These commentaries really don't help your argument, especially since they're bullshit.;)

With all due respect to you, Bruce, because I think you're great...that statement sticks in my craw because OF COURSE it's true. If you outlaw eye drops only outlaws will have eyedrops because anyone possessing eyedrops will be in violation of the law. I just never thought of that statement as really saying anything particularly profound, though many of the bumper stickers I've seen seem to profess that it is incredibly profound.

As for me, you can have my eyedrops when you pry them from my cold dead hands. ;)

At this point I'm considering buying a gun out of spite, simply because your continued argument is so annoying. A handgun goddamnit...

Because you don't agree? Tell me more.

Personal attacks? let's not resort to that in public, it would make us both look rather foolish.

If something has never happened to you, and it has happened once to me it seems to me as though I am indeed 100% ahead. Let's break it down into a simple points based system: One to nothing would be a 100% lead, two to one would be a 50% lead and so on. The situation I was in has never occured to you and here's hoping it never does.

Tell me, when these handgun wielding criminals are not deterred by these laws you propose, what then? Criminals don't care about laws, they willingly break them in order to gain whatever their objective is. This is what makes them criminals. I should lose my rights because someone else was violent, malicious or just plain negligent?

How about those people who actually use their rifles for hunting? People in the deep woods or Appalachians who use the meat they hunt to provide food for their subsistence? They should lose their ability to provide fresh meat? The government doesn't help them enough and some are just too proud to sign up for it. It's not a way oflife that i would choose but that's their choice, that's their way of life. Who are you to turn them into criminals by outlawing their guns and living that way?

That's incorrect, but outside the scope of this discussion.

I answered that - go back and read. I don't want to :dedhorse:

Yes, it happens all the time.

Again, read the thread. I have only spoken out against handguns.

BTW, you've hurt my feelings.

Well I'm sorry Spexx, I don't want you to hurt your feelings. :comfort:But my god man, you've been arguing for page after page and aren't really saying anything (yes, I know I don't have to read, but I did, and now I'm commenting).
The right to own guns is guaranteed in the constitution, end of story. The need to own guns, however subjective, is clearly felt and has been well explained by several posters. Nucular weapons, future criminals, and fantasy worlds where guns don't exist do not belong in an intelligent conversation about gun rights.

If I felt the need to own a gun, to protect myself and my children, while my husband works long hours in a different state, why would you argue with me? Keep in mind that we don't have local police - just the state police about 1/2 hour away. Why do you think I should, hypothetically, give up my handgun?

I don't think it's the end of the story. The constitution has changed, and will change again. There was no guarantee for women's voting rights in the "original" constitution, now there is. Same with slavery, and alcohol has been ok, forbidden, and made ok again. We're pretty fickle with the constitution.

If you can't imagine a better world, you'll never acheive it.

You can use other means to protect yourselves, like alarms, barbed wire, whatever. Your having handguns available means that handguns are available to others, who can use them against you and yours. No handguns, less chance little Johnny gets accidentally shot by his friend, or purposely shot by his girlfriend's ex-boyfriend.

You can protect yourself with other weapons, including rifle and shotgun. I feel that a world with rifles and shotguns would be better than a world with handguns because they cannot be hidden as easily, and therefore cannot be used in crimes as easily.

There's two good (IMHO) reasons. There's more in the thread.

The difficulty is imagining better people to inhabit this world.

bit from Serenity
Reynolds-Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.

Communism was another one of these wonderful ideas that forgot to consider people.
The gun folks envision a world where criminals are the ones who live in fear. They envision a world where individuals take responsibility for their own saftey. Your vision is in conflict with their vision.

Yeah, I know...that's why I mentioned trite and Cliché. I used it because it's a slogan everyone has seen and accepted or rejected.

Sure, it's like the old, the missing object is always found in the last place you look. Well duh, of course, why would you look in the next place if you've found it? But what I think it really says is, it'll be found far down the list of places you think it might be found.

Same with the original slogan in question. I think that it's a reminder the outlaws will still have them, so making a law depriving citizens doesn't do any good, rather than any one still having one is automatically a criminal.

Btw, anyone thinking I'm a rabid handgunner, no. What I'm rabid about is government, and other groups, restricting me. Telling me what I can do, can't do, own, can't own. Get out of my life! :mad:

Bloody anarchists! ( did I spell that correctly )

Hey, who are you calling a spider? :lol2:

You know what, if I would live in the good ol' US and A, I probably would do the same. Preferably an AK47 or a riot gun, the more deadly the better. Shoot first, ask questions later.

Because EVERY fucking moron has one. Live as the Romans live.

Having said that, I'm glad where I live I don't have to and I sincerely hope that it will never have get to that stage, just as these stupid liability cases, which fortunately doesn't seem to settle down here as well, thank God. I guess it's the price of civil indepence and I prepared to pay that.

I think you misspelled "willingly allows themselves to be a victim."

Perhaps some willfully become a victim of or victimize others through actions related to their fear of being a "willing" victim. Uh, Yeah.

Well if I called you a spider, that would be short for rock spider which is slang for an old man who likes to have sex with young boys.

So no, I wasn't calling anyone here a spider. :)

Which is worst, becoming a victim of loss of posessions, becoming a victim of death, or becoming a killer?

If I weren't prepared to kill in my own self-defense, I wouldn't be carrying.

Emotional arguments that work for you do not necessarily work for others.

What wolf said. If a criminal must die to reduce crime -- of any description -- I can't see harm in it. Some lives are so ill spent that death actually improves matters. Dead men don't kill people and don't steal stuff. Would-be villains who get scared straight when having to make an instant choice between gratifying their unfair and heinous desires and continuing to register a heartbeat are improved thereby. Is this never to be desired?

Of the three choices, becoming a victim of death, untimely, is the worst. Be certain you do not interfere with others' relying upon themselves to save their own lives, or you will be humanity's enemy, and get treated as the barbarian you'd of course be.

Think swords are any less lethal? They're just shorter range, is all, and no need to reload. Might even hurt worse than a bullet.

Sufficiently dead all smells the same.

No.

And there is likely at least one civilian defensive firearms training course in your very own home town. There's one just up the road in the next town from mine. They are there to teach you all of that, from beginning to end. The training is equivalent to what the average policeman receives in his first couple of years on the force.

Don't argue with us, Spexx. Your ignorance is absolute, and indeed it discredits your cause to have so complete a vacuity where your information ought to be, while our knowledge is profound and detailed. You lose, and forever. Those who agree with you lose, not only their fortunes, but their lives along with their sacred honor -- because their igorance is absolute, and their ability to take care of severe problems is nil.

Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas is an essay that may be instructive. Take particular note of the paragraph next to the picture of the cold cuts sandwich on white bread, and the remark to the effect of only the ones who survive have the luxury of worrying about the next day, which I think answers Spexx's fretting about having to live with having killed someone. He doesn't want to, but we've decided we can better live with this than with being dead, about as obvious a no-brainer as I've ever heard of.

Kind of like a suicide vest, is that what you're thinking? :3eye:

Ringer's Paradox comes to our philosophical rescue here, as a freedom restricted [Minimally -- UG] is a freedom preserved, id est, drawing the line at nukes, but not on an ad hoc basis.

See, it is readily enough possible to use a firearm, even a crew-served weapon, as designed and as intended and in a moral manner. It is for all practical purposes impossible to use a nuclear weapon as designed and as intended, in a moral fashion. The only exception I can think of is its use in outer space, an environment already full of hard radiation. The pollution problems, back Earthside, to say nothing of others like overkill, are too severe. The circumstances of a general war are about the only ones where anyone thinks it would be even remotely tolerable, and even then their skin still crawls.

The attempted generator stealing story is in this other thread.

You say that like it's a bad thing.:cool:

Wait, back up, who's having sex with young boys?

And what's wrong with that?

A handgun is just a tool, one made for a specific kind of cover and use.
You can carry it easily, it is easier to use the toilet, drive, keep both hands free, etc, and remain armed. That is all. They are no worse or better than a shotgun.
When there was no law for months and months during the storms our neighborhood's first two actions were to see who had water, power sources, food, medical training and supplies, and firearms with training. We owned our neighborhood and were safe, unlike others who suffered looting and other things that were only reported locally because they did not organize and because they were not guarded.
We were not overt, but if you came into our neighborhood you saw, within moments, that you were watched by someone armed. At night, you were hit with a light and followed with it for a time.
Rifles should not be used for home defense, they go through walls and harm unintended targets. Shotguns are unwieldy and easily taken away in close quarters and around corners.
Handguns are best for home defense, best used with hollow-points... again, a tool for a specific use, not to be imbued with animism.
I have pulled my weapon while working, as I have stated, more than once. The gun was just a tool, always just a tool and I am glad to have had it.

Hmmm...well if some old fart tried to have sex with my boys it would be very bad for that old man.

Sorry, but one more thing. If you plan to protect yourself from something like a home invasion, you'd better have your handgun with you, ready to fire. If your gun is in the bedroom, or locked in a safe, before you can get to the gun the invader will have bashed in your skull with Jim's old bowling trophy.

Now, if you are carrying the gun around the house, or keep it in a convenient place, it's much more likely to be gotten a hold of by the kids, with the result possibly being injury or death. That's a risk I'm not willing to take, in my house with my family. The likelihood of a home invasion is much less than the likelihood of misuse or accident.

I find that a good dog is best for home invaders. Guns are not always close to hand but a dog is foolproof, even more scary than a handgun anyway and will announce itself before you even open the door. Which gives the bad guys a chance to change their little minds.

Works for my truck all the time.

Nah, the best protection is living in a tip. If you can't find anything -neither can they and they'll probaly be too disgusted when they peek through the windows to even bother trying.

That's precisely the point, I'm not telling you what to do in your house. You don't seem to feel the same. :eyebrow:


But yes, guns can be such a bother. Now I have to drive all the way to Boothwyn, must be 3 or 4 miles, to pick up another gun I've won. The 7th I've won IIRC.

How many times have I said V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y?

How many times have I said no? :p

I agree with you on that one Brian. That's why we have one big dog and one small. The small one always barks first, and if she barks like there's actually someone there, the big dog then gets in on the act.

If I was breaking into homes, tazer the dog move-on, if working alone. If working with a partner lock the dog into another room.
Most dogs, unless trained will leave you alone once you are in the house and you give them a treat.
Watch the show about the burglars that now show people how easy it is to break into their homes. The dogs just follow him around until he gets annoyed then he just locks them into a room.

Then recant this:
Since it's precisely NOT the point, as I'm not telling you what to do in your house.

I'm appealing to reason. You don't have to see reason. ;)

You appeal is not reasonable. It's also not logical nor would it be effective.
Use your head...you want me to voluntarily give up just my hand guns. Ok, how do I do that?

If I sell them, then someone else will have them, so how does that help? The guy that buys them might live next door to you.

Maybe I should put them in the Goodwill or Salvation Army collection boxes. That would get them into the right hands, huh?

How about beating them into plowshares? Nope, don't farm anymore.

Are you suggesting I destroy $11,000 worth of hand guns, that aren't hurting anybody, that are safely locked away, that don't make a stinkin' bit of difference in your life or anyone else's but my own, and if destroyed still wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to anyone but me?

Is that what you want, bunkie? Would that put your mind at ease? Would that let you sleep better?

Get a fuckin' life, Hillary. :right:

Most burglaries are spur of the moment things rkz. Very few are planned to any great extent, and I don't buy the suggestion that dogs don't put burglars off. If there's two houses side by side and one has a dog and the other doesn't, which would you pick if you had no specific reason to choose one or the other besides ease of access?

Aside from that, dogs protect the house and yard when there's no one at home. All the guns in the world wont do anything for you if you're not at home to use them.

Surrre, why listen to the professionals, how silly!?

You pick the house you case, the hosue you feel has the best stuff in it, the dog does not enter into it.

Most criminals are lazy rkz. That's why they're criminals. They don't like working hard.

Simply make it as difficult as possible for them to get in and they'll just as likely pass you by and move on to an easier target.

Why would you bother with a house which has a dog or two in the yard. High fences. Security systems and bars or security screens on all the windows and doors along with deadlocks on all of the same when there's a house in the same neighbourhood which has none of the above?

because they have better stuff !!!

To steal the dogfood, of course. :D

Zippy, the point is, there's always going to be easier places for average low tech criminals (the majority are smash and grab) to get into than one where the owner has gone to some effort to protect their home and contents.

I'm not suggesting they don't ''case'' potential sites. What I'm suggesting is they do and then decide it looks like too much work and move onto another place that'll be a shit load easier.

I know ( I used to put alarms in for a liveing ) , useualy they just kick in a door and grab what they can ,
But all that security is like a quest for some !!
They just GOTS to see what these folks are hideing in there !!

Yeah, I've heard that argument before too. Personally I don't have an alarm system because I think they're pretty pointless generally. They go off unnecessarily half the time, and then don't work when they're supposed to.

That being said though, evidence still suggests that most would be burglars will choose the easier place over the hard one.

That high fence and/or shrub is a great blind for them to work behind so your neighbors don't see and hear what they are doing also.

Trust me, my neighbours see and hear everything. lol

Reason? Reason?! You....!!@!
 

Maybe you're being funny, maybe you aren't, but as a reasonable man I assure you you are appealing not to reason but to unreason -- and your own at that.

I am losing patience with you.

You're asking the rest of us to please be victims -- to satisfy your incomplete notion of civilized behavior. That's bullshit, that's immoral, and you need to be struck across the face. You're a pro-crime guy, Spexx, not a civilized man as a martial artist or a Heinlein fan would understand the term. You prove this with every post you make in pursuit of your monomaniac immorality here. We, the civilized, reject your anticivilization viewpoint and all its arguments. Our moral position -- that resisting evil actively is a mitzvah, regardless of how much violence evil may bring into the contest -- is so immeasurably superior to yours that we can keep you in a condition of defeat without effort, and for all time. You may die in your error, Spexx, but you cannot take us in with you.

And then it doesn't hurt to try psychological measures -- like a sign reading:

"Never MIND the Dog! Owner Is Gay and has A History Of Violence."

Sure, he has A History Of Violence -- on DVD.