Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"
Login/Join to ParticipateStargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws.
Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. “If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.”
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passenger’s feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead man’s uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. “He had a radio,” Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. “He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.”
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. “However,” Ms. Haughwout said, “there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.”
“Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to ‘retreat to the wall’ before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force,” Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen’s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
“I was no threat,” Mr. Rosenbloom said. “I had no weapon.”
The men exchanged heated words. “He closed the door and then opened the door,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. “He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.”
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
“I have a right,” Mr. Allen said, “to keep my house safe.”
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorado’s Make My Day Law. “Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving,” the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hill’s home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, “However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller.” She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jury’s decision. She also said, “At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.”
“Trust me,” wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, “this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.”
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws.
Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. “If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.”
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passenger’s feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead man’s uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. “He had a radio,” Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. “He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.”
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. “However,” Ms. Haughwout said, “there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.”
“Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to ‘retreat to the wall’ before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force,” Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen’s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
“I was no threat,” Mr. Rosenbloom said. “I had no weapon.”
The men exchanged heated words. “He closed the door and then opened the door,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. “He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.”
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
“I have a right,” Mr. Allen said, “to keep my house safe.”
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorado’s Make My Day Law. “Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving,” the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hill’s home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, “However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller.” She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jury’s decision. She also said, “At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.”
“Trust me,” wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, “this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.”
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Yes, I do really have to ask. There are laws in place that doesn't allow him to shoot, or even handle the gun without proper supervision, under federal law he can't even buy ammunition for it until he's 18. What do you care if he 'owns' it or not? It's just a formality, what if this were a car?
Big whoop, he worked a loophole in the system, and got a meaningless piece of paper for his 11 month old son.
In some cases that is, and does happen. When a gun maker is liable or negligent. Why would I sue the maker of the gun of someone who shot me? The same sort of bullshit goes on with car manufacturers who are sued because someone decided to drive drunk and got in a car accident with one of their cars. Unless they are directly responsible for the cause of the accident, the maker shouldn't be held accountable.
You guys are mixing two completely different issues when it comes to foreign policy, and concealed carry/gun ownership. You may call yourselves 'enlightened' but I would have to argue that it's more ignorant than anything. Ignoring the fact that evil is out there, and bad people do bad things every day does nothing but make you a sheep. Relying on your government to "always do the right thing" is the same. I would like the power to control my own destiny. I would like the ability, to say, or do, whatever I see fit with my life. I'm not going to rely on anyone to tell me what is okay for me to do or not.
People have free will, they have the ability to choose right from wrong. They should not need to be babied their entire lives. People need to start owning up and taking responsibility for their own lives, and actions. It shouldn't be up to the government to tell you what you can and cannot do, where the hell did personal responsibility go in modern society?? And WHY are you people so ready and eager to place the blame on evil people doing evil things on anyone but the person doing the evil?!?
Yes, I do really have to ask. There are laws in place that doesn't allow him to shoot, or even handle the gun without proper supervision, under federal law he can't even buy ammunition for it until he's 18. What do you care if he 'owns' it or not? It's just a formality, what if this were a car?
Big whoop, he worked a loophole in the system, and got a meaningless piece of paper for his 11 month old son.
Written by:
What I don’t get is why people living in such a litigious country such as the USA, don’t just sue the pants of gun manufactures, gun shop owners, ammunition suppliers etc for all the damage guns cause. Like, they sue Mac Donald’s for eating too many burgers.
In some cases that is, and does happen. When a gun maker is liable or negligent. Why would I sue the maker of the gun of someone who shot me? The same sort of bullshit goes on with car manufacturers who are sued because someone decided to drive drunk and got in a car accident with one of their cars. Unless they are directly responsible for the cause of the accident, the maker shouldn't be held accountable.
You guys are mixing two completely different issues when it comes to foreign policy, and concealed carry/gun ownership. You may call yourselves 'enlightened' but I would have to argue that it's more ignorant than anything. Ignoring the fact that evil is out there, and bad people do bad things every day does nothing but make you a sheep. Relying on your government to "always do the right thing" is the same. I would like the power to control my own destiny. I would like the ability, to say, or do, whatever I see fit with my life. I'm not going to rely on anyone to tell me what is okay for me to do or not.
People have free will, they have the ability to choose right from wrong. They should not need to be babied their entire lives. People need to start owning up and taking responsibility for their own lives, and actions. It shouldn't be up to the government to tell you what you can and cannot do, where the hell did personal responsibility go in modern society?? And WHY are you people so ready and eager to place the blame on evil people doing evil things on anyone but the person doing the evil?!?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored 
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
we are talking about gun laws not foreign policy...they are two different things.
and maybe if other countries did stuff to say stop genocides, instead of whining to us so they don't have to get their hands dirty, we wouldn't have to.
what you don't hear about is all the mediators who try and hash things out first
and i'm sorry, what does your quote from one npo have to do with our general policies. let me go quote one organization and say it stands for entire country's policies.
gun ownership is about protection. the child's father even said he is putting it away. The kid isn't sucking on it like a pacifier. This is a good thing. The kid knowing more about guns means he is less likely to be curious or unknowledgeable and have an accident with the gun later in life.
People need respect for any weapon. Answer their fear with knowledge.
Written by: FireTom
The hypocrisy here IMO is on the US side as it abuses it's power and infringes on other ppl and nations, regarding their values to be superior and above those of other nations. To me it seems that the US has a government which is clearly able to get their citizens into trouble (with their policies), but out of it- not to speak of "protecting" them.
Written by: newamericancentury.org
American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
we are talking about gun laws not foreign policy...they are two different things.
and maybe if other countries did stuff to say stop genocides, instead of whining to us so they don't have to get their hands dirty, we wouldn't have to.
what you don't hear about is all the mediators who try and hash things out first
and i'm sorry, what does your quote from one npo have to do with our general policies. let me go quote one organization and say it stands for entire country's policies.
gun ownership is about protection. the child's father even said he is putting it away. The kid isn't sucking on it like a pacifier. This is a good thing. The kid knowing more about guns means he is less likely to be curious or unknowledgeable and have an accident with the gun later in life.
People need respect for any weapon. Answer their fear with knowledge.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, I’m about done discussing guns with recalcitrant Americans.
You system seems full of loopholes, and as you say a gun license is a meaningless piece of paper.
How can you have free will if you can’t live a peaceful life with out a gun?
Lurch, I’m about done discussing guns with recalcitrant Americans.
Written by:
Big whoop, he worked a loophole in the system, and got a meaningless piece of paper for his 11 month old son.
You system seems full of loopholes, and as you say a gun license is a meaningless piece of paper.
How can you have free will if you can’t live a peaceful life with out a gun?
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
I have free will because I have the right to *choose* if I want to have a gun. Even for completely unnecessary reasons, I can own a gun because I find them fun, and that's all there is to it. I don't need to justify myself, I am presumed innocent of any crime until I am proven guilty. Until I'm a criminal do not treat me as one.
I have free will because I have the right to *choose* if I want to have a gun. Even for completely unnecessary reasons, I can own a gun because I find them fun, and that's all there is to it. I don't need to justify myself, I am presumed innocent of any crime until I am proven guilty. Until I'm a criminal do not treat me as one.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, that seems more like a decision than a choice.
As far as guns go, America seems caught up in some kind of cultural determinism. Determinism is roughly defined as the view that all current and future events are necessitated by past events combined with the laws of nature (wiki).
Lurch, that seems more like a decision than a choice.
As far as guns go, America seems caught up in some kind of cultural determinism. Determinism is roughly defined as the view that all current and future events are necessitated by past events combined with the laws of nature (wiki).
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
Stone....what's the difference between a decision and a choice?? Are they not the same? America was founded on the idea of freedom of choice. Like it or not, that's who we are. We do have free will because are government allows us that.
Stone....what's the difference between a decision and a choice?? Are they not the same? America was founded on the idea of freedom of choice. Like it or not, that's who we are. We do have free will because are government allows us that.
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Faith - it's not as simple and the US government has proven itself to be hostile. The domestic politics unfortunately DO reflect on the international level. But you are right saying that education IS the key!
Lurch - you do reveal aspects of your personality that reconfirm me in my attitude about guns in civilians hands. Neither do you have the right to decide who deserves to die, nor to take the law in your own hands and especially: guns are NOT "fun".
I do not need you to protect me (pretty much staying out of trouble in the first place and if the crap hits the fan I either surrender my possessions or use conflict management). I feel unsafe (when travelling the US) knowing that ppl around me are more likely to have guns than for say in Australia and certainly if we would ever meet personally I would ask you to remove your gun, leave it behind, or not to step into my circle.
However the world (around the US) seems to be a pretty safe place to/ for me: in 38 years of living my life and 11 years of intense travelling, I got mugged in Rio once and had some kid put a knife to my throat in a nightclub of my home town to scare me. Yes I was in some fistfights when I was younger, but basically nothing serious. I can only talk out of my own experience - anything else (to me) is hypothetical.
Pounce - to me - a decision (the act or process of deciding by making a judgement) is a choice (an instance of selection) taken.
Honestly I do not believe that you have the "freedom of choice/ will" as the range of possibilities is pre determined by the society you live in. Your forefathers have made that choice for you already and now you have the urge to arm yourself, because you can't feel safe.
Your government is not 'allowing' you - it passively persuades you. If you go into deeper psychology/ sociology and analyse political systems and structures of past and present, you will find that nothing has really changed, but the title of the leading characters.
Your "freedom of choice" is as much an illusion as the "greatest democracy" you live in...
Faith - it's not as simple and the US government has proven itself to be hostile. The domestic politics unfortunately DO reflect on the international level. But you are right saying that education IS the key!
Lurch - you do reveal aspects of your personality that reconfirm me in my attitude about guns in civilians hands. Neither do you have the right to decide who deserves to die, nor to take the law in your own hands and especially: guns are NOT "fun".
I do not need you to protect me (pretty much staying out of trouble in the first place and if the crap hits the fan I either surrender my possessions or use conflict management). I feel unsafe (when travelling the US) knowing that ppl around me are more likely to have guns than for say in Australia and certainly if we would ever meet personally I would ask you to remove your gun, leave it behind, or not to step into my circle.
However the world (around the US) seems to be a pretty safe place to/ for me: in 38 years of living my life and 11 years of intense travelling, I got mugged in Rio once and had some kid put a knife to my throat in a nightclub of my home town to scare me. Yes I was in some fistfights when I was younger, but basically nothing serious. I can only talk out of my own experience - anything else (to me) is hypothetical.
Pounce - to me - a decision (the act or process of deciding by making a judgement) is a choice (an instance of selection) taken.
Honestly I do not believe that you have the "freedom of choice/ will" as the range of possibilities is pre determined by the society you live in. Your forefathers have made that choice for you already and now you have the urge to arm yourself, because you can't feel safe.
Your government is not 'allowing' you - it passively persuades you. If you go into deeper psychology/ sociology and analyse political systems and structures of past and present, you will find that nothing has really changed, but the title of the leading characters.
Your "freedom of choice" is as much an illusion as the "greatest democracy" you live in...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
(why do I have a manage thread link, can I manage a thread, what does this entail)
Guns are a personal decision. Guns are to protect generally the person in ownership of it.
And as for our foreign policy we really aren't doing anything different than other world powers have done in the past. And again, maybe if NGO mediation worked, maybe if other countries weren't worried about what their friends would think, and do what is right, our family members wouldn't be over there
(why do I have a manage thread link, can I manage a thread, what does this entail)
Guns are a personal decision. Guns are to protect generally the person in ownership of it.
And as for our foreign policy we really aren't doing anything different than other world powers have done in the past. And again, maybe if NGO mediation worked, maybe if other countries weren't worried about what their friends would think, and do what is right, our family members wouldn't be over there
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Faith - a) you would have to address this to the people running this board. b) Guns then are to protect you from people who use guns to protect them from people who made the choice to have guns in their possession
and finally "two wrongs don't make a right"
As stated before: Gun lovers, be happy with your choices and continue to complain about people who simply don't want this American nightmare to become reality in their own country and therefore point out every days madness in "your" country to make other people (in and outside the US) aware of it.
I am more than certain that there is enough criticism inside the US about the current legislative and my sympathy goes out to those fighting to prohibit guns. May they prevail.
The truth is "guns don't kill people" but they make it easier for people to kill each other.
Faith - a) you would have to address this to the people running this board. b) Guns then are to protect you from people who use guns to protect them from people who made the choice to have guns in their possession
and finally "two wrongs don't make a right" As stated before: Gun lovers, be happy with your choices and continue to complain about people who simply don't want this American nightmare to become reality in their own country and therefore point out every days madness in "your" country to make other people (in and outside the US) aware of it.
I am more than certain that there is enough criticism inside the US about the current legislative and my sympathy goes out to those fighting to prohibit guns. May they prevail.
The truth is "guns don't kill people" but they make it easier for people to kill each other.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
no one is saying that the rest of the world should have our gun policies. we are simply defending ours. people who think we are a nightmare and out of control can stay in their country that is more than fine
i don't want guns to be prohibited, rather i pray that we do not need them.
no one is saying that the rest of the world should have our gun policies. we are simply defending ours. people who think we are a nightmare and out of control can stay in their country that is more than fine
i don't want guns to be prohibited, rather i pray that we do not need them.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
Actually FireTom, the laws of America do state that an individual has a "right" to "determine who will die" when it comes to self-defense. But as Lurch has stated before, certain circumstances must be met to prove that it was, in fact, self-defense. On a side note, I find it somewhat offensive how you seem to deliberately choose inflammatory statements to make your point when in reality the words you choose are merely attempts to distort and misconstrue the issue...but that's just my opinion (just like you found it irritating when people would not quote their source). I'm responding to your statements using your words but I disagree with them. I don't recall Lurch saying he has a RIGHT to determine who DIES, but he said he has a right to defend himself to any point necessary. It's a matter of semantics, yes, but an important one.
And I agree with Lurch, guns are fun. I enjoy myself when I go to the range to practice firing my weapon. I do not want to ever use it against another person, THAT would not be fun. But to practice shooting, to hone your skills, in a purely sport manner IS fun to some people. Just like some people enjoy archery (it is an Olympic sport, so that's on an international level, not just America). What is so different between archery and firearm practice? Both can be lethal against a human, but the sport aspect of it is about learning accuracy.
I'm sorry you feel unsafe in America, but that's you. There have been times I've felt unsafe in countries where firearms were banned. I know my feelings had nothing to do with the types of weapons available but rather my own judgments and preconceived notions of the culture I was in.
Let me ask you this. If America truly has no "freedom of choice," why do we have record numbers of immigrants coming into this country, both legally and illegally? Why is the USA the prime destination for individuals seeking asylum from the horrors of their own country?
I think it's a bullshit opinion that "Your forefathers have made that choice for you already and now you have the urge to arm yourself, because you can't feel safe." Sorry, but I do. My forefathers made the choice to allow me the choice to arm myself OR NOT. And I chose not to for 27 years of my life. I now choose to, yes partially because, in your words, I do not feel safe. It's not that I CAN'T feel safe, and from my perspective, it's not that I do not feel safe either. I recognize the dangerous aspects of my job, and I do feel somewhat more protected by carrying my firearm. But I wouldn't say that I feel "unsafe" in my job or that I can only achieve that sense of "safety" by owning a firearm.
Actually FireTom, the laws of America do state that an individual has a "right" to "determine who will die" when it comes to self-defense. But as Lurch has stated before, certain circumstances must be met to prove that it was, in fact, self-defense. On a side note, I find it somewhat offensive how you seem to deliberately choose inflammatory statements to make your point when in reality the words you choose are merely attempts to distort and misconstrue the issue...but that's just my opinion (just like you found it irritating when people would not quote their source). I'm responding to your statements using your words but I disagree with them. I don't recall Lurch saying he has a RIGHT to determine who DIES, but he said he has a right to defend himself to any point necessary. It's a matter of semantics, yes, but an important one.
And I agree with Lurch, guns are fun. I enjoy myself when I go to the range to practice firing my weapon. I do not want to ever use it against another person, THAT would not be fun. But to practice shooting, to hone your skills, in a purely sport manner IS fun to some people. Just like some people enjoy archery (it is an Olympic sport, so that's on an international level, not just America). What is so different between archery and firearm practice? Both can be lethal against a human, but the sport aspect of it is about learning accuracy.
I'm sorry you feel unsafe in America, but that's you. There have been times I've felt unsafe in countries where firearms were banned. I know my feelings had nothing to do with the types of weapons available but rather my own judgments and preconceived notions of the culture I was in.
Let me ask you this. If America truly has no "freedom of choice," why do we have record numbers of immigrants coming into this country, both legally and illegally? Why is the USA the prime destination for individuals seeking asylum from the horrors of their own country?
I think it's a bullshit opinion that "Your forefathers have made that choice for you already and now you have the urge to arm yourself, because you can't feel safe." Sorry, but I do. My forefathers made the choice to allow me the choice to arm myself OR NOT. And I chose not to for 27 years of my life. I now choose to, yes partially because, in your words, I do not feel safe. It's not that I CAN'T feel safe, and from my perspective, it's not that I do not feel safe either. I recognize the dangerous aspects of my job, and I do feel somewhat more protected by carrying my firearm. But I wouldn't say that I feel "unsafe" in my job or that I can only achieve that sense of "safety" by owning a firearm.
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Thats exactly it Fire Tom:
Well said.
back later
Thats exactly it Fire Tom:
Written by:
Honestly I do not believe that you have the "freedom of choice/ will" as the range of possibilities is pre determined by the society you live in. Your forefathers have made that choice for you already and now you have the urge to arm yourself, because you can't feel safe.
Well said.
back later
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Well again
- don't shoot me 
- no offence meant, none taken
Even though the migration issue is taking us off topic, I would be surprised if the current US policies would not have greatly decreased the numbers of migrants and those applying for a green card. Unfortunately I do not have enough time to dig out the numbers and can't say whether the US or the EU is no. 1 in the world for immigration... but certainly it's not just because the US is such a great country. Dunno about your (illegal)immigrants, but to the EU they come for a multitude of reasons, amongst them economical ones. Fact is that the living conditions in their countries sometimes are far worse.
I try to keep away from the other (off)topic, but gun manufacturers are not forced (yet) to put health warnings on their products - how come these seem to be the only ones, if they are at least as lethal?
With my "inflammatory statement" I was referring to Lurch's post in the VT thread, where he stated that "the kid deserved to die" (based upon media release only). You can take offence in this, but I'm merely stating the facts as they occur to me and put together the pieces. Insisting on ones right to bear arms, considering them "fun", feeling the urge to protect the people around ones self and making judgements on who "deserves" to die - IMHO - is an unhealthy mix that is prone to lead to disaster at some point (god forbid).
But what makes one a "criminal"? Stealing? Shoplifting? Drug abuse? Running around (armed) in other peoples backyard at age 15?
A "law abiding citizen" might be one that simply has not been caught yet - and having said this: may I propose mandatory and random drug testing for everybody who buys/ owns a gun and certainly for those who apply for a concealed carry permit - on their own expense? Last thing the people of America want are gun owners and CCP's on drugs, I suppose.
However, fact of the matter is that your government can't protect you everywhere all of the time (same every country on the planet), but it can create circumstances in which one feels and is safe/r. Now the US government has continuously worked towards a rather paranoid state of mind on both, inter-/ national level. And it's not as if I have never travelled and lived the US, watched and read their news, met their people...
To me every life is precious, some more some less - certainly I am human too. But I do oppose the US gun laws as much as I do oppose the death penalty and US hypocrisies when it comes to the international court of Den Haag, human rights violations and their right to create a problem in the first place, then use violence to solve it and at the same time go fishing for compliments. [/sarcasm]
This is nothing personal, trust me on this one.
Archery is a sports, shooting a gun can be too. The likelihood to kill someone with bow and arrow is much smaller than killing someone with a gun, a compound bow is harder to carry concealed in public and it's much more effort to aim, shoot and reload. Therefore your comparison is faulty. I picked up archery myself recently and I have been to the shooting range a few years ago. I do have a personal comparison of the handling and feeling both weapons create within me. I also do swords, staff and nun-chakku, even carry a knife occasionally (for practical reasons, not exclusively for self defence) - you see, it's not merely about "weapons or not"...
The thing is that the unsafe feeling in the US is NOT "just" me. It's U2 and it's many more... otherwise you wouldn't arm yourself and all the US Americans would join the chorus, including former president Bill Clinton (who stepped up efforts to ban guns). It's not just the world outside the US that is sceptical about their gun laws.
Gun control
It has been said before, I repeat and round off:
Level one
- Intensify psychological and background screening of ppl obtaining guns
- Mandatory and random drug testing for the same
- Penalise gun offences at a higher degree
- Educate children about gun abuse in schools
- Pledge the gun industry to donate funds (much like the tobacco industry) and cut their profits
Level two
- Make guns outside concealed compounds illegal
It's preposterous that we're talking about world peace and to stop the killing of innocent people on international level whilst the terror prevails nationally.
Well again
- don't shoot me - no offence meant, none taken Even though the migration issue is taking us off topic, I would be surprised if the current US policies would not have greatly decreased the numbers of migrants and those applying for a green card. Unfortunately I do not have enough time to dig out the numbers and can't say whether the US or the EU is no. 1 in the world for immigration... but certainly it's not just because the US is such a great country. Dunno about your (illegal)immigrants, but to the EU they come for a multitude of reasons, amongst them economical ones. Fact is that the living conditions in their countries sometimes are far worse.
I try to keep away from the other (off)topic, but gun manufacturers are not forced (yet) to put health warnings on their products - how come these seem to be the only ones, if they are at least as lethal?
With my "inflammatory statement" I was referring to Lurch's post in the VT thread, where he stated that "the kid deserved to die" (based upon media release only). You can take offence in this, but I'm merely stating the facts as they occur to me and put together the pieces. Insisting on ones right to bear arms, considering them "fun", feeling the urge to protect the people around ones self and making judgements on who "deserves" to die - IMHO - is an unhealthy mix that is prone to lead to disaster at some point (god forbid).
But what makes one a "criminal"? Stealing? Shoplifting? Drug abuse? Running around (armed) in other peoples backyard at age 15?
A "law abiding citizen" might be one that simply has not been caught yet - and having said this: may I propose mandatory and random drug testing for everybody who buys/ owns a gun and certainly for those who apply for a concealed carry permit - on their own expense? Last thing the people of America want are gun owners and CCP's on drugs, I suppose.
However, fact of the matter is that your government can't protect you everywhere all of the time (same every country on the planet), but it can create circumstances in which one feels and is safe/r. Now the US government has continuously worked towards a rather paranoid state of mind on both, inter-/ national level. And it's not as if I have never travelled and lived the US, watched and read their news, met their people...
To me every life is precious, some more some less - certainly I am human too. But I do oppose the US gun laws as much as I do oppose the death penalty and US hypocrisies when it comes to the international court of Den Haag, human rights violations and their right to create a problem in the first place, then use violence to solve it and at the same time go fishing for compliments. [/sarcasm]
This is nothing personal, trust me on this one.
Archery is a sports, shooting a gun can be too. The likelihood to kill someone with bow and arrow is much smaller than killing someone with a gun, a compound bow is harder to carry concealed in public and it's much more effort to aim, shoot and reload. Therefore your comparison is faulty. I picked up archery myself recently and I have been to the shooting range a few years ago. I do have a personal comparison of the handling and feeling both weapons create within me. I also do swords, staff and nun-chakku, even carry a knife occasionally (for practical reasons, not exclusively for self defence) - you see, it's not merely about "weapons or not"...
The thing is that the unsafe feeling in the US is NOT "just" me. It's U2 and it's many more... otherwise you wouldn't arm yourself and all the US Americans would join the chorus, including former president Bill Clinton (who stepped up efforts to ban guns). It's not just the world outside the US that is sceptical about their gun laws.
Gun control
It has been said before, I repeat and round off:
Level one
- Intensify psychological and background screening of ppl obtaining guns
- Mandatory and random drug testing for the same
- Penalise gun offences at a higher degree
- Educate children about gun abuse in schools
- Pledge the gun industry to donate funds (much like the tobacco industry) and cut their profits
Level two
- Make guns outside concealed compounds illegal
It's preposterous that we're talking about world peace and to stop the killing of innocent people on international level whilst the terror prevails nationally.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Don't assume things. Of course there is a limit to the choices and 'free will' we have. Do I like that? Not always. But when it comes to this issue, I have a lot more free will towards whether or not to prepare myself than you do. I actually *have* the ability to do so if I want, you have no choice about it. If you prefer to live your life that way then be my guest.
Actually, the materials that come with every gun I've ever seen always express that it indeed can cause serious injury or death. As does virtually all ammunition. That also goes back to my call for personal responsibility however, people should be smart enough to know that guns can hurt you, I don't believe there needs to be "Caution: HOT!" labels on coffee cups either.
Actually I restated that to make it a bit more PC in the VT thread, I'll quote it again for your benifit though:
You yourself have said that you practice many forms of weaponry and combat, and even carry a knife at times. You can seperate those from purely hostile acts, but you cannot disassociate a gun? Guns *are* fun to some people. Myself and Pounce included. Just because you cannot see it doesn't mean it's not so. There are 17 events in the olympics that involve shooting of some sort. Only about 4 for archery. There are several completely valid, non-deadly reasons to have/carry a gun. As you've said, its not merely "weapons or not." If your argument that guns are potentially more deadly than archery if something goes wrong, then I would submit that so is rock climbing, mountaineering, skydiving, hang gliding, and a hundred other sports where accidents generally result in death. Would you like all of them to be illegal?
I don't make judgements on who "deserves" to die. I do not endorse any form of vigilantism. I've said that many times. I definatly have an urge to protect the people around me. I am not a sheep, I will not stand by while someone is victimised. If you will, then I feel sorry for you. There was a 91 year old man viciously beat recently during a car jacking. 91 years old.. there were dozens of witnesses, and noone did a thing to stop it. Some people called 911, but NOONE said a word, no one stepped in. They just watched, does that seem right? Is that the world you want to live in? Because that is the world you're encouraging. What if you were that old man, would you want people to keep walking while you're being beat to the ground in the parking lot?
The law decides when it's legal to shoot someone, there are not many grey areas, if you're justified, you're justified. If not, then you don't shoot, or risk jail. There is a saying that you'll probably have a hayday with but I feel it holds true. It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Um.. yes, all of those are criminal acts. With a possible exception to the last one as there are possible circumstances where that *might* possibly be justified. There is a difference between crime, and violent crime. civil, non-violent crime does not constitute a right to use lethal force. You cannot shoot someone for stealing your stereo, nor should you.
What does feeling safer have anything to do with actually being safer? The "gun free zone" on the VT campus was designed to make people "feel" safer, but it did absolutely nothing to actually make them safer. Some could argue the opposite, but that's for the VT thread that has apparently died, I'm welcome to start that debate again in here if you'd like.
I don't believe the government has worked towards a paranoid state. An unarmed populace would be ideal for any government, allowing the state to control absolutely. I will agree that the media does perpetuate the violent nature of our society, and I have remarked on that before. Studies have shown that when children are not exposed to average television, adolescent violence drops. Who is going to get that out to the people though? The very media that it's criticising?
Clinton's gun ban was a farce. It did nothing to actually help prevent gun violence and the CDC agrees. He went after "assault weapons" as a purely political issue. He also promised the nation 100,000 more police officers. That promise was never fullfilled, and would have been much more influential and effective against crime than the gun ban. Guns have been sensationalised by the media, and you've bought into it hook line and sinker. Clintons ban went after "assault weapons" which function exactly like virtually every other gun, they just look meaner. Fully automatic weapons have been under strict regulation since the 30's, the 'assualt weapons' ban was specifically worded to mislead people and confuse them, if you actually look at the rules and determining factors that makes a gun an "assault weapon" the whole thing is a joke. It banned guns primarily on purely cosmetic reasoning. One gun can be completely legal, and an otherwise identical gun, with a black stock, suddenly becomes and evil babykilling assault weapon. If you think bayonet lugs, pistol grips, or folding stocks make a weapon more dangerous, or likely to be used in a crime you're sadly mistaken. I've never heard of a drive-by-bayonetting. Don't buy into anti-gun groups like the brady campaign so blindly.
Some of those I may agree with, some not. Education of about guns in schools is important. But it is important that they NOT be sensationalized in such 'education' classes. They need to be taught to be respected, not feared.
What I'm still lost as to why you have a problem with legal citizens carrying weapons.
Written by:
Honestly I do not believe that you have the "freedom of choice/ will" as the range of possibilities is pre determined by the society you live in. Your forefathers have made that choice for you already and now you have the urge to arm yourself, because you can't feel safe.
Don't assume things. Of course there is a limit to the choices and 'free will' we have. Do I like that? Not always. But when it comes to this issue, I have a lot more free will towards whether or not to prepare myself than you do. I actually *have* the ability to do so if I want, you have no choice about it. If you prefer to live your life that way then be my guest.
Written by:
I try to keep away from the other (off)topic, but gun manufacturers are not forced (yet) to put health warnings on their products - how come these seem to be the only ones, if they are at least as lethal?
Actually, the materials that come with every gun I've ever seen always express that it indeed can cause serious injury or death. As does virtually all ammunition. That also goes back to my call for personal responsibility however, people should be smart enough to know that guns can hurt you, I don't believe there needs to be "Caution: HOT!" labels on coffee cups either.
Written by:
With my "inflammatory statement" I was referring to Lurch's post in the VT thread, where he stated that "the kid deserved to die" (based upon media release only). You can take offence in this, but I'm merely stating the facts as they occur to me and put together the pieces. Insisting on ones right to bear arms, considering them "fun", feeling the urge to protect the people around ones self and making judgements on who "deserves" to die - IMHO - is an unhealthy mix that is prone to lead to disaster at some point (god forbid).
Actually I restated that to make it a bit more PC in the VT thread, I'll quote it again for your benifit though:
Written by:
"Deserved" is probably too harsh a word to use. But *he* is the one who initiated the confrontation. He is the one who brought deadly force into the situation. He created a 'you or me' situation, and he lost. Why would you think he deserves any better? Would you have been happier if an innocent citizen was gunned down for a couple bucks, or fought back and put a criminal in his place? It's not vigilantism.
Backyard jumping is *far* different from armed robbery. As I've said before a valid self defense situation must include the ability, the opportunity, and the intent to cause someone grievous bodily harm, or death. Why are people jumping to defense of the criminals? He was not innocent, he did something wrong, and paid with his life. It's not a tragedy. It sucks that things went that way, but it was his choice. 15 years old should be old enough to know better.
You yourself have said that you practice many forms of weaponry and combat, and even carry a knife at times. You can seperate those from purely hostile acts, but you cannot disassociate a gun? Guns *are* fun to some people. Myself and Pounce included. Just because you cannot see it doesn't mean it's not so. There are 17 events in the olympics that involve shooting of some sort. Only about 4 for archery. There are several completely valid, non-deadly reasons to have/carry a gun. As you've said, its not merely "weapons or not." If your argument that guns are potentially more deadly than archery if something goes wrong, then I would submit that so is rock climbing, mountaineering, skydiving, hang gliding, and a hundred other sports where accidents generally result in death. Would you like all of them to be illegal?
I don't make judgements on who "deserves" to die. I do not endorse any form of vigilantism. I've said that many times. I definatly have an urge to protect the people around me. I am not a sheep, I will not stand by while someone is victimised. If you will, then I feel sorry for you. There was a 91 year old man viciously beat recently during a car jacking. 91 years old.. there were dozens of witnesses, and noone did a thing to stop it. Some people called 911, but NOONE said a word, no one stepped in. They just watched, does that seem right? Is that the world you want to live in? Because that is the world you're encouraging. What if you were that old man, would you want people to keep walking while you're being beat to the ground in the parking lot?
The law decides when it's legal to shoot someone, there are not many grey areas, if you're justified, you're justified. If not, then you don't shoot, or risk jail. There is a saying that you'll probably have a hayday with but I feel it holds true. It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Written by:
But what makes one a "criminal"? Stealing? Shoplifting? Drug abuse? Running around (armed) in other peoples backyard at age 15?
Um.. yes, all of those are criminal acts. With a possible exception to the last one as there are possible circumstances where that *might* possibly be justified. There is a difference between crime, and violent crime. civil, non-violent crime does not constitute a right to use lethal force. You cannot shoot someone for stealing your stereo, nor should you.
Written by:
However, fact of the matter is that your government can't protect you everywhere all of the time (same every country on the planet), but it can create circumstances in which one feels and is safe/r. Now the US government has continuously worked towards a rather paranoid state of mind on both, inter-/ national level. And it's not as if I have never travelled and lived the US, watched and read their news, met their people...
What does feeling safer have anything to do with actually being safer? The "gun free zone" on the VT campus was designed to make people "feel" safer, but it did absolutely nothing to actually make them safer. Some could argue the opposite, but that's for the VT thread that has apparently died, I'm welcome to start that debate again in here if you'd like.
I don't believe the government has worked towards a paranoid state. An unarmed populace would be ideal for any government, allowing the state to control absolutely. I will agree that the media does perpetuate the violent nature of our society, and I have remarked on that before. Studies have shown that when children are not exposed to average television, adolescent violence drops. Who is going to get that out to the people though? The very media that it's criticising?
Written by:
The thing is that the unsafe feeling in the US is NOT "just" me. It's U2 and it's many more... otherwise you wouldn't arm yourself and all the US Americans would join the chorus, including former president Bill Clinton (who stepped up efforts to ban guns). It's not just the world outside the US that is sceptical about their gun laws.
Clinton's gun ban was a farce. It did nothing to actually help prevent gun violence and the CDC agrees. He went after "assault weapons" as a purely political issue. He also promised the nation 100,000 more police officers. That promise was never fullfilled, and would have been much more influential and effective against crime than the gun ban. Guns have been sensationalised by the media, and you've bought into it hook line and sinker. Clintons ban went after "assault weapons" which function exactly like virtually every other gun, they just look meaner. Fully automatic weapons have been under strict regulation since the 30's, the 'assualt weapons' ban was specifically worded to mislead people and confuse them, if you actually look at the rules and determining factors that makes a gun an "assault weapon" the whole thing is a joke. It banned guns primarily on purely cosmetic reasoning. One gun can be completely legal, and an otherwise identical gun, with a black stock, suddenly becomes and evil babykilling assault weapon. If you think bayonet lugs, pistol grips, or folding stocks make a weapon more dangerous, or likely to be used in a crime you're sadly mistaken. I've never heard of a drive-by-bayonetting. Don't buy into anti-gun groups like the brady campaign so blindly.
Written by:
Level one
- Intensify psychological and background screening of ppl obtaining guns
- Mandatory and random drug testing for the same
- Penalise gun offences at a higher degree
- Educate children about gun abuse in schools
- Pledge the gun industry to donate funds (much like the tobacco industry) and cut their profits
Level two
- Make guns outside concealed compounds illegal
Some of those I may agree with, some not. Education of about guns in schools is important. But it is important that they NOT be sensationalized in such 'education' classes. They need to be taught to be respected, not feared.
What I'm still lost as to why you have a problem with legal citizens carrying weapons.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
That's a very interesting point, parallelling martial arts with carrying a gun. With martial arts, one has to spend a considerable time thinking about, and practicing how best to do damage to other people.
There's also a parallel between styles of martial arts that stress combat and self defense, and assault weapons, as well as styles that stress getting points in the ring with activities like target/skeet shooting.
That's a very interesting point, parallelling martial arts with carrying a gun. With martial arts, one has to spend a considerable time thinking about, and practicing how best to do damage to other people.
There's also a parallel between styles of martial arts that stress combat and self defense, and assault weapons, as well as styles that stress getting points in the ring with activities like target/skeet shooting.
SILVER Member
veteran
1,237 posts
Location: Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
veteran
1,237 posts
Location: Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
I haven't read the whole thread, but I find any MA/Gun comparison worrying.
Martial artists spend considerably time training in the first place, learning restraint and control along with the rest of their skills, they are expected, as anyone, to evaluate a situation and use reasonable force, if anything they have to be more careful the law comes down harder on them, as they expect them to have considerably better control of a confrontational situation, and exercise more restraint than an untrained person who, say, may lash out in fear, without any idea of their own strength, or the repercussions of where they strike.
Any idiot, or even a child barely able to speak can come across a gun and KILL someone, including themselves, accidentally or with intent to harm.
I haven't read the whole thread, but I find any MA/Gun comparison worrying.
Martial artists spend considerably time training in the first place, learning restraint and control along with the rest of their skills, they are expected, as anyone, to evaluate a situation and use reasonable force, if anything they have to be more careful the law comes down harder on them, as they expect them to have considerably better control of a confrontational situation, and exercise more restraint than an untrained person who, say, may lash out in fear, without any idea of their own strength, or the repercussions of where they strike.
Any idiot, or even a child barely able to speak can come across a gun and KILL someone, including themselves, accidentally or with intent to harm.
Blinded by Hyperlights, please donate generously 
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Any idiot can come across a baseball bat or knife as well. More idiots get into cars and kill hundreds every day. I'm not arguing for the idiots, I'm arguing for those of us who go through the training, and the jump the legal hoops to allow us to carry our weapons on us whenever we want (a few exceptions). I would say everything you've just said in terms of MA holds true, if not more so for someone with a concealed carry permit.
Any idiot can come across a baseball bat or knife as well. More idiots get into cars and kill hundreds every day. I'm not arguing for the idiots, I'm arguing for those of us who go through the training, and the jump the legal hoops to allow us to carry our weapons on us whenever we want (a few exceptions). I would say everything you've just said in terms of MA holds true, if not more so for someone with a concealed carry permit.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Yakumo, I understand why you'd find the comparison worrying but we're all over the board with different aspects of gun ownership all being lumped together and the comparison to MA can be most aptly linked to Tom's sentiments about not wanting an armed person in his presence, or not wanting to visit the US out of fear of being shot by some random law-abiding American citizen.
Fact is, we all know martial arts guys who like to fight, whether it be in the ring or out on the street and the ideal of not using MA unless it's absolutely necessary is mostly just that, an ideal.
So were I to hold that I don't want to accept gun carriers into my immediate circle because I fear the potential of what they MIGHT do, then shouldn't the same apply to those versed in MA ? After all, we're talking about judging people on their potential to inflict serious damage on another should they choose to do so.
And then there's the fun aspect of guns/MA. Sure..I used to find it fun to go out and shoot guns for an afternoon, I used to own a couple ( rifles,,,and I could borrow shotguns ) but I simply got bored with them ( and I went all urban and liberal ). Never did I consider the gun in my hands as an anti personnel device, like many martial artists would never consider starting a street fight.
As Lurch just illustrated there's also the responsibility that comes along with a CCW that closely parallels the responsibility that accompanies MA training.
If I "have" to fear people based on their potential to cause me harm, shouldn't I fear a black belt as much as someone who's armed ? It's all a matter of trust, really.
Yakumo, I understand why you'd find the comparison worrying but we're all over the board with different aspects of gun ownership all being lumped together and the comparison to MA can be most aptly linked to Tom's sentiments about not wanting an armed person in his presence, or not wanting to visit the US out of fear of being shot by some random law-abiding American citizen.
Fact is, we all know martial arts guys who like to fight, whether it be in the ring or out on the street and the ideal of not using MA unless it's absolutely necessary is mostly just that, an ideal.
So were I to hold that I don't want to accept gun carriers into my immediate circle because I fear the potential of what they MIGHT do, then shouldn't the same apply to those versed in MA ? After all, we're talking about judging people on their potential to inflict serious damage on another should they choose to do so.
And then there's the fun aspect of guns/MA. Sure..I used to find it fun to go out and shoot guns for an afternoon, I used to own a couple ( rifles,,,and I could borrow shotguns ) but I simply got bored with them ( and I went all urban and liberal ). Never did I consider the gun in my hands as an anti personnel device, like many martial artists would never consider starting a street fight.
As Lurch just illustrated there's also the responsibility that comes along with a CCW that closely parallels the responsibility that accompanies MA training.
If I "have" to fear people based on their potential to cause me harm, shouldn't I fear a black belt as much as someone who's armed ? It's all a matter of trust, really.
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
See this is the part of your logic I find ironic. You argue that America has become a paranoid society, that we all feel the need to arm ourselves because we are paranoid of attacks (which is a far cry from the truth for many). But here you take different qualities and believe that combined they will create monster of a human being. You believe that "law abiding citizens" are merely those who have not been caught yet. It's laughable! At least own up to your stereotypes! Have you ever met Lurch? Have you ever talked to him at length beyond these gun debates? I'm going to guess no because if you have, you'd realize how responsible and caring of a person he is. I've taken the time to talk to him, to get to know him, and if there were anyone I'd trust to look out for my or anyone's best interests and welfare, it would be him. Heck, if you actually read his posts with an open mind, you'd recognize his level of responsibility.
No my comparison is not faulty. Once again you are reading your own interpretations into what I said rather than actually listening to what I have to say. Here, let me refresh your memory since you didn't read it properly in the first place:
I was comparing archery as a sport to firearm practice as a sport. I said nothing about trying to conceal a bow and arrow. I was not comparing the two in regards to their ability to kill people.
Written by: FireTom
With my "inflammatory statement" I was referring to Lurch's post in the VT thread, where he stated that "the kid deserved to die" (based upon media release only). You can take offence in this, but I'm merely stating the facts as they occur to me and put together the pieces. Insisting on ones right to bear arms, considering them "fun", feeling the urge to protect the people around ones self and making judgements on who "deserves" to die - IMHO - is an unhealthy mix that is prone to lead to disaster at some point (god forbid).
See this is the part of your logic I find ironic. You argue that America has become a paranoid society, that we all feel the need to arm ourselves because we are paranoid of attacks (which is a far cry from the truth for many). But here you take different qualities and believe that combined they will create monster of a human being. You believe that "law abiding citizens" are merely those who have not been caught yet. It's laughable! At least own up to your stereotypes! Have you ever met Lurch? Have you ever talked to him at length beyond these gun debates? I'm going to guess no because if you have, you'd realize how responsible and caring of a person he is. I've taken the time to talk to him, to get to know him, and if there were anyone I'd trust to look out for my or anyone's best interests and welfare, it would be him. Heck, if you actually read his posts with an open mind, you'd recognize his level of responsibility.
Written by: FireTom
Archery is a sports, shooting a gun can be too. The likelihood to kill someone with bow and arrow is much smaller than killing someone with a gun, a compound bow is harder to carry concealed in public and it's much more effort to aim, shoot and reload. Therefore your comparison is faulty.
No my comparison is not faulty. Once again you are reading your own interpretations into what I said rather than actually listening to what I have to say. Here, let me refresh your memory since you didn't read it properly in the first place:
Written by: pounce
And I agree with Lurch, guns are fun. I enjoy myself when I go to the range to practice firing my weapon. I do not want to ever use it against another person, THAT would not be fun. But to practice shooting, to hone your skills, in a purely sport manner IS fun to some people. Just like some people enjoy archery (it is an Olympic sport, so that's on an international level, not just America). What is so different between archery and firearm practice? Both can be lethal against a human, but the sport aspect of it is about learning accuracy.
I was comparing archery as a sport to firearm practice as a sport. I said nothing about trying to conceal a bow and arrow. I was not comparing the two in regards to their ability to kill people.
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, I don’t think America has free will when comes to guns. No other civilized nation on earth is prepared to tolerate the amount of self-harm, carnage and death that guns cause in America.
I think it’s ironic that a nation of rugged, individuals, call then sheep dog’s if you like, end up looking like a flock of sheep dogs when it comes to guns. To put it another way, Americans show robotic behaviour when it comes to gun control. Mention gun control and the second amendment and you will get an almost Pavlovic response.
Restating your previous statement to make it a bit more PC in the VT thread, doesn’t change the intent, does it?
As far as the USA being a paranoid nation, how else do you explain McCarthyism, the domino theory and Vietnam or the invasion of Iraq? As far as Iraq goes, there were NO weapons of mass destruction; to me it was just another example of paranoia.
Lurch, I don’t think America has free will when comes to guns. No other civilized nation on earth is prepared to tolerate the amount of self-harm, carnage and death that guns cause in America.
I think it’s ironic that a nation of rugged, individuals, call then sheep dog’s if you like, end up looking like a flock of sheep dogs when it comes to guns. To put it another way, Americans show robotic behaviour when it comes to gun control. Mention gun control and the second amendment and you will get an almost Pavlovic response.
Restating your previous statement to make it a bit more PC in the VT thread, doesn’t change the intent, does it?
As far as the USA being a paranoid nation, how else do you explain McCarthyism, the domino theory and Vietnam or the invasion of Iraq? As far as Iraq goes, there were NO weapons of mass destruction; to me it was just another example of paranoia.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Are you saying that lack of choice = free will? The "carnage and death" that guns cause is a very very very small percentage of deaths in this nation, you're blowing it out of proportion as everyone loves to do. I've seen a fairly small number of gun shot wounds, and they have all been work related, never in my personal life. It's not nearly as common as people think.
The fact is we DO have a choice, we can choose to be armed, or not. As you've said, "no other civilized nation" allows their citizens that choice. How do you equate that to us lacking free will? *You* have LESS choice in the matter than I do, because your government has unjustly deemed you too dangerous to handle a weapon. *You* do not have free will in the matter. It's true that my options are fairly limited, but at least I have options.
I think you're misunderstanding the sheep and sheepdog statements I've made. The majority of people, Americans included are sheep. They depend on others and need someone to protect them and steer them in the right direction. This is a mentality issue, not training, or education. People are so completely willing to ignore the fact that there are bad people doing bad things, that they blind themselves to the reality of the situation. They do more than ignore, they outright deny it. Look at the number of firealarms, and detectors we have in our schools, children are far more likely to be injured, or even killed in bullying, and related violence than by a fire. But many people are opposed to even having armed police officers on campus grounds out of some false misconception that the presence of a gun, in responsible hands, will encourage violence. I don't believe having guns in the hands of 'good' people in the community does anything to encourage crime. We ARE innocent until proven guilty in this country. Just because I have a gun, doesn't make me a bad person. A lot of the 'pavlovian' responce that you get from people at the mention of taking our guns away, is because it's taken as such. If you tell me I can't own a gun because of something I may do in the future, you're condemning me before I've done anything wrong. Why should I not be allowed to be in control of my personal safety?
Are you saying that lack of choice = free will? The "carnage and death" that guns cause is a very very very small percentage of deaths in this nation, you're blowing it out of proportion as everyone loves to do. I've seen a fairly small number of gun shot wounds, and they have all been work related, never in my personal life. It's not nearly as common as people think.
The fact is we DO have a choice, we can choose to be armed, or not. As you've said, "no other civilized nation" allows their citizens that choice. How do you equate that to us lacking free will? *You* have LESS choice in the matter than I do, because your government has unjustly deemed you too dangerous to handle a weapon. *You* do not have free will in the matter. It's true that my options are fairly limited, but at least I have options.
I think you're misunderstanding the sheep and sheepdog statements I've made. The majority of people, Americans included are sheep. They depend on others and need someone to protect them and steer them in the right direction. This is a mentality issue, not training, or education. People are so completely willing to ignore the fact that there are bad people doing bad things, that they blind themselves to the reality of the situation. They do more than ignore, they outright deny it. Look at the number of firealarms, and detectors we have in our schools, children are far more likely to be injured, or even killed in bullying, and related violence than by a fire. But many people are opposed to even having armed police officers on campus grounds out of some false misconception that the presence of a gun, in responsible hands, will encourage violence. I don't believe having guns in the hands of 'good' people in the community does anything to encourage crime. We ARE innocent until proven guilty in this country. Just because I have a gun, doesn't make me a bad person. A lot of the 'pavlovian' responce that you get from people at the mention of taking our guns away, is because it's taken as such. If you tell me I can't own a gun because of something I may do in the future, you're condemning me before I've done anything wrong. Why should I not be allowed to be in control of my personal safety?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, I never implied you were a criminal, or said that you don’t have the right to own a gun. You have a right to own a gun! What I’m questioning is the need to own a gun, and a cultural dependence on guns. To answer some of your questions:
Q. Are you saying that lack of choice = free will?
No, I’m saying you only think you have free will.
Q. How do you equate that to us lacking free will?
Guns are not banned in Australia. I have the option to own a gun, rifle or even a pistol. I had a gun when I lived on a farm, and I enjoyed shooting. Now I live in the city I don’t need a gun.
America is way over the average on gun-related deaths. For example, yearly firearm homicides, not including accidents, are USA (11,127), Germany (381), France (255), Canada (165) the United Kingdom (68). I would suggest that the big disparity between the number of homicides in America, compared to that in other countries, is due to how people living in each country view the relevance of guns in the community. The stats are taken from Bowling For Columbine are only used as an example.
The pretext of protection is just an excuse to justify owing a gun even when you don’t really need one. I’m suggesting one reason for this could be found in how the people living in America interpret the second amendment. Your version sounds something like “I have to own a gun to be a “good” American citizen”.
As far as any crime goes, the crime is doing nothing. Other Governments have restricted guns in the community so people can live in harmony. Real freedom comes from not feeling the need to have a gun to be in control of your personal safety.
Lurch, I never implied you were a criminal, or said that you don’t have the right to own a gun. You have a right to own a gun! What I’m questioning is the need to own a gun, and a cultural dependence on guns. To answer some of your questions:
Q. Are you saying that lack of choice = free will?
No, I’m saying you only think you have free will.
Q. How do you equate that to us lacking free will?
Guns are not banned in Australia. I have the option to own a gun, rifle or even a pistol. I had a gun when I lived on a farm, and I enjoyed shooting. Now I live in the city I don’t need a gun.
America is way over the average on gun-related deaths. For example, yearly firearm homicides, not including accidents, are USA (11,127), Germany (381), France (255), Canada (165) the United Kingdom (68). I would suggest that the big disparity between the number of homicides in America, compared to that in other countries, is due to how people living in each country view the relevance of guns in the community. The stats are taken from Bowling For Columbine are only used as an example.
The pretext of protection is just an excuse to justify owing a gun even when you don’t really need one. I’m suggesting one reason for this could be found in how the people living in America interpret the second amendment. Your version sounds something like “I have to own a gun to be a “good” American citizen”.
As far as any crime goes, the crime is doing nothing. Other Governments have restricted guns in the community so people can live in harmony. Real freedom comes from not feeling the need to have a gun to be in control of your personal safety.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Lurch, I've tried to see the American pro-gun point of view and, despite my reservations about gun ownership, i do acknowledge that the US is a special case due to its long established history of gun ownership etc.
However, am I right in thinking that you believe that other cointires like the US, Germany etc, should have similar rights to gun ownership, or that they would benefit from doing so?
It sounds like it, yet it seems unlikely that you could actually mean that- can you clarify?
Written by: Lurch
The fact is we DO have a choice, we can choose to be armed, or not. As you've said, "no other civilized nation" allows their citizens that choice. How do you equate that to us lacking free will? *You* have LESS choice in the matter than I do, because your government has unjustly deemed you too dangerous to handle a weapon. *You* do not have free will in the matter. It's true that my options are fairly limited, but at least I have options.
Lurch, I've tried to see the American pro-gun point of view and, despite my reservations about gun ownership, i do acknowledge that the US is a special case due to its long established history of gun ownership etc.
However, am I right in thinking that you believe that other cointires like the US, Germany etc, should have similar rights to gun ownership, or that they would benefit from doing so?
Written by: Lurch
because your government has unjustly deemed you too dangerous to handle a weapon.
It sounds like it, yet it seems unlikely that you could actually mean that- can you clarify?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
In the news today...
In the news today...
Written by: ap writer
MOSCOW, Idaho - The First Presbyterian Church was decked in yellow crime scene tape and its parishioners were forced to go elsewhere to mourn the victims of a shooting rampage that has stunned this town of 20,000.
A gunman sprayed dozens of bullets into a courthouse, killing a police officer and wounding a sheriff's deputy and a civilian, then went to a nearby church where he apparently killed a church sexton and himself, police said.
"These kinds of things aren't supposed to happen in his community," Police Chief Dan Weaver said Sunday at a news conference. Police said the gunman started shooting from a parking lot across from the courthouse shortly after 11p.m. Saturday. A hail of more than 30 bullets ripped through the county's emergency dispatch center, an apparent attempt to lure people into the line of fire.
"Whoever the shooter is wanted to draw people to the courthouse," assistant Chief David Duke said. "When officers responded, he did open fire on them." Officer Lee Newbill was killed as he rushed to the courthouse, and a Latah County Sheriff's deputy helped pull the officer out of the way before being shot, Duke said.
The gunman apparently retreated to the nearby First Presbyterian Church, where police heard the last gunshot shortly after 1 a.m.
About 6 a.m., three SWAT teams entered the church and found the bodies of the shooter and another man, Duke said. An assault rifle, ammunition and spent shells were found next to the gunman's corpse. The shooter died of what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, Duke said. His body was found in the sanctuary, and the body of another man was found in the church office. The second man also died of gunshot wounds, Duke said.
The Rev. Norman Fowler identified the victim as Paul Bauer, a grandfatherly presence at the church where he lived. Bauer was in his 60s. Police did not release the gunman's identity or information about his motive. "He was just shooting at anybody he could," Duke said. Moscow, home of the University of Idaho, is located 80 miles south of Spokane, Wash., and surrounded by vast farmland. Streets in the area had been barricaded and residents had been told to stay inside. Graduation ceremonies at the university were just a week ago.
Newbill, the first officer at the scene, had served with the police department since March 2001 and is the city's first officer killed in the line of duty. Deputy Brannon Jordon, a 17-year veteran, was shot as he took cover behind a tree after pulling Newbill out of the line of fire, Duke said. Jordon was in serious condition with multiple gunshot wounds, the assistant chief said.
Authorities did not release the name of the injured civilian, but said he lived in the neighborhood and had gone outside after hearing the gunshots. The man was in serious but stable condition. On Sunday, Fowler canceled his plans to fly with 18 members of his congregation to help with Hurricane Katrina rebuilding efforts. Instead, Fowler found himself urging sobbing parishioners to pray for the family of the shooter during a service at a nearby university music hall.
"Preparing for the service today was basically leaving it up to the spirit to move me," Fowler said later.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
anti-gun folks:you seem to think that since the USers on here are pro-gun that we are all pro-gun in the country. and it's not true. we have people here who want nothing to do with guns. so please do not lump all USers together, because it only makes the point that you don't know what you are talking about and therefore somewhat discredits what you say.
as for the article: notice that they are not yelling for guns to be banned, they are praying for the family
anti-gun folks:you seem to think that since the USers on here are pro-gun that we are all pro-gun in the country. and it's not true. we have people here who want nothing to do with guns. so please do not lump all USers together, because it only makes the point that you don't know what you are talking about and therefore somewhat discredits what you say.
as for the article: notice that they are not yelling for guns to be banned, they are praying for the family
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
I have free will, I'm not compelled to own a gun. There may be some circumstance where that is the case, but most of those weapons are not obtained legally. But why should my legal right to own a gun, depend on whether or not I need a gun?
Why do I need to justify the ownership of anything? Do I really *need* a second car? Do I *need* that cheese grater? I shouldn't have to justify my want to own a weapon to anyone. I never said I "have" to own a gun because I'm a good american citizen, quite the contrary. I'm quite happy with the way things are where by in large most people are unarmed. But if they WANT to be armed, they have a legal recourse to ensure that they can be, without breaking the law. What I'm saying is that I should be ABLE to own a gun, because I'm a good American citizen. I have the right to choose if I want to or not. Whereas your governments have basically told you that either you can't have a gun, or you can, but you better not use it. You are putting together stereotypes of Americans that simply aren't true.
Many countries with strict gun laws, Austrailia for example, have enacted those laws as a result of a tragedy. Which, IMHO, is wrong. To disarm a population because someone *might* do something bed in the future, is reckless and distorts any sort of logic about personal rights and freedoms. Felons are banned from owning weapons, that is the law, I am fine with that, they have done something wrong, been caught, and that is yet another part of their punishment. That is justice, until I am proven to be guilty of a crime though, do *not* treat me like a criminal. To say that noone can own a gun, is lumping everyone together with the criminals IMO. You might as well revoke a drivers license from a diabetic. People all too commonly let fear run their lives, and determine their laws. You guys may see that as Americans wanting to be armed, but I don't. I see your handgun bans as a reaction to fear, trying to remove it, but you're removing it from the wrong people. It's the head in the sand, 'if I can't see it it's not really there' technique that will only bite you in the butt in the long run.
I have free will, I'm not compelled to own a gun. There may be some circumstance where that is the case, but most of those weapons are not obtained legally. But why should my legal right to own a gun, depend on whether or not I need a gun?
Why do I need to justify the ownership of anything? Do I really *need* a second car? Do I *need* that cheese grater? I shouldn't have to justify my want to own a weapon to anyone. I never said I "have" to own a gun because I'm a good american citizen, quite the contrary. I'm quite happy with the way things are where by in large most people are unarmed. But if they WANT to be armed, they have a legal recourse to ensure that they can be, without breaking the law. What I'm saying is that I should be ABLE to own a gun, because I'm a good American citizen. I have the right to choose if I want to or not. Whereas your governments have basically told you that either you can't have a gun, or you can, but you better not use it. You are putting together stereotypes of Americans that simply aren't true.
Written by:
It sounds like it, yet it seems unlikely that you could actually mean that- can you clarify?
Many countries with strict gun laws, Austrailia for example, have enacted those laws as a result of a tragedy. Which, IMHO, is wrong. To disarm a population because someone *might* do something bed in the future, is reckless and distorts any sort of logic about personal rights and freedoms. Felons are banned from owning weapons, that is the law, I am fine with that, they have done something wrong, been caught, and that is yet another part of their punishment. That is justice, until I am proven to be guilty of a crime though, do *not* treat me like a criminal. To say that noone can own a gun, is lumping everyone together with the criminals IMO. You might as well revoke a drivers license from a diabetic. People all too commonly let fear run their lives, and determine their laws. You guys may see that as Americans wanting to be armed, but I don't. I see your handgun bans as a reaction to fear, trying to remove it, but you're removing it from the wrong people. It's the head in the sand, 'if I can't see it it's not really there' technique that will only bite you in the butt in the long run.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
You said-
You and other US pro-gunners have complained about a lack of respect for your govt and your culrural view of gun ownership.
Please be aware that in the UK, Europe etc, the vast majority of the population are totally happy that guns are banned.
Additionally it seems to work really well, as gun crime and shootings are far lower than in the US where guns are legal.
It's not to do with fear, it's a rational choice based on the fact that the system does work well.
While Australia may have introduced the ban as a reaction to a some gun tragedies, I'm sure there were other factors, probably including the reasons why UK/Europe have made the choice to keep guns heavily restricted.
But, Australia aside, where the UK is concerned, our gun laws are not based on fear, but on the belief that less guns means less gun crime.
Do you never wonder why, in countires like the UK and Europe, gun crimes and gun incidents/gun deaths are, proportionally, so much lower than in the US- do you have any theories?
Written by: LurchWritten by:
It sounds like it, yet it seems unlikely that you could actually mean that- can you clarify?
Many countries with strict gun laws, Austrailia for example, have enacted those laws as a result of a tragedy. Which, IMHO, is wrong. To disarm a population because someone *might* do something bed in the future, is reckless and distorts any sort of logic about personal rights and freedoms. Felons are banned from owning weapons, that is the law, I am fine with that, they have done something wrong, been caught, and that is yet another part of their punishment. That is justice, until I am proven to be guilty of a crime though, do *not* treat me like a criminal. To say that noone can own a gun, is lumping everyone together with the criminals IMO. You might as well revoke a drivers license from a diabetic. People all too commonly let fear run their lives, and determine their laws. You guys may see that as Americans wanting to be armed, but I don't. I see your handgun bans as a reaction to fear, trying to remove it, but you're removing it from the wrong people. It's the head in the sand, 'if I can't see it it's not really there' technique that will only bite you in the butt in the long run.
You said-
Written by: Lurch
*You* have LESS choice in the matter than I do, because your government has unjustly deemed you too dangerous to handle a weapon.
You and other US pro-gunners have complained about a lack of respect for your govt and your culrural view of gun ownership.
Please be aware that in the UK, Europe etc, the vast majority of the population are totally happy that guns are banned.
Additionally it seems to work really well, as gun crime and shootings are far lower than in the US where guns are legal.
It's not to do with fear, it's a rational choice based on the fact that the system does work well.
While Australia may have introduced the ban as a reaction to a some gun tragedies, I'm sure there were other factors, probably including the reasons why UK/Europe have made the choice to keep guns heavily restricted.
But, Australia aside, where the UK is concerned, our gun laws are not based on fear, but on the belief that less guns means less gun crime.
Do you never wonder why, in countires like the UK and Europe, gun crimes and gun incidents/gun deaths are, proportionally, so much lower than in the US- do you have any theories?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
See I find it a bit "wishwash"... on one side you seem to be quite happy with your government and the choices it provides you with, and on the other side you arm yourself, because you a) don't feel protected by your government from criminals and b) you feel the necessity to defend yourself against your government at some vast point in the fairytale future... To me this is contradictuous... however I just have to add that it seems as if there are enough cases of killing sprees (since this thread started) that just prove the point...
Further IMHO the most effective revolts are those who avoid bloodshed and where the citizens of a country stand together in peace. "Together we stand, divided we fall"... If I was to lead a revolt I would ask you to leave your gun or stay at home with it. I would not tolerate that you turn "sheep" into wolves and give a government the reason to shoot (back). I tend to trust the cool minded more than the hot hearted... maybe because I do know myself...
Regarding MA: Yes, martial arts can be as lethal as a gun and even though meditation used to be a big part of martial art, I do acknowledge that this is not the case anymore. And yes, if someone is really determined to kill or to inflict harm, he will do so, no matter what - sooner or later. But it has been pointed out and some seem to ignore that:
A gun makes it MUCH easier to inflict harm on other ppl and that on a large scale. A law abiding citizen turning into a felon - with or without a gun in his hands... make the math which one I prefer.
A knife may be as potentially dangerous - we're running over the same old grounds here - hence it doesn't spread as much paranoia and fear, and it involves much more effort... Guns provide it's bearer to kill or harm without "effort"...
Yes Lurch, you are innocent unless proven guilty and - why do I have to repeat myself? - YOU CAN OWN A GUN IN GERMANY OR EUROPE (according to national jurisdiction). Just we do not feel the need on such great scales as in the US. Why are you closing your ears when ppl point at that over and over again? You ponder for yourself, why guns are such a problem in the US and NOT in the EU...
If you consider guns "fun", it really is up to you. Personally I just feel too sensitive to the (dark) energy this "instrument" holds. But IF YOU feel the need to only "hone your skills": why don't you do so with archery? It certainly is a LOT more "environ-mentally friendly" [for those who don't get the word-game: both environmentally and mentally healthier] than shooting a gun and it holds less potential to inflict harm on yourself and others...
See I find it a bit "wishwash"... on one side you seem to be quite happy with your government and the choices it provides you with, and on the other side you arm yourself, because you a) don't feel protected by your government from criminals and b) you feel the necessity to defend yourself against your government at some vast point in the fairytale future... To me this is contradictuous... however I just have to add that it seems as if there are enough cases of killing sprees (since this thread started) that just prove the point...
Further IMHO the most effective revolts are those who avoid bloodshed and where the citizens of a country stand together in peace. "Together we stand, divided we fall"... If I was to lead a revolt I would ask you to leave your gun or stay at home with it. I would not tolerate that you turn "sheep" into wolves and give a government the reason to shoot (back). I tend to trust the cool minded more than the hot hearted... maybe because I do know myself...
Regarding MA: Yes, martial arts can be as lethal as a gun and even though meditation used to be a big part of martial art, I do acknowledge that this is not the case anymore. And yes, if someone is really determined to kill or to inflict harm, he will do so, no matter what - sooner or later. But it has been pointed out and some seem to ignore that:
A gun makes it MUCH easier to inflict harm on other ppl and that on a large scale. A law abiding citizen turning into a felon - with or without a gun in his hands... make the math which one I prefer.
A knife may be as potentially dangerous - we're running over the same old grounds here - hence it doesn't spread as much paranoia and fear, and it involves much more effort... Guns provide it's bearer to kill or harm without "effort"...
Yes Lurch, you are innocent unless proven guilty and - why do I have to repeat myself? - YOU CAN OWN A GUN IN GERMANY OR EUROPE (according to national jurisdiction). Just we do not feel the need on such great scales as in the US. Why are you closing your ears when ppl point at that over and over again? You ponder for yourself, why guns are such a problem in the US and NOT in the EU...
If you consider guns "fun", it really is up to you. Personally I just feel too sensitive to the (dark) energy this "instrument" holds. But IF YOU feel the need to only "hone your skills": why don't you do so with archery? It certainly is a LOT more "environ-mentally friendly" [for those who don't get the word-game: both environmentally and mentally healthier] than shooting a gun and it holds less potential to inflict harm on yourself and others...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
Again you're making assumptions and introducing your own value judgments. I educated myself about firearms extensively before I ever shot one. And I am 100% safe when I practice. On the other hand, I do not have the shoulder or arm strength I understand is necessary for archery, and thus I'd likely hurt myself and/or other people way more often. Mentally healthier? That's belief sounds like it's coming from ignorance rather than fact. As I mentioned before, it's very stress relieving for me to go to the range at times. I'm shooting at a paper target, not a human being, so it's not like I'm finding stress relief in going on a shooting rampage. I found guns extremely stressful until I familiarized myself with them and gave myself the opportunity to try it out before deciding I didn't like it. I acknowledged shooting is not for everyone. Just like some people find yoga relaxing and some find it boring. But to make a broad judgment that it's not mentally healthy is just crap.
EDITED_BY: pounce (1179817031)
Written by: FireTom
If you consider guns "fun", it really is up to you. Personally I just feel too sensitive to the (dark) energy this "instrument" holds. But IF YOU feel the need to only "hone your skills": why don't you do so with archery? It certainly is a LOT more "environ-mentally friendly" [for those who don't get the word-game: both environmentally and mentally healthier] than shooting a gun and it holds less potential to inflict harm on yourself and others...
Again you're making assumptions and introducing your own value judgments. I educated myself about firearms extensively before I ever shot one. And I am 100% safe when I practice. On the other hand, I do not have the shoulder or arm strength I understand is necessary for archery, and thus I'd likely hurt myself and/or other people way more often. Mentally healthier? That's belief sounds like it's coming from ignorance rather than fact. As I mentioned before, it's very stress relieving for me to go to the range at times. I'm shooting at a paper target, not a human being, so it's not like I'm finding stress relief in going on a shooting rampage. I found guns extremely stressful until I familiarized myself with them and gave myself the opportunity to try it out before deciding I didn't like it. I acknowledged shooting is not for everyone. Just like some people find yoga relaxing and some find it boring. But to make a broad judgment that it's not mentally healthy is just crap.
EDITED_BY: pounce (1179817031)
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Thanks again for not shooting me (sigh)
Go and try archery with a compound bow - it might even be less straining for your joints, arms and shoulder than firing a gun, especially hunting bows are very comfortable....
(sigh) how many times do I have to point out that I DID shoot guns and DO have a comparison between guns and archery?
Thanks again for not shooting me
(sigh)Go and try archery with a compound bow - it might even be less straining for your joints, arms and shoulder than firing a gun, especially hunting bows are very comfortable....
(sigh) how many times do I have to point out that I DID shoot guns and DO have a comparison between guns and archery?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [gun law * license murder] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > US Gun laws are "License to murder" [1294 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com