Make up your mind, you GUN BAN HOPLOPHOBES!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

There are so many criminological and sociological untruths and fallacies that I'm not going to spend the time picking them apart. I'm simply going to tell you that you are wrong.

Hah! I had the same thought for quite a while. I ignored all of TK's messages for a while, because, as you say, there were just so many fallacies in his facts and reasoning, that one would have to stay up all night countering them with the truth.

I finally couldn't stand it any more, and jumped in...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

2. simple assualt, or burglary does not justify me killing someone for fear of my life

So tell me, TK, how would the women in the following stories have fared if they had just assumed that their attackers were only going to commit a "simple" assault, and done nothing to defend themselves?

1) The Record, Stockton, CA, 2/18/95
A Stockton, California, real estate agent put an end to an attempted rape, after a man posing as a potential home buyer attacked her in a model home. Crumpling to the floor, the realtor drew a .380 from her purse, forcing the man to flee. Pursuing him outside, the woman fired several shots at the man, missing him as he jumped in his car. She halted his escape by shooting out one of his tires and with the help of some nearby construction workers, held the thug for police. The would-be rapist is being investigated in connection with a similar 1993 attack on a female real estate agent.

2) The Courant, Hartford, CT, 1/6/95
A would-be rapist started the year off on the wrong foot when he attempted to rape an armed West Hartford, Connecticut, woman as she walked home early on New Year's Day. Dragging the woman into the bushes, pinning her to the ground, and forcibly removing part of her clothing, the attacker refused to heed the woman's words when she tried to reason with him to stop. Her licensed derringer did what words failed to. A single gunshot wound to the chest ended the attack as the man staggered into the road and collapsed. He died later in a hospital. The woman was not charged in the incident.

3) The News-Leader, Springfield, MO, 3/21/94
Uneasy after a man asked to use her phone, a Springfield, Missouri, woman told him to use one at a local convenience store. Suspicious, she got a pistol and put it nearby. A little later, expecting guests, she unlocked her front door, and the stranger entered. He threatened her with a knfie and forced her to undress, but she was able to get her gun by claiming she had to use the bathroom. She was then able to fire at the would-be rapist, wounding him. He fled, but was quickly apprehended.

Would you doom all these women to rape, and possibly murder, because you don't want them to have guns for self-defense? Would you condemn the weak and elderly to victimhood, because you don't trust them to handle a gun properly?

[tkhayes 153]

Quote

In message #107, you said; "Guns only have the purpose of killing - what they were designed for."

If that is their only purpose, then everyone who buys one must be out to kill someone or something.

Therefore, according to your theory, everyone who purchases a gun must possess the desire to kill someone. Since you have admitted that you own guns, then you must desire to kill someone. Who is it that you want to kill?

your logic is as flawed as you accuse mine of being - you state what I said and then twist it into an assumpion that is incorrect. I said GUNS were designed to kill - which they were, I never at any time said that gun-owners are, or tend to be killers.

I did say that "If there were no handguns, then no one could be killed by a handgun" and you tell me that this is ludicrous and an idealogy that cannot be fulfilled.

Then you ask that I surrender my guns as if that would accomplish my goals. Is that not an idelaogy on your part? I already know that this will not help the situation, as do you.

BUT, the difference is, that if the governemnt tomorrow decided that we will ban all guns, in the interest of saving innocent lives from harm, we will stop the manufacture of all guns in hopes that in 20 years or so they are all out of society, then I would actually be willing to surrender my guns, as I would have no use for them anymore.

Would you be willing to do that? My guns are no threat to anyone, nor is the gun in the hand of a well trained person (which I have already stated I am OK with)

Quote

And it's hypcritical of you to advocate disarming others, while you yourself have a well-stocked safe full of firearms. If you truly believed what you were saying, that private possession of arms causes gun crime, then you should surrendur all of your firearms to the police. Put your guns where your mouth is!

And i have not advocated diarming anyone - I did advocate more training and more restrictions in the hopes of reducing th enumber of guns out there, which i still and always have believed will reduce the number of unwanted gun accidents and murders.

TK

[tkhayes 153]

Quote

Do you really believe anyone here thinks a man should be shot for cutting in line and then shoving you?

No i do not, but i do believe that if it escalated into more than that - some people here stated that it would be Ok to kill.

So much for believing that human life is worth saving.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I'm not trying to dictate anything. Offer no ways or means? Ok how about if you want a gun, you have to have it registered, along with your details, have compulsary cooling off periods, detailed background checks, training for the type of gun you are buying and some kind of "responsibility" training, to be laid down in law (i.e. if this gun is mislaid and falls into the wrong hands, we will be coming after you).

1) Registration leads to confiscation. Period. There are no two ways about this. If you want to claim that we gun owners are yelling about a boogeyman with regard to this equation, we have only to point to NEW YORK CITY, WASHINGTON D.C., CALIFORNIA, ENGLAND, AUSTRALIA, and NAZI GERMANY. Those are real-world examples of exactly what we are concerned about: GUNS WERE FIRST REGISTERED, and then the knowledge that the police had regarding who had what guns and where was used TO GUIDE THE POLICE IN THE CONFISCATION OF THOSE GUNS. How can you argue that we are making a big deal out of a phantom fear when it's a fear that has become reality already, even in parts of the United States?!

2) "Cooling off periods" are generally unnecessary. Many of the "heat of the moment" killings take place at a time of day when gun stores are not even open, so it's not like people are rushing out, buying a gun, and then going and killing someone. I think this concept is largely a myth. And there should definitely be no "cooling off" delay if a person is buying his second, third, or thousandth gun. If he already has guns available to him, if he wanted to murder someone, he'd just use those.

3) If a person mislays his gun or allows it to fall into the hands of a child in the household, there are penalties in place in many jurisdictions that will apply. But if a person's gun is STOLEN in a criminal theft, I hardly think that he should be held legally or criminally responsible for crimes that are then committed with it. Your car could be stolen and then used to run someone down. Should you then be held accountable as though you were the murderous driver? What about your kitchen knives? Your chainsaw? Your can of gasoline?

Quote

I would say the problem in the US is far from "not broken" at least in major metropolitan cities.

Are you referring to those major metropolitan cities like NYC, D.C., and Chicago, where despite the most stringent gun control there is -- BANS -- they still lead in gun murder rates on a consistent basis? Seems to me that you provided the biggest argument yet for the abandonment of the very policies you are advocating: they're abysmal failures.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[tkhayes 153]

Quote

You are free to choose your own options when faced with those crimes. However, the law in many states allows deadly force for those crimes, because you can't count on them only being "simple". No one can predict what a burglar's intentions are when he breaks into your house. You don't know if he wants just a VCR, or your life. You can put *your* life in the hands of a criminal if you want, but you have no right to demand that everyone else also do so.

The 'law' allowed us to lynch niggers in the 20's - it is not always right.

Quote

Are you advocating house-to-house confiscations? What about the 4th Amendment? Oh yeah, I forgot, you think those pesky Bill of Rights Amendments are just trivial "afterthoughts"...

I never said any such things. I am all for freedoms - we could debate all day long about how the current government is taking away so many freedoms in the name of 'homeland security and preservation of so-called freedom'

If that gun is sitting in that nightstand for 10 years, then y'know what? It is not needed. They have forgotten how to use it, they would probably not react properly because they were not trained, they might get their own ass shot off with it.

Now if they did currency training and regularly used it, then I would have no problem, but in the above case, i consider that unused.

Take it away form them - no. Give them something in exchange for it? - yes. Offer to train them OR take it away? Maybe. Then it is their choice to take the training or give it up.

In the hands of the untrained housewife or joe-blow at the office - it is more a menace than a self-defense weapon.
TK

[tkhayes 153]

Quote

Hah! I had the same thought for quite a while. I ignored all of TK's messages for a while, because, as you say, there were just so many fallacies in his facts and reasoning, that one would have to stay up all night countering them with the truth.

I finally couldn't stand it any more, and jumped in...

Nice to know I have you thinking tho'
TK

[lawrocket 3]

You said:

1. too many people are dying needlessly from guns
Agreed. You may be one of them. My guess is your odds of being a statistic would drop if you were packing a little heat

2. simple assualt, or burglary does not justify me killing someone for fear of my life
Depends on the burglary, now doesn't it? Burglary is "entry into a residence [some states require it to be at night] with intent to commit a crime therein." So, a guy coming in to take a television? Iffy. But if I see a guy in my house with a crowbar, I don't care why he's there. Would you take the time to ask him why he's there?

3. It would be good for society to liminate 'unwanted guns' and 'unused guns' since they serve no purpose except to possibly be used in a tragic accident.

Unwanted guns? The criminals don't want me to have my gun. So take it?

Unused guns? Heck, mine hasn't been used. Thank God. Wouldn't a society full of unused guns be a good thing compared to a society full of used guns?

4. training, and licensing should be mandatory, which would go a long way to reduce the number of guns (unwanted and unused) since people who were 'sitting on the fence' probably would not bother, while well-trained Glock-totin' individuals like Ron would be fine to carry one.
***Agreed to a point. Your concern is valid, and at least you proposed a solution that may be workable, if not (in my opinion) an infringement on rights.

5. Society as a whole has a gun problem, whether it be social or physical number of guns, but reducing the number of guns would probably help.
There is a gun problem, and we simply disagree on the remedy. The solution you are advocating has been proven time and again to fail. Those of us who favor gun rights believe that a solution is to put guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. The bad will always be able to get guns. Had on teacher been able to timely get to a gun, how many lives would have been saved at Columbine?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

i did answer Turtle.
And contrary to popular belief, some of our ladies in the UK actually have GREAT teeth

You know, the word "great" can be used to mean "huge"...

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

If we had never invented the automobile, people would not be killed by or in them -- but we'd have some other mode of transportation, and they'd probably get killed by or in those.

Yes, but the automobile (and household poisons and knives and other ways of dying) actually have some OTHER useful purpose in life, whereas a handgun does not - it was designed solely for the purpose of killing.

Until you demonstrate that all killing is equally bad -- and it's not -- this point is inconsequential.

So what if guns are designed specifically to kill (and even that's not true of 100% of guns)? Do you put the killing of a rapist by his would-be victim on the same level as the killing of a convenience store clerk for the $85 in the register? Some killing is morally, ethically, and legally justified, and is possibly lamentable when it is necessary, but still not bad by its nature.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[tkhayes 153]

I do not know what they would do - what about these?

Son Charged In Accidental Shooting
Schmitt Demonstrates New Part For His Gun

POSTED: 9:31 am PDT July 20, 2004
UPDATED: 10:00 am PDT July 20, 2004

SAN DIEGO -- A man who allegedly shot his mother while demonstrating a new laser light attachment on his gun pleaded not guilty to charges of involuntary manslaughter and possession of an unregistered assault weapon.

MOM SHOT, KILLED
Apparent Accidental Shooting

Jonathan Schmitt, 24, faces up to three years in prison if convicted in his mother's April 25 death. He entered his plea Monday.

San Diego police said Margaret Schmitt, 52, was shot once at her home about 4:50 p.m. in the 2100 block of Swan Street in Encanto.

Family members and paramedics tried to save Margaret Schmitt, but she died at a hospital less than an hour later.

Police said at the time that the shooting appeared to be accidental but that an investigation was under way.

The defendant was interviewed at the scene but was not arrested. Deputy District William Gentry said Schmitt was notified of the charges by mail.

Superior Court Judge David Szumowski allowed the defendant to remain free on his own recognizance pending an Aug. 27 readiness conference and Sept. 14 preliminary hearing.

and:
Boy killed in accidental shooting
By Associated Press
Jul 24, 2004, 20:35

Email this article
Printer friendly page

Authorities say an 11-year-old boy killed in an accidental shooting in Bridgeport may have been trying to unload a gun.

Efrain Hernandez Ortiz died at Okanogan-Douglas District Hospital in Brewster on Wednesday after he was shot with a .357-caliber Magnum handgun.

Robbin Wagg, Douglas County's chief criminal deputy, says both of the boy's parents were apparently working when the shooting happened. An autopsy is pending.


and

Teen charged in accidental shooting
posted: 07-21-2004

Shreveport police have filed manslaughter charges against a teen-ager, charging him with killing a 15-year-old while playing with a gun.

The shooting happened Wednesday afternoon in the 7200 block of Moselle Drive, near Jewella and 70th. Police said Michael Wilson and a 16-year-old were playing with a handgun when it went off, hitting Wilson in the chest.

No adults were at home at the time of the shooting.

Police did not release the name of the victim because he is a juvenile.

Police Department spokesman Jim Taliaferro said detectives believe the shooting was not intentional but concluded the gun was handled with a willful disregard for safety.

"I know that by handling a weapon in a certain way it has a potential for going off," Taliaferro said. "If (a person) disregards the safety issues of that weapon and it actually discharges, then you have a problem."


Perhaps we could stop of that? Should I post some more?

idealogoy comes from 'ideas'

TK

[tkhayes 153]

Quote

1) Registration leads to confiscation. Period. There are no two ways about this. If you want to claim that we gun owners are yelling about a boogeyman with regard to this equation, we have only to point to NEW YORK CITY, WASHINGTON D.C., CALIFORNIA, ENGLAND, AUSTRALIA, and NAZI GERMANY. Those are real-world examples of exactly what we are concerned about: GUNS WERE FIRST REGISTERED, and then the knowledge that the police had regarding who had what guns and where was used TO GUIDE THE POLICE IN THE CONFISCATION OF THOSE GUNS. How can you argue that we are making a big deal out of a phantom fear when it's a fear that has become reality already, even in parts of the United States?!

I could argue that gun manufacturing leads to confiscation. Afterall, the manufacturing came first right? Then the confiscation?

Tying the registration with the confiscation it a stretch in the USA.

[PhillyKev 0]

Yes, accidents happen. Anecdotes are great to tug on emotional strings but they are misleading. How many millions of guns are there? How many MORE people are killed by everyday house hold objects?

Why is an accidental death by a gun more emotional and upsetting than accidental deaths by numerous other causes? Seriously. If you substitute any other object for gun in those articles, ANY other object, would you suddenly be in an uproar about the need to control and restrict it? Or is the image of GUN that makes it so horrifying?

[tkhayes 153]

Quote

There is a gun problem, and we simply disagree on the remedy. The solution you are advocating has been proven time and again to fail. Those of us who favor gun rights believe that a solution is to put guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. The bad will always be able to get guns. Had on teacher been able to timely get to a gun, how many lives would have been saved at Columbine?

It has not been proven 'time and time again' to fail here in the USA, it has not even been tried. So I disagree with your stance that it has alreayd been proven not to work.

You advocate a gun for the teacher, i advocate NO gun for the student in the first place. My position is preventative from the beginning, your position is after the fact - already too late.

How often do we complain about tragedy and wish there was something we could have done to prevent it?
tk

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

We also have thousands FEWER unnecessary killings than a lot of other countries -- notably countries that attempt to BAN people from owning guns. Check out Brazil, and lots of African nations. Or how about places where there have been GENOCIDES. It's much easier for a government to do that to people who don't have guns.

do you REALLY believe that if we polled Americans that own guns, their first reply would be "I own a gun because I m afraid that the government someday will try to commit genocide?" Most people either hunt or have it for self defense. (meaning they too are willing to kill someone)

You did not address the first part of my paragraph, where I mentioned that other places have thousands more killings than the U.S. I wonder why you chose instead to focus on the issue of genocide, and then attempt to pursuade us that it is not the possibility of genocide that spurs gun owners to own guns. I for one DO consider that one of the reasons I own guns. Civil unrest or breakdown are lesser degrees of genocide or tyranny, too.

And you bet your ass I'm willing to kill someone -- but the criterion is that I'll kill someone only if it is clear to me that he plans to take my life if I don't take his. That's fair, yes?

Quote

DO they really support gun safety? Are they lobbying to have everyone go through safety programs? I do not see any such legislation on the table. It is a smoke screen to get you to believe that they really care, when they really just care about some 200 year old amendment that has little relevance today.

They support gun safety by being there to provide training to whoever wants it, at either no cost or minimal cost. It's a free-will thing, don't you understand (apparently not -- you seem to want to force training of all sorts on all sorts of people) and a person has to want to be trained for training to have any effect, anyway.

Quote

I guess I was wrong all along - I guess it is OK for kids to pick up Dad's gun and shoot their brother and call it an 'accident'.

Where are you getting this nonsense?

Quote

I guess it is OK for me to live in a country where I have to worry about getting in a fender-bender and having the other guy get into a fight with me and maybe shoot my ass just because he has a gun in his glove box.

Yeah, and this is such a prevalent problem. It's more common by far that people come at you with a club, axe handle, or tire iron. You're inventing a major rate of incidence where there isn't one.

Quote

I love walking down the street wondering who might try to kill me - great peace of mind.

And it's only because of guns that you have to feel this way. Right. Uh huh. Suuuure.

Quote

It is the same kind of paranoid fear the government loves to keep you in so they can convince you of pretty much anything they want.

It seems to be you who lives in such fear. I live in preparedness. It counters any fear I might have, a lot like skydiving with a reserve parachute.

Quote

I guess it is OK for all these people to be dead - nice to know that human life is worth so much...

Hey, I'm the one who has guns in order to protect human life. The circumstances under which I would use them would be if someone had gone off kilter and was planning on trying to end a bunch of lives. I'd end his to save numerous others. Which of us values life more, the one who would stop a murderer from killing innocents, or the one who opposes having the means to do so?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

If there were NO handguns, then no one could be killed by a handgun. That is a fact - as far at it may seem, it is still a fact.

This point is academic. Is there any possible workable plan to get rid of all handguns? Not just the legal ones, that have paper trails leading to them, but the ones stolen from legal owners (including from COPS). If you can't propose a plan to effectively remove all handguns from all hands, then what is even the point of sitting here fantasizing about a world without them? It's a jerkoff fantasy for disarmament buffs.

Quote

America lives in total denial that there is a problem and the fact that it is OK for so many innocent people to die by handguns each year is beyond my comprehension.

We're not living in denial. We have laws that address the people who kill, and efforts are made constantly to stop violence, to get people to seek other redress for grievances. We have training programs to stop accidents with guns (which are at an all-time low, and have been declining every year since they started keeping stats on it). We have programs and background checks to weed out those who, for criminal or mental health history, should not be allowed to own guns. We have prosecutorial programs like Project Exile to put people who use guns criminally into prison for a long time. How can you possibly say that we are "in denial" about gun violence when we do so much to combat it. YOUR problem is that you seem to think that the only valid way to address the problem is to COMPLETELY GET RID OF GUNS, which ain't gonna happen. But just because we won't do it your way, doesn't mean you're credible when you say we're "in denial."

Quote

If it was YOUR kid that got shot by his friend's gun, would you stand there and defend to the death his right to have that gun?

The person to ask is NOT the person who is emotionally traumatized. Of COURSE he's going to give an emotion-based, irrational response. Me, I would be distraught for sure over the death of my kid, but rationally I could still realize that the guy had a right to own the gun. He might not have been right if he left it accessible to an untrained, irresponsible kid, but that's not the same issue.

Do you really want issues like this to be decided based on what a hysterical grieving parent would "want" right on the heels of a tragedy? I'm sure that people whose kids die getting hit by cars in the street curse CAR ownership, too! Should we advocate for a ban on cars because the victims left in the aftermath loathe them?
This is your "logic."

Quote

So my background is one of experience. I believe that people should be forced to learn to use the tools that you so widely support. Then it might actually be safer. But some redneck with a 357 magnum in his glovebox is 'not' a needed weapon.

And it is more likely to do some innocent person harm than ever defend him when needed.

First of all, your claim of how much more likely an innocent will be harmed than a defender will use the gun is a fallacy. It's likely that you're basing this on the debunked "research" of Dr. Arthur Kellerman. That's an entirely different thread. And I take umbrage and offense at your use of the term "redneck." It's a cultural/racial epithet. I know people you would probably think of as "rednecks" in your supercilious tone. Why don't you have equal scorn for the "niggers" who have their .357s tucked into their waistbands?

DO YOU SEE HOW OFFENSIVE YOU WERE NOW?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[lawrocket 3]

Admit it - you cannot keep guns out of the hands of those whom you do not want to have them.

Your position is preventive. Let's compare it to cancer. Cancer prevention is important. With the proper lifestyle, people can lower their cancer risks. Your logic would be to take rsources away from cancer medicines and put them into cancer prevention. The thinking, "If there was no cancer to begin with, we'd not have to worry about cancer cures." An admirable goal, and completely out of touch with reality.

My position is founded upon the admission that cancer will always be there. While having a healthy respect for cancer prevention, I'll be realistic about it and look to see what can be done to mitigate cancer's damage - prevent it's spread, if you will. Therefore, I would prefer putting my resources to a cancer cure. It would give the victims "a fighting chance."

Such is the gun debate. Get real, dude. Guns are here, and they are here to stay. You can't get rid of them. Therefore, give the victims a fighting chance. How do you cure a cancer victim? Kill the cancer. Poison it, remove it, make the human body inhospitable to it.

How do you cure gun-toting crime? Same as cancer. You don't want to give someone cancer fighting medicines if there is no cancer. So, those with guns should not use them with no threat. When a cancer threat arises (one that can kill you), you fight back by trying to kill it, right? Oh, it's only a rarely deadly squamous cell sarcoma. So what? It's attacking your person. Fight back.

Depriving citizens the ability to have guns to fight back against attackers is like denying cancer patients drugs to fight it. (by the way, potentially life saving treatments and drugs are withheld by the FDA for fear they may kill people). Arguments of, "We shouldn't have cancer to begin with" are understandable, but useless to help a victim of it.

The kid with the gun is cancer. The teacher with the gun is radiation, chemo and surgery. Sure, it may fail, but at least the fight can be fought.

So, would you advocate treating cancer? Or, would you rather just stop all treatment for it and focus on the "NO [cancer] for the [person]in the first place?

Yeah, maybe the cancer could have been prevented. Too late, dude. Now, let's treat it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tkhayes 153]

Quote

Why is an accidental death by a gun more emotional and upsetting than accidental deaths by numerous other causes? Seriously. If you substitute any other object for gun in those articles, ANY other object, would you suddenly be in an uproar about the need to control and restrict it? Or is the image of GUN that makes it so horrifying?

actually that happens everyday. product safety recalls, banning the use of various products, new regs, lawsuits over product liability - but not for guns - God forbid - they are our RIGHT!

We banned lawn darts fer chrissake - they are toys. SO please do not assume that we do not do anythign about unneeded deaths. Airplanes crash - we build better airplanes. People tak eoverdoses, we build child-proof caps - skydivers go in and we invent better equipment.

Happens all the time.

Ask for some training on guns and making it mandatory, and suddently I am stepping on your rights and no one shall do that!

If we ban lawn darts becasue a few kids got blinded and killed by them - is it unreasonable to ban guns which kills many people each year? If you need to defend yourself - how about arming everyone with tasers? Likely a less fatal result, certainly fewer surgeries and costs related to recovery (all costs eventually borne by society)

Hmmm, I wonder if the NRA would support trading in all the guns for Tasers?

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

If we ban lawn darts becasue a few kids got blinded and killed by them - is it unreasonable to ban guns which kills many people each year?

There isn't a "lawn dart lobby" to protect them from liability laws...

Come to think of it, there is no Constitutional ammendment guaranteeing you the right bear lawn darts either...

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

Hmmm, I wonder if the NRA would support trading in all the guns for Tasers?

Can you guarantee all the criminals would trade in their's, too?

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[tkhayes 153]

Quote

You did not address the first part of my paragraph, where I mentioned that other places have thousands more killings than the U.S. I wonder why you chose instead to focus on the issue of genocide, and then attempt to pursuade us that it is not the possibility of genocide that spurs gun owners to own guns. I for one DO consider that one of the reasons I own guns. Civil unrest or breakdown are lesser degrees of genocide or tyranny, too.

I did not address it because I addressed it in earlier posts with my own stats. Any many of the countries you mentioned are apples and oranges with the USA - we are different, with serious social and violence problems - which by the way also need to be addressed as part of the 'gun problem'. We are supposed to be btter than thos eplaces - but we are not accorsing to you? Does that make you proud? Does that make you want to keep the status quo? Or try to improve the situiation and really BE the best?

Quote

They support gun safety by being there to provide training to whoever wants it, at either no cost or minimal cost. It's a free-will thing, don't you understand (apparently not -- you seem to want to force training of all sorts on all sorts of people) and a person has to want to be trained for training to have any effect, anyway

If I want to be a pilot - Ihave training 'forced upon me' but I do not get into a constitutional debate about it.

If I want to skydive, or drive a transport truck, or become an FBI agent or join the military.

Pretty obvious that if you make it voluntary, no one will volunteer for it, or very few.

You disagree that we would be better off if everyone who carried a gun was highly trained in the use of the gun?

Do you also disagree that if everyone driving a car was highly trained in the use of that car that we might avoid more car accidents? Oh yes, I forgot - to get my drivers license, I was also 'forced' to do some training - sheesh - how dare they!

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I guess I was wrong all along - I guess it is OK for kids to pick up Dad's gun and shoot their brother and call it an 'accident'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where are you getting this nonsense?

from the posts I entered above - search on accidental shootings and child or boy or girl and find some for yourself.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I guess it is OK for me to live in a country where I have to worry about getting in a fender-bender and having the other guy get into a fight with me and maybe shoot my ass just because he has a gun in his glove box.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yeah, and this is such a prevalent problem. It's more common by far that people come at you with a club, axe handle, or tire iron. You're inventing a major rate of incidence where there isn't one.

I'll take the tire iron, if I decide not to fight, I will run instead. no one will die needlessly, but I cannot outrun his gun, plus I will probably have to protect the other people in my car as well. maybe the guy was having a bad day - ever give the finger to someone while driving? I have - everyone is entitled to have a bad day, I should not have to worry about whether the guy has a gun.

Quote

Hey, I'm the one who has guns in order to protect human life. The circumstances under which I would use them would be if someone had gone off kilter and was planning on trying to end a bunch of lives. I'd end his to save numerous others. Which of us values life more, the one who would stop a murderer from killing innocents, or the one who opposes having the means to do so?

Yeah - alll those news stories I posted saved LOTS of lives

Quote

It seems to be you who lives in such fear. I live in preparedness. It counters any fear I might have, a lot like skydiving with a reserve parachute.

Somewhat yes, and when I go to Europe, or Canada, I breathe a sign of relief 'cause I do not need the fear nor the preparedness. I can spend my time thinking about more important things in life, like feeding hungry kids, educating the world, not spending my time 'preparing'

TK

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

maybe the guy was having a bad day - ever give the finger to someone while driving? I have - everyone is entitled to have a bad day, I should not have to worry about whether the guy has a gun.

If the "guy" you mentioned is a bad guy, nowadays he will not worry whether you have a gun.

Imagine if it was well known that most people have guns. First, maybe he'd be a little more polite in not cutting you off (assuming this was in a car). Then, maybe you'd be more apt to let it slide by not giving him the bird. Then maybe he'd be a little less apt to pull out his gun if he thought you could return fire.

Thanks for a good example of how an unarmed society is a rude one.

Edited to add: So, do you really think all guns could be eliminated?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tunaplanet 0]

WTF is a hoplophobe?

Forty-two

[tkhayes 153]

Quote

This point is academic. Is there any possible workable plan to get rid of all handguns? Not just the legal ones, that have paper trails leading to them, but the ones stolen from legal owners (including from COPS). If you can't propose a plan to effectively remove all handguns from all hands, then what is even the point of sitting here fantasizing about a world without them? It's a jerkoff fantasy for disarmament buffs.

We got rid of lawn darts didn't we? All of them - no where to be found.
We also got rid of 3 wheeled ATV's, maybe there are still a few around, but eventually they will all be gone.

'Academic' just means that it is a possibility without expecting immediate results. I do not expect immediate results, but it is still an admirable goal and a given direction in which to move.
- and I do not appreciate the comment being referred to as 'jerk-off'

Quote

We're not living in denial. We have laws that address the people who kill, and efforts are made constantly to stop violence, to get people to seek other redress for grievances. We have training programs to stop accidents with guns (which are at an all-time low, and have been declining every year since they started keeping stats on it). We have programs and background checks to weed out those who, for criminal or mental health history, should not be allowed to own guns. We have prosecutorial programs like Project Exile to put people who use guns criminally into prison for a long time. How can you possibly say that we are "in denial" about gun violence when we do so much to combat it. YOUR problem is that you seem to think that the only valid way to address the problem is to COMPLETELY GET RID OF GUNS, which ain't gonna happen. But just because we won't do it your way, doesn't mean you're credible when you say we're "in denial."

fair enopugh for most of it, some programs are in place - and many more ar eneeded. The NRA shoudl be leading the way - I do not believe that they are - sorry but I disagree on that. They simply state rights and do little to lobby legislation that might help to PREVENT crime in the first place.
Laws that punish criminals are needed to , but they address the issue AFTER the crime has been committed.

Quote

Do you really want issues like this to be decided based on what a hysterical grieving parent would "want" right on the heels of a tragedy? I'm sure that people whose kids die getting hit by cars in the street curse CAR ownership, too! Should we advocate for a ban on cars because the victims left in the aftermath loathe them?

I did not specify on the hells of the tragedy. How about a month later - a year later - would you still congratulate that same person when they purchase yet ANOTHER gun sometime down the road - or would you say "what the fuck is that person doing with a gun?"

Quote

First of all, your claim of how much more likely an innocent will be harmed than a defender will use the gun is a fallacy. It's likely that you're basing this on the debunked "research" of Dr. Arthur Kellerman. That's an entirely different thread. And I take umbrage and offense at your use of the term "redneck." It's a cultural/racial epithet. I know people you would probably think of as "rednecks" in your supercilious tone. Why don't you have equal scorn for the "niggers" who have their .357s tucked into their waistbands?

DO YOU SEE HOW OFFENSIVE YOU WERE NOW?

Fair enough - first time ever in my life someone compared 'redneck' to 'nigger' and told me that they have the same effect. Could start a separate thread on whether or not it is offensive to anyone if you like.

I use 'nigger' in my posts, but generally only as a sarcastic comment pointing out flaws in government and southern culture. Sarcasm is difficult at best to get across in print. But it is still sarcasm

TK

[tkhayes 153]

Quote

Admit it - you cannot keep guns out of the hands of those whom you do not want to have them

I will not admit it, no such thing.

Quote

My position is founded upon the admission that cancer will always be there. While having a healthy respect for cancer prevention, I'll be realistic about it and look to see what can be done to mitigate cancer's damage - prevent it's spread, if you will. Therefore, I would prefer putting my resources to a cancer cure. It would give the victims "a fighting chance."

I think it better lies in between the two - prevention and cure. Obviously if we could prevent, then we would, and we do (smoking, diet, etc) When it happens, we have the cures. We need to put effort into both.

Guns kill people (OK, PEOPLE kill people with guns) so we have punishment for that. But if we can prevent the crime in the first (or not even 'crime', but just 'gun related death'), then we have some obligation to do that as well.

Quote

Such is the gun debate. Get real, dude. Guns are here, and they are here to stay. You can't get rid of them. Therefore, give the victims a fighting chance. How do you cure a cancer victim? Kill the cancer. Poison it, remove it, make the human body inhospitable to it.

How do you cure gun-toting crime? Same as cancer. You don't want to give someone cancer fighting medicines if there is no cancer. So, those with guns should not use them with no threat. When a cancer threat arises (one that can kill you), you fight back by trying to kill it, right? Oh, it's only a rarely deadly squamous cell sarcoma. So what? It's attacking your person. Fight back.

Using that line of thought, you might suggest we fight cancer with more cancer.

And again, I do not believe that GUNS are here to stay. Or need to be. There are societies that do not have them - Japan, Papau tribes in New Guinea, and others. You attack my idealogy, but I stick to it.

TK

400 years ago, we KNEW the world was flat. An idealogy set out to prove that wrong, and they succeeded - do not underestimate the power of good ideas.

A world with little or no crime (probably because we actually take care of people so they do not need to rob and steal), little or no hunger, because we can easil;y grow all the food we need, and a world mostly free of disease, because we spent time on prevention AND cure.

TK