If you outlaw guns, then only....

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

... 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 ...

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?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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 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.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

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

You could if you shot me.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

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

Well, you really haven't said anything, have you?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

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.

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?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

But since you "don't care about the law" (your own verbatim words),

I don't have to care about the law. I don't own a gun, so I *can't* break the law.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

you indulge in trying to put words in my mouth until you say something that confirms your own moronic little thesis.

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?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

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

Yep. That would be people who have guns.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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.

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."

Originally Posted by Hippikos

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.

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.

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

Are you arguing for or against self protection here?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

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."

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?

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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?

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.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Well, you really haven't said anything, have you?

Yes, I have. Just not what you wanted to hear, so you have remained deaf.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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.

So now it's about me shooting *you*? Are you a burglar? No wonder you want to know what I'll do.

I told you the law would guide my behavior, so "laws can't keep you from shooting me" is just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't have to care about the law. I don't own a gun, so I *can't* break the law

Yes, you can.

The law (you would know this if you would actually READ it) is about justfication and the use of deadly force. Doesn't say a word about guns specifically...could be a knife, a bludgeon, your hands around someone's throat.

You *do* have to care about the law, because it's not about weapons, it's about behavior and responsibility.