Maybe it's the drugs. I try again later.:redface:

did you have that scary makeup on?

The kind of morals that require a decent human being from letting thugs make decent people cower in fear every time they leave their house.

You don't cower in fear when you leave your house? Thank moral people who won't let thugs run rampant over our society. No, I'm not talking about gun carriers, or even gun owners, necessarily.....I'm talking about people who don't..... .

People that stand up and say, NO, you're not taking over the streets....NO, you're not running roughshod over decent people......NO, you're no making me cower in fear. Those are moral people. :angel:

"Give up your weapons because defending yourself and your property is immoral. Make the world safe for criminals."

What a load of self-righteous utter garbage.

Yes.

What value do you place on the lives of thugs? Why?

Seventeen (not the magazine)
 

Holy crap! 17 pages of argument and rancor about...GUNS! Imagine that. I think that speaks to the fanaticism of much of their owners (ok, and their opponents).

Since I started this thread, I think I can chime in now, 17 pages later.

In regards to the above quote from the ever-lovable Maggie, I don't think I ever stated or even implied (I'm confused by her use of the word "implicitly" regarding evil objects) that guns, or any object for that matter, were themselves evil. I don't even believe in the concept of evil anyway.

It's always about people. All one has to do is look at the magazine rack at any major supermarket and see how obsessive gun owners can be. What cracks me up is that most of the guns they obsess over are assualt weapons. Let's face it, guns make people feel and be powerful, but I don't think it's the power to stop genocide like one cellarite said. I doubt he's gonna take his guns to Darfur to stop that one. But he says he's got my pansy, non-gun-toting back in case a genocide happens here. Should I laugh or cry?

I would insert my "neutral" emoticon after that last sentence, but Flint said he was getting bummed out by my overuse of it, so I will defer to him because he's one of the more rational posters here in what can at times be a very muggy (perhaps maggie) cellar.

Assault weapon? I have never clubbed anyone over the head with any of my firearms, not even the scary-looking, black ones.

(Assault weapon is a term that doesn't really have much meaning outside of the context of wanting to ban guns based on cosmetic characteristics)

Well, I suppose it is somewhat rendundant when discussing guns, but I only wanted to make a distinction between, say, a .22 hunting rifle and an automatic machine gun with a carbon fiber stock and a titanium barrell. Hey wolf, I just guessed on that last one. Can I assume that carbon fiber and titanium are used in today's "guns?"

An "automatic machine gun" is not an "assault weapon."

Sure carbon fiber and titanium are used in today's firearms, including your hypthetical .22, which isn't much good for hunting anything other than small birds and cute little bunnies.

Assault with a ?????
 

Sorry, wolf, I'm just not good on guns. I actually have to talk and write about guns, but mostly Cilvil War ordinance (Minni Balls, etc.).

That said, what would you consider an "assualt weapon?" In your first comment, you implied that all guns are such; why, then, do we not arm our soldiers with .22 rifles?

My friend killed a deer with a .22 (shot to the head). And don't most fowl hunters use a shotgun anywaze?

If you're going to write about them, you might be interested in the correct spelling. They're named after their inventor.

Obviously any gun can be used to commit an assault. Some have more power than others.

The accuracy of magazine covers in forming an understanding people who own guns is about as accurate as any other stereotype you would build from the same source. About single men, perhaps? Car lovers, body builders...what do they obsess about, according to magazine covers? How about married women?

If you want to actually understand gun owners, visit a shooting range. Perhaps even learn to shoot.

On the other hand, if all you want to do is reenforce your own preconceptions, the magzaine rack will do.

Genocide is only a series of murders. Armed people are harder to kill. Most genocodes begin with disarming the targets.

Here's an account of how this applies in Darfur, since that's the example you chose.

First, you need to understand the difference between a .22 and a .223, which is considerably greater than .003 inch. If a friend of your killed a deer with a .22, s/he is incredibly, incredibly lucky. From any good distance, a .22 to the head often won't to much more than bounce off the skull because the small, soft projectile flattens out and loses velocity quickly. Going deer hunting with a .22 is irresponsible ... the greater likelihood is that the animal would be wounded and suffer.

There are different types of rifles and shotguns which are used to hunt different kinds of animals. Shotguns are used to shoot fowl for a reason ... while you could bring down a bird on the wing with a rifle round, it involves more luck than skill. The spread pattern of shot is much better for birds. Rifles used for deer hunting tend to have larger, higher velocity ammunition so that it can penetrate skin, flesh, and sometimes bone.

Shooting a deer (or anything else) in the head is unreliable, and ruins the trophy. Center of mass is recommended for any target, animal or human.

Now that would certainly spoil the fun...

...except for the eating it for dinner part. This is done even by African big game hunters: hunter goes home with a distinctive souvenir of a unique time in his life and deeds and nearby villages get the meat. Hey, it's free... pygmy tribes near the Okavango Delta never had a recipe for elephant before the early twentieth century. The critters were just too damned big.

Pangloss, the language of gun aficionados is the language of the hobbyist. Compare the tenor of the prose of auto magazines, modelers' magazines, and gun magazines. The parallels will be striking if you haven't tried this comparison.

I shoot a little blackpowder myself -- a .54 caliber Italian Hawken replica.

Is the use and keeping of guns attacked by the anti-self-defense set? Without question. Would you expect anything other than a determined defense against such a determined attack? We have Spexxvet as an example of the hoplophobic complex, the mindset, of the ragers against defense. He displays every symptom of this problem that I can remember, and I don't know if he still expects persons of good morals for bad situations to be persuaded by his neurotic insistence, but we shall not submit, not now, not ten thousand years from now, nor ten million years from now. He shall yield, he shall be defeated, or he will be left in isolated absurdity, disregarded by all. Either outcome is acceptable to those of us actually happy with the idea of resisting evil regardless of its degree or its intensity.

It is very simple, if you don't want to exercise your right to own or carry, don't.
See how easy?
You never know if you are going to be allowed to "walk/run away". Of that you have to "trust them" and I am not willing to do that with someone I already know is immoral & has a vested interest in not allowing me to do so, nope.
Amen brother.
Most? Really?
Where are you getting these stats precisely, where most gun owners are buying assault weapons?
Guns are tools, nothing more. Most gun owners look at them that way and just have one or two in their homes for that purpose and that purpose alone. Collectors are in the minority and of them, those that purchase assault weapons are in the minority.
I really appreciate how you have shown us all exactly how much you know about this topic.

As I stated above... if you do not wish to exercise your freedoms, speech, gun ownership, voting, whatever.... just don't, but don't be a fascist and try to impose your narrow minded views on other free thinkers in this nation built on tolerance and freedom.
As always, being free means you are exposed to other's freedoms. That means hearing things you will not want to hear, being around things you don't like, business existing you don't approve of, etc.
It takes a special kind of person to be free and be ok with it... we used to raise them.
I don't think we do any longer.

Except he has already surrendered his right to the state. That's why we hear such sour grapes trying to rationalize why it's better to be disarmed. European, you know...

(I don't think anybody who's Googling up stuff from the Brady Bunch and --oh, my ghod-- *Mother Jones magazine*should be talking about "junk science").

Of course no one was talking about banning guns. There is this little thing about responsible people having guns. Hundreds of thousands of new weapons on the street being carried by that other guy. Therefore Iraqi streets are clearly safer.... From the NY Times of 30 October 2006: 500,000 more guns. Clearly as number of guns increased, then the violence decreased.

I responded to his moral obligation to respond assertion. Would he be allowed to walk away? I don’t know. Could he have avoided the conflict better? Probably. He allowed himself to be cornered. They chose at a minimum to intimidate? Intimidation is not a cause of death, as far as I know.

Which side would that be?

I would never amplify the other side of the equation to the worst possible outcome by saying something like:

Why do we even have police and a legal system, then?

Bruce, have you ever been shot or shot someone during a crime (whether you were committing the crime or were the victim?;) )

The side of the equation you dropped was the one where bad guys are doing bad things. The side you amplified was the one where noodle shoots and kills somebody, which didn't happen:
Griff was forced to respond to your imagined amplifiction of one side of the equation, by posting an imagined amplification of the other side, and then you called him on it.

If you come out of your house and a thug is stealing your son's wagon, do you just shoot him? After all, he's taking your stuff. And he might be armed - you can't be assured that he will let you "walk/run away". So, do you shoot him?

So every bad guy that does a bad thing should be threatened with a gun, shot, and/or killed? Is there ever a case where good guys do bad things? Maybe by mistake? (I thought that was our friend's truck and Noodle was stealing out of it. I would apologise, but Noodle shot me dead.)

You've read the supporters posts. They all say that you shouldn't draw your weapon unless you're willing to shoot and kill the person that you feel threatened by.

BTW, hasn't the other side amplified their side? Thanks for calling them on that.:eyebrow:

Wait a minute. I thought I amplified, etc. in response to Griff's post. Now you're saying he was being forced by my amplification, which came after his amplification?

Taken to its logical conclusion, Noodle *has* to be willing to shoot the thug dead, right? (just ask Maggie) If they didn't run away, what would have happened? Let's see.... Noodle draws his gun. Perhaps one of the thugs has a gun and draws it - after all, he's a bad guy. Noodle shoot, killing him. Sure, it didn't happen that way, but it very well could have, and if you ask around the cellar, it often happens, and to some, it *should* happen.

Go read the justification law. (Obviously you still havent done that.)

It actually explains this stuff.

"Taken to its logical conclusion" requires a little more logic and a little less fantasy. The "logical conclusion" other people note is that the bad guys end up armed and nood ends up unarmed, and they take his stuff and kill him.

Also imagination.

I don't care what the law says, as it doesn't explain what you would do. What would *you* do, Maggie? Can't you understand a plainly stated question? Or would you do something hypocritical and illegal, or are you just embarrassed and afraid to say what you would do?

I've explained this before. You aren't listening, because you can't cooerce me into playing speculative hypotheticals with you.

Once again: my actions would be guided by the law and my reasonable belief about the intentions of the person I confront. See what the law says about what behavior I must accept from thieves and thugs, and what I may reasonably and legally do to defend my self, my loved ones, and my property.

It's futile and useless to try discuss a legal point (which, whether it suits your rhetorical purposes or even whether you like it or not, this is) with someone who's too lazy (or unwilling for more nefarious reasons) to read and understand the law.

You're just itching to set up a hypothetical where threats seems nonthreatening, and thefts seem trivial, to support your assertion that I'm bloodthirsty because I own weapons. My stance is that nobody who enters my property uninvited, to threaten me, my family or my guests, or steal my property should have any expectation of being cut any more slack than the law actually provides...because I'm highly unlikely to be charitably inclined towards them.

And if you read the law, you'll see how much slack that actually is. I'm guessing it's a lot less than you think. Perhaps it will dissuade you from pursuing a life of crime yourself, since you seem to be rooting so hard for the thugs and thieves.

You don't shoot people until you know their intentions. Standing around my truck and trying to bracket me in is threatening, but not immediately life-threatening. Yes, I would have shot them if my life had been in danger. Luckily, the presence of a firearm discouraged them from making the decision to continue their plan. I wasn't anything special to them, just a target of opportunity. When the potential cost of robbing me became too great, they moved on. Thieves are lazy.

You ask, what if they had a gun? There's no way to answer that in one sentence. The outcome would differ depending on several tactical and practical (rhyme unintended) considerations: If I see a weapon out already, there's no need to walk into the situation. The cost of replacing my truck and its contents is far less than the cost of exchanging bullets in a parking lot. If I don't know that he's armed, but he pulls a gun from concealment when they approach from 10 feet away, it's too late to extricate myself from the situation. I'd yell "DROP IT NOW" and he would have about .5 second to comply. At that point, a victim should no longer be concerned for the welfare of his or her attacker. He has already demonstrated the willingness to use a gun on you to commit a crime, so any hesitation on your part from that point on constitutes suicide.

If you have been properly trained (and there are many many civilian firearms safety and self-defense courses that do the job marvelously), you have the upper hand in any encounter of that kind. You're not just walking around with a gun, reacting violently to any perceived threat. You should practice situational awareness during every waking moment, whether or not you ever own a gun. Any instructor worth his or her salt will tell you that this awareness is your first line of defense, always. You should hold your head up and look people in the eye when you walk past them (with a smile of course). Victims are often unaware of danger because their eyes are on the ground in front of their feet. They're often selected for that very reason -- they don't give off an aura of confidence and strength, and they are easy to sneak up on. You should briefly catalogue everyone you see: their location, direction, speed, demeanor, what they're wearing, whether they are talking. As soon as you walk into a room, you should note the exits. This isn't paranoia or some kind of pseudo-militaristic behavior. This is the kind of awareness that all animals have, and the kind that humans used to have, before we started queueing up for Starbucks, avoiding eye contact in the elevator, and basically becoming more like cattle than men and women. Once you've practiced it, it becomes automatic and runs completely in the background. You will defuse many, many situations before they ever become dangerous because your senses will guide you away from things or people that don't look right.

When something like my little encounter occurs, you should already know where cover and concealment is, what is behind the target (your attacker, presumably), and if there are multiple targets, which one presents the greater threat and will thus be the first one to engage. You will have a much better idea of whether to run or to stay and fight. If and when you draw a weapon, it will be for a damn good reason, and you will have a far greater ability to control the outcome. You will know that there is absolutely no justification for any kind of fancy wannabe trick shooting. You are going to get tunnel vision, your heart will be racing, and you will in no way be able to pull off some kind of Hollywood "shoot the gun out of his hand" bullshit. You will be lucky to hold it together enough to put the front sight on the center mass and squeeze off a round without jerking the barrel of the gun off target.

There's more to it than what I've haphazardly described here, but the point is, the general perception of guns and what gun owners represent is totally inaccurate. Most of us are extremely serious about the responsibility that comes with owning a firearm, and are always mindful of the potential consequences of a mistake. I wish more people would take advantage of the training that's available. One of the last classes I took was split about 50/50 genderwise, and the ages ranged from 25 to 70. It was a good feeling to know at the end of the course that 10 more citizens were that much better equipped to keep themselves and those around them safe, whether or not they had a gun.

See how easy it is to get shot? With or without having your own concealed gun?

It's a vicious circle, more people buy guns because other people have guns making other people buying guns because these other have guns making other people....etcetera, etcetera...

Still all those people having guns does NOT make the US a safer place, as statistics proof.

It seems to me that the US with this gun problem together with the inflated War on Terror is rapidly becoming a State of Fear.

The next time they'll have a gun, because you've got one. The next time you won't be so lucky, you can bet your 0.22 on that...

The next time I won't be so lucky, because they'll have a gun? Because I have a gun? What? Did you read any of the rest of the post? Training. Awareness. Responsibility. Only after you've aquired these can you make an argument against my rights that I will listen to.

I don't threaten people with guns. I don't shoot people. I don't consider gear more valuable than human life. But if you wish to victimize me or those I love, you will not find it easy. Anyone who wants to MAKE it easy can piss up a rope.

I'll interpret that to mean you'll kill anybody that enters your property uninvited, to threaten you, or steal your property, but that you're evading the question. You need plausible deniability, eh?

That's the way I feel. I just don't own a gun, either.

I agree with what you've said here. I wish that the part I made bold was "all" and not "most".

Dude. I did a much better job of that makeup at the gig on Saturday. Plus I had my pirate hat -n- dreads, black contact lenses, and the rest of my outfit (a white t-shirt with the words "lol, pirate" written in sharpie, a pair of shorts, and cowboy boots). I saw pics being taken, I hope I can get my hands on some.

Wrong... the State is part of the problem. See the suspension of habeas corpus recently.
I will always hold that the populace should be as well, or better, armed than the state.
Depends on where he is, where you are and what his attitude is.
So, the answer is no. But you knew that, troll question.

They are not everywhere all the time and are flawed individuals. Again, you knew this.

You say shit like:
and I present you with a situation requiring you to be precise in declaring your course of action and you say I'm trolling? Read you own quotes, then tell me again how I knew the answer. Then tell me how *your* answer is consistent with your previous declarations.

You can interpret it that way. I certainly can't prevent you.

But, of course, it's not what I said.

I think I know now why you won't read the laws. They are carefully worded, and don't leave you any room for that kind of incredibly tortured distortion.

If you did read them, you'd know that they don't permit what you just allege *I* said...even though I have repeatedly said my conduct would be guided by the law.

But since you "don't care about the law" (your own verbatim words), you indulge in trying to put words in my mouth until you say something that confirms your own moronic little thesis.

It's really too bad you don't care about the law. I do. I guess somebody has to.

Yes, you're trolling. Because the precision you demand in an answer far exceeds what can reasonably be provided in response to a vague hypothetical.

Go read the law, come back when you're able to discuss the matter intelligently.

Inside my home, uninvited & unannounced, and outside stealing a wagon are two, ridiculously, different situations.
As someone said before, you just try to take a harmless situation and try to make it sound like someone is going to get shot for it.
It is a joke, as are your arguments.

If someone is in someone's home, they are there to do harm, period. It is that homeowner's job to assume so, for the sake of their family.
If I was outside and I realized that there was someone in my empty house I would not run in and shoot them just because of my stuff... and you know that. You know what my argument is, but you are a fanatic and are just twisting words to try to make a point you know you are losing on.
Keep it up, you are making my, and other's points... thanks.

I grew-up with weapons, though it is now expired carried a commercial conceal license and had the training to go with it. I know a hell of a lot more about what guns can do and the responsibility that goes with them than you ever will.

Magazines have to have something different every month or the don't sell....I think that's a given.
Magazines dedicated to a single subject such as guns, cars, motorcycles, horses, models, etc., must compete for a limited market with other magazines of their ilk...... and for the attention($) of people that have multiple interests.
The best way to do that is to guarantee (prospective)readers something they haven't seen, hence the latest & greatest, on the cover.

If you go to a large newsstand, the number of magazines on guns is far outstripped by the number of magazines on quite a number of subjects.
I suspect you may not have noticed because those other subjects don't strike a nerve with you like guns do.
It's pretty obvious it does just because you call people with an interest in and/or use for, guns....fanatics.
For the opposition, that kills any possibility of logic or reason on your part, starting with that bias.
Do you understand why showing that attitude out of the gate, provokes the attitude you receive? :cool:

It has to be said that Americans portray themselves as gun 'fanatics' (although fanatics isn't the word but I think you can make the connection) in movies. You don't have to go any further than classics such as Dirty Harry to see that.

Of course, most movies are fiction, but it's also where people from other countries develop their perceptions.

Film makers do have more responsibility than they've shown to date in my opinion, if in fact, how Americans are presented through film is incorrect.

As much as I'd love to own several guns, trust me, you don't want me owning any guns. I'd be shooting people left and right.

That asshole who ran me off the road when I was riding my bike. You know I'd fucking pop a cap in him.

The fuck stick who lets her dog shit on my lawn. blam. One less dog. pate or peta what ever, and alf can kiss my hinder.

not to mention all the scary people who live in my head.

Wholly mackeral.

Thats actually one reason I have not to own one personally, I dont know how fucked up I really am and I dont wanna find out.


Well, no, I do know I'm pretty damn fucked up. Thats why I'm a pacifist. Cause as long as I tell myself that, its just that much easier to actually act like it.

I read all of your post, but apparently the red haze in your eyes prevented you to read my post. According your logic everybody needs to own a gun to protect himself or their loved ones.

Training. Awareness. Responsibility. There are a bunch of loonatics around who have none of this qualifications.

I've been travelling around in the US a lot in the 80's and 90's. People advised me when being stopped by the police to remain in the car, keep my hands on the steering wheel at all time and dont reach for the glove department or anything else, it may cost you your life. This never happen in the many other countries I've driven in.

Because of all these guns around in the US, there's a particular violent aspect to the American society, proven by statistics, a fact all gunowners prefer to ignore.

I'm 42 and have spent 41 years in suburban, urban, and rural America. I have never seen a gun shot, except at a range. The only time I have heard a gun shot, except at a range, was from a hunter taking a pheasant in a nearby field.

I've heard the caution to act normally when stopped by cops. I know why it is given: because too many people lack common sense. I have never, ever, in my life, heard of a stopped driver getting shot by a cop. I have, unfortunately, heard of a cop getting shot dead during a traffic stop.

You could if you shot me.
Well, you really haven't said anything, have you?
No. I'm not interested in the law, I'm interested in what MaggieL will do. After all, you're the one with the gun, aren't you. Laws can't keep you from shooting me, only people can keep you from shooting me.
Really? The law includes speed limits. Have you ever driven faster than the speed limit? Answer, please - and don't lie. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Can you even manage to answer *that* question?
I don't have to care about the law. I don't own a gun, so I *can't* break the law.
Because you're too moronic to answer a plain and simple question. How many times have I asked, and you have been too moronic to answer?
Yep. That would be people who have guns.

Have you seen the SIZE of the decks on the cover of the decking and garden magazines lately!!! Those people are CRAZY!!!
Same thing... they always show the most extreme, you are right Bruce.
Since moving to the city the only time I have pulled my weapon out is to go to the range, to clean it and once when someone came into my yard at night... I told him to leave, he did.
I am a pacifist, a true pacifist, I have never once hit or harmed another human out of anger. I am not going to let someone harm me or my family, I believe in self defense, but am not ever looking to harm anyone.
However, I am never going to take a chance with my life or my families.
Letting someone have the chance to do harm to myself or my family is immoral, so I won't do it... it is simple.

When I did conceal carry I never had the impulse to shoot the guy who ran me off the road on my bike, which did happen, or a dog that was bothering me (well, perhaps a little, but I didn't)... it just does not work that way.
It is a weapon of last resort, and that is when you use it, but when the time does come, you do not hesitate.
You can invent all the scenarios you want Spexxvet, but my training, my desire not to kill, and a lifetime of experience with my weapon tells me when it is time to take out my gun. Once I do, I do not think twice about using it when the time comes, because that is when they shoot you.

Why wait for other people to protect you from her? You actually have the right to do it yourself. That's the whole point. We have really become European in this sense -- it's like we are completely unable to fend for ourselves. "Someone should do something about this" is a pretty weak-ass replacement for "I am doing something about this."

Yes, that's pretty much my view. If you are not willing to protect yourself and your loved ones, you must depend on others to do it for you. I'm not that trusting, I guess. The only reason more normal people don't have guns is because of the ridiculous legends and myths that have become associated with them. Eventually, in every argument of this nature, someone brings up Dirty Harry or John Wayne or some other movie figure. Kids grow up watching this and because they have no education, assign these mystical properties to firearms. They're like Michael Jordan's shoes -- if you can just get your hands on one, you'll be all powerful. If someone else has one, you are in dannnnnnnnnnnger automatically. It's just garbage. They're just guns, jeez. In the 50s, you could buy them in the mail, and kids took them to school and left em in the car so they could deer hunt in the afternoons. There were no Columbines then, even though guns were more prevalent. This is a simple fact. Think about it.

Are you arguing for or against self protection here?

People advised you incorrectly. You'll make cops nervous if you start ducking under your seat or acting squirrelly, but unless they know you're a bad guy, i.e., they run your plates and discover something bad about you, you can reach in the glove compartment -- in fact, you'll save time if you have your insurance and registration out by the time the cop gets to your window. Some people love to give foreigners "advice" that makes us sound like we're still playing cowboys and indians.

This is simply untrue on all counts. "Because of all these guns around" is not the reason people are violent. This is doubly unprovable by statistics. It's not a fact, which is why gunowners ignore it.

As much as I'm enjoying the endless back and forth between you and Spex on this one trivial point, I find myself wondering why you don't just cut and paste the law into a quoted post. Then you can both move on. Preface the quoted law by saying "this is what I would do."

Were you joking, flaming, or trolling, when you posted:

There’s nothing about inside/outside your home. It’s all tough talk about protecting yourself and your family. In this instance, do you trust that the criminal is not going to kill you? Maybe he doesn’t want a witness, and won’t let you walk/run away.

Reach down between your legs. Do you feel anything there? Any balls? You’ve insinuated that you would use your gun to “eliminate” a threat. You’ve said

And yet you wouldn’t do anything about the guy stealing your son’s wagon. Hmmmmm. Would you even have the gun in your hand when you walked out of your house, or would you be a sitting duck, for the criminal to gun down?

Either have the balls to back up your words, or stop talking tough.

All these threads have some pretty tough talk about having guns to protect yourselves, your family and your stuff - about killing criminals. But when push comes to shove, and I ask you (the collective you) to put your balls on the line and declare exactly what would make you shoot someone, the excuses and hedging comes out. “in the house is different than outside the house”, “I didn’t feel like my life was threatened so I didn’t draw my gun”, “I’m not going to answer your question, I’ll just keep throwing up straw men to evade the point”.

Tough talk, for a bunch of Maries.

Why do we have a police force and legal system? So that cooler heads can make a decision based on established laws and give a suspect due process and punishment fitting the crime? Maybe? If I "protected myself" from Maggie, how would that end? Is it wise for me to take those steps? What if your armed neighbor felt that your mom was a threat to him, and "didn't wait for other people to protect him from her"? Not a pleasant outcome to think about, is it? But that's your method for resolving conflict, right?

You are a sick-twisted-fucking little idiot and you know it. You have never had to make that kind of decision and you are not fit to make judgments of those who have. Those who chose to put themselves at risk to protect others by making those decisions you coward.
You are just playing games with words and nothing more. I am done with your pathetic, worthless, punk-ass now.
You have shown what you truly are. A true Troll with no dignity, no respect and no right to be here. Consider yourself ignored.

I'm not advocating anarchy. There are laws aplenty. You can't walk over to your neighbor's house to shoot their mom, for example. Your attempts to redefine the argument using wildly improbable scenarios is failing miserably, by the way.

And yes, cooler heads make decisions based on laws and give the suspect due process. But you've already been victimized at that point. If you protect yourself from an attack within the established law, that is......get ready for it..........

A GOOD THING.

The justice system is reactive. It cannot act until the crime has already occurred. You can prevent the crime from ever occurring in the first place by having a proper defense already in place: keep your things secure, walk away from trouble when possible, don't expose yourself to danger unnecessarily, and as a defense of last resort, be prepared to repel physical threats that have surmounted your other defenses. Or, sit quietly mewling in a corner while a criminal does what he wants with your family, your home, and your life. If you survive, I'm sure you will have a stirring testimony to give at the totally unnecessary trial of a person who you *allowed* to victimize you.

I'm closer to you on these issues than I am to them, because I don't like hand guns, but I'm a little uncomfortable to be associated with you right now. You are taking this a little too far.

rkzenrage has posted in the past about an incident when he almost shot an unidentified intruder breaking into his home, but didn't. The intruder was a kid trying to steal something, and he dragged the kid home to his parents instead.

MaggieL has stated that she will follow the law, and gave you a link to that law.

mrnoodle has recounted his experience where having a gun prevented a crime from occurring, and he explained how he wouldn't kill someone to protect his gear.

I think all three of them are being reasonable here. They treat each situation on a case by case basis, and pretty much all of them have said they wouldn't use a gun unless they felt threatened.

Glatt, all I really want is for one of them to acknowledge that even though they can legally own a gun, there are some pretty severe negatives associated with them. Mistakes, accidents, poor judgement, guns being stolen from law-abiding citzens, law-abing citizens getting guns and using them for unlawful purposes, law-abiding citizens getting guns and selling them to criminals, hypocritical behavior, irresponsible behavior, to name a few, are all negatives when it comes to owning a gun, and are reasonable concerns raised by gun-control advocates. And not RK, Maggie, Noodle, Wolf are brave enough acknowledge this reality. It's excuses, straw men, rationalization, ignoring questions and facts - spin and innuendo. Rk calls me a and can't admit that weapons-related injury/death should be a legitimate reason to re-evaluate gun laws because the right to bear arms is a Right. And he's the one who owns a gun! I guess I will never be able to open a closed mind.

Pop quiz!



All _____ have potential lethality. Alone, they are nothing. Misused, they are dangerous. Used correctly, they are beneficial.

a) cars
b) guns
c) hands
d) feet
e) ideas
f) shovels
g) rights
h) all of the above, and more

I think the NRA has done an effective job of training everyone to recognize the beginnings of a slippery slope. If they admit there are problems with guns, then they have to admit that those problems need to be solved. That can only mean regulation. They don't want regulation. Therefore, they can't admit there are problems with guns.

See?