If you outlaw guns, then only....
"He had a 9-milimeter semiautomatic pistol, two shotguns, a stun gun, two knives, two cans of gunpowder and 600 rounds of ammunition."
"They're still looking for an AK-47 he stole from his parents' house," Sergeant Gervasi said."
:rattat: :shotgun: :rollanim: :cop:
Yay America!!! Yay NRA!!! Yay guns!!!
If I don't like this country, I should move to another. Netherlands? Sweeden?
We've got some pretty strict gun laws over here Panglo. :) You're not even allowed to own a hand gun unless you're in a gun club and even then there are very strict laws as to what is acceptable and what's not. You can't own a semi-automatic unless you're a farmer and even then again, it's sometimes difficult. You can own a shotgun though, or just about any kind of rifle provided it's not semi or automatic.
Try Switzerland....
Their laws require every household to have access to arms......
when did you last hear of a school massacre in Switzerland?
Try Switzerland....
Their laws require every household to have access to arms......
And laws also require every person be trained even more than what is required for a driver's license. Not everyone in Switzerland has a gun. Some are denied guns for obvious reasons. Extensive, repetitive training and responsibility tend to identify and deny guns to those who are not responsible. In America - screw responsibility. One can be so irresponsible as to be denied a driver's license - and still have rights to a gun.
Again, no one (except extremists) is talking about banning guns. Responsible behavior that is missing in America and not missing in Switzerland. Why so much hype about rights and so little demand for reponsibility? Without responsibility, then no rights exist. Or do guns instead provide those rights?
You can be smart around firearms or stupid around them.
Fear often leads to stupidity.
Fear often leads to stupidity.
Perceived fear is the enemy here. America has a screwed-up idea of media to thank for that.
Remove the prejudice from media and you have your solution, just how that’s ever going to be achieved I don't know, especially when we consider how much political power and media are so heavily intertwined in this modern world.
EDIT: An unhealthy obsession with guns and ammo & shit doesn't help much either. Perhaps a change in role models is required.
If I don't like this country, I should move to another. Netherlands? Sweeden?
Indeed...and do take that animistic idea that objects can be implicitly evil (rather than people) with you.
An unhealthy obsession with guns and ammo & shit doesn't help much either.
Phobias aren't healthy either. Hoplophobia comes to mind.
This thread is balanced. That makes me warm and fuzzy inside. Carry on.
I noticed that hoplophobia, which I at first thought was the fear of rabbits, is not recognized in the DSM.
I think I'm suffering from pseudophobiaphobia!:rolleyes:
This thread is balanced. That makes me warm and fuzzy inside. Carry on.
Don't get all noodley on us.
What does the gun freedom contingent propose as a solution? The facts that they lay out seem to be, and please correct me if I'm wrong:
- Guns are no more responsible for the high rate of firearm deaths in our country than spoons are for the low rate of spoon deaths - if it weren't for humans, there would be no deaths from either weapon.
- Everybody who passes "the screening" should be able to carry a handgun, and should carry said weapon.
- Americans have a constitutional right to possess firearms, and the constitution should not be changed, including all that stuff about no slaves and allowing women to vote.
- Eliminating hand guns would not reduce the level of damage being done, any more than making rocket propelled grenades legal and easy to get would increase the level of damage.
- Fear and stupidity are leading causes of problems associates with firearms.
- Making guns illegal would ensure that only criminals had guns, making the rest of the population helpless victims, just as those of us without guns are helpless victims now.
- Making guns illegal will create a whole new “gun smuggling” industry.
- As much damage can be done using a knife as using a gun.
- A rifle or shotgun will not be as useful defending yourself/your possessions as a handgun will be.
- There are many armed bad people near all of us, just waiting for us to be unarmed, so that we can be killed or our possessions taken from us. Shooting those people is obviously the only way this situation can be resolved.
- Since it’s illegal for students and teachers to possess gun on school grounds, they won’t.
- A legally armed person is less likely to soot someone than an unarmed person.
- Having the right to possess a handgun is more important than saving the lives of innocent young girls. Especially Amish ones.
Wrapping up: the availability of handguns in our society is not the problem, since other countries have even greater rate of handgun possession, but not nearly the rate of handgun crime that we have. So, all you second ammendmenters, how do we lower the rate of handgun-associated crime in the US?
Wrapping up: the availability of handguns in our society is not the problem, since other countries have even greater rate of handgun possession, but not nearly the rate of handgun crime that we have. So, all you second ammendmenters, how do we lower the rate of handgun-associated crime in the US?
Enforce other laws. Drug laws, crimes committed with firearms laws, etc. Send felons found in possession of illegal firearms back to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200, etc.
Stop rewarding broken families.
Interrupting the inner-city culture where drug dealers are seen as being cool, successful, and hip is the hard part. Selling someone on working for minimum wage at Mickey D's over the hundreds that fall out of your pocket by working your way up in the drug trade is not an easy thing.
and the constitution should not be changed, including all that stuff about no slaves and allowing women to vote.
This country has a long tradition of using violence to solve problems, as well as a very deep anti-intellectualism. The ideals of the Enlightenment were not pronounced in the Colonies, and by the time of Westward expansion, guns & violence (with a heavy dose of Christian righteousness) were par for the course. When the British occupied Boston and used guns to do so, the locals resorted to guns themselves; this is not surprising. Debate over the 2nd Ammendment often centers on what was meant at the time by the "right to bear arms" as opposed to what people today want it to mean. As you pointed out, it's important to consider the historical context of the Constitution and its Ammendments. Slavery and sufferage, as well as "the right to bear arms," were all part of a historical and philosophical evolution, one that still is going on today.
Maggie overeacts by posting that presumptuous and condescending article about an alleged "phobia" of those who, like me, just don't care for guns and have found that many gun-owners are themselves fanatical, paranoid, and equally phobic in their own way. Besides, I'm not taking away Maggie's gun or her alledged "right" to own it. If I did, she'd probably shoot me anyway.
I gotta go to my black helicopter now.:neutral:
What you fail to understand about Maggie, is that she would never shoot you, unless she was in threat of losing her life.
This is what separates Maggie (and myself) from the homies that are engaged in population control in North and West Philadelphia lately.
she would never shoot you, unless she was in threat of losing her life.
OK. I suppose. At least she would shoot me virtually, wouldn't she? I'll do it for her:
:shotgun: :neutral:
Maggie Pangloss62
That actually felt pretty good...I must be a masochist.
Don't get all noodley on us.
On this topic at least, you can refer to wolf's opinions to get mine. Slang too, iirc. Guns=good. Lock away those who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us alone.
I noticed that hoplophobia, which I at first thought was the fear of rabbits, is not recognized in the DSM.
That is a great point, Shawnee!
That is a great point, Shawnee!
Why, thank you. I'm staying out of the debate because I've had all the conflict I can take for one week, but I thought it was important to note!
Try Switzerland....
Their laws require every household to have access to arms......
when did you last hear of a school massacre in Switzerland?
Not EVERY household, just those where men between the ages of 18 and 60 reside. Switzerland has a true militia. All adult men train for 6 weeks every year or two years (I forget which). They keep their guns at home in case there is a national emergency where Switzerland must quickly deploy to protect its borders. Obviously, the Swiss do not issue a gun to a guy who is schizophrenic or something, but other than that...
This armed citizenry was one reason Hitler never invaded Switzerland. He could have done it, probably, but at an extremely high cost which he was not willing to pay.
As others have mentioned, the problem here in the US is cultural. We are a far more diverse country than Switzerland. Switzerland also has far less stringent drug laws. You can walk into a Swiss pharmacy and buy nearly anything you want WITHOUT a prescription. And finally, Switzerland does not suffer from the legacy of slavery which we in the US must stil deal with every day. For example, one in six black American men between the ages of 18 and 30 are in or will be in prison.
We need to work on US societal issues, not ban guns.
My great grandfather should have stayed in Switzerland.
What you fail to understand about Maggie, is that she would never shoot you, unless she was in threat of losing her life.
No, she would shoot someone if she
thought she was in threat of losing her life.
This is what separates Maggie (and myself) from the homies that are engaged in population control in North and West Philadelphia lately.
So those folks don't think they are in threat of losing their lives? Really?
Why do we always blame guns instead of the crazy bastards who use them to commit atrocities? Would we want to outlaw hands if he'd just raped and strangled them after?
Crazies are crazies. Tragedy is tragedy. The biggest tragedy in the Amish case is that the crazy SOB didn't just kill himself first and leave the innocents out of it. Some broken people can't or won't be fixed, and they do really bad things. This guy was a self-professed child molester from his teenage years, apparently, and it just went downhill from there. If he hadn't had access to guns, how do we know he wouldn't have just gone and stabbed them all to death, or bludgeoned them?
So those folks don't think they are in threat of losing their lives? Really?
An interesting question. Is a drug dealer shooting a rival drug dealer constitute a justifiable shooting in self defense?
That's pretty easy ... the answer is "no."
Why do we always blame guns instead of the crazy bastards who use them to commit atrocities? Would we want to outlaw hands if he'd just raped and strangled them after?
There's a word for people like you, you HANDOPHOBE you! :rolleyes:
:)
Hey, I'm all for a Federal Hand Control Law. I think the way they do things in Muslim countries would also belie the old saw, "When hands are outlawed, only outlaws will have hands"...'cause they cut 'em off.
Hey, I'm all for a Federal Hand Control Law. I think the way they do things in Muslim countries would also belie the old saw, "When hands are outlawed, only outlaws will have hands"...'cause they cut 'em off.
Oh yeah? Well, you can have my hands when you pry them from my cold, dead...uh, hands? (sheepishly backs away)
Oh yeah? Well, you can have my hands when you pry them from my cold, dead...uh, hands? (sheepishly backs away)
Classic.
An interesting question. Is a drug dealer shooting a rival drug dealer constitute a justifiable shooting in self defense?
...
That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with, Wolf.
Oh yeah? Well, you can have my hands when you pry them from my cold, dead...uh, hands? (sheepishly backs away)
Except that, in sandier parts of the world, that phrase is more like, "You can have my hands when you hack them from my warm, blood-gushing wrists".
That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with, Wolf.
It's your brush, I just dipped it into a different color of paint for you.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
I'm 100% against gun use and guns in general.
But as long as there ARE guns, everyone fit to own one should be allowed to. Either everyone or NO ONE. And I mean like, shutting down every gun plant, every bullet factory, everything, melting down ALL the guns... etc.
This, of course, will never happen. Therefore, I'm going to stay out of gun laws. I can't with a clear conscience pull for the LOOSENING of gun laws, but I can't pull for tightening them either.
All I can say is, I aint gonna get one.
Are you saying that most of the killings in Philadelphia are
drug dealer shooting a rival drug dealer
?
I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be shot you'd be all 'Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!' And people'd think before they shot someone 'Man I will blow your fucking head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!' And even if you get shot you wouldn't need to go to the emergency room. Whoever shot you'd take their bullet back. 'I believe you got my property?'
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
I'm 100% against gun use and guns in general.
But as long as there ARE guns, everyone fit to own one should be allowed to. Either everyone or NO ONE. And I mean like, shutting down every gun plant, every bullet factory, everything, melting down ALL the guns... etc.
This, of course, will never happen. Therefore, I'm going to stay out of gun laws. I can't with a clear conscience pull for the LOOSENING of gun laws, but I can't pull for tightening them either.
All I can say is, I aint gonna get one.
Are you in favor of enforcing the laws on the books?
A number of years ago they started a system of instant checks. When you want to buy a gun you have to fill out a form. The seller then calls the info in and they give him a yes or no, on whether you are eligible. Thousands of people who are not eligible have tried unsuccessfully, hoping it would slip through, even though just trying it is a federal crime.
Guess how many of those thousands of people have been prosecuted?
zero. :eyebrow:
Are you saying that most of the killings in Philadelphia are
[drug dealer shooting rival drug dealer]
?
I won't put words in wolf's mouth, but *I* think they are.
Criminals with illegal guns can't go to the range to practice, so their aim sucks (even if in the unlikely event they're not high at the time), so the collateral damage rate is very high.
I'd say the vast majority of the shootings in Philly are young males shooting at each other over drugs; either territory or money. In the case of shootings over women, it's both territory and drugs, the drug being testosterone.
Are you saying that most of the killings in Philadelphia are
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf
drug dealer shooting a rival drug dealer
?
Yes, that is what I'm saying.
I disagree. There are lot's of reasons for shootings, not just the knee-jerk racist (no I di'int) conclusion that it must be crime/drugs. I heard an interesting take on the news this morning. A young black man (who would know better than a mature suburban woman) said that it was all about pride. If someone gets the better of you (nonlethally, of course), you're likely to go get your piece and show him who's a bitch. That's in his neighborhood, anyway. Could be a woman, basketball, parking spot, anything that disses someone.
anything that disses someone.
Indeed. I think it's this notion of having felt "dissed" that fuels much of the violence, particularly within urban AA culture. And responding to being "dissed" is elevated to an extreme level. That is why I see so many young Black men here in the ATL wearing Scarface T-shirts. The Scarface character takes on hero status for the way he responded to being dissed ("Say hello to my little friend!!!":rattat: ).
Of course, having such a character as a "hero" is very disturbing. In fact, I see so many disturbing things in much of urban AA culture that it makes me feel awkwardly racist. But I can't help noticing.:worried:
It's too bad that that particular moment in Scarface is what makes it so popular. He's so coked up that he can't feel the fact that he's been shot multiple times. Great.
It's gonna be on the tube this weekend. I never watched it all the way through. Is it worth the time? 4 out of 5 stars? 3 stars?:neutral:
I liked Dog Day Afternoon myself.
Is it worth the time?
I don't think so. Michelle Pfeiffer's character nailed the whole movie when she said something like "Does every other word out of your mouth have to be "fuck?"
I disagree. There are lot's of reasons for shootings, not just the knee-jerk racist (no I di'int) conclusion that it must be crime/drugs. I heard an interesting take on the news this morning. A young black man (who would know better than a mature suburban woman) said that it was all about pride. If someone gets the better of you (nonlethally, of course), you're likely to go get your piece and show him who's a bitch. That's in his neighborhood, anyway. Could be a woman, basketball, parking spot, anything that disses someone.
If it's about "pride," then what's different in the nature or nuture of young black men that they feel the need to kill each other over stupid crap like that?
If it's about "pride," then what's different in the nature or nuture of young black men that they feel the need to kill each other over stupid crap like that?
They don't have much else to be proud of (and this goes for Hispanics, White, Asians, all who get into this society). For the most part they come from a poor family with a lack of unity, schools that are underfunded with teachers who are overworked and who are not even "good" teachers because those schools cannot attract them, the unemployment rate is high, substance abuse is high...and the upper classes look down upon them and make them feel worthless. They are acting out and if they cannot make themselves respectable to the upper classes, atleast they can make their own peers respect/fear them.
That is why reform is so necessary, we need to concentrate our resources on improving schools, healthcare, employment agencies, scholorship funding, afterschool programs, immigration laws, ect ect. NOT on banning guns, stopping those awful gays from ruining heterosexual marriage, building more prisons, jailing homeless and prostitutes (what a ridiculous law!), all these things and more waste money that could go towards mending our societal problems at the root, not just pruning the leaves.
what's different in the nature or nuture of young black men that they feel the need to kill each other over stupid crap like that?
Maybe they don't feel like they have more important stuff to kill each other over.:neutral: I don't really know the answer. But it's an excellent question. I would consult a team made up of an anthropologist, psychologist, and a sociologist. Or perhaps ask the young black men themselves.:neutral:
If it's about "pride," then what's different in the nature or nuture of young black men that they feel the need to kill each other over stupid crap like that?
Why not start a new thread for that?
Is anyone watching this season of "The Wire" on HBO? It gets into a lot of the stuff in morethanpretty's post.
If it's about "pride," then what's different in the nature or nuture of young black men that they feel the need to kill each other over stupid crap like that?
Pride, need to win, gang mentality, no respect for a human life, fear of others, a mistake ... it all comes from the same mindset. Like it or not - and most apparently don't like the expression - it is called a 'big dic' mentality. A concept not just reserved for lying politicians. Common when the brain does not do the thinking. A problem not limited to one sex.
...it is called a 'big dic' mentality.
I was hoping this was a flash-in-the-pan phrase, but if you're going to keep using it, for God's sake it's spelled "big dic
k."
To me, the nonchalant violence in urban culture was always reminiscent of the Asian social concept of "honor." Which is weird, when you think about the drastically different direction each group went with it.
....spelled "big dick.
Or maybe "big dic
e"
Originally Posted by Ibram
I'm 100% against gun use and guns in general.
But as long as there ARE guns, everyone fit to own one should be allowed to. Either everyone or NO ONE. And I mean like, shutting down every gun plant, every bullet factory, everything, melting down ALL the guns... etc.
Ibram, do you believe that there is such a thing as justifiable homicide (e.g. killing another person in self defense or to save another's life)? A perpetrator doesn't have to have a firearm to pose a lethal threat; so, even if ALL firearms were absent from society a lethal threat level would still exist. If you accept justifiable homicide, what do you believe would be the most effective
and humane way of accomplishing this if not with a firearm? :confused:
Or maybe "big dice"
dictiphone?
I disagree. There are lot's of reasons for shootings, not just the knee-jerk racist (no I di'int) conclusion that it must be crime/drugs. I heard an interesting take on the news this morning. A young black man (who would know better than a mature suburban woman) said that it was all about pride. If someone gets the better of you (nonlethally, of course), you're likely to go get your piece and show him who's a bitch. That's in his neighborhood, anyway. Could be a woman, basketball, parking spot, anything that disses someone.
That's why I cited "territory" and included testosterone as a drug. You can dismiss me as "living in the suburbs" today, but I grew up in Northwest Philadelphia and live only a few miles from John Street's hometown of Norristown.
I would say calling crime and drugs a "knee-jerk racist conclusion" (especially considering up until that point nobody had mentioned race that I noticed) would have to be itself a "knee-jerk racist conclusion". A cultural value that endorses soothing injured self-esteem with assault with a deadly weapon isn't a racial value...is it? It's a crime.
And regardless of whether it's racial or not, I'm unwilling to be disarmed on the excuse "there's cities full of young males who are violent because they are victims of society and can't help themseves; it's easier to 'solve' these problems by disarming you than by jailing them and those who illegally sold them their weapons.".
http://www.capindex.com/images/products/SampleRegional_tract.pdf should be interesting viewing for folks who know the Philadelphia area and have the patence to wait for the download and subsquent PDF formatting.
... it's easier to 'solve' these problems by disarming you than by jailing them and those who illegally sold them their weapons.".
...
And there's another conflict. You have voiced opposition to taxes in the past. Who pays for the prisons, guards, etc? Since these guys surely shouldn't be allowed back on the streets ever (:rolleyes: ) the cost will be staggering, not to mention the space that'll be needed to contain these people. Got a solution to that?
I'm unwilling to be disarmed on the excuse "...".
So there is an excuse you would be willing to be disarmed on? Which excuse is it? :)
And there's another conflict. You have voiced opposition to taxes in the past. Who pays for the prisons, guards, etc? Since these guys surely shouldn't be allowed back on the streets ever (:rolleyes: ) the cost will be staggering, not to mention the space that'll be needed to contain these people. Got a solution to that?
Maybe we end the War on Drugs and use the empty cells for violent criminals? Of course a lot of the violence appears to be around the illegal drug culture so maybe those cells would stay empty.
The real cost of the war on drugs make Iraq look like pocket change.
Also, if you allow someone to dis you in front of your home boys, you'll have to leave town and not come back. If you shoot the scumbag that had the nerve to dis you, you'll be cool. If you get caught and go to jail, you're still leaving town but you can come back....at a higher status too.
The whole concept, the reasoning behind that attitude just blows my mind.:smack:
Ok, gun control aside, would there be fewer deaths in America if there were no handguns? Simple question: only Yes or No answers accepted.
My answer: Yes.
There were 2,400,000 deaths in the US in 2004. Apx. 30,000 of these were due to handguns. More than half that number are suicides.
The handgun self-defense rate is said to be much, much higher than the handgun murder rate. I vote no, more deaths without handguns.
No. People will just kill each other with rocks and baseball bats. If you have murder in your heart, it will come out one way or the other.
Pangloss, you, by your philosophy of life and antigun sentiments, are incapable of resisting genocide, to effect. You may open your mouth to deplore it, but that won't keep you out of the "shower." I'm sure lots of Jews (and Christian Scientists and Gypsies) hollered "No, don't do this!" even louder than you would.
How many live now?
Contrariwise, MaggieL and I, for two, are the ones who by the mere act of owning guns keep you safe from genocide (remember genocide sneaks up on its victims -- starts with a con-job, ends in an Auschwitz). Now why, exactly, should it be only we two to bear that load? You can do your share by attaining skill with firearms and other killing tools, Pangloss.
Pacifism or passivism makes you dead. We resent like hell the prospect of being dragged down to Gehenna with you! When it comes to stopping the Einsatzkommandos, for the avoidable hatreds that set them up were already present, and a basic emotion like hatred will always be among humans, there's nothing like a 7.92mm Mauser slug transecting the brain for doing the stopping -- and justice also, no?
The JPFO's argument that gun control (air quotes if you like, as "control" always takes the form of some sort of actual ban) is the handmaiden of episodes of genocide, sometimes taking decades before the slaughter happens (viz., Cambodia) has never been refuted or rebutted. The idea's been in the public arena for a dozen years now, and no counterargument has ever been put forth.
Before you try and dismiss me as some insensitive crank, consider that I am a decent man who is offended by pogroms. And I can help make one into a fizzle. What's your story? Can you actually claim to have a moral position? If you can't kill a State's barbarians, no you cannot.
I've considered that you were a decent man before, but not for very long.
Ok, gun control aside, would there be fewer deaths in America if there were no handguns? Simple question: only Yes or No answers accepted.
My answer: Yes.
Where Spexx errs here is that he thinks all deaths are equivalent: he is setting an Amish junior high schooler's death at the same value as Charles Carl Robert's death. He forgets: one was innocent. It is moral to value innocent life over that of the perp.
With defensive, proper, non-police uses of guns, and these are mostly of handguns because of their portability (a long arm you bear, a pistol you wear) running at about two and a half million annually -- mostly without a shot being fired -- Spexx's views are dangerously behind the curve and can get Spexx or his loved ones killed much more easily than, say, my views on the matter.
There is a LOT here that you simply don't know, Spexx. I can recommend you a reading list that will at least allow you to speak intelligently.
I've considered that you were a decent man before, but all evidence argues against.
Ibbie, that you've developed an ego-driven teenager's dislike of me does not exactly erode my decency! LOL.
(I seem to have grabbed your post for quoting before you edited it. There may be illumination in comparing first and second drafts.)
Ok, gun control aside, would there be fewer deaths in America if there were no handguns? Simple question: only Yes or No answers accepted.
My answer: Yes.
My answer: No.
Your bathtub is more dangerous than my handgun.
And there's another conflict. You have voiced opposition to taxes in the past. Who pays for the prisons, guards, etc? Since these guys surely shouldn't be allowed back on the streets ever (:rolleyes: ) the cost will be staggering, not to mention the space that'll be needed to contain these people. Got a solution to that?
I'm not opposed to all taxes. But one problem here is that too much of the taxes collected in Philadelphia are spent on the Mayor's cronys and other bullshit rather than on enforcing the law.
So there is an excuse you would be willing to be disarmed on?
No.
Ibbie, that you've developed an ego-driven teenager's dislike of me does not exactly erode my decency! LOL.
(I seem to have grabbed your post for quoting before you edited it. There may be illumination in comparing first and second drafts.)
Hey, same meaning, I just edited it cause the second sounds better.
And this isnt ego-driven, it's hatred-driven. Youre a genuinely bad person.
I noticed that hoplophobia, which I at first thought was the fear of rabbits, is not recognized in the DSM.
Yes, and homosexuality used to be *in* the DSM. Stuff goes in and out of the DSM for political reasons all the time.
I vote for someone to give Ibram a gun to shoot UG!:rolleyes:
I vote for someone to give Ibram a gun to shoot UG!
Inciting another, especially an impressionable juvenile, to violence shows a lack of moral fiber and ethical responsibility on your part, Mari, not that I'm surprised.
Ok, gun control aside, would there be fewer deaths in America if there were no handguns? Simple question: only Yes or No answers accepted.
You don't get to control the discussion. Who do you think you are, tw?
Do you understand that most legal defensive uses of firearms--about three-quarters of them--don't involve actually firing the weapon, but simply being willing to do so? When we include cases where only a warning shot was fired, the rate rises to 92%.
That's the major fallacy of the "guns have no purpose besides killing" crowd. Of course, those cases are almost never reported by the media, and are often not reported to the cops. Legal defensive use of firearms involving discharging the weapon is seriously unreported in the media as well.
Oh..by the way:
When we got organized as a country, we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans. There’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it.
That's the major fallacy of the "guns have no purpose besides killing" crowd.
Exactly. Let's not forget pistol whipping.
This is my pistol
This is my gun
One is for whipping
One is for shooting bullets.:blush:
Inciting another, especially an impressionable juvenile, to violence shows a lack of moral fiber and ethical responsibility on your part, Mari, not that I'm surprised.
Especially the fact that she's voting for
someone else to provide the gun. Ever the good Socialist... :-)
Especially the fact that she's voting for someone else to provide the gun. Ever the good Socialist... :-)
What? Suggesting a vote is socialist? :rolleyes: And I doubt that Ibram is going to go off on a murder spree because of a joking comment. UG might, though.:worried:
What? Suggesting a vote is socialist?
No, wanting somebody else to provide for the gun is. (Wanting to subject matters of personal responsibiility to a popular vote only gets a collectivist "honorable mention".)
It's amusing that the impulse is so deeply ingrained in you that you couldn't figure that out (even though the key phrase is italicized).
No. People will just kill each other with rocks and baseball bats. If you have murder in your heart, it will come out one way or the other.
I think you could kill me with a gun. I'd like you to try to kill me with a rock or bat. :cool:
Where Spexx errs here is that he thinks all deaths are equivalent: he is setting an Amish junior high schooler's death at the same value as Charles Carl Robert's death. He forgets: one was innocent. It is moral to value innocent life over that of the perp.
With defensive, proper, non-police uses of guns, and these are mostly of handguns because of their portability (a long arm you bear, a pistol you wear) running at about two and a half million annually -- mostly without a shot being fired -- Spexx's views are dangerously behind the curve and can get Spexx or his loved ones killed much more easily than, say, my views on the matter.
There is a LOT here that you simply don't know, Spexx. I can recommend you a reading list that will at least allow you to speak intelligently.
Where urb errs here is that he thinks he knows what Spexx thinks.
My answer: No.
Your bathtub is more dangerous than my handgun.
Yeah, I read in the liberal media about all the bathtub murders last year. Is my bathtub as dangerous as you
without a gun?
I'm not opposed to all taxes. But one problem here is that too much of the taxes collected in Philadelphia are spent on the Mayor's cronys and other bullshit rather than on enforcing the law.
Oh, so now your a socialist - you want others to help pay for the additional prisons
you want. What a collectivist! (when the collection suits you).
You don't pay Philadelphia taxes, so you have no right to complain. And the point about how they're spent? Nice straw man, Mags.:right:
No, wanting somebody else to provide for the gun is. (Wanting to subject matters of personal responsibiility to a popular vote only gets a collectivist "honorable mention".)
It's amusing that the impulse is so deeply ingrained in you that you couldn't figure that out (even though the key phrase is italicized).
Maggie, stop taking yourself so damn seriously. It was a joke. Get it? J-O-K-E. While I don't advocate banning guns, I don't advocate giving them away for free, either.:rolleyes:
I think you could kill me with a gun. I'd like you to try to kill me with a rock or bat.
Heh! You gotta go to sleep SOMETIME! (That was a joke, too). ;)
My doors and windows have locks.;)
Maggie, stop taking yourself so damn seriously. It was a joke. Get it? J-O-K-E.
Many a true word is spoken in jest. You reveal more of yourself then you'd like to sometimes.
Dayum, maggs, I think she's right this time, chill out a bit dearie.
I think you could kill me with a gun. I'd like you to try to kill me with a rock or bat. :cool:
Probably have more luck with the rock or bat, most people can't hit the side of a barn with a bullet, they might shoot of a whole round and still not hit you. But one hard swing with a blunt object...messier and more painful too...
I would prefer death by bullet, not that it is at all likely to happen.
Those people who can't hit the broad side of a barn with a bullet probabaly won't be knocking you out with a bat either.
Many a true word is spoken in jest. You reveal more of yourself then you'd like to sometimes.
No, Maggie, you just have paranoid fantasies from reading too much Ayn Rand. Liberal does NOT = collectivist. I do NOT advocate turning the US into a socialist nation, only the Republic it was once intended to be. You're the one who is advocating the destruction of our personal liberties by saying torture, breaking the Geneva Convention, and throwing out the 6th Amendment is a wonderful thing. You reveal too much of yourself, also, Maggie. and your problem is that you're dead serious when you do it.
But its not worth arguing with you. You're a fundamentalist Neocon who worships Jr. as your savior.
What about the one about the bavarian creme pie? There's no truth to that! Nobody who's about to die goes thousands of miles for a slice of pie, then when they don't have it just says 'okay, I'll have the coffee then'!
No, Maggie, you just have paranoid fantasies from reading too much Ayn Rand. Liberal does NOT = collectivist. I do NOT advocate turning the US into a socialist nation, only the Republic it was once intended to be. You're the one who is advocating the destruction of our personal liberties by saying torture, breaking the Geneva Convention, and throwing out the 6th Amendment is a wonderful thing. You reveal too much of yourself, also, Maggie. and your problem is that you're dead serious when you do it.
But its not worth arguing with you. You're a fundamentalist Neocon who worships Jr. as your savior.
I bet MaggieL is looking under bed every night before going to sleep. There might be a
socialist there...
"A man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject. Our forefathers knew this to be true..... Why do so many of us question their wisdom?""To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason~
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." —Jeff Snyder
TJ on Disarming Public
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
-- Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 45 (Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788).
“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.”
-- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).
“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426, June 16, 1788
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified
in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would
be justified in silencing mankind.”- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard
even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he
establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ”- Thomas Paine,
Dissertation On First Principles Of Government
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
If guns are that important to maintaining freedom and liberty, wouldn't tanks, anthrax, nerve gas and nukular weapons be even better?
If guns are the critical factor to maintaining freedom and liberty, why isn't Iraq free? It's loaded with guns.
They're trying, don't you keep hearing the reports of more and more deaths there?
To (some of) them, killing Americans LEADS to freedom. Freedom from American opression.
North Korea should be very free, now that they have nukular weapons.;)
"People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of their people"
This is my pistol
This is my gun
One is for whipping
One is for shooting bullets.:blush:
How did I miss this? Esp. with my highly martial ancestry.
And I doubt that Ibram is going to go off on a murder spree because of a joking comment. UG might, though.:worried:
Or I might just content myself with giving you an Atomic Counter-Rotating Tittie Twister. With spray-can whipped cream. ;)
With the turn this part of the thread is taking, there might be some peripheral relevance to this in a thread I just started over in Philosophy: "Be Wary Of Strong Drink..."
Hey, same meaning, I just edited it cause the second sounds better.
And this isnt ego-driven, it's hatred-driven. Youre a genuinely bad person.
No. And you'll just have to accept that, even if you cannot understand it.
I'm having a hard time keeping all the genuinely bad people sorted out. UG, are the the one who poops in tackle boxes or is that someone else? What, if anything have you done that's really really bad? Doesn't have to be poop related? Is there a mnemonic device that would help me remember that you are bad?
Um, can't think of one offhand. Probably a good sign.
This is the first I've heard of the tackle box thing. Sounds like a real eyebrow raiser.
UG, you'll just have to accept that I think you are nothing but a big-talking, annoying, brainlessly conservative, arrogant, lying, self-centered moron.
Wait, I forgot NeoMcCarthyist, bossy, mean-spirited, selfish, rude, inconsiderate, egomaniacal, snobbish, heartless... meh, I could go on for a while yet.
If guns are the critical factor to maintaining freedom and liberty, why isn't Iraq free? It's loaded with guns.
In one sense, they're a case study for gun rights. The most powerful army on the face of the earth has not been able to subjegate one of the most backwater shitholes in existence, because the occupants of that shithole have guns and a desire to keep us out.
If they had any sense to go along with their guns, they'd have some electricity and running water by now.
I'd say that culture has more to do with maintaining freedom and liberty, something we tried to tell George before he went in there. That said, I can't imagine giving up my weapon in a place like Iraq. I'd say the gun supports the culture but when the culture slips and the necessity for the gun appears I'd rather more stable folks were armed. The anthropomorphizing of these tools by the left is leading to a shift in the gun culture where only truly passionate right wingers will be armed. I'd rather the less politicized took it upon themselves.
It *is* the culture that keeps us free. So, by the time you feel the need to be armed, being armed won't protect you. When the culture slips you are doomed.
An armed society may well be the most impolite society you can possibly imagine.
I can't tell you how many times I have heard various L types say it was getting close to time to fight the system and taking up a gun is step one. Yes, there is a potential problem if you have a government armed and a population not armed. But as long as government is representational, there is a bigger problem with citizens armed and demanding to install the type of government THEY feel is best.
No. And you'll just have to accept that, even if you cannot understand it.
When anyone disagrees with you, your response is, to paraphrase, "you're not smart enough to understand". Sometimes, you don't express yourself well, sometimes there is just plain, old disagreement of opinion, and sometimes you're just downright wrong. But to you it's alway "the other guy is dumb". That's the attitude that is pervasive in conservative circles, and why I view most of them as assholes. But I guess you're just not smart enough to understand that...
When the culture slips you are doomed.
Who is you white man? ;)
I'm conservative enough to want to maintain the culture we have. My anarchist streak gives me an intellectual urge to know, what would happen if?
But as long as government is representational, there is a bigger problem with citizens armed and demanding to install the type of government THEY feel is best.
Uppity citizens
Who is you white man? ;)
I'm conservative enough to want to maintain the culture we have. My anarchist streak gives me an intellectual urge to know, what would happen if?
What would happen if? Is that the national scale of, "hold my beer and watch this"? :haha:
When anyone disagrees with you, your response is, to paraphrase, "you're not smart enough to understand". Sometimes, you don't express yourself well, sometimes there is just plain, old disagreement of opinion, and sometimes you're just downright wrong. But to you it's alway "the other guy is dumb". That's the attitude that is pervasive in conservative circles, and why I view most of them as assholes. But I guess you're just not smart enough to understand that...
Ibby is under eighteen, AFAIK. I'm fifty. I remember being seventeen, vividly I think. I remember being a boy before I was a man, and I remember how I thought as a boy, and how differently I thought as a man.
He's going to have to make the discovery that I'm the good guy for himself. Since he's not warped, merely not yet mature enough to impress a grizzled oldster with his maturity [edit: especially not just now -- I posted this before I read his two mini-rants, and I'm laughing as I type], and not unintelligent either, I think it is within his capacity to make the aforesaid discovery. I'm patient.
And I'm minded of what Mr. Dubois said of Johnny Rico in the Heinlein novel
Starship Troopers.
Ibby is under eighteen, AFAIK. I'm fifty. I remember being seventeen, vividly I think. I remember being a boy before I was a man, and I remember how I thought as a boy, and how differently I thought as a man.
He's going to have to make the discovery that I'm the good guy for himself. Since he's not warped, merely not yet mature enough to impress a grizzled oldster with his maturity [edit: especially not just now -- I posted this before I read his two mini-rants, and I'm laughing as I type], and not unintelligent either, I think it is within his capacity to make the aforesaid discovery. I'm patient.
And I'm minded of what Mr. Dubois said of Johnny Rico in the Heinlein novel Starship Troopers.
So, Ibram's not old enough to think you're an asshole? I'm an adult--I'll co-sign for him: You're an asshole.
Originally Posted by Undertoad
But as long as government is representational, there is a bigger problem with citizens armed and demanding to install the type of government THEY feel is best.
Those citizens would have to deploy some pretty heavy armament before
that notion became a
serious consideration. The government generally isn't worried about a citizenry with small arms overthrowing it. The city isn't worried about even it's armed police force overthrowing it; because, it can go to the State for National Guard support. The State isn't worried about it's armed National Guard overthrowing it; because, it can go to the Federal Government for Armed Forces support. The Federal Government isn't worried about the Armed Forces overthrowing it; because, there is a citizenry with small arms that could deny a total victory to the Armed Forces as it's experiencing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Subversive citizens would need to use much more force to install a different government than the general population would need to prevent the government, if the government slips, from installing all different citizens.
Additionally, subversive citizens can pose as much danger (via domestic terrorism) to non-government personnel as to government personnel. Would you take away the non-subversive general population's ability to defend themselves with small arms? The subversives are going to acquire small arms whether they can be legally owned or not. The government can't even keep illegal drugs or illegal aliens out of this country let alone firearms. :confused:
Government does not deserve nor is it entitled to exist and operate with the comfort that the threat or possibility of revolution is pre-foreclosed. The point at which revolution is no longer possible is the moment at which government transitions from serving the people to ruling the people.
I want a gun for the simple reason that they don't want me to have one. Making government feel safer is not my job - making me feel safer is their job and I don't feel safer when they ask me to lay down my weapon while pointing theirs at my forehead.
While I respect that opinions differ, it still surprises me that people are willing to give up a right. And not just any right but the right to defend one's self. Ban guns all you want. Put me down for civil disobedience. And I'm past the point of parsing the 2nd Amendment. If the government doesn't care what it says then hey, neither do I.
...While I respect that opinions differ, it still surprises me that people are willing to give up a right.
Why does it surprise you? What percentage of citizens with the right to vote abdicate that right every election?
And harm millions with that decision.
Those citizens would have to deploy some pretty heavy armament before that notion became a serious consideration. The government generally isn't worried about a citizenry with small arms overthrowing it. The city isn't worried about even it's armed police force overthrowing it; because, it can go to the State for National Guard support. The State isn't worried about it's armed National Guard overthrowing it; because, it can go to the Federal Government for Armed Forces support. The Federal Government isn't worried about the Armed Forces overthrowing it; because, there is a citizenry with small arms that could deny a total victory to the Armed Forces as it's experiencing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Subversive citizens would need to use much more force to install a different government than the general population would need to prevent the government, if the government slips, from installing all different citizens.
Additionally, subversive citizens can pose as much danger (via domestic terrorism) to non-government personnel as to government personnel. Would you take away the non-subversive general population's ability to defend themselves with small arms? The subversives are going to acquire small arms whether they can be legally owned or not. The government can't even keep illegal drugs or illegal aliens out of this country let alone firearms. :confused:
WTF are you talking about? The government put the drugs on the street and hires the illegal aliens. :confused:
Many of you really don't look at things from other's perspectives, gays in fear of being bashed, those who carry large sums of cash for their work or just personal lifestyle, the disabled who are targeted for violence (yes we are) and cannot fight back, single women in areas of high crime.
& there has not been a non-lethal form of self defense that can drop a 300 lb man on steroids/drug or both like a .45 hollow-point can. Spray or electricity just pisses him off.
Until they invent it, Guns... and that is it.
The question is not whether or not it's logistically possible to overthrow a government with small arms, whether or not you are able to always avoid being victimized if you are armed, or whether the physical removal of all guns will somehow make us safer.
We are human beings, and as such we come out of the chute with two (among other) inborn traits: we're prone to violence, and we have the right to defend ourselves from attack. It's OEM. Society, upbringing, and circumstance exacerbates the violence, but that only reinforces the importance of our right to self-defence.
The Constitution reaffirms that right, but it does not grant it. What it amounts to is this: the government can't eliminate violence, so it has no right to deny us any means of defense we can conjure up, as long as exercising that defense doesn't harm innocents.
I didn't mean to spell defense with a C, but I think it makes me look Euro, and therefore liberals should automatically believe me.
I can make a large bomb in a half a day from things you can get the day before, logistically you can get the info you need for a decent strategic strike in less than a week.
Most military bases have isolated water sources.
Who needs guns?
Again...
“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.”
-- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).
So, Ibram's not old enough to think you're an asshole? I'm an adult--I'll co-sign for him: You're an asshole.
Not so much that, as that he's overreacting so as to embarrass himself with the memory. The boy has failed to distinguish frustration from hatred -- all I ever did to him was tell him that I was satisfied the evidence was that tw is a communist, that evidence being found in tw's writing and point of view. Such proof was not sufficient for the lad, and he seems to have gotten very excited when I told him in the course of the discussion that if he indeed did know all about communist propaganda he'd've spotted tw as a communist before I did.
Next thing I heard, he spent two entire posts trying to make Urbane Guerrilla feel bad. I should smile! I'm certainly not complaining.
And this is the sort of thing you'd ally with, V? Pretty silly of you. I still like you anyway -- a chips-are-down thing.
Where urb errs here is that he thinks he knows what Spexx thinks.
Are you about to tell me you've been lying the whole time?
I read your posts, Spexx. They are quite clear.No, Maggie, you just have paranoid fantasies from reading too much Ayn Rand. Liberal does NOT = collectivist.
It shouldn't, but the socialists have contaminated a previously honorable philosophy. At one time, liberals were about all the civil liberties. Now to their shame they cherrypick, and the cherries they select are overripe.
I do NOT advocate turning the US into a socialist nation, only the Republic it was once intended to be.
I wish your arguments would actually show that that's what you're doing -- a summary or even better some links would be okay.
You're the one who is advocating the destruction of our personal liberties by saying torture, breaking the Geneva Convention, and throwing out the 6th Amendment is a wonderful thing. You reveal too much of yourself, also, Maggie. and your problem is that you're dead serious when you do it.
But its not worth arguing with you. You're a fundamentalist Neocon who worships Jr. as your savior.
This is how Marichiko admits her arguments aren't as good as yours. And how, in the typical left-idiotic mode, she tries childishly to make you feel bad for winning out over her.
The anti-Republicans and anti-patriots have raised loud and unbecoming objections to
EVERY SINGLE TACTIC AND STRATEGY THAT HAS HAD ANY LIKELIHOOD OF WINNING THE WAR FOR US and I am sick unto projective vomiting of it. Please consider the nature of our enemies.
Mari is, on legs, a reason why I am no sort of leftist.
Ok, gun control aside, would there be fewer deaths in America if there were no handguns? Simple question: only Yes or No answers accepted.
My answer: Yes.
Where Spexx errs here is that he thinks all deaths are equivalent: he is setting an Amish junior high schooler's death at the same value as Charles Carl Robert's death. He forgets: one was innocent. It is moral to value innocent life over that of the perp.
Where urb errs here is that he thinks he knows what Spexx thinks.
Are you about to tell me you've been lying the whole time? I read your posts, Spexx. They are quite clear.
Their clarity is lost on you, then. I am actually pro-death penalty. I am NOT pro-vigilante-ism. If everyone were to pack a gun, there would be many more innocent deaths. Read RK's posts. To paraphrase, he says "shoot, if there is any question. If you wait until the question is answered, it may be too late - you'll already be dead". How many others have that same perspective, and would shoot people who intend them no harm? These would be innocent people (hint, hint). I do value all life - it's rare that a death is better than most alternatives, preventing other/more deaths being the best reason for someone to die. You've read my posts? read more carefully, laddie.
... The anti-Republicans and anti-patriots have raised loud and unbecoming objections to EVERY SINGLE TACTIC AND STRATEGY THAT HAS HAD ANY LIKELIHOOD OF WINNING THE WAR FOR US and I am sick unto projective vomiting of it. Please consider the nature of our enemies.
...
Sometimes, being anti-repubican is being patriotic.
Sometimes, being patriotic means
not going to war without good reason, or getting out of a war that has no upside for us, is exceptionally expensive, is decreasing our standing in the world community, is doing more harm than good, is causing the deaths of American troops, on and on and on.
The anti-Republicans and anti-patriots have raised loud and unbecoming objections to EVERY SINGLE TACTIC AND STRATEGY THAT HAS HAD ANY LIKELIHOOD OF WINNING THE WAR FOR US and I am sick unto projective vomiting of it. Please consider the nature of our enemies.
UG still believes Bush went to war for patriotic reasons. God bless him.
Despite all these freedom-hating objections, the War For Terror has gone smashingly...
Spexx, darling... it's always good to replace a dictatorship with a democracy, and that very seldom happens by election, dictatorships being what they are. That seems to this democracy-lover to be quite a good and sufficient reason.
This has been understood in Christendom since the concept of 'just war' was floated in the fourth century by St. Augustine. And you were -- where? I perceive some lacunae in your education.
So, no: in this case, being anti-Republican is in no wise being patriotic, and you cannot show it so. Come on, you don't love democracy enough to want it to spread even into those places which most lack it? They'd benefit most from getting it, you know.
Spexx, darling... it's always good to replace a dictatorship with a democracy, and that very seldom happens by election, dictatorships being what they are. That seems to this democracy-lover to be quite a good and sufficient reason......
.
..... and who said the yanks don't understand irony...
Their clarity is lost on you, then. I am actually pro-death penalty. I am NOT pro-vigilante-ism. If everyone were to pack a gun, there would be many more innocent deaths. Read RK's posts. To paraphrase, he says "shoot, if there is any question. If you wait until the question is answered, it may be too late - you'll already be dead". How many others have that same perspective, and would shoot people who intend them no harm? These would be innocent people (hint, hint). I do value all life - it's rare that a death is better than most alternatives, preventing other/more deaths being the best reason for someone to die. You've read my posts? read more carefully, laddie.
You definitely need to rephrase that to state "read
into RK's posts".
I pointed out specific situations.
I was in security for three years, had knives, broken bottles and suspected people of having guns more than once, pulled on me... I have yet to shoot someone in that situation.
The times I did shoot at people the threat was clear or the interpretation had to be made in favor of deciding to assume that they were more than likely to use their weapons as not to, or I was being shot at.
Again, however, if someone is in my home uninvited & unannounced I am not going to ask to see their weapon... as a good father and the protector of my family I have NO CHOICE but to assume they are armed and their to kill us.
There is no time for anything else. That is a
fact.
Giving them the opportunity to kill me makes me a bad father, husband and person.
..... and who said the yanks don't understand irony...
Anti-democrats would like to pretend this is irony. The rest of us know better.
I have no defined, resolved opinion on this matter. I'd love to own a gun, they appeal to me on many levels,I may in fact buy one at some point. More of a rifleman than a handgunner, though there is a lot of fun in shooting handguns.
Most of the reasons people post about protection, revolution, etc. don't really sway my opinions.
I did see a funny bumper sticker the other day: If guns are outlawed only outlaws will accidentally shoot their children. But that is the problem with the whole debate. almost instant recourse to wild, emotionally freighted arguments and very little objective fact. A lot of unlikely "what if..." scenarios used as reasons to be armed.
I know a lot of gun owners and out of the group I'd say only about three of them are truly safe and responsible about their firearms.
I, personally, would like the right to buy pistols and rifles, and I'd also like the right to vet who else gets to buy them.
As for the old intruder in the house scenario I wouldn't need a gun. I'd be perfectly capable of beating the pulp out of someone with a lamp or chair or handful of quarters in a sock.
I can improvise.
I know a lot of gun owners and out of the group I'd say only about three of them are truly safe and responsible about their firearms.
I know a lot of unsafe gunners. To me you can make all the pragmatic arguments you want, but gun ownership is a political decision that says the individual's rights outweigh the State's. Of course I'm into the scotch...
As for the old intruder in the house scenario I wouldn't need a gun. I'd be perfectly capable of beating the pulp out of someone with a lamp or chair or handful of quarters in a sock.
Even if it was Chuck Norris? :eek:
Even if it was Chuck Norris? :eek:
there you go again, arguing the exception...
But if it was chuck norris I'd just hold up a mirror and he'd go into a feedback loop of self immolation creating a black hole which would actually suck time into itself.
I know a lot of unsafe gunners. To me you can make all the pragmatic arguments you want, but gun ownership is a political decision that says the individual's rights outweigh the State's. Of course I'm into the scotch...
Who are the state? Can't we do anything to minimise their tiresomeness?
..I know a lot of gun owners and out of the group I'd say only about three of them are truly safe and responsible about their firearms.
...
On the converse, I know alot of people, none of whom have needed a gun to protect themselves from home invasion, rape, robbery, or rape. I said rape twice - I like rape.
Lowering the number of guns will lower the number of murders. It seems like common sense.
Today's news brings us the exact opposite conclusion via the Sydney Morning Herald.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html
HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.
The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.
The only area where the package of Commonwealth and State laws, known as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) may have had some impact was on the rate of suicide, but the study said the evidence was not clear and any reductions attributable to the new gun rules were slight.
"Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia," the study says.
600,000 guns removed from the system, on an island continent with some of the world's most restrictive gun laws. Ten years later,
no measureable effect.
Of course, nations differ and Your Nation's Results May Vary. But to me, the lesson is:
It's the character of the people, the culture and the society that determines the murder rate. Not how many tools they have to get the job done.
Focus on the tools, and you are wasting your time.
Focus instead on creating a society where violence is unacceptable.
Focus instead on creating a society where violence is unacceptable.
Set a good example, by, for instance, invading random countires for no reason.
I know a lot of gun owners and out of the group I'd say only about three of them are truly safe and responsible about their firearms.
Maybe your friends are a bunch of morons. It's kind of a preselected cohort...
I probably know a lot more gun owners than than you, and they're all safe and responsible about their firearms. Or they wouldn't be my friends.
By the way, what proportion of "a lot" is "about three"?
I'd so prefer to be shot by MagL. The rest of you suck.
No..wait..No I wouldn't! She would never tell my family where my body was buried!
I'd be in some watery grave somewhere...with seagulls picking at my bones...seals rendering my flesh...! NO!
K, that's backwards, but you know what I mean.
On the converse, I know alot of people, none of whom have needed a gun to protect themselves from home invasion, rape, robbery, or rape. I said rape twice - I like rape.
As we all know, all crime victims instantly tell all their friends the moment they become a victim...especially if the crime is rape.
No..wait..No I wouldn't! She would never tell my family where my body was buried!
If I ever found it necessary to dispatch someone, it would be up to their family to do the burying. Otherwise they'd be left for the vultures.
Maybe your friends are a bunch of morons. It's kind of a preselected cohort...
I probably know a lot more gun owners than than you, and they're all safe and responsible about their firearms. Or they wouldn't be my friends.
...
Or maybe you're not admitting the truth, or you just don't know, or you don't want to jeopardize your argument.
If I ever found it necessary to dispatch someone, it would be up to their family to do the burying. Otherwise they'd be left for the vultures.
I think MaggieL is a' courtin' me!
damn you, girl! Me thinks youse a keeper!
As we all know, all crime victims instantly tell all their friends the moment they become a victim...especially if the crime is rape.
I have lots of friends. They would share with me. Don't you have that kind of relationship with people? Oh, I should have known.
Maybe your friends are a bunch of morons. It's kind of a preselected cohort...
I probably know a lot more gun owners than than you, and they're all safe and responsible about their firearms. Or they wouldn't be my friends.
By the way, what proportion of "a lot" is "about three"?
OK.
a) I said "people I know" not "friends". So, the moron comment will have to be saved for later.
b) You probably have a lot more gun owning friends, than I do. I live in the country and every dick and his dog has a gun. Many have more guns than teeth, if you get my drift. Come for a visit any time, Thursdays are best, because then we can go to local traffic court and take the pulse of the local collective IQ. I bet after a few days in my neck of the woods, you may wonder about guns restrictions after all. I'm sure your friends are responsible, triple digit IQ having people. Preselected cohort, and all that. ;)
ps The three friends are about 6% of the gun owners I personally know. And about 40% of the gun owners I count as friends. (off the top of my head. I honestly haven't done an accounting)
I have lots of friends. They would share with me. Don't you have that kind of relationship with people? Oh, I should have known.
I do. And that's why I know quite a few rape victims who have told very, very few people about their assault. Especially male people who might say something like...
I said rape twice - I like rape.
Or maybe you're not admitting the truth, or you just don't know, or you don't want to jeopardize your argument.
When you shoot with someone, you discover pretty quickly what their firearms hygene is like, just as when you fly with somone you can tell their attitudes towards aviation safety.
I suppose it's a lot easier to flatly accuse someone of lying without grounds than it is to present a cogent argument.
But it's far less convincing.
OK.
a) I said "people I know" not "friends". So, the moron comment will have to be saved for later.
b) You probably have a lot more gun owning friends, than I do. I live in the country and every dick and his dog has a gun. Many have more guns than teeth, if you get my drift.
So the "moron" comment
was saved for later...exactly three sentences later.
Spex...I'm very curious to know what you mean when you say 'I like rape'. Explanation?
He's quoting -- and I believe rather misquoting -- two lines from a couple of the villains in Blazing Saddles.
Their clarity is lost on you, then. I am actually pro-death penalty. I am NOT pro-vigilante-ism. If everyone were to pack a gun, there would be many more innocent deaths.
Here too is another fantasy not borne out by historical or sociological research. There is at least one book out on vigilantism in California, citing occurrences in San Francisco and Bodie. I had the good fortune to read it, but suffer the bad fortune of being unable to recall its title, alas.
To begin with, armed self-defense is hardly vigilantism, but simply something humans will and can do, and which is a human right, after all. Vigilantism occurs when the citizenry believe, correctly or not, that the operation of justice is either inadequate or so corrupted it cannot actually do justice. In the California examples, vigilantism was an ad-hoc response to inadequacy of the judiciary to actually do something about crime, either general or in a specific case. Committees of Vigilance never lasted beyond an immediate problem -- after all, there was no money in it. One only sees vigilante action if the justice system, both juridicial and enforcement, has broken down and manifested incompetence at the social protection it's supposed to perform.
And this is not the belief among any of the correspondents in this thread: we all think the judiciary and law enforcement work, at least well enough.
Nor is there anything about innocents that gravitationally attracts promiscuous stray bullets. In the heavily-armed frontier era, the gun carriers made a point of not slinging lead at anyone, like frontier women, who wasn't slinging lead at them. Even then, the butchers' bill was not extreme. In the year before it was incorporated as a city, and believed by researchers to be its most man-eating year, Dodge City, Kansas had five homicides, total. This was generally true of experience all over the West: far less gunfighting than movies (dramas, you know?) would lead you to believe, and near ubiquitous carrying and possession -- subject to local ordinances, aimed at reducing shooting within city limits, but unconcerned with any firing one might be called upon to do outside them. It goes to illustrate Ringer's Paradox: that a freedom restricted is a freedom preserved. The art of the thing is not to over-restrict, which I believe is too often the case -- and a policy supported by uninformed opinion.
Spex...I'm very curious to know what you mean when you say 'I like rape'. Explanation?
Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice.
Applicant: I like rape.
From
Blazing Saddles
I know rape is not funny.
I do. And that's why I know quite a few rape victims who have told very, very few people about their assault. Especially male people who might say something like...
Another example that Maggie has no sense of humor.
Father Accused of Pulling Gun at Pee Wee Football Game
Police say he was upset son didn't get enough playing time
Police say Derkotch did have a weapons permit.
From
here.
Yeah, those legal gun owners sure are responsible, upstanding, reasonable folks who show good judgement...NOT
From here.
Fox "is not a source" :stickpoke
Another example that Maggie has no sense of humor.
Yeah, rape is just so damned funny I forgot to laugh.
Just catch up with everybody else and "get" the damn reference.
Yeah, those legal gun owners sure are responsible, upstanding, reasonable folks who show good judgement...NOT
Did you read the entire story? Like
here if you don't like Fox.
The headlines screaming "man pulls gun because his son wasn't getting played" are false. Both Derkoch (5 feet 9, 215 pounds) and the referee who assaulted him (6 feet 3, 250 pounds) were charged. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts; the AgAssault is a felony; if convicted Derkoch will lose his permit.
Just catch up with everybody else and "get" the damn reference.
Sorry, you'll have to enlighten me as to in which very hip context rape is funny.
It's been mentioned twice already.
"... "I see a gentleman pounding on another gentleman... "
Class, remember, gentlemen do not pound other gentlemen.
Neither do they obstruct justice, which is how I'd interpret trying to prevent someone from writing down a license plate number. I wonder what color the various skin tones of the people involved were, and why cops would witness someone being shoved 15 feet and lunged at and then arrest the same person when he attempts to defend himself and then let his attacker go free.
I'm sure it's all good.
Did you read the entire story? Like here if you don't like Fox.
The headlines screaming "man pulls gun because his son wasn't getting played" are false. Both Derkoch (5 feet 9, 215 pounds) and the referee who assaulted him (6 feet 3, 250 pounds) were charged. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts; the AgAssault is a felony; if convicted Derkoch will lose his permit.
What's your point? Does Derkoch's brandishing hie gun meet your (and PA law's) criteria for legality/justification?
... Lock away those who misuse guns,...
By then, it's a little too late, isn't it.
That sounds very familiar... "lets stop lawbreaking before it happens!"
It has always been an excuse for removing freedoms and taking over populations.
Thanks for making it very clear to us all.
pre-emptive strike? Does this sound familiar to anyone at all??? I wonder who you'll be voting for at the next election.
Spex...in my very humble opinion, I think you would be better served not to quote lines like that in an open forum where there are women present who have been the vicitm of rape.
Spex...in my very humble opinion, I think you would be better served not to quote lines like that in an open forum where there are women present who have been the vicitm of rape.
I apologize for being insensitive.
That's very kind of you Spex. I apologize for making you feel uncomfortable.
That sounds very familiar... "lets stop lawbreaking before it happens!"
It has always been an excuse for removing freedoms and taking over populations.
Thanks for making it very clear to us all.
Right, that's like banning all private planes because a baseball player flew into a building.:right:
Right, that's like banning all private planes because a baseball player flew into a building.:right:
Would it not be more sensible to ban baseball players?
Easier anyway. You see how much headway we're making getting MaggieL to beat her arsenal into plowshares, what chance do you think you've got getting her to hand over her plane?:D
What's your point? Does Derkoch's brandishing hie gun meet your (and PA law's) criteria for legality/justification?
Still haven't read the law, I see.
But that doesn't matter much in this case, because the law on justification doesn't apply. Why? Because deadly force wasn't used. The courts will decide if the brandishing constituted AgAssault, which is how it's being charged. The way I read the statue it doesn't apply, but then I'm not a lawyer...or a Philadelphia judge.
I will point out that the brandishing was sufficient to terminate the assault, and no shots were fired, which is more than we can say for...
In March 2005, a Connecticut man was arrested after striking his daughter's softball coach in the head with an aluminum bat. He pleaded no contest last month and received a sentence that did not include prison time, which outraged some parents and coaches.
I also notice that Henwood is working very hard to distract attention from the fact that he threw the first punch, knocking Derkotch to the ground. Which shouldn't be difficult given that the vast majority of the media are telling this story without even menitioning that an assault was underway before the brandishing occurred. Henwood claims "I percieved a threat and struck him...", which should be a clue to you about the law...no doubt that was a statement coached by his attorney, because the way I read the AgAssault statute, given the facts as reported, Henwood is closer to being guilty of that than Derkotch is.
Still haven't read the law, I see.
Still evading the tough questions, eh, Maggie? Please answer:
What's your point?
and
Does Derkoch's brandishing hi[s] gun meet your (and PA law's) criteria for legality/justification?
I also notice that Henwood is working very hard to distract attention from the fact that he threw the first punch, knocking Derkotch to the ground. Which shouldn't be difficult given that the vast majority of the media are telling this story without even menitioning that an assault was underway before the brandishing occurred. Henwood claims "I percieved a threat and struck him...", which should be a clue to you about the law...no doubt that was a statement coached by his attorney, because the way I read the AgAssault statute, given the facts as reported, Henwood is closer to being guilty of that than Derkotch is.
And Henwood should be punished. Derkotch was out of line just by accosting Henwood. Henwood was surely aware that situations like this could get violent, and so was probably on edge. Derkotch Did not remove himself from the confrontation - perhaps he was emboldened because he was packin' heat. When Henwood showed signs of violence, Derkotch STILL did not move away. After being struck, Derkotch STILL did not move away. Maybe carrying a gun causes an increase in non-gun-related violence, too.
...lock away those who misuse guns...
By then, it's a little too late, isn't it.
It's not a deterrent, it's a punishment, and a way to ensure that the person won't ever get the chance to misuse a gun again.
I've come to believe that the threat of consequences does very little to deter people from serious crimes. Shoplifting, yes. Murder/rape, no.
Right, that's like banning all private planes because a baseball player flew into a building.:right:
Sure, and don't put a life vest on your kid until after he drowns. And don't stop smoking until after you have cancer. And let's not ban DDT. Let's not stop North Korea from having nukular weapons until after they massacre thousands of people. :right:
There certainly is a reasonableness to prevention.
It's not a deterrent, it's a punishment, and a way to ensure that the person won't ever get the chance to misuse a gun again.
I've come to believe that the threat of consequences does very little to deter people from serious crimes. Shoplifting, yes. Murder/rape, no.
I guess you're just hoping it's not your family that the guns are misused on.
No, I have a means of defense to prevent it. It's not foolproof, but it's better than legislation.
Spex...in my very humble opinion, I think you would be better served not to quote lines like that in an open forum where there are women present who have been the vicitm of rape.
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).
Still evading the tough questions, eh, Maggie? Please answer:
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.
Maybe carrying a gun causes an increase in non-gun-related violence, too.
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?
Henwood was surely aware that situations like this could get violent...
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.
I like guns because they are shiny!
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 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.
...
I want to know if Maggie thinks that whipping out his gun was justified. You did not answer that.
So why exactly did the asshole get out of his seat and start the whole ball rolling?
And then proceed to
pull a gun in a
fist-fight. What a "victim" this guy is.:violin:
...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...
To a certain extent (no pun intended) a gun
is a penis. Just ask Freud. Hmmm. That explains a lot.
So why exactly did the asshole get out of his seat and start the whole ball rolling? ...
He got out of his seat because he was packing a big gun, not penis.:p
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.
You're damn right!
:applause:
Who are the state? Can't we do anything to minimise their tiresomeness?
One man's answer,
No Treason.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).
Having a firearm means you don't have to be a prisoner of fear and avoid places.
Originally Posted by footfootfoot
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.
You're damn right!
:applause:
Testy, much, rk? Clearly you didn't follow the link. My enthusiastic support of footfootfoot's post was specifically about the
perfect example of "who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun"
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:
Having a firearm means you don't have to be a prisoner of fear and avoid places.
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.
Having a firearm means you don't have to be a prisoner of fear and avoid places.
Is that a fair trade off for having to kill someone?
You know that logic is flawed.
i disagree
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.
Is that a fair trade off for having to kill someone?
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.
Is that a fair trade off for having to kill someone?
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.
That's probably because you've never been raped before lumber.
possibly. however, you said:
Originally Posted by Aliantha
Spex...in my very humble opinion, I think you would be better served not to quote lines like that in an open forum where there are women present who have been the vicitm of rape.
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.
We all have a social responsibility to care for our fellow men and women.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...
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.
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!
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.
Wolf is waiting for you to check in.
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.
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.
I find it interesting that no [other? -- UG] women have commented on the subject. Only men who feel their freedom is being impinged upon.
MaggieL is in this thread, on my side of the fence. Her views are made abundantly clear, and in some volume.
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!
Bad things don't only happen in bad neighborhoods.
MaggieL is in this thread, on my side of the fence. Her views are made abundantly clear, and in some volume.
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.
[SIZE="1"]
(*)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. [/SIZE]
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.
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
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
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:
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. [/I][/SIZE]
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.
...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.
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?
...and started around to the passenger side to get the vehicle between me and them. They both moved to block me in...
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?
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.
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"
...The reason? I had a Glock 21 on my hip that they apparently hadn't seen because of the stuff I was carrying in...
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!
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!
Maybe it's the drugs. I try again later.:redface:
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.
did you have that scary makeup on?
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 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..... [HTML]walked/ran away, nobody gets beat up or shot dead[/HTML].
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.
Is "stuff" worth more than the lives of those two guys?
Yes.
What value do
you place on the lives of thugs? Why?
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.
Indeed...and do take that animistic idea that objects can be implicitly evil (rather than people) with you.
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)
(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.
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?
I actually have to talk and write about guns, but mostly Cilvil War ordinance (Minni Balls, etc.).
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.
All one has to do is look at the magazine rack at any major supermarket and see how obsessive gun owners can be.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
and ruins the trophy
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.
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.
[SIZE="1"]
(*)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. [/SIZE]
It is very simple, if you don't want to exercise your right to own or carry, don't.
See how easy?
If Noodle walked/ran away, nobody gets beat up or shot dead. Is "gear" worth killing?
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.
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..... [HTML]walked/ran away, nobody gets beat up or shot dead[/HTML].
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:
Amen brother.
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).
Snce 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.
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.
It is very simple, if you don't want to exercise your right to own or carry, don't. See how easy?
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:
U.S. Is Said to Fail in Tracking Arms for Iraqis
The American military has not properly tracked hundreds of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces and has failed to provide spare parts, maintenance personnel or even repair manuals for most of the weapons given to the Iraqis, a federal report released Sunday has concluded. ...
The answers came Sunday from the inspector general’s office, which found major discrepancies in American military records on where thousands of 9-millimeter pistols and hundreds of assault rifles and other weapons have ended up. The American military did not even take the elementary step of recording the serial numbers of nearly half a million weapons provided to Iraqis, the inspector general found, making it impossible to track or identify any that might be in the wrong hands.
Exactly where untracked weapons could end up — and whether some have been used against American soldiers — were not examined in the report, although black-market arms dealers thrive on the streets of Baghdad, and official Iraq Army and police uniforms can easily be purchased as well, presumably because government shipments are intercepted or otherwise corrupted.
500,000 more guns. Clearly as number of guns increased, then the violence decreased.
Spexx, did you just blatantly ignore Griff's point,
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.
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.
completely drop one side of the equation,
Which side would that be?
and falsely amplify the other side of the equation to the worst possible outcome in order to win the argument?…
I would never amplify the other side of the equation to the worst possible outcome by saying something like:
Noodle spends the rest of his days on a respirator?
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..... [HTML]walked/ran away, nobody gets beat up or shot dead[/HTML].
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:
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:
He has a "moral obligatio" to threaten someone with a gun, shoot someone, and/or kill someone?
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.
...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...
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?
The side of the equation you dropped was the one where bad guys are doing bad things.
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.)
The side you amplified was the one where noodle shoots and kills somebody, which didn't happen:
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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
Go read the justification law. (Obviously you still havent done that.)
It actually explains this stuff.
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 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.
I thought that was our friend's truck and Noodle was stealing out of it. I would apologise, but Noodle shot me dead.
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.
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.
It is very simple, if you don't want to exercise your right to own or carry, don't.
See how easy?
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.
ou ask, what if they had a gun? There's no way to answer that in one sentence.
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...
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.
... 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?
...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....
That's the way I feel. I just don't own a gun, either.
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.
I agree with what you've said here. I wish that the part I made bold was "all" and not "most".
did you have that scary makeup on?
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.
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").
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.
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?
Depends on where he is, where you are and what his attitude is.
So, the answer is no. But you knew that, troll question.
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?;) )
They are not everywhere all the time and are flawed individuals. Again, you knew this.
...Depends on where he is, where you are and what his attitude is.
So, the answer is no. But you knew that, troll question.
...
You say shit like:
Again, however, if someone is in my home uninvited & unannounced I am not going to ask to see their weapon... as a good father and the protector of my family I have NO CHOICE but to assume they are armed and their to kill us.
There is no time for anything else. That is a fact.
Giving them the opportunity to kill me makes me a bad father, husband and person.
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.
No... I don't. But, I live in a castle doctrine state.
If you are in my home uninvited/unannounced you are there to kill my family... you die. The same goes for a street threat. I must assume you are armed and mean me, or my family, harm with deadly force.
No responsible parent/spouse has the right to assume anything else IMO.
BTW... being fired upon, seeing a gun, is WAY too late.
My answer.
Don't know about CO... but in FL if you have reason to believe that you are in danger it does not matter what side of the door the body falls on... you have the RIGHT to protect yourself and that is right and just.
I was a bouncer and in security for several years, you never know what they have on them and you never know exactly when and how they are going to choose to do what they are going to do. If they choose to attack you or behave in a manner as to force you to respond in manner that is such that you must believe that your life is in danger, you have no time to "decide" what the intricacies of the law are. There is time to act and nothing else. At least FL and some other castle doctrine states have the wisdom to know that....
The way I look at it is that I don't know that a criminal is not going to kill me. My life and the life of my family is not worth that gamble under any circumstances. The criminal chooses to place themselves in the situation where I have to decide to trust that they are not going to kill my family or I... I don't trust that and would be a bad husband and father if I trusted them more than my instincts and logic.
Logic says if they are a threat you must eliminate it in the most efficient and final way possible so the threat does not return so my I and/or my family no longer has to deal with said threat. It is simple.
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.
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.
and I present you with a situation requiring you to be precise in declaring your course of action and you say I'm trolling?
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.
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.
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.
snip~ I only commented on the people (and there must be a lot of them) who buy the glossy gun magazines, which do concentrate on the latest super-guns. One does not have to be an "expert" on guns or anything else to notice that America is a land of guns and gun fanatics. ~snip
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.
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 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 can interpret it that way. I certainly can't prevent you.
You could if you shot me.
But, of course, it's not what I said.
Well, you really haven't said
anything, have you?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
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.
Go read the law, come back when you're able to discuss the matter intelligently.
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."
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.
Were you joking, flaming, or trolling, when you posted:
The way I look at it is that I don't know that a criminal is not going to kill me. My life and the life of my family is not worth that gamble under any circumstances. The criminal chooses to place themselves in the situation where I have to decide to trust that they are not going to kill my family or I... I don't trust that and would be a bad husband and father if I trusted them more than my instincts and logic.
Logic says if they are a threat you must eliminate it in the most efficient and final way possible so the threat does not return so my I and/or my family no longer has to deal with said threat. It is simple.
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.
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.
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
I am not going to ask to see their weapon
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?
must eliminate it in the most efficient and final way possible
Either have the balls to back up your words, or stop talking tough.
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.
…
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
sick-twisted-fucking little idiot
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.
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 guess I will never be able to open a closed mind.
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.
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
See?
Ahhh! Yes, yes, now I see... [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Gray"]What are we looking at?[/COLOR][/SIZE]
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.
I don't agree. Again, spent my life with guns. Had jobs where my profession was to wield one to protect property and life and where I had to have one to protect my own life, sometimes regularly.
However, as always, the gun was and is, JUST AS TOOL.
So many try to anthropomorphize these hunks of metal or make-up terrible scenarios with them... all of which are true of prescription drugs (which fit all the troll's listed hypochondriac scenarios above), chemicals that can be made into explosives, cars or anything else that can be misused.
It is very simple, no matter how complicated people try to make it... guns are a tool. If you don't like them, don't buy one... easy.
If you don't like freedom, move to a society that is not free and graze with the other sheep.
When you are being shot at, and I have been a couple of times, all you want to do is protect yourself, and all you can do is shoot back... with a gun.
No one can outrun a bullet.
I have never joined the NRA, I don't agree with their tactics, language or lobbying techniques. Just because I agree with the right to own a gun... I don't think everyone should have one or anyone should be able to get one as easily as they want it to be able to happen.
...(which fit all the troll's listed hypochondriac scenarios above)...
Funny how using your own words against you makes ME the troll...
Just because I agree with the right to own a gun... I don't think everyone should have one or anyone should be able to get one as easily as they want it to be able to happen.
Well, that's exactly what I think too, so what are we arguing about?
Semantics. As usual.
I do think that everyone who is not a felon or violent criminal should be able to own one. I think you should have to buy it in person and a five day waiting period for handguns is more than enough. I think that concealed carry should be legal in all states.
You probably have problems with some of those.
You probably have problems with some of those.
Yeah. But I'm tired of the gun threads.
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.
What is it with you gun people? You take any commentary about negative or peculiar attributes regarding gun owners as some kind of attack on the 2nd Amendment. I"ve NEVER advocated banning guns or revoking that amendment. Secondly, I never said anything about most gun owners buying assault weapons, I only commented on the people (and there must be a lot of them) who buy the glossy gun magazines, which do concentrate on the latest super-guns. One does not have to be an "expert" on guns or anything else to notice that America is a land of guns and gun fanatics. Just read this thread. You can almost feel that "my cold dead hands" mentality when reading the posts. How the hell does making some comments about gun owners make me a "fascist," or make those comments an "imposition." Are you that insecure. Maybe you should get a gun.
"..to impose your narrow minded views on other free thinkers in this nation built on tolerance and freedom."
You are so self-contradictory it's sad. What would you call this BBS? A place to express free speech, perhaps? And I'm not so myopic to believe that this nation was built on "tolerance and freedom." You really believe that? I think guns, ironically, had a lot to do with building this nation, and not in the most honest or ethical ways.
I've held guns, I've shot guns, and I've lived in some very dangerous places, but I've never felt a real "need" to own one. Sure, people don't "need" a lot of things that they own or enjoy, but must guns have been and continue to be made to do one thing only, and that is to kill. Sure, you can "use" a rock to kill someone too, but guns are MADE to kill.
I think fascists use guns too.
What is it with you gun people?
Someone decided that they disapproved of us and they won't shut up about it.
I don't approve or disapprove of anyone. I just make observations.
"What is it with you gun people?" That is way too broad a brush. My ire was raised by the person who implied, simply because of my observations, that I was a fascist. Kooks abound on both sides of this issue. Fanatics can be gun owners or vegans, or perhaps even gun-owning vegans. Whatev. My intent is not to vilify all gun-owners, only point to how extreme some can be, especially in this country (or perhaps Darfur). I suppose that's an easy target. Sorry to offend the responsible ones.
One little story:
There were two times I killed a living thing with a gun. The first was when, like many young males, I just had to have a BB gun. When I got one, I shot at cans in the back yard. Then, when doing so, I saw some movement in the trees. It was a cute little Chickadee. Almost as if some switch went off in my head, I pointed the gun at the little bird and pulled the trigger. It fell to the ground and started fluttering around in obvious distress. I was beside myself with guilt, and couldn't stand watching the little bird suffer. I crushed it with my foot as hard as I could. Put it, I still hope, out of its misery. That sucked.
The second time was when the guy across the street (this is Alabama, mind you, and I was from Massachusetts) assumed that I was not getting a proper upbringing by my father because he (my father) did not drive a pickup truck. He took me hunting for squirrel of all things. He pointed to some motion in the tree and told me to shoot. I did. It fell, but got caught in the cleavage of some branch. He shot at it about 4 times to dislodge it. It fell to the ground. He cooked it. It was full of shot; and the whole experience was full of shit.
I figured out a good way to put how I feel about it a little while ago...
I'm just as firmly against guns as I am against gun control. I hate that they exist, I hate that people have them, I hate guns in general, but I wouldnt say that someone couldnt have them unless there was a damn good reason, either.
Well, you really haven't said anything, have you?
Yes, I have. Just not what you wanted to hear, so you have remained deaf.
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.
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.
Isn't this thread about guns though?
Almost as if some switch went off in my head, I pointed the gun at the little bird and pulled the trigger.
So you're projecting your own poor impulse control on gun owners? Wow...you need to spend some time reading
Dr. SarahNo, you see, this particular object actually takes control of the human mind.
Have you ever heard of someone who isn't holding a gun shooting something with a gun?
:::taps foot:::
Right, case closed.
What...don't finger guns count? I've shot lots of them before.
I don't approve or disapprove of anyone. I just make observations.
Yeah, that was just a snide comment, not directed at you in particular.
There were two times I killed a living thing with a gun. The first was when, like many young males, I just had to have a BB gun. When I got one, I shot at cans in the back yard. Then, when doing so, I saw some movement in the trees. It was a cute little Chickadee. Almost as if some switch went off in my head, I pointed the gun at the little bird and pulled the trigger. It fell to the ground and started fluttering around in obvious distress. I was beside myself with guilt, and couldn't stand watching the little bird suffer. I crushed it with my foot as hard as I could. Put it, I still hope, out of its misery. That sucked.
I did that as a kid. It felt horrible. If it's any consolation, birds don't have a huge capacity for recognizing pain.
The second time was when the guy across the street (this is Alabama, mind you, and I was from Massachusetts) assumed that I was not getting a proper upbringing by my father because he (my father) did not drive a pickup truck. He took me hunting for squirrel of all things. He pointed to some motion in the tree and told me to shoot. I did. It fell, but got caught in the cleavage of some branch. He shot at it about 4 times to dislodge it. It fell to the ground. He cooked it. It was full of shot; and the whole experience was full of shit.
That one's funny to me, sorry. :lol: I'm thinking that Field & Stream won't be accepting your submission any time soon, however.
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.
Then I sandbag you yet again, Spexx, as your latest challenge fails before superior, clearer, more moral thought:
I shoot when someone
must stop what he* is doing or innocents bleed or die.
This is both the moral and the legal answer.
Jay-zus, Spexx, pushover much? Or are you simply being an expository
advocatus diaboli?
* (nothing gender-specific here, just a respect for the rhythms of the language)
So you're projecting your own poor impulse control on gun owners?
I was 10.
I get the impression that you are, or think you are, perfect. Maybe your are.
Your good impulse control must be fun at parties.
That one's funny to me, sorry.
Yeah. In retrospect it is funny. At the time I felt it was just plain stupid, and I did not feel as bad as I did with the Chickadee; especially since the latter is the State Bird of where I grew up before moving to Alabama.