Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This story is not pro or anti gun control, obviously, as it was a gun that put the people at risk in the first place.

Erm...the gun didn't do anything. It's inanimate.

What put people at risk was a person with criminal intent.

[piercehawkeye45]

See below.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Erm...the gun didn't do anything. It's inanimate.

God, I hate that line. The fact is that people can use guns, and it is the most effective and easiest way of killing someone. By your logic, we should allow EVERYTHING, even weapons of mass destruction. I want a nuclear weapon, but remember, the bomb isn't at fault, it is mine. So when you send me to jail for blowing up the city of New York it is solely my fault, right? And disallowing the distribution of nuclear weapons would be against people's rights too, right?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

God, I hate that line.

Sorry, but it's the truth; you should get used to it.

Trying to blame inanimate objects for the behavior of people is misdirected animism. As you point out "people can use guns"...and they can also use bludgeons, poisons, explosives and edged weapons. They can also use them for *good* purposes; note that most police carry firearms.

The common element is the people. The issue isn't what tools they have, it's what they do with them.

If you were to blow up New York, would you blame somebody else for "letting you"? Or would you take responsibility for your own actions?

3,000 people died on 9/11; obviously the box-cutters were at fault.

[Undertoad]

http://www.mlive.com/news/fljournal/...850.xml&coll=5

more of the story

"This guy went wild," Pickell said about Ftoyan Novakov, 51, of Sterling Heights, who was shot after he fired at least two bullets into the man's house, broke in and stalked up the stairs toward the man and Novakov's ex-wife. "Our investigation shows the homeowner was defending himself."

Undersheriff James Gage and Lt. Kevin Shanlian said the incident began about 10:25 p.m. when the homeowner, a 41-year-old man, called 911 from his house on Irish Road near Baldwin Road and reported shots were being fired into the house.

He and his girlfriend, Novakov's 42-year-old ex-wife from Macomb Township, retreated to an upstairs bedroom as Novakov threw a whiskey bottle through a window and climbed into the house.

Investigators found that Novakov was armed with a 9 mm handgun with a laser sight.

Gage said a 911 operator could hear the sound of gunshots as the homeowner reported what was happening. The homeowner also said that he was a hunter, and that he had a rifle and needed to defend himself and his girlfriend.

She and the homeowner were in the bedroom trying to hide and protect themselves when Novakov came in, Gage said.

The homeowner then fired his rifle, killing Novakov.

This was ideal approach, clearly the guy was trained. They took position in the remotest section of the house, got behind the bed and waited until the last possible time to shoot, acting totally in defense and giving every opportunity for the shooting not to happen.

[piercehawkeye45]

Did the homeowners know Novakov?

The homeowner did the right thing, he couldn't have done much different.

[Hippikos]

Home owner had an AK47, the intruder had a 9 mm handgun with a laser sight, while MaggieL proudly poses with a rifle with telescope. Only in the US and A (and Iraq).

The homeowner also said that he was a hunter, and that he had a rifle and needed to defend himself and his girlfriend.

AK47 for hunting?? bin-Laden?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Home owner had an AK47, the intruder had a 9 mm handgun with a laser sight, while MaggieL proudly poses with a rifle with telescope.

Actually, I do have a (semi-auto) AK, also. And a 9mm. They're just not in that photo. Fortunately I don't have to "justify" them to the likes of you...or I'd be just as disarmed as you are, and reduced to spouting "sour grapes."

I did explain that the .22 is a target rifle. One of the things the Pink Pistols do is training.

[piercehawkeye45]

Cause that is so much better than both the homeowner and wife dead in their own home...

Guns is a problem you can't avoid or solve. You have to prevent, and the US is probably the worst country in the western world in preventing crime.

[piercehawkeye45]

Trying to blame inanimate objects for the behavior of people is misdirected animism. As you point out "people can use guns"...and they can also use bludgeons, poisons, explosives and edged weapons.

As I said before, guns are the easiest and most efficient method of killing someone. Lets just give everyone the anthrax virus as well and see what happens.

They can also use them for *good* purposes; note that most police carry firearms.

And the US has a stockpile of nuclear weapons for *good* purposes too. It's called an arms race; if criminals didn't have guns then police wouldn't either.

The common element is the people. The issue isn't what tools they have, it's what they do with them.

Obviously no one thinks that guns shoot people without a person's consent, that is idiotic. But the fact that guns make killing people easier, that is what people are scared about. Everyone knows that you can get a knife and stab someone but it is a lot easier to shoot a person and if you take the gun away, people's lives may be saved because someone won’t go through more trouble to kill a person.

If you were to blow up New York, would you blame somebody else for "letting you"? Or would you take responsibility for your own actions?

How about we give a five year old a gun and say how evil your neighbor is and how happy you would be if he got killed and the kid takes the hint. It is all the kid’s fault right? Don't say, “well, the kid doesn't know any better” because adults act the same way so don't give me that bullshit.

3,000 people died on 9/11; obviously the box-cutters were at fault.

Actually the real analogy would be the planes were at fault since no one was killed directly by the box cutters but I get your point nevertheless. Once again, I speak for the majority when we agree that "guns" itselves aren't at fault for the killings but it is the convenience of it that is at fault. If we didn't have airplanes 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If it were harder to hijack airplanes 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If proper screening was used 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Catch my drift?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

...if you take the gun away, people's lives may be saved because someone won’t go through more trouble to kill a person.

You actually believe that? That someone intent on mayhem would decide not to becuse "it's too hard"?

How childishly naive.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

How about we give a five year old a gun and say how evil your neighbor is and how happy you would be if he got killed and the kid takes the hint. It is all the kid’s fault right? Don't say, “well, the kid doesn't know any better” because adults act the same way so don't give me that bullshit.

Is your moral responsibility actually comparable to a five-year old's? That's what you just said..."adults act the same way". Why the last minute rhetorical bait-and-switch?

Uh...you *are* an adult, arent you? Your apparent naïveté makes me wonder.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

..."guns" itselves aren't at fault for the killings but it is the convenience of it that is at fault. If we didn't have airplanes 9/11 wouldn't have happened...Catch my drift?

No, it would have happened. But it would have happened differently. In fact it almost did happen differently in 1993....1,500 pounds of fertilizer and fuel oil in a rental truck. Not particularly convenient. And dying in a hijacked plane would strike me as the ultimate inconvenience.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

It's called an arms race; if criminals didn't have guns then police wouldn't either.

No, that's not called "an arms race". That's called "a fantasy". Criminals manufacture guns in prison every day.

[piercehawkeye45]

You actually believe that? That someone intent on mayhem would decide not to becuse "it's too hard"?

How childishly naive.

Maybe you just don't get it. Like I said before, guns are the easiest, most efficient way of killing someone. If you don't have a gun it may take longer for you to get a chance to kill the person. In this extended period, the constant anger will lessen and you have more time to think over your decision and turn back on it. Or you could make it harder to get a gun (preferable) since the same effect will happen if you have to wait a week to get a gun opposed to two hours. It won’t stop all if not even the majority of killings, but if someone’s life is saved then maybe it would be worth it.

Is your moral responsibility actually comparable to a five-year old's? That's what you just said..."adults act the same way". Why the last minute rhetorical bait-and-switch?

Killing someone to gain respect from peers would be comparable to my example.

No, it would have happened. But it would have happened differently. In fact it almost did happen differently in 1993....1,500 pounds of fertilizer and fuel oil in a rental truck. Not particularly convenient. And dying in a hijacked plane would strike me as the ultimate inconvenience.

In some situations you are right, in some I am. You need to stop thinking in black and white, the level of anger it takes someone to consider to kill another varies. If someone killed my family and ruined my life, whether there are guns or not there is a good chance I will kill that person. If someone beats me on the street I may kill that person out of initial anger later that night but if I have to wait another two days, it may not be worth it.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You need to stop thinking in black and white, the level of anger it takes someone to consider to kill another varies.

If you think you might kill out of anger, rather than in accordance with the legal principles for the justified use of deadly force, then please don't arm yourself; you're not up to the responsibility.

Suggested reading: Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

If you think you might kill out of anger, rather than in accordance with the legal principles for the justified use of deadly force, then please don't arm yourself; you're not up to the responsibility.

Well what if I really want a gun, you know, for "protection".