Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"
Login/Join to ParticipateStargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws.
Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. “If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.”
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passenger’s feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead man’s uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. “He had a radio,” Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. “He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.”
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. “However,” Ms. Haughwout said, “there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.”
“Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to ‘retreat to the wall’ before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force,” Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen’s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
“I was no threat,” Mr. Rosenbloom said. “I had no weapon.”
The men exchanged heated words. “He closed the door and then opened the door,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. “He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.”
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
“I have a right,” Mr. Allen said, “to keep my house safe.”
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorado’s Make My Day Law. “Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving,” the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hill’s home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, “However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller.” She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jury’s decision. She also said, “At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.”
“Trust me,” wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, “this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.”
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws.
Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. “If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.”
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passenger’s feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead man’s uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. “He had a radio,” Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. “He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.”
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. “However,” Ms. Haughwout said, “there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.”
“Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to ‘retreat to the wall’ before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force,” Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen’s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
“I was no threat,” Mr. Rosenbloom said. “I had no weapon.”
The men exchanged heated words. “He closed the door and then opened the door,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. “He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.”
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
“I have a right,” Mr. Allen said, “to keep my house safe.”
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorado’s Make My Day Law. “Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving,” the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hill’s home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, “However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller.” She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jury’s decision. She also said, “At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.”
“Trust me,” wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, “this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.”
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: MNSPromoting peace is important... not just on an international scale, but on a local scale, how often do you snap at people you love just because you're frustrated? They're there to help you.
Mother Natures Son, you raise some excellent points. The path to living in a peaceful society starts with each indiuidual. Learning to control frustration is part of that process.
Quote:Obviously international violence can't be solved by flowers and peace alone, its escalated well beyond that... but "preemptive strikes" really ought to be cut down and if possible not used at all.
A nation that strikes out at another nation is an easy one to create negative propaganda about. Hate to the point of violence isnt ingrained in humans, it has to be incited.
Violence is not always about hate, a lot of the time (most of the time) it’s about greed. Wanting other peoples partners, possessions or territory.
Originally Posted By: MNSPromoting peace is important... not just on an international scale, but on a local scale, how often do you snap at people you love just because you're frustrated? They're there to help you.
Mother Natures Son, you raise some excellent points. The path to living in a peaceful society starts with each indiuidual. Learning to control frustration is part of that process.
Quote:Obviously international violence can't be solved by flowers and peace alone, its escalated well beyond that... but "preemptive strikes" really ought to be cut down and if possible not used at all.
A nation that strikes out at another nation is an easy one to create negative propaganda about. Hate to the point of violence isnt ingrained in humans, it has to be incited.
Violence is not always about hate, a lot of the time (most of the time) it’s about greed. Wanting other peoples partners, possessions or territory.
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
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
True point on violence not only being about hate, I was thinking too much of the Gaza situation in which it was about greedy zealotism and as disintegrated merely into hate in order to continue the conflict.
I absent-mindedly allowed myself to overstate the interaction hate and greed have with one another.
True point on violence not only being about hate, I was thinking too much of the Gaza situation in which it was about greedy zealotism and as disintegrated merely into hate in order to continue the conflict.
I absent-mindedly allowed myself to overstate the interaction hate and greed have with one another.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
I'd say it's only too late when you're dead... lying on the pavement, shot down by some loggerhead or worse, by your own hand.
Once the forefathers of the United States were considered terrorists to the British crown - only history turns them into heroes. And when asked, they turn back into terrorists in the eyes of the Iraqi, the Pakistani and other who get/got bombed... so it's all a matter of perspective.
Personally I don't care whether guns or people kill people - in the end all that matters is that people GOT killed WITH guns, and that it's much too easy to kill - with a gun at hand.
Originally Posted By: LA timesLOS ANGELES, Dec. 26, 2008 (Reuters) — A man who dressed as Santa Claus to kill nine Christmas Eve party guests before taking his own life had been divorced just a week when he unleashed a hail of gunfire and flames that seemed intended for his former wife and in-laws, officials said on Friday.
Authorities in the suburban town of Covina, 23 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles, still were trying to comprehend what drove Bruce Jeffrey Pardo, 45, a jobless engineer and longtime church usher, to carry out his fiery rampage.
But survivors told police Pardo seemed to zero in on his ex-spouse and her relatives after he burst into her parents' home at about 11:30 p.m. on Wednesday night, opening fire with four handguns on about 25 party guests there.
"It appears he did have some intended targets, those being family members in the immediate family of his ex-wife," Covina Police Chief Kim Raney told reporters at a news conference.
After running out of bullets, Pardo used a makeshift gas dispenser to spray the inside of the home with a combustible vapor consisting partly of auto-racing fuel, which quickly ignited in an explosion, gutting the dwelling, police said.
The bodies of nine victims, charred beyond recognition, were recovered from the house. Pardo's ex-wife, Sylvia Ortega, 43, and her parents were believed to be among the dead.
Ed Winter, assistant chief coroner for Los Angeles County, said medical and dental records would be needed to identify the bodies, and autopsies to determine whether victims died in the gunfire or the explosion and fire that followed.
Pardo himself suffered third-degree burns in the blast, which melted the Santa suit onto his body. He then fled to his brother's house about 40 miles away, where authorities later found him dead from a gunshot wound to the head.
Some $17,000 in cash and airline tickets for a Thursday flight from Los Angeles to Canada were found on his body.
"All indications are that he intended to commit this crime and then flee the country," Raney said. "It appears ... he didn't anticipate injuring himself to the point where he obviously took his own life."
According to a copy of Pardo's resume and other information obtained by detectives, Pardo held degrees in electrical engineering and had worked for about nine years at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, ending in 1994.
Raney said Pardo lost his job at a radar company in October and that he and his former wife had finalized their divorce last Thursday in a proceeding the police chief described as "somewhat contentious." They had no children together.
A member of Pardo's Roman Catholic congregation in the community of Montrose, 13 miles north of downtown Los Angeles, told a newspaper that Pardo had been an usher for the past five or six years and was "just the nicest guy. He would do anything for the church."
Among those who survived the rampage were an 8-year-old girl who was shot in the face by Pardo when she opened the door for him, and a 16-year-old girl who was shot in the back as guests fled in horror.
The house was engulfed in flames when police arrived, about three minutes after someone made an emergency call. One girl jumped from a second-floor window to escape, Raney said.
In a final act of destruction encountered by authorities after Pardo had killed himself, his rental car was discovered to have been booby-trapped with the remnants of the Santa suit rigged to a homemade fire bomb.
The bomb ignited when authorities tried to defuse it, engulfing the car in flames, but no one was hurt, Raney said.
At Pardo's home, police found a supply of racing fuel, empty handgun boxes and two high-powered shotguns, Raney said.
*c'mon get up* Sylvia is not responding
*at least you: get up* Charles is unresponsive too
...
Doppelgangster that style of discussion is too often used sure you'll come to the argument: "but if a gun would have been in the house, they would have been able to defend themselves..."
Yeah right, because everybody is prepared for a killing spree on X-mas eve, right?
So everybody who has a house, lives in divorce, insulted someone, responded to an insult, didn't respond to an insult, drives a car, goes to shop for groceries, has groceries delivered to their house, goes to a bank, withdraws money from an ATM... celebrates x-mas at a house where one family member filed for divorce... should be prepared and carry a gun?
I'd say it's only too late when you're dead... lying on the pavement, shot down by some loggerhead
or worse, by your own hand.Once the forefathers of the United States were considered terrorists to the British crown - only history turns them into heroes. And when asked, they turn back into terrorists in the eyes of the Iraqi, the Pakistani and other who get/got bombed... so it's all a matter of perspective.
Personally I don't care whether guns or people kill people - in the end all that matters is that people GOT killed WITH guns, and that it's much too easy to kill - with a gun at hand.
Originally Posted By: LA timesLOS ANGELES, Dec. 26, 2008 (Reuters) — A man who dressed as Santa Claus to kill nine Christmas Eve party guests before taking his own life had been divorced just a week when he unleashed a hail of gunfire and flames that seemed intended for his former wife and in-laws, officials said on Friday.
Authorities in the suburban town of Covina, 23 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles, still were trying to comprehend what drove Bruce Jeffrey Pardo, 45, a jobless engineer and longtime church usher, to carry out his fiery rampage.
But survivors told police Pardo seemed to zero in on his ex-spouse and her relatives after he burst into her parents' home at about 11:30 p.m. on Wednesday night, opening fire with four handguns on about 25 party guests there.
"It appears he did have some intended targets, those being family members in the immediate family of his ex-wife," Covina Police Chief Kim Raney told reporters at a news conference.
After running out of bullets, Pardo used a makeshift gas dispenser to spray the inside of the home with a combustible vapor consisting partly of auto-racing fuel, which quickly ignited in an explosion, gutting the dwelling, police said.
The bodies of nine victims, charred beyond recognition, were recovered from the house. Pardo's ex-wife, Sylvia Ortega, 43, and her parents were believed to be among the dead.
Ed Winter, assistant chief coroner for Los Angeles County, said medical and dental records would be needed to identify the bodies, and autopsies to determine whether victims died in the gunfire or the explosion and fire that followed.
Pardo himself suffered third-degree burns in the blast, which melted the Santa suit onto his body. He then fled to his brother's house about 40 miles away, where authorities later found him dead from a gunshot wound to the head.
Some $17,000 in cash and airline tickets for a Thursday flight from Los Angeles to Canada were found on his body.
"All indications are that he intended to commit this crime and then flee the country," Raney said. "It appears ... he didn't anticipate injuring himself to the point where he obviously took his own life."
According to a copy of Pardo's resume and other information obtained by detectives, Pardo held degrees in electrical engineering and had worked for about nine years at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, ending in 1994.
Raney said Pardo lost his job at a radar company in October and that he and his former wife had finalized their divorce last Thursday in a proceeding the police chief described as "somewhat contentious." They had no children together.
A member of Pardo's Roman Catholic congregation in the community of Montrose, 13 miles north of downtown Los Angeles, told a newspaper that Pardo had been an usher for the past five or six years and was "just the nicest guy. He would do anything for the church."
Among those who survived the rampage were an 8-year-old girl who was shot in the face by Pardo when she opened the door for him, and a 16-year-old girl who was shot in the back as guests fled in horror.
The house was engulfed in flames when police arrived, about three minutes after someone made an emergency call. One girl jumped from a second-floor window to escape, Raney said.
In a final act of destruction encountered by authorities after Pardo had killed himself, his rental car was discovered to have been booby-trapped with the remnants of the Santa suit rigged to a homemade fire bomb.
The bomb ignited when authorities tried to defuse it, engulfing the car in flames, but no one was hurt, Raney said.
At Pardo's home, police found a supply of racing fuel, empty handgun boxes and two high-powered shotguns, Raney said.
*c'mon get up* Sylvia is not responding
*at least you: get up* Charles is unresponsive too
...
Doppelgangster that style of discussion is too often used
sure you'll come to the argument: "but if a gun would have been in the house, they would have been able to defend themselves..."Yeah right, because everybody is prepared for a killing spree on X-mas eve, right?
So everybody who has a house, lives in divorce, insulted someone, responded to an insult, didn't respond to an insult, drives a car, goes to shop for groceries, has groceries delivered to their house, goes to a bank, withdraws money from an ATM... celebrates x-mas at a house where one family member filed for divorce... should be prepared and carry a gun?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Posted:
Actually yeah, I carry my .45 with me everywhere but school... It's called a concealed carry license, you take a class and get one so when santa (not a gun) attacks you can kill him. And don't call me a gangster, it's rather insulting.
EDITED_BY: doppelGanger (1232254962)
Actually yeah, I carry my .45 with me everywhere but school... It's called a concealed carry license, you take a class and get one so when santa (not a gun) attacks you can kill him. And don't call me a gangster, it's rather insulting.
EDITED_BY: doppelGanger (1232254962)
Human
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: doppelGanger Yes Stone, I and everyone else want to live in a constant state of violence...
That may be an attempt at sarcasm, but what you have just said is that you want to live in a constant state of violence. If you don’t want to live in a state of violence, then don’t make statements like that.
Originally Posted By: doppelGangerOwning a weapon is not about using it. I don't think more than two people I know even have a clue what I keep in my home. Owning a weapon does not make you a violent person, nor does it make you a bad one. The point that keeps soaring over your head is that if and when the day comes, I will be prepared to protect myself and my family. And IF the government I live under becomes tyrannical to the point that people need to fight to overcome it, I will be right there with them.
If owning a weapon is not about using it, then why do you need an assault rifle? As you say, if “that day” comes you do intend to use it. So, what you are really saying is that you have an AR-15 assault rifle because you intend to use it. I’ve asked this before, where does the paranoia about being prepared for “that day” that infects many Americans come from? People in other countries do not live in fear.
Originally Posted By: doppelGanger You blindly seem to think that we run around shooting each other all day, you just don't get it. You think our streets are full of thugs and shootings, they are not. The percent of people that own weapons to hunt and protect themselves far outweigh the gang-bangers that get their kicks off robbing liquor stores and what-not.
Perhaps you could explain where your idea that my society is driven on guns and violence comes from, as you obviously have no ******* clue. I have about had it with you, as you don't stop to think about a damn thing I say, and I feel like your views are BS. You have no understanding of survival, no understanding of depending on just yourself, no understanding of what owning a gun is really like. Personally I think you have watched to many movies.
I get the idea that your society is driven on guns and violence from the National Rifleman's Association, and affiliates.
Originally Posted By: doppelGanger Yes Stone, I and everyone else want to live in a constant state of violence...
That may be an attempt at sarcasm, but what you have just said is that you want to live in a constant state of violence. If you don’t want to live in a state of violence, then don’t make statements like that.
Originally Posted By: doppelGangerOwning a weapon is not about using it. I don't think more than two people I know even have a clue what I keep in my home. Owning a weapon does not make you a violent person, nor does it make you a bad one. The point that keeps soaring over your head is that if and when the day comes, I will be prepared to protect myself and my family. And IF the government I live under becomes tyrannical to the point that people need to fight to overcome it, I will be right there with them.
If owning a weapon is not about using it, then why do you need an assault rifle? As you say, if “that day” comes you do intend to use it. So, what you are really saying is that you have an AR-15 assault rifle because you intend to use it. I’ve asked this before, where does the paranoia about being prepared for “that day” that infects many Americans come from? People in other countries do not live in fear.
Originally Posted By: doppelGanger You blindly seem to think that we run around shooting each other all day, you just don't get it. You think our streets are full of thugs and shootings, they are not. The percent of people that own weapons to hunt and protect themselves far outweigh the gang-bangers that get their kicks off robbing liquor stores and what-not.
Perhaps you could explain where your idea that my society is driven on guns and violence comes from, as you obviously have no ******* clue. I have about had it with you, as you don't stop to think about a damn thing I say, and I feel like your views are BS. You have no understanding of survival, no understanding of depending on just yourself, no understanding of what owning a gun is really like. Personally I think you have watched to many movies.
I get the idea that your society is driven on guns and violence from the National Rifleman's Association, and affiliates.
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
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Posted:
Originally Posted By: StoneOriginally Posted By: doppelGanger Yes Stone, I and everyone else want to live in a constant state of violence...
That may be an attempt at sarcasm, but what you have just said is that you want to live in a constant state of violence. If you don’t want to live in a state of violence, then don’t make statements like that.
Originally Posted By: doppelGangerOwning a weapon is not about using it. I don't think more than two people I know even have a clue what I keep in my home. Owning a weapon does not make you a violent person, nor does it make you a bad one. The point that keeps soaring over your head is that if and when the day comes, I will be prepared to protect myself and my family. And IF the government I live under becomes tyrannical to the point that people need to fight to overcome it, I will be right there with them.
If owning a weapon is not about using it, then why do you need an assault rifle? As you say, if “that day” comes you do intend to use it. So, what you are really saying is that you have an AR-15 assault rifle because you intend to use it. I’ve asked this before, where does the paranoia about being prepared for “that day” that infects many Americans come from? People in other countries do not live in fear.
Originally Posted By: doppelGanger You blindly seem to think that we run around shooting each other all day, you just don't get it. You think our streets are full of thugs and shootings, they are not. The percent of people that own weapons to hunt and protect themselves far outweigh the gang-bangers that get their kicks off robbing liquor stores and what-not.
Perhaps you could explain where your idea that my society is driven on guns and violence comes from, as you obviously have no ******* clue. I have about had it with you, as you don't stop to think about a damn thing I say, and I feel like your views are BS. You have no understanding of survival, no understanding of depending on just yourself, no understanding of what owning a gun is really like. Personally I think you have watched to many movies.
I get the idea that your society is driven on guns and violence from the National Rifleman's Association, and affiliates.
Yes Stone, it was sarcasm, as the ensuing mutter should have pointed out. Yes stone, I will shoot people. No stone, the nra is not something we bow down and worship, it is an association that fights for our freedoms.
Originally Posted By: StoneOriginally Posted By: doppelGanger Yes Stone, I and everyone else want to live in a constant state of violence...
That may be an attempt at sarcasm, but what you have just said is that you want to live in a constant state of violence. If you don’t want to live in a state of violence, then don’t make statements like that.
Originally Posted By: doppelGangerOwning a weapon is not about using it. I don't think more than two people I know even have a clue what I keep in my home. Owning a weapon does not make you a violent person, nor does it make you a bad one. The point that keeps soaring over your head is that if and when the day comes, I will be prepared to protect myself and my family. And IF the government I live under becomes tyrannical to the point that people need to fight to overcome it, I will be right there with them.
If owning a weapon is not about using it, then why do you need an assault rifle? As you say, if “that day” comes you do intend to use it. So, what you are really saying is that you have an AR-15 assault rifle because you intend to use it. I’ve asked this before, where does the paranoia about being prepared for “that day” that infects many Americans come from? People in other countries do not live in fear.
Originally Posted By: doppelGanger You blindly seem to think that we run around shooting each other all day, you just don't get it. You think our streets are full of thugs and shootings, they are not. The percent of people that own weapons to hunt and protect themselves far outweigh the gang-bangers that get their kicks off robbing liquor stores and what-not.
Perhaps you could explain where your idea that my society is driven on guns and violence comes from, as you obviously have no ******* clue. I have about had it with you, as you don't stop to think about a damn thing I say, and I feel like your views are BS. You have no understanding of survival, no understanding of depending on just yourself, no understanding of what owning a gun is really like. Personally I think you have watched to many movies.
I get the idea that your society is driven on guns and violence from the National Rifleman's Association, and affiliates.
Yes Stone, it was sarcasm, as the ensuing mutter should have pointed out. Yes stone, I will shoot people. No stone, the nra is not something we bow down and worship, it is an association that fights for our freedoms.
Human
SILVER Member
Funky Blessings Daily
215 posts
Location: USA
Funky Blessings Daily
215 posts
Location: USA
Posted:
Stone amd truthsetsfree
I had a long LONG response to the things you've said.
I think it's better off being concise. You two are attempting to make a black and white issue out of humanity at large. Of course people don't want criminals to have guns, but I can bet you money gang members aren't buying their guns at the hunting section of wal*mart.
I am curious how many of you drive beneath the speed limit at all times, signal at least 2 seconds ahead of any turn or lane change, keep 2 seconds of space between you and the car ahead of you as an absolute minimum, 4 seconds on highways.
For all of you that break traffic laws, you are criminally endangering people's lives.
I bring this up because people's driving habits are not clear indicators of whether or not they are a bad person, they're just a bad driver. Same goes for everything else, the world is not black and white, and we need to understand that.
Stone amd truthsetsfree
I had a long LONG response to the things you've said.
I think it's better off being concise. You two are attempting to make a black and white issue out of humanity at large. Of course people don't want criminals to have guns, but I can bet you money gang members aren't buying their guns at the hunting section of wal*mart.
I am curious how many of you drive beneath the speed limit at all times, signal at least 2 seconds ahead of any turn or lane change, keep 2 seconds of space between you and the car ahead of you as an absolute minimum, 4 seconds on highways.
For all of you that break traffic laws, you are criminally endangering people's lives.
I bring this up because people's driving habits are not clear indicators of whether or not they are a bad person, they're just a bad driver. Same goes for everything else, the world is not black and white, and we need to understand that.
SILVER Member
Funky Blessings Daily
215 posts
Location: USA
Funky Blessings Daily
215 posts
Location: USA
Posted:
Originally Posted By: StonedoppelGanger, I think the problem is a lot of people don’t want to live in a society based on peace and harmony. Perhaps you could explain to attraction of living in a society that is based on guns and violence?
I'm sorry to be rude but that's insane.
I had a lengthy discussion with a friend about this I'll try to shorten it.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I don't think anyone has woken up and said "today I'm gonna do evil because it's the evil thing to do.
Here is a man who truly feels that he was attempting to help society as a whole. That his murders were justified by their greater meaning. This is a brilliant man who some how separated from normal humanity.
We all want happiness, we all want freedom. This is a generalization but I'm sure for the most part, we all want a good life. We just don't agree on what makes a good life, or how to get to it.
Edit: I really hope that statement was facetious. Due to the fact that I can't know from text alone, my response remains.
EDITED_BY: MRC (1232414422)
Originally Posted By: StonedoppelGanger, I think the problem is a lot of people don’t want to live in a society based on peace and harmony. Perhaps you could explain to attraction of living in a society that is based on guns and violence?
I'm sorry to be rude but that's insane.
I had a lengthy discussion with a friend about this I'll try to shorten it.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I don't think anyone has woken up and said "today I'm gonna do evil because it's the evil thing to do.
Here is a man who truly feels that he was attempting to help society as a whole. That his murders were justified by their greater meaning. This is a brilliant man who some how separated from normal humanity.
We all want happiness, we all want freedom. This is a generalization but I'm sure for the most part, we all want a good life. We just don't agree on what makes a good life, or how to get to it.
Edit: I really hope that statement was facetious. Due to the fact that I can't know from text alone, my response remains.
EDITED_BY: MRC (1232414422)
GOLD Member
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Posted:
MRC: Thank you.
MRC: Thank you.
Human
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Hi MRC,
Firstly, I suggest that you read Stout’s most excellent summary in the school shooting thread, it's good background.
Originally Posted By: MRC..."The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I don't think anyone has woken up and said "today I'm gonna do evil because it's the evil thing to do.
Actually, I think it’s about time people actually “woke-up”! Hey, if you ain’t planning to do evil, the why you sleeping with a Glock under the pillow, and an assault rifle under the bed?
Originally Posted By: MRCHere is a man who truly feels that he was attempting to help society as a whole. That his murders were justified by their greater meaning. This is a brilliant man who some how separated from normal humanity.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, I think it’s interesting that you use the example of the Unabomber to justify the possession of firearms. Part of that is because it’s not about people needing guns to protect themselves from Unabombers. No, it’s because it’s similar to the “we need to have weapons to help society by protecting the good citizens”, line of reasoning. The line often used to justify personal ownership of assault weapons, and the “Make My Day” law.
Originally Posted By: StonedoppelGanger, I think the problem is a lot of people don’t want to live in a society based on peace and harmony. Perhaps you could explain to attraction of living in a society that is based on guns and violence?
Originally Posted By: MRCI'm sorry, to be rude but that's insane.
MRC, how is it insane to suggest that people could live in harmony? The reason we live in a violent world is because that is how we want to live. Otherwise, we would change how we live. So, it’s really about deciding how we want to “live”!
Hi MRC,
Firstly, I suggest that you read Stout’s most excellent summary in the school shooting thread, it's good background.
Originally Posted By: MRC..."The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I don't think anyone has woken up and said "today I'm gonna do evil because it's the evil thing to do.
Actually, I think it’s about time people actually “woke-up”! Hey, if you ain’t planning to do evil, the why you sleeping with a Glock under the pillow, and an assault rifle under the bed?
Originally Posted By: MRCHere is a man who truly feels that he was attempting to help society as a whole. That his murders were justified by their greater meaning. This is a brilliant man who some how separated from normal humanity.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, I think it’s interesting that you use the example of the Unabomber to justify the possession of firearms. Part of that is because it’s not about people needing guns to protect themselves from Unabombers. No, it’s because it’s similar to the “we need to have weapons to help society by protecting the good citizens”, line of reasoning. The line often used to justify personal ownership of assault weapons, and the “Make My Day” law.
Originally Posted By: StonedoppelGanger, I think the problem is a lot of people don’t want to live in a society based on peace and harmony. Perhaps you could explain to attraction of living in a society that is based on guns and violence?
Originally Posted By: MRCI'm sorry, to be rude but that's insane.
MRC, how is it insane to suggest that people could live in harmony? The reason we live in a violent world is because that is how we want to live. Otherwise, we would change how we live. So, it’s really about deciding how we want to “live”!
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
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Posted:
Originally Posted By: StoneHi MRC,
Firstly, I suggest that you read Stout’s most excellent summary in the school shooting thread, it's good background.
Originally Posted By: MRC..."The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I don't think anyone has woken up and said "today I'm gonna do evil because it's the evil thing to do.
Actually, I think it’s about time people actually “woke-up”! Hey, if you ain’t planning to do evil, the why you sleeping with a Glock under the pillow, and an assault rifle under the bed?
Originally Posted By: MRCHere is a man who truly feels that he was attempting to help society as a whole. That his murders were justified by their greater meaning. This is a brilliant man who some how separated from normal humanity.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, I think it’s interesting that you use the example of the Unabomber to justify the possession of firearms. Part of that is because it’s not about people needing guns to protect themselves from Unabombers. No, it’s because it’s similar to the “we need to have weapons to help society by protecting the good citizens”, line of reasoning. The line often used to justify personal ownership of assault weapons, and the “Make My Day” law.
Originally Posted By: StonedoppelGanger, I think the problem is a lot of people don’t want to live in a society based on peace and harmony. Perhaps you could explain to attraction of living in a society that is based on guns and violence?
Originally Posted By: MRCI'm sorry, to be rude but that's insane.
MRC, how is it insane to suggest that people could live in harmony? The reason we live in a violent world is because that is how we want to live. Otherwise, we would change how we live. So, it’s really about deciding how we want to “live”!
This entire post is antagonistic bullshit.
You took absolutely everything the way you wanted to just so you could argue more. If you think everyone that owns a gun plans to do evil with it you're a moron, bottom line.
Originally Posted By: StoneHi MRC,
Firstly, I suggest that you read Stout’s most excellent summary in the school shooting thread, it's good background.
Originally Posted By: MRC..."The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I don't think anyone has woken up and said "today I'm gonna do evil because it's the evil thing to do.
Actually, I think it’s about time people actually “woke-up”! Hey, if you ain’t planning to do evil, the why you sleeping with a Glock under the pillow, and an assault rifle under the bed?
Originally Posted By: MRCHere is a man who truly feels that he was attempting to help society as a whole. That his murders were justified by their greater meaning. This is a brilliant man who some how separated from normal humanity.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, I think it’s interesting that you use the example of the Unabomber to justify the possession of firearms. Part of that is because it’s not about people needing guns to protect themselves from Unabombers. No, it’s because it’s similar to the “we need to have weapons to help society by protecting the good citizens”, line of reasoning. The line often used to justify personal ownership of assault weapons, and the “Make My Day” law.
Originally Posted By: StonedoppelGanger, I think the problem is a lot of people don’t want to live in a society based on peace and harmony. Perhaps you could explain to attraction of living in a society that is based on guns and violence?
Originally Posted By: MRCI'm sorry, to be rude but that's insane.
MRC, how is it insane to suggest that people could live in harmony? The reason we live in a violent world is because that is how we want to live. Otherwise, we would change how we live. So, it’s really about deciding how we want to “live”!
This entire post is antagonistic bullshit.
You took absolutely everything the way you wanted to just so you could argue more. If you think everyone that owns a gun plans to do evil with it you're a moron, bottom line.
Human
SILVER Member
Funky Blessings Daily
215 posts
Location: USA
Funky Blessings Daily
215 posts
Location: USA
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Stone
Originally Posted By: MRC..."The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I don't think anyone has woken up and said "today I'm gonna do evil because it's the evil thing to do.
Actually, I think it’s about time people actually “woke-up”! Hey, if you ain’t planning to do evil, the why you sleeping with a Glock under the pillow, and an assault rifle under the bed?
I smell straw-man. I have never met a single person in my life who does such a thing. And if someone planned to do EVIL with a gun it'd probably be in their hand, not under them while they sleep. Having a gun nearby in that sense indicates some frightening paranoia, but not much else.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: MRCHere is a man who truly feels that he was attempting to help society as a whole. That his murders were justified by their greater meaning. This is a brilliant man who some how separated from normal humanity.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, I think it’s interesting that you use the example of the Unabomber to justify the possession of firearms. Part of that is because it’s not about people needing guns to protect themselves from Unabombers. No, it’s because it’s similar to the “we need to have weapons to help society by protecting the good citizens”, line of reasoning. The line often used to justify personal ownership of assault weapons, and the “Make My Day” law.
I honestly don't think people need assault weapons, I don't think we can justify taking property from a law abiding individual, they are innocent before guilty after all, and until guilty they are legal gun owners.
As for Ted Kaczynski see bellow.
Quote:Originally Posted By: StonedoppelGanger, I think the problem is a lot of people don’t want to live in a society based on peace and harmony. Perhaps you could explain to attraction of living in a society that is based on guns and violence?
Originally Posted By: MRCI'm sorry, to be rude but that's insane.
MRC, how is it insane to suggest that people could live in harmony? The reason we live in a violent world is because that is how we want to live. Otherwise, we would change how we live. So, it’s really about deciding how we want to “live”!
Yes and no. You missed the point of The Unabomber. Not only did you miss the point you connected it to an entirely different one.
I don't want to live in a violent world. I advocate strongly against violence, I don't strike friends even jokingly, and they know I don't appreciate it either. (golden rule type stuff). I don't think Rwandans at large are very joyous over the constant fear of death. I hope this isn't a real opinion because it is so simple minded I am astonished.
Yes we are all the determinants of our own lives. Karma (or common sense for that matter) tells us that we are the only ones responsible for the things we face in life. I believe in this. At the same time, I think a child who grew up in Gaza, probably hasn't different odds playing against them. No choice of theirs can change the fact that perhaps something will blow up just a little too close to them and they may lose a leg. Though I digress.
I love a blue a sky. When it's sunny, brisk, and white fluffy clouds hang in the air I feel great. It makes me want to make art. I like to dance more, draw more, and write more on these days. I know some people who thrive on gray skies. To them, that is gorgeous. MY favorite colors are roughly purple, blue and pink. My brother is VERY fond of green and a friend I grew up with adores red. What I am attempting to illustrate here is that we have different ideas of what is good. These are very simple decisions too, the complex ones, with more variables, probably have more varied outcome. Like when is violence appropriate? Ideally, never, realistically? Who can say. I'd imagine it starts at the imminent threat to safety of yourself or others, when no other means will subdue the threat. How clearly the line of threat is drawn is still blurry, and many people will disagree.
Perhaps you think violence is NEVER appropriate, and that just further illustrates the point.
There is no perfect good. I repeat, again, I repeat again, there is no perfect good. How we deal with that is obviously still an issue to humanity at large, and maybe one day more people will have like-minded ideas on how to deal with differences. Your opinion isn't law, fact, or inherently just. No one is a criminal until they've committed a crime and no one is inherently evil, only potentially evil. We are ALL potentially evil and you may do more damage with bad drivin' than a gun.
https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480727,00.html
This happened VERY close to my home. This was almost invariably the result of unsafe driving in poor conditions. Someone made a mistake while driving and did this.
I want to continue to drive this point home that guns aren't the only dangerous thing, they aren't the only cause of death, the only resource for evil, or even misfortune. This idea that simply owning a gun makes you a bad person is outlandish, it just makes you a gun owner, and typically it also means you've never committed a violent crime(so far as the courts know).
Originally Posted By: Stone
Originally Posted By: MRC..."The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I don't think anyone has woken up and said "today I'm gonna do evil because it's the evil thing to do.
Actually, I think it’s about time people actually “woke-up”! Hey, if you ain’t planning to do evil, the why you sleeping with a Glock under the pillow, and an assault rifle under the bed?
I smell straw-man. I have never met a single person in my life who does such a thing. And if someone planned to do EVIL with a gun it'd probably be in their hand, not under them while they sleep. Having a gun nearby in that sense indicates some frightening paranoia, but not much else.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: MRCHere is a man who truly feels that he was attempting to help society as a whole. That his murders were justified by their greater meaning. This is a brilliant man who some how separated from normal humanity.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, I think it’s interesting that you use the example of the Unabomber to justify the possession of firearms. Part of that is because it’s not about people needing guns to protect themselves from Unabombers. No, it’s because it’s similar to the “we need to have weapons to help society by protecting the good citizens”, line of reasoning. The line often used to justify personal ownership of assault weapons, and the “Make My Day” law.
I honestly don't think people need assault weapons, I don't think we can justify taking property from a law abiding individual, they are innocent before guilty after all, and until guilty they are legal gun owners.
As for Ted Kaczynski see bellow.
Quote:Originally Posted By: StonedoppelGanger, I think the problem is a lot of people don’t want to live in a society based on peace and harmony. Perhaps you could explain to attraction of living in a society that is based on guns and violence?
Originally Posted By: MRCI'm sorry, to be rude but that's insane.
MRC, how is it insane to suggest that people could live in harmony? The reason we live in a violent world is because that is how we want to live. Otherwise, we would change how we live. So, it’s really about deciding how we want to “live”!
Yes and no. You missed the point of The Unabomber. Not only did you miss the point you connected it to an entirely different one.
I don't want to live in a violent world. I advocate strongly against violence, I don't strike friends even jokingly, and they know I don't appreciate it either. (golden rule type stuff). I don't think Rwandans at large are very joyous over the constant fear of death. I hope this isn't a real opinion because it is so simple minded I am astonished.
Yes we are all the determinants of our own lives. Karma (or common sense for that matter) tells us that we are the only ones responsible for the things we face in life. I believe in this. At the same time, I think a child who grew up in Gaza, probably hasn't different odds playing against them. No choice of theirs can change the fact that perhaps something will blow up just a little too close to them and they may lose a leg. Though I digress.
I love a blue a sky. When it's sunny, brisk, and white fluffy clouds hang in the air I feel great. It makes me want to make art. I like to dance more, draw more, and write more on these days. I know some people who thrive on gray skies. To them, that is gorgeous. MY favorite colors are roughly purple, blue and pink. My brother is VERY fond of green and a friend I grew up with adores red. What I am attempting to illustrate here is that we have different ideas of what is good. These are very simple decisions too, the complex ones, with more variables, probably have more varied outcome. Like when is violence appropriate? Ideally, never, realistically? Who can say. I'd imagine it starts at the imminent threat to safety of yourself or others, when no other means will subdue the threat. How clearly the line of threat is drawn is still blurry, and many people will disagree.
Perhaps you think violence is NEVER appropriate, and that just further illustrates the point.
There is no perfect good. I repeat, again, I repeat again, there is no perfect good. How we deal with that is obviously still an issue to humanity at large, and maybe one day more people will have like-minded ideas on how to deal with differences. Your opinion isn't law, fact, or inherently just. No one is a criminal until they've committed a crime and no one is inherently evil, only potentially evil. We are ALL potentially evil and you may do more damage with bad drivin' than a gun.
https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480727,00.html
This happened VERY close to my home. This was almost invariably the result of unsafe driving in poor conditions. Someone made a mistake while driving and did this.
I want to continue to drive this point home that guns aren't the only dangerous thing, they aren't the only cause of death, the only resource for evil, or even misfortune. This idea that simply owning a gun makes you a bad person is outlandish, it just makes you a gun owner, and typically it also means you've never committed a violent crime(so far as the courts know).
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: MRCI smell straw-man. I have never met a single person in my life who does such a thing. And if someone planned to do EVIL with a gun it'd probably be in their hand, not under them while they sleep. Having a gun nearby in that sense indicates some frightening paranoia, but not much else.
It’s true, I am having difficultly following your line, but the point was the association between paranoia and weapons. It might not be against the law, but having a lot of NRA types running around playing soldier boy, because it’s their Second Amendment right, isn’t reassuring either.
Originally Posted By: MRCI don't want to live in a violent world. I advocate strongly against violence, I don't strike friends even jokingly, and they know I don't appreciate it either. (golden rule type stuff). I don't think Rwandans at large are very joyous over the constant fear of death. I hope this isn't a real opinion because it is so simple minded I am astonished.
Yes we are all the determinants of our own lives. Karma (or common sense for that matter) tells us that we are the only ones responsible for the things we face in life. I believe in this. At the same time, I think a child who grew up in Gaza, probably hasn't different odds playing against them. No choice of theirs can change the fact that perhaps something will blow up just a little too close to them and they may lose a leg. Though I digress.
I’m completely missing your point here with the negative associations, like:
Originally Posted By: MRC..I hope this isn't a real opinion because it is so simple minded I am astonished.
The golden rule is “You shall not kill” as in Exodus 20-13, for example. I don’t think we have different ideas of what is good here. It’s true that the wars in Rwanda, Gaza and Iraq etc are not caused by guns. Though, guns do exacerbate the situation, and they don’t help fix any of the fundamental problems. So, if you are asking if people with guns are bad karma, then yes people with guns are bad Karma (edit here).
Originally Posted By: MRCThere is no perfect good. I repeat, again, I repeat again, there is no perfect good. How we deal with that is obviously still an issue to humanity at large, and maybe one day more people will have like-minded ideas on how to deal with differences. Your opinion isn't law, fact, or inherently just. No one is a criminal until they've committed a crime and no one is inherently evil, only potentially evil. We are ALL potentially evil and you may do more damage with bad drivin' than a gun.
The real issue with guns, in addition to high murder and suicide rates, is the extremely high rate of gun accidents. Check out Kellermann. Edit: I had a link to wiki, but then I noticed that it had been heavily edited since my last visit. Suggest there may be more accurate references on Kellermann and his findings, as a emergency doctor, regarding the high accident rate caused by guns.
So, if you really like blue skys and sunny, brisk, and white fluffy clouds, then you might like this a bit from the Dhammapada:
1. Choices
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with a pure mind
And happiness will follow you
As your shadow, unshakable.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Live with such thoughts and you live in hate.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Abandon such thoughts, and live in love.
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1232571588)
Originally Posted By: MRCI smell straw-man. I have never met a single person in my life who does such a thing. And if someone planned to do EVIL with a gun it'd probably be in their hand, not under them while they sleep. Having a gun nearby in that sense indicates some frightening paranoia, but not much else.
It’s true, I am having difficultly following your line, but the point was the association between paranoia and weapons. It might not be against the law, but having a lot of NRA types running around playing soldier boy, because it’s their Second Amendment right, isn’t reassuring either.
Originally Posted By: MRCI don't want to live in a violent world. I advocate strongly against violence, I don't strike friends even jokingly, and they know I don't appreciate it either. (golden rule type stuff). I don't think Rwandans at large are very joyous over the constant fear of death. I hope this isn't a real opinion because it is so simple minded I am astonished.
Yes we are all the determinants of our own lives. Karma (or common sense for that matter) tells us that we are the only ones responsible for the things we face in life. I believe in this. At the same time, I think a child who grew up in Gaza, probably hasn't different odds playing against them. No choice of theirs can change the fact that perhaps something will blow up just a little too close to them and they may lose a leg. Though I digress.
I’m completely missing your point here with the negative associations, like:
Originally Posted By: MRC..I hope this isn't a real opinion because it is so simple minded I am astonished.
The golden rule is “You shall not kill” as in Exodus 20-13, for example. I don’t think we have different ideas of what is good here. It’s true that the wars in Rwanda, Gaza and Iraq etc are not caused by guns. Though, guns do exacerbate the situation, and they don’t help fix any of the fundamental problems. So, if you are asking if people with guns are bad karma, then yes people with guns are bad Karma (edit here).
Originally Posted By: MRCThere is no perfect good. I repeat, again, I repeat again, there is no perfect good. How we deal with that is obviously still an issue to humanity at large, and maybe one day more people will have like-minded ideas on how to deal with differences. Your opinion isn't law, fact, or inherently just. No one is a criminal until they've committed a crime and no one is inherently evil, only potentially evil. We are ALL potentially evil and you may do more damage with bad drivin' than a gun.
The real issue with guns, in addition to high murder and suicide rates, is the extremely high rate of gun accidents. Check out Kellermann. Edit: I had a link to wiki, but then I noticed that it had been heavily edited since my last visit. Suggest there may be more accurate references on Kellermann and his findings, as a emergency doctor, regarding the high accident rate caused by guns.
So, if you really like blue skys and sunny, brisk, and white fluffy clouds, then you might like this a bit from the Dhammapada:
1. Choices
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with a pure mind
And happiness will follow you
As your shadow, unshakable.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Live with such thoughts and you live in hate.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Abandon such thoughts, and live in love.
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1232571588)
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
Funky Blessings Daily
215 posts
Location: USA
Funky Blessings Daily
215 posts
Location: USA
Posted:
Originally Posted By: StoneOriginally Posted By: MRCI smell straw-man. I have never met a single person in my life who does such a thing. And if someone planned to do EVIL with a gun it'd probably be in their hand, not under them while they sleep. Having a gun nearby in that sense indicates some frightening paranoia, but not much else.
It’s true, I am having difficultly following your line, but the point was the association between paranoia and weapons. It might not be against the law, but having a lot of NRA types running around playing soldier boy, because it’s their Second Amendment right, isn’t reassuring either.
I suppose my point was that I have never met anyone playing soldier boy. I think they are a vocal minority at best.
Quote:
I’m completely missing your point here with the negative associations, like:
Originally Posted By: MRC..I hope this isn't a real opinion because it is so simple minded I am astonished.
The golden rule is “You shall not kill” as in Exodus 20-13, for example. I don’t think we have different ideas of what is good here. It’s true that the wars in Rwanda, Gaza and Iraq etc are not caused by guns. Though, guns do exacerbate the situation, and they don’t help fix any of the fundamental problems. So, if you are asking if people with guns are bad karma, then yes people with guns are bad Karma (edit here).
I'm not sure what the negative association thing was supposed to mean. I will clarify though that I simply think it's flat out wrong to suggest people WANT fear and pain.
I was referring to the colloquial golden rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." or other variations. Just the idea that one should treat people contrary to what they think is good treatment.
I'm not sure how to respond to people with guns being good or bad karma. I think we have a very fortunate position. I don't know about you but no one has ever fired a gun towards me. I can fathom though that if I was born into a world that violent, where some one could simply decide I looked enough like "the enemy" to kill me, I'd probably want to be able to protect myself. If any one side decided to be passive like Gandhi I'm sure the situation would end quickly, and not for good reasons.
Quote:
The real issue with guns, in addition to high murder and suicide rates, is the extremely high rate of gun accidents. Check out Kellermann. Edit: I had a link to wiki, but then I noticed that it had been heavily edited since my last visit. Suggest there may be more accurate references on Kellermann and his findings, as a emergency doctor, regarding the high accident rate caused by guns.
I'd kind of like to Avoid Kellermann as his findings appear to be controversial, and some times potentially moot.
Quote:So, if you really like blue skys and sunny, brisk, and white fluffy clouds, then you might like this a bit from the Dhammapada:
1. Choices
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with a pure mind
And happiness will follow you
As your shadow, unshakable.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Live with such thoughts and you live in hate.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Abandon such thoughts, and live in love.
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my satisfaction over particular weather patterns.
It sounds kind of "The Secret"ish. I understand perception colors reality, and a happy kind bias changes things. However, this kind of sounds...silly. I don't like our method of criminal punishment, but I don't think you should hug and thank your rapist because "I wasn't getting enough lately anyway."
I'd like to just again point out that life is variable. There is no black and white response to any real issue. ( I might be a hypocrite from time to time though)
Originally Posted By: StoneOriginally Posted By: MRCI smell straw-man. I have never met a single person in my life who does such a thing. And if someone planned to do EVIL with a gun it'd probably be in their hand, not under them while they sleep. Having a gun nearby in that sense indicates some frightening paranoia, but not much else.
It’s true, I am having difficultly following your line, but the point was the association between paranoia and weapons. It might not be against the law, but having a lot of NRA types running around playing soldier boy, because it’s their Second Amendment right, isn’t reassuring either.
I suppose my point was that I have never met anyone playing soldier boy. I think they are a vocal minority at best.
Quote:
I’m completely missing your point here with the negative associations, like:
Originally Posted By: MRC..I hope this isn't a real opinion because it is so simple minded I am astonished.
The golden rule is “You shall not kill” as in Exodus 20-13, for example. I don’t think we have different ideas of what is good here. It’s true that the wars in Rwanda, Gaza and Iraq etc are not caused by guns. Though, guns do exacerbate the situation, and they don’t help fix any of the fundamental problems. So, if you are asking if people with guns are bad karma, then yes people with guns are bad Karma (edit here).
I'm not sure what the negative association thing was supposed to mean. I will clarify though that I simply think it's flat out wrong to suggest people WANT fear and pain.
I was referring to the colloquial golden rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." or other variations. Just the idea that one should treat people contrary to what they think is good treatment.
I'm not sure how to respond to people with guns being good or bad karma. I think we have a very fortunate position. I don't know about you but no one has ever fired a gun towards me. I can fathom though that if I was born into a world that violent, where some one could simply decide I looked enough like "the enemy" to kill me, I'd probably want to be able to protect myself. If any one side decided to be passive like Gandhi I'm sure the situation would end quickly, and not for good reasons.
Quote:
The real issue with guns, in addition to high murder and suicide rates, is the extremely high rate of gun accidents. Check out Kellermann. Edit: I had a link to wiki, but then I noticed that it had been heavily edited since my last visit. Suggest there may be more accurate references on Kellermann and his findings, as a emergency doctor, regarding the high accident rate caused by guns.
I'd kind of like to Avoid Kellermann as his findings appear to be controversial, and some times potentially moot.
Quote:So, if you really like blue skys and sunny, brisk, and white fluffy clouds, then you might like this a bit from the Dhammapada:
1. Choices
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with a pure mind
And happiness will follow you
As your shadow, unshakable.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Live with such thoughts and you live in hate.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Abandon such thoughts, and live in love.
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my satisfaction over particular weather patterns.
It sounds kind of "The Secret"ish. I understand perception colors reality, and a happy kind bias changes things. However, this kind of sounds...silly. I don't like our method of criminal punishment, but I don't think you should hug and thank your rapist because "I wasn't getting enough lately anyway."
I'd like to just again point out that life is variable. There is no black and white response to any real issue. ( I might be a hypocrite from time to time though)
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: MRCI suppose my point was that I have never met anyone playing soldier boy. I think they are a vocal minority at best.
It would be interesting to know just how big and popular the NRA is in America. Though, there is no question about the NRA being an extremely vocal and powerful lobby group.
Originally Posted By: MRCI'm not sure what the negative association thing was supposed to mean. I will clarify though that I simply think it's flat out wrong to suggest people WANT fear and pain.
I was referring to the colloquial golden rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." or other variations. Just the idea that one should treat people contrary to what they think is good treatment.
Perhaps it’s a style thing, but I had no idea that was your point. You said something earlier about not being able to “know from text alone”. So, I think it’s better to say what we mean instead of saying what we don’t mean, then later contradicting the original statement. Apart from the clarity issue, there is also a trust issue. Once the reader sees this style, then the reader is left wondering if that is really what they really mean, or are they just saying that.
Originally Posted By: MRCI'm not sure how to respond to people with guns being good or bad karma. I think we have a very fortunate position. I don't know about you but no one has ever fired a gun towards me. I can fathom though that if I was born into a world that violent, where some one could simply decide I looked enough like "the enemy" to kill me, I'd probably want to be able to protect myself. If any one side decided to be passive like Gandhi I'm sure the situation would end quickly, and not for good reasons.
I agree, it’s probably best to leave the discussion on karma for another day. Particularly, as karma is one of those words that does not translate easily into western thinking.
Originally Posted By: MRCI'd kind of like to Avoid Kellermann as his findings appear to be controversial, and some times potentially moot.
A lot of people have tried to silence Kellermann. I’ve read his findings, and the only thing controversial about his research it that it contradictes the NRA. Apparently, it is difficult for many Americans to accept the fact that the risk of gun homicide actually increases when people keeep a gun in the home. On the other hand, the NRA sponsored research by John Lott and Gary Kleck for example, has been severely criticized by peers. Other researchers have not been able to replicate their findings, and it’s certain that John Lott, in particular, fabricated his data.
Originally Posted By: MRCI'm not sure what this has to do with my satisfaction over particular weather patterns. It sounds kind of "The Secret"ish. I understand perception colors reality, and a happy kind bias changes things. However, this kind of sounds...silly. I don't like our method of criminal punishment, but I don't think you should hug and thank your rapist because "I wasn't getting enough lately anyway."
I'd like to just again point out that life is variable. There is no black and white response to any real issue. (I might be a hypocrite from time to time though).
I think life is valuable.
Did you like the Secret?
Originally Posted By: MRCI suppose my point was that I have never met anyone playing soldier boy. I think they are a vocal minority at best.
It would be interesting to know just how big and popular the NRA is in America. Though, there is no question about the NRA being an extremely vocal and powerful lobby group.
Originally Posted By: MRCI'm not sure what the negative association thing was supposed to mean. I will clarify though that I simply think it's flat out wrong to suggest people WANT fear and pain.
I was referring to the colloquial golden rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." or other variations. Just the idea that one should treat people contrary to what they think is good treatment.
Perhaps it’s a style thing, but I had no idea that was your point. You said something earlier about not being able to “know from text alone”. So, I think it’s better to say what we mean instead of saying what we don’t mean, then later contradicting the original statement. Apart from the clarity issue, there is also a trust issue. Once the reader sees this style, then the reader is left wondering if that is really what they really mean, or are they just saying that.
Originally Posted By: MRCI'm not sure how to respond to people with guns being good or bad karma. I think we have a very fortunate position. I don't know about you but no one has ever fired a gun towards me. I can fathom though that if I was born into a world that violent, where some one could simply decide I looked enough like "the enemy" to kill me, I'd probably want to be able to protect myself. If any one side decided to be passive like Gandhi I'm sure the situation would end quickly, and not for good reasons.
I agree, it’s probably best to leave the discussion on karma for another day. Particularly, as karma is one of those words that does not translate easily into western thinking.
Originally Posted By: MRCI'd kind of like to Avoid Kellermann as his findings appear to be controversial, and some times potentially moot.
A lot of people have tried to silence Kellermann. I’ve read his findings, and the only thing controversial about his research it that it contradictes the NRA. Apparently, it is difficult for many Americans to accept the fact that the risk of gun homicide actually increases when people keeep a gun in the home. On the other hand, the NRA sponsored research by John Lott and Gary Kleck for example, has been severely criticized by peers. Other researchers have not been able to replicate their findings, and it’s certain that John Lott, in particular, fabricated his data.
Originally Posted By: MRCI'm not sure what this has to do with my satisfaction over particular weather patterns. It sounds kind of "The Secret"ish. I understand perception colors reality, and a happy kind bias changes things. However, this kind of sounds...silly. I don't like our method of criminal punishment, but I don't think you should hug and thank your rapist because "I wasn't getting enough lately anyway."
I'd like to just again point out that life is variable. There is no black and white response to any real issue. (I might be a hypocrite from time to time though).
I think life is valuable.
Did you like the Secret?
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:
If given the choice I'd rather carry that gun of love and compassion - it has a far bigger range... and a better long term effect (on myself).
"hate never yet dispelled hate"
I side that part of the quote...
Avoiding someones findings (like Kellerman's) only because they are controversial would result in most findings remaining inconsiderable, no?
However, I reckon everybody needs to do what they believe is right and we will see in the end who prevails (in which state of mind).
After all it's not that much about how old we get, but how we get old and I have the absolute certainty that if I am meant to die, it doesn't need a gun to full fill the task - a cow shitting on some corner of the street the night before I am passing it on my Enfield is more than enough. Me carrying a gun won't change a thing in the turn of the tides - as in offering or enjoying 'protection'.
Personally I don't want to take away your guns but gently convince you, that you can trust in life more than you did this far.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1232871242)
If given the choice I'd rather carry that gun of love and compassion - it has a far bigger range... and a better long term effect (on myself).
"hate never yet dispelled hate"
I side that part of the quote...
Avoiding someones findings (like Kellerman's) only because they are controversial would result in most findings remaining inconsiderable, no?
However, I reckon everybody needs to do what they believe is right and we will see in the end who prevails (in which state of mind).
After all it's not that much about how old we get, but how we get old and I have the absolute certainty that if I am meant to die, it doesn't need a gun to full fill the task - a cow shitting on some corner of the street the night before I am passing it on my Enfield is more than enough. Me carrying a gun won't change a thing in the turn of the tides - as in offering or enjoying 'protection'.
Personally I don't want to take away your guns but gently convince you, that you can trust in life more than you did this far.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1232871242)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Posted:
I agree a weapon of love and compassion should always be priority, but if that fails, and it often does, would you rather have a .45 to protect yourself and your family from an aggressor, or a hug?
Owning a gun doesn't mean I don't believe in peace love and understanding, it means I have enough common sense to know that the world is NOT peaceful, loving, or understanding; and I'll be damned if I am that stupid that I would not want protection.
I agree a weapon of love and compassion should always be priority, but if that fails, and it often does, would you rather have a .45 to protect yourself and your family from an aggressor, or a hug?
Owning a gun doesn't mean I don't believe in peace love and understanding, it means I have enough common sense to know that the world is NOT peaceful, loving, or understanding; and I'll be damned if I am that stupid that I would not want protection.
Human
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:
Originally Posted By: StonedoppelGanger, I think the problem is a lot of people don’t want to live in a society based on peace and harmony. Perhaps you could explain to attraction of living in a society that is based on guns and violence?
There is an assumption that we are living in a society based on guns and violence
Originally Posted By: StonedoppelGanger, I think the problem is a lot of people don’t want to live in a society based on peace and harmony. Perhaps you could explain to attraction of living in a society that is based on guns and violence?
There is an assumption that we are living in a society based on guns and violence
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
Firedance Philosopher
79 posts
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
79 posts
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posted:
Originally Posted By: doppelGangerOwning a gun doesn't mean I don't believe in peace
It means you only believe it in a very conditional sense.
Originally Posted By: doppelGangerOwning a gun doesn't mean I don't believe in peace
It means you only believe it in a very conditional sense.
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Obviously you only believe it in a conditional sense if you think the way to achieve it is to take away firearms
Guns = no peace
No guns = peace?
sorry, dont think so
Obviously you only believe it in a conditional sense if you think the way to achieve it is to take away firearms
Guns = no peace
No guns = peace?
sorry, dont think so
#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:
Originally Posted By: LurchObviously you only believe it in a conditional sense if you think the way to achieve it is to take away firearms
Guns = no peace
No guns = peace?
sorry, dont think so
As I's said previously, the main reason the world isn’t peaceful and loving place is because paranoid Americans keep insisting they need guns to protect themselves.
Taking away firearms is a good start because they are of very little value to society, and they are responsible for much violence and damage. Basically, we don’t need them, and it’s about time we out grew them.
Originally Posted By: LurchObviously you only believe it in a conditional sense if you think the way to achieve it is to take away firearms
Guns = no peace
No guns = peace?
sorry, dont think so
As I's said previously, the main reason the world isn’t peaceful and loving place is because paranoid Americans keep insisting they need guns to protect themselves.
Taking away firearms is a good start because they are of very little value to society, and they are responsible for much violence and damage. Basically, we don’t need them, and it’s about time we out grew them.
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
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Posted:
Yeah because we American citizens go around to your countries and harass everyone with our guns. And it is SO easy to bring guns to other countries, why just yesterday I flew to Australia with a rifle in my carry on. I am destroying world peace because I have guns in my closet, I am sure if I threw them out the world would be perfect.
[/end sarcasm]
Good luck un-inventing technology that's been around since the 1300's. I think your delusional.
Yeah because we American citizens go around to your countries and harass everyone with our guns. And it is SO easy to bring guns to other countries, why just yesterday I flew to Australia with a rifle in my carry on. I am destroying world peace because I have guns in my closet, I am sure if I threw them out the world would be perfect.
[/end sarcasm]
Good luck un-inventing technology that's been around since the 1300's. I think your delusional.
Human
journeyman
99 posts
Location: canada
99 posts
Location: canada
Posted:
Originally Posted By: doppelGangerYeah because we American citizens go around to your countries and harass everyone with our guns. And it is SO easy to bring guns to other countries, why just yesterday I flew to Australia with a rifle in my carry on. I am destroying world peace because I have guns in my closet, I am sure if I threw them out the world would be perfect.
[/end sarcasm]
Good luck un-inventing technology that's been around since the 1300's. I think your delusional.
actually americans do go around to our countries and harass us with guns. Look at all the trouble this guy gave the canadian northwest mounted police here with his gambling gear and his guns.
Good thing sam steel and the north west mounted police keep things in order.
Originally Posted By: doppelGangerYeah because we American citizens go around to your countries and harass everyone with our guns. And it is SO easy to bring guns to other countries, why just yesterday I flew to Australia with a rifle in my carry on. I am destroying world peace because I have guns in my closet, I am sure if I threw them out the world would be perfect.
[/end sarcasm]
Good luck un-inventing technology that's been around since the 1300's. I think your delusional.
actually americans do go around to our countries and harass us with guns. Look at all the trouble this guy gave the canadian northwest mounted police here with his gambling gear and his guns.
Good thing sam steel and the north west mounted police keep things in order.
The less people know the more they believe
Firedance Philosopher
79 posts
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
79 posts
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posted:
This seems like a very heated debate, does that need to be so?
Buying bullets is the investment in using them, which of course leads to using them. Once you die, or you realize that you do not need/want it, it goes to someone else and you do not control what that person does with it. Either way, a bullet either goes to waste, which means it is a waste of resources, or it goes into a means which causes even greater loss. Fighting in such a way only brings loss, and the only way to justify it (to yourself) is to claim it is the lesser of 2 evils (at least, in your scope).
A gun is a very VERY limited tool, it is limited to basically 2 usages, either intimidating people (as a gun) or destroying things (as a vessel for bullets).
There are very few usages for destruction, one would be hunting since the best way to kill an animal is to end its life quickly and with as little suffering as possible (make sure you kill it though, or it will die of lead poisoning slowly).
If we are talking about PROTECTION the only thing that the normal urban American needs protection from is other humans, and that means that what you really want to do is not destroy, it is to neutralize. You do not need a gun to neutralize a threat, but it does transform even the weakest man into the brave defender which I can see as appealing.
My philosophy is that if a man thinks he needs protection, he should increase his body, training and knowledge to cope, not his arsenal.
But then again, some people just can't be bothered, and some people do not want to be victims of circumstance they perpetuate, so I guess what it REALLY comes down to is "do you want to live in conditional safety, or do you want your kids to live in unconditional safety?"
This seems like a very heated debate, does that need to be so?
Buying bullets is the investment in using them, which of course leads to using them. Once you die, or you realize that you do not need/want it, it goes to someone else and you do not control what that person does with it. Either way, a bullet either goes to waste, which means it is a waste of resources, or it goes into a means which causes even greater loss. Fighting in such a way only brings loss, and the only way to justify it (to yourself) is to claim it is the lesser of 2 evils (at least, in your scope).
A gun is a very VERY limited tool, it is limited to basically 2 usages, either intimidating people (as a gun) or destroying things (as a vessel for bullets).
There are very few usages for destruction, one would be hunting since the best way to kill an animal is to end its life quickly and with as little suffering as possible (make sure you kill it though, or it will die of lead poisoning slowly).
If we are talking about PROTECTION the only thing that the normal urban American needs protection from is other humans, and that means that what you really want to do is not destroy, it is to neutralize. You do not need a gun to neutralize a threat, but it does transform even the weakest man into the brave defender which I can see as appealing.
My philosophy is that if a man thinks he needs protection, he should increase his body, training and knowledge to cope, not his arsenal.
But then again, some people just can't be bothered, and some people do not want to be victims of circumstance they perpetuate, so I guess what it REALLY comes down to is "do you want to live in conditional safety, or do you want your kids to live in unconditional safety?"
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: doppelgangerYeah because we American citizens go around to your countries and harass everyone with our guns. And it is SO easy to bring guns to other countries, why just yesterday I flew to Australia with a rifle in my carry on. I am destroying world peace because I have guns in my closet, I am sure if I threw them out the world would be perfect. [ /end sarcasm ]
Well, you got that right about Americans harassing people with their guns, invading other countries and killing any possibility of world peace. Let’s look at some recent examples.
First there was the invasion of Vietnam, and hey what was that over? Then more recently, there the invasion of Iraq. An invasion caused by paranoia over no-existent weapons of mass destruction. And just when things don’t seem like they could get any worse. America backs an invasion of South Ossetia. Another paranoid invasion, this time the reason is so America can set up missile bases in Russia’s backyard. American security, but without any thought to the possibility of causing another cold war.
So yes, I think the world would be a peaceful place when America grows up, gets rid of it’s weapons and stop attacking innocent countries.
Originally Posted By: doppelgangerGood luck un-inventing technology that's been around since the 1300's. I think your delusional.
Of course people living in some countries have evolved since the 1300s, while others are still dragging their knuckles on the ground. The people in Australia, for example, decided to hand in their weapons following the Port Arthur massacre. The response by Australians was an effort to reduce the possibility of future massacres. People living in other countries do not seem to have any sense of community. They are not prepared to give up any of their so called personal freedoms for the good of the community. Obviously, they value guns more than people, and justify this attitude by calling themselves patriots and the carnage population control.
Originally Posted By: doppelgangerYeah because we American citizens go around to your countries and harass everyone with our guns. And it is SO easy to bring guns to other countries, why just yesterday I flew to Australia with a rifle in my carry on. I am destroying world peace because I have guns in my closet, I am sure if I threw them out the world would be perfect. [ /end sarcasm ]
Well, you got that right about Americans harassing people with their guns, invading other countries and killing any possibility of world peace. Let’s look at some recent examples.
First there was the invasion of Vietnam, and hey what was that over? Then more recently, there the invasion of Iraq. An invasion caused by paranoia over no-existent weapons of mass destruction. And just when things don’t seem like they could get any worse. America backs an invasion of South Ossetia. Another paranoid invasion, this time the reason is so America can set up missile bases in Russia’s backyard. American security, but without any thought to the possibility of causing another cold war.
So yes, I think the world would be a peaceful place when America grows up, gets rid of it’s weapons and stop attacking innocent countries.
Originally Posted By: doppelgangerGood luck un-inventing technology that's been around since the 1300's. I think your delusional.
Of course people living in some countries have evolved since the 1300s, while others are still dragging their knuckles on the ground. The people in Australia, for example, decided to hand in their weapons following the Port Arthur massacre. The response by Australians was an effort to reduce the possibility of future massacres. People living in other countries do not seem to have any sense of community. They are not prepared to give up any of their so called personal freedoms for the good of the community. Obviously, they value guns more than people, and justify this attitude by calling themselves patriots and the carnage population control.
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
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Rancor
253 posts
Location: Right Here, USA
Posted:
I am sorry I forgot your military fights with rocks?
Just because our military does those things does not mean the people stand behind it genius.
I am sorry I forgot your military fights with rocks?
Just because our military does those things does not mean the people stand behind it genius.
Human
Firedance Philosopher
79 posts
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
79 posts
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posted:
First of all America took down a government structure in the middle east, the replacement structure DID NOT pay it's military so basically they all quit and went home WITH THEIR GUNS and joined a force which pays them (ya know, so they can eat) to do basically the same job except more risk, AKA al qaeda.
Originally Posted By: doppelGangerI am sorry I forgot your military fights with rocks?
Just because our military does those things does not mean the people stand behind it genius.
I think a major disconnect in thought process here is the difference between personal security and national security.
Let me start off by saying that if you're going to make comments on the context of what he is saying you should at the very least research on that context.
The person responsible bought his 2 AR's both in a gun shop AND public domain sales, so both are to blame.
That blame was clearly seen in the Australian community and they actually bit the bullet so to speak and ended it.
The point being that yes violence and crazy people are always going to exist, but if you take out guns from the picture they are going to be way less frequent and way less destructive than if guns were readily available.
Also, as far as public security, that's what police are for and it seems to work fine for pretty much everywhere doesn't it?
So what exactly is it about America that makes it unsafe to follow the refined weapons control structure of other countries hmm?
The military and police are not included in the restrictions of public domain weaponry, such a fallacious argument really doesn't give any sway to your point unless you are implying that the use of military surplus should also be restricted as such, in which case I agree.
As far as a country supporting the decisions of the country, everyone within that country has an active decision to either continuing to support someone post-election or not, if 300 million people, 51%+ of which are in active protest of their own government wish to change it IT WOULD BE CHANGED!
The problem is, that there is a major dichotomy between the moral/ethical views of the educated American, and the national realistic views, as well as the dishonest relationship between government, media and public used to give it accurate information while controlling the public's action regarding it.
So in a sense, America wants the government to do what they themselves feel is morally wrong because it benefits their situation more than putting in the work to protest.
Trust me, if 150mil+ Americans threatened the government they would obviously do what those Americans had to say, or those Americans could just leave and let the country crumble under the weight of it's bloated failing economy, but in reality the average American is comfortable with the decision on one level, even if they believe they are not.
For more information and clarity:
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5763.html
First of all America took down a government structure in the middle east, the replacement structure DID NOT pay it's military so basically they all quit and went home WITH THEIR GUNS and joined a force which pays them (ya know, so they can eat) to do basically the same job except more risk, AKA al qaeda.
Originally Posted By: doppelGangerI am sorry I forgot your military fights with rocks?
Just because our military does those things does not mean the people stand behind it genius.
I think a major disconnect in thought process here is the difference between personal security and national security.
Let me start off by saying that if you're going to make comments on the context of what he is saying you should at the very least research on that context.
The person responsible bought his 2 AR's both in a gun shop AND public domain sales, so both are to blame.
That blame was clearly seen in the Australian community and they actually bit the bullet so to speak and ended it.
The point being that yes violence and crazy people are always going to exist, but if you take out guns from the picture they are going to be way less frequent and way less destructive than if guns were readily available.
Also, as far as public security, that's what police are for and it seems to work fine for pretty much everywhere doesn't it?
So what exactly is it about America that makes it unsafe to follow the refined weapons control structure of other countries hmm?
The military and police are not included in the restrictions of public domain weaponry, such a fallacious argument really doesn't give any sway to your point unless you are implying that the use of military surplus should also be restricted as such, in which case I agree.
As far as a country supporting the decisions of the country, everyone within that country has an active decision to either continuing to support someone post-election or not, if 300 million people, 51%+ of which are in active protest of their own government wish to change it IT WOULD BE CHANGED!
The problem is, that there is a major dichotomy between the moral/ethical views of the educated American, and the national realistic views, as well as the dishonest relationship between government, media and public used to give it accurate information while controlling the public's action regarding it.
So in a sense, America wants the government to do what they themselves feel is morally wrong because it benefits their situation more than putting in the work to protest.
Trust me, if 150mil+ Americans threatened the government they would obviously do what those Americans had to say, or those Americans could just leave and let the country crumble under the weight of it's bloated failing economy, but in reality the average American is comfortable with the decision on one level, even if they believe they are not.
For more information and clarity:
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5763.html
SILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
Regardless... the military are all individuals... if the whole of the country fell into rebellion a good number of the military would join the resistance, as would their stockpile of weaponry...
Regardless... the military are all individuals... if the whole of the country fell into rebellion a good number of the military would join the resistance, as would their stockpile of weaponry...
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Thanks Lev, I hear where you are coming from, but a bit of that went over my head.
Originally Posted By: doppelgangerI am sorry I forgot your military fights with rocks?
How come America, the greatest military power in the world, with all the most sophisticated weapons in the world keeps getting beaten by third world countries like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan ? The short answer is no ticker mate!
Originally Posted By: doppelgangerJust because our military does those things does not mean the people stand behind it genius.
Like, the anarchy following hurricane Katrina. Everyone going around shooting each other; what an eye opener that was. I’ve never seen a better reason to ban guns in the community. Better do it soon though, before you self destruct.
Thanks Lev, I hear where you are coming from, but a bit of that went over my head.
Originally Posted By: doppelgangerI am sorry I forgot your military fights with rocks?
How come America, the greatest military power in the world, with all the most sophisticated weapons in the world keeps getting beaten by third world countries like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan ? The short answer is no ticker mate!
Originally Posted By: doppelgangerJust because our military does those things does not mean the people stand behind it genius.
Like, the anarchy following hurricane Katrina. Everyone going around shooting each other; what an eye opener that was. I’ve never seen a better reason to ban guns in the community. Better do it soon though, before you self destruct.
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
journeyman
99 posts
Location: canada
99 posts
Location: canada
Posted:
I think it's hilarious people still believe the myths about the rash of crazy violence during and after hurricane katrina. Didn't those stories sound a little ridicilous to you when you heard them? Probably because they are entirely crap.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=7
Quote:NARCHY DIDN'T TAKE OVER
MYTH: "They have people ... been in that frickin' Superdome for five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people."--New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin, The Oprah Winfrey Show, Sept. 6, 2005
REALITY: Both public officials and the press passed along lurid tales of post-Katrina mayhem: shootouts in the Superdome, bodies stacked in a convention center freezer, snipers firing on rescue helicopters. And those accounts appear to have affected rescue efforts as first responders shifted resources from saving lives to protecting rescuers. In reality, although looting and other property crimes were widespread after the flooding on Monday, Aug. 29, almost none of the stories about violent crime turned out to be true. Col. Thomas Beron, the National Guard commander of Task Force Orleans, arrived at the Superdome on Aug. 29 and took command of 400 soldiers. He told PM that when the Dome's main power failed around 5 am, "it became a hot, humid, miserable place. There was some pushing, people were irritable. There was one attempted rape that the New Orleans police stopped."
The only confirmed account of a weapon discharge occurred when Louisiana Guardsman Chris Watt was jumped by an assailant and, during the chaotic arrest, accidently shot himself in the leg with his own M-16.
When the Superdome was finally cleared, six bodies were found--not the 200 speculated. Four people had died of natural causes; one was ruled a suicide, and another a drug overdose. Of the four bodies recovered at the convention center, three had died of natural causes; the fourth had sustained stab wounds.
Anarchy in the streets? "The vast majority of people [looting] were taking food and water to live," says Capt. Marlon Defillo, the New Orleans Police Department's commander of public affairs. "There were no killings, not one murder." As for sniper fire: No bullet holes were found in the fuselage of any rescue helicopter.
NEXT TIME: "Rumors are fueled by a shortage of truth," says Ted Steinberg, author of Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disasters in America. And truth was the first casualty of the information breakdown that followed the storm. Hardening communications lines (see page 3) will benefit not just first responders, but also the media. Government officials have a vital role in informing the public. Ensuring the flow of accurate information should be part of disaster planning at local, state and federal levels.
I think it's hilarious people still believe the myths about the rash of crazy violence during and after hurricane katrina. Didn't those stories sound a little ridicilous to you when you heard them? Probably because they are entirely crap.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=7
Quote:NARCHY DIDN'T TAKE OVER
MYTH: "They have people ... been in that frickin' Superdome for five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people."--New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin, The Oprah Winfrey Show, Sept. 6, 2005
REALITY: Both public officials and the press passed along lurid tales of post-Katrina mayhem: shootouts in the Superdome, bodies stacked in a convention center freezer, snipers firing on rescue helicopters. And those accounts appear to have affected rescue efforts as first responders shifted resources from saving lives to protecting rescuers. In reality, although looting and other property crimes were widespread after the flooding on Monday, Aug. 29, almost none of the stories about violent crime turned out to be true. Col. Thomas Beron, the National Guard commander of Task Force Orleans, arrived at the Superdome on Aug. 29 and took command of 400 soldiers. He told PM that when the Dome's main power failed around 5 am, "it became a hot, humid, miserable place. There was some pushing, people were irritable. There was one attempted rape that the New Orleans police stopped."
The only confirmed account of a weapon discharge occurred when Louisiana Guardsman Chris Watt was jumped by an assailant and, during the chaotic arrest, accidently shot himself in the leg with his own M-16.
When the Superdome was finally cleared, six bodies were found--not the 200 speculated. Four people had died of natural causes; one was ruled a suicide, and another a drug overdose. Of the four bodies recovered at the convention center, three had died of natural causes; the fourth had sustained stab wounds.
Anarchy in the streets? "The vast majority of people [looting] were taking food and water to live," says Capt. Marlon Defillo, the New Orleans Police Department's commander of public affairs. "There were no killings, not one murder." As for sniper fire: No bullet holes were found in the fuselage of any rescue helicopter.
NEXT TIME: "Rumors are fueled by a shortage of truth," says Ted Steinberg, author of Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disasters in America. And truth was the first casualty of the information breakdown that followed the storm. Hardening communications lines (see page 3) will benefit not just first responders, but also the media. Government officials have a vital role in informing the public. Ensuring the flow of accurate information should be part of disaster planning at local, state and federal levels.
The less people know the more they believe
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