• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...910111213...44
FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
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 laws 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. Thats why theyre good people. If youre 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 passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.

Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans 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. Allens 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 didnt 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 Colorados 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 Hills 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 jurys 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 wink

Delete Topic

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stone





Dave, people who respect life do not take it. Look at Ghandi.





Respect to ghandi- he showed a different way was possible and historically he will always be a profound figure.



But let's remember that ghandi was lucky- in many, many other places and oppressive cultures in the world, the state would simply have picked him off the demos, then tortured and killed him, and no one would ever know his name.



------



 Written by: Stone





Dave, people who respect life do not take it. .





Stone- do you realise just how offensive your comments are now getting?



You've just accused every individual who's ever had to take a life, of not respecting life.



If you want to continue this debate with any chance of getting your points across, you should start thinking a bit before you post.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:What does the efforts of Ghandi have to do with whether or not he lived in India? Why are you defending animal rights to the last breath and dismiss human rights?

By promoting gun ownership, you do contribute to the weapon industry and by that you support suffering of both humans and animals on this planet.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Ok there was over 50 things posted
mcp: lol
someone said talked about the title of the thread, but we didn't do it someone against guns did and so it makes sense that the title is as sensational as it is.

Despite what some people think I do not have time to look but Tom started calling guns evil and having dark energy. This stance we have claimed is due to lack of knowledge and fear due to lack of knowledge.

My past leads me to believe that the other kid ran his butt off. You don't expect your victim to have a gun too. He would be charged with manslaughter because he particpated in an action that foreseeably could lead to the endagerment of another's life. They could charge him with intent to do bodily harm too.

Police say give up your stuff but I refuse. It's all I have generally. I've worked too hard. I've been a victim too long. Me, I don't carry, but I will fight them. No robber is getting anything from me

And Tom the Bush administration is over with. He can't run again. Right now, they are tying things up.


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

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Sorry that this thread is moving so fast and that it is so hard to catch up.

To summarize: On page 11 (about the 6th post down) I have refreshed our memory by quoting media releases upon an incident in Cleveland. (the story)

Question now was whether

a) the kid "deserved to die"
b) the accomplice now deserves getting charged with "murder"

My answer to both is "no", even though I accept the right of one to defend her/ his own life. At one point I even questioned whether the story is accurate. This said, I would not support the (alleged) "victim" to get charged - "in dubio pro reo" (meaning in case of doubt we have to rule for the defendant - but this applies to that kid who ran off as well). Lurch mentioned: maybe not murder but some kind of "manslaughter" - which I still find completely inappropriate.

Please Faith, I repeatedly explained what I think of guns - if you have to quote me, do so correctly. Cease putting words into my mouth - it's getting really tiring. Guns are not evil, but they do appeal to the darker side of man. They are instruments designed to kill, or severely harm a human or animal. There is nothing "sexy" about guns, unless you are caught up in a power struggle. Fact of the matter is that gun ownership IMO is hard to justify, even in the US. There are enough cases to prove that the US citizens have not enough responsibility to legally own guns (see for example Rodney King Riots). Too many innocent lives are wasted, too much suffering is created.

I'm making a claim and put forward prepositions - you can easily read them on top of this page.

Why drug testing (of legal gun owners/ CCWP holders)? I did explain that one too: A drug (ab)users judgement often is altered - his senses are in another state of alertness and he might misinterpret a situation, which can result in a fatal action towards an innocent person. Apart from that he (under current legislation) is a criminal offender, who - by law - should not have a gun in his possession.

Please do ask, if you missed out on something, rather than trolling. I did that mistake myself in the past and ppl were right to spank me for it.

My question to Dave: Why do you defend (innocent) animal rights, but pass out on (innocent) human rights? Further: Would you a) show support to the death penalty and b) the gun industry? If so, how could this stipulate with you Buddhist belief?


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: FireTom



What does the efforts of Ghandi have to do with whether or not he lived in India? Why are you defending animal rights to the last breath and dismiss human rights?







I was simply pointing out that Ghandi, with his philosophy of non-violence, was in the right place at the right time.



If he'd been in Poland when the nazis invaded, his mass peaceful protests would simply have got him and his followers killed.



If he'd protested peacefully in communist Russia or comunist China or in aparthied South Africa, chances are he'd have been arrested, tortured and killed.



As for defending human rights, that's what I've done in this thread- defended the rights of decent people to protect themselves, by reasonable force, against those who do not respect human rights and feel that they can point a gun at innocents and not be stopped.











 Written by: FireTom



By promoting gun ownership, you do contribute to the weapon industry and by that you support suffering of both humans and animals on this planet.





Quite possibly, like i said it's an issue worthy of exploring- however, i also said that, personally, I'm not going to get into with anyone who does not believe that human beings do not have the right to gun down muggers pointing a gun at them, cos, in my opinion, anyone who believes that, is either irrational, or does not resepct human rights.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:I think no one called it sexy...
I'm not trolling, I take notes, I do not have access to computers during the weekends. I will go and see if I can find a place to quote you with the evil thing, perhaps you're right
as for drug testing we agreed on some parts and not on others
I put what I thought your claim and put what I thought our collective claim and that was it. I did it for clarification. If I was wrong in my understanding, okay.
I'm not out to get you smile


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

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: FireTom



To summarize: ............

Question now was whether

a) the kid "deserved to die"
b) the accomplice now deserves getting charged with "murder"

My answer to both is "no", even though I accept the right of one to defend her/ his own life.






Perhaps it would be useful for you to mention in your summary the fact that it's looking like you see something in the term 'deserve' that none of those who used it intitially do?

Despite repeated requests, you don't seem to want to go into what that additional meaning is.

Whatever, given that it is clear to everyone that what you mean by 'deserve' is not the same as what the rest of us do, would it not be best to simply let it lie?

After all, we have clarified by stating that, in our eyes 'he deserved to die' simply means 'it was morally OK for the victim to shoot him'.




 Written by: FireTom



My question to Dave: Why do you defend (innocent) animal rights, but pass out on (innocent) human rights? Further: Would you a) show support to the death penalty and b) the gun industry? If so, how could this stipulate with you Buddhist belief?



I have defended innocent human rights- in the scenario the defneder was the innocent and the attacker was not innocent.

I'm not getting into the death penalty, or any other offshoot, until I'm confident that you've got a rational grasp of the self-defence point.

Quite simply, if you really believe a man who kills another to defend his own life, when the attack was unprovoked, then there's no point in me getting involved in other discussions on simialr issues.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Sorry Stone, but if you'd read that article you'd find that the anarchy supposedly reported was most certainly not happening.

FireTom:

Do you honestly not see that by your demanding the removal of all guns, and completely ignoring any good sides to them that it encourages certain types of people to get them and use them for 'evil'? We need to encourage responsible gun ownership, encourage the POSITIVE sides of firearms (yes there are many even though you don't believe so).

The number of rapes and murders were most definitely significantly lower than published, I would even go so far to suspect that they were lower than the "normal." You'll never be happy with anything I post to counter what you say, you were hellbent and convinced that Katrina proves what guns do in the hands of people in crisis. Well you're right, it does.. They do nothing. They are there to protect, not to kill and cause havoc.

The media is stupid, but not so stupid as to blatantly and knowingly lie on international news, they genuinely believed that there were 200 bodies in the Superdome because they were going off of reports of other people. Everyone was mistaken, everyone got caught up in the hype, and now you're trying to use that as an argument for gun control? Atrocities HAVE been committed, one of the biggest problems with Katrina is the gross violation of peoples rights by the massive illegal search and seizure of their firearms, under the guise of "making the city safe."

As for the US trying to teach the rest of the world violence isn't good. There are times where violence is the appropriate answer, Jesus does NOT dismiss 'self defense' he even tells his followers to sell their shirt for a sword. I'm not much of a religious man but since you brought it up I'll give you another excerpt from a book of mine by Lt Col Dave Grossman.

You have head the commandment, "Thou shall not kill," With few exceptions, however, most major modern translations, and all Jewish translations of the original Hebrew, interprets the commandment as, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). Have the rabbis, ministers, and priests of the Judeo-Christian ethos been hypocrites for the past 5,000 years when they sent men off to war? Did they say, "Thou shall not kill" one day and send them off to battle the next? Now, the Seven Day Adventists, Mennonites, Shakers, and Quakers believe in the strict, literal interpretation of this translation of the Sixth Commandment, and in the end they may be right. The vast majority of the Judeo-Christian ethos, however, understand it to mean "Thou shall not murder"

While we are here on earth, we all place our "bets" in the great "spiritual lotter" of the afterlife. After we die, everyone from the atheist to the most devout believer will know if their bets have paid off. For the sake of argument, let us assume that there is a God and he is the God of the Judeo-Christian heritage. If God is powerful enough to have His will manifested on earth by the majority of his believers, then maybe the "truth" should be found in the overwhelming majority of his believers who went to war against Hitler, or who bless the police officers who guard them with deadly force every night. And that great majority of believers have felt that God's commandment is "thou shall not murder"

Do you know the difference between murder and killing? [sometimes I wonder if you do Tom] If you do, maybe God does too.

The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible published in 1611 translates the Sixth Commandment from the original Hebrew in the Old Testament, as "Thou shall not kill" But in Matthew 19:18 (in the New Testament, translated from Greek) Jesus cites the Commandments from the KJV as "Thou shall do no murder."

If you have to kill in the lawful act of your duty, in defense of yourself or another, is that murder? No. The Bible says that King David was a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22) It says, "Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands" (I Samuel, 18:7) David killed tens of thousands of men in combat and was honored for it. It was not until he murdered Uriah to get at Bethsheba that he got himself into trouble (II Samuel Chapter 11)

Can you tell the difference between killing 10,000 men in lawful combat and murdering one man to get at his wife? If you can, maybe God can too.

In Proverbs 6:17 it says "These six things doth the Lord hate, yea seven are an abomination." If you have even a remote sense that there is a God and that he is the God of the Bible, you might want to know what he hates. Near the top of God's list are "shedders of innocent blood," and we know that those who have fought to preserve innocent lives have received the highest honor during 5,000 years of Judeo Christian ethos.


There is more than I could go on, Jesus telling his followers to sell their shirts for a sword for example, but I don't like arguing religious ideologies.

I'm not asking for societies politeness based on deadly force instead of compassion. My dad told me something a long time ago that I still haven't forgotten, "Locks only keep honest people honest" The gun is not there as a threat. The gun is there in case it is needed, and hopefully, if it is needed, the presentation will be enough (and often is) to stop whatever activity is going on. If someone is hellbent on doing harm, no lock, or display of a gun, will keep them from doing it. The only way they can be stopped is to actually, physically stop them. Do you want to be the one to chase down a crazy man with a knife?

 Written by:

Playing poi and staff is a perfect example of how to train your body, but use (martial) instruments in order to mesmerise people. It's "schwerter zu pflugscharen" (which translated could mean how to "turn a sword into a plow") - please show me how to do that with a gun...



Funny, I have seen quite successful and wealthy trick shooters before. Have you ever seen someone shoot a thrown silver dollar? I have, it's impressive, the amount of skill and discipline is impressive. There is not as much of a difference between poi and guns when it comes to the sporting / showmanship potential aspect as you'd like to believe. I would say there are far more sporting uses for guns than poi actually.

Please FireTom, quit asking people to quote their sources and cite quotations properly when you don't do much of that yourself, you've misquoted me many times, there is no reason to make a big issue over it, correct it and move on. Try not to get so caught up in semantics, it only makes your argument look weak when you're constantly trying to argue that you didn't say "evil" you said "dark energy"

Would pointing a gun at me make me draw mine? Probably. There are different theories on who will survive a situation like that, but the criminal typically has the advantage, as they don't have (as much) an aversion to killing. If they have effectively already made of their mind to kill me, it's pointless, as soon as I move they squeeze. But then I'll die anyways, so I might as well try and I might get lucky no? If they haven't "decided" to kill me yet, then I have an edge, because they have to first comprehend that I am pulling a weapon, and then decide to shoot me as a result. There are many many instances of police officers holding someone at gun point, and the 'badguy' is able to draw, and shoot multiple times before the officer could react and get his first shot off. I have helped the police train in "active shooter" scenarios many times, and yes, it is most definitely possible.

Tom: If you go back and actually find my initial post with this in it, I'm fairly sure I posted two different stories, written from the same newspaper, that give two very different sounding stories, one pro, and one anti-gun/self defense. We don't know enough about this story to prove one way or another, we have the facts we've been given, and there isn't really a whole lot else we can look up or research to find more. Katrina is an entirely different issue, there are plenty of sources you can look up, I've even linked to a couple, that has the media tucking their tail between their legs admitting that they were grossly out of line and overreacted to the initial reports from New Orleans.

Depending where you are, state laws are different. There is no federal law regarding shooting someone on your property. This man did NOT shoot the kid for being on his property, he shot him BECAUSE HE HAD A GUN AND WAS THREATENING HIM, I'm lost on how you keep confusing these issues. This isn't some innocent kid who kicked his ball into the guys yard, it's someone committing a felony and cornering a man in front of his house.

You keep putting manslaughter in quotes like it's a slang term or something? Do you understand what manslaughter means? You accept the right of the man to defend himself, and even say you wouldn't charge him of any crime, but demean him and say he is bad for doing what he thought was right, and preserving his own life?

Under the law, felons cannot have guns, misdemeanor offenses (save violent/domestic abuse) don't have any bearing them, as it should be. Everyone is entitled to a few small mistakes. Felons make big, unforgivable mistakes, and they are punish accordingly. Just because someone uses drugs, does not mean that they will use drugs, and guns at the same time. Just as someone who drinks, will not always drive a car. Can you honestly say that you have *never* committed any crime or immoral act?


OWD: You're doing a wonderful job defending your beliefs, I applaud you for that, and you've given me a bit of hope with this thread biggrin Thank you for keeping an open mind through the discussion and coming to your own conclusions, I understand that we will probably never see eye to eye on everything but I'm glad we can on that topic.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:That additional meaning - as I see it - would have been that he has forfeited his life, simply by pointing a gun at someone else. IMO "killing over material possessions is wrong".



In some cases it's been ruled "okay" to shoot someone - even if that person already walks away, or is not a direct threat. It has been ruled so by juries (average wo/men) leading experts to ask for completion of the corresponding laws (which has not yet been done as far as my informations go).



IMO "killing over material belongings" is wrong, therefore it is ethically not "okay" to kill anyone, even in self defence - as long as the ppl are not defending themselves, but their possessions. This is unambiguous and quite a number of ppl who kill someone else in self defence do suffer from this experience. It is one thing likely to be hardwired into a human beings brain: "(civilized) men should not be wolves to men" - no matter who started the problem.



If a (political) system perpetuates poverty and at the same time allows its citizens to arm themselves, it simply takes into account that innocent people will die. Because at least some of these "perpetrators" are acting from despair, get access to guns - they are as human as anyone else, so is their conclusion/ action. Have you ever been desperate and hungry? Didn't know how to feed your child/ren? It might be a common myth that every criminal is born as such.



Thus anyone promoting gun ownership - IMO - is saddling the horse the wrong way. He (unwillingly) even supports the arms industry and an inhuman system, which is causing and perpetuating violent conflicts on this planet. The money spent on arms could easily be used to feed and educate those in need - to end suffering, rather than keeping it going and making a quick buck at the side.



But most people ceased to believe in the good of mankind - also due to media releases, who do appeal to a certain side in man because: *points at signature*



[edit:] so if that criminal is a "nice guy" only wanting your wallet, he'll die - if he's a "bad guy" who wouldn't mind killing you, you die (anyway) - great conclusion and well worth to promote (armed) self defence...



As for the rest I am too tired right now to expand my post and to repeat myself, so you get my point(s). Due to my commitments I will have to let the topic rest for a few days... see you thereafter. bye

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181602983)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Tom, he was NOT killed over material possessions, he was killed because he put someone's life in serious jeopardy in his attempt to gain material possessions. Killing over possessions IS wrong, if you want to break into my apartment while I'm sleeping and steal my stuff fine, do whatever you want, I'll be on the phone with the police the whole time, but if you attempt to gain entry to my bedroom where me and my girlfriend are, you'll be leaving in a bag. I'm fine with you taking my material things, I can always get more, but if you put yourself into a position where you can take my life, I won't stand for it, in that scenario I don't even just have myself to worry about, I have an innocent 3rd party as well.

Are you calling my life a material belonging? Are you that content in your beliefs that you wouldn't care if you died? The man was not the wolf in this situation, the kid was, he prayed upon the innocent 'sheep' of society robbing them of their belongings knowing full well that they couldn't/wouldn't fight back. Until he ran into a sheepdog that bit back, and bit hard. If you don't condone any sort of return aggression towards violent individuals, don't you see how a system like that could be abused? There would be nothing to stop someone from bullying their way into anything they wanted.

I never said that criminals were born criminals. Some people are born with a predisposition to commit criminal acts, but they are typically adrenaline junkies, with addictive personalities and no other outlet. Criminals are indeed a product of our society, and that aspect needs to be contended with as much as anything else, some of them are acting in despair, but don't you think there are better, more effective crimes for immediate gain that doesn't put another human life at risk? Are you defending the criminal now and condoning their actions because they were one from desperation? Why don't they rob a convenience store late at night when it's closed? Surely they could get enough food that way.

You shouldn't preach about seeing the good in mankind, and they turn around and say that the only reason I have a gun is because I'm drawn to its 'dark energy.' If there is good in mankind than there is also good in whatever mankind creates, including guns.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:(sigh) *goes to bed knowing how hard it is to make a point clear and keeps up with his "normal" life thereafter*

I'll write more at the end of the week - but I'll be peeking wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Dave, luck had nothing to do with Ghandis achievements.

And from your perspective, as a Buddhist, its acceptable to put people out of their suffering. What happened to the first of the ten eight precepts? To refrain from taking life. (i.e. non-violence towards sentient life forms).

You may have studied Buddhism, but you understand little. You cant go around putting people out of their suffering. Id suggest you question the cost of you self-righteousness.

Lurch, you are in denial.

 Written by:

Yes Stone: I'm saying that the "chaos" that you saw "live" did not happen.



And the Twin Towers disaster was fabricated too, and the holocaust didnt happen, and Apollo 11. All made up by the media.

New Orleans was America under pressure. It was the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster. There was anarchy, and the cops had to remove the guns because everyone was rioting. That was a glimpse of your future, if you persist with the right to bear arms nonsense.

The same thing will happen when you run low on oil, except on a bigger scale. All the sheep dogs will grab their guns and go out to get fuel for their SUVs. Then they will start fighting over fuel. Id say its better to get the guns out of the community now, before you wipe yourselves out.

Katrina happened, and it was anarchy. It was a wake up call. Just like the Twin Towers, World Trade Centre disaster. Time to listen.

Lurch, not sure where you were going with the sixth commandment. But I take it as "Thou shall not kill which means not killing anyone.


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

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stone


Dave, luck had nothing to do with Ghandi’s achievements.




??



 Written by: Stone




And from your perspective, as a Buddhist, it’s acceptable to put people out of their suffering. What happened to the first of the ten eight precepts? To refrain from taking life. (i.e. non-violence towards sentient life forms).

You may have studied Buddhism, but you understand little. You can’t go around putting people out of their suffering. I’d suggest you question the cost of you self-righteousness.




I was talking about self-defense, not putting people out of their suffering.

Stone, I've finished trying to go through this with you, find someone else to discuss it with.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Fire Tom, I was recently thinking of the an expression similar to turn a sword into a plow. I remember it from a movie, where after a fierce battle they melted down a sword and made a cross.



How to do that with a gun Fire Tom. Well, after the Twin Towers disaster I had this idea that if America cried out and said we have had enough of war and violence and decided to get rid of all their weapons. Then the weapons could have been melted down and used to make a monument on the World Trade Centre site.



 Written by:

The plowshare is often used to symbolize creative tools that benefit mankind, as opposed to destructive tools of war, symbolized by the sword, a similar sharp metal tool with an arguably opposite use. The common expession "beat swords into plowshares" has been used by disparate social and political groups.



This analogy is used several times in the Bible such as in the following verses:



Isaiah 2:4 "And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war."



Joel 3:10 "Beat your plowshares into swords And your pruning hooks into spears; Let the weak say, "I am a mighty man."



Micah 4:3 "And He will judge between many peoples And render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they train for war." (wiki)



If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted:Ok so when I returned to this thread less than 24 hours later, there were 24 responses. So I'm writing my replies in one long post as I read along. So sorry if I repeat already stated things or whatever.


Stone:
I think we are arguing on two separate issues. Yes, I think there is a gun problem in America but I DO NOT feel the problem is coming from legislation or from law-abiding citizens (i.e. the ones who are defending themselves like the one case we've been arguing). I feel like a broken record here! The problems come from the criminals who don't give one [censored] what laws or rules are in place. Banning guns won't take the guns away from the criminals because they don't get them legally in the first place! The only thing banning (legal) guns will do is leave the law-abiding citizens defenseless. I recognize the problems with gun crimes in the home, but I don't think banning guns is the way to go there either. I think there needs to be stricter and harsher punishments for parents who are not vigilant about gun safety and allow their children access to their weapons unsupervised.

You say "people who respect life do not take it." Yes you're right to an extent. But do you honestly believe that someone who respects life in their day to day living suddenly abandons that when they themselves are attacked and put in a situation where they have to choose between dying themselves or defending themselves to where the other person might die? I'm sorry, but I don't believe that. I respect life but that includes my own life. And if it comes down to me, who is genuinely trying to improve the world, and someone else who is pointing a gun at me with the intent to use it (i.e. someone who is clearly not improving the world), I'm going to choose me.

I'm not going to get into the Katrina debate, but I wonder how you, who doesn't live in New Orleans or America for that matter, can speak on "fact" of what really happened there?


FireTom:
Again with this "dark energy" thing! Inanimate objects hold only the personality we give them. That comes from the individual, not in their inherent qualities. If we want to go that route, I think of guns as appealing to instinct to survive not the instint to kill. See? Individuals projecting their own feelings. Guns used for sport isn't about making your "kill" more accurate. That's you projecting again. The sport aspect of is about aim and accuracy, yes, but for killing? No. I practice shooting all the time to improve my accuracy, not because I want to become a brilliant and accurate killing machine, but because I like to know that I can aim at a paper target and hit the paper target where I aim for. Period. I don't want to kill anyone, and I hope I'm never put in the position where that is a real possibility. If anything, I hope to improve my aim so that if I am in that situation, I don't hit any innocent bystanders.

As for US legislation and it's punishment for criminals....no I think the US legislation is spot on with how they punish criminals. Although laws differ from state to state, I believe the majority follow the same principle that if a homicide occurs during the commision of a crime, regardless of who is killed (criminal vs. citizen), all individuals participating in the crime are charged with murder/homicide. So in other words, if you're dumb enough to join in a crime with a buddy of yours, if someone dies even if it's not your direct fault, you're charged just the same. It's these kinds of laws that I support whole-heartedly, the ones that (hopefully) deter people from making bad choices in criminal acts.

I'll say it outright......I do believe that kid deserved to die because he made a real and actual threat on another person's life. He forfeited his own right to safety when he pulled that gun on someone with the intent to use it. And yes, I'll say that he intended to use it because if he brought it with him and pulled it out on an innocent citizen, he went into that situation knowing he was putting his own life at risk. End of story. I know we disagree on this, but it's where I stand on this issue. And we can argue circumstance and class and poverty till the cows come home but there are plenty of kids who grow up in bad neighborhoods from bad families and few resources that end up respectful law-abiding adults. They make a choice, period.

In regards to the Bush administration starting campaigning for 2008....perhaps you misspoke, but Bush cannot run for a third term. American legislation ensures that a president can only be in office for 10 years (each term is 4 years, the extra 2 is in cases where the president dies and the vice president serves out part of that term).

"IMHO there are more sound reasons to abandon guns, than there are to keep them - therefore it's only logical to say that guns need to get banned." Holy crap you need to take a logics class. That's all I'm going to say to that.

Nobody is saying that gun owners shoot first and ask questions later!!!!!!! Seriously people, I swear I'm a [censored] broken record now. I have taken numerous self-defense classes, INCLUDING how to verbally stop a threat (including giving up my stuff!). ANY sort of violence, whether it be a gun or hand-to-hand fighting, is ALWAYS a last resort and only used when there is a serious and real threat on your life. Sheesh!


OWD:
I love your intellect hug Just thought I'd say that wink


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:pounce, perhaps you are right and I have gone a bit over the top. Im not America bashing because I dont like America. Im saying that as world leader America keeps taking us down the same old road of guns and violence.

We both see there is a gun problem in America. What Im suggesting is the citizens of America start to take responsibility for the problem. Introduce some social change, stop blaming the criminals for all of Americas problems. Perhaps thats what the Arthur Buford shooting is saying.

I do recognize the right of self-defense. I just dont support the use of guns for self-defense. I think it leads to more violence. In the UK self-defense has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun since 1946. And most other countries dont support it either.

What I objected to was people saying he deserved to die, which is a moral judgement. No one deserves to die, and to say the kid deserved to die is just callous. We create the world with what we say. Id be offended if someone pointed the their finger at me and said he deserves to die. Perhaps it is a small point, but I see it as the kid got shot trying to rob someone. Not he deserved to die. Which supports the violence.

You are either for violence or against violence, no middle ground. Martin Luther King said, "Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him."

The impact of the Twin Towers disaster and what happened to New Orleans after Katrina shook the world. I watched both evens unfold live on television. Television stations were saturated, day and night, with live coverage of both events.

I watched the cops swishing around in water up to their knees calling for more ammo. Id suggest that if the police thought it was necessary to remove guns out of the community, then the people should have listened to the police. They police must have had a good reason to make such a request.


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

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:On the whole, and as a person, I doubt that Buford really deserved to die. But at that moment, the moment when he was holding a gun and threatening his victims life, then yes, that was the moment when he did indeed deserve to die.

Had he gotten what he wanted and left peacefully, then he's back to not deserving to die. AFIK armed robbery isn't a capital crime in the US and had the victim decided that Buford still deserved to die after the fact and hunted him down and shot him, then the victim would have been charged with murder...no ?

I will agree that the sheer number of legal handguns in the US contributes directly to the sheer number of illegal handguns ( makes sense right ? ) I'm sure we can all come up with scenarios as to how this happens but given the sheer number of handguns in the US, I don't see them ever successfully removing the guns from criminal hands.

So given that armed criminals are a fact, I don't blame Americans for wanting to protect themselves in kind. Sure, I appreciate my relatively handgun free Canada, where I have very little fear of ever having to face an armed criminal but were there a spate of home invasion type robberies happening in my neighbourhood, you can best bet I'll be down at the gun store, picking up a 12 gauge because my faith in the police being able to protect me and my family from these sorts of crimes borders on nil. I'm not fussed what type of weapon, or even if a home invading type criminal even has a weapon....if you burst into my house, threatening my family ( when these types of crimes were happening in Vancouver in the 1990s, the usual MO was for the criminal to threaten to harm any children in the house in order to get the adults to comply ).....you're shot.

I'm not really getting the Buddhist angle here....If we take a Buddhist country like Thailand and look at their crime/gun/murder stats we find that these peaceful Buddhists are more than willing to victimize each other...and heaven help you if you fall afoul of the Thai justice system.....get ready for a whole lot of suffering.

FYI...Thailand now does their executions by lethal injection...but up until 1993 their only method of execution was 15 rounds to the back from a machine gun...ironically ?? draped in Buddhist garlands.

If I recall correctly...it's a few "fringe" type religions, like Quakers that have interpreted the thou shalt not kill commandment literally, whereas the major Christian religions have interpreted it to read and mean...thou shalt not murder.


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:I don't know about the whole sixth commandment. I was taught "do not kill" in Catholic school...

I want to know the source of the places where it was okay to shoot someone who was no longer a threat. That is a miscarriage of justice. People being threatened with guns are having their lives threatened and can defend it. It is no longer over possessions.

I would agree that killing someone generally has a long term effect on someone.

As for Katrina, there were cops calling for ammo? Where was I? I think I would need proper context before commenting.

I don't think the kid deserved to die but when he carried a gun, he put his life in danger. Desperation does not equal carrying guns with criminals. We lied, cheated, and stole, but we never committed a crime with a gun. We never knowingly had it with us (see the part where we found the gun in our car). We knew if we did so, it escalated the situation and put our lives at risk.


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

Delete

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted:Why must there be a black and white thinking on this? I'm against violence, but I am for defending yourself, which might require the use of violence against someone using violence on me. So where does that put me? "For" violence? That doesn't make any sense. I know what you're saying but I think it pigeon-holes people into one or the other when in fact there are some gray areas.

You're right, it is a moral judgment on saying the kid deserved to die. But it's something I stand for. I work with the legal system and I work with people who actually want help. I've tried to help people who don't want it, and it just doesn't work. People have to want to change. So I don't have much sympathy for the people who don't want change, who think robbing someone at gunpoint will get them what they need. Desperation is not an excuse. Like faith said, she was in situations where she was desperate for food, money, shelter (and I know there are plenty of people out there in similar situations and I do feel for them), but she made choices to do so safely. And she's worked to make her life better, to get out of those situations. She made a choice to not live that kind of life anymore, and THAT is something I respect. People who use guns to threaten someone else's life for money or material possessions? No, I don't respect that at all. I stand by my opinion, and I know it's a moral judgment, but morality comes from human judgment. We decide what is "right" and "wrong." And in my opinion, threatening another person's life is wrong and is justifiably punished with losing his own life.

No one knows better than us how much the Twin Towers and Katrina impacted us. Trust me. I can tell you exactly where I was, what I was doing, the people I talked to, the news stories, everything from those days. I lived in a high-risk area during the Twin Towers attack, and my school closed down for over a week because the National Guard barracaded the entire area and wouldn't let us through. I remember going down immediately to the blood bank and finding out the line was about 8 hours long. They turned us away, told us to come back another time. I remember the paranoia and the random attacks on anyone who looked they could be from the Middle East, and then the outrage and sadness that came from the general community about the unjust racism. I remember driving down the road and hearing an ambulance siren, and my heart stopped for a moment out of fear before I realized what it was. I'm sorry, but until it happens in your lifetime in your own nation, you can't understand the impact it has on our daily lives. I have friends in the military who got deployed that year and every year after, and I have known people who have been killed since that day. You learn about the wars in history and you hear the stories from your parents' time and all the wars on foreign ground. But it's different when it happens in your time, to the people you know, to you. Do I agree with Bush's approach? Absolutely not. Do I agree that something needed to be done, that America did not need to sit around idly and let it happen again? Absolutely so. We can talk a million things and hindsight is 20/20 and you can say all the [censored] you want about America's crappy international and domestic policies, but don't blame all of America's citizens for Bush's idiocy. He is only 8 years of our current and future history, and we had plenty of peaceful times before then and I'm sure after now. I didn't vote for him either time, and I am counting down the days until he is out of office. Remember, he wasn't elected the first term, he was appointed. Most of America was fed up with him after his first term, but I believe he got voted in the second term because most of those people felt it would be more chaotic to introduce someone new in the midst of the chaos. You say America, as a world leader, needs to show leadership. But Lurch, faith, and I are three people among millions, we do not represent all of America. We are three people who do want to see change, who do identify the problems and are trying to make a change (or else we wouldn't even be in this discussion to begin with). Quit attacking us. But realize that we talk about the issues that we live with day to day, and understand it's a lot easier to judge when you're sitting thousands of miles away in a different country.


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:you always put things so well

It's no fair. All the good discussing happens when I'm not on the computer. I make a post and have to wait all day. And then, when I get back there is a whole other discussion *sigh*

Guns are about choice. You have a choice to use them, to own them. Some of us prefer not to unless the situation calls for it. We do not want to ever use it with another human or creature. For target practice, and sport shooting (like the olympics), or for hunting, but we pray never to need it. Unfortunately, we are not always safe. Not everyone wants to get us a cup of tea.

Personally, I would like to see some federal standards


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

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Stout, Id probably want a shot gun too.

Im not going into a spiel on principals and morals because I get lost. A far as explaining my principals on killing and self-defense, I think Buddha said it best:

 Written by:

We must remember that killing is killing; when we disapprove of it, we call it murder. When we punish man for murdering, we call it capital punishment. If our own soldiers are killed by an enemy we call it slaughter. However, if we approve a killing, we call it war. But if we remove the emotional content from these words, we can understand that killing is killing, Buddhist QandA.



 Written by:

Quite often, so-called self-defense is disguised aggression in which ones real motive for the destruction of life is suppressed consciously or unconsciously by self-deceptive rationalization.

The difference between violence and self-defense lies not merely in the external circumstances, but more significantly in ones true motive. In this regard, Shakyamunis injunction to kill the will to kill reveals the profound Buddhist insight into the nature of violence. Behind the passionate emotions or seemingly sound rhetoric of self-defense is often hidden the will to kill.

Violence arises from a will to harm, and self-defense from a will to protect although both employ physical force as a means. So it is necessary to look inward and see ones true motive whether it is solely to preserve life or to harm life. We become capable of self-defense with the ability of self-reflection, to which one of the greatest obstacles is an authoritarian orientation that looks outside for the motive of our action in order to escape personal responsibility, violence and self-defense.


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

Delete

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted:Wait a sec....how is it that you can agree with Stout that you'd want a shotgun if faced in the situation where there were home invasions. But you don't agree with my, Lurch's, or faith's statements that we are faced with violence and wish to be able to protect ourselves??

I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:(Just highlighting the topics of my post, so someone not interested in that particular can go through the post more quickly)



OWD - as it seems other people share my understanding of the word "to deserve" in this context, too. Personally I don't want to continue debating on this, the expression just left a bad after taste.



Find me amazed, that you (as a Buddhist) do hold on so tight to (the right of) "self defence", as the emphasis should lie on violence and suffering - especially when believing in reincarnation... I just don't get your point.



However I do understand that the US is in a screwed up situation. Generations of guns are in this country already - it will be very hard to disarm the entire country.



But Pounce, you exactly hit the nail on the head when saying: To cure somebody, he needs to want that in the first place. But I am certain that a good part of the American citizens want "cure". It's not as if this comes only from the outside.



For this we need to raise awareness, which we do.



Lurch himself said another valid thing: When facing a determined criminal, one who is willing to shoot you dead in a robbery - chances are that you try to defend yourself and get shot. Only if you face a "nice criminal" you would stand a chance (to shoot him) - someone who's intent is NOT to kill. So you're simply punishing someone for pointing (something, actually being or even only resembling) a potentially fatal threat to other human beings... How righteous is that?



I was pondering about a good example, but can't think of any. Certainly I can't compare shooting with spinning poi, (the hazards of) firebreathing or the like. It's all flawed.



Very remote examples come to my mind:



- Do you believe that one has to wear a helmet (by law) when riding a motorcycle, or a seatbelt in the car? Ppl would simply be a threat to them self if they don't, no?



- Do you believe that the ban of (il/legal) drugs is rightful? One simply kills himself with it.



- Do you believe that a general speed limit of 75mph on motorways is right? Ppl can drive faster, cars are engineered for higher speed, no?



- Do you think that alcohol under the age of 21 is hazardous? That cigarettes are hazardous? That sex with children is not right (even in a situation of consent)? Do you think that drinking in public is not right?



Is any of this anybody else's business? Why regulate anything?



We do take responsibility as a society - especially if we are affected (negatively). Banning guns from random civilian possessions IMO would greatly improve the society.



Keep a small caliber for sports/ the Olympics (in the shooting range locker) keep a handgun (if you feel you must) when working in a highly spotted job, or a rifle when you're a hunter. Maybe even keep one when living in a highly remote area and no law enforcement is anywhere in range (response time in urban areas are no justification - talk to the mayor for that issue). But generally keep it out of the cities, off the streets and out of the hands of people who can't handle them. We do that with people who are incapable of driving a car (well - usually we try)



Sportive aspects: A trick shooter can certainly turn shooting into an arts form... But he won't stand a comparison to a firespinner - IMHO... Pounce, you want to train your concentration and how to hit the centre of a paper target, okay - in the very next sentence you admit, that you also do it in order not to accidentally shoot innocent bystanders... what's the flip flopping? And I basically said that there are certain exceptions (professions) to the rule. I do not object a guard in a bank to have a gun... I do not abject YOU to have a gun (due to your profession) - but I say that there should responsibility and regulations be coming with it. You can shoot for sports, just keep the guns off the streets/ out of the homes.



The occasional smot poker you are referring to, Lurch , is a smart political move. Why are you not referring to the heavy crack sucker... why is the step from armed robbery o murder a small one, but not from soft to hard drugs? What about alcohol abuse? Well I don't care as long as he keeps out of his car and has no gun in his possession. If one is an heavy alcoholic, you would allow him to own a gun - not to speak of carrying it in public?



With the limited amount of ammunition I meant in someones home - in his overall possession. You need more to train? Get your supplies at the shooting range (the only place where shooting should be practised). In your home - for self defence - you do not need x amount of rounds, or x amount/ types of guns. You're a collector? Well have your Gatling Gun or AK47 disabled. You're a hunter? You don't need an M16 or AK47 for that, unless you're hunting T-Rex' or like to stand in front of the stampede... Why are you desperately looking to find loopholes?



Ammunition gets more expensive? Well, guess why that is? Btw gasoline gets more expensive, too - you stack 5000 gallons in your backyard? Would this be legal in a residential area (without precautions)?



Laws are here to protect the weak, to protect the victim from the aggressor - not vice versa. I am not defending the criminals, hence I do know how troublesome and frustrating it can be to be poor and have to face the riches every day.



The exact details about Buforts death we will never know - which is why I say "in dubio pro reo" - both ways.



But I know one thing: if Bufort would not have had a gun in the first place, if it wouldn't be so easy to get and own a gun within the US in the first place - he would still live. Maybe already look for different ways to get the candy.



We do have guns and gun related crimes/ accidents in Europe. Criminals do have guns over here. It's been said a thousand times in this thread: Still guns are by far a lesser threat in Europe than they are in the US. Why are you refusing to acknowledge that? Why are you closing yourself to sound reason and logic?



The 9/11 tragedy had a deep impact on the US, but what was more easy: to look at the tragedy (as in: effect of) or to take a closer look into the American politics (as in: reason for)?



Bush himself can't run for presidency anymore - I know that! - but he's got the next waiting in line already. It's merely impossible to find someone more misplaced for the job, so people will be happy to vote for any Mr. "I will continue to defend the country from the evils in the world", rather than a Mrs. "Lets get more moderate and also focus on national social problems".



Eight years of American politics shaped the planet - tell you that much. Similar to 13 years of German politics in the early 20st century. Not everybody here voted for Hitler and in the beginning he was not all about war and genocide, but still today (more than 50 years later) Germans are collectively facing hatred (open or hidden) all over the planet. We really had to rethink our (political) attitude completely. I reckon we did not such a bad job. I believe the US Americans should follow that act and rethink their position, before imposing their values on the planet.



IMO gun acquisition and the promotion of gun ownership does support the arms industry and greatly contributes to global suffering of all life forms.



We need to find a path away from guns, as much as we need to turn away from industrial meat consumption, fossil fuels and a violent lifestyle in general. We need to undertake small little baby steps toward this direction...

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181730004)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgM25YsY3Pw
br>


Please find my written comment about the current discussion on the bottom of previous page..

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181730274)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:FireTom: If I'm closing myself off to sound logic and reason than you've all but build a brick wall around yourself.

You're right, when facing a determined criminal intent on killing you, drawing probably won't do much. But HOW am I supposed to tell the difference? They look remarkably similar, they both have a gun, they both tell me they're going to kill me. Would you really want to take the chance and just assume they're bluffing? If they are bluffing, why would you give your stuff up? They're not going to hurt you after all. If they're going to kill me, what possible reason would I have NOT to try to save my life? If you think I would let them kill me because 'one dead is better than two dead' than you're misguided and more of a sheep than I suspected. 'Righteous shoot' is law enforcement/gun community slang for a legally and morally justified shoot.

Motorcycle helmets are by choice in a number of states, people should have that right, and there can be arguments made both pro and con towards that issue. That's an entirely different topic, but I fully endorse anyones private choice in that issue as long as the laws in the area allow it.

I don't think your alcohol or cigarettes analogy works at all, there are regulations there just as there are on guns. What is your point on that? I've said probably a hundred times now that I like certain amounts of legislation on guns, but there is a very fine line that must be tread.

What exactly are you calling "random civilian possessions"? Civilians who carry concealed legally are far from random, they've gone through the classes and jumped the hoops in order to do so. I'm still not sure what you're so opposed to in that. If I recall correctly the article about the shooting said that the man was the first in the 3 years the state had had a concealed carry law that was involved in a fatal shooting incident. Which means of the literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who carry guns in that state, legally, and probably daily, ONE of them killed someone with it, I'm guessing (yes it's a guess) probably hundreds have stopped a crime *without* shooting anyone, and a very very very small percentage may have gotten their permit revoked for various reasons. Concealed weapons carriers are NOT the people you should be going after, I'm all for going after criminals.

The occasional "smot poker" that I refer to is the common one. If they are heavy crack users than A: they more than likely don't have a legal gun, B: even if they did, they wouldn't get a concealed permit (they would rather spend their money on more crack after all), and C: they're probably a felon, and thus would not be allowed to have a gun, nor a concealed permit. Heavy drug users *are* criminals, they are commonly felons, and should not have guns. Recreational drug users are not hardcore criminals, they can still be upstanding citizens, and unless they are felons, they can keep their guns as far as I'm concerned provided they don't use them while under the influence, the same as driving a car. Yes I would allow an alcoholic to own a gun, it would most certainly not be ideal, but even an alcoholic is not drunk all the time. If they're not under the influence of whatever drug is their preference, then they are the same as any other citizen are they not? *especially* if their drug of choice is perfectly legal.

Limited amount of ammunition? You still haven't given me a logical reason WHY. I can have gallons of alcohol in my house if I want. Farmers stock massive tanks of gas all the time. I don't, because I don't have a reason to, but I don't buy gas a gallon at a time, or just enough to get to my destination, I fill my tank.

How is your argument helping the weak? You're REMOVING their very means of protection, do you honestly not see that? Bufort obviously did NOT buy the gun that he had legally. We don't know how he obtained it, but making it harder to purchase a gun in a store, is going to do nothing on the criminal side. Marijuana is not sold AT ALL in stores, but it's still extremely common despite the fact that it is illegal.

Are you seriously comparing the Bush administration to the Nazi's and Iraq to WWII and the holocaust?

You keep saying that me buying a gun supports the arms industry. The top 'arms suppliers' have absolutely NOTHING to do with the guns that I (or any other civilian) purchase, save Colt, but the civilian portion of their sales is so small it's hardly worth considering. Instead maybe you should be boycotting GE, or Boeing, they're far more influential in military weaponry, and thus, world suffering according to your logic.

You also keep bringing up Class III weapons (machine guns) and you even brought up a Gatling gun. Gatling guns haven't been made since the 1860's and ONCE AGAIN I'll state that no legally civilian owned Class III weapon has ever been used in a crime.. So, since there have been no crime by them, and as far as I know no accidents, what leap of logic should lead to their ban?

What exactly was the point of posting children with guns? Other than to troll? The second, third, and fourth pictures aren't real guns, the third even appears to be photoshopped. The last may be real guns, but isn't even in America. Whats more is that you obviously KNEW that they were not real guns since it's in the file name for the photo. Are you trying to bait us FireTom?

The first is the only image that has any sort of relevance, if it is even in the US. She's at a shooting range, under supervision (someones taking a picture) wearing proper safety equipment. What more do you want? As I've repeatedly said, that type of weapon isn't used in crime, so why do you have a problem with it?

It seems to me that you're just directly opposed to ALL guns, even if they are of no negative effect to the community. Even if they don't contribute to crime, or accidents. Just the fact that they're a firearm makes them 'dark' in your eyes. That's hardly casting an unbiased view on the topic, so don't complain too much about me ignoring "logic and reason"

Just for entertainments sake, you should watch an episode of Penn & Tellers series "Bullshit," They discuss gun control, and although it's humorous and a bit outrageous at times, it does a decent job

(three parts)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kWeTEXSV7ts
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Po8ywLD3f-k
http://youtube.com/watch?v=psEjU550xmw


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Fire Tom, the pictures look like people preparing for war.

I think you sum it up well:

 Written by:

We need to find a path away from guns, as much as we need to turn away from industrial meat consumption, fossil fuels and a violent lifestyle in general. We need to undertake small little baby steps toward this direction...



Lurch, what do you mean by 'Righteous shoot' is law enforcement/gun community slang for a legally and morally justified shoot?

pounce, fair point. You are wining wink

It was more about trying to answering your question, where does that put me?

 Written by:

Why must there be a black and white thinking on this? I'm against violence, but I am for defending yourself, which might require the use of violence against someone using violence on me. So where does that put me?



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

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:I'm spending far too much time on this... rolleyes

criminal intent/ self defence - your own words put it like you only stand a realistic chance against one, who is bluffing. The determined criminal, the one who is out to kill you will most likely do so, whether you are armed or not. Therefore you are more likely to defend yourself against a non-lethal threat. This is partly ridiculing your self-defence argument.

legislation - society chooses to make laws in order to protect the citizens from each other and (if necessary) from themselves. It reviews these laws and adjusts them if necessary and possible. In the case of gun laws, we have more than once been able to point out and prove that lax structures and handling are leading to disaster. Gun laws need to be tightened and enforced - the reality proves them to be inaccurate. Insufficient gun laws enable (potential) criminals to get easy access to guns.

drugsGuns and alcohol(ism) doesn't mix, as alcohol and cars don't mix. Either there should be regulations that alcoholics can't bear arms (at home or public) OR police needs to make (random) "arms checks" as they do (random) traffic checks... the latter is impracticable. If you're proven to have a severe drug addiction and intoxicate yourself regularly, you may at some point loose your drivers license, because society doesn't like to take too many chances - same should apply to CCW-permits.

drugs II you are creating scenarios and use "more than likely" - society can't take too many chances, if it doesn't want to waste (innocent) lives.

My preposition is rather to protect the innocent, law abiding citizen. Why would you want to put him in danger, by allowing drug users/ addicts to have and carry guns?

the weak and self protection as you say, a determined killer will do so whether you're armed or not. Reaching for your gun won't help. Even in the case of "steak knife vs. gun" the knife is having more chances - as yourself put it already. In most other cases, avoiding the conflict/ running away is the best option anyway. A person is more likely to "stand their ground", if they are armed (note: I'm not necessarily talking about the perfect CCWP holder) Now put that person under the influence of drugs (incl. alcohol). No good.

There has been ONE accident, involving a CCWP holder in this state. Right, but he was standing on his porch, therefore his CCWP is irrelevant anyways. It just happens to coincide

ammunition if you for say are only allowed to a limited supply of ammunition, a killing spree is less likely to occur - wouldn't last as long. If you are practising on a shooting range, you may buy and use as much ammunition as you like.

CCWP-holders maybe you note that I am not always referring to them - but to the average Joe, who can buy his gun at the next gunshop, without the loops and swoops a CCWP holder has to go through.

Class III weapons - if such weapon never was and never will be used in a crime, why are they banned from purchase?

children and guns - children need to learn more about the unarmed approach and response. I posted pictures to show you the people this entire discussion is about. No matter whether some of the guns are fake, child soldiers are a fact. You must have been present at the time the first picture has been shot: I can't see a shooting range and no supervision. Even an 8 year old can operate a camera.

design, shape and qualities of a gun allows a distinct projection upon it's character, much like the design and shape of say a vibrator. I hope that you'll never happen to mix up those.

If you happen to look at a Swastika - what is your connection to it's shape and design? Would you be looking at - say - ~14.000 years of peaceful history, or 10 years of usage as a symbol for the NatSocDemArParty??? The symbol itself is inanimate, right? At some point it was even to represent protection. Ten years of abuse have made this an illegal symbol, which resemblance can even lead to lawful persecution in Germany and Austria. Is this paranoid?

The shape of a gun is hard to mix up with - for say a vibrator. People who look at the shape of a gun, do connect a distinct picture and distinct qualities with it. Do not play the fool, please.

Hitler vs. Bush - a few ppl on the planet are ready to compare them two, I personally wouldn't as he was elected twice I doubt that Hitler would have had the same. Still they do have similarities, one: He - unlike any other president of the US - has managed to merge private (financial) interests with global politics, has pushed the US and the world into a few wars (on terror, in Afghanistan, in Iraq - and his term is not over, yet). Wars that still go on. It has and will cost many (innocent) lives and it provides a whole lot of benefits to a very few. He is dismissing human and civil rights/ encourages others to do the same (Guantanamo is ONE example)

arms industry - unfortunately it's not that easy. For example Africa is not bombing each other, they do use handguns - sold by Colt, Remington, Beretta etc. I'm not (exclusively) talking about fighter jets or tanks, but:

 Written by: Smith and Wesson

Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (Nasdaq: SWHC), parent company of Smith & Wesson Corp., the legendary 154-year old company in the global business of safety, security, protection and sport, today announced that its stockholders have elected the full slate of directors which was proposed by the Company's Board of Directors. That slate includes new director, retired Rear Admiral David M. Stone, former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

Admiral Stone has amassed over 30 years of experience in national and homeland security, most recently as head of the TSA, where he managed a budget of $5.6 billion and 54,000 employees, and was responsible for the security of the entire U.S. transportation system, including mass transit, rail, highway, pipeline, maritime and aviation systems. Prior to his post at TSA, Adm. Stone was the first Department of Homeland Security, Federal Security Director at Los Angeles International Airport, the largest origin and destination airport in the world.



You see that the industry is well interconnected.

The Cerberus group, who owns Remington, did now acquire Chrysler. It's a confusing network of private companies, shareholders, equities etc.

gun promotion - In armed conflicts all over the world, handguns are used. These are manufactured by the same companies you buy your handguns for self-defence/ hunting/ sports.

Therefore you are supporting global suffering by promoting and acquiring (hand)guns.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Pounce...I think Stone was agreeing with me on the shotgun idea for practical purposes only. It is the most effective weapon for home defense and requires less skill and training to operate 'effectively". Sure, you still have to aim but the damage one can inflict with one shot is pretty substantial,,,even if you just wing 'em.



Stone,,If I'm reading those links you posted correctly, then the Buddhist angle with regards to using deadly force in self defense is more oriented toward ones attitude, rather than the act itself.



Under Buddhist principals, it appears that using deadly force while protecting my family would be justified as long as my mindset is geared toward using that force to preserve the lives of myself and my family, rather than having a " I'm going to blow this [ censored ] away for having the audacity for entering my property"



Likewise,,baiting criminals by doing something like walking down the street in a "bad" neighbourhood with my hand in my pocket, clutching my gun, with the safety off, singing " I'm in the money" hoping, daring, someone to rob me so I can claim a righteous self defense shoot.



OK...I'll buy that...but I don't see any "negative" attitudes in any of OWD's posts when it comes to this topic. Buddhism allows for self defense, and I don't see the problem with wanting tools and skills to match those of a potential attacker . In the UK it may be a different story...packing a pistol for self defense when you're relatively certain that you won't run into a similarly armed attacker might violate Buddhist principals...but suppose you run into an attacker with something just as lethal as a gun...say a sword.



Now a big strong guy like OWD may be skilled enough to defend himself against a sword, or in good enough condition to run away....really fast ( one thing about a sword..you CAN run away from it ) but suppose, for some reason, that he couldn't...



Maybe a bum knee, back problems, whatever the cause, there's something preventing him from running. Would his carrying a gun for defensive purposes, and using it as a weapon against am attacker armed with a sword violate Buddhist principals ?



OWD...my apologies for speaking of you in the third person...but since this really is a moral/ethical discussion...I feel it's vital to explore where differing views actually come from, be it out of necessity, want, or philosophy.



We see time and time again ( yes even here on HoP ) where need and want trump philosophy.



So if there's need, or even a perceived need for someone to want to arm themselves with a pistol ( as opposed to the more typical want to own sporting guns for sporting purposes)...IMO the 2nd amendment argument is more of a need based argument, ironically fueled by the 2nd amendment itself ) how could this be viewed as being philosophically wrong ?



When confronted by an armed robber, I feel that the killing over material possessions argument is a gross oversimplification. There's a whole host of other emotions that come into play in this type of situation, the paramount one being fearing for one's life and safety, and if Buddhism allows for acting on these fears, and Christianity allows for acting on these fears too maybe, just maybe, there's not a GOOD philosophical argument against using deadly force when facing deadly force....except to be a martyr.



As for defense against a determined killer...I've seen enough episodes of the Sopranos ( OK..I've seen all of them ) to know that if someone wants to shoot you in cold blood..you're shot, simple as that...that gun in your pocket is going to do nothing to protect you when there's a bullet already flying at your head.



Pounce..good question, why does there have to be black and white thinking on this...Granted this is an issue that polarises people, but there can be and indeed is a middle ground...I'm occupying it.


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:rolleyes



Guns are like seatbelts. We have them but we hope not to need them. We know they are potentially hazardous and that is why we have laws. Many times we find that it is not the gun law that is lax but the follow through. With Vtech, the guy had court ordered care that if they had him follow through, it would have disqualified him from ownership.



Drugs: Yes, some people think that green is a gateway drug, but if we take a poll here even, you would find that many may have tried other stuff, but mostly say with the softcore stuff. Me on the otherhand, don't touch the stuff.



Another point on the matter is that users often do not have records. I don't. All I have are parking tickets. I don't even have a speeding ticket. I didn't have parking tickets until last year when I lived in a city with little to no parking. In my experience, only a small percentage have drug charges. I know people who have used for thirteen years and not have a drug charged. I've partied with hotel owners, lawyers and doctors. I've also partied with bums. From my past experience, the stupid ones get caught more often then the habituals. (not exclusively but often-knock on possible relapse wood) And they definitely shouldn't have guns. But the point is you cannot go by record alone.



I think we all agree alcohol and guns don't mix. Drugs and guns don't mix.



Limiting ammunition really wouldn't do anything anyways. How do you judge if the person has used it? Can't they save their supply until they have enough for their rampage. Some people make their own ammunition for older weapons. It's possible that this would happen next.



Buford having a gun was his choice. Just like me not having one is mine. He made the choice to commit a crime with a weapon and this is a foreseeable result, which is why we didn't carry one. Shop owners have guns behind the counter too.



Despite what it seems the world believes, the US is generally a safe place to be. You don't have to worry about anything more than say London. You just need to be aware of your surroundings.



Yes, Bush is President but he is not omnipotent. We have elected officials that provide checks and balances. He is a figurehead for the world to blame, but the Congress is right there along with him. His cabinet is supposed to advise him. It's silly just to blame him.



*sigh*



edit:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070613/ap_on_go_co/congress_gun_control

I do not know that they should be so quick to give veterans their right to own a weapon, someone suffering from PTSD may not be ready to own a weapon

EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1181755456)


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

Delete

Page: 1...910111213...44

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [gun law* quot license murder quot] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > POI > Partner Poi > Partner Poi Suicides (aka Murder Suicide) *help/resource murder suicide   ...
2. Forums > US Gun laws are "License to murder" [1 reply]
3. Forums > weird laws [8 replies]
4. Forums > the NEW smoking laws [103 replies]
5. Forums > Know the score as regards the law?? [10 replies]

     Show more..