• 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...1112131415...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

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Well you should know that a German wine label pretty much lists everything that is inside the bottle, even the sales tax...

Where do you find me stating that gun owners are ferocious killers?

Fact of the matter remains and you guys are turning blind on it: Promotion of gun ownershit creates suffering on both inter- and national level.

The companies Lurch referred to, were listed on Wikipedia, at Wiki on the arms industry. His statement that the major manufacturers (listed there) would not engage in manufacturing hand guns (as sold in the US) was simply false. Which is one of the reasons why I am not going with his argumentation anymore - he's only trying to dilute this discussion and resent to reason.

Examples:
Glock - gun manufacturer of Austria
Colt Canada
Walther - German gun manufacturer
Heckler and Koch - German gun manufacturer
Berretta - Italian gun manufacturer
Nammo - Norwegian ammunition manufacturer
SIG Sauer - Swiss arms manufacturer
Colt - US arms manufacturer

Let's not even go for the ammunition manufacturers...

He was stating that we would have to boycott flying Boeing and General Electrics and the like, if we would want to boycott the arms industry, which is simply not true.

In most armed conflicts on this planet right now, handguns are used - NOT tanks, missiles, planes, helicopters - HANDGUNS.

According to Amnesty International there are about 300.000 children soldiers engaged in armed conflicts at any given time. They are NOT flying attack helicopters, they are using assault rifles and handguns.

My thesis: You promote gun ownership --> fund the arms industry --> cause suffering. It's so simple that in fact it's too simple.

Question: Do you believe that the well being of mankind has to stand back behind your (individual) right for self defence? or to word it differently:
Do you believe it's okay that your fellow citizens and millions of people around the globe have to suffer, because you have no other concept to defend yourself, but with a gun? Which is when we are back in global politics.

You really believe in what you were stating above (about the scenario)? IMO that was murder. I can't read any self defence into it. The only information that would change my view on it, would be that they had a gun pointed at him... (but maybe they did - censored off! wink )

Disarmament of the US all together is not a realistic scenario - same applies to many global issues, still we are trying on a domestic level, on an individual level.

If you truly believe that you can't do a thing - maybe you're right. But why then put ppl off, who join Greenpeace, or RainbowChild

Just because (at this time) I personally do not believe in some good intention to (presently) work, why do I have to try clipping the wings of those who try (and make an effort)? Would you have put down Mose, Buddha, Jesus, Ghandi, King and the like?

No problem I do argue with you and make clear what I believe, so you can render for yourself. But the weakest of all arguments is: I can't change it...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Remember this one?

Non-Https Image Link


However:

 Written by: Stout

So the shooter's already had brass knuckles used on him...and he knows that without a doubt that his multiple assailants mean him harm, and if they were indeed threatening him with something like say....coming back to "get" him....then it might just indeed have been a righteous shoot in the face of a very real threat.

Heck...if I had someone threatening to come back at a later time and do something like throwing a molotov cocktail through my window and I'd already been attacked by that same person, I'd consider that a very real threat and would take steps to prevent the threatened action.



... meaning?


 Written by: Stout

Are you really SURE you want to support drug testing by the government ? Even if ( for now ) it's only confined to an issue like handgun ownership ? Sounds way to patriot astish to me. What's next, drug testing to renew a drivers licence ? A positive result automatically resulting in a conviction for possession ( yikes...there's those Thailand stories again )



Yes, I would support drug testing for ppl who apply for a gun license and most certainly for ppl applying for a CCWP.
No, I wouldn't support drug testing for renewing drivers licenses - and most definitely not positive results leading to convictions, or any other effect other than revoking the application.


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:A few weeks ago, I had a wine connoisseur explaining to me that, when buying German wine, it's more important to note what isn't said about the wine, than what is. Truth be known, he was talking above my head, but his examples made sense to me at the time....well...until we drank all the wine at least.

Tom, I do see your reasoning behind your supporting the arms industry at home. but I just don't agree with it, that's all. Do you really feel that if America amended their domestic gun policies, that it would have any real effect on the demand for weapons elsewhere in the world ?

IMO, it's the demand that drives the industry, not the other way around. Especially when it comes to military or para-military operations. I simply refuse to attribute the root causes of global conflict to the arms industry. Might these conflicts simply go away in the face of a gun shortage ? I don't based on the fact that man has been killing man over ideas like real estate and religion and money and......etc, since well before guns were invented.

Do we attribute all the suffering caused by the Crusades to the availability of swords ?

Yes, i believe what I said about the "scenario" but I was only offering suggestions as to why the jury let the shooter off. I could be totally wrong..I don't know, I wasn't there, nor do I know anything about any of the persons involved.

Personally, I'm not funding the arms industry, but I have done so in the past. I just don't want my decision as to whether I own a firearm or not being made for me.

I'm not trying to clip anybody's wings, just pointing out that the gun issue is more of a people issue than a gun issue ( hey wait a minute..isn't that what the NRA says ? ) that it's more of a software issue than a hardware issue.

Tom...I know what you're trying to do, and I'll agree that your motivations are noble, however I just don't agree that the "blame" is being put on the right shoulders.


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:IMHO: It does seem a bit of a jump in your thesis. You tie the two together by topic but not necessarily by relation.

Why is it not true? If we do not want to support the arming of the world, why should we say that handguns are bad, but tanks and helicopters are okay?

Just because Amnesty says kids are involved in armed conflicts does not even mean they have handguns or that they are handguns from the US. Maybe they are lookouts. Maybe they carry radios or ammunition. Maybe they are guides. Maybe they plant bombs. Why do you say that they have handguns? Some assault weapons have tripods.

I looked and couldn't find. Does someone have a site that lists the most popular guns in the US?


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:Massive post redface again...

Thanks Faith smile Tanks and helicopters are not okay either. But they are not the main weaponry used in present armed conflicts, only used for military operations, usually for a limited specific period - after which the main weaponry again are (hand) guns.

You do have a military base close by? Am I mistaken? You do have contact to soldiers eventually? I guess they might be able to help you out with a few informations.

I'm not tying children soldiers to guns "made in America" - at least not primarily. As Lurch said: the US is not the biggest (hand) gun manufacturer in the world - but it's the biggest market.

Stout: Well basically what isn't said about German wine (in here) is that it doesn't contain preservatives and that it's completely off topic wink

All: However - call me crazy - I really do believe that if the US would amend their gun policies, it would have an effect world wide.

* As we speak, one of the most lucrative businesses is arms. The US is one of the biggest markets for handguns (at least 8 million sales/ year) and ammunition. The more profitable a business is, the more ppl will invest into it.

* The industry is well interconnected and ppl from the military later may get a (very lucrative) position there. Meaning that some companies do actually corrupt politicians and personnel.

* The industry creates demand, which then drives it. If you want to sell your products, you advertise them. If you want to sell more products, you offer bargains. If you want to reach a larger audience, you form/ join a group and initiate a convention. If you want to make the big bucks, you spark a hype. If you want to keep your business running, you defend it from ppl opposing.

* A guns design is to kill/ injure. It does hold qualities. (very much as a vibrator does... well, put one on top of the shelf of your bedroom before you go to sleep with your wife and just wait wink ) Maybe I'm only projecting, given that - so let's move on from that "power inside" theme...

* The attitude of American citizens might be a result of the social environment they grow up with. Guns, the right to bear them, the history of the US and everything connected with this does reflect in their international politics. They only had one devastating war on their own soil - and that's a long time ago.

Guns make it MUCH easier to kill someone. MUCH easier than with a sword - would you not agree? And the crusades are far more past than devastating wars on US soil.

We have to ask ourselves whether we want to move on - and to move on we have to reconsider current affairs. Gun laws in the US are current affairs - or shall we simply wait for the next shooting? Most likely we will have to any ways. But if we keep focussing on something, chances are that it will change and chances are that it will change to the better.

In this entire thread we are based upon the facts provided. We cast judgements - and IMO way too fast and rigid. I myself am not free from that and have reconsidered my position - hence I generally do not see a minimal sign from the other side. No sign for the mere willingness to reconsider their position.

I don't wish to blame anyone, I'm just stating facts the way they appear to me. You disagree, please feel free to prove your opinion - you're welcome. But please do so and don't drag some NRA mummy out of the closet, or simply question my arguments without looking into them. Please do so with reasonable arguments - like the one that guns can save lives. This argument made me partially reconsider. But it only carries that far.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:As Faith requested I was trying to dig the sources for my pictures, hence I did a google image search and I can't trace


Girl: www.eosmith.com
Kids: www.inhonour.net
Kids: www.zioneocon.blogspot.com
Kids: www.bokertov.typepad.com
Kids: www.stolenchildhood.net

More coverage on children soldiers
More on child soldiers
UN on child soldiers
UNICEF on child soldiers

But I guess that as long as I cannot prove that one of these kids held a gun manufactured within the US, there are no ties and therefore no valid argument, the pro gunners would accept.

I give up...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

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:Tom, I don't want it both ways. I am active in trying to get legislature to change on the legalization of drugs. And I wasn't comparing guns and cars confused Or were you talking to someone else? But I would disagree with you that it's harder to hide offenses with guns and drugs than with cars. I think they are probably on par with each other, no more, no less. There are hundreds and thousands of people every year that drive drunk or intoxicated on illicit drugs that never get caught. Even those that hit another car, a building, run off the road, or sadly even hit a pedestrian, and they flee the scene before the police ever show up and without any witnesses.

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:The least I would want to see is police randomly checking whether or not people do carry a gun.



But I gave up already - all yours. Happy?



[edit] Re. Drugs and driving I was generally speaking, as driving and drivers licensed was continuously brought into this discussion.



You participate to ease the laws on drugs? Good job. I wonder how many ppl would still purchase a gun, if they were to take a pill or an acid one hour ahead of purchase...

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181983838)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Good one Fire Tom. I agree the right to bear arms does fuel a global arms industry. And for sure, The individual right for self defence can not go beyond the well being of the entire human race. Maybe this is one thing the USofA's still have to learn...



Stout, I havent studied martial arts except for watching the Lone Wolf with Cub As far as the use of lethal force goes, I think its more of a choice than a decision. Being in the present, dont think but act.



I doubt the average guy with a hand gun would have the training and discipline of a Shaolin monk. Unfortunately, most of the righteous shooting stories so far only show how scared and out of control people are.



Anyhow, its really about the principal you support. You are for violence or for non violence. The overriding principal for Shaolin is non-violence. Shaolin are subordinate to the Buddhist principles of non-violence. I see the America righteous shooting as supporting violence.



I dont think the majority of legal handgun owners want guns to kill people. Though, no one wants to give up their guns. So, perhaps its not a conscious thing. Ive alluded to people being programming by their past.



The other thing to look at is motivations. As quoted earlier 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. Perhaps playing the hero.



As far as martyrs go, Some people sacrifice their own lives for what they deem as a good and noble cause. They take their own life by such methods as self-immolation, bullet-fire, or starvation. Such actions may be classified as brave and courageous. However, from the Buddhist point of view, such acts are not to be condoned. The Buddha has clearly pointed out that the suicidal states of mind lead to further suffering (Buddhist Q&A).



As far pregnant women go, Id say lets move on from hypotheticals. Buddha says the weapon for self-protection is loving-kindness. One who practices this kindness very seldom comes across such misfortunes.



I think Mother Teresa said it best. I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there.



Stout, I am certain if America amended their domestic gun policies it would change how the world views guns, and show a commitment to a non-violent future. I think killing the desire to own guns (or swords for that matter) would stop global conflict. Which is different to a gun (or sword) shortage.



The history of mankind is a continuous manifestation of mans greed, hatred, pride, jealousy, selfishness and delusion. During the last 3,000 years, men have fought 15,000 major wars. Man should not pander to his aggressive instincts.



The world cannot have peace until men and nations renounce selfish desires, give up racial arrogance, and eradicate egoistic lust for possession and power. Wealth cannot secure happiness. Religion alone can effect the necessary change of heart and bring about the only real disarmament - that of the mind.



All religions teach people not to kill; but unfortunately this important precept is conveniently ignored. Very unfortunately some people in certain countries bring religious labels, slogans and banners into their battle(Buddhist Q&A).

EDITED_BY: Stone (1181985369)


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

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Alrighty, I apologize for all the quotations FireTom I know they irritate you so. I just have a lot of catching up to do due to a couple day hiatus.

 Written by: Stone

I dont think killing is accepted by Christianity or Buddhism. Martyrdom is a different topic.

Killing is a horrible experience. So Id say the principal of Thou shalt no kill is the overriding factor in both Christianity and Buddhism. As far as emotions go, if we remove the emotion, we can understand that killing is killing. ie. take out murder, self-protection, war, or what ever out of killing, and at the end of the day killing is killing.



Killing is most certainly accepted by Christianity, the church itself has put hundreds of thousand of people to death and it's ideals haven't changed *that* much. How are so many police officers and soldiers devout Christians or even catholics if they believe that they should never kill under any circumstance? A police officer not prepared to take someones life if the need be should NOT be a cop, plain and simple.

One killing is not the same as another, the same that killing a chicken for food is not the same as torturing a chicken for entertainment, aka [censored] fighting. One is morally acceptable, the other is not.

 Written by: FireTom


The guy on his porch, firing at the crowd actually killed a man, who was sitting in his car. He suffered a fatal shot in his back and the jury let him walk free..




Well now it's hardly fair to leave out important details from the story. They had attacked the man earlier. Came back later, broke into his house while he was sleeping and attacked him with a deadly weapon (yes brass knuckles are a deadly weapon) WHILE HE WAS ASLEEP.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that simply going back inside will not stop the attack, since they have already broken into his house to attack him. They are also obviously armed. The foreman brings up a completely valid point that you do NOT have all the facts, and to think that a jury of 12 random people conspired to let this guy off is a bit odd. More often than not they'd rather convict than let a potential killer on the streets.

I'm not going to say whether I agree with it now or not, but you have to admit you most certainly did NOT give the whole story.

 Written by: FireTom


where have I not quoted my sources? Please point it out to me and I will do my best to fill the gap. So far I thought I always quoted my sources. If there is no explicit link, it still would be easy to punch in the names of the people involved and Google does the rest for you.




You didn't quote your source in your first 'scenario.' And why was that? I would venture to guess it was because you didn't want us to know all the facts.

 Written by: FireTom


Faith: You quoted me for having said that "guns are evil" - I asked you to show me where I said that. You don't. I explained myself many times. Stop trolling, please. STOP TROLLING!




I've said repeatedly that you said guns are evil, why are you yelling at Faith for that? You have said multiple times that guns have a "dark energy," regardless of what you actually meant (since you didn't specify that until recently) most reasonable people would take such a description to equate to "evil." You're getting caught up in semantics again FireTom and it's making your arguments look weak when you divert the attention like this.



 Written by: FireTom


The law is a license to murder, as proven by the verdict quoted above. At the time this thread started, Patriarch was referring to a different statute of the Colorado law, not the one in effect in this case.




Please stop saying it's a "license to murder." It is no such thing, murder is strictly defined by the laws, so is self defense. Just because self defense may be broader in some areas than others does not make it murder. I have no problem with people using deadly force to protect their homestead, if someone is willing to break into your house you don't know what they're capable of, and waiting to find out might take too long.

If you're going to continue to call it a 'license to murder' than could you at least define 'murder' in your own words so we can have some sort of understanding about that?

 Written by: FireTom


I post pictures about child soldiers - nobody asks me for sources, but Lurch questions their authenticity and I have no reason to believe that the last pictures got photoshopped.




Those images were intended to provoke, and IMHO it was basic flame bait or trolling. You're right, I do question their authenticity, picture number two is obviously not American, and obviously a toy. (that type of toy would actually be illegal in the US)

Image number 3 is titled "/pal%20kids%20holiday%20toy%20guns.jpg" Hmmm... perhaps they are toy guns?

#4 pal_kids_w_toy_machine_guns.jpg

#5 is a image of child soldiers in the Congo

HOW do US self defense and gun laws have ANYTHING to do with these images? You're specifically intending them to provoke something.

300,000 children in armed conflicts.. Umm.. not in the US, isn't that what this thread is about?? If you're arguing that our gun purchases help to fund these child warriors, you may want to look at the guns that they are using, both weapons in the last picture are Avtomat Kalashnikova weapons, aka AK-47, straight from the former Soviet Union. How many of those child warriors do you see with American made guns? How many are walking around with Colt M4's? Not too many. Most of these weapons are relics from the Cold War, again, how does that relate to current policy?

 Written by: FireTom


You cease to address the gun issue in the US and continue business as usual, you promote gun ownership and a gun to be the solution to problems/ the only reasonably protection - more innocent, "law abiding citizens" and more innocent children in the US and everywhere on the planet will die.




What issue are we not addressing? How many "law abiding citizens" are killed by legal weapons? Not many. You haven't really shown any sort of link as to how me owning a gun kills a child in Africa, you just keep saying the same thing over and over that I'm 'supporting the arms industry' You just sound like a Greenpeace hippy.

No one has said they are the only means of protection. We have said that they are the best, and most proper means of protection in SOME circumstances. You've even agreed to the use of guns in some circumstances. How can you then say that there is no place for them?

 Written by: Stone


Lurch, Im not against self defense. Not all Buddhists are against self-defense either. Im sure the Shaolin monks are highly trained and some of the most famous martial artists in the world. Im sure they are capable of killing in self defense.




I agree, I'm not saying that all Buddhist's condone self defense as that is obviously not the case. I'm not Buddhist myself so I have very little room on the topic, but I found it a bit in poor taste how you guys were attacking OWD trying to poke holes in his personal beliefs. You're still taking our 'deserved to die' statement a bit too seriously however. Your quotation itself says that if the assailant is skilled and determined to cause harm, the defender may resort to deadly force. Common sense would dictate that such a defender would not then find themselves in a moral quagmire over whether or not they did the right thing. The aggressor pushed the confrontation enough so that the only reasonable solution was their death. How does my "self defense style" not honor life?

 Written by: FireTom

you're a criminal and as such you should not be legally own a gun.



That is NOT what the law says. The law says that FELONS cannot own guns. Please understand the difference FireTom. We don't want it both ways, We like it exactly how it is in that context, you are the one pushing to change it.

 Written by: FireTom

A guns design is primary for killing or causing great physical harm and a cars design is primarily for transportation - a non-lethal activity. A car can eventually be (ab)used to kill another human being - now show me what you can transport with your gun, other than ammo.



That's correct, however a car has FAR more potential to kill than a gun.

 Written by:

All: You are avoiding to make a statement upon the fact that the arms industry supplies weapons to conflicts all over the planet. How can I take you and your participation here serious, if you turn a blind eye on aspects of this discussion, just because it's inconvenient and would much likely disarm you?



Whether or not my purchase of a weapon from one of America's gun companies funds the 'arms industry which supplies weapons to conflicts all over the planet' has NOTHING to do with this thread.

 Written by:

I do not say that you can't defend or should sacrifice yourself. But if you feel that you are in need of arms in order to do so -IMHO- you have a moral obligation to change circumstances in such a way that the threat is ending



Some threats are not under ones control. This would be a reason to arm yourself. Most people with a CCW will do everything they can to avoid conflict, have you not been paying attention when I said this repeatedly earlier?

 Written by: Stout



I'm sure we could all imagine scenarios where a defender with a gun could make a decision to merely wound an attacker, and just may have a "plan" in mind as just what they'd do when confronted with deadly force....A likely scenario....first display the weapon, second, ask " can I get away with just winging this attacker?... third shoot to kill.




The use of force is very clear in such a situation, if you're not justified in killing the person, you're not justified in shooting them. You do not shoot to kill, but if it comes to that point death is a very real possibility, but not the only possible outcome. Shooting center mass is almost always proper etiquette. You don't shoot to wound, you don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the threat, however much or little that takes. If anything a handgun simplifies self defense over a martial artist. What if the deadly strike was not intended to be deadly? I'm reminded of a story where a couple was in a heavy fight, the male being an accomplished martial artist and MMA fighter, his girlfriend also an accomplished martial artist, with a 2 year old daughter in an adjacent room. The woman became more and more angry, threatening to kill the man, and harm the daughter. Attacked the man with a knife, the man disarmed her and put her in a choke hold to subdue and control her. The choke hold broke a small bone in her throat and she ultimately died.

 Written by: FireTom

The companies Lurch referred to, were listed on Wikipedia, at Wiki on the arms industry. His statement that the major manufacturers (listed there) would not engage in manufacturing hand guns (as sold in the US) was simply false. Which is one of the reasons why I am not going with his argumentation anymore - he's only trying to dilute this discussion and resent to reason.



I didn't say that they didn't or wouldn't make small arms. I said that the MAJOR arms suppliers do NOT make small arms. YOU are the one who posted that wikipedia article I was merely using your own source. You listed off a number of companies, one of which is American (you listed it twice btw). If you truly want to boycott the arm industry you WOULD have to boycott companies like Boeing, and GE. You're instead being selective, please, do some research and find out which types of guns these 300,000 children soldiers are using I would be curious if anything more than a TINY fraction were using modern weapons sold by the companies you listed. I would however be willing to bet the far majority are Soviet or Chinese Ak's

 Written by: FireTom

Yes, I would support drug testing for ppl who apply for a gun license and most certainly for ppl applying for a CCWP.
No, I wouldn't support drug testing for renewing drivers licenses - and most definitely not positive results leading to convictions, or any other effect other than revoking the application.



That is leading down a very dark road FireTom. There are very strict rules as to why and when a government agency can drug test you, and for good reason. You cannot randomly be pulled over and tested for alcohol unless there is probably cause. This is illegal (in my state), against the persons rights, and would be thrown out in a heart beat.

 Written by:

I'm not tying children soldiers to guns "made in America" - at least not primarily. As Lurch said: the US is not the biggest (hand) gun manufacturer in the world - but it's the biggest market.



Wait what? We're the biggest market? But none of those 300,000 "child soldiers" are in the US. How is amending our gun laws going to change the world? The world already doesn't follow our laws, nor do they have any reason to. They are their own country, and have every right, and responsibility to come up with their own laws.

 Written by: FireTom

They only had one devastating war on their own soil - and that's a long time ago.



Actually we've had two, we won both wink How many have you had?

 Written by:

Guns make it MUCH easier to kill someone. MUCH easier than with a sword - would you not agree? And the crusades are far more past than devastating wars on US soil.



Maybe so, but the crusades were estimated to have killed nine million people.

 Written by: Stone

Anyhow, its really about the principal you support. You are for violence or for non violence. The overriding principal for Shaolin is non-violence. Shaolin are subordinate to the Buddhist principles of non-violence. I see the America righteous shooting as supporting violence.



I respectfully disagree Stone, I realize that you don't know many American CCW holders, but if you did you may change your mind about them. You've type casted and stereotyped them that because they carry a gun they must be pro violence. Many people typecast 'bikers' as outlaws and rebels, which is simply not the case. In biker culture there is a term called the '1%'rs' referring to the 1% of bikers who *are* the outlaw rebels. I'm afraid that you're setting this stereotype based on a small number of stories that may or may not be true, and don't relate to the gun community as a whole. These are kind people, genuinely concerned for the safety of their family, is that something to be condemned? Is that something I should be ashamed of? If it is this isn't a world I would like to live in.

I'm not going to claim that some people aren't carrying weapons to try and play hero. The same way mall security guards are often seen as 'rent-a-cops' or wannabes overstepping their authority. But those people are few and far between in terms of legal concealed weapons carriers. In most states, simply drawing your firearm, or even displaying it, in the wrong circumstance can get your license revoked.



I don't think that US gun laws have near the impact on the world front that you imagine. There are plenty of massacres throughout the world that don't involve guns, or the US in any foreseeable fashion. Look at Rwanda, 50-59,000 Tutsi's were massacred by machete in a month. People's violent nature cause these countless thousands of deaths, not the fact that there are guns present.

If you watch the videos that I posted earlier, they bring up an interesting point. If the guns are the problems, why are there not mass shootings at NRA meetings, or Gun Conventions? Why do all these mass shootings happen in vastly unarmed areas (aka "gun free zones")?


#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, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch I disagree, killing is most certainly not accepted by Christianity.

Like all religions, the main principal of Christianity is though shalt not kill. Churchs ignores that principal, we ignore that principal and we live like frightened rats.

I disagree, one killing is the same as another.

 Written by:

One killing is not the same as another, the same that killing a chicken for food is not the same as torturing a chicken for entertainment, aka censored fighting. One is morally acceptable, the other is not.



The chicken is dead!

Lurch this is a story, you made it up.

 Written by:

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that simply going back inside will not stop the attack, since they have already broken into his house to attack him. They are also obviously armed. The foreman brings up a completely valid point that you do NOT have all the facts, and to think that a jury of 12 random people conspired to let this guy off is a bit odd. More often than not they'd rather convict than let a potential killer on the streets.



Its fiction.

Lurch to answer your question:

 Written by:

How does my "self defense style" not honor life?



If you are carrying a hand gun, then that says to me you are preparing kill someone. Whether that killing is classified as self righteous, murder, manslaughter or whatever. It doesnt change the fact that you killed someone. You went with the means to kill someone. There is no training and discipline.

 Written by:

If anything a handgun simplifies self defense over a martial artist.



That may be true, but again you dont learn discipline and self control when you buy a gun.

 Written by:

You've type casted and stereotyped them that because they carry a gun they must be pro violence



Yes, I have Lurch.

All religions uphold the sanctity of human life. They all say the first step to heaven, paradise, utopia, bliss, is overcoming the weakness to kill. All religions teach people not to kill. Unfortunately this important principle is conveniently ignored, time and time again.

Id suggest that its people's violent nature that causes them to carry weapons in the first place.

So the question is, where do you stand?


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: Written by: Lurch


 Written by: FireTom

The guy on his porch, firing at the crowd actually killed a man, who was sitting in his car. He suffered a fatal shot in his back and the jury let him walk free..



Well now it's hardly fair to leave out important details from the story. They had attacked the man earlier. Came back later, broke into his house while he was sleeping and attacked him with a deadly weapon (yes brass knuckles are a deadly weapon) WHILE HE WAS ASLEEP.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that simply going back inside will not stop the attack, since they have already broken into his house to attack him. They are also obviously armed. The foreman brings up a completely valid point that you do NOT have all the facts, and to think that a jury of 12 random people conspired to let this guy off is a bit odd. More often than not they'd rather convict than let a potential killer on the streets.



The foreman didn't just say that the jury had different informations, he also mentioned that if the lawmakers intent was to limit self defence to the "immediate threat" they should have put it into the law. Trust me I do know about the problems of selective reading...

 Written by: Lurch


 Written by: Firetom


where have I not quoted my sources? (...) If there is no explicit link, it still would be easy to punch in the names of the people involved and Google does the rest for you.



You didn't quote your source in your first 'scenario.' And why was that? I would venture to guess it was because you didn't want us to know all the facts.



You had access to the entire story, it is mentioned on the first page of the thread already, the name was displayed, you could have verified all along. I simply thought you would have followed the beginning of this thread, or at least the first page of it.

 Written by: Lurch

I've said repeatedly that you said guns are evil, why are you yelling at Faith for that? You have said multiple times that guns have a "dark energy," regardless of what you actually meant (since you didn't specify that until recently) most reasonable people would take such a description to equate to "evil." (.........) You're still taking our 'deserved to die' statement a bit too seriously however.



You said that I've said that Faith has said, I explained myself more than five times. Still don't get what I mean? You said "deserve to die", I said "dark energies" - you explained yourself, I did explain myself - are we even now? Please?

 Written by: Lurch

Please stop saying it's a "license to murder." It is no such thing, murder is strictly defined by the laws, so is self defense. Just because self defense may be broader in some areas than others does not make it murder.



In my country self defence has something to do with "appropriate force" and certain restrictions apply, that greatly differ from those in the US. From my perspective US gun laws are a "license to murder"...

mur-der:  Written by: dictionary.com

1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).



The accomplice of Bufort gets charged with "murder", you personally believe that "manslaughter" would be appropriate... However according to the jury, Hill acted merely from self defence. Have it then.

 Written by: Lurch

Those images were intended to provoke, and IMHO it was basic flame bait or trolling. You're right, I do question their authenticity, picture number two is obviously not American, and obviously a toy. (that type of toy would actually be illegal in the US) (...) 300,000 children in armed conflicts.. Umm.. not in the US, isn't that what this thread is about?? (...)How many of those child warriors do you see with American made guns?



(Almost) guilty as charged: I wanted to spur compassion. Guns in childrens hands is not exclusively a US problem, we (and especially the US) have to find alternatives, to ensure certain conditions under which our children grow up. I linked the US gun laws to international problems, therefore those pictures are perfectly okay to post here - IMO - as this is not only about guns made in America.


 Written by: Lurch

What issue are we not addressing? How many "law abiding citizens" are killed by legal weapons? Not many.



umm ubbloco

 Written by: Lurch

You just sound like a Greenpeace hippy.



Thanks for making me such a nice compliment at my birthday smile Since I cut off my hair, not many call me a "Hippie" anymore hug wink

 Written by: Lurch

 Written by: FireTom

(in the eyes of the government, if you are using drugs) you're a criminal and as such you should not be legally own a gun.



That is NOT what the law says. The law says that FELONS cannot own guns. Please understand the difference FireTom. We don't want it both ways, We like it exactly how it is in that context, you are the one pushing to change it.



You want to say that it's okay if criminals own guns, as long as they are not felons... umm confused *SIGH*

 Written by: Lurch

Whether or not my purchase of a weapon from one of America's gun companies funds the 'arms industry which supplies weapons to conflicts all over the planet' has NOTHING to do with this thread.



Explained.

 Written by: Lurch

 Written by: Firetom

I do not say that you can't defend or should sacrifice yourself. But if you feel that you are in need of arms in order to do so -IMHO- you have a moral obligation to change circumstances in such a way that the threat is ending



Some threats are not under ones control. This would be a reason to arm yourself. Most people with a CCW will do everything they can to avoid conflict, have you not been paying attention when I said this repeatedly earlier?



I'm talking about the time before it happens to be a direct threat, even before someone approaches you. It was not worded specific enough...

 Written by: Lurch

If you truly want to boycott the arm industry you WOULD have to boycott companies like Boeing, and GE. You're instead being selective, please, do some research and find out which types of guns these 300,000 children soldiers are using I would be curious if anything more than a TINY fraction were using modern weapons sold by the companies you listed. I would however be willing to bet the far majority are Soviet or Chinese Ak's



I do have a life outside HoP and this discussion, instead of loosing myself in ALL the details, I advise not to buy arms in general. If you need to morally navigate around my argument and prepositions, you may look for an "ethically innocent arms manufacturer/ dealer" yourself. Sorry, can't be of great help on this one wink

 Written by: Lurch

 Written by: FireTom

Yes, I would support drug testing for ppl who apply for a gun license and most certainly for ppl applying for a CCWP.
No, I wouldn't support drug testing for renewing drivers licenses - and most definitely not positive results leading to convictions, or any other effect other than revoking the application.



That is leading down a very dark road FireTom. There are very strict rules as to why and when a government agency can drug test you, and for good reason. You cannot randomly be pulled over and tested for alcohol unless there is probably cause. This is illegal (in my state), against the persons rights, and would be thrown out in a heart beat.



For a few pages already I am waiting for you to come up with the example of one case (to make it easy on you: nationwide), where a law enforcement officer had to face charges for illegally pulling someone over and test for drugs/ alcohol.

 Written by: Lurch

Wait what? We're the biggest market? But none of those 300,000 "child soldiers" are in the US. How is amending our gun laws going to change the world? The world already doesn't follow our laws, nor do they have any reason to. They are their own country, and have every right, and responsibility to come up with their own laws.



ubblol excuse, it should read: "the biggest legal market for (hand) guns"... as for the rest I am not as certain that your government follows your attitude.

 Written by: Lurch


 Written by: FireTom

They only had one devastating war on their own soil - and that's a long time ago.



Actually we've had two, we won both wink How many have you had?



Sorry, don't get your joke...

 Written by: Lurch

 Written by: Firetom

Guns make it MUCH easier to kill someone. MUCH easier than with a sword - would you not agree? And the crusades are far more past than devastating wars on US soil.



Maybe so, but the crusades were estimated to have killed nine million people.



Are you talking about ALL 19 crusades, between 1096 and 1456? or are you simply referring to the nine major crusades between 1096 and 1272... besides: do I notice an unreferenced estimation? umm wink

 Written by: Lurch

I don't think that US gun laws have near the impact on the world front that you imagine. There are plenty of massacres throughout the world that don't involve guns, or the US in any foreseeable fashion. Look at Rwanda, 50-59,000 Tutsi's were massacred by machete in a month. People's violent nature cause these countless thousands of deaths, not the fact that there are guns present.



You're entitled to your own opinion, as much as we are on ours. Please note that I am still waiting for reference to the "great battles" the Shaolin monks have fought, as you stated.

I'm not saying that controlling or banning guns in the US would end all conflicts, but it would help a lot to make the US a more credible example for the values that the western world tries to stand for - please remember that The West or better speaking the Western World doesn't simply start at your East Coast.

 Written by: Wikipedia

In Chinese Buddhism, the West represents movement toward the Buddha or enlightenment (see Journey to the West). The ancient Aztecs believed that the West was the realm of the great goddess of water, mist, and maize. In Ancient Egypt, the West was considered to be the portal to the netherworld, and is the cardinal direction regarded in connection with death, though not always with a negative connotation. Ancient Egyptians also believed that the Goddess Amunet was a personification of the West.[1] The Celts believed that beyond the western sea off the edges of all maps lay the Otherworld, or Afterlife.

Moving West in American literature, especially The Great Gatsby, symbolizes gaining freedom. This probably has to do with the colonization of the United States of America and Manifest Destiny.



I'm just trying to help wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:*some* Christian texts say thou shall not kill. If you look at the earlier texts it's written as thou shall not murder. If you cannot see a difference between self defense and murder than there isn't much point in having this discussion is there. There is plenty of killing that is perfectly acceptable in the bible is there not?

I don't live like a frightened rat, I live a very peaceful and content life actually. I am not scared of the criminal who may try to take my life, because I have the means and the ability to defend myself.

How is that a fictional story that I made up? That's pulled from the articles that FireTom posted is it not? If I have broken into your house and attacked you while you sleep, would it not be reasonable to assume that I would be willing to do so again?

 Written by:

If you are carrying a hand gun, then that says to me you are preparing kill someone. Whether that killing is classified as self righteous, murder, manslaughter or whatever. It doesnt change the fact that you killed someone. You went with the means to kill someone. There is no training and discipline.



You're right, I am prepared to kill. If you believe in the 'good of mankind' than you should believe that I don't intend to kill anyone without just cause. It may not matter to you why I killed someone, but it matters to me, and it matters to the court. If taking someones life is what it takes to ensure I live to see tomorrow than so be it. I'm willing to live with that choice, apparently you are not. So I ask you this.

If it is between killing a criminal, or watching them take the life of an innocent child, which would you prefer? I know in my heart what my preference would be, and I would be willing to lay down my life if I could ensure that child lives. Would you be able to live with yourself if they didn't?

Religion upholds the sanctity of human life yes, but they also uphold the preservation of self, and a deep obligation to right what has been wronged in some cases. I can cite you many examples from the bible that say self defense is morally right.

How can you say that it is my violent nature that causes me to carry a gun if I've never used my gun in such a manner, and sincerely wish that I never have to? I've never been in a physical fight with someone because I believe a non-violent end to an altercation is always superior. I am realistic enough to understand that not everyone feels that way though, and despite my best attempts, there may be some day where there is no other alternative. I don't believe that makes me a violent person, I just want to be prepared for such a circumstance.


#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*

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:Tom....meaning??....I understand the fear this guy obviously felt for his own personal safety, and it's apparent that the jury understood that too. What steps would I take?

Well I'd probably call the police and ask them to protect me, I'm sure they'd post a patrol car 24/7 right outside my house for as many months as I felt it necessary wink

Incidentally, I can get a CCWP here in Canada, as long as I can prove to the police that I'm facing a very real threat against my life and the police agree that they're unable to protect me from this threat.

Stone, I hear what you're saying about practicing loving kindness, and I fully agree this is by far the best approach. I'll also agree that living such an attitude will probably give you the type of countenance that people won't feel threatened by, and, providing you live in a like minded society, you probably won't attract as much "misfortune" as someone who subscribes to a more "confrontational" philosophy.

For the purposes of this thread, I'm assuming that regardless of attitude, one still finds themselves in a life or death situation. I've managed to live my life (so far ) without any violent encounters, even in my "young and stupid" days.

Are you suggesting that if I attacked a Shaolin monk with a lethal weapon, he wouldn't fight back based on his principals ? It's an interesting idea, and hopefully monday I'll head down to the martial arts store ( I need a rosewood bo, to make a new firestaff anyway....I sure can't find a five foot piece of white oak...and red oak's too flexible ) and ask if they know where I can find any Shaolin.

I'll agree to the idea that sometimes the self defense motive is disguised aggression, I've personally seen it in people who study martial arts, for self defense, and I don't think it's a stretch to apply it to some gun carriers. But just how prevalent do you think this attitude is ? You say "quite often" which to me implies a significant percentage, I can live with that and I won't try to refute it.

When it comes to martyrdom, I wasn't suggesting a suicidal state of mind, at least not in the "conventional" sense, I was more referring to a state of mind where someone is confronted with deadly force, and refuses to meet that force with equal force ( assuming the ability, of course ) and is killed as a result of that refusal. Maybe that's not martyrdom per se, but it is indeed sacrificing your life for your ideology.

I'm just not on with this whole idea of blaming America for the world's problems. In my view the tendency towards using violence to solve "disputes" is part of the human condition as a whole and is completely independent of nationality, race, or creed and I fail to see how American gun culture can have an effect on people currently involved in conflicts like...say...Darfur.

Lurch already covered the type and style of weapons these people are using and I have my doubts whether these fighters could even locate America on a world map without any text on it.

Indeed...Man should not pander to his aggressive instincts ( it gets you the chicks though ) but religion and belief have also been the cause of many a conflict too.

Maybe it's the ego that initiates conflict, but I feel it's the id that fuels the need for self defense.


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Stout, I hear you... What you can do (in that scenario) is to call the cops and file a complaint, get a court order that rules they can't approach you within 50 metres radius. This way they are registered with the police (and know it) and usually keep off. You don't need 24/7 protection. This was about a purse, they accused the guy of having stolen from a party.



That Shaolin monk you're referring to would not kill you, as long as he sees a way to avoid it.



I'm not blaming the US for all the bad in the world - just parts of it. And basically I am only telling "them" to take a closer look at themselves before picking and forcing themselves on to others... And that violence thing: Why does the rest of the West then not share the same problems as the US?



But thanks for pointing at Sudan: The US only cut their arms deliveries right after the Cold War. As of mid '90s the US government is supporting the SPLA (Sudanese rebel army). Guess why? Oil... Sources? Sorry in German Hang on *checks Google* Oh, here are sources in English... *checks some more* hmmmm, and whoops - links to children soldiers eek WTF



Happy now? Most likely I should smoke some pot and get back to my couch - haven't done that in a few months now - makes it so much easier...

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1182063323)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, the principal in the bible is thou shall not kill. If I get time Ill look it up again.



Lurch, you carry a gun because you are afraid. And as you say, scared of the criminal who may try to take my life.



This is all speculation. [made up]It's perfectly reasonable to assume that simply going back inside will not stop the attack, since they have already broken into his house to attack him..[made up ]. They are also obviously armed.[made up] The foreman brings up a completely valid point [opinion] that you do NOT have all the facts, [made up] and to think that a jury of 12 random people conspired to let this guy off is a bit odd.[opinion, made up]More often than not they'd rather convict than let a potential killer on the streets[opinion, made up]





Lurch you said it "You're right, I am prepared to kill." That means you intend to kill. You wouldnt have a gun otherwise. If you believed in good will, you wouldnt have a gun, and would not be prepared to kill.



Lurch, you keep making stuff up If it is between killing a criminal, or watching them take the life of an innocent child, which would you prefer? I know in my heart what my preference would be, and I would be willing to lay down my life if I could ensure that child lives. Would you be able to live with yourself if they didn't? This is fantasy, paranoia.



Religion upholds the sanctity of human life yes, but men kill and call it self defense, and morally right.



How can you say that it is my violent nature that causes me to carry a gun if I've never used my gun in such a manner, and sincerely wish that I never have to? The proof is that you carry a gun and are prepared to kill. No?



Stout, Im not suggesting you attack a Shaolin monk wink



 Written by:

Maybe it's the ego that initiates conflict, but I feel it's the id that fuels the need for self defense.





Close, what Im talking about is Ontology



More later, Im offline for a bit due to technical probs.

Back, link now working. Still a few probs, though.

EDITED_BY: Stone (1182050729)


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

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Stout, to answer your questions.

The idea of practicing loving kindness is to change the confrontational philosophy, and create a like minded society.

Authentic Shaolin monks are difficult to find. I think one would see you coming a mile away.

I dont think its as much blaming America for the world's problems, as asking America to show some leadership away from guns and violence.

 Written by:

Maybe it's the ego that initiates conflict, but I feel it's the id that fuels the need for self defense.



I dont know anything about Freud, so Im getting this from Wiki. If its the id that is responsible for our basic drives such as food, sex and aggressive impulses, and demands immediate satisfaction. The super-ego is a symbolic internalization of cultural regulations. And, the ego (self) mediates among the id, the super-ego and the external world. Then Id say the id was the boss, still in control of the ego.

I think part of the path to enlightenment is being able to break to bond between the id and the ego (cerebral cortex). Buddhist teachings and practices like Meditation and Koans help you achieve control. To the Shaolin monks, self defense practice is meditation.


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:A restraining order might do the trick, assuming that the assailants actually fear the police. Most likely, in this scenario , the police would advise the victim to check into a hotel to avoid any threats against his life that may have been made.

It started off being about a purse, but escalated into an assault with a deadly weapon, on a sleeping victim, in his own house.

I don't know about you, but were I attacked in this fashion, I'd be really, really pissed off and if that attack was accompanied with threats os further violence, I just might find myself hoping that the jury would return a verdict of justifiable homicide as I'm preparing myself to counter those threats against my person.

Sheesh...what kind of loser beats a sleeping guy with brass knuckles anyway ?

Stone, are you saying that this story is false ? I haven't tried to run down the factuality of it, like I did the 11 year old shotgun wielding home defender story.

I'm having a hard time making the link between preparing oneself for self defense and the intent to kill. Maybe the key lies in quotes like " You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war" -- Albert Einstein. which, on the surface, makes sense but if your "preparations ofr war" are geared toward defending against an aggressor, that quote could be interpreted to read something like....prepare to surrender, accept defeat, accept your impending death.

I wasn't actually going to attack a Shaolin..but if I did attack one with a lethal weapon, and never posted here again, then, we'd have a definite answer. I was planning on asking him if he would use deadly force against me if I attacked him with with a deadly weapon, without revealing my intent . But yes, I agree my chances of finding a real Shaolin monk are pretty slim.

Stone, your laying down your life to ensure the survival of an innocent child, sidesteps Lurch's question. He's presented an either/or scenario, and you've added another element. ( assuming that your sacrifice WOULD prevent the described action ) This is a classic example of using deadly force to save a life.

Tom, thanks for the clarification on why you're bringing up the role of the American arms industry and it's role in global conflicts. But really it's a topic that deserves it's own thread and needs to address the ( small ) arms industries of the world in general.

So America goes pacifist, does away with the second amendment, and disarms their population. Maybe the American small arms industry takes a hit and goes into receivership over it. Wouldn't all the other countries that manufacture and export small arms simply pick up the slack and supply those who want to buy guns with their products instead ? Wouldn't countries ( or states, or militias, or "groups" ) simply start manufacturing their own firearms ?

Unfortunately, when it comes to making guns, the cat's out of the bag, so to speak. The world has the access to the machinery, and the know how for almost anybody to start manufacturing these things. So if one group has guns, and threatens another group, one can best bet that the second group would seek to arm themselves against that threat in kind, whatever the means, because we all know, the best, practical, defense against a gun is another gun.

Asking America to show some leadership away from guns and violence ? Great idea, but given the lack of respect America currently receives on the world stage, do you thing anyone would follow that leadership or merely think that America's gone all soft and weak ?

Stone, if everyone subscribed to following the path of loving kindness, true, there would be no NEED for weapons and self defense. But not everybody does and unfortunately ist those that don't follow that path that forces those of us that do follow that path to prepare ourselves to defend against their aggressions.


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:You are right: One never knows what people are capable of. Yes they have been losers - I side that. If Hill was not to have shot one of them, all judgement would have been on them. And here comes the point in play, what all my resentment to US gun laws and the right to bear arms is about: If one has a firearm at hand, chances are that a human being makes an emotional judgement, leading to irreversible actions.

Now he has to deal with the fact that he killed someone, shot him in the back, while he was not defending himself.

I would never want to be in his position.

The approach of underlying philosophies to Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity (and I guess Islam the same) is that if you are straight and clean in your approach, you will not receive harm. Eventually, if all this fails and you get attacked and killed, you will die a "good death" (for example as a martyr). I am not advocating that ppl should become martyrs - just to make this clear. On the other side I do say that I would prefer to die in peace with myself and the world, but in struggle. Yes there is a whole spectrum of eventualities and stories that "might" happen (to me). But this is (life) insurance companies promotion.

Can you follow up on my approach that the US is involved in activities, that place guns in children hands? The pictures I posted are not meant inflammatory, but are a part of the US reality? (Please note that I'm aware the US ain't the only one in this business).

I'm not saying that in the unlikely event that the US goes pacifist, all armed conflicts will immediately stop - but I do say that it would send out the right signal to the world. It would make the US a lot more credible when it comes to pacify other nations.

I say that the lack of respect the US currently receives is deriving from its ambiguous politics and it's hypocrite position on human rights and democracy. The more Americans cease to listen to the brainwashing msm (mainstream media) and nationalistic propaganda, the sooner they will be able to tackle the root causes of their grievances.

The US (partly very unfortunately) is representing the Western World and it's ideals to a great extent. It so far is the biggest western global player. The European Union is currently growing to an extent that will rival the US position soon - but I would not want to rival the US, I reckon we should aim to keep them in the same boat.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

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: Written by: Stout


Asking America to show some leadership away from guns and violence ? Great idea, but given the lack of respect America currently receives on the world stage, do you thing anyone would follow that leadership or merely think that America's gone all soft and weak ?




Amen to that. Very well said.

I have been swamped with other things the past few days, so I'm not even going to attempt to reply to the 20 or 30 some responses since I last posted. But I will say this to Tom (and in part Stone as well), I've noticed (for quite some time even) that you nitpick Lurch for citing his sources, thus refusing to acknowledged anything he says, even if it's opinion. It's quite ridiculous reading it, and it only furthers my reluctance to take anything you say seriously now. You argue that we are nitpicking on small details and language, but what you are doing is almost worse because you circumvent the whole thing and just ignore anything Lurch says half the time. The irony is that he could just as easily retort the same things back to you, that you don't cite some of the things you say (how do you cite an opinion???). And even more, you don't bug me (and even faith or Stout) the majority of the time for citing our statements. (I'd have to go back specifically for them, but I actually don't recall you EVER asking me for a citation, and not because I always cite my sources.) You seem to have a personal vendetta against Lurch that impedes your ability or willingness to actually listen to what he says. I suspect that he could say the most brilliant, unrefutable argument, and it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't even listen to him. shrug Just an observation.


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, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Stout, Ill read Fire Toms story again, and when I have more time i'll answer your questions.



Stout, if you are having trouble making the link between preparing oneself for self defense and the intent to kill. Then carrying a gun is not the answer. Carrying a gun is an intent to kill someone. It adds to the problem.



I think Einstein was very clear on where he stood on war:



 Written by:

In the early 1950s, when the U.S. arms industry commenced its weapons-building spree that lasts to this day, and when Congress began an equally long-lasting buying spree to pay for it, Einstein argued that "you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. The very prevention of war requires more faith, courage and resolution than are needed to prepare for war."





 Written by:

Men should continue to fight," he said, "but they should fight for things worthwhile, not for imaginary geographical lines, racial prejudices and private greed draped in the colors of patriotism. Their arms should be weapons of the spirit, not shrapnel and tanks." Albert Einstein





In the following statement you make a very good point, Stout.



 Written by:

Asking America to show some leadership away from guns and violence ? Great idea, but given the lack of respect America currently receives on the world stage, do you thing anyone would follow that leadership or merely think that America's gone all soft and weak ?





If America was to show some leadership away from guns and violence, then I think the shock of real leadership would be enough to convince everyone to follow them.



Stout, I dont see how I can give an answer to highly emotive hero based hypothetical scenarios like:



 Written by:

If it is between killing a criminal, or watching them take the life of an innocent child, which would you prefer? I know in my heart what my preference would be, and I would be willing to lay down my life if I could ensure that child lives. Would you be able to live with yourself if they didn't?

.

.

.

Stone, your laying down your life to ensure the survival of an innocent child, sidesteps Lurch's question. He's presented an either/or scenario, and you've added another element. (assuming that your sacrifice WOULD prevent the described action) This is a classic example of using deadly force to save a life.





As you say, its a big assumption that a sacrifice would save a life. In a situation like Virginian Tech, for example. Id say people rushing in with guns would have probably increased the death toll. But its a hypothetical situation. Id say if a person was really committed to laying down their life to ensure the survival of an innocent child, I'd say consider donating your kidneys to the local Childrens Hospital. And stop giving me fantasy.



To Answer your question:



 Written by:

Stone, if everyone subscribed to following the path of loving kindness, true, there would be no NEED for weapons and self defense. But not everybody does and unfortunately its those that don't follow that path that forces those of us that do follow that path to prepare ourselves to defend against their aggressions.





Stout, Im saying lead by example. Take responsibility, stop blaming the criminals.





pounce, excuse me, it may be just an observation but if you want to knitpick. I get disillusioned when my points are dismissed as blown up by the media, anti-gun nuts, propaganda. How about Yes Stone: I'm saying that the "chaos" that you saw "live" did not happen.



shrug



edited for clarity

EDITED_BY: Stone (1182153358)


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

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted:mmm seems to me the argument is based on the 'I wont move forward with my behaviour unless everyone else does' that is so typical of US politics - and it seems...gun culture mentality.

It amazes me that its so obvious that all things are systems - and nothing exists independently of anything else - the individualist perspective being peddled since the industrial revolution has only been causing harm esp- through the idea of externalization of costs - and yet it's so deeply ingrained that people think it's their right to be like this - and yet the world and the people continue to suffer at the hands of this idea.

frown


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:You have a good point Pyro.

For me, it's I should know its probably time to take five when I start bolding text.

I think I was into tunnel vision when I made my last post, so I have made edits.

smile


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:Pounce - I cite my sources. I do and if you find me not doing it, you may point this out (as you did). Then I'm going back and dig those sources out... So you can follow up.



I base my opinion about gun laws not merely on facts, but heck I am far from perfect. I try to base my argument on as many facts as possible, but as you and Lurch and all the others: I'm just human (without using this as an excuse)



Where do you or Faith make citations in this thread? Where do you base your opinion on facts? You, Pounce claim that the gun in your pocket is needed to insure your safety. I object that, but you are making your own decision.



Lurch on the other hand is dragging examples from behind the closet and under the couch. He tries - like me - to prove that his opinion is based on facts. If he does, the least I can expect is that he cites the sources for his "facts" and that they are other than those of the NRA alone. I want to expect that, because I believe that the promotion of guns is counter productive and leads to more suffering, rather than tackling the root causes.



I am investing time to search and put the results here. Trust me I am trying to understand the mindset of others (even though I don't necessarily succeed). Is it asked too much to either side that effort or stop blowing this thread out of proportion by merely acting kindergarden/ brush off/ completely ignore valid arguments?



Now please tell me whether my "inflammatory" pictures are not based upon reality - better: tell me why you think so.



[edit] if bold is used so ppl can see more easy what your emphasis is, I can't object it.



Josh, have you heard of Mahayana? Motion can be internal, not necessarily be clearly observed on the outside (due to projection).

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1182160853)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

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: Written by: Stone


 Written by: ]Asking America to show some leadership away from guns and violence ? Great idea, but given the lack of respect America currently receives on the world stage, do you thing anyone would follow that leadership or merely think that America's gone all soft and weak ?[/quote



If America was to show some leadership away from guns and violence, then I think the shock of real leadership would be enough to convince everyone to follow them.




I disagree. Every time America has tried to "higher road," our enemies have exploited that and moved in for the kill. Look at the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Look at 9-11. During World War II we tried to stay out of it and negotiate for peace rather than go to war, but Japan got frustrated with our efforts and felt we needed a wake-up call. We were threatened so many times before 9-11 and we chose to still stay out of the conflict as best as we could, and then the Twin Towers and Pentagon were essentially bombed. When America looks "weak," our enemies try to take us down. I don't think disarming our country is going to set a positive example for the world, I think it would only allow our enemies to see our weak spots and make further attacks.

And I'm not ignoring the other comments, I just have had a rough day and am not up for an intellectual debate right this moment. I just read through to catch up and that particular comment caught my eye. I'll be back to discuss when I'm emotionally and mentally up for it.


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

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted:pounce I think its somewhat bizarre that you think that 9-11 happened because 'America's enemies' thought America was weak. Every single person I have ever spoken to about it (not only leftys, but also full-on right wingers) thinks its because America has been so obviously manipulating the lives of people in the middle east for generations. I must've had the 9-11 conversation 100's of times, and I've NEVER heard anyone think that it happened because America was in some way thought of as being weak - quite the opposite.

I also think that if you are basing your interpretation of America's involvement in the second world war on anything you have learned from an educator...well it underlines I guess how useless history teaching actually is when it could so biased.

Can you think up any other examples where America has attempted the 'high road'? Vietnam perhaps? how about the Gulf Wars? Afghanistan? Still - theres been many many examples of times when America could have stepped in with all their strength and fixed things up in times of Humanitarian crisis and genocide and it seems they never really have.

The whole argument for retaining arms that you guys are peddling is a classic deadlock - I wont put down my gun until the other guy does (the other guy is saying the same thing) - what's the solution? change the way you think about the situation - its the only way out of it (unless you like walking around waiting for a gun fight - I'd find it a bit stressful, but then again I don't fantasize about that kind of thing).

I dunno if you have a similar saying in the US but in Oz this is common;

It takes a bigger man to walk away from a fight, than to beat the other guy into submission.


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Tom, I'd have a hard time disagreeing with anything in your second to last post ( the one with the smiley face icon ) except to wonder if the people involved in a conflict like the former Yugoslavia were even remotely considering American domestic gun policies when they decided to initiate that conflict. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I have a hard time with the idea that there was some sort of... well...they shoot each other in America..so lets go thought processes going on.

How about Albania, 1997? There was an armed conflict in a population that might not have even been aware of America's existence.

Stone, I've reconsidered the link between purchasing a gun and the intent to kill. There is an element of truth in that idea, but I think it needs to be qualified with a statement like "if necessary". Originally I was reading it to mean that if someone buys a gun that they intend to use it in an offensive manner, however, yes I will agree that someone purchasing a pistol for self defense does indeed plan to kill their aggressor.

I don't have a problem with this, nor do I hold the opinion that people who do buy defensive weapons with the intent of killing their aggression are "evil" in any way.

Stone, I'm not giving you fantasy. You're absolutely sure that at VT, if an armed student)s) drew their gun and shot Cho after he shot his first victim, that the death toll would have been higher ?? Do you envision a scenario where everyone with a gun shoots everyone else with a gun until the last man standing ?? It's plausible I suppose.


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Errm - I can visualize a scenario where a few (maybe even ONE) courageous person in that building would have been able to get this censored

Stout - America is not the reason for every armed conflict or massacre in the world umm I never said that. But every time they are playing the cop, it would greatly help the matter if their own home would be without that much trouble.

If you retaliate the same way as you get attacked, you are on the same level as the aggressor - just using him as an excuse to finally reveal that side in your self. We all have this side (more or less).

Josh I love the quote and should hang it over my door. I'm not that much better, I know this. Thanks for making me aware.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted: Written by:

Stout, I hear you... What you can do (in that scenario) is to call the cops and file a complaint, get a court order that rules they can't approach you within 50 metres radius. This way they are registered with the police (and know it) and usually keep off. You don't need 24/7 protection. This was about a purse, they accused the guy of having stolen from a party.



That's nice Tom, but a restraining order is just a piece of paper. They would have to follow the laws in order for it to have any effect on them, and seeing as they already broke into the mans house and attacked him while he was sleeping, somehow I doubt that a restraining order would keep them away.

 Written by:

Lurch, you carry a gun because you are afraid. And as you say, scared of the criminal who may try to take my life.

This is all speculation. [made up]It's perfectly reasonable to assume that simply going back inside will not stop the attack, since they have already broken into his house to attack him..[made up ]. They are also obviously armed.[made up] The foreman brings up a completely valid point [opinion] that you do NOT have all the facts, [made up] and to think that a jury of 12 random people conspired to let this guy off is a bit odd.[opinion, made up]More often than not they'd rather convict than let a potential killer on the streets[opinion, made up]



I'm not afraid Stone, how many times do I have to say this? Are you reading my mind or something? You've never even met me, don't go assuming things. Do you wear your seatbelt because you're constantly in fear of getting in an accident? No, you want to prepare yourself for the possibility.

How is any of that made up? They DID break into his house, they WERE armed (they attacked him after all). You DON'T know all the facts, that's not exactly an opinion, stating whether or not knowing all the facts would change your decision would be an opinion.

 Written by:


Lurch you said it "You're right, I am prepared to kill." That means you intend to kill. You wouldnt have a gun otherwise. If you believed in good will, you wouldnt have a gun, and would not be prepared to kill.



Not true, come on now. Just because I'm prepared to kill does NOT mean I'm intending to kill. I wear my seatbelt, does that mean I intend to get in a car accident? No, I will only kill when it is in protection of a life, and within the law. You're making it out to sound like I'm hunting people down to provoke a fight just so I can shoot them.

 Written by:

If it is between killing a criminal, or watching them take the life of an innocent child, which would you prefer? I know in my heart what my preference would be, and I would be willing to lay down my life if I could ensure that child lives. Would you be able to live with yourself if they didn't? This is fantasy, paranoia.



It was a question Stone, of course it was made up. It's a hypothetical question that you apparently won't answer. Do you honestly think that somewhere in the history of mankind a similar situation has not happened? Of course I can't prove anything, but I'm guessing that somewhere, sometime, something similar to that hypothetical question was put into action.

You guys keep quoting Einstein, are you forgetting that he directly wrote a letter to President Roosevelt urging us to build the bomb in response to Germany's development?

 Written by:

Men should continue to fight," he said, "but they should fight for things worthwhile, not for imaginary geographical lines, racial prejudices and private greed draped in the colors of patriotism. Their arms should be weapons of the spirit, not shrapnel and tanks." Albert Einstein



IF I ever have to shoot someone, it is going to be for something worthwhile, it will be in the protection of another human life, not greed, not race, not geographical lines. If we're arguing military aggression this quotation might have some bearing on the topic at hand, but right now I don't see much.

 Written by:

As you say, its a big assumption that a sacrifice would save a life. In a situation like Virginian Tech, for example. Id say people rushing in with guns would have probably increased the death toll. But its a hypothetical situation. Id say if a person was really committed to laying down their life to ensure the survival of an innocent child, I'd say consider donating your kidneys to the local Childrens Hospital. And stop giving me fantasy.



Stone: You're going to run into a problem if you categorize any violent scenario as fantasy. You're the one exaggerating and fantasizing about these things, what exactly do you picture when we say we with someone else had had a gun at Virgina Tech? 400 people pulling out machine guns and spraying in a circle? Come on, be realistic.

 Written by:

Stout, Im saying lead by example. Take responsibility, stop blaming the criminals.



WHAT? Stop blaming the criminals? The guy who shoplifts a candy bar, not because he's starving, not because he doesn't have the money, he just doesn't want to pay for it. Thats someone else's fault? I do lead by example, I'm respectful, honest, and law abiding. I'm not violent, I'm not a thief, and more importantly, I will not stand for people who are. Would you like us to just let all the criminals out of prison and hope that they'll be nice since we're nice to them?


I'm glad this topic is opening up a bit more than me vs Stone and FireTom, I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep up with it 100% like before, my apologies, and bear with me if some of my posts are redundant.


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

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Page: 1...1112131415...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..