Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"
Login/Join to ParticipateStargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws.
Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. “If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.”
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passenger’s feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead man’s uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. “He had a radio,” Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. “He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.”
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. “However,” Ms. Haughwout said, “there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.”
“Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to ‘retreat to the wall’ before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force,” Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen’s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
“I was no threat,” Mr. Rosenbloom said. “I had no weapon.”
The men exchanged heated words. “He closed the door and then opened the door,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. “He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.”
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
“I have a right,” Mr. Allen said, “to keep my house safe.”
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorado’s Make My Day Law. “Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving,” the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hill’s home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, “However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller.” She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jury’s decision. She also said, “At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.”
“Trust me,” wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, “this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.”
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws.
Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. “If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.”
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passenger’s feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead man’s uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. “He had a radio,” Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. “He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.”
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. “However,” Ms. Haughwout said, “there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.”
“Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to ‘retreat to the wall’ before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force,” Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen’s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
“I was no threat,” Mr. Rosenbloom said. “I had no weapon.”
The men exchanged heated words. “He closed the door and then opened the door,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. “He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.”
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
“I have a right,” Mr. Allen said, “to keep my house safe.”
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorado’s Make My Day Law. “Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving,” the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hill’s home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, “However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller.” She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jury’s decision. She also said, “At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.”
“Trust me,” wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, “this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.”
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
off topic again, but...
it depends on the faith, body and mind must be in line in order to get to heaven, heaven is a reward but that is not why you should do good things and be a good person. That doesn't get you that far in faith
as for legal guns being the problem, all guns were legal at one point. ok not all, but most of us don't have assault rifles. If you look in an US paper, the shootings usually were not from a gun the family kept. Many shootings are drug related in our area and maybe they are registered to a person but that person probably doesn't have it...see my anecdote above.
I honestly don't believe that many of the homicides were without warning that the person should not have a gun. Maybe that is something that should be part of gun law, is a complaint system. Then, the owner should get reviewed if there is complaint. But that is only my opinion and I have no evidence. In the news or through word on the street, it was drug related or there was abuse. Sometimes, I hear about a robbery or burglary. Rarely do I hear about a home invasion. It does happen. But not very often.
Maybe homicides can be decreased if we put a complaint system in. People who are having problems being a productive person should be questioned. It should be checked that the guns are being kept safely and in the possession of the permit owner.
off topic again, but...
it depends on the faith, body and mind must be in line in order to get to heaven, heaven is a reward but that is not why you should do good things and be a good person. That doesn't get you that far in faith
as for legal guns being the problem, all guns were legal at one point. ok not all, but most of us don't have assault rifles. If you look in an US paper, the shootings usually were not from a gun the family kept. Many shootings are drug related in our area and maybe they are registered to a person but that person probably doesn't have it...see my anecdote above.
I honestly don't believe that many of the homicides were without warning that the person should not have a gun. Maybe that is something that should be part of gun law, is a complaint system. Then, the owner should get reviewed if there is complaint. But that is only my opinion and I have no evidence. In the news or through word on the street, it was drug related or there was abuse. Sometimes, I hear about a robbery or burglary. Rarely do I hear about a home invasion. It does happen. But not very often.
Maybe homicides can be decreased if we put a complaint system in. People who are having problems being a productive person should be questioned. It should be checked that the guns are being kept safely and in the possession of the permit owner.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Firebreathing would be more akin to playing russian roulette
The vast majority of gun owners will go their entire lives without ever having to display, or use their guns against another human being. Even accidentally, so I don't see how you can equate them to firebreathing. Guns *are* safe, they're specifically designed to only go off when they are supposed to. My gun has 3 safeties on it, one ensures that I'm holding the gun correctly, another makes sure it's me pulling the trigger and not something caught on the gun, and an internal safety to prevent accidental discharges. What more do you want from them? It's not the guns fault if it goes off, if someone is hurt it's the idiot behind the trigger. Removing the gun doesn't solve the problem, you need to fix the idiot.
Firebreathing would be more akin to playing russian roulette
The vast majority of gun owners will go their entire lives without ever having to display, or use their guns against another human being. Even accidentally, so I don't see how you can equate them to firebreathing. Guns *are* safe, they're specifically designed to only go off when they are supposed to. My gun has 3 safeties on it, one ensures that I'm holding the gun correctly, another makes sure it's me pulling the trigger and not something caught on the gun, and an internal safety to prevent accidental discharges. What more do you want from them? It's not the guns fault if it goes off, if someone is hurt it's the idiot behind the trigger. Removing the gun doesn't solve the problem, you need to fix the idiot.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored 
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Hi faith, I don’t think there would be a problem if more people thought like you. “Our gun served it's purpose and then we let it go like it came into our lives.”
Lurch, how do you play this playing russian roulette game
You brought up the fire twirling example. I tried to give you a fair comparison. One that wasn’t as naïve as comparing guns to toys. You are right, it is not a fair comparison. Guns are weapons, and are far more dangerous.
It’s like you are not even to prepared to acknowledge that guns are dangerous. With statement like the following, you go to great lengths to make them appear safer than they are.
Hello! I grew up with guns. That sounds nice in theory, but I don’t even think NRA would agree with you on that one.
I agree, “removing the gun doesn't solve the problem, you need to fix the idiot”. So I thought it was amusing that guns now have three safeties fitted to idiot proof them against accidents. It also begs the question, who buys guns in the first place?
Hi faith, I don’t think there would be a problem if more people thought like you. “Our gun served it's purpose and then we let it go like it came into our lives.”
Lurch, how do you play this playing russian roulette game
You brought up the fire twirling example. I tried to give you a fair comparison. One that wasn’t as naïve as comparing guns to toys. You are right, it is not a fair comparison. Guns are weapons, and are far more dangerous.
It’s like you are not even to prepared to acknowledge that guns are dangerous. With statement like the following, you go to great lengths to make them appear safer than they are.
Written by:
Guns *are* safe, they're specifically designed to only go off when they are supposed to.
Hello! I grew up with guns. That sounds nice in theory, but I don’t even think NRA would agree with you on that one.
I agree, “removing the gun doesn't solve the problem, you need to fix the idiot”. So I thought it was amusing that guns now have three safeties fitted to idiot proof them against accidents. It also begs the question, who buys guns in the first place?
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
veteran
1,237 posts
Location: Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
veteran
1,237 posts
Location: Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
oh yes, guns are safe, all those safety mechanisms, there are never any gun accidents, safe as chopsticks they are.
oh yes, guns are safe, all those safety mechanisms, there are never any gun accidents, safe as chopsticks they are.
Blinded by Hyperlights, please donate generously 
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Now now, don't be twisting what I say too much :P
I think that fire spinning and sport shooting is a perfectly valid comparison. Both are inherently dangerous. I would submit that it is a *lot* easier to have an accident spinning fire than shooting. While the results of a major accident may be worse with a gun, both are going to end badly.
I fully acknowledge that guns are dangerous. They can kill someone. One or two well placed shots will drop anyone. It would be kind of pointless to have a gun for self defense that couldn't stop someone wouldn't it? My point about the safeties is that there are many naive people who think a gun will go off if it's bumped wrong, or dropped, and those sort of exaggerations are simply not true.
You don't think that there should be a certain amount of training, maturity, and experience before you start spinning fire? They aren't exactly your average 'toy.' Why do you call that comparison naive?
The gun itself is extremely safe. It is a tool, it does exactly what it is supposed to do. It does it efficiently, and only when it is told to. You set a loaded gun on a table and it will sit there. It's not going to fire at random intervals for fun. There is a saying in the gun community called an AD, or accidental discharge. Over the past decade or so the vast majority of people have changed their definition and begun calling them ND's, for negligent discharge, which I believe is much more accurate. There are very very few "accidents" with guns, there are tragedies caused by negligence however. Follow the rules, and everyone stays safe. There are redundancies in shooting etiquette, and general gun handling etiquette that prevent injuries, breaking one rule should never be enough to hurt someone, there have to be multiple failures along the way.
The same with fire spinning, follow the rules and you'll probably be just fine.
You guys don't need to get all sarcastic, don't you think there is something wrong with you being so directly and immediately opposed to someone calling guns safe? Cars kill hundreds of people every day in 'accidents.' But we can refer to certain cars as being 'safe' because of the precautions that the makers put into them, to ensure that nothing happens that shouldn't.
Now you're just twisting words. While some of you may be against taking a life to protect your own, or someone elses, I am not. Morally, and ethically it does not sit right with me to stand by and do nothing, or offer no resistance to violence. People die for stupid reasons all the time, and usually caused by stupid people doing stupid things. You can make safeties to help accidents from happening, even accidents from negligence, but you will never stop them all. Use some common sense here. Sit down and think about it for a bit instead of just retorting with the idea that just because I am pro gun, enjoy guns, and find them fun I must be a stupid redneck. Most people with guns are responsible, those who have CCW's are among the most responsible, law abiding, and respectful people you'll find.
If it's such a horrible accident prone activity, why do most law enforcement officers fully endorse and encourage private citizens to carry guns (legally) and defend themselves?
Now now, don't be twisting what I say too much :P
I think that fire spinning and sport shooting is a perfectly valid comparison. Both are inherently dangerous. I would submit that it is a *lot* easier to have an accident spinning fire than shooting. While the results of a major accident may be worse with a gun, both are going to end badly.
I fully acknowledge that guns are dangerous. They can kill someone. One or two well placed shots will drop anyone. It would be kind of pointless to have a gun for self defense that couldn't stop someone wouldn't it? My point about the safeties is that there are many naive people who think a gun will go off if it's bumped wrong, or dropped, and those sort of exaggerations are simply not true.
You don't think that there should be a certain amount of training, maturity, and experience before you start spinning fire? They aren't exactly your average 'toy.' Why do you call that comparison naive?
The gun itself is extremely safe. It is a tool, it does exactly what it is supposed to do. It does it efficiently, and only when it is told to. You set a loaded gun on a table and it will sit there. It's not going to fire at random intervals for fun. There is a saying in the gun community called an AD, or accidental discharge. Over the past decade or so the vast majority of people have changed their definition and begun calling them ND's, for negligent discharge, which I believe is much more accurate. There are very very few "accidents" with guns, there are tragedies caused by negligence however. Follow the rules, and everyone stays safe. There are redundancies in shooting etiquette, and general gun handling etiquette that prevent injuries, breaking one rule should never be enough to hurt someone, there have to be multiple failures along the way.
The same with fire spinning, follow the rules and you'll probably be just fine.
You guys don't need to get all sarcastic, don't you think there is something wrong with you being so directly and immediately opposed to someone calling guns safe? Cars kill hundreds of people every day in 'accidents.' But we can refer to certain cars as being 'safe' because of the precautions that the makers put into them, to ensure that nothing happens that shouldn't.
Written by:
I agree, “removing the gun doesn't solve the problem, you need to fix the idiot”. So I thought it was amusing that guns now have three safeties fitted to idiot proof them against accidents. It also begs the question, who buys guns in the first place?
Now you're just twisting words. While some of you may be against taking a life to protect your own, or someone elses, I am not. Morally, and ethically it does not sit right with me to stand by and do nothing, or offer no resistance to violence. People die for stupid reasons all the time, and usually caused by stupid people doing stupid things. You can make safeties to help accidents from happening, even accidents from negligence, but you will never stop them all. Use some common sense here. Sit down and think about it for a bit instead of just retorting with the idea that just because I am pro gun, enjoy guns, and find them fun I must be a stupid redneck. Most people with guns are responsible, those who have CCW's are among the most responsible, law abiding, and respectful people you'll find.
If it's such a horrible accident prone activity, why do most law enforcement officers fully endorse and encourage private citizens to carry guns (legally) and defend themselves?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, I think there is a big difference between using a gun and fire twirling. As I said previously, guns are weapons not toys. Gun’s kill people, and accidents are often fatal.
I called the comparison naïve, because I think a gun is inherently more dangerous than twirling. You aren’t comparing apples with apples, and still aren’t.
I’m not sure who taught you gun safety, but me old man taught me that it was always the unloaded gun that did the most damage.
I’d leave the decision on taking lives to the police and the judicial system. The last thing the world needs is people around shooting other people because they think it’s morally and ethically right.
I agree ”most people with guns are responsible, those who have CCW's are among the most responsible, law abiding, and respectful people you'll find.” It’s just that we don’t really need guns, and the world would be much better of without them. They have become an anachronism in the modern world, and should go the same way as the dinosaurs.
I would be very surprised “if most law enforcement officers fully endorsed and encourage private citizens to carry guns (legally) and defend themselves”. I’d say that was rubbish, and most cops would like to see all weapons out of civilians hands for their own safety.
Cops are the people that have to clean up all the mess, especially in regard to domestic violence. After all, it was the association between guns and domestic violence that started Kellermann on his research in the first place.
Lurch, I think there is a big difference between using a gun and fire twirling. As I said previously, guns are weapons not toys. Gun’s kill people, and accidents are often fatal.
I called the comparison naïve, because I think a gun is inherently more dangerous than twirling. You aren’t comparing apples with apples, and still aren’t.
I’m not sure who taught you gun safety, but me old man taught me that it was always the unloaded gun that did the most damage.
I’d leave the decision on taking lives to the police and the judicial system. The last thing the world needs is people around shooting other people because they think it’s morally and ethically right.
I agree ”most people with guns are responsible, those who have CCW's are among the most responsible, law abiding, and respectful people you'll find.” It’s just that we don’t really need guns, and the world would be much better of without them. They have become an anachronism in the modern world, and should go the same way as the dinosaurs.
I would be very surprised “if most law enforcement officers fully endorsed and encourage private citizens to carry guns (legally) and defend themselves”. I’d say that was rubbish, and most cops would like to see all weapons out of civilians hands for their own safety.
Cops are the people that have to clean up all the mess, especially in regard to domestic violence. After all, it was the association between guns and domestic violence that started Kellermann on his research in the first place.
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
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
I think the cops endorsement depends on where you live.
I am not waiting for the cops. Last time someone reported me dead, it took the cops most of the day to show up. When there was a domestic disturbance call it took them four hours. The only time they showed in a timely fashion was when there was a report of battery and home invasion against us (the other guy shoved me and a fight briefly ensued) Then, the cops seperated, got the stories, took a friend's weed and told us to leave each other alone.
I think the cops endorsement depends on where you live.
I am not waiting for the cops. Last time someone reported me dead, it took the cops most of the day to show up. When there was a domestic disturbance call it took them four hours. The only time they showed in a timely fashion was when there was a report of battery and home invasion against us (the other guy shoved me and a fight briefly ensued) Then, the cops seperated, got the stories, took a friend's weed and told us to leave each other alone.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
This isn't 60 years ago, a GSW doesn't mean you're dead, or going to die. Accidents are not often fatal, sorry. And yes, there is the saying that an "unloaded gun does the most damage" but that is due to poor training and lack of discipline, people who *think* a gun is unloaded, and act differently because of that are asking for trouble. Funny you were taught that because I've always been taught that the gun is *always* loaded, and you treat it as such at all times even if you've checked it 3 times and it hasn't left your hands. That means no pointing it at people, always have it in a safe direction, finger off the trigger, etc etc.
We've gone over the legal requirements for self defense shootings. The police can legally shoot someone long before I can. I'll leave it up to the judge and jury too, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I'm not going vigilante and chasing people down, I thought we were over those stereotypes. Look at Virgina Tech, Cho stopped (and killed himself) as soon as he knew there were armed people coming after him. Once the police made entry into the building the shooting stopped. If just one of those students, or faculty, had been armed, the whole thing could have ended long before the total was in the 30's. I don't know about you, but that seems worth it.
The world *would* be much better off without them, but taking my gun away isn't going to do anything to take the gun away from the criminals selling crack to kids. It doesn't stop the rapist or the sociopath. People who break laws break gun laws too, again, look at Cho, that was a "gun free" zone... Aka a defenseless unarmed victim zone
The beat cop who opposes legal CCW is few and far between. I've worked with law enforcement officers for nearly a decade, and *every* one I've talked to has encouraged it. You're right, cops are the ones who clean up all the mess, and they get tired of always cleaning up the body of the innocent victim. If you're going to be dragging a body off I know I prefer it to be the criminal. Why would they *not* like us? They know we follow the laws and are not violent people, or we wouldn't have the permit to begin with. We tell them we're armed when we are, we took the time to go through the hoops to get our license. Most officers are actually put at ease when you hand them a CHL, and they don't usually disarm you.
*gasp* yes, a cop can talk to you, knowing full well there is a gun on your hip, and be perfectly comfortable. Strange eh? That doesn't happen in Australia where storm troopers get tackled for their laser rifles Seems to me that would make you guys the paranoid ones. Afterall you seem to think any citizen with a gun is just someone waiting to snap and go on a killing spree.
This isn't 60 years ago, a GSW doesn't mean you're dead, or going to die. Accidents are not often fatal, sorry. And yes, there is the saying that an "unloaded gun does the most damage" but that is due to poor training and lack of discipline, people who *think* a gun is unloaded, and act differently because of that are asking for trouble. Funny you were taught that because I've always been taught that the gun is *always* loaded, and you treat it as such at all times even if you've checked it 3 times and it hasn't left your hands. That means no pointing it at people, always have it in a safe direction, finger off the trigger, etc etc.
Written by:
I’d leave the decision on taking lives to the police and the judicial system. The last thing the world needs is people around shooting other people because they think it’s morally and ethically right.
We've gone over the legal requirements for self defense shootings. The police can legally shoot someone long before I can. I'll leave it up to the judge and jury too, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I'm not going vigilante and chasing people down, I thought we were over those stereotypes. Look at Virgina Tech, Cho stopped (and killed himself) as soon as he knew there were armed people coming after him. Once the police made entry into the building the shooting stopped. If just one of those students, or faculty, had been armed, the whole thing could have ended long before the total was in the 30's. I don't know about you, but that seems worth it.
The world *would* be much better off without them, but taking my gun away isn't going to do anything to take the gun away from the criminals selling crack to kids. It doesn't stop the rapist or the sociopath. People who break laws break gun laws too, again, look at Cho, that was a "gun free" zone... Aka a defenseless unarmed victim zone
Written by:
I would be very surprised “if most law enforcement officers fully endorsed and encourage private citizens to carry guns (legally) and defend themselves”. I’d say that was rubbish, and most cops would like to see all weapons out of civilians hands for their own safety.
The beat cop who opposes legal CCW is few and far between. I've worked with law enforcement officers for nearly a decade, and *every* one I've talked to has encouraged it. You're right, cops are the ones who clean up all the mess, and they get tired of always cleaning up the body of the innocent victim. If you're going to be dragging a body off I know I prefer it to be the criminal. Why would they *not* like us? They know we follow the laws and are not violent people, or we wouldn't have the permit to begin with. We tell them we're armed when we are, we took the time to go through the hoops to get our license. Most officers are actually put at ease when you hand them a CHL, and they don't usually disarm you.
*gasp* yes, a cop can talk to you, knowing full well there is a gun on your hip, and be perfectly comfortable. Strange eh? That doesn't happen in Australia where storm troopers get tackled for their laser rifles
Seems to me that would make you guys the paranoid ones. Afterall you seem to think any citizen with a gun is just someone waiting to snap and go on a killing spree. #homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
not only is a gun always loaded...there is no such thing as a gun free zone.
guns are found at school.
dealers do not have guns to trace back to them by permit methods
this is what happens round here...there is a shooting, person tosses gun, someone finds gun, keeps gun/sells gun, sold guns are kept/used in a crime and the cycle continues. Rarely does the gun get turned in. Your prints are on it right then. In our neighborhood, you were a criminal, and you were guilty of whatever. You don't turn in the gun, because you will get charged.
now at my parents, if I found a gun I would turn it in *edit* not at my parents, they don't like guns, but if I found it in the area that I live now
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1181238917)
not only is a gun always loaded...there is no such thing as a gun free zone.
guns are found at school.
dealers do not have guns to trace back to them by permit methods
this is what happens round here...there is a shooting, person tosses gun, someone finds gun, keeps gun/sells gun, sold guns are kept/used in a crime and the cycle continues. Rarely does the gun get turned in. Your prints are on it right then. In our neighborhood, you were a criminal, and you were guilty of whatever. You don't turn in the gun, because you will get charged.
now at my parents, if I found a gun I would turn it in *edit* not at my parents, they don't like guns, but if I found it in the area that I live now
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1181238917)
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
SILVER Member
veteran
1,237 posts
Location: Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
veteran
1,237 posts
Location: Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
ok, obviously this is negligent discharge, but I just couldn't resist posting this after the story just showed up on a games site I check :
US Cop accidentally shoots self in hand while driving
ok, obviously this is negligent discharge, but I just couldn't resist posting this after the story just showed up on a games site I check :
US Cop accidentally shoots self in hand while driving
Blinded by Hyperlights, please donate generously
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Yakumo, thanks for the link. I think it points out how dangerous guns really are. All the rules and gun etiquette are fine in theory, but mean little in reality.
Lurch, if this isn't 60 years ago, then why does America still have the most antiquated gun policy in the world?
Lurch, guns are life taking devices, not a life saving devices. With a gun, you put a bullet in the breech, pull the trigger and blow the crap out of something. That’s it, that’s all guns are good for. Blowing things up. You don’t need any skill to point and kill. Which is very different to fire twirling.
From what you tell me, the legal requirements for self-defense shootings in America are a farce. You pull a gun and pump six bullets into the chest of a 16 year old kid. The kid dies, and you are not arrested because the kid, presumably a non-white, deserved to die.
Lurch, you must be dreaming if you believe that
I’d suggest you have been watching too many cowboy movies, where you or the hero in a white hat steps in to save the day. A more realistic scenario is that a lot more people would have been killed in the ensuing gunfight. In many respects Cho, like you, was a victim of the American gun culture, a cultures that glorifies guns and killing. You both believe that guns solve all your problems.
So, you are saying you don’t need a gun.
One day America will wake up and realise that the biggest risk of gun injury comes from family members and not from criminals. One of the biggest reasons for the high crime rates in America would be inequality. One of the main reasons for inequality is because America spends all of it’s revenue on warfare, and not on its people.
The paranoia that results in incidents where storm troopers get tackled for their laser rifles comes from America. Unfortunately, since the Bush led invasion of Iraq, police think any citizen with a gun is terrorist these days. What’s the world coming too?
EDITED_BY: Stone (1181363104)
Yakumo, thanks for the link. I think it points out how dangerous guns really are. All the rules and gun etiquette are fine in theory, but mean little in reality.
Lurch, if this isn't 60 years ago, then why does America still have the most antiquated gun policy in the world?
Lurch, guns are life taking devices, not a life saving devices. With a gun, you put a bullet in the breech, pull the trigger and blow the crap out of something. That’s it, that’s all guns are good for. Blowing things up. You don’t need any skill to point and kill. Which is very different to fire twirling.
From what you tell me, the legal requirements for self-defense shootings in America are a farce. You pull a gun and pump six bullets into the chest of a 16 year old kid. The kid dies, and you are not arrested because the kid, presumably a non-white, deserved to die.
Lurch, you must be dreaming if you believe that
Written by:
If just one of those students, or faculty, had been armed, the whole thing could have ended long before the total was in the 30's. I don't know about you, but that seems worth it.
I’d suggest you have been watching too many cowboy movies, where you or the hero in a white hat steps in to save the day. A more realistic scenario is that a lot more people would have been killed in the ensuing gunfight. In many respects Cho, like you, was a victim of the American gun culture, a cultures that glorifies guns and killing. You both believe that guns solve all your problems.
Written by:
The world *would* be much better off without them, but taking my gun away isn't going to do anything to take the gun away from the criminals selling crack to kids. It doesn't stop the rapist or the sociopath.
So, you are saying you don’t need a gun.
One day America will wake up and realise that the biggest risk of gun injury comes from family members and not from criminals. One of the biggest reasons for the high crime rates in America would be inequality. One of the main reasons for inequality is because America spends all of it’s revenue on warfare, and not on its people.
The paranoia that results in incidents where storm troopers get tackled for their laser rifles comes from America. Unfortunately, since the Bush led invasion of Iraq, police think any citizen with a gun is terrorist these days. What’s the world coming too?
EDITED_BY: Stone (1181363104)
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 have some very strange logic Stone, you may want to pause and reflect on things a bit before replying.
The rules and gun etiquette are just fine in reality when practiced and used correctly, obviously this cop broke many rules, but *gasp* he's not dead! I thought all gun accidents resulted in someone dieing?!?
He's an idiot, but I bet you the same thing wont happen again.
You don't need skill to shoot? Sorry but that's a load right there. 99% of the guns on the market are far more accurate than the shooter, it is *entirely* skill based. You're also making an irresponsible bias in saying that guns are only to kill, you're doing the same thing FireTom was and dooming them to being "evil" because you can't imagine, or accept the possibility of anything else coming from them. Do you honestly think there are no sporting reasons to have a gun? Things can be used for more than one purpose believe it or not.
Legal requirements change from state to state, but in general they're all pretty close to the same. They aren't a farce, they're quite logical. If someone can kill you, has the intent to kill you, and has the opportunity to kill you, you're allowed to defend yourself. What is wrong about that? That 16 year old was committing armed robbery, he was holding a man at gunpoint threatening to kill him. I would say he's got the ability, has the intent, and certainly has the opportunity. What is wrong about that? Age should not matter, 16 is old enough to know better. Any threat like that should be taken seriously, if you'd shrug it off as teenage hijinx you're more naive than I thought. I don't even think the article I posted mentioned his race, what does that have to do with this?
On the contrary, history shows that these types of killers thrive in situations where they are the ultimate boss, when someone stands up to them and threatens them back they cave. Look at Cho, cops get inside, he kills himself.
People run *away* from gunfire, do you honestly think that a shootout between two people would have resulted in 30 innocent bystanders getting killed? Thats ridiculous. I don't believe that guns solve all my problems. In fact so far, I've never used a gun to solve any sort of problem, other than how should I put holes in my target paper. I do believe there are certain situations where a gun is the best tool for the job however. Shame on me I guess.
I've never *needed* a gun yet. But my laws, my culture, and my morals allow me to have one, and to use one if I need to. What do you care? How does your paranoia come from America? Please explain that logic, because the way I see it, you should have some national integrity of your own. My gun policies shouldn't influence you *nearly* as much as you claim it does. You have your own policies, your own laws, your own culture, stop blaming us for your problems. Again with lack of personal responsibility. It so easy to claim credit if something goes right, and easy to pass blame when something goes wrong isn't it. I don't blame anyone but the people responsible for the accidents and deaths caused with guns. I'm not blaming the Australians, I'm not blaming Americans, I'm accusing the PEOPLE of their wrong doings. The laws are perfectly adequate, they cover more than enough ground, but the PEOPLE, need to be educated and responsible enough to handle them.
Your answer, instead of education, is to ban. Assume everyone is stupid, assume everyone is a ticking time bomb waiting to go on a killing spree. Assume that no one is responsible enough to handle the tools that have been around for over a hundred years, and then you guys preach to me about paranoia and seeing the "inner good in everyone"?
Has the world really gone that far downhill?
You have some very strange logic Stone, you may want to pause and reflect on things a bit before replying.
The rules and gun etiquette are just fine in reality when practiced and used correctly, obviously this cop broke many rules, but *gasp* he's not dead! I thought all gun accidents resulted in someone dieing?!?
He's an idiot, but I bet you the same thing wont happen again.You don't need skill to shoot? Sorry but that's a load right there. 99% of the guns on the market are far more accurate than the shooter, it is *entirely* skill based. You're also making an irresponsible bias in saying that guns are only to kill, you're doing the same thing FireTom was and dooming them to being "evil" because you can't imagine, or accept the possibility of anything else coming from them. Do you honestly think there are no sporting reasons to have a gun? Things can be used for more than one purpose believe it or not.
Written by:
From what you tell me, the legal requirements for self-defense shootings in America are a farce. You pull a gun and pump six bullets into the chest of a 16 year old kid. The kid dies, and you are not arrested because the kid, presumably a non-white, deserved to die.
Legal requirements change from state to state, but in general they're all pretty close to the same. They aren't a farce, they're quite logical. If someone can kill you, has the intent to kill you, and has the opportunity to kill you, you're allowed to defend yourself. What is wrong about that? That 16 year old was committing armed robbery, he was holding a man at gunpoint threatening to kill him. I would say he's got the ability, has the intent, and certainly has the opportunity. What is wrong about that? Age should not matter, 16 is old enough to know better. Any threat like that should be taken seriously, if you'd shrug it off as teenage hijinx you're more naive than I thought. I don't even think the article I posted mentioned his race, what does that have to do with this?
Written by:
I’d suggest you have been watching too many cowboy movies, where you or the hero in a white hat steps in to save the day. A more realistic scenario is that a lot more people would have been killed in the ensuing gunfight. In many respects Cho, like you, was a victim of the American gun culture, a cultures that glorifies guns and killing. You both believe that guns solve all your problems.
On the contrary, history shows that these types of killers thrive in situations where they are the ultimate boss, when someone stands up to them and threatens them back they cave. Look at Cho, cops get inside, he kills himself.
People run *away* from gunfire, do you honestly think that a shootout between two people would have resulted in 30 innocent bystanders getting killed? Thats ridiculous. I don't believe that guns solve all my problems. In fact so far, I've never used a gun to solve any sort of problem, other than how should I put holes in my target paper. I do believe there are certain situations where a gun is the best tool for the job however. Shame on me I guess.
I've never *needed* a gun yet. But my laws, my culture, and my morals allow me to have one, and to use one if I need to. What do you care? How does your paranoia come from America? Please explain that logic, because the way I see it, you should have some national integrity of your own. My gun policies shouldn't influence you *nearly* as much as you claim it does. You have your own policies, your own laws, your own culture, stop blaming us for your problems. Again with lack of personal responsibility. It so easy to claim credit if something goes right, and easy to pass blame when something goes wrong isn't it. I don't blame anyone but the people responsible for the accidents and deaths caused with guns. I'm not blaming the Australians, I'm not blaming Americans, I'm accusing the PEOPLE of their wrong doings. The laws are perfectly adequate, they cover more than enough ground, but the PEOPLE, need to be educated and responsible enough to handle them.
Your answer, instead of education, is to ban. Assume everyone is stupid, assume everyone is a ticking time bomb waiting to go on a killing spree. Assume that no one is responsible enough to handle the tools that have been around for over a hundred years, and then you guys preach to me about paranoia and seeing the "inner good in everyone"?
Has the world really gone that far downhill?
#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:
I disagree, there are situations in which use of a gun can save lives, by taking the life of someone intending to kill others.
From what i recall of that example, the mugger did deserve to die- he'd attempted a unprovoked act of violence by pulling a gun.
Much as I don't want anything to do with guns and, much as I'm glad I live in a culture where guns are banned: if I was in that situation and armed, I really do hope that I'd also have the instinct to shoot anyone who, unprovoked, for reasons of trying to mug me, pointed a weapon at me and put my life at risk.
If what Lurch has posted about himself and his attitude in this thread, is accurate, then, i feel that, had he been doing some kind of visit in that school when Cho started his rampage, that Lurch would have gone towards the source of the gunfire and, in all probability, gunned Cho down before he could have hurt anywhere near 30 people.
If I was armed in a school and heard gunfire, I'd have done the same thing.
That is, i feel, one of the motivations behind Lurch defending US gun laws.
Written by:
Lurch, guns are life taking devices, not a life saving devices.
I disagree, there are situations in which use of a gun can save lives, by taking the life of someone intending to kill others.
Written by:
From what you tell me, the legal requirements for self-defense shootings in America are a farce. You pull a gun and pump six bullets into the chest of a 16 year old kid. The kid dies, and you are not arrested because the kid, presumably a non-white, deserved to die.
From what i recall of that example, the mugger did deserve to die- he'd attempted a unprovoked act of violence by pulling a gun.
Much as I don't want anything to do with guns and, much as I'm glad I live in a culture where guns are banned: if I was in that situation and armed, I really do hope that I'd also have the instinct to shoot anyone who, unprovoked, for reasons of trying to mug me, pointed a weapon at me and put my life at risk.
Written by:
Lurch, you must be dreaming if you believe that
Written by:
If just one of those students, or faculty, had been armed, the whole thing could have ended long before the total was in the 30's. I don't know about you, but that seems worth it.
If what Lurch has posted about himself and his attitude in this thread, is accurate, then, i feel that, had he been doing some kind of visit in that school when Cho started his rampage, that Lurch would have gone towards the source of the gunfire and, in all probability, gunned Cho down before he could have hurt anywhere near 30 people.
If I was armed in a school and heard gunfire, I'd have done the same thing.
That is, i feel, one of the motivations behind Lurch defending US gun laws.
"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:
OWD - who are you to state that someone "deserves to die"? You knew him? You have been observing what happened? You know all the circumstances? Who are you? A judge?
Sometimes I really am wondering about US legislation...
OWD - who are you to state that someone "deserves to die"? You knew him? You have been observing what happened? You know all the circumstances? Who are you? A judge?
Written by: AP
CLEVELAND — A man who has a permit to carry a concealed gun shot and killed one of two teenage robbery suspects he encountered on his front porch, police said.
City prosecutors decided Monday that the 25-year-old Cleveland man was justified and would not be charged in the shooting Saturday night of 15-year-old Arthur Buford, a freshman at John F. Kennedy High School.
Buford and another teen approached the man on his porch and one of the youths pulled a gun, prompting the resident to pull his gun and shoot Buford several times in the chest, police said.
Police took a .40-caliber Smith and Wesson from the man as evidence, according to a police report.
Toby Hoover, director of the Toledo-based Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, said she had not heard of any other fatal shooting involving someone who has a permit to carry a concealed gun under the state’s 3-year-old law.
About 30 youths gathered Monday at the intersection where Buford died and set up a memorial. His cousin, Tameka Foster, 21, questioned the decision against prosecuting the shooter.
“They let that man run out freely,” Foster said. “My cousin is dead.”
Buford’s alleged accomplice fled after and shooting and has not been caught. Police believe a .38-caliber handgun they found in the mail chute of a nearby house belonged to Buford or the other suspect, Lt. Thomas Stacho said.
Written by: Newsnet
CLEVELAND -- A teen accused in an armed robbery that resulted in another teen's shooting death is being charged with murder, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason said.
Sometimes I really am wondering about US legislation...
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:
Yes, in the situation where I'm going about my business, harming no-one: if a random stranger takes it upon themselves to point a weapon at me (thereby putting me at serious risk of being killed for no valid reason), then, in a sense, I'm going to be the judge.
In that scenario, which of necessity is one of instinctive and instantaneous reaction (cos anything more involved only increases the chances of me being shot), then that judgement must be instinctive too, i.e. you see the gun and you shoot the attacker before they can shoot you- without any hesitation.
I never go looking for trouble and never have, in forty years in this world I have never physically hit anyone- I've been in situations where violence could have been the result, but, through diplomacy and luck, words and body language have always sufficed to diffuse those potentially violent situations.
I don't carry a gun, i'm glad i don't and I'm glad that I happen to live in a state where guns are banned.
But, IMO, if a mugger puts another innocent persons life in danger, they forfeit something and, that innocent intended victim has, IMO, the right to do whatever is necessay to maximise their own chances of surviving the encounter.
There's a lot of those victims who are either dead, or seriously disabled cos they couldn't react in a defensive manner.
Many muggers are professional inflicters of violence- they can switch into a mode of ruthless brutality which most everyday civilians are totally unable to deal with.
Unfortunatly, if a mugging encounter does turn violent, it can often switch instantly into truly sickening violence that can easily leave the victim dead or maimed.
That possibility is initiated entirley by the mugger- the victim did not wish it or provoke- for that reason, IMO, they absolutely do, have the right to do whatever is necessary to maximise their chances of surviving.
If the mugger happens to be using a gun, then clearly, the victim is in immediate and severe danger of being killed, so, if they have the ability to shoot that mugger dead, then that is, IMO, not only morally acceptable, but quite possibly the very best thing they could do under the circumstances.
What do you expect this intended victim to do- not pull his gun and risk being killed.
Does this man have a wife and children? If he's killed what happens to them? Were his wife and kids in the home at the time? Would they have been next if he'd got shot?
Why should a 15-year old thug and his accomplice be allowed to approach a random property with the intention of robbing it, then draw a gun on an innocent man, thereby putting his life in immediate and serious danger, for no other reason than that they want to take his property.
I'm a very peaceful person who stays away from violence, but, and this applies to all peaceful people, we have a right to continue living.
In a situation where someone points a gun at them, then it is a judgement situation and not doing anything is as much a judgement as reacting defensivly- the choice, the judgement to be made, is whether you're going to be potentially dead, or whether the attacker is.
Yes, in the situation where I'm going about my business, harming no-one: if a random stranger takes it upon themselves to point a weapon at me (thereby putting me at serious risk of being killed for no valid reason), then, in a sense, I'm going to be the judge.
In that scenario, which of necessity is one of instinctive and instantaneous reaction (cos anything more involved only increases the chances of me being shot), then that judgement must be instinctive too, i.e. you see the gun and you shoot the attacker before they can shoot you- without any hesitation.
I never go looking for trouble and never have, in forty years in this world I have never physically hit anyone- I've been in situations where violence could have been the result, but, through diplomacy and luck, words and body language have always sufficed to diffuse those potentially violent situations.
I don't carry a gun, i'm glad i don't and I'm glad that I happen to live in a state where guns are banned.
But, IMO, if a mugger puts another innocent persons life in danger, they forfeit something and, that innocent intended victim has, IMO, the right to do whatever is necessay to maximise their own chances of surviving the encounter.
There's a lot of those victims who are either dead, or seriously disabled cos they couldn't react in a defensive manner.
Many muggers are professional inflicters of violence- they can switch into a mode of ruthless brutality which most everyday civilians are totally unable to deal with.
Unfortunatly, if a mugging encounter does turn violent, it can often switch instantly into truly sickening violence that can easily leave the victim dead or maimed.
That possibility is initiated entirley by the mugger- the victim did not wish it or provoke- for that reason, IMO, they absolutely do, have the right to do whatever is necessary to maximise their chances of surviving.
If the mugger happens to be using a gun, then clearly, the victim is in immediate and severe danger of being killed, so, if they have the ability to shoot that mugger dead, then that is, IMO, not only morally acceptable, but quite possibly the very best thing they could do under the circumstances.
Written by:
Buford and another teen approached the man on his porch and one of the youths pulled a gun, prompting the resident to pull his gun and shoot Buford several times in the chest, police said.
What do you expect this intended victim to do- not pull his gun and risk being killed.
Does this man have a wife and children? If he's killed what happens to them? Were his wife and kids in the home at the time? Would they have been next if he'd got shot?
Why should a 15-year old thug and his accomplice be allowed to approach a random property with the intention of robbing it, then draw a gun on an innocent man, thereby putting his life in immediate and serious danger, for no other reason than that they want to take his property.
I'm a very peaceful person who stays away from violence, but, and this applies to all peaceful people, we have a right to continue living.
In a situation where someone points a gun at them, then it is a judgement situation and not doing anything is as much a judgement as reacting defensivly- the choice, the judgement to be made, is whether you're going to be potentially dead, or whether the attacker is.
"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!
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Oh good God FireTom use some common sense. He pulled a gun, and got what he had coming. He is the one who initiated the confrontation, he is the one who brought a deadly weapon out, which in turn caused an equal response. All the blame is on his shoulders NOT the man who defended himself.
"They let that man run out freely" WHAT?!>?
Those people piss me off, they're outraged at the man who defended his life and not at the punk kid who pulled a gun and got himself killed. There is absolutely no one to blame for this except the kids. Age is not an excuse.
Oh good God FireTom use some common sense. He pulled a gun, and got what he had coming. He is the one who initiated the confrontation, he is the one who brought a deadly weapon out, which in turn caused an equal response. All the blame is on his shoulders NOT the man who defended himself.
"They let that man run out freely" WHAT?!>?
Those people piss me off, they're outraged at the man who defended his life and not at the punk kid who pulled a gun and got himself killed. There is absolutely no one to blame for this except the kids. Age is not an excuse.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, the main sporting reasons for having a gun are based on improving marksmanship so you don’t miss the person you are trying to kill.
As far as the gun skills go. I don’t think it would take much skill to shoot a kid several times in the chest with .40-caliber Smith and Wesson. I’d say there goes the *entirely* skill based theory.
Lurch, if that’s your best defense I rest my case.
Lurch, guns aren't banned in Australia. I have never suggested banning guns. I’ve put forward my ideas on education. Where education, as opposed to brainwashing, will lead to a world where we don’t need guns.
Dave, I think the self-defense argument for killing went out in the UK over a 100 years ago. I’m surprised you can’t see any other scenario than pumping several bullets into the kids chest.
The kid did not have to die. He died because he lived in a culture that worships guns, and accept that it’s ok for “citizens” to go around deciding “who deserves to die.” Though, calling it a license to murder is a bit strong. I see the way forward as being mindful enough, under the circumstance, to overcome the instinct to shoot.
I say that would make at least 32 dead people. Maybe it’s me, but when I read comments like that I think something like “Who do all you guys think you are? Rambo! Get real, you would both be dead.”
Don’t you guys get that killing someone is a serious? Death has a huge impact on all the people involved. Let’s hope no one needs to use their gun as a weapons.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1181397240)
Lurch, the main sporting reasons for having a gun are based on improving marksmanship so you don’t miss the person you are trying to kill.
As far as the gun skills go. I don’t think it would take much skill to shoot a kid several times in the chest with .40-caliber Smith and Wesson. I’d say there goes the *entirely* skill based theory.
Written by:
He's an idiot, but I bet you the same thing wont happen again.
Lurch, if that’s your best defense I rest my case.
Written by:
Your answer, instead of education, is to ban.
Lurch, guns aren't banned in Australia. I have never suggested banning guns. I’ve put forward my ideas on education. Where education, as opposed to brainwashing, will lead to a world where we don’t need guns.
Dave, I think the self-defense argument for killing went out in the UK over a 100 years ago. I’m surprised you can’t see any other scenario than pumping several bullets into the kids chest.
The kid did not have to die. He died because he lived in a culture that worships guns, and accept that it’s ok for “citizens” to go around deciding “who deserves to die.” Though, calling it a license to murder is a bit strong. I see the way forward as being mindful enough, under the circumstance, to overcome the instinct to shoot.
Written by:
If what Lurch has posted about himself and his attitude in this thread, is accurate, then, i feel that, had he been doing some kind of visit in that school when Cho started his rampage, that Lurch would have gone towards the source of the gunfire and, in all probability, gunned Cho down before he could have hurt anywhere near 30 people.
If I was armed in a school and heard gunfire, I'd have done the same thing.
I say that would make at least 32 dead people. Maybe it’s me, but when I read comments like that I think something like “Who do all you guys think you are? Rambo! Get real, you would both be dead.”
Written by:
"They let that man run out freely" WHAT?!>
Don’t you guys get that killing someone is a serious? Death has a huge impact on all the people involved. Let’s hope no one needs to use their gun as a weapons.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1181397240)
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:
Obviously you haven't tried to draw a concealed gun aim and shoot quickly.
For the last time, we're not brainwashed. If we were, EVERYONE would have guns, and they don't. You go ahead and make your little utopia, but don't complain to me or ask for help when someone comes in and disturbs the peace and you have no recourse. Didn't you learn anything from Demolition Man?
I'm still surprised that you think the problem here is that a man defended himself, and not that a 15 year old kid was commiting armed robbery. You're right, the kid did not have to die. But his death is not because of the man, his death is his own doing. How passive would you be in such a situation? What if a man were raping/killing your sister? would you kindly ask them to stop? There are situations you cannot talk your way out of. There are people who are entirely intent on KILLING you, not robbing you. There are times where violence is the correct, and the only solution. Are you willing to fight for your life? If you can't see that then you need to wake up.
I *highly* doubt it would make over 32 people dead. I'm sorry. I won't say it's possible, because I guess the two of us could entirely empty our guns, and reload, and have every single bullet we fired strike and kill an innocent bystander, but it's entirely improbable.. Now, if it was me dead, and cho dead, and 30 innocents alive. I'm perfectly content with that.
As a secondary response to that, I'd like to give you a quotation from and article written by a police officer.
How is killing someone IN SELF DEFENSE bad? More so, how is that worse than threatening, or attempting to kill someone when you are blatantly in the wrong? Death does have a huge impact on everyone, how do you think that man feels now that he has had to kill a teenager. He's going to have to live with that for the rest of his life, and thanks to people like you he'll be condemned to a personal hell of doubt. I feel much more compassion for the man who
Written by:
As far as the gun skills go. I don’t think it would take much skill to shoot a kid several times in the chest with .40-caliber Smith and Wesson. I’d say there goes the *entirely* skill based theory.
Obviously you haven't tried to draw a concealed gun aim and shoot quickly.
Written by:
I’ve put forward my ideas on education. Where education, as opposed to brainwashing, will lead to a world where we don’t need guns.
For the last time, we're not brainwashed. If we were, EVERYONE would have guns, and they don't. You go ahead and make your little utopia, but don't complain to me or ask for help when someone comes in and disturbs the peace and you have no recourse. Didn't you learn anything from Demolition Man?
Written by:
Dave, I think the self-defense argument for killing went out in the UK over a 100 years ago. I’m surprised you can’t see any other scenario than pumping several bullets into the kids chest.
I'm still surprised that you think the problem here is that a man defended himself, and not that a 15 year old kid was commiting armed robbery. You're right, the kid did not have to die. But his death is not because of the man, his death is his own doing. How passive would you be in such a situation? What if a man were raping/killing your sister? would you kindly ask them to stop? There are situations you cannot talk your way out of. There are people who are entirely intent on KILLING you, not robbing you. There are times where violence is the correct, and the only solution. Are you willing to fight for your life? If you can't see that then you need to wake up.
Written by:
I say that would make at least 32 dead people. Maybe it’s me, but when I read comments like that I think something like “Who do all you guys think you are? Rambo! Get real, you would both be dead.”
I *highly* doubt it would make over 32 people dead. I'm sorry. I won't say it's possible, because I guess the two of us could entirely empty our guns, and reload, and have every single bullet we fired strike and kill an innocent bystander, but it's entirely improbable.. Now, if it was me dead, and cho dead, and 30 innocents alive. I'm perfectly content with that.
As a secondary response to that, I'd like to give you a quotation from and article written by a police officer.
Written by:
What about the campus being a "gun free" zone?
Well, Cho must have had a pretty good idea that he would be the only armed person in either of the buildings. Bad guys don't follow the rules. If killing other human beings for malevolent reasons is acceptable to you, then violating a gun law or two is hardly likely to bother your conscience, particularly if you are willing to die in the process. Rather than being safer, the law abiding folks are probably at greater risk, as the "safe predator" zone is clearly defined by law or by the posting of private property. What gun free zones really mean for the police is that the people who make the rule or the law expect you to be responsible for protecting the people in their zone. Is that a reasonable expectation? Effectively prohibiting guns, or any weapons for that matter, can only be accomplished with tight physical security measures, including metal detectors, x-ray machines and physical searches. Sometimes even that doesn't work. Can you imagine the resources required to provide airport-like security at just one college campus like Virginia Tech? Or are we now to build walls around areas the size of cities and man the drawbridges?
An even tougher question is: Would allowing lawfully armed students, faculty or anyone else on campus have made any difference? The answer is educated speculation, but as far as I'm concerned, absolutely "yes." Would the possibility that he would face armed resistance soon after starting his shooting spree have acted as a deterrent to Cho? We can't say for sure, but does history tell us that the killing of innocents in such cases stops when the shooter(s) are confronted by any armed resistance, be it police or armed citizens. It stopped Harris and Klebold at Columbine. It stopped Charles Whitman in the Texas Tower, it has stopped a number of others and it finally stopped Cho, when he realized that the police had arrived. We have a new paradigm for "active shooters" ever since Columbine. Engage and isolate. The maniacs that commit these despicable crimes against apparently helpless victims never have the stomach to face determined resistance that places them in danger. Much was made of the number of innocent people killed and wounded that day. Much was made of the carnage caused by one man with two guns. Not much mention is made of the fact that only one other gun, in the right hands, could have stopped the massacre even as it began. And to those who claim that more guns could have accidentally injured innocent bystanders, I ask this: 32 innocent people were slaughtered under the "no guns" rule. Do you really expect me to believe that it would have been worse?
Written by:
Don’t you guys get that killing someone is a serious? Death has a huge impact on all the people involved. Let’s hope no one needs to use their gun as a weapons.
How is killing someone IN SELF DEFENSE bad? More so, how is that worse than threatening, or attempting to kill someone when you are blatantly in the wrong? Death does have a huge impact on everyone, how do you think that man feels now that he has had to kill a teenager. He's going to have to live with that for the rest of his life, and thanks to people like you he'll be condemned to a personal hell of doubt. I feel much more compassion for the man who
#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:
I've had a change of heart with this thread.
I still think there's a problem with US gun laws, but I'm really sickened by some of what Firetom and Stone have said in their last posts.
I've led a peaceful life and always intended to avoid violence and, on the whole succeeded.
But I do know about violence, having personally seen the effects and also, being very interested in martial arts and, specifically, effective and realistic martial arts, I''ve researched a lot into violence and self-defense.
It makes me ill to think that a section of society would condemn and put on trial a man who successfully defended himself (and possibly his family) against a malicious thug with no respect for human life, who chose to draw a weapon on him.
Regardless of whether that thug was 15 years old or 30- he pulled a gun on an innocent and he suffered the consequences.
Today, I asked myself 'do you not care? (that a 15 year old was shot dead) and, I was actually surprised to find that, after considerable introspection, that no, I didn't care.
He pulled a gun on someone- that is a horrific position to be put in, knowing that you could be dead in a microsecond.
I do care about incidents like a recent UK one where a middle-aged family man, not a violent person, went out to talk with some teens who were damaging his car, presumably cos they were bored or something.
Despite being only 14, one of these teens had a sufficiently good punch to put the bloke down- unfortunatly, his head hid the groung in a bad way and he dies hours later in intensive car.
I care about that- I care about people being victimised by thugs, but i don't care about the few thugs who get killed by justified self-defense.
No, it's still here- you can use force in proportion to that which you are being attacked by.
That means if a mugger pulls a knife, which, as anyone who knows about realistic self-defence recognises, that your life is in immediate danger- then you have the right to react in proportion.
And reacting against a knifeperson realistically, could very well result in their death or maiming and that would be justified both legally and morally.
===========
Lurch, I don't agree with some of what you've said, but, I think you're spot on with the stuff about the rights of individuals to defend themselves.
To be honest, though I'm still glad guns are banned in the UK, i have changed my mind on one thing.
And that is that, if I lived in the US and felt that there was a possibility that i may face a gun, I think I could well do what you're done.
i.e. do the training, aquire a gun, learn how to use it, be responsible with it, do more training etc, etc.
I have enough faith in myself to know that it I would be resonsible and safe about it.
=======
For anyone interested in realistic views of self-defense and violence, i recommend stuff by Geoff Thompson, a man very experienced with violence and nullyifying violence
https://www.geoffthompson.com
is his website, recently changed so I'm hoping it's as good as it used to be.
I recall that in a recent article, he said that in his many years of witnessing violence and in being involved in it, he observed only one tactic that was anywhere near consistently effective- that was the 'pre-emptive strike' ie when you know violence is imminent, you move first- the person who gets the first punch in, statistically, is the most likely to walk away.
The relevance of that to the gun example is clear.
If you wait to be attacked, you diminsih your chances of surviving.
==========
Lurch- to be honest, I think you're wasting your time trying to reason with certain individuals on this thread
I think you've amde a very good case, like i said, my minds been changed on some issues.
One think I would like to dwell on a little concerns gun laws in the UK and Europe- I got the impression that you thought they were quite negative.
I'm come to see that the US is a very different mentality to over here- I'm a lot more understanding of views like your own where you feel entitled to and want to, possess a gun.
Seriously, over here, the guns ban works well, we're happy with it- I think it would be a step backwards to legalise possession here- i hope you can reflect on that a little.
Firetom and Stone- to be frank I'm a little disgusted with you both you said some real rubbish in your last posts- I'm not even going to say anyhting more, I'm leaving it at that.
I've had a change of heart with this thread.
I still think there's a problem with US gun laws, but I'm really sickened by some of what Firetom and Stone have said in their last posts.
I've led a peaceful life and always intended to avoid violence and, on the whole succeeded.
But I do know about violence, having personally seen the effects and also, being very interested in martial arts and, specifically, effective and realistic martial arts, I''ve researched a lot into violence and self-defense.
It makes me ill to think that a section of society would condemn and put on trial a man who successfully defended himself (and possibly his family) against a malicious thug with no respect for human life, who chose to draw a weapon on him.
Regardless of whether that thug was 15 years old or 30- he pulled a gun on an innocent and he suffered the consequences.
Today, I asked myself 'do you not care? (that a 15 year old was shot dead) and, I was actually surprised to find that, after considerable introspection, that no, I didn't care.
He pulled a gun on someone- that is a horrific position to be put in, knowing that you could be dead in a microsecond.
I do care about incidents like a recent UK one where a middle-aged family man, not a violent person, went out to talk with some teens who were damaging his car, presumably cos they were bored or something.
Despite being only 14, one of these teens had a sufficiently good punch to put the bloke down- unfortunatly, his head hid the groung in a bad way and he dies hours later in intensive car.
I care about that- I care about people being victimised by thugs, but i don't care about the few thugs who get killed by justified self-defense.
Written by:
Dave, I think the self-defense argument for killing went out in the UK over a 100 years ago.
No, it's still here- you can use force in proportion to that which you are being attacked by.
That means if a mugger pulls a knife, which, as anyone who knows about realistic self-defence recognises, that your life is in immediate danger- then you have the right to react in proportion.
And reacting against a knifeperson realistically, could very well result in their death or maiming and that would be justified both legally and morally.
===========
Lurch, I don't agree with some of what you've said, but, I think you're spot on with the stuff about the rights of individuals to defend themselves.
To be honest, though I'm still glad guns are banned in the UK, i have changed my mind on one thing.
And that is that, if I lived in the US and felt that there was a possibility that i may face a gun, I think I could well do what you're done.
i.e. do the training, aquire a gun, learn how to use it, be responsible with it, do more training etc, etc.
I have enough faith in myself to know that it I would be resonsible and safe about it.
=======
For anyone interested in realistic views of self-defense and violence, i recommend stuff by Geoff Thompson, a man very experienced with violence and nullyifying violence
https://www.geoffthompson.com
is his website, recently changed so I'm hoping it's as good as it used to be.
I recall that in a recent article, he said that in his many years of witnessing violence and in being involved in it, he observed only one tactic that was anywhere near consistently effective- that was the 'pre-emptive strike' ie when you know violence is imminent, you move first- the person who gets the first punch in, statistically, is the most likely to walk away.
The relevance of that to the gun example is clear.
If you wait to be attacked, you diminsih your chances of surviving.
==========
Lurch- to be honest, I think you're wasting your time trying to reason with certain individuals on this thread
I think you've amde a very good case, like i said, my minds been changed on some issues.
One think I would like to dwell on a little concerns gun laws in the UK and Europe- I got the impression that you thought they were quite negative.
I'm come to see that the US is a very different mentality to over here- I'm a lot more understanding of views like your own where you feel entitled to and want to, possess a gun.
Seriously, over here, the guns ban works well, we're happy with it- I think it would be a step backwards to legalise possession here- i hope you can reflect on that a little.
Firetom and Stone- to be frank I'm a little disgusted with you both
you said some real rubbish in your last posts- I'm not even going to say anyhting more, I'm leaving it at that. "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!
SILVER Member
veteran
1,237 posts
Location: Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
veteran
1,237 posts
Location: Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
so what would you all be thinking if it turned out that the kid only pulled out a slightly too realistic looking water pistol ?
and as the cop didn't die it seems the story's just dismissed it seems, despite it just being a matter of a few small degrees, so here's another interesting recent one, may 29th 2007 : Boy, 10, Shoots, Kills Father At Gun Range
so what would you all be thinking if it turned out that the kid only pulled out a slightly too realistic looking water pistol ?
and as the cop didn't die it seems the story's just dismissed it seems, despite it just being a matter of a few small degrees, so here's another interesting recent one, may 29th 2007 : Boy, 10, Shoots, Kills Father At Gun Range
Blinded by Hyperlights, please donate generously
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Well said OWD..
What it really comes down to is just which side of the personal responsibility debate you're really on. I see no 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 by one is.
That is, IMO, the main difference in the mentality between America and "the rest of the western world". America expects it's citizens to act in an orderly and civilized manner and deals out harsh punishments to those who don't, whereas the rest of the world tends to look for "other" factors to explain/justify criminal behavior. In short, America demands that it's citizens act responsibly.
I'm sure we're all familiar with Arthur Buford's story ( I can tell Stone has done some research ) and some of us may sympathise that he was in a position that offered him few alternatives . Maybe he was motivated out of desperation, maybe he was raised by assholes to be an [censored], but whatever the reason, he initiated an armed confrontation to improve his situation and ended up paying the ultimate price for his choice to take this route.
If he really needed money...why didn't he just pawn the gun? or sell it on the street ? commit property crimes ? etc etc etc......I'm sure if he put his mind to it he could have come up with a plan that wouldn't involve getting himself shot.
Well said OWD..
What it really comes down to is just which side of the personal responsibility debate you're really on. I see no 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 by one is.
That is, IMO, the main difference in the mentality between America and "the rest of the western world". America expects it's citizens to act in an orderly and civilized manner and deals out harsh punishments to those who don't, whereas the rest of the world tends to look for "other" factors to explain/justify criminal behavior. In short, America demands that it's citizens act responsibly.
I'm sure we're all familiar with Arthur Buford's story ( I can tell Stone has done some research ) and some of us may sympathise that he was in a position that offered him few alternatives . Maybe he was motivated out of desperation, maybe he was raised by assholes to be an [censored], but whatever the reason, he initiated an armed confrontation to improve his situation and ended up paying the ultimate price for his choice to take this route.
If he really needed money...why didn't he just pawn the gun? or sell it on the street ? commit property crimes ? etc etc etc......I'm sure if he put his mind to it he could have come up with a plan that wouldn't involve getting himself shot.
SILVER Member
veteran
1,237 posts
Location: Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
veteran
1,237 posts
Location: Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
well ignoring personal accidents then, it's the same as driving then
You may actually BE the most safety concious, careful, honest, law abiding driver the universe has ever seen.
Doesn't matter, it's one of the other drivers out there, who may even be convinced that THEY are the most safety concious, careful, honest, law abiding driver the universe has ever seen, that are most likely to get you killed.
well ignoring personal accidents then, it's the same as driving then
You may actually BE the most safety concious, careful, honest, law abiding driver the universe has ever seen.
Doesn't matter, it's one of the other drivers out there, who may even be convinced that THEY are the most safety concious, careful, honest, law abiding driver the universe has ever seen, that are most likely to get you killed.
Blinded by Hyperlights, please donate generously
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Well said indeed OWD
It's fair enough that you don't agree with everything I've said, I couldn't possibly expect that, but I'm glad you've changed on some fronts. I understand that the gun ban in the UK works for you guys, it's just not a possibility here, nor would I want it as such. I know many British, Australians, and general Europeans that would agree with me and are not happy with the current gun laws in their respective nations, too bad they don't have much recourse other than moving.
I believe they are negative in a sense. They are effective in many ways, I will give you that, but to me it looks like these "enlightened" nations are turning into nanny states. I like to live my life with as little government interference as possible, people should be responsible for themselves.
I can also agree to that. A society without violence will always be the ultimate goal, and if your laws are the first step towards that, and the country is ready to make that leap than by all means go ahead. I don't feel that America is in that position however. There is a very fine line that a country must reach before they should take such a step, if they go too early than the end result will be horrible. There is too much corruption, tyranny, violence and general crime to accept the "general good in all people." Everyone has a price, everyone has a breaking point, to ignore such inherent human faults is asking for trouble.
I know I'm wasting my time with some people, but it gives me something to do during my graveyard shifts, and I turned you didn't I? Thats a good success story in my book.
It would be sad, but I wouldn't feel any different. There are many such cases, or situations where the gun wasn't loaded. It doesn't matter however, the man believed his life was in immediate harm, and the kids intent with drawing the fake gun was to make the man believe his life was in danger. If he KNEW it was a water gun, and shot anyways, then it would be murder.
As for your article, obviously the boy failed to follow multiple rules. The safety should have been on, his finger should never be on the trigger until he's on target, and the muzzle never should have pointed at his father. In some cases there shouldn't have even been a round in the chamber but since I don't know specifics of what happened I won't call that one. If someone is downrange at a gun range, NOONE should be touching a gun. All guns should be clear (unloaded action open) and on the bench.
Indeed it is, as I have been trying to say. Even including personal accidents. If you follow the rules no single accident should be fatal. It is when multiple rules are ignored or fail that things turn deadly. Even the officer broke many gun etiquette rules. This is where education is imporant. Teach people to behave responsibly with guns. Show them that it's NOT all Hollywood flash boom bang you can shoot someones hat off from the hip. Teach people to respect firearms.
Look at European drinking ages and laws. Most countries have them far below our 21, and they usually see LESS alcohol abuse in teenagers because it hasn't been glorified and pitched as 'evil' to those populations, it's common, and everyday, and everyone knows the results and effects. The drive to show people the 'bad' ways of guns only makes them more appealing to rebellious populations, and those same people who are hellbent on showing that guns are horrible, refuse to allow anyone to reflect on their positive sides. Which IMO, just makes the problem worse.
Well said indeed OWD
It's fair enough that you don't agree with everything I've said, I couldn't possibly expect that, but I'm glad you've changed on some fronts. I understand that the gun ban in the UK works for you guys, it's just not a possibility here, nor would I want it as such. I know many British, Australians, and general Europeans that would agree with me and are not happy with the current gun laws in their respective nations, too bad they don't have much recourse other than moving.
Written by:
One think I would like to dwell on a little concerns gun laws in the UK and Europe- I got the impression that you thought they were quite negative.
I believe they are negative in a sense. They are effective in many ways, I will give you that, but to me it looks like these "enlightened" nations are turning into nanny states. I like to live my life with as little government interference as possible, people should be responsible for themselves.
Written by:
Seriously, over here, the guns ban works well, we're happy with it- I think it would be a step backwards to legalise possession here- i hope you can reflect on that a little.
I can also agree to that. A society without violence will always be the ultimate goal, and if your laws are the first step towards that, and the country is ready to make that leap than by all means go ahead. I don't feel that America is in that position however. There is a very fine line that a country must reach before they should take such a step, if they go too early than the end result will be horrible. There is too much corruption, tyranny, violence and general crime to accept the "general good in all people." Everyone has a price, everyone has a breaking point, to ignore such inherent human faults is asking for trouble.
Written by:
Lurch- to be honest, I think you're wasting your time trying to reason with certain individuals on this thread
I think you've amde a very good case, like i said, my minds been changed on some issues.
I know I'm wasting my time with some people, but it gives me something to do during my graveyard shifts, and I turned you didn't I?
Thats a good success story in my book.Written by:
so what would you all be thinking if it turned out that the kid only pulled out a slightly too realistic looking water pistol ?
It would be sad, but I wouldn't feel any different. There are many such cases, or situations where the gun wasn't loaded. It doesn't matter however, the man believed his life was in immediate harm, and the kids intent with drawing the fake gun was to make the man believe his life was in danger. If he KNEW it was a water gun, and shot anyways, then it would be murder.
As for your article, obviously the boy failed to follow multiple rules. The safety should have been on, his finger should never be on the trigger until he's on target, and the muzzle never should have pointed at his father. In some cases there shouldn't have even been a round in the chamber but since I don't know specifics of what happened I won't call that one. If someone is downrange at a gun range, NOONE should be touching a gun. All guns should be clear (unloaded action open) and on the bench.
Written by:
well ignoring personal accidents then, it's the same as driving then
Indeed it is, as I have been trying to say. Even including personal accidents. If you follow the rules no single accident should be fatal. It is when multiple rules are ignored or fail that things turn deadly. Even the officer broke many gun etiquette rules. This is where education is imporant. Teach people to behave responsibly with guns. Show them that it's NOT all Hollywood flash boom bang you can shoot someones hat off from the hip. Teach people to respect firearms.
Look at European drinking ages and laws. Most countries have them far below our 21, and they usually see LESS alcohol abuse in teenagers because it hasn't been glorified and pitched as 'evil' to those populations, it's common, and everyday, and everyone knows the results and effects. The drive to show people the 'bad' ways of guns only makes them more appealing to rebellious populations, and those same people who are hellbent on showing that guns are horrible, refuse to allow anyone to reflect on their positive sides. Which IMO, just makes the problem worse.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Yakumo, good point.
Three things seem to be associated with guns. They are killings, accidents and it won’t happen again.
Lurch, if you believe this
Then I'd say it's just wishful thinking on your part. It’s only the nutters that don’t accept Australian gun laws.
Come on Lurch, it doesn’t take much skill to shoot a kid several times in the chest with .40-caliber Smith and Wesson. A bit of practice in front of the mirror, draw, pow pow pow.
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.
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.
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.
Lurch, you are dreaming. I think America is as much a victim of Hollywood as it is of the Second Amendment.
Sorry Lurch, it’s the people who glorify guns and killing that have condemned him to a personal hell.
Dave, I think you are making a lot of assumptions and being a bit judgmental here. You don’t know all the facts and I think you are perhaps projecting a bit.
I’d check that one Dave.
Dave are u serious? What happened to you Buddhist training and vegan principals? .
Stout
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.
Stout if America demands that it's citizens act responsibly, then why do so many kill each other?
Yakumo, good point.
Three things seem to be associated with guns. They are killings, accidents and it won’t happen again.
Lurch, if you believe this
Written by:
I know many British, Australians, and general Europeans that would agree with me and are not happy with the current gun laws in their respective nations, too bad they don't have much recourse other than moving.
Then I'd say it's just wishful thinking on your part. It’s only the nutters that don’t accept Australian gun laws.
Come on Lurch, it doesn’t take much skill to shoot a kid several times in the chest with .40-caliber Smith and Wesson. A bit of practice in front of the mirror, draw, pow pow pow.
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.
Written by:
You go ahead and make your little utopia, but don't complain to me or ask for help when someone comes in and disturbs the peace and you have no recourse.
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.
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.
Written by:
I *highly* doubt it would make over 32 people dead. I'm sorry. I won't say it's possible, because I guess the two of us could entirely empty our guns, and reload, and have every single bullet we fired strike and kill an innocent bystander, but it's entirely improbable. Now, if it was me dead, and cho dead, and 30 innocents alive. I'm perfectly content with that.
Lurch, you are dreaming. I think America is as much a victim of Hollywood as it is of the Second Amendment.
Written by:
He's going to have to live with that for the rest of his life, and thanks to people like you he'll be condemned to a personal hell of doubt. I feel much more compassion for the man who
Sorry Lurch, it’s the people who glorify guns and killing that have condemned him to a personal hell.
Dave, I think you are making a lot of assumptions and being a bit judgmental here. You don’t know all the facts and I think you are perhaps projecting a bit.
Written by:
It makes me ill to think that a section of society would condemn and put on trial a man who successfully defended himself (and possibly his family) against a malicious thug with no respect for human life, who chose to draw a weapon on him.
Written by:
ave, I think the self-defense argument for killing went out in the UK over a 100 years ago.
No, it's still here- you can use force in proportion to that which you are being attacked by.
I’d check that one Dave.
Written by:
Firetom and Stone- to be frank I'm a little disgusted with you both you said some real rubbish in your last posts- I'm not even going to say anyhting more, I'm leaving it at that.
Dave are u serious? What happened to you Buddhist training and vegan principals? .
Stout
Written by:
What it really comes down to is just which side of the personal responsibility debate you're really on. I see no 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 by one is.
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.
Stout if America demands that it's citizens act responsibly, then why do so many kill each other?
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:
PS Lurch
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.
PS Lurch
Written by:
For the last time, we're not brainwashed. If we were, EVERYONE would have guns, and they don't.
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.
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:
Good morning gentlemen... bait and tackle.
Could you please specify what exactly you're referring to? And why you are using that smiley?
Re. the case: To me - it sounds a little odd to believe that two (armed) kids come to a porch and point gun/s at a young man, who is then able to draw his own and shoot one of those two kids (several times) in the chest, without them firing even a single shot. Something just doesn't feel right about it. However, now the alleged "accomplice" runs away and... gets charged with murder... Not having fired a single shot... This is, what wonders me about US legislation... 
But I am asking anyone here: who do you think you are, when saying that *the ultimate evil* deserves to die? Why would one be willing to make such a judgement - especially if it's exclusively based upon media coverage.
This - to me - is very scary...
However, IMO "killing over material possessions is (absolutely) wrong", no matter whether it is about my DVD at home, or oil in Iraq.
In above scenario I would not charge the young man under the ruling: "in dubio pro reo", but certainly not charge the "accomplice" with murder, potentially putting him on death row...
Happy Sunday.
Good morning gentlemen... bait and tackle.
Written by: onewheeldave
I've had a change of heart with this thread.
I still think there's a problem with US gun laws, but I'm really sickened by some of what Firetom and Stone have said in their last posts.
(...)
Firetom and Stone- to be frank I'm a little disgusted with you both
Could you please specify what exactly you're referring to? And why you are using that smiley? Re. the case: To me - it sounds a little odd to believe that two (armed) kids come to a porch and point gun/s at a young man, who is then able to draw his own and shoot one of those two kids (several times) in the chest, without them firing even a single shot. Something just doesn't feel right about it. However, now the alleged "accomplice" runs away and... gets charged with murder...
Not having fired a single shot... This is, what wonders me about US legislation... But I am asking anyone here: who do you think you are, when saying that *the ultimate evil* deserves to die? Why would one be willing to make such a judgement - especially if it's exclusively based upon media coverage.
This - to me - is very scary...
However, IMO "killing over material possessions is (absolutely) wrong", no matter whether it is about my DVD at home, or oil in Iraq.
In above scenario I would not charge the young man under the ruling: "in dubio pro reo", but certainly not charge the "accomplice" with murder, potentially putting him on death row...
Happy Sunday.
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:
Why don't you cut to the chase and say what it is you think I've misunderstood about UK self-defense laws.
My principles are intact, which is why I never go looking for trouble and have never initiated violence.
And I believe that that is the best way to be and that the world would certainly be a much better place if everyone lived by the same principles.
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 vey 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.
Written by: StoneWritten by:
No, it's still here- you can use force in proportion to that which you are being attacked by.
I’d check that one Dave.
Why don't you cut to the chase and say what it is you think I've misunderstood about UK self-defense laws.
Written by: Stone
Dave are u serious? What happened to you Buddhist training and vegan principals? .
My principles are intact, which is why I never go looking for trouble and have never initiated violence.
And I believe that that is the best way to be and that the world would certainly be a much better place if everyone lived by the same principles.
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 vey 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.
"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:
I understand your concern, you're thinking that this has possibily been misreported.
Let me clarify that what I said about the rights of a intended victim to defend themselves against a gunman, were said in response to a post which denied that right.
.i.e. if the scenario described above was true, then it was, IMO, OK to shoot the gun person.
In general, if a mugger points a gun at a victim, that victim is entitled to defend themselves by shooting them.
Written by: FireTom
But I am asking anyone here: who do you think you are, when saying that *the ultimate evil* deserves to die? Why would one be willing to make such a judgement - especially if it's exclusively based upon media coverage.
This - to me - is very scary...
I understand your concern, you're thinking that this has possibily been misreported.
Let me clarify that what I said about the rights of a intended victim to defend themselves against a gunman, were said in response to a post which denied that right.
.i.e. if the scenario described above was true, then it was, IMO, OK to shoot the gun person.
In general, if a mugger points a gun at a victim, that victim is entitled to defend themselves by shooting them.
"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:
And I am not denying the right for self defence. But I guess we're getting caught up in terms again, when I am saying that there is a vast open landscape between "it's okay(...)" and "deserve(...)", but English is only my second lingo.
a) yes - as usual - there is a chance that the case has been misreported and
b) the accomplice - IMO - ain't guilty of murder
c) nobody "deserves" to die
That's all I was saying - would you now please tell me what is "disgusting" 'bout it?
And I am not denying the right for self defence. But I guess we're getting caught up in terms again, when I am saying that there is a vast open landscape between "it's okay(...)" and "deserve(...)", but English is only my second lingo.
a) yes - as usual - there is a chance that the case has been misreported and
b) the accomplice - IMO - ain't guilty of murder
c) nobody "deserves" to die
That's all I was saying - would you now please tell me what is "disgusting" 'bout it?
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:
'Disgusting' was directed towards the point of view that a man should be condemned for defending himself using reasonable force.
As it turns out, you apparently agree that self defense is OK, so it looks like you didn't actually hold that point of view.
Perhaps part of it was, as you say, due to the context in which 'deserve' is understood.
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.
'Disgusting' was directed towards the point of view that a man should be condemned for defending himself using reasonable force.
As it turns out, you apparently agree that self defense is OK, so it looks like you didn't actually hold that point of view.
Perhaps part of it was, as you say, due to the context in which 'deserve' is understood.
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.
"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