JohnRich 4 #76 January 21, 2004 QuoteSo both of them are now facing charges. Good. It seems to me that the shooter has a good case for self-defense. The guy with the club got out of his car and was coming towards him. If he had stayed in his car and minded his own business, the confrontation wouldn't have happened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #77 January 21, 2004 QuoteWhy do you think that skydivers don't represent a typical cross-section of society? We have plumbers and electricians, doctors and lawyers, students, republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, rich, poor, middle-class - all walks of life. Please explain what you mean here... I don't know about your dz, but mine is inhabited by a great many white, upper-middle class males in their 20s in a hugely disproportionate ratio than the rest of society. Not to mention the majority being Type A personalities with a common thrill seeking tendency. Come on now.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #78 January 21, 2004 QuoteFrom today's Philadelphia Inquirer, with more details: Road-rage incident sparks shooting Now please do tell me how this situation was so much better because a gun was involved and how much worse this could have been without the gun? In stead of shooting the guy, don't you think just driving away would have been a better option? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #79 January 21, 2004 Quoteeach side gets defensive because of the actions of the other. Both sides are currently in losing and in danger of losing things that are of value to them. Thus, the only sensible thing is rational discussion and compromise. The anti-gun folks want to take away the guns and gun ownership rights of the pro-gun folks. The pro-gun folks are not trying to deprive the anti-gun folks of anything. They just want to be left alone. "Compromise" in this sense usually means anti-gun folks want 10 new forms of gun-control, and the NRA is supposed to "compromise" and allow them to have 5 of those 10. But if you look at the definition of "compromise", that's not what it is all about. compromise involves *both* sides getting something they want. But when folks say the NRA refuses to compromise, this is not what they mean. A compromise would be, for example, allowing background checks at gun shows, in exchange for nationwide recognition of state concealed carry licenses. But such compromises are never proposed by the anti-gun types. To them, "compromise" is a one-way street in their favor, giving nothing in return. The NRA has been "compromising" in their way for decades, and it has gotten them nothing, nor has it done any good in reducing gun crimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #80 January 21, 2004 QuoteIt seems to me that the shooter has a good case for self-defense. The guy with the club got out of his car and was coming towards him. If he had stayed in his car and minded his own business, the confrontation wouldn't have happened. No they were both pretty freakin stupid to get into a fight over a driving incident. This situation was not better because of a gun. The only thing that would have made it better is some common decency, patience and respect for your fellow human being. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #81 January 21, 2004 QuoteThe fact that they were mutually confrontational means that the shooting was not justified. It's only justified in the case of an innocent victim. I don't believe that is true. Just because his hands aren't entirely "clean", doesn't mean that the shooting wasn't justified. As long as they both stayed in their cars, there wasn't any confrontation. It was only when one of them exited his vehicle with a baton and approached the other, that gave rise to the need for self-defense. The baton guy should have paid attention to Mom's rule: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." He escalated the situation from "words", to "sticks and stones". That makes him the guilty party. At that point, the other guy had a legitimate right to self-defense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #82 January 21, 2004 QuoteSimply saying what we have doesn't dispute his assertion. If you could show the relative weightings of those groups, then you could begin to demonstrate your point... Kallend is the one trying to make the point - it is up to him to support his theory. So far, he hasn't offered anything except her personal feeling about "libertarians and liberals". That's not exactly scientific. It's odd that you jumped on my observations with demands for proof, yet ignored his. Why is that? Do you have a double-standard for evidence, depending upon which side of the issue one is upon? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #83 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteeach side gets defensive because of the actions of the other. Both sides are currently in losing and in danger of losing things that are of value to them. Thus, the only sensible thing is rational discussion and compromise. The anti-gun folks want to take away the guns and gun ownership rights of the pro-gun folks. The pro-gun folks are not trying to deprive the anti-gun folks of anything. They just want to be left alone. Those are your definitions and your perceptions. They don't necessarily reflect the realities of the situation. Many people you label as "anti-gun" are not. The gun isn't the issue. The issue is safety. If you insist on arbitrary and polar opposites, let's use "pro-safety" and "anti-safety". Without addressing the issue of gun ownership rights, let's focus on gun safety. What do you propose to improve the safety of the country with respect to violence, for both gun owners and non-owners? Are you willing to make any effort, or any compromise, or are you firmly in the "anti-safety" camp? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #84 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteSimply saying what we have doesn't dispute his assertion. If you could show the relative weightings of those groups, then you could begin to demonstrate your point... Kallend is the one trying to make the point - it is up to him to support his theory. So far, he hasn't offered anything except her personal feeling about "libertarians and liberals". That's not exactly scientific. It's odd that you jumped on my observations with demands for proof, yet ignored his. Why is that? Note that I called his point an "assertion". While I may believe his point, I do not think it has been scientifically proven in any way. Neither of you have given any proof to support your claims. I was just pointing yours out, because you had made a comment about his logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #85 January 21, 2004 QuoteNow please do tell me how this situation was so much better because a gun was involved and how much worse this could have been without the gun? Would you prefer that the other guy be beaten with a club, possibly receiving severe injuries? Allowing an aggressor to beat a guy with a club is a tragedy. If an aggressor with a club gets injured by a guy shooting in self-defense, I don't have a problem with that - that's justice. QuoteIn stead of shooting the guy, don't you think just driving away would have been a better option? Yes, that would have been better. But we don't know if that was possible. It could be that due to traffic, he was unable to pull out and go anywhere to escape. He also had a girlfriend to protect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #86 January 21, 2004 QuoteNo they were both pretty freakin stupid to get into a fight over a driving incident. This situation was not better because of a gun. The only thing that would have made it better is some common decency, patience and respect for your fellow human being. It is true that things never should have gone that far to start with. However, once an angry man comes at you with a club, you have a right to defend yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #87 January 21, 2004 QuoteThe issue is safety. If you insist on arbitrary and polar opposites, let's use "pro-safety" and "anti-safety"... Are you willing to make any effort, or any compromise, or are you firmly in the "anti-safety" camp? Very cute, labeling your opposition as "anti-safety". Is this your idea of "compromise", and reaching out to work together with gun owners? Labeling law-abiding gun-owners as "anti-safety" is just more of the same old illogical anti-gun rhetoric. It will get you nowhere. I don't accept your categorization. QuoteMany people you label as "anti-gun" are not. The gun isn't the issue. The issue is safety. Handgun Control Inc. does not teach any gun safety classes that I know of. But the NRA does. HCI (now the "Brady" organization) is only interested in restricting gun ownership and gun usage. Go ahead, see if you can find anything on the Sarah Brady website showing that their organization teaches safe handling of guns. Let me know if you find anything: Brady Campaign Then look at all that the NRA does: NRA Safety NRA Eddie Eagle NRA Hunting Safety NRA Refuse to be a Victim NRA Police Training Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #88 January 21, 2004 Quote don't believe that is true. Just because his hands aren't entirely "clean", doesn't mean that the shooting wasn't justified. Yeah, actually it does. There's plenty of precedent. If you are an active participant in an altercation, as opposed to someone that is just trying to flee, then you forfeit your right to use deadly force to protect yourself. QuoteIt was only when one of them exited his vehicle with a baton and approached the other, that gave rise to the need for self-defense. No, when one exited with a baton, and the other decided to stay and confront him is why. He could have, and should have, fled. QuoteAt that point, the other guy had a legitimate right to self-defense. No he doesn't. At least not in PA. You're only justified if you have no means of escape. He could have driven away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #89 January 21, 2004 QuoteLabeling law-abiding gun-owners as "anti-safety" is just more of the same old illogical anti-gun rhetoric That is not what he did! Only those unwilling to compromise and even discuss safety related option with regards to gun ownership. Not all gun owners are like that. I don't accept your categorization of either pro-gun or anti-gun, but that all really doesn't make any difference now does it? Anyways, I am off to Holland to say farewell to my grandmother, certainly more important than the issue of guns in america Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #90 January 21, 2004 Who said you were the opposition? Who said you couldn't be "pro-safety with guns" and me "pro-safety without guns"? The point isn't whether I like them or not, or think they are useful or not. The point is how can we make it safer for everyone for you to own it? You should have a vested interest in that, which puts us on the same side as me. It is only if you are unwilling to dilligently work toward improved safety that you get marked as being "anti-safety". That is your call. So, how do you propose to improve the safety of gun ownership, without their removal? That is an honest question. Toss out some great ideas! I'm happy to chuck the gun-related laws that have no basis in improving safety. Like I said, the issue isn't to own or not to own, but how to make owners safer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #91 January 21, 2004 QuoteYeah, actually it does. There's plenty of precedent. If you are an active participant in an altercation, as opposed to someone that is just trying to flee, then you forfeit your right to use deadly force to protect yourself. I don't believe that is correct. Just because you flip someone "the finger", doesn't mean that you can no longer legally defend yourself against an aggravated assault. Do you believe that if a woman tells some guy to "f**k off" and flips him "the finger", that she can longer legally defend herself if that guy then tries to rape her? QuoteNo, when one exited with a baton, and the other decided to stay and confront him is why. He could have, and should have, fled... He could have driven away. We don't know that he could have fled - the story doesn't provide that information. So you shouldn't jump to legal conclusions about the situation based upon pure conjecture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #92 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteLabeling law-abiding gun-owners as "anti-safety" is just more of the same old illogical anti-gun rhetoric That is not what he did! Only those unwilling to compromise and even discuss safety related option with regards to gun ownership. Not all gun owners are like that. Okay, maybe I mis-read him there. But I don't think he would call any anti-gun people "anti-safety". It seems to me that his proposed category for "anti-safety" would only include one type of people: gun owners. And that would make the categories biased. If he can demonstrate how anti-gun people would fit the "anti-safety" category, then maybe I could go with it. For example, those who oppose concealed handgun carry laws for people who qualify under state law - that is "anti-safety" in my mind - depriving people of the ability to defend themselves. That is the Brady Campaign position, but they certainly don't consider themselves to be anti-safety. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #93 January 21, 2004 QuoteIt seems to me that the shooter has a good case for self-defense. ... QuoteSo you shouldn't jump to legal conclusions about the situation based upon pure conjecture. So, which is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #94 January 21, 2004 QuoteThe point isn't whether I like them or not, or think they are useful or not. The point is how can we make it safer for everyone for you to own it? No one is unsafe because I own guns, except a criminal who chooses to attack me. Tell us your "safety" proposals, and we can talk about them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pleifer 0 #95 January 21, 2004 QuoteThe second driver then allegedly pulled a .50 caliber Desert Eagle gun. The driver of the Cadillac was shot in the leg and was sent to a hospital. .50 cal huh?? Does he still have a leg??? that is a frigin hand cannon..... but i want one soo bad _________________________________________ The Angel of Duh has spoke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #96 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt seems to me that the shooter has a good case for self-defense. ... QuoteSo you shouldn't jump to legal conclusions about the situation based upon pure conjecture. So, which is it? Those two statements are not contradictory. He can "have a good case" regardless of whether or not he could drive away, simply because an angry man was coming at him with a club. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #97 January 21, 2004 Quotethose who oppose concealed handgun carry laws for people who qualify under state law - that is "anti-safety" in my mind - depriving people of the ability to defend themselves. Sure, I'll buy that... IF you'll agree that we need to do a better job of training people and screening who should and should not be given a carry permit, along with getting the people who are licensed to be safer. Each accidental shooting and poor judgement call resulting in an innocent person getting shot is a mark against your argument for carry permits. Get rid of them, and the objection vanishes completely (at least for me). If all owners were completely responsible, I wouldn't care what you owned, how you got it, or how many you had. But until you (generally, not personally) are no longer a danger to me and my family, then yes, I care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #98 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe point isn't whether I like them or not, or think they are useful or not. The point is how can we make it safer for everyone for you to own it? No one is unsafe because I own guns, except a criminal who chooses to attack me. Okay. You are the model gun owner, and perfect in all ways with your weapon. That as a given, what about everybody else? What about the accidental shootings? Somebody did the shooting. Somebody owned the gun. You might be perfect, but they weren't. They are still a danger to my family. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #99 January 21, 2004 QuoteIt was only when one of them exited his vehicle with a baton and approached the other, that gave rise to the need for self-defense. In this case the driver could have driven away and not shot anyone. It appears from this article that there was no immediate threat of physical harm. Bad gun owner, bad. QuoteThe baton guy should have paid attention to Mom's rule: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." He escalated the situation from "words", to "sticks and stones". That makes him the guilty party. At that point, the other guy had a legitimate right to self-defense. One could also say that the shooter should have paid attention to Uncle Sam's rule: Don't shoot unless you are in imminent peril. I don't think that he was. I support the pro-gun lobby John, I really do. This just isn't the case to support your cause. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites burbleflyer 0 #100 January 21, 2004 I have a compromise. Everyone against guns can declare their own "Gun Free Zone." in their house and post a sign to that effect on the door. Each and everyone of you. A BIG sign that say something like: "This is a gun free zone!! There are no guns in this home!!!!" Also, you must have a bumper sticker on your car and a badge on you coat that says you never carry a weapon. Then I will be willing to talk about reasonable restrictions on my gun ownership. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jfields 0 #90 January 21, 2004 Who said you were the opposition? Who said you couldn't be "pro-safety with guns" and me "pro-safety without guns"? The point isn't whether I like them or not, or think they are useful or not. The point is how can we make it safer for everyone for you to own it? You should have a vested interest in that, which puts us on the same side as me. It is only if you are unwilling to dilligently work toward improved safety that you get marked as being "anti-safety". That is your call. So, how do you propose to improve the safety of gun ownership, without their removal? That is an honest question. Toss out some great ideas! I'm happy to chuck the gun-related laws that have no basis in improving safety. Like I said, the issue isn't to own or not to own, but how to make owners safer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #91 January 21, 2004 QuoteYeah, actually it does. There's plenty of precedent. If you are an active participant in an altercation, as opposed to someone that is just trying to flee, then you forfeit your right to use deadly force to protect yourself. I don't believe that is correct. Just because you flip someone "the finger", doesn't mean that you can no longer legally defend yourself against an aggravated assault. Do you believe that if a woman tells some guy to "f**k off" and flips him "the finger", that she can longer legally defend herself if that guy then tries to rape her? QuoteNo, when one exited with a baton, and the other decided to stay and confront him is why. He could have, and should have, fled... He could have driven away. We don't know that he could have fled - the story doesn't provide that information. So you shouldn't jump to legal conclusions about the situation based upon pure conjecture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #92 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteLabeling law-abiding gun-owners as "anti-safety" is just more of the same old illogical anti-gun rhetoric That is not what he did! Only those unwilling to compromise and even discuss safety related option with regards to gun ownership. Not all gun owners are like that. Okay, maybe I mis-read him there. But I don't think he would call any anti-gun people "anti-safety". It seems to me that his proposed category for "anti-safety" would only include one type of people: gun owners. And that would make the categories biased. If he can demonstrate how anti-gun people would fit the "anti-safety" category, then maybe I could go with it. For example, those who oppose concealed handgun carry laws for people who qualify under state law - that is "anti-safety" in my mind - depriving people of the ability to defend themselves. That is the Brady Campaign position, but they certainly don't consider themselves to be anti-safety. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #93 January 21, 2004 QuoteIt seems to me that the shooter has a good case for self-defense. ... QuoteSo you shouldn't jump to legal conclusions about the situation based upon pure conjecture. So, which is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #94 January 21, 2004 QuoteThe point isn't whether I like them or not, or think they are useful or not. The point is how can we make it safer for everyone for you to own it? No one is unsafe because I own guns, except a criminal who chooses to attack me. Tell us your "safety" proposals, and we can talk about them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pleifer 0 #95 January 21, 2004 QuoteThe second driver then allegedly pulled a .50 caliber Desert Eagle gun. The driver of the Cadillac was shot in the leg and was sent to a hospital. .50 cal huh?? Does he still have a leg??? that is a frigin hand cannon..... but i want one soo bad _________________________________________ The Angel of Duh has spoke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #96 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt seems to me that the shooter has a good case for self-defense. ... QuoteSo you shouldn't jump to legal conclusions about the situation based upon pure conjecture. So, which is it? Those two statements are not contradictory. He can "have a good case" regardless of whether or not he could drive away, simply because an angry man was coming at him with a club. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #97 January 21, 2004 Quotethose who oppose concealed handgun carry laws for people who qualify under state law - that is "anti-safety" in my mind - depriving people of the ability to defend themselves. Sure, I'll buy that... IF you'll agree that we need to do a better job of training people and screening who should and should not be given a carry permit, along with getting the people who are licensed to be safer. Each accidental shooting and poor judgement call resulting in an innocent person getting shot is a mark against your argument for carry permits. Get rid of them, and the objection vanishes completely (at least for me). If all owners were completely responsible, I wouldn't care what you owned, how you got it, or how many you had. But until you (generally, not personally) are no longer a danger to me and my family, then yes, I care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #98 January 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe point isn't whether I like them or not, or think they are useful or not. The point is how can we make it safer for everyone for you to own it? No one is unsafe because I own guns, except a criminal who chooses to attack me. Okay. You are the model gun owner, and perfect in all ways with your weapon. That as a given, what about everybody else? What about the accidental shootings? Somebody did the shooting. Somebody owned the gun. You might be perfect, but they weren't. They are still a danger to my family. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #99 January 21, 2004 QuoteIt was only when one of them exited his vehicle with a baton and approached the other, that gave rise to the need for self-defense. In this case the driver could have driven away and not shot anyone. It appears from this article that there was no immediate threat of physical harm. Bad gun owner, bad. QuoteThe baton guy should have paid attention to Mom's rule: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." He escalated the situation from "words", to "sticks and stones". That makes him the guilty party. At that point, the other guy had a legitimate right to self-defense. One could also say that the shooter should have paid attention to Uncle Sam's rule: Don't shoot unless you are in imminent peril. I don't think that he was. I support the pro-gun lobby John, I really do. This just isn't the case to support your cause. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #100 January 21, 2004 I have a compromise. Everyone against guns can declare their own "Gun Free Zone." in their house and post a sign to that effect on the door. Each and everyone of you. A BIG sign that say something like: "This is a gun free zone!! There are no guns in this home!!!!" Also, you must have a bumper sticker on your car and a badge on you coat that says you never carry a weapon. Then I will be willing to talk about reasonable restrictions on my gun ownership. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
