted, and tried to take your stuff, would you have killed them? Is "stuff" worth more than the lives of those two guys?

The way I read it, they were going to kick the shit out of noodle and take his gear. Would that have been the better outcome?

If Noodle walked/ran away, nobody gets beat up or shot dead. Is "gear" worth killing?

Was he going to be allowed to walk away and maybe contact authorities? Why let the criminals decide whether or not Noodle spends the rest of his days on a respirator? Noodle did not initiate force, but they chose to at a minimum intimidate and their further intentions were not clear, he had a moral obligation to respond.

First, he didn't "respond"

And second, "he had a moral obligation to respond"?!??! WTF? He has a "moral obligatio" to threaten someone with a gun, shoot someone, and/or kill someone? What kind of morals are they?

The 11th commandment: "Thou shalt protect thy "stuff" with weapons, and injureth or killeth any whosoever might try to taketh thy "stuff". Amen.

Spexx, did you just blatantly ignore Griff's point, completely drop one side of the equation, and falsely amplify the other side of the equation to the worst possible outcome in order to win the argument?

That's some hard work!