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 
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Dave, no one deserves to die, and I really object to you and Lurch saying that “the kid deserved to die”. The kid did not need to die.
Dave, self defense does not mean killing someone. Nor does it mean blowing someone to pieces, with seven shots in the chest, from a .40 Smith and Western. I don’t see how you can justify shooting a kid several times in the chest, as non-violence towards sentient life forms. I thought it was important to refrain from taking life.
No one is denying anyone he right to defend themselves. A person with clear mind could have acted differently and prevented a death. The guy was not responsible in his actions.
He could have given the kids what they wanted, he could have drawn and scared them off, fired a warning shot, wounded the guy, or killed the guy with one shot. Clearly he was not a responsible gun user, and should pay the price. This was more than self defense.
So what law book did that one come from? The shooting them bit.
No, that’s not how it was said. It was judgmental, like he was scum and should never have lived.
Dave, no one deserves to die, and I really object to you and Lurch saying that “the kid deserved to die”. The kid did not need to die.
Written by:
However, those principles are totally compatible with the right of someone, when faced by an armed violent attacker, to gun them down in self-defense.
I find it very disturbing that anyone could have a mindset which denies the right of a human being to defend themselves, or their family, against violent individuals trying to kill them.
Dave, self defense does not mean killing someone. Nor does it mean blowing someone to pieces, with seven shots in the chest, from a .40 Smith and Western. I don’t see how you can justify shooting a kid several times in the chest, as non-violence towards sentient life forms. I thought it was important to refrain from taking life.
No one is denying anyone he right to defend themselves. A person with clear mind could have acted differently and prevented a death. The guy was not responsible in his actions.
He could have given the kids what they wanted, he could have drawn and scared them off, fired a warning shot, wounded the guy, or killed the guy with one shot. Clearly he was not a responsible gun user, and should pay the price. This was more than self defense.
Written by:
In general, if a mugger points a gun at a victim, that victim is entitled to defend themselves by shooting them.
So what law book did that one come from? The shooting them bit.
Written by:
Many, for example, in the scenario being discussed would say that a mugger pointing a weapon at a victim 'deserves' to die- meanly simply that it is morally OK for the intended victim to, if necessary, take the muggers life.
No, that’s not how it was said. It was judgmental, like he was scum and should never have lived.
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'm still rather confused on how you believe us to be brainwashed. The situation we have been discussing (if the facts are true) was a perfectly justified shoot. The man was defending himself against another armed person attempting to rob him. He was in fear of his life and rightfully so. Does that mean he's brainwashed into thinking it's okay to defend himself?
You're more than welcome to build your utopia, how many Americans do you find committing gun crimes in Australia? Probably none, or if they are, they're most likely career criminals. You don't need to blame us for your lack of control. What does Vietnam OR Iraq have anything to do with Australia? We could end the entire middle east in an afternoon if we wanted, it would only take a couple missiles. But we don't. If we were as brainwashed as you seem to think we are why haven't we just nuked everyone who opposes us?
There you go sensationalizing things again. MURDER is defined as the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought. Now please, how does the above situation constitute murder? It was legal, morally and ethically sound self defense, nor was it premeditated as the teenager was the one who initiated the confrontation.
How? Those of us who "glorify" guns by embracing our rights to carry, and defend ourselves are the ones who have made sure this man is ALIVE today. If the teenager had gunned him down you'd ignore it as another stat on the criminal side of your argument, when the good guys finally win one they're suddenly a criminal and a murderer? He has done NOTHING wrong, and you've already deemed him a murderer. Killing, is not the same as murder.
I'm confused now, are you saying we shouldn't have guns because there is no valid self defense reasons to have one? or because they're "likely to be used on family members"? You do realize that self defense still applies if it is a husband intent on killing his wife right? Or are we now talking about accidents? Guns that cause only a tiny fraction of the deaths that cars, ladders, pools and countless other things cause every year. Face it, even if there was no crime, and there were no accidents, you would STILL be opposed to me having a gun even though you have no actual reason for it other than your personal opinion that they're evil, and people shouldn't have them.
Well first off last I checked there were about 300,000,000, and only about 200,000,000 guns.. But minor details, whats 100 million? Even if that's true that there are enough guns for everyone, who cares? I only have two guns, that is the MOST that I could use at once, and that in itself is idiotic and useless. Not everyone has guns, and those that do aren't going to rig up some death contraption so they can shoot all their guns into a crowd at once, what are you so scared of?
Talk about irresponsible gun use
Do we really have to go over this once again? The man is entitled in such a situation to shoot until he is no longer threatened. One shot does not always kill someone, even 7. Warning shots are a BAD plan, you NEVER shoot warning shots. A: it will probably get you killed if you waste time shooting at something other than the person trying to kill you, and B: you have no idea where your "warning" shot is going, also an important rule in gun use. ALWAYS know your target, and what is behind it. Where should this "warning" shot go? In the air? Great now your bullet is a mile and a half away and could potentially harm or kill someone completely innocent. THAT would be manslaughter.
How do you want him to 'wound' him? Shoot him in the leg? That's idiotic, maybe you should do some research on tactical or self defense shooting techniques, you never shoot to maim. For example, the ONLY time that LEO's are taught to shoot for anything other than center mass is for a small handful of scenarios, hostages, suicide bombers, and armored suspects. You shoot for the sure shot, you don't try and shoot his leg, that makes it more likely you'll miss, and does very little to remove him as a threat. If he dropped the gun after the first shot, it's over. If he held onto the gun and kept standing, you're perfectly entitled to keep shooting until he is down. He is still a threat.
How is he not a responsible gun user? He was legally licensed to carry, which means he jumped through all the hoops and do it right, and he didn't (as you would have preferred apparently) randomly shoot into the night/sky as a 'warning' That would probably be the more irresponsible thing he could have done! All of his shots hit his intended target, and ended the threat. I would say it's a perfectly righteous shoot, and I have no pity for the criminal.
I'm guessing his "partner" turned and ran, he is no longer a threat, and *gasp* he wasn't shot!
How exactly would you 'prevent death' if you were faced with say.. someone 100% intent to killing you, a sociopath for example, who's only joy comes from killing innocent people like yourself. They do exist, and they pray on people who are sheep, and think they can 'talk' their way out of anything.
Talk about putting words in my mouth
Written by:
Compared to other countries America has a blind spot with guns. This is reflected in your attitude, your laws and a much higher than average number of gun deaths. Most Americas are most certainly brainwashed when it comes to guns. Otherwise we would not be having this debate.
I'm still rather confused on how you believe us to be brainwashed. The situation we have been discussing (if the facts are true) was a perfectly justified shoot. The man was defending himself against another armed person attempting to rob him. He was in fear of his life and rightfully so. Does that mean he's brainwashed into thinking it's okay to defend himself?
Written by:
That’s the problem Lurch, we can’t build a any type of utopia until you guys grow up and stop blowing the crap out of everyone. It’s not difficult, you just need to evolve to a level where you can communicate in ways without guns and violence. And it’s not just your appalling domestic record with gun death. No, you keep dragging the world down with futile wars in places like Vietnam and Iraq. And you can’t even do that properly.
You're more than welcome to build your utopia, how many Americans do you find committing gun crimes in Australia? Probably none, or if they are, they're most likely career criminals. You don't need to blame us for your lack of control. What does Vietnam OR Iraq have anything to do with Australia? We could end the entire middle east in an afternoon if we wanted, it would only take a couple missiles. But we don't. If we were as brainwashed as you seem to think we are why haven't we just nuked everyone who opposes us?
Written by:
Lurch, I’m not against self-defense. You assumed that because I don’t support pumping kids full of bullets with .40-caliber Smith and Wessons. I changed my mind to. That’s not self defense, that’s murder.
There you go sensationalizing things again. MURDER is defined as the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought. Now please, how does the above situation constitute murder? It was legal, morally and ethically sound self defense, nor was it premeditated as the teenager was the one who initiated the confrontation.
Written by:
Sorry Lurch, it’s the people who glorify guns and killing that have condemned him to a personal hell.
How? Those of us who "glorify" guns by embracing our rights to carry, and defend ourselves are the ones who have made sure this man is ALIVE today. If the teenager had gunned him down you'd ignore it as another stat on the criminal side of your argument, when the good guys finally win one they're suddenly a criminal and a murderer? He has done NOTHING wrong, and you've already deemed him a murderer. Killing, is not the same as murder.
Written by:
One reason why "responsible people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns when the threat from armed criminals is very real, however small the chance of actually being confronted" is because most of the guns are use on family members in domestic situations. And hey, if you don’t need a gun, why take the risk.
I'm confused now, are you saying we shouldn't have guns because there is no valid self defense reasons to have one? or because they're "likely to be used on family members"? You do realize that self defense still applies if it is a husband intent on killing his wife right? Or are we now talking about accidents? Guns that cause only a tiny fraction of the deaths that cars, ladders, pools and countless other things cause every year. Face it, even if there was no crime, and there were no accidents, you would STILL be opposed to me having a gun even though you have no actual reason for it other than your personal opinion that they're evil, and people shouldn't have them.
Written by:
Lurch, while not everyone in America might own a gun, there are enough guns in America for every man, woman and child in the country.
Well first off last I checked there were about 300,000,000, and only about 200,000,000 guns.. But minor details, whats 100 million? Even if that's true that there are enough guns for everyone, who cares? I only have two guns, that is the MOST that I could use at once, and that in itself is idiotic and useless. Not everyone has guns, and those that do aren't going to rig up some death contraption so they can shoot all their guns into a crowd at once, what are you so scared of?
Written by:
He could have given the kids what they wanted, he could have drawn and scared them off, fired a warning shot, wounded the guy, or killed the guy with one shot. Clearly he was not a responsible gun user, and should pay the price. This was more than self defense.
Talk about irresponsible gun use
Do we really have to go over this once again? The man is entitled in such a situation to shoot until he is no longer threatened. One shot does not always kill someone, even 7. Warning shots are a BAD plan, you NEVER shoot warning shots. A: it will probably get you killed if you waste time shooting at something other than the person trying to kill you, and B: you have no idea where your "warning" shot is going, also an important rule in gun use. ALWAYS know your target, and what is behind it. Where should this "warning" shot go? In the air? Great now your bullet is a mile and a half away and could potentially harm or kill someone completely innocent. THAT would be manslaughter. How do you want him to 'wound' him? Shoot him in the leg? That's idiotic, maybe you should do some research on tactical or self defense shooting techniques, you never shoot to maim. For example, the ONLY time that LEO's are taught to shoot for anything other than center mass is for a small handful of scenarios, hostages, suicide bombers, and armored suspects. You shoot for the sure shot, you don't try and shoot his leg, that makes it more likely you'll miss, and does very little to remove him as a threat. If he dropped the gun after the first shot, it's over. If he held onto the gun and kept standing, you're perfectly entitled to keep shooting until he is down. He is still a threat.
How is he not a responsible gun user? He was legally licensed to carry, which means he jumped through all the hoops and do it right, and he didn't (as you would have preferred apparently) randomly shoot into the night/sky as a 'warning' That would probably be the more irresponsible thing he could have done! All of his shots hit his intended target, and ended the threat. I would say it's a perfectly righteous shoot, and I have no pity for the criminal.
I'm guessing his "partner" turned and ran, he is no longer a threat, and *gasp* he wasn't shot!
Written by:
A person with clear mind could have acted differently and prevented a death.
How exactly would you 'prevent death' if you were faced with say.. someone 100% intent to killing you, a sociopath for example, who's only joy comes from killing innocent people like yourself. They do exist, and they pray on people who are sheep, and think they can 'talk' their way out of anything.
Written by:
No, that’s not how it was said. It was judgmental, like he was scum and should never have lived.
Talk about putting words in my mouth
#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:
Self defence can end in the attackers death, particularly when that attacker is armed with something deadly, like a knifie or a gun.
I don't recall the report saying the kid was shot seven times- perhaps you're confusing 'seven' with 'several'?
It is important, where practical, to avoid taking life- in the situation where an attacker is pointing a gun at you and you're potentially going to be killed, then it's not really practical to not shoot them- unless you're willing to die yourself.
This guy almost certainly had no wish to kill someone that evening, he most likely just wanted to get on with his typical home/family evening.
The attacker who decided to invade the guys home and, when confronted, chose to draw a gun on him, was the sole initiator of this and he put the homeowner in a postion where the only rational choice (assuming he wished to live) was to shoot the attacker before they shot him.
Actually, you are trying to deny people the right to defend themselves, by posting such silly comments about a case where clearly the defender acted entirely appropriately and did the best thing they could have done.
Going for a wounding shot or a warning shot would put the shooter at high risk of being killed.
Accuracy is diminshed in the high stress situation of a gun scenario- trying to shoot someone in the leg would be the wrong thing to do.
When someone is pointing a gun at you, you're morally and legally (in the US) entitled to react in a way that maximises the victims chances of survival.
Of course, the best place to shoot an attacker to stop them for sure, would be the head- however, cos of the acuracy issue, that would not be advisable.
So you should shoot into the body- more than once, cos many, many documented cases show that criminals have taken a bullet and still managed to kill the police person who shot them.
So, to the body, several times, till the threat is removed, is the ideal and recommended approach in that scenario.
You're entitled to go for a leg in you wish, just accept that you're more likely to end up dead, and, if a bystander gets hit by the riqochet when you miss the guys leg, you'll be morally and legally liable for that.
As for giving them what they want- if he'd done that he puts himself in a situation where he can no longer defend himself- if the robbers then decided they wished to end off their successful evenings robbery with, say, raping the homeowners wife and/or daughter, he would very much be regreting not taking the opportunity to end it when he had the chance.
Written by: StoneWritten by: ]However, those principles are totally compatible with the right of someone, when faced by an armed violent attacker, to gun them down in self-defense.
I find it very disturbing that anyone could have a mindset which denies the right of a human being to defend themselves, or their family, against violent individuals trying to kill them.[/quote
Dave, self defense does not mean killing someone. Nor does it mean blowing someone to pieces, with seven shots in the chest, from a .40 Smith and Western. I don’t see how you can justify shooting a kid several times in the chest, as non-violence towards sentient life forms. I thought it was important to refrain from taking life.
Self defence can end in the attackers death, particularly when that attacker is armed with something deadly, like a knifie or a gun.
I don't recall the report saying the kid was shot seven times- perhaps you're confusing 'seven' with 'several'?
It is important, where practical, to avoid taking life- in the situation where an attacker is pointing a gun at you and you're potentially going to be killed, then it's not really practical to not shoot them- unless you're willing to die yourself.
This guy almost certainly had no wish to kill someone that evening, he most likely just wanted to get on with his typical home/family evening.
The attacker who decided to invade the guys home and, when confronted, chose to draw a gun on him, was the sole initiator of this and he put the homeowner in a postion where the only rational choice (assuming he wished to live) was to shoot the attacker before they shot him.
Written by:
No one is denying anyone he right to defend themselves. A person with clear mind could have acted differently and prevented a death. The guy was not responsible in his actions.
Actually, you are trying to deny people the right to defend themselves, by posting such silly comments about a case where clearly the defender acted entirely appropriately and did the best thing they could have done.
Written by:
He could have given the kids what they wanted, he could have drawn and scared them off, fired a warning shot, wounded the guy, or killed the guy with one shot. Clearly he was not a responsible gun user, and should pay the price. This was more than self defense.
Going for a wounding shot or a warning shot would put the shooter at high risk of being killed.
Accuracy is diminshed in the high stress situation of a gun scenario- trying to shoot someone in the leg would be the wrong thing to do.
When someone is pointing a gun at you, you're morally and legally (in the US) entitled to react in a way that maximises the victims chances of survival.
Of course, the best place to shoot an attacker to stop them for sure, would be the head- however, cos of the acuracy issue, that would not be advisable.
So you should shoot into the body- more than once, cos many, many documented cases show that criminals have taken a bullet and still managed to kill the police person who shot them.
So, to the body, several times, till the threat is removed, is the ideal and recommended approach in that scenario.
You're entitled to go for a leg in you wish, just accept that you're more likely to end up dead, and, if a bystander gets hit by the riqochet when you miss the guys leg, you'll be morally and legally liable for that.
As for giving them what they want- if he'd done that he puts himself in a situation where he can no longer defend himself- if the robbers then decided they wished to end off their successful evenings robbery with, say, raping the homeowners wife and/or daughter, he would very much be regreting not taking the opportunity to end it when he had the chance.
"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!
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, I think rushing into Iraq to chase phantom WMD shows a total lack of control. You seem to have a very insular view of world politics. Australia gave support to America because President Bush asked our Government. We were part of the Coalition of the Willing.
America is a world leader, Vietnam was a bad decision, and the invasion of Iraq was another bad decision. We expect America to show leadership. The world is now thrown into chaos because of the increase in terrorism, a direct result of the Iraq invasion.
America could end the entire middle east with a couple missiles, but I think it would start World War 111, and what of all the Jewish people living in America, with ties to Israel. And other people from the Middle East.
How so? The topic for this thread is US Gun laws become "License to murder". See my last post for details on self defense.
Both Lurch.
Lurch, I never said guns were evil. That’s you saying guns are evil. But yes, you got it, guns are weapons designed to kill. If there was no crime then why would you need to carry a gun around. I have never said people shouldn't have guns. I have said all along that we really don’t need them, society would be better off with out them. They are liability, the kill and they divide the community.
From reading this thread four things seem to be associated with guns. They are killing, accidents, idiots, and it won’t happen again.
No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but ok say there only enough guns for 70% of the population. So only 70% of Americans are brainwashed.
Lurch there were many ways it could have gone with the so called self defense shooting. And why do you always equate self defense with killing someone? The point I was making was a responsible person would not have had to pump seven bullets into the kids chest. Hey, I'm guessing but I think a .40 Smith and Western is a powerful gun, and several bullets would stop an elephant.
Out of ammo I’d say.
So how else am I meant to interpret “he deserved to die” ?
Lurch, I think rushing into Iraq to chase phantom WMD shows a total lack of control. You seem to have a very insular view of world politics. Australia gave support to America because President Bush asked our Government. We were part of the Coalition of the Willing.
America is a world leader, Vietnam was a bad decision, and the invasion of Iraq was another bad decision. We expect America to show leadership. The world is now thrown into chaos because of the increase in terrorism, a direct result of the Iraq invasion.
America could end the entire middle east with a couple missiles, but I think it would start World War 111, and what of all the Jewish people living in America, with ties to Israel. And other people from the Middle East.
Written by:
There you go sensationalizing things again. MURDER is defined as the crime of unlawfully killing a person, …..
How so? The topic for this thread is US Gun laws become "License to murder". See my last post for details on self defense.
Written by:
I'm confused now, are you saying we shouldn't have guns because there is no valid self defense reasons to have one? or because they're "likely to be used on family members"?
Both Lurch.
Written by:
Face it, even if there was no crime, and there were no accidents, you would STILL be opposed to me having a gun even though you have no actual reason for it other than your personal opinion that they're evil, and people shouldn't have them.
Lurch, I never said guns were evil. That’s you saying guns are evil. But yes, you got it, guns are weapons designed to kill. If there was no crime then why would you need to carry a gun around. I have never said people shouldn't have guns. I have said all along that we really don’t need them, society would be better off with out them. They are liability, the kill and they divide the community.
From reading this thread four things seem to be associated with guns. They are killing, accidents, idiots, and it won’t happen again.
No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but ok say there only enough guns for 70% of the population. So only 70% of Americans are brainwashed.
Written by:
Talk about irresponsible gun use Do we really have to go over this once again? The man is entitled in such a situation to shoot until he is no longer threatened. One shot does not always kill someone, even 7…
Lurch there were many ways it could have gone with the so called self defense shooting. And why do you always equate self defense with killing someone? The point I was making was a responsible person would not have had to pump seven bullets into the kids chest. Hey, I'm guessing but I think a .40 Smith and Western is a powerful gun, and several bullets would stop an elephant.
Written by:
I'm guessing his "partner" turned and ran, he is no longer a threat, and *gasp* he wasn't shot!
Out of ammo I’d say.
Written by:
Talk about putting words in my mouth
So how else am I meant to interpret “he deserved to die” ?
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
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Dave, the kids probably didn’t want to kill anyone either. I think you are projecting again, and making up a lot of stories about this incident. What might and might not have been. Fire Tom posted details on the shooting above.
Dave I’m not denying anyone the right to do anything. The guy could have given the kids the cash they asked for. No one killed.
There is no middle ground in this debate. No fence sitting. Either you are for or against violence and taking human life.
So from your perspective it’s ok to kill human beings when we feel threatened, but no ok to eat chicken when we are hungry.
Dave, the kids probably didn’t want to kill anyone either. I think you are projecting again, and making up a lot of stories about this incident. What might and might not have been. Fire Tom posted details on the shooting above.
Dave I’m not denying anyone the right to do anything. The guy could have given the kids the cash they asked for. No one killed.
There is no middle ground in this debate. No fence sitting. Either you are for or against violence and taking human life.
So from your perspective it’s ok to kill human beings when we feel threatened, but no ok to eat chicken when we are hungry.
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
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, if you want a real example of why I don’t think guns have a place in the community than look at what happened in New Orleans immediately following Hurricane Katrina.
I was really shocked by what I saw on TV. The cops were calling for more ammo, not stretchers, bandages and medicine. More ammo!
Lurch, if you want a real example of why I don’t think guns have a place in the community than look at what happened in New Orleans immediately following Hurricane Katrina.
I was really shocked by what I saw on TV. The cops were calling for more ammo, not stretchers, bandages and medicine. More ammo!
Written by:
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, multiple reports of confiscations of civilian weapons by law enforcement began coming out of New Orleans. Warrantless weapon searches of evacuees were carried out prior to allowing them into evacuation centers, unconstitutional house-to-house weapon confiscations were reported and the superintendent of police was quoted as saying "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons" and "We are going to take all of the weapons".
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 and Tom....I'm with Dave in saying I'm beginning to get disgusted with some of your comments. You ask us who we are to judge whether someone deserves to die, but who are you to judge whether the guy had the right to defend himself in the way he did? The irony of this all is that if the story were about these kids who shot and killed a homeowner over maybe $100 in cash, you'd be spouting off "See this is why guns are bad! Guns led to violence against an innocent human life!" All that tells me is that you are so completely against guns that you can't possible open your mind and see any benefit to their use, as in this particular case where an innocent man defended himself against being killed in the likely only feasible way, by using a gun. *gasp* It saved his life. But according to you, he was irresponsible because he shot and killed a guy who was trying to kill him.
Stone and Tom....I'm with Dave in saying I'm beginning to get disgusted with some of your comments. You ask us who we are to judge whether someone deserves to die, but who are you to judge whether the guy had the right to defend himself in the way he did? The irony of this all is that if the story were about these kids who shot and killed a homeowner over maybe $100 in cash, you'd be spouting off "See this is why guns are bad! Guns led to violence against an innocent human life!" All that tells me is that you are so completely against guns that you can't possible open your mind and see any benefit to their use, as in this particular case where an innocent man defended himself against being killed in the likely only feasible way, by using a gun. *gasp* It saved his life. But according to you, he was irresponsible because he shot and killed a guy who was trying to kill him.
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:
pounce, Fire Tom and I are entitled to our opinions. I have never said the guy did not have the right to defend himself. I said one option was to give them the cash.
Dunno about America, but in Australia the police generally advise people to give the robbers what the want so no one gets hurt. I think this is because people get killed most of the time when the start playing hero.
You are right I don’t see any benefits of guns in the community. Guns do led to violence against innocent people.
“Gun politics in the United Kingdom, in similarity with gun politics in Australia, places its main considerations on how best to ensure public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented. There is practically no organised "right to keep and bear arms" lobby in the United Kingdom or Australia. In the UK self-defense has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun since 1946 (wiki).”
pounce, Fire Tom and I are entitled to our opinions. I have never said the guy did not have the right to defend himself. I said one option was to give them the cash.
Dunno about America, but in Australia the police generally advise people to give the robbers what the want so no one gets hurt. I think this is because people get killed most of the time when the start playing hero.
You are right I don’t see any benefits of guns in the community. Guns do led to violence against innocent people.
“Gun politics in the United Kingdom, in similarity with gun politics in Australia, places its main considerations on how best to ensure public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented. There is practically no organised "right to keep and bear arms" lobby in the United Kingdom or Australia. In the UK self-defense has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun since 1946 (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
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
You're right, you may not have said guns are evil, but FireTom certainly has and you've followed along right behind him. Gun are not just designed to kill, there are far more effective ways to kill someone. There are plenty of sporting reasons which we've already gone over, but are somehow lost repeatedly to you guys. Besides that, the scenario I stated was that if there was NO crime, and NO accidents. What logical reason could you have to ask me to let go of my guns? You don't like them? If there was no crime and no accidents what problem do you have with me having/carrying one?
I've never equated self defense with killing. I said he shoots to STOP THE THREAT. You don't shoot to kill, you stop the threat. As I've said before if he dropped the gun after the first shot, the whole thing is over. He does not need to die, but HE brought the situation on himself, he was in control, so I will not mourn him.
We don't even know what type of gun he had, the article says several not seven, so I doubt he was out of ammunition.
Funny that you should bring up Katrina, because that is a PRIME example of how the media (and anti-gun nuts) LOVE to sensationalize and cry wolf. I'd really like it if you could find an actual new source saying the LEO's were asking for more ammunition.
There were HUGE problems with Katrina, not the least of them being the massive, ILLEGAL gun seizures going on. These people had their private property, illegally taken, and never returned. How is that right? This is why people are opposed to all these regulations that you want, this is why people are opposed to registration, because when situations like this roll around, and idiots think they have powers they don't, they use those databases to their advantage and screw over thousands of people. There have been many many many lawsuits over the seizures that went on there, and *gasp* the courts sided with the gun owners!
Now the reasoning behind these highly illegal gun seizures? This "chaos" that people claim? It was all bullshit.
Written by:
Lurch, I never said guns were evil. That’s you saying guns are evil. But yes, you got it, guns are weapons designed to kill. If there was no crime then why would you need to carry a gun around. I have never said people shouldn't have guns. I have said all along that we really don’t need them, society would be better off with out them. They are liability, the kill and they divide the community.
You're right, you may not have said guns are evil, but FireTom certainly has and you've followed along right behind him. Gun are not just designed to kill, there are far more effective ways to kill someone. There are plenty of sporting reasons which we've already gone over, but are somehow lost repeatedly to you guys. Besides that, the scenario I stated was that if there was NO crime, and NO accidents. What logical reason could you have to ask me to let go of my guns? You don't like them? If there was no crime and no accidents what problem do you have with me having/carrying one?
I've never equated self defense with killing. I said he shoots to STOP THE THREAT. You don't shoot to kill, you stop the threat. As I've said before if he dropped the gun after the first shot, the whole thing is over. He does not need to die, but HE brought the situation on himself, he was in control, so I will not mourn him.
Written by:
Out of ammo I’d say.
We don't even know what type of gun he had, the article says several not seven, so I doubt he was out of ammunition.
Written by:
Lurch, if you want a real example of why I don’t think guns have a place in the community than look at what happened in New Orleans immediately following Hurricane Katrina.
I was really shocked by what I saw on TV. The cops were calling for more ammo, not stretchers, bandages and medicine. More ammo!
Funny that you should bring up Katrina, because that is a PRIME example of how the media (and anti-gun nuts) LOVE to sensationalize and cry wolf. I'd really like it if you could find an actual new source saying the LEO's were asking for more ammunition.
There were HUGE problems with Katrina, not the least of them being the massive, ILLEGAL gun seizures going on. These people had their private property, illegally taken, and never returned. How is that right? This is why people are opposed to all these regulations that you want, this is why people are opposed to registration, because when situations like this roll around, and idiots think they have powers they don't, they use those databases to their advantage and screw over thousands of people. There have been many many many lawsuits over the seizures that went on there, and *gasp* the courts sided with the gun owners!
Now the reasoning behind these highly illegal gun seizures? This "chaos" that people claim? It was all bullshit.
Written by:
MYTH: "They have people ... been in that frickin' Superdome for five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people."--New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin, The Oprah Winfrey Show, Sept. 6, 2005
REALITY: Both public officials and the press passed along lurid tales of post-Katrina mayhem: shootouts in the Superdome, bodies stacked in a convention center freezer, snipers firing on rescue helicopters. And those accounts appear to have affected rescue efforts as first responders shifted resources from saving lives to protecting rescuers. In reality, although looting and other property crimes were widespread after the flooding on Monday, Aug. 29, almost none of the stories about violent crime turned out to be true. Col. Thomas Beron, the National Guard commander of Task Force Orleans, arrived at the Superdome on Aug. 29 and took command of 400 soldiers. He told PM that when the Dome's main power failed around 5 am, "it became a hot, humid, miserable place. There was some pushing, people were irritable. There was one attempted rape that the New Orleans police stopped."
The only confirmed account of a weapon discharge occurred when Louisiana Guardsman Chris Watt was jumped by an assailant and, during the chaotic arrest, accidently shot himself in the leg with his own M-16.
When the Superdome was finally cleared, six bodies were found--not the 200 speculated. Four people had died of natural causes; one was ruled a suicide, and another a drug overdose. Of the four bodies recovered at the convention center, three had died of natural causes; the fourth had sustained stab wounds.
Anarchy in the streets? "The vast majority of people [looting] were taking food and water to live," says Capt. Marlon Defillo, the New Orleans Police Department's commander of public affairs. "There were no killings, not one murder." As for sniper fire: No bullet holes were found in the fuselage of any rescue helicopter.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
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:
You're right Stone, you are entitled to your opinions, just as we are. But our opinions apparently make us "brainwashed," or make us associated with "killing, accidents, idiots, and it won’t happen again." Um, pot? This is kettle calling. Just wanted to let you know, you're black.
You're right Stone, you are entitled to your opinions, just as we are. But our opinions apparently make us "brainwashed," or make us associated with "killing, accidents, idiots, and it won’t happen again." Um, pot? This is kettle calling. Just wanted to let you know, you're black.
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, Fire Tom and I are completely independent people. Sometimes our views are similar, but they are definitely not the same.
There are probably more effective ways to kill people than guns, but doesn’t change the fact that guns are used to kill people. Farmers and sports shooters have valid reasons for having guns. Where I loose the plot is when we go into this handgun, self defense, enforcement thing.
Lurch, keep you gun. I used to like guns. I just saying that when we live in a world with out crime no one will want to own a gun. Except perhaps you
Lurch, that may be fine in, but that’s not what’s been said so far. The focus of self defense has been on killing.
.40 Smith and Western has seven shots (wiki)
Why is it that every time there is serious problem in you country you completely ignore it, and say something like “anti-gun nuts LOVE to sensationalize”?
As to the source, it was one of the live feeds from America, CNN or one of them. It did shock me. Though, you can be certain it was not the Oprah special. Which is what you are giving me with this "chaos" that people claim? It was all bullshit.” I watched it live. They had to get the guns out of the community because there was anarchy.
I’m not surprised the courts sided with the gun owners. Every other time there has been a serious gun problem in you country, you completely ignore it. Call it a myth, and hope it goes away.
pounce, you are right I should not have not used “brainwashed”
The idiots and it won’t happen again, came from what Lurch said about the cop who accidentally shot the webbing on his hand.
In all seriousness, you don’t thing there is a gun problem in America?
Lurch, Fire Tom and I are completely independent people. Sometimes our views are similar, but they are definitely not the same.
There are probably more effective ways to kill people than guns, but doesn’t change the fact that guns are used to kill people. Farmers and sports shooters have valid reasons for having guns. Where I loose the plot is when we go into this handgun, self defense, enforcement thing.
Written by:
If there was no crime and no accidents what problem do you have with me having/carrying one?
Lurch, keep you gun. I used to like guns. I just saying that when we live in a world with out crime no one will want to own a gun. Except perhaps you
Written by:
I've never equated self defense with killing. I said he shoots to STOP THE THREAT. You don't shoot to kill, you stop the threat…..
Lurch, that may be fine in, but that’s not what’s been said so far. The focus of self defense has been on killing.
Written by:
Out of ammo I’d say.
.40 Smith and Western has seven shots (wiki)
Written by:
Funny that you should bring up Katrina, because that is a PRIME example of how the media (and anti-gun nuts) LOVE to sensationalize and cry wolf. I'd really like it if you could find an actual new source saying the LEO's were asking for more ammunition.
Why is it that every time there is serious problem in you country you completely ignore it, and say something like “anti-gun nuts LOVE to sensationalize”?
As to the source, it was one of the live feeds from America, CNN or one of them. It did shock me. Though, you can be certain it was not the Oprah special. Which is what you are giving me with this "chaos" that people claim? It was all bullshit.” I watched it live. They had to get the guns out of the community because there was anarchy.
I’m not surprised the courts sided with the gun owners. Every other time there has been a serious gun problem in you country, you completely ignore it. Call it a myth, and hope it goes away.
pounce, you are right I should not have not used “brainwashed”
The idiots and it won’t happen again, came from what Lurch said about the cop who accidentally shot the webbing on his hand.In all seriousness, you don’t thing there is a gun problem in America?
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:
And I'm back in here and we are back to that one bad habit of Lurch "never quote your sources", huh?...
I have said that guns hold "dark energy" (if you quote me, please stick to my words - you may conclude, but don't put words into my mouth, please). By that statement I am expressing my opinion that "guns appeal to the darker side of man" - as being instruments for killing (given that there might even be a "sportive aspect" to that). My point being: with a gun in your hands you don't need to compromise/ communicate/ mediate anymore, you can (try to) "stand your grounds" and you can fight (back). I am not denying the right for self defence, hence - and this IMO - violence is not the (only) answer/ the (only) way to solve a conflict. Neither on both: a domestic level and a global one.
I repeat: Two kids come to a porch with the "intent of killing someone" and point a gun/ their guns at him. Miraculously he is able to draw his own gun - fires several shots, kills ONE of them - the kids (even though "they intended to kill him") don't fire a single shot, ONE escapes and now this one gets charged with murder... US legislation - IMHO - is twisted.
Therefore I would say their intent was not to kill, but at maximum to rob - and since when is there capital punishment on robbery?
Self defence is okay, but I guess that Stone and I are side-by-side on this one: The kid didn't need to die - even assuming that he was exclusively shot out of self defence. I say (and Lurch you said the same): "killing over material possessions is wrong".
But now you guys are saying that the kid deserved to die and that - IMNSHO - is .... well *clears throat*
"wrong" is the least of expressions. Why are you flip flopping on this? Please make clear, whether you still think that he "deserved to die" or you simply "won't mourn him". There is a HUGE difference between the two, IMO - much like "actively supporting the capital punishment" and "simply accepting it" (as in 'silent support')...
According to the NRA published figures there are about 215.000.000 (privately owned) guns in the US and there have been some 60.000.000 approved gun transactions between 1994 and 2004. It says that almost half of all households have one gun owner... go figure.
The situation after Katrina - to me - proves what can go wrong if a government does not provide support in a drastic situation and guns are in civilian hands. We had floodings in Germany too and it generally sparked a wave of support - not chaos. People travelled to the place from all over the country in order to help - no shootings, no extreme violence. How come?
Is it that there are people who are only waiting for an opportunity to freak out, for the moment the government has a blind eye? See Katrina, see the Rodney King riots in 1992. Is the situation in the US not much like the one of a pressure cooker, with all the social and political results?
Is it not yet clearly proven that you can't handle the responsibility of gun ownership, neither on a domestic, nor on international level? As it clearly surfaces again and again...
Is it not the fact that the US government has proven to be incapable of solving domestic issues and for this reason alone are even in desperate need of "addressing issues" overseas/ in foreign politics? Is it not for that reason alone, that they need the enemy within (i.e. "terrorist threats" -> "patriot act")?
How Vietnam and Iraq affect Australia (and the rest of the world)?
Now that's not a serious question, is it?
The Bush administration is now starting the electoral race for 2008. To me it is ridiculous observing (and that doesn't exclusively apply to the US government) how much they can screw up 3 years and then spend 1 year merely on planning to do better, just to help the next menace into office... very frustrating and I hope that the US registered voters are not as blind... [/off topic]
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181546717)
And I'm back in here and we are back to that one bad habit of Lurch "never quote your sources", huh?...
I have said that guns hold "dark energy" (if you quote me, please stick to my words - you may conclude, but don't put words into my mouth, please). By that statement I am expressing my opinion that "guns appeal to the darker side of man" - as being instruments for killing (given that there might even be a "sportive aspect" to that). My point being: with a gun in your hands you don't need to compromise/ communicate/ mediate anymore, you can (try to) "stand your grounds" and you can fight (back). I am not denying the right for self defence, hence - and this IMO - violence is not the (only) answer/ the (only) way to solve a conflict. Neither on both: a domestic level and a global one.
I repeat: Two kids come to a porch with the "intent of killing someone" and point a gun/ their guns at him. Miraculously he is able to draw his own gun - fires several shots, kills ONE of them - the kids (even though "they intended to kill him") don't fire a single shot, ONE escapes and now this one gets charged with murder... US legislation - IMHO - is twisted.
Therefore I would say their intent was not to kill, but at maximum to rob - and since when is there capital punishment on robbery?
Self defence is okay, but I guess that Stone and I are side-by-side on this one: The kid didn't need to die - even assuming that he was exclusively shot out of self defence. I say (and Lurch you said the same): "killing over material possessions is wrong".
But now you guys are saying that the kid deserved to die and that - IMNSHO - is .... well *clears throat*
"wrong" is the least of expressions. Why are you flip flopping on this? Please make clear, whether you still think that he "deserved to die" or you simply "won't mourn him". There is a HUGE difference between the two, IMO - much like "actively supporting the capital punishment" and "simply accepting it" (as in 'silent support')...According to the NRA published figures there are about 215.000.000 (privately owned) guns in the US and there have been some 60.000.000 approved gun transactions between 1994 and 2004. It says that almost half of all households have one gun owner... go figure.
The situation after Katrina - to me - proves what can go wrong if a government does not provide support in a drastic situation and guns are in civilian hands. We had floodings in Germany too and it generally sparked a wave of support - not chaos. People travelled to the place from all over the country in order to help - no shootings, no extreme violence. How come?
Is it that there are people who are only waiting for an opportunity to freak out, for the moment the government has a blind eye? See Katrina, see the Rodney King riots in 1992. Is the situation in the US not much like the one of a pressure cooker, with all the social and political results?
Is it not yet clearly proven that you can't handle the responsibility of gun ownership, neither on a domestic, nor on international level? As it clearly surfaces again and again...
Is it not the fact that the US government has proven to be incapable of solving domestic issues and for this reason alone are even in desperate need of "addressing issues" overseas/ in foreign politics? Is it not for that reason alone, that they need the enemy within (i.e. "terrorist threats" -> "patriot act")?
How Vietnam and Iraq affect Australia (and the rest of the world)?
Now that's not a serious question, is it? The Bush administration is now starting the electoral race for 2008. To me it is ridiculous observing (and that doesn't exclusively apply to the US government) how much they can screw up 3 years and then spend 1 year merely on planning to do better, just to help the next menace into office... very frustrating and I hope that the US registered voters are not as blind... [/off topic]
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181546717)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Hi Fire Tom, I get what you mean when you say "guns appeal to the darker side of man" - as being instruments for killing.” I think we need to overcome that fear instinct, and move on. As you say, learn to communicate with each other, our neighbours, and on a global level as well.
And I agree with the rest of your post.
Well said
Hi Fire Tom, I get what you mean when you say "guns appeal to the darker side of man" - as being instruments for killing.” I think we need to overcome that fear instinct, and move on. As you say, learn to communicate with each other, our neighbours, and on a global level as well.
And I agree with the rest of your post.
Well said
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:
Thanks Stone - I can relate to almost everything that you are contributing to this discussion.
However to those who reckon we're back only talking about the effects and "opposing our views on others": Unless we have gotten to the roots of ideology and conditioning, we will never be able to change anything. It's impossible to teach our children, if our teachers are still stuck in the past.
To clarify what I mean by "dark energy": compare a gun to a computer tomograph. Both designed by man, inanimate objects - but with very opposing intentions and range of possibilities. The "sporting aspect" of a gun is to improve the ability to kill, to hit a target more efficient. But you can do that kind of (mental) training without even having to think about a gun (and it's negative side effects).
IMHO there are more sound reasons to abandon guns, than there are to keep them - therefore it's only logical to say that guns need to get banned.
At the same time we need to educate our children how to
- realize their (natural) potential (both: physically and mentally);
- need less - so they don't have to envy those who have more
- avoid aggression against other people and themselves
- avoid a conflict
- mediate a conflict
- accomplish a mindset where they can channel their frustration and anger
And unfortunately it has been proven that we need to start that on a local/ individual level, but need to keep the global level in mind. It doesn't work any other way.
Because:
Thanks Stone - I can relate to almost everything that you are contributing to this discussion.
However to those who reckon we're back only talking about the effects and "opposing our views on others": Unless we have gotten to the roots of ideology and conditioning, we will never be able to change anything. It's impossible to teach our children, if our teachers are still stuck in the past.
To clarify what I mean by "dark energy": compare a gun to a computer tomograph. Both designed by man, inanimate objects - but with very opposing intentions and range of possibilities. The "sporting aspect" of a gun is to improve the ability to kill, to hit a target more efficient. But you can do that kind of (mental) training without even having to think about a gun (and it's negative side effects).
IMHO there are more sound reasons to abandon guns, than there are to keep them - therefore it's only logical to say that guns need to get banned.
At the same time we need to educate our children how to
- realize their (natural) potential (both: physically and mentally);
- need less - so they don't have to envy those who have more
- avoid aggression against other people and themselves
- avoid a conflict
- mediate a conflict
- accomplish a mindset where they can channel their frustration and anger
And unfortunately it has been proven that we need to start that on a local/ individual level, but need to keep the global level in mind. It doesn't work any other way.
Because:
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:
Actually, most people who own guns would still keep them, most of us aren't living in fear for our lives, we enjoy shooting. So you may want to actually ask the gun community before you go making blanket statements like that.
The focus YOU have been emphasizing is the killing aspect, we have not. It would be great if the kid didn't die, but then it would be even better if the kid never committed the crime to begin with. There are consequences for your actions.
My point was that the "serious" problem (the chaos in the streets) was not happening in reality, but the media was reporting it nonetheless. The same media that you claim put out a call for more ammunition for the cops, also reported that there were 200 dead in the Superdome. There was NOT anarchy, do a little research on the aftermath and reality.
Now I warned you about wiki sources. First off its Smith & Wesson. Secondly .40S&W is a caliber, it's a type of bullet, not a type of gun. My gun for example, is a Springfield Armory XD40, (I can post a photo if you would like) it shoots .40S&W, and has 12 in the mag one in the chamber, making 13 shots total before I have to reload. I guess that theory is out the window.
I apologize FireTom, that one was from Popular Mechanics, which may not be a reputable "news" source in your eyes, but do a little research and you'll find that everyone says pretty much the same thing.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html
First off, it was the MAYOR of New Orleans that said that, not Oprah, it just happened to be on the Oprah show. Secondly, and again, this "chaos" that you saw live, DID NOT HAPPEN! There is NO evidence of these massive strings of murder and mayhem. The community was not in anarchy, they were in despair, but that is a completely separate issue.
The courts don't always side with gun owners, there have been numerous "weapons bans" that are brought about by people such as yourself that don't have a clue what they're talking about. They're usually shot down because they are asinine and idiotic, but every once in awhile like the Clinton ban one gets through. And *gasp* it has little to no effect on gun crime.
I'll agree that there is something strange about the other being charged with murder, manslaughter possibly. I don't remember that in the original article do you have a source for that?
It does not matter if the kids intent was to kill him or not, it doesn't even matter if the gun was loaded or real, their intent was to make him think they would kill him. That is enough, how is he supposed to know? Would you really want to take that chance that the person yelling at you with a gun in your face isn't going to kill you in the end? There are ways to rob someone without a violent confrontation, or better yet, you could just not do the crime! How many quickie mart clerks have been killed in cold blood after they gave the criminal everything they wanted in the hopes they'd go away peacefully? Think about it, you are the only witness to someone committing a felony that could put them away for the rest of their life, why would they want witnesses? They're obviously willing to commit armed robbery, murder wouldn't be that much of a leap.
Once again, the chaos and violence that was initially reported by the media, DID NOT HAPPEN! Maybe you guys overseas never got that memo.. Of course there were flaws in how it was handled, I won't deny that. I've even worked for FEMA myself and seen a bit of the chaos involved, but the guns had absolutely nothing to do with it, and their confiscation was a direct result of the media blowing everything out of proportion and not checking their facts. It's a long read but if you've got the time I would encourage it.
https://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3998
Actually, I would like a serious answer to how the Vietnam war has affected Australia. Iraq I can see, Vietnam I'm still curious about.
You're right, you need to overcome that fear instinct of guns. I for one already have, I have a deep seeded respect for them, and I know their potential, but a gun sitting on a table does not scare me one iota.
Written by:
Lurch, keep you gun. I used to like guns. I just saying that when we live in a world with out crime no one will want to own a gun. Except perhaps you
Actually, most people who own guns would still keep them, most of us aren't living in fear for our lives, we enjoy shooting. So you may want to actually ask the gun community before you go making blanket statements like that.
Written by:
Lurch, that may be fine in, but that’s not what’s been said so far. The focus of self defense has been on killing.
The focus YOU have been emphasizing is the killing aspect, we have not. It would be great if the kid didn't die, but then it would be even better if the kid never committed the crime to begin with. There are consequences for your actions.
Written by:
Why is it that every time there is serious problem in you country you completely ignore it, and say something like "anti-gun nuts LOVE to sensationalize"?
As to the source, it was one of the live feeds from America, CNN or one of them. It did shock me. Though, you can be certain it was not the Oprah special. Which is what you are giving me with this "chaos" that people claim? It was all bullshit." I watched it live. They had to get the guns out of the community because there was anarchy.
I’m not surprised the courts sided with the gun owners. Every other time there has been a serious gun problem in you country, you completely ignore it. Call it a myth, and hope it goes away.
My point was that the "serious" problem (the chaos in the streets) was not happening in reality, but the media was reporting it nonetheless. The same media that you claim put out a call for more ammunition for the cops, also reported that there were 200 dead in the Superdome. There was NOT anarchy, do a little research on the aftermath and reality.
Written by:
.40 Smith and Western has seven shots (wiki)
Now I warned you about wiki sources. First off its Smith & Wesson. Secondly .40S&W is a caliber, it's a type of bullet, not a type of gun. My gun for example, is a Springfield Armory XD40, (I can post a photo if you would like) it shoots .40S&W, and has 12 in the mag one in the chamber, making 13 shots total before I have to reload. I guess that theory is out the window.Written by:
And I'm back in here and we are back to that one bad habit of Lurch "never quote your sources", huh?...
I apologize FireTom, that one was from Popular Mechanics, which may not be a reputable "news" source in your eyes, but do a little research and you'll find that everyone says pretty much the same thing.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html
Written by:
As to the source, it was one of the live feeds from America, CNN or one of them. It did shock me. Though, you can be certain it was not the Oprah special. Which is what you are giving me with this "chaos" that people claim? It was all bullshit." I watched it live. They had to get the guns out of the community because there was anarchy.
First off, it was the MAYOR of New Orleans that said that, not Oprah, it just happened to be on the Oprah show. Secondly, and again, this "chaos" that you saw live, DID NOT HAPPEN! There is NO evidence of these massive strings of murder and mayhem. The community was not in anarchy, they were in despair, but that is a completely separate issue.
The courts don't always side with gun owners, there have been numerous "weapons bans" that are brought about by people such as yourself that don't have a clue what they're talking about. They're usually shot down because they are asinine and idiotic, but every once in awhile like the Clinton ban one gets through. And *gasp* it has little to no effect on gun crime.
Written by:
Two kids come to a porch with the "intent of killing someone" and point a gun/ their guns at him. Miraculously he is able to draw his own gun - fires several shots, kills ONE of them - the kids (even though "they intended to kill him") don't fire a single shot, ONE escapes and now this one gets charged with murder...
I'll agree that there is something strange about the other being charged with murder, manslaughter possibly. I don't remember that in the original article do you have a source for that?
It does not matter if the kids intent was to kill him or not, it doesn't even matter if the gun was loaded or real, their intent was to make him think they would kill him. That is enough, how is he supposed to know? Would you really want to take that chance that the person yelling at you with a gun in your face isn't going to kill you in the end? There are ways to rob someone without a violent confrontation, or better yet, you could just not do the crime! How many quickie mart clerks have been killed in cold blood after they gave the criminal everything they wanted in the hopes they'd go away peacefully? Think about it, you are the only witness to someone committing a felony that could put them away for the rest of their life, why would they want witnesses? They're obviously willing to commit armed robbery, murder wouldn't be that much of a leap.
Written by:
The situation after Katrina - to me - proves what can go wrong if a government does not provide support in a drastic situation and guns are in civilian hands. We had floodings in Germany too and it generally sparked a wave of support - not chaos. People travelled to the place from all over the country in order to help - no shootings, no extreme violence. How come?
Once again, the chaos and violence that was initially reported by the media, DID NOT HAPPEN! Maybe you guys overseas never got that memo.. Of course there were flaws in how it was handled, I won't deny that. I've even worked for FEMA myself and seen a bit of the chaos involved, but the guns had absolutely nothing to do with it, and their confiscation was a direct result of the media blowing everything out of proportion and not checking their facts. It's a long read but if you've got the time I would encourage it.
https://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3998
Written by:
How Vietnam and Iraq affect Australia (and the rest of the world)?
Actually, I would like a serious answer to how the Vietnam war has affected Australia. Iraq I can see, Vietnam I'm still curious about.
Written by:
Hi Fire Tom, I get what you mean when you say "guns appeal to the darker side of man" - as being instruments for killing." I think we need to overcome that fear instinct, and move on. As you say, learn to communicate with each other, our neighbours, and on a global level as well.
You're right, you need to overcome that fear instinct of guns. I for one already have, I have a deep seeded respect for them, and I know their potential, but a gun sitting on a table does not scare me one iota.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
how about:
US Gun laws become "License to murder"
to
US Gun laws become "License to argue badly."
how about:
US Gun laws become "License to murder"
to
US Gun laws become "License to argue badly."
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Lurch I use to quote my sources and did that one requested. Please bother to read my posts - I'm not going to refer to it again.
This endless quoting, grinding posts to pieces, commenting on each and every sentence (after quoting it) discourages the valued reader, who is not actively involved in this discussion... You are displaying the live equivalent to current politics...
About the Australian involvement to the Vietnam war It's not that hard to key into Google. IF you'd really be interested, why don't you?
Hence: I also do not fear guns and both of you IMO are right that in general we have to overcome any sort of fear (because we give it more power than necessary), hence I have to say: (maybe with the exception of Pounce and Faith) so far the pro gunners have not even made a slight attempt to analyse how we can eventually get rid of guns in the US, or minimize losses.
You, Lurch - no offence meant - are simply behaving reactionary and conservative. Which - besides you being a really nice guy and having the best of intentions to protect the community, blablabla - is not even remotely curing the root causes, but putting it in danger in the first place. You act like the "devils advocate". Congratulations in really achieving your aim.
I put forth a few attempts already, concepts of how to regulate the situation and how to prevent accidents today/ the near future and to prevent killings of innocent in the future - all of this completely dismissed and ignored by all the pro gunners. I'm sorry to conclude, that your way of argumentation absolutely repulses me - you clearly waste my/ our time. And I say that with your kind of attitude you truly might need a gun to defend your life at some point...
You said that you "enjoy shooting". Why? Have you ever looked/ reflected on that? I'm tired to argue with people who try nothing but drag me down to their level.
BTW there are 6 shooters having .40 calibre and there is a "S&W model 40" that is NOT having a magazine, like the S&W Centennial
HOW "MANSLAUGHTER"? The "accomplice" did not even fire a single shot (according to press releases)... What are you thinking?
As I initially said: I quoted my source.
IMHO there is a GREAT leap between armed robbery and murder.
I just have to accept that you view all this from a completely different angle, therefore I repeat my mantra:
Lurch I use to quote my sources and did that one requested. Please bother to read my posts - I'm not going to refer to it again.
This endless quoting, grinding posts to pieces, commenting on each and every sentence (after quoting it) discourages the valued reader, who is not actively involved in this discussion... You are displaying the live equivalent to current politics...
About the Australian involvement to the Vietnam war It's not that hard to key into Google. IF you'd really be interested, why don't you?
Hence: I also do not fear guns and both of you IMO are right that in general we have to overcome any sort of fear (because we give it more power than necessary), hence I have to say: (maybe with the exception of Pounce and Faith) so far the pro gunners have not even made a slight attempt to analyse how we can eventually get rid of guns in the US, or minimize losses.
You, Lurch - no offence meant - are simply behaving reactionary and conservative. Which - besides you being a really nice guy and having the best of intentions to protect the community, blablabla - is not even remotely curing the root causes, but putting it in danger in the first place. You act like the "devils advocate". Congratulations in really achieving your aim.
I put forth a few attempts already, concepts of how to regulate the situation and how to prevent accidents today/ the near future and to prevent killings of innocent in the future - all of this completely dismissed and ignored by all the pro gunners. I'm sorry to conclude, that your way of argumentation absolutely repulses me - you clearly waste my/ our time. And I say that with your kind of attitude you truly might need a gun to defend your life at some point...
You said that you "enjoy shooting". Why? Have you ever looked/ reflected on that? I'm tired to argue with people who try nothing but drag me down to their level.
BTW there are 6 shooters having .40 calibre and there is a "S&W model 40" that is NOT having a magazine, like the S&W Centennial
Written by: Lurch
I'll agree that there is something strange about the other being charged with murder, manslaughter possibly. I don't remember that in the original article do you have a source for that?
HOW "MANSLAUGHTER"? The "accomplice" did not even fire a single shot (according to press releases)... What are you thinking?
Written by: Lurch
It does not matter if the kids intent was to kill him or not, it doesn't even matter if the gun was loaded or real, their intent was to make him think they would kill him. That is enough, how is he supposed to know? Would you really want to take that chance that the person yelling at you with a gun in your face isn't going to kill you in the end? There are ways to rob someone without a violent confrontation, or better yet, you could just not do the crime! How many quickie mart clerks have been killed in cold blood after they gave the criminal everything they wanted in the hopes they'd go away peacefully? Think about it, you are the only witness to someone committing a felony that could put them away for the rest of their life, why would they want witnesses? They're obviously willing to commit armed robbery, murder wouldn't be that much of a leap.
As I initially said: I quoted my source.
IMHO there is a GREAT leap between armed robbery and murder.
I just have to accept that you view all this from a completely different angle, therefore I repeat my mantra:
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
- People who buy guns fund the weapon industry and therefore contribute to global (human) suffering.
- People who own guns put their family and friends at a higher risk to get involved into a gun accident.
- People who promote gun ownership do contribute to paranoia within the community.
- There is hardly a justification for carrying a gun in public (a few exceptions to the rule).
Having said this: there are few exceptions, where gun ownership is necessary and I suggest certain regulations in order to minimize potential human losses and crimes committed, involving "legal" gun ownership.
- enforce existing gun laws, especially in regards of testing people applying for gun permits and undertake thorough background checks
- undertake mandatory and random drug tests
- apply proper education and training/ refresh these
- registration of all gun owners with officials
- limit supply of ammunition according to the use of the gun (self defence/ hunting)
- limit numbers and types of guns available
In order to eliminate the "need for guns" we need to educate our children how to
- realize their (natural) potential (both: physically and mentally);
- need less - so they don't have to envy those who got more
- avoid aggression against other people and themselves
- avoid a conflict
- mediate a conflict
- accomplish a mindset where they can channel their frustration and anger (other than destructive)
- People who buy guns fund the weapon industry and therefore contribute to global (human) suffering.
- People who own guns put their family and friends at a higher risk to get involved into a gun accident.
- People who promote gun ownership do contribute to paranoia within the community.
- There is hardly a justification for carrying a gun in public (a few exceptions to the rule).
Having said this: there are few exceptions, where gun ownership is necessary and I suggest certain regulations in order to minimize potential human losses and crimes committed, involving "legal" gun ownership.
- enforce existing gun laws, especially in regards of testing people applying for gun permits and undertake thorough background checks
- undertake mandatory and random drug tests
- apply proper education and training/ refresh these
- registration of all gun owners with officials
- limit supply of ammunition according to the use of the gun (self defence/ hunting)
- limit numbers and types of guns available
In order to eliminate the "need for guns" we need to educate our children how to
- realize their (natural) potential (both: physically and mentally);
- need less - so they don't have to envy those who got more
- avoid aggression against other people and themselves
- avoid a conflict
- mediate a conflict
- accomplish a mindset where they can channel their frustration and anger (other than destructive)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Stone, both me and Lurch have pointed out on a t least two occasions, that there's been no indication that the assailant was shot seven times- the article said several.
'Several' does not mean 'seven'.
Written by: StoneWritten by:
Out of ammo I’d say.
.40 Smith and Western has seven shots (wiki)
Stone, both me and Lurch have pointed out on a t least two occasions, that there's been no indication that the assailant was shot seven times- the article said several.
'Several' does not mean 'seven'.
"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!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
From my perspective it's OK to deend against human beings when they are pointing a gun at us, yes.
In the case of an armed defender, that could well result in the attackers death.
The intent is not to kill, but to stop the threat- obviously putting several bullets into the attackers chest could well result in their death.
People who resect life do not take it unless they have to, but part of respecting life is protecting your own life against those who do not respect life, such as muggers who point guns at victims.
Written by: Stone
So from your perspective it’s ok to kill human beings when we feel threatened, but no ok to eat chicken when we are hungry.
From my perspective it's OK to deend against human beings when they are pointing a gun at us, yes.
In the case of an armed defender, that could well result in the attackers death.
The intent is not to kill, but to stop the threat- obviously putting several bullets into the attackers chest could well result in their death.
People who resect life do not take it unless they have to, but part of respecting life is protecting your own life against those who do not respect life, such as muggers who point guns at victims.
"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!
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Cheers Fire Tom, we need to put the past in the past before we can move on. I like the mental training idea. I think guns made it easy, and we lost contact with that ability to be aware. Like that “awareness” of an American Indian or Australian Aboriginal tracker.
Lurch mate, fair point on the Smith and Weston, we don’t do handguns in Australia. But are you serious on this "chaos" that you saw live, DID NOT HAPPEN!
Hi mcp, not sure where u are coming from. Thanks for your insight
Dave, people who respect life do not take it. Look at Ghandi.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1181561203)
Cheers Fire Tom, we need to put the past in the past before we can move on. I like the mental training idea. I think guns made it easy, and we lost contact with that ability to be aware. Like that “awareness” of an American Indian or Australian Aboriginal tracker.
Lurch mate, fair point on the Smith and Weston, we don’t do handguns in Australia. But are you serious on this "chaos" that you saw live, DID NOT HAPPEN!
Written by:
Once again, the chaos and violence that was initially reported by the media, DID NOT HAPPEN!
Hi mcp, not sure where u are coming from. Thanks for your insight
Dave, people who respect life do not take it. Look at Ghandi.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1181561203)
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:
It means that, in the scenario in question, where a criminal points a gun at an intended victim and that victim kills the attacker in self defense, that we consider it morally fine to have done so.
I'm not sure what you've got in mind when you say 'deseve' (you may wish to clarify) but it's looking like your use of it contains some extra aspects that our use of it doesn't.
Written by: FireTom
Self defence is okay, but I guess that Stone and I are side-by-side on this one: The kid didn't need to die - even assuming that he was exclusively shot out of self defence. I say (and Lurch you said the same): "killing over material possessions is wrong".
But now you guys are saying that the kid deserved to die and that - IMNSHO - is .... well *clears throat*
It means that, in the scenario in question, where a criminal points a gun at an intended victim and that victim kills the attacker in self defense, that we consider it morally fine to have done so.
I'm not sure what you've got in mind when you say 'deseve' (you may wish to clarify) but it's looking like your use of it contains some extra aspects that our use of it doesn't.
"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:
That is the point: (based upon that media release) the kids didn't fire a single shot even though they (as you indicate) have threatened and were up to kill this man. They were pointing gun(s) at him. He still was able to pull his, shoot one whilst none of them fired.
People who arm themselves do contribute to human suffering globally, as they fund the weapon industry - at least MORE than people who do not arm themselves.
I am surprised that you (as a dedicated Buddhist) cease to comment on my suggestions to minimize (human) suffering. Your stance on this topic IMO is ambiguous.
[edit:] I didn't say "deserve" but you (Lurch included) did. I'm just quoting you...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181562028)
Written by: onewheeldave
The intent is not to kill, but to stop the threat- obviously putting several bullets into the attackers chest could well result in their death.
People who resect life do not take it unless they have to, but part of respecting life is protecting your own life against those who do not respect life, such as muggers who point guns at victims.
That is the point: (based upon that media release) the kids didn't fire a single shot even though they (as you indicate) have threatened and were up to kill this man. They were pointing gun(s) at him. He still was able to pull his, shoot one whilst none of them fired.
People who arm themselves do contribute to human suffering globally, as they fund the weapon industry - at least MORE than people who do not arm themselves.
I am surprised that you (as a dedicated Buddhist) cease to comment on my suggestions to minimize (human) suffering. Your stance on this topic IMO is ambiguous.
[edit:] I didn't say "deserve" but you (Lurch included) did. I'm just quoting you...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181562028)
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:
Congratulations Tom, you found a S&W MODEL 40, that is not a 40 caliber. You're not making yourself look much better in terms of knowledge on the topic you're trying to argue. Again, 40S&W is the caliber, it is the type of bullet a gun fires. That does NOT mean it is a Smith and Wesson firearm, it doesn't mean it's a revolver, or anything. All it says is the caliber. My gun shoots 40S&W ammunition, but it is made by Springfield Armory, it could also be chambered in 9mm, .357sig, .45GAP, and .45ACP. All the same gun, shoots different bullets. The story does nothing to tell you what type of gun, or how many rounds it carries.
You guys seem to attach to topics, but as soon as I make comments that might make you question them you hop to something else. You're talking in circles. And didn't put a word in about Katrina which seemed to be a big deal to you not 3 posts back!
I disagree, if more people would take it upon themselves to improve the community. Participate in an ACTIVE role, instead of calling for more rules and regulations, which by the way are to be enforced by who? Than the entire world would be a better place. I understand that you guys wouldn't want to be in an 'armed' populace, but if the people in that armed population were good hearted people, carrying with good intentions, then I don't see that as a bad thing. The police cannot be everywhere, nor should they. The community needs to police itself, that does *not* mean taking the law into their own hands, but it does mean being responsible for the people within it.
If you'd listened to anything that I've said, you should know that the people who carry weapons are usually the kindest people you will meet. They absolutely do NOT want to shoot anyone. It doesn't make you tough to have a gun on your hip, it makes you a pushover, who will avoid confrontation as much as possible. Most are far more likely to let a situation turn into an altercation when they *don't* have their weapon on them. Getting into a fight with a gun is just not worth it. You turn the other cheek as much as possible, but if you have to defend your life you are prepared.
It *could* be manslaughter because he was a participant, and perhaps the leader in the confrontation that lead to his partners death. He contributed to the actions that resulted in his partners end.
You have said that you "enjoy" archery have you not? Why is that? It is inherently skill based. Or is it because a bow doesn't make a BOOM sound? I can't describe why I enjoy it, I can assure you however that I rarely shoot anything other than paper or clay.
You're right that these endless quote and comments are annoying, but I am a bit out numbered here and it's difficult to comment on everything in one coherent piece. I'll attempt to cut down on the quotes.
You say that the 'sporting aspect' of guns is to improve the ability to kill, I disagree, hitting a target is far different from training to kill. The military has learned hard lessons in that. They have essentially removed 'bullseye' shooting from shooting training for exactly that reason. Training to shoot a bullseye does NOT carry over to shooting a real live person. During WWII (when bullseye shooting was the normal training routine) less than 20% of the soldiers would actively shoot to hit the enemy. The rest may shoot towards an enemy, but not with a direct intent to hit them. There is a natural aversion to killing, as their should be. But the training/sporting aspect of recreational shooting has little to do with self defense or combat situations.
I fully endorse what you want to educate our children about, realizing their potential, needing less, avoiding aggression, avoiding conflict, and mediating a conflict. They do need to be taught how to handle direct aggression though. It is said that interpersonal human aggression is the number one phobia. Lt Col Dave Grossman has it in his writing (book not online sorry) that 98% of people have a phobic response to violence. Panic is hardly the best option when faced with such a scenario.
If we educate our children on those points, most of your 'sound reasons to abandon guns' will go away would they not? If the crime aspect dissipates than it leaves sports and fun. Firearms ARE fun for me, because I have been able to disassociate the sporting aspect from fact that they are a weapon. Something which seems impossible for you to do. Maybe I am strange in that aspect, but I would prefer not to think about killing people while shooting. How does a circle on a piece of paper train me to kill?
You still haven't really given valid reasons why you think that someone needs to submit to drug tests, and there should be limitations on the number of guns and amount of ammunition. You say that Armed robbery and murder is a huge leap, and then fear drug users with guns? So is drug use to murder a smaller leap than armed robbery to murder?
Ammunition prices vary, they have gone up considerably lately, which is why many people choose to buy in bulk. As I've said before there isn't really a "shelf life" of ammunition, it doesn't go bad under normal storage conditions, so why are you oppose to someone having a large quantity? What good is limiting the amount of ammunition one is allowed to have? And you still haven't specified if that is the amount you can own, or the amount you can carry on you at one time?
Why the limit on the number of guns? Just because you "can't see a reason to need that many?" That makes it just a wee bit personal and biased doesn't it? Some people collect firearms, just as some people collect model trains. You may think its macabre or strange, but it is a valid collection. Remember the majority of guns out there have never, and will never harm another person. And I can only effectively use one gun at a time, so why does it matter if I've got 4 others locked away at home?
Congratulations Tom, you found a S&W MODEL 40, that is not a 40 caliber. You're not making yourself look much better in terms of knowledge on the topic you're trying to argue. Again, 40S&W is the caliber, it is the type of bullet a gun fires. That does NOT mean it is a Smith and Wesson firearm, it doesn't mean it's a revolver, or anything. All it says is the caliber. My gun shoots 40S&W ammunition, but it is made by Springfield Armory, it could also be chambered in 9mm, .357sig, .45GAP, and .45ACP. All the same gun, shoots different bullets. The story does nothing to tell you what type of gun, or how many rounds it carries.
You guys seem to attach to topics, but as soon as I make comments that might make you question them you hop to something else. You're talking in circles. And didn't put a word in about Katrina which seemed to be a big deal to you not 3 posts back!
Written by:
You, Lurch - no offence meant - are simply behaving reactionary and conservative. Which - besides you being a really nice guy and having the best of intentions to protect the community, blablabla - is not even remotely curing the root causes, but putting it in danger in the first place. You act like the "devils advocate". Congratulations in really achieving your aim.
I disagree, if more people would take it upon themselves to improve the community. Participate in an ACTIVE role, instead of calling for more rules and regulations, which by the way are to be enforced by who? Than the entire world would be a better place. I understand that you guys wouldn't want to be in an 'armed' populace, but if the people in that armed population were good hearted people, carrying with good intentions, then I don't see that as a bad thing. The police cannot be everywhere, nor should they. The community needs to police itself, that does *not* mean taking the law into their own hands, but it does mean being responsible for the people within it.
If you'd listened to anything that I've said, you should know that the people who carry weapons are usually the kindest people you will meet. They absolutely do NOT want to shoot anyone. It doesn't make you tough to have a gun on your hip, it makes you a pushover, who will avoid confrontation as much as possible. Most are far more likely to let a situation turn into an altercation when they *don't* have their weapon on them. Getting into a fight with a gun is just not worth it. You turn the other cheek as much as possible, but if you have to defend your life you are prepared.
Written by:
HOW "MANSLAUGHTER"? The "accomplice" did not even fire a single shot (according to press releases)... What are you thinking?
It *could* be manslaughter because he was a participant, and perhaps the leader in the confrontation that lead to his partners death. He contributed to the actions that resulted in his partners end.
You have said that you "enjoy" archery have you not? Why is that? It is inherently skill based. Or is it because a bow doesn't make a BOOM sound? I can't describe why I enjoy it, I can assure you however that I rarely shoot anything other than paper or clay.
You're right that these endless quote and comments are annoying, but I am a bit out numbered here and it's difficult to comment on everything in one coherent piece. I'll attempt to cut down on the quotes.
You say that the 'sporting aspect' of guns is to improve the ability to kill, I disagree, hitting a target is far different from training to kill. The military has learned hard lessons in that. They have essentially removed 'bullseye' shooting from shooting training for exactly that reason. Training to shoot a bullseye does NOT carry over to shooting a real live person. During WWII (when bullseye shooting was the normal training routine) less than 20% of the soldiers would actively shoot to hit the enemy. The rest may shoot towards an enemy, but not with a direct intent to hit them. There is a natural aversion to killing, as their should be. But the training/sporting aspect of recreational shooting has little to do with self defense or combat situations.
I fully endorse what you want to educate our children about, realizing their potential, needing less, avoiding aggression, avoiding conflict, and mediating a conflict. They do need to be taught how to handle direct aggression though. It is said that interpersonal human aggression is the number one phobia. Lt Col Dave Grossman has it in his writing (book not online sorry) that 98% of people have a phobic response to violence. Panic is hardly the best option when faced with such a scenario.
If we educate our children on those points, most of your 'sound reasons to abandon guns' will go away would they not? If the crime aspect dissipates than it leaves sports and fun. Firearms ARE fun for me, because I have been able to disassociate the sporting aspect from fact that they are a weapon. Something which seems impossible for you to do. Maybe I am strange in that aspect, but I would prefer not to think about killing people while shooting. How does a circle on a piece of paper train me to kill?
You still haven't really given valid reasons why you think that someone needs to submit to drug tests, and there should be limitations on the number of guns and amount of ammunition. You say that Armed robbery and murder is a huge leap, and then fear drug users with guns? So is drug use to murder a smaller leap than armed robbery to murder?
Ammunition prices vary, they have gone up considerably lately, which is why many people choose to buy in bulk. As I've said before there isn't really a "shelf life" of ammunition, it doesn't go bad under normal storage conditions, so why are you oppose to someone having a large quantity? What good is limiting the amount of ammunition one is allowed to have? And you still haven't specified if that is the amount you can own, or the amount you can carry on you at one time?
Why the limit on the number of guns? Just because you "can't see a reason to need that many?" That makes it just a wee bit personal and biased doesn't it? Some people collect firearms, just as some people collect model trains. You may think its macabre or strange, but it is a valid collection. Remember the majority of guns out there have never, and will never harm another person. And I can only effectively use one gun at a time, so why does it matter if I've got 4 others locked away at home?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Yes Stone: I'm saying that the "chaos" that you saw "live" did not happen. Did you see anyone killed on TV? Did you even see any shots fired? Did you see the "piles of bodies" announced on the news? I never did, no one has found them yet. The panic that was shown world wide was all hype, intentional or not it was false and poor journalism. Read that second article I linked up there it's written by a journalist who corrected himself.
If you truly want to teach respect for life, there are places where becoming a martyr will work for the cause. Being shot during a mugging does not generally apply.
FireTom: There are many reasons why the kid might not have fired, maybe it was out of pure shock that someone was actually fighting back. You may find it hard to believe but stranger things have happened. It does not matter if their intent was to kill. There are plenty of situations where people have attempted to rob someone with an unloaded gun, with the same end result. Those were also perfectly justified self defense situations. If a reasonable person would assume that their life was in danger, than it's good enough for the law, and it's good enough for me. I'm not going to take it on faith that the person pointing a gun at me just wants my money. They obviously don't respect me enough for me to trust them at all, they're pointing a gun at me after all. Add to that threats of violence, and I'm sorry but, I won't just stand there.
I'm sorry but your comments about the weapons industry adding to human suffering sounds like more hippy rhetoric, if you're discussing terrorism and the like, the AK and similar soviet weapons are far more popular than any 'modern' weapon common in America, so where exactly do my two weapons contribute to human suffering?
Yes Stone: I'm saying that the "chaos" that you saw "live" did not happen. Did you see anyone killed on TV? Did you even see any shots fired? Did you see the "piles of bodies" announced on the news? I never did, no one has found them yet. The panic that was shown world wide was all hype, intentional or not it was false and poor journalism. Read that second article I linked up there it's written by a journalist who corrected himself.
If you truly want to teach respect for life, there are places where becoming a martyr will work for the cause. Being shot during a mugging does not generally apply.
FireTom: There are many reasons why the kid might not have fired, maybe it was out of pure shock that someone was actually fighting back. You may find it hard to believe but stranger things have happened. It does not matter if their intent was to kill. There are plenty of situations where people have attempted to rob someone with an unloaded gun, with the same end result. Those were also perfectly justified self defense situations. If a reasonable person would assume that their life was in danger, than it's good enough for the law, and it's good enough for me. I'm not going to take it on faith that the person pointing a gun at me just wants my money. They obviously don't respect me enough for me to trust them at all, they're pointing a gun at me after all. Add to that threats of violence, and I'm sorry but, I won't just stand there.
I'm sorry but your comments about the weapons industry adding to human suffering sounds like more hippy rhetoric, if you're discussing terrorism and the like, the AK and similar soviet weapons are far more popular than any 'modern' weapon common in America, so where exactly do my two weapons contribute to human suffering?
#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:
From a buddhist perspective of minimising suffering there is absolutely nothing amiss about shooting a gun armed mugger in self defense if they have chosen to point a weapon at you.
By doing so you have minimised the suffering to yourself and your family, by preventing the alternative of you being killed or seriously disabled.
You've also saved from suffering all the future victims of this predator (reports show he'd got previous for armed robbery and, if he'd been successful in this attempt, he would likely have gone on to victimise many more innocent people).
Lastly and this is my perspective, individuals who go out of their way to intimidate, threaten, hurt and potentially kill other human beings, are clearly in a state of suffering.
I don't see any reason to think that being shot dead necessarily increases their suffering.
Your point about purchasing of guns contributing to the international arms trade (and therefore human suffering) is potentially a very good one.
It very much depends on analysing to what extent that connection is there and can be demonstrated.
However, I am not going to get involved in that discussion, at least until this self-defense thing is laid to rest.
Cos, if people cannot have the objectivity and rationality to see that it's morally acceptable for an innocent civilian to, in an act of self-defense, end the life of a mugger who has chosen to point a weapon at them; then, IMO, there's no point me entering into a further sub-thread.
To put it simply, I'll refrain from logical debate with them for the same reason I don't have long discussion with religious fundamentalists- there's no point.
Me and Lurch indeed say 'deserve', by which we meant it in the straightforward sense that the consequences on the mugger were morally OK.
It was you who seemed to think that there was a more sinister extra meaning to 'deserved'- can you now just accept that the usage was fine?
Written by:
I am surprised that you (as a dedicated Buddhist) cease to comment on my suggestions to minimize (human) suffering. Your stance on this topic IMO is ambiguous.
From a buddhist perspective of minimising suffering there is absolutely nothing amiss about shooting a gun armed mugger in self defense if they have chosen to point a weapon at you.
By doing so you have minimised the suffering to yourself and your family, by preventing the alternative of you being killed or seriously disabled.
You've also saved from suffering all the future victims of this predator (reports show he'd got previous for armed robbery and, if he'd been successful in this attempt, he would likely have gone on to victimise many more innocent people).
Lastly and this is my perspective, individuals who go out of their way to intimidate, threaten, hurt and potentially kill other human beings, are clearly in a state of suffering.
I don't see any reason to think that being shot dead necessarily increases their suffering.
Your point about purchasing of guns contributing to the international arms trade (and therefore human suffering) is potentially a very good one.
It very much depends on analysing to what extent that connection is there and can be demonstrated.
However, I am not going to get involved in that discussion, at least until this self-defense thing is laid to rest.
Cos, if people cannot have the objectivity and rationality to see that it's morally acceptable for an innocent civilian to, in an act of self-defense, end the life of a mugger who has chosen to point a weapon at them; then, IMO, there's no point me entering into a further sub-thread.
To put it simply, I'll refrain from logical debate with them for the same reason I don't have long discussion with religious fundamentalists- there's no point.
Written by: firetom
I didn't say "deserve" but you (Lurch included) did. I'm just quoting you...
Me and Lurch indeed say 'deserve', by which we meant it in the straightforward sense that the consequences on the mugger were morally OK.
It was you who seemed to think that there was a more sinister extra meaning to 'deserved'- can you now just accept that the usage was fine?
"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:
Yupp, there is a 40 model and usually ".40" refers to a caliber - hence it doesn't say in which kind of gun the caliber has to remain. Could be a semi automatic or a 6-shooter, right? But we're splinting hairs, no?
My "active" role (you are referring to) starts here:
- education and prevention
Certainly not by promoting firearms, which - as a side effect - does contribute to human suffering (not only in the US, but elsewhere on the planet).
I am reflecting on GUNS the way I do for a few (obvious) reasons. I have pointed out a few times, why I oppose guns and do NOT oppose archery. If the world would be full of archers, who massively kill massive amounts of (innocent) people with bow and arrow, I would oppose archery, but this ain't the case. Don't ridicule this thread and the sound arguments by pointing at "steak knives", when the discussion is about "guns". Steak knives do serve a different purpose, too. They are designed to cut (also a string, wood, etc.) - much like a tool. A gun is designed to kill, at least to (severely) injure, nothing more nothing less (not as a "can opener" even though it eventually could be used as one).
Katrina was and still is a topic, hence Mr. Thevenots article does not say that NO killings, rapes and murders took place, does it? He only indicates that the NUMBER of said crimes have been significantly lower than reported. Right? To me that's not a miracle.
It's very convenient to first write articles about "bodies in freezers" and sell them unverified, just to later write stories about "they never existed" and sell them again. This - in itself - is a disease of the "information age" and one that puts everybody off. What to believe (when) and from whom? Everything published (even numbers) seems to be opinions rather than facts...
But the facts of the Rodney King Riots remain, the facts about Columbine and Virginia Tech and many other shootings remain. Why are you in need to discredit the entire topic, just because media reports blew this out of proportion? What political interest is behind that? Why are you (conveniently) leaving that out?
Atrocities have been committed. Maybe not in the scale, but they have been committed and chaos reigned in the streets of New Orleans. Whilst in another situation in Germany a similar scenario sparked compassion and I guess the UK also had floods with such results: no atrocities, no anarchy.
It seems to be part of human evolution that atrocities still do occur. But violent response can't be the appropriate answer, we have to snug up to the roots.
How can the US try to teach the rest of the world that violent response ain't good, if they promote it on the other hand? And especially if it is completely against the teachings and philosophy of their (dominant) religion? In Jesus' teachings he (allegedly) is even dismissing "self defence".
But all this set aside: a societies politeness merely based upon (deadly) force, instead of compassion definitely ain't one I would like to live in and I guess I'm not the only one.
I am ready to surrender my arms, but am putting forward conditions that will not occur (even in the medium future). However, in the meantime I am contributing to counter that (necessary) evolution, because in reality I do enjoy shooting my gun. Which leads me to perpetuate and generate conflicts.
Fact of the matter is: I do not want to live in peace - the contrary: when living in peace I prepare for battle, instead of enjoying the moment and then - after attacking - I prove the point that people do react to violence the wrong way... how ridiculous!
It's a power-issue. Nothing more, nothing less. Surrendering your gun would make you give up some of your (artificial) power and chance to dominate. Which is a perfect parable to the bigger scale (as below, so above).
However: true sovereignty comes from within (ones self) and is not based upon an instrument.
Playing poi and staff is a perfect example of how to train your body, but use (martial) instruments in order to mesmerise people. It's "schwerter zu pflugscharen" (which translated could mean how to "turn a sword into a plow") - please show me how to do that with a gun...
Yupp, there is a 40 model and usually ".40" refers to a caliber - hence it doesn't say in which kind of gun the caliber has to remain. Could be a semi automatic or a 6-shooter, right? But we're splinting hairs, no?
My "active" role (you are referring to) starts here:
- education and prevention
Certainly not by promoting firearms, which - as a side effect - does contribute to human suffering (not only in the US, but elsewhere on the planet).
I am reflecting on GUNS the way I do for a few (obvious) reasons. I have pointed out a few times, why I oppose guns and do NOT oppose archery. If the world would be full of archers, who massively kill massive amounts of (innocent) people with bow and arrow, I would oppose archery, but this ain't the case. Don't ridicule this thread and the sound arguments by pointing at "steak knives", when the discussion is about "guns". Steak knives do serve a different purpose, too. They are designed to cut (also a string, wood, etc.) - much like a tool. A gun is designed to kill, at least to (severely) injure, nothing more nothing less (not as a "can opener" even though it eventually could be used as one).
Katrina was and still is a topic, hence Mr. Thevenots article does not say that NO killings, rapes and murders took place, does it? He only indicates that the NUMBER of said crimes have been significantly lower than reported. Right? To me that's not a miracle.
It's very convenient to first write articles about "bodies in freezers" and sell them unverified, just to later write stories about "they never existed" and sell them again. This - in itself - is a disease of the "information age" and one that puts everybody off. What to believe (when) and from whom? Everything published (even numbers) seems to be opinions rather than facts...
But the facts of the Rodney King Riots remain, the facts about Columbine and Virginia Tech and many other shootings remain. Why are you in need to discredit the entire topic, just because media reports blew this out of proportion? What political interest is behind that? Why are you (conveniently) leaving that out?
Atrocities have been committed. Maybe not in the scale, but they have been committed and chaos reigned in the streets of New Orleans. Whilst in another situation in Germany a similar scenario sparked compassion and I guess the UK also had floods with such results: no atrocities, no anarchy.
It seems to be part of human evolution that atrocities still do occur. But violent response can't be the appropriate answer, we have to snug up to the roots.
How can the US try to teach the rest of the world that violent response ain't good, if they promote it on the other hand? And especially if it is completely against the teachings and philosophy of their (dominant) religion? In Jesus' teachings he (allegedly) is even dismissing "self defence".
But all this set aside: a societies politeness merely based upon (deadly) force, instead of compassion definitely ain't one I would like to live in and I guess I'm not the only one.
I am ready to surrender my arms, but am putting forward conditions that will not occur (even in the medium future). However, in the meantime I am contributing to counter that (necessary) evolution, because in reality I do enjoy shooting my gun. Which leads me to perpetuate and generate conflicts.
Fact of the matter is: I do not want to live in peace - the contrary: when living in peace I prepare for battle, instead of enjoying the moment and then - after attacking - I prove the point that people do react to violence the wrong way... how ridiculous!
It's a power-issue. Nothing more, nothing less. Surrendering your gun would make you give up some of your (artificial) power and chance to dominate. Which is a perfect parable to the bigger scale (as below, so above).
However: true sovereignty comes from within (ones self) and is not based upon an instrument.
Playing poi and staff is a perfect example of how to train your body, but use (martial) instruments in order to mesmerise people. It's "schwerter zu pflugscharen" (which translated could mean how to "turn a sword into a plow") - please show me how to do that with a gun...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Dave, so Ghandi, King and Mandela are all wrong, and it’s ok to kill human beings. And from your perspective, as Buddhist, it’s acceptable to put people out of their suffering.
Lurch, I’m lost
Man, that’s like saying Apollo 11 was a hoax.
Dave, so Ghandi, King and Mandela are all wrong, and it’s ok to kill human beings. And from your perspective, as Buddhist, it’s acceptable to put people out of their suffering.
Lurch, I’m lost
Written by:
Yes Stone: I'm saying that the "chaos" that you saw "live" did not happen.
Man, that’s like saying Apollo 11 was a hoax.
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:
Lurch - you're serious? Someone pointing a gun at you would make you draw yours? What are the odds to survive a situation like that (unharmed), if the opponent is truly dedicated? You ever experienced such situation, or you know someone who did?
Please OWD be so kind to quote your sources, claiming that kid has committed armed robbery prior to this day.
Acts of self defence - however useless and ineffective - have been accepted on this side of the argument. I just said that I would rather surrender my possessions - as I regard the "killing over material possessions as wrong" and the chances of getting killed, or grievously injured in a scenario of gun point are imminent. Thus resulting in my suffering and that of my family. I rather be a sheep and live but a dog and die - simply because of my DVD, or half a grand in my wallet.
But no, I wouldn't like to accept that the kid "deserved" to die in this context. Because (after checking the dictionary) you imply that "it serves him right" - and that merely upon media release. Why is this media release accurate and just that one on Katrina highly exaggerated?
Maybe you notice that US laws have changed in some states - scroll back to the IP on this one. You can't shoot someone for merely crossing your property, or a robber who is already leaving your premises... Hang on. Wrong! Now you can.
"Manslaughter" charges IMO don't apply to the alleged accomplice - at least wouldn't on this side of the Atlantic, as he was not directly involved in the killing (didn't pull the trigger, or drew the kid into the line of fire).
Control Arms.org
International Action Network on Small Arms
Small Arms Survey,
Brady Centre to Prevent Gun Crime their report on the "Second Ammendment Fantasy"...
That should keep you busy for a the time being - in which I can repeat my mantra:
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181580450)
Lurch - you're serious? Someone pointing a gun at you would make you draw yours? What are the odds to survive a situation like that (unharmed), if the opponent is truly dedicated? You ever experienced such situation, or you know someone who did?
Please OWD be so kind to quote your sources, claiming that kid has committed armed robbery prior to this day.
Acts of self defence - however useless and ineffective - have been accepted on this side of the argument. I just said that I would rather surrender my possessions - as I regard the "killing over material possessions as wrong" and the chances of getting killed, or grievously injured in a scenario of gun point are imminent. Thus resulting in my suffering and that of my family. I rather be a sheep and live but a dog and die - simply because of my DVD, or half a grand in my wallet.
But no, I wouldn't like to accept that the kid "deserved" to die in this context. Because (after checking the dictionary) you imply that "it serves him right" - and that merely upon media release. Why is this media release accurate and just that one on Katrina highly exaggerated?
Maybe you notice that US laws have changed in some states - scroll back to the IP on this one. You can't shoot someone for merely crossing your property, or a robber who is already leaving your premises... Hang on. Wrong! Now you can.
"Manslaughter" charges IMO don't apply to the alleged accomplice - at least wouldn't on this side of the Atlantic, as he was not directly involved in the killing (didn't pull the trigger, or drew the kid into the line of fire).
Control Arms.org
Written by: CA
From 1998 to 2001, the USA, the UK, and France earned more income from arms sales to developing countries than they gave in aid.
The arms industry is unlike any other. It operates without regulation. It suffers from widespread corruption and bribes. And it makes its profits on the back of machines designed to kill and maim human beings.
So who profits most from this murderous trade? The five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Together, they are responsible for eighty eight per cent of reported conventional arms exports.
Written by: Jimmy Carter
“We can’t have it both ways. We can’t be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of arms.” Former US President Jimmy Carter, presidential campaign, 1976
International Action Network on Small Arms
Small Arms Survey,
Brady Centre to Prevent Gun Crime their report on the "Second Ammendment Fantasy"...
That should keep you busy for a the time being - in which I can repeat my mantra:
Written by: mini-me
- People who buy guns fund the weapon industry and therefore contribute to global (human) suffering.
- People who own guns put their family and friends at a higher risk to get involved into a gun accident.
- People who promote gun ownership do contribute to paranoia within the community.
- There is hardly a justification for carrying a gun in public (a few exceptions to the rule).
Having said this: there are few exceptions, where gun ownership is necessary and I suggest certain regulations in order to minimize potential human losses and crimes committed, involving "legal" gun ownership.
- enforce existing gun laws, especially in regards of testing people applying for gun permits and undertake thorough background checks
- undertake mandatory and random drug tests
- apply proper education and training/ refresh these
- registration of all gun owners with officials
- limit supply of ammunition according to the use of the gun (self defence/ hunting)
- limit numbers and types of guns available
In order to eliminate the "need for guns" we need to educate our children how to
- realize their (natural) potential (both: physically and mentally);
- need less - so they don't have to envy those who got more
- avoid aggression against other people and themselves
- avoid a conflict
- mediate a conflict
- accomplish a mindset where they can channel their frustration and anger (other than destructive)
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181580450)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Respect to ghandi- he showed a different way was possible and historically he will always be a profound figure.
But let's remember that ghandi was lucky- in many, many other places and oppressive cultures in the world, the state would simply have picked him off the demos, then tortured and killed him, and no one would ever know his name.
------
Stone- do you realise just how offensive your comments are now getting?
You've just accused every individual who's ever had to take a life, of not respecting life.
If you want to continue this debate with any chance of getting your points across, you should start thinking a bit before you post.
Written by: Stone
Dave, people who respect life do not take it. Look at Ghandi.
Respect to ghandi- he showed a different way was possible and historically he will always be a profound figure.
But let's remember that ghandi was lucky- in many, many other places and oppressive cultures in the world, the state would simply have picked him off the demos, then tortured and killed him, and no one would ever know his name.
------
Written by: Stone
Dave, people who respect life do not take it. .
Stone- do you realise just how offensive your comments are now getting?
You've just accused every individual who's ever had to take a life, of not respecting life.
If you want to continue this debate with any chance of getting your points across, you should start thinking a bit before you post.
"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!
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 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com