|
|
|
|
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/19/2009 11:09:28 AM | ^^^ Dead is dead, no matter what the scale. You can't be any more or less dead.
So how do you suggest we exhibit our 2nd amendment rights in a public setting? Signs? Chanting? Thats the 1st, not the 2nd. There's lots of issues in America today, one doesn't have to wait until something it brought up to address it. Your example of police and military presence doesn't work, because they are there to keep order, thats far different than making a political statement. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/19/2009 12:34:50 PM | | So are all of those people exibiting their first admendment rights by protesting nuts as well? I don't think it was a sign of force as much as a reminder to Obama that we retain the right to carry. I'm glad people think the only ones that should be allowed to intimidate and scare are the police on civilians,great idea. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/19/2009 1:58:37 PM | It's also a lot less lethal if I'm drunk.
Excuse me!!!! Just think for a moment about this statement. I'd much rather be in the presence of someone carrying a knife that was sober rather than drunk. That and your priceless "lethal isn't lethal" statement really gives your credibility in this discussion a hit. I would also argue that someone could indeed kill six or more people, in less than a minute, with a knife given the circumstance needed to commit such a crime. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/19/2009 4:01:39 PM | I believe that we should have to right to own guns but that we should not be allowed to carry them outside designated areas. I don't think that we should confuse the story with being allowed to carry them unconcealed, permits, and all that... I believe that to carry a gun implies intent to use it, which implies intent to kill and unless one is in the forest, that is most likely another human being, in self defence or not.
But I do believe that the average individual should be allowed to own a gun, keep it at home under certain guidelines (accessible but safe). That a person should have the right to protect themselves inside their own home. That a person should have the right to hunt and live from the land in certain areas. etc. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/19/2009 4:15:13 PM | I believe that we should have to right to own guns but that we should not be allowed to carry them outside designated areas. I don't think that we should confuse the story with being allowed to carry them unconcealed, permits, and all that... I believe that to carry a gun implies intent to use it, which implies intent to kill and unless one is in the forest, that is most likely another human being, in self defence or not.
But I do believe that the average individual should be allowed to own a gun, keep it at home under certain guidelines (accessible but safe). That a person should have the right to protect themselves inside their own home. That a person should have the right to hunt and live from the land in certain areas. etc.
When one leaves their home with a weapon CC'ing, they have that weapon for a purpose--to STOP (not kill, that is just a side-effect with roughly a 20% probability) an attacker. I support your right to be a victim, please do not try to limit my right to do what is within my power not to be one. That is what this conflict is about. People sticking their noses in the business of others and trying to limit their ability to protect themselves. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/19/2009 4:31:55 PM | ^^^^
I am not trying to limit you and if I was (inadvertantly I appologize) Honestly, I was thinking outloud. I'll admit that I am sitting on the fence. I grew up around guns, lots of kids, lots of guns, them unloaded, bullets everywhere. Most of my family are avid hunters. Never any problems. Never heard of any problems personally.
I still shudder at the thought of people having them around. I've seen too many fights that would have turned into blood baths. Personally, I think that walking around with a gun is good if law and order have broken down and you are expecting to get jacked. If that's the case the government should issue you your weapon and provide you with training to use it as well as insurance should you or a loved one get killed. Just a joke, but you see what I mean.
I guess the ultimate goal will be somekind of compromise (like we have already) where certain weapons are off limits. Perhaps we should only have non-lethal weapons legal (afterall we don't kill other human beings right? and we generally don't need to hit a human 1 km away.
But thanks for supporting my right to be a victim. Yeah!!! People support me. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/19/2009 4:41:56 PM | Yes and putting my seatbelt on is intent to crash. By not protecting yourself you are the only one to blame for making yourself a victim. I doubt taking away the legal right to carry will slow down your chance to be a victim by 1 percent.
Weapons already have limitations,try walking into a bank,police station,bar or airport with one and see where that lands you. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/19/2009 4:49:01 PM | ^^^^
Are you telling me that when you leave the house with a loaded weapon you are not intending to use it if the right situation comes along. At least if it was a tazer, or a solid bean bag gun, you could use it without attracting to yourself the stigma and legal problems of having seriously hurt/killed a human being.
I'm playing devil's advocate because at the same time I believe that we should own guns because the police and army have them. I'm just not sure about carrying them in public. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/19/2009 6:08:02 PM |
Excuse me!!!! Just think for a moment about this statement. I'd much rather be in the presence of someone carrying a knife that was sober rather than drunk. That and your priceless "lethal isn't lethal" statement really gives your credibility in this discussion a hit. I would also argue that someone could indeed kill six or more people, in less than a minute, with a knife given the circumstance needed to commit such a crime.
Dear god. Do I have to spell it out for you? Someone sober w/ intent to do harm w/ a knife is much more dangerous than someone w/ intent to do harm that's drunk. Lethal isn't lethal in the sense that there is no equivalence b/ an assault rifle and a combat knife, or are you going to argue that a knife is the same as an AC-130? | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/19/2009 9:49:17 PM |
I believe that we should have to right to own guns but that we should not be allowed to carry them outside designated areas. I don't think that we should confuse the story with being allowed to carry them unconcealed, permits, and all that... I believe that to carry a gun implies intent to use it, which implies intent to kill and unless one is in the forest, that is most likely another human being, in self defence or not.
But I do believe that the average individual should be allowed to own a gun, keep it at home under certain guidelines (accessible but safe). That a person should have the right to protect themselves inside their own home. That a person should have the right to hunt and live from the land in certain areas. etc.
Do you know where most mass shooting occur? "Gun free" zones. Only someone forgot to tell the criminals that they aren't supposed to have their guns their or that its illegal to shoot people without cause/while committing a crime. The problems with all of you anti's is that you can't get past someone having a gun for self defense and them not using it. People who carry a firearm regulary, often take it very seriously. They don't want to shoot anyone, and most would prefer nobody even know that they're carrying. I'd bet that those of you that live in states that allow concealed carry, and don't make it next to impossible to get a permit pass people all the time who are carrying and don't even know it.
So a person has a right to protect themselves in their home. What about when they go to the grocery store? Do they lose that right then? What about the movies, out to eat, at the park, etc? Self defense is a right that no one can take away. It doesn't stop once you step outside your front door. If I don't have a firearm or knife on me (which is extremely rare) then I'm going to use whatever is as hand as a weapon to protect myself. Sorry if it bugs all of you liberals to put my life before a criminals thats trying to do me harm | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/19/2009 9:57:05 PM |
I still shudder at the thought of people having them around.
Most of my female friends are of your mentality.
I've seen too many fights that would have turned into blood baths.
?
But thanks for supporting my right to be a victim. Yeah!!! People support me.
The person you are addressing is a dozen years younger than you; yet, he is wiser and more mature. You do not need to be childishly sarcastic to get your point across.
At least if it was a tazer,
You fail to realize that one needs to get very close to the criminal in order to use a tazer; in most cases that would be pointless. For instance, a woman against a man, she does not ever want to get that close…….he will overpower her long before she can tazer.
You have the right to remain defenseless. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/19/2009 9:57:05 PM |
I still shudder at the thought of people having them around. I've seen too many fights that would have turned into blood baths. Personally, I think that walking around with a gun is good if law and order have broken down and you are expecting to get jacked. If that's the case the government should issue you your weapon and provide you with training to use it as well as insurance should you or a loved one get killed. Just a joke, but you see what I mean.
I guess the ultimate goal will be somekind of compromise (like we have already) where certain weapons are off limits. Perhaps we should only have non-lethal weapons legal (afterall we don't kill other human beings right? and we generally don't need to hit a human 1 km away.
Do you really trust the government to do whats right? Look at Katrina. They illegally disarmed the people and only contributed to the problem. Thankfully because of that some states put laws into effect which specifically addresses this.
What good is a compromise going to do? Do you honestly believe that criminals are going to follow any new law? They don't follow the current ones. Why take away from me, and other law abiding citizens to try and prevent something that isn't going to be stopped? For the record, most people can't shoot a km away so thats a pointless arguement. For those that can, its enjoyable doing all of the fine tuning, math and being able to pull it all together to make the shot work. People can and do target shoot you know | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/19/2009 10:02:48 PM |
Are you telling me that when you leave the house with a loaded weapon you are not intending to use it if the right situation comes along. At least if it was a tazer, or a solid bean bag gun, you could use it without attracting to yourself the stigma and legal problems of having seriously hurt/killed a human being.
I'm playing devil's advocate because at the same time I believe that we should own guns because the police and army have them. I'm just not sure about carrying them in public.
Intending to use and willing to use is two different things. Non-lethal methods aren't always effective. What stigma and legal problems are you refering to? A criminal trys to rob me. I defend myself and he ends up dead. I was committing no crime and he was. I have the right to protect myself from death and/or great bodily harm.
Why do you think the police carry guns? Where do you think a lot of the crimes occur? | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 3:39:18 AM | ^^^^
The stigma of having shot a person because they wanted to take your ipod. The stigma of seeing his momma cry. The stigma of now having his gang after you. Live by the sword die by the sword.
Police carry guns because they are putting themselves in harms way. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 7:51:28 AM |
People who carry a firearm regulary, often take it very seriously. They don't want to shoot anyone, and most would prefer nobody even know that they're carrying.
tell that to the drunk twenty somethings we see carefully wearing their clothes to carefully reveal their weapons at the bars down town.
last week we had some boozed up gangsta wannabe waving his .357 in a crowded bar shouting "YOU WANT SOME OF THIS?". licensed and everything. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 9:27:31 AM | tell that to the drunk twenty somethings we see carefully wearing their clothes to carefully reveal their weapons at the bars down town.
last week we had some boozed up gangsta wannabe waving his .357 in a crowded bar shouting "YOU WANT SOME OF THIS?". licensed and everything.
i see the point you are making, but the fact is that murder is going to happen, its the sad fact, but the guns is just the means that they carry it out by. say there where no guns and someone kicked someone to death with steel toed boots should me outlaw them, or beat someone to death with a bat, outlaw them next. the fact is that guns are dangerous, but there most dangerous in the wrong persons hands, just like any and all weapons are! | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 9:32:56 AM | if you don't know between how hard it is to beat someone to death and how hard it is to pull a trigger you definitely should not have a gun in the first place.
beating people to death is messy, personal, dangerous (because you are close enough for them to get a hold of) and most of all isn't easy.
shooting someone takes an instant and you get to do it from a nice safe distance.
given that "bat vs gun" analogy A-Bombs should be legal. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 9:45:54 AM | if you don't know between how hard it is to beat someone to death and how hard it is to pull a trigger you definitely should not have a gun in the first place.
beating people to death is messy, personal, dangerous (because you are close enough for them to get a hold of) and most of all isn't easy.
shooting someone takes an instant and you get to do it from a nice safe distance.
given that "bat vs gun" analogy A-Bombs should be legal.
so i guess murder never happened b4 the gun, right? people are killed everyday by others that dont use a gun, right? most of the time when people commit murder it is personal, if a person was hell bent on killing another they will do it by any means nec., i know prob 100 people that own guns, not a 1 of them have ever killed anybody, i know 3 people that have killed someone else with a car in a accident, guess we should start banning them, right? yes i agree with you , guns do make it ezer, but dont fool yourself , murders would still happen either way. tim mcveigh killed a shit load of people did he use a gun, how about 9/11, they hi jacked a freakin plane with out a gun then killed 1000s of people, know granted they are xtreme examples, but evil is evil and thats what kills people, again the gun is just the means they do it by | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 10:40:15 AM |
The stigma of having shot a person because they wanted to take your ipod. The stigma of seeing his momma cry. The stigma of now having his gang after you. Live by the sword die by the sword.
Police carry guns because they are putting themselves in harms way
The stigma of having shot someone who pulled a weapon on you, or tried to cause you harm. Your mentality seems to be to just give the criminal whatever they want. Why should I give up something that I worked for when a criminal is threatening me? I wouldn't care if his momma cried. She should have done a better job of raising him. If his gang decides that they want to try and hurt me, I'll defend myself.
So the police carry guns because they go into dangerous situations. That means that the dangerous situation is already occuring. Why shouldn't the innocent people involved in that situation be able to have a gun to defend themselves? I guarantee that they'll beat the police to that dangerous situation by at least a couple minutes. I guess you've never heard the saying that when seconds count the police are only minutes away. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 10:44:57 AM |
how about 9/11, they hi jacked a freakin plane with out a gun then killed 1000s of people
I think 9/11 is a good example of how cowardly America is becoming. People would rather die than confront someone and try to fight to live. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 11:53:55 AM |
I think 9/11 is a good example of how cowardly America is becoming. People would rather die than confront someone and try to fight to live.
very brave coming from behind a computer terminal.
| |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 12:16:59 PM | In regards to 9/11, IMO you can't expect average people who just get on a plane one morning expecting not much more than maybe breakfast and a relaxing flight on a beautiful day , to suddenly switch into life-or-death survival fighting mode and successfully take on armed, well-prepared, trained attackers who are expecting to die that morning.
As for other more 'common' self-defense scenarios, I do think people obviously have a right to defend themselves, yes. But it's debatable as to how this should be done. I guess it may depend on where you're at.
In Chicago recently we've had a string of violent muggings, usually three or four guys on one, early morning hrs, solitary victims walking alone. One guy recently successfully defended himself from them with his bike lock. It worked, it's non-lethal, I guess he hit a couple of them with it, swung it around, or whatever, and they took off. So I felt like, Good for him!
But the thing is, these muggers are never armed with guns. So, in Chicago at least, if a citizen is walking carrying a concealed hand cannon, and he blows two or three of these guys away, and paralyzes another, when all they were doing was trying to take his watch and wallet by way of their fists.....guess who's now in bigger trouble (at least that's the way the law works here). Because it's a felony in the first place here to carry a loaded firearm on your person at all in the city or the suburbs, unless you're an off-duty cop and even with them I'm not sure if they can always carry it loaded everywhere.
So if that scenario happened, and you drilled those unarmed but violent muggers, then you basically have a Bernie Goetz-type situation. He was the guy who did just that in the subway in NYC in the 80's. And he had to do a little jail time over it, but he's very lucky he apparently had a sympathetic jury and didn't have to do much more time, because he WAS charged after the incident with 4 counts of attempted murder & aggravated assault, reckless endangerment of others (he missed once), and several gun crimes. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 2:01:17 PM | ^^^^
In close quarters (mugging) one is better off with a knife or bike lock than a gun. Actually in the case of a mugging one is better off surrendering one's wallet (if that's all they want)
Perhaps stun grenades would be best. ;o)
it is a complex issue, pitted are
Safety by weapons vs. Safety from weapons.
I like what they TRIED to do in the UK. They banned guns, regular cops did not carry them and neither did the average Joe (no longer the case England is now apparently full of guns... but it work for a while). Of course the UK is a super big brother type of society with massive surveillance. Forget what I said I don't like that much. Knife violence I heard though was pretty high... but then again alcohol and violence, people will use what they have.
In Canada we are allowed to have certain guns, with alot of paper work. Legislation passed recently makes it more difficult to obtain liscences for firearms...paper work, registration, waiting periods.
http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/gunlaws.htm
Canada has alot of weapons already and little weapons violence compared to the United States. We certainly talk about our guns less. I believe that the Hand Gun in particular has gotten a type of romantic notion in the United States. Probably all the Westerns and the nice weather. I'm not being patronizing. This obsession with individual freedom to do and achieve, to carry a big stick to boot, has propelled your country to the forefront of the world. It has been said that America is the a land of Cowboys... which is fine, cause Canada is probably a land of something or other too.
I certainly cannot tell anyone how they should carry themselves or put in their pockets. (well certain things are obvious... explosives, radioactive material, etc.) But the gun in particular has struck a chord. Like the AK47 that some observant poster noted that graces the flag of Mozambique. Guns symbolize Freedom (from fear of getting physically assaulted).
| |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 2:23:34 PM | In close quarters (mugging) one is better off with a knife or bike lock than a gun. Actually in the case of a mugging one is better off surrendering one's wallet (if that's all they want)
but how do u know that at that time? you dont!!! iam not saying your wallet is worth dying for, but the fact is that u dont know thats all they want. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 2:39:44 PM | Perhaps it would be a better world if everyone was the Law and exercised more actively engaged their rights to pursue their own freedom and safety. Everyone can pack but they would have to
register the suckers
pass a test aptitude...learn to drive, learn to shoot your gun (esp. teaching how to smash someone on the top of their head with it), psychological assessment, certain conditions apply (wanted felon), prohibit certain weapons which are clearly outside of the hunting and personal protection sphere.
What do you think of legislation regarding weapons. Going the beaurocratic route like we do in Canada?
I'd rather that automatic weapons (indescriminant killers in the hand of a nervous individual) not be available. It's just too easy to kill people. | |
|
|
| Page 32 of 37
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 |
|
Home
login 
