quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

So, the many heart-warming stories of guns being given to children by their fathers and grandfathers to teach them "how to be a man" really are illegal acts that should be prosecuted?

I was given my first gun when I was 12; it was a single-shot, 20 gauge shotgun.  Now I say "was given" but technically it was my father's property.  You do understand that anyone below the age of 18 can't buy a shotgun, rifle, or the corresponding ammunition?  Likewise, anyone below the age of 21 can't buy a handgun or the ammunition. 

When I got my first car at 16, it was mine.  I payed for it, but I couldn't use it without my father's say so.  Does that make any sense to you now?  Dylan and Klebold procured these weapons outside the supervision of their parents.  They also illegally modified a shotgun by sawing the barrel down below 18 inches, which is a federal offense.  You get ten years easy for doing that in the Federal pen.  It didn't stop them from doing it, because homicidal maniacs will break the law if it serves their purposes. 

We could ban guns entirely in this country, and there would still be people that committed massacres, murders, and other crimes using a gun.  You could ban matches, but you will still have arsonists. 

So, in your attempt to split hairs you are telling me your father gave you a gun but it wasn't illegal because it was still his property.

In the next breath you are telling me that Klebold's girlfriend giving him the guns she legally purchased was illegal because he was underage, even though the same argument could be made that it was still her property.

Sorry, but I don't think there is a "parental supervision" exception.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

So, the many heart-warming stories of guns being given to children by their fathers and grandfathers to teach them "how to be a man" really are illegal acts that should be prosecuted?

I was given my first gun when I was 12; it was a single-shot, 20 gauge shotgun.  Now I say "was given" but technically it was my father's property.  You do understand that anyone below the age of 18 can't buy a shotgun, rifle, or the corresponding ammunition?  Likewise, anyone below the age of 21 can't buy a handgun or the ammunition. 

When I got my first car at 16, it was mine.  I payed for it, but I couldn't use it without my father's say so.  Does that make any sense to you now?  Dylan and Klebold procured these weapons outside the supervision of their parents.  They also illegally modified a shotgun by sawing the barrel down below 18 inches, which is a federal offense.  You get ten years easy for doing that in the Federal pen.  It didn't stop them from doing it, because homicidal maniacs will break the law if it serves their purposes. 

We could ban guns entirely in this country, and there would still be people that committed massacres, murders, and other crimes using a gun.  You could ban matches, but you will still have arsonists. 

So, in your attempt to split hairs you are telling me your father gave you a gun but it wasn't illegal because it was still his property.

In the next breath you are telling me that Klebold's girlfriend giving him the guns she legally purchased was illegal because he was underage, even though the same argument could be made that it was still her property.

Sorry, but I don't think there is a "parental supervision" exception.

I can't speak for SLB, but my guess is that's exactly what he is saying, and if so he's absolutely right. He grew up in Arkansas, where the  law says:

Arkansas - It is unlawful to sell, give, rent, or otherwise furnish a firearm to a person under 18 without the consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for the general supervision of the minors welfare.

So yes, it was legal for his father to give him firearms. The Columbine murderers lived in Colorado, where the law says:

Colorado - It is unlawful for any person under 18 to possess a handgun, and it is unlawful to provide or permit a juvenile to possess a handgun. Exceptions to this prohibition are:
1. Attendance at a hunters safety course or firearms safety course.
2. Engaging in lawful target shooting.
3. Participating in or practice for a performance by a group organized under IRA code 501(c)(3) which uses firearms as part of such performance.
4. Hunting or trapping with a valid license.
5. Traveling with an unloaded handgun to or from any activity described in subparagraphs 1 through 4 above.
6. While on real property under the control of the juveniles parent, legal guardian or grandparent and who has the permission of the parent or legal guardian to possess a handgun.
7. While at the juveniles residence and with permission of parent or legal guardian to possess a handgun for self -defense.

Source

So yeah, he is absolutely correct in what he says. A little research might have saved you from unfairly castigating him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well admittedly Panda,some of my posting is done very late at night....if you care to point out where exactly I'm losing you....I would be happy to try and clear it up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4uDifferent laws for different states does tend to leave me a little confused.Am I nitpicking? Perhaps I am.Perhaps I am tired of the violence,tired of school shooting...workplace shootings ...random shootings and now nursing homes can be added to the list,taking their place besides fast food restaurants and shopping malls.
I do get tired of this argument ,right now there is another thread started by Strangerthan in which he would like to discuss the ever lengthening list of mass killings using guns.But in a surreal development he wants to do so with out mentioning guns or gun control...in his OP he refers to the gun as  the "tool"...a nice euphemism to be sure but a euphemism all the same.How do you discuss this issue with those whose to deceive themselves is such that they substitute words and dance around a word...without doing a little nitpicking

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda


So yeah, he is absolutely correct in what he says. A little research might have saved you from unfairly castigating him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

I watched ABC's 20/20 last night.  Was disappointed in the bias, but it wasn't unexpected.   Certainly it pointed out that firearm ownership by itself isn't necessarily going to save lives and that training matters.  And the situation they put the students in wasn't very realistic either...a firearms trainer as the assailant? Of course he'll have an advantage.  Wearing face protection and an extremely baggy shirt?  Duh....it would make it hard for anyone to react appropriately who doesn't wear that stuff all the time.

It disregarded the whole issue that firearm ownership DOES reduce crimes from escalating, as in the case of a burglar confronting an armed homeowner and fleeing. 

Owning a gun just increases the chances of survival.  It doesn't guarantee survival.  Ask anyone who has served in an armed conflict or war.  They know that they wouldn't go out to combat without one, but also know that just having a gun doesn't make you invincible.  You still have to "keep your head down" so it doesn't get shot off by someone else.


I prefer John Stossel, of the same ABC, to weigh in...oh wait, he did:  http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1

There's no way to know whether Seung-Hui Cho's murderous rampage could have been stopped in a similar way, but what's certain is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that legislators intend. More guns (in the right hands) can stop crime, and fewer guns (in the wrong hands) can make for more crime. Gun control isn't crime control.

There is no "Gun Show Loophole" except as labeled by people who want to make something of nothing. 

Going to a gun show to sell a firearm (or beef jerky or "The Poor Man's James Bond") isn't different from an individual posting on a gun message board he's selling XYZ and another person buying it.    Do we call that the "chat room loophole?"    Or a person taking out an ad in a newspaper and selling to another person.  Is that the "newspaper ad loophole?"

That said, if ABC wants to give me $5000, I'll go to the next gun show and get BOTH guns AND ammunition.  Maybe a little beef jerky too.   And I won't turn them over to the police at the end of the show either...I'll take them to the range for some practice.

quote:

Just read this post,was dissapointed at the bias...but it was to be expected.

yes I was very disappointed at the lack of professional journalism and the obvious agenda-based reporting.  That's why I ALSO mentioned John Stossel, of the same company, and his take on the issue of guns.

quote:


Your post disregarded the fact that guns in the hands of criminals and killers make escalation of crimes pretty much a given

Firearms are going to be in the hands of criminals, no matter what laws are in place.  So you want to make the unfair fight even more unfair, I get that.  In a "perfect world" we'd all get along, we wouldn' t need any weapons of any kind, and Mr. Rodgers would be our role model.  The world isn't perfect.  People don't follow the laws. And, at least to me, people should have the opportunity to have an opportunity to level the field when it comes to people who want to harm them in some way, fiscally, emotionally, or physically.

You also seem to not get the point that if you aren't armed, YOU are at risk these days at being shot anyway, more than once, because that is the new "code" of many of the gangs out there.  With a firearm, you stand a chance of scaring them off, stopping them, or yes, giving them another gun from your cold dead fingers.  Note:  you are cold and dead.

quote:


"owning a gun just increases the chances of survival" care to cite statistics here...or will we just take your word for it.Are you factoring in those that are shot by their own weapons,whether self inflicted,shot by an intruder...or just an accident.

There are plenty of stats out there.  They have been covered to death in other posts here.  Check out the FBI's website.  Check out http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html   Do some googling and post some counter stats from valid sources.

quote:


There is no way to know how many fewer victims Cho would have been able to rack up if his access to easily obtained weapons had been curtailed.

No kidding.  But again, a "criminal"  was able to obtain a weapon, and the laws state that students can't have ANY projectile weapons, including tear gas, in an "educational facility."  Hence schools and other "off limit to firearms" places make great shooting galleries for those so intended.

Just because Cho got one, no one should have one? 

quote:


Crush were you kidding with the "Ask anybody who has served in an armed conflict or war" line....are you seriously comparing the utility of possessing a firearm in a firefight....to possessing a firearm when one goes to get a gallon of milk?Surely ,even with our "gun control" problems the streets of America are not this dangerous....are they?

mike, you misrepresent my words.  Let me try again:  Just because you have a firearm , it doesn't make you invincible.  It DOES however, give you a chance.  "Bearing arms" vs "Bare arms" in a sense.  
A soldier going into combat knows that it is better to have a firearm and not need it than to not have one and need it.  The same for walking to the store, buying milk.  If I never have to use my firearm to defend myself or others, then great.  BUT if there ever comes a time when I have to, I sure hope I carried one and had a chance to utilize it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4uThanks Panda for once again illustrating the need for comprehensive Federal regulations concerning firearms.
BTW your 6 points from the earlier post...would be a great improvement on the current situation.It is a pleasure to banter,argue and debate with someone,though basically on the "other side" of the question,recognises that some compromise between the 2 positions is inevitable.Though it might at times seem I would like all privatelly held guns confiscated....nothing could be further from the truth.There is a middle ground between those who avocate for gun control and those who claim unfettered rights.Finding such ground shouldn't be this hard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda


So yeah, he is absolutely correct in what he says. A little research might have saved you from unfairly castigating him.

Unfairly castigating him?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
I only repeated his own words:

slaveboyforyou, post#84:  " It is illegal for me to go out and purchase firearms than give them to minors ...".


It's not incumbent on me to research someone's argument for them, I only respond to what's posted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well admittedly Panda,some of my posting is done very late at night....if you care to point out where exactly I'm losing you....I would be happy to try and clear it up.

It's just that the target seems to keep shifting - as I said, the subject of gun shows in general and the subject of the gun show loophole are two very distinct, separate issues, but you seem to keep wanting to talk about them as one. There's no reason we can't talk about them in the same conversation, but if we try to talk about them as the same thing, we're not going to get anywhere with either one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4uDifferent laws for different states does tend to leave me a little confused.Am I nitpicking? Perhaps I am.Perhaps I am tired of the violence,tired of school shooting...workplace shootings ...random shootings and now nursing homes can be added to the list,taking their place besides fast food restaurants and shopping malls.
I do get tired of this argument ,right now there is another thread started by Strangerthan in which he would like to discuss the ever lengthening list of mass killings using guns.But in a surreal development he wants to do so with out mentioning guns or gun control...in his OP he refers to the gun as  the "tool"...a nice euphemism to be sure but a euphemism all the same.How do you discuss this issue with those whose to deceive themselves is such that they substitute words and dance around a word...without doing a little nitpicking

See, that's what troubles me. I haven't had time to post in that thread yet, but the man's got a damned good point. One that we on this side of the debate have made many times. And please don't take offense at this, but the fact that some of you guys not only do not see that this is a good point, but regard it as surreal for him even to mention it, is profoundly disturbing to me.

I said earlier in this thread (or maybe it was a different gun thread, I don't know), that my worst fear regarding gun control is that the coming federal firearms legislation will be written by people who don't know diddly about guns, and this is exactly what I'm talking about. The problem of gun crime is a complex, multi-faceted problem, and you guys always seem to want to simplify it down to one single issue - guns themselves. This is what frustrates the hell out of so many of us on this side of the debate - because we know that this is just a simplistic, narrowminded, shortsighted, knee jerk reaction that will not only do nothing to really solve the problem, but will probably make the problem worse because it will give so many of you the illusion that you've actually solved it. If you want to really address the problem, you have to break it down and look at the whole thing, not just the first part that jumps out at you.

First of all, let's establish exactly what it is we're talking about here. The problem we're trying to solve is that too many people are shooting each other, right? Do we agree on that? OK. Too many people on  your side of the debate look at that and jump to the conclusion that there are too many guns out there, or that too many people have access to guns, or some combination of the two. And of course, that's the largest part of the issue. But what you're failing to recognize is that there's another, absolutely critical component of the problem - and that's the issue of why so many people are going around shooting each other. And until you address that issue, it doesn't matter what you do about the number of guns in the country, or the number of people who have access to them, because I'll tell you what - those guns are already here, and they ain't goin' nowhere anytime soon. And as long as they're here, people will have access to them.

Now, you may not like that, but like it or not that's the reality that you have to deal with. Yes, there's no question we need better legislation controlling access  to guns, but there is nothing in the world that will get rid of the guns that are already available to criminals. I know a lot of people on your side of the issue advocate a total ban on firearms, but there's nothing that would blow your cause out of the water faster and more completely than that - because right now you've got a lot of us gun owners willing to make a number of compromises to reach a sane solution, and the minute you start talking about an across-the-board ban, we'll jump ship and fight you tooth and nail. Every one of us. You'll never win that battle, and in the losing of it you'll have forfeited the war, because you'll have forever alienated the people you need to reach across the divide and join hands.

Bottom line is, the problem of gun violence is made up of two fundamental problems - one is how people are shooting each other, the other is why they are shooting each other. If you continue to insist on only discussing the how, and completely ignoring the why, you have absolutely no chance of designing a truly workable solution. And those of us who recognize that, and who are willing to make compromises and sacrifices in order to reach a common goal, will be unwilling to make those sacrifices if we see that the result is not going to achieve the positive outcome toward which we are willing to work. And you'll be left to crusade all on your own, with no chance of accomplishing anything except the increased polarization of the American people. You guys really need to find a way to get the emotion out of the issue, educate yourselves, and make objective, dispassionate decisions on what exactly you want to achieve and what you're willing to accept in order to achieve it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

See, that's what troubles me. I haven't had time to post in that thread yet, but the man's got a damned good point. One that we on this side of the debate have made many times. And please don't take offense at this, but the fact that some of you guys not only do not see that this is a good point, but regard it as surreal for him even to mention it, is profoundly disturbing to me.

quote:


I said earlier in this thread (or maybe it was a different gun thread, I don't know), that my worst fear regarding gun control is that the coming federal firearms legislation will be written by people who don't know diddly about guns, and this is exactly what I'm talking about. The problem of gun crime is a complex, multi-faceted problem, and you guys always seem to want to simplify it down to one single issue - guns themselves. This is what frustrates the hell out of so many of us on this side of the debate - because we know that this is just a simplistic, narrowminded, shortsighted, knee jerk reaction that will not only do nothing to really solve the problem, but will probably make the problem worse because it will give so many of you the illusion that you've actually solved it. If you want to really address the problem, you have to break it down and look at the whole thing, not just the first part that jumps out at you.

quote:


First of all, let's establish exactly what it is we're talking about here. The problem we're trying to solve is that too many people are shooting each other, right? Do we agree on that? OK. Too many people on  your side of the debate look at that and jump to the conclusion that there are too many guns out there, or that too many people have access to guns, or some combination of the two. And of course, that's the largest part of the issue. But what you're failing to recognize is that there's another, absolutely critical component of the problem - and that's the issue of why so many people are going around shooting each other. And until you address that issue, it doesn't matter what you do about the number of guns in the country, or the number of people who have access to them, because I'll tell you what - those guns are already here, and they ain't goin' nowhere anytime soon. And as long as they're here, people will have access to them.

quote:


Now, you may not like that, but like it or not that's the reality that you have to deal with. Yes, there's no question we need better legislation controlling access  to guns, but there is nothing in the world that will get rid of the guns that are already available to criminals. I know a lot of people on your side of the issue advocate a total ban on firearms, but there's nothing that would blow your cause out of the water faster and more completely than that - because right now you've got a lot of us gun owners willing to make a number of compromises to reach a sane solution, and the minute you start talking about an across-the-board ban, we'll jump ship and fight you tooth and nail. Every one of us. You'll never win that battle, and in the losing of it you'll have forfeited the war, because you'll have forever alienated the people you need to reach across the divide and join hands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

Some questions for you mike:  A) have you ever been face to face with a pistol?  B) Been pistol-whipped so that it leaves permanent jaw damage?  C) Have you ever driven to a bank and found out you can't go in because it was robbed 15 minutes earlier...and you were delayed 20 minutes on the phone on your way to the bank?

I can answer YES to each question.  And that is one reason I decided to carry a firearm.   I may not win, but I won't go whimpering.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

See, that's what troubles me. I haven't had time to post in that thread yet, but the man's got a damned good point. One that we on this side of the debate have made many times. And please don't take offense at this, but the fact that some of you guys not only do not see that this is a good point, but regard it as surreal for him even to mention it, is profoundly disturbing to me.

That's funny, it's profoundly disturbing to me that you see it as a "good point".

quote:


I said earlier in this thread (or maybe it was a different gun thread, I don't know), that my worst fear regarding gun control is that the coming federal firearms legislation will be written by people who don't know diddly about guns, and this is exactly what I'm talking about. The problem of gun crime is a complex, multi-faceted problem, and you guys always seem to want to simplify it down to one single issue - guns themselves. This is what frustrates the hell out of so many of us on this side of the debate - because we know that this is just a simplistic, narrowminded, shortsighted, knee jerk reaction that will not only do nothing to really solve the problem, but will probably make the problem worse because it will give so many of you the illusion that you've actually solved it. If you want to really address the problem, you have to break it down and look at the whole thing, not just the first part that jumps out at you.

quote:


First of all, let's establish exactly what it is we're talking about here. The problem we're trying to solve is that too many people are shooting each other, right? Do we agree on that? OK. Too many people on  your side of the debate look at that and jump to the conclusion that there are too many guns out there, or that too many people have access to guns, or some combination of the two. And of course, that's the largest part of the issue. But what you're failing to recognize is that there's another, absolutely critical component of the problem - and that's the issue of why so many people are going around shooting each other. And until you address that issue, it doesn't matter what you do about the number of guns in the country, or the number of people who have access to them, because I'll tell you what - those guns are already here, and they ain't goin' nowhere anytime soon. And as long as they're here, people will have access to them.

quote:


Now, you may not like that, but like it or not that's the reality that you have to deal with. Yes, there's no question we need better legislation controlling access  to guns, but there is nothing in the world that will get rid of the guns that are already available to criminals. I know a lot of people on your side of the issue advocate a total ban on firearms, but there's nothing that would blow your cause out of the water faster and more completely than that - because right now you've got a lot of us gun owners willing to make a number of compromises to reach a sane solution, and the minute you start talking about an across-the-board ban, we'll jump ship and fight you tooth and nail. Every one of us. You'll never win that battle, and in the losing of it you'll have forfeited the war, because you'll have forever alienated the people you need to reach across the divide and join hands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

OK, mike, let me try to get you back on track to what I actually said, not what you read into it.  Not unexpected, since words are only about 10% of total communication...one reason there is so much vitriol on this sub board.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

I watched ABC's 20/20 last night.  Was disappointed in the bias, but it wasn't unexpected.   Certainly it pointed out that firearm ownership by itself isn't necessarily going to save lives and that training matters.  And the situation they put the students in wasn't very realistic either...a firearms trainer as the assailant? Of course he'll have an advantage.  Wearing face protection and an extremely baggy shirt?  Duh....it would make it hard for anyone to react appropriately who doesn't wear that stuff all the time.

It disregarded the whole issue that firearm ownership DOES reduce crimes from escalating, as in the case of a burglar confronting an armed homeowner and fleeing. 

Owning a gun just increases the chances of survival.  It doesn't guarantee survival.  Ask anyone who has served in an armed conflict or war.  They know that they wouldn't go out to combat without one, but also know that just having a gun doesn't make you invincible.  You still have to "keep your head down" so it doesn't get shot off by someone else.


I prefer John Stossel, of the same ABC, to weigh in...oh wait, he did:  http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1

There's no way to know whether Seung-Hui Cho's murderous rampage could have been stopped in a similar way, but what's certain is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that legislators intend. More guns (in the right hands) can stop crime, and fewer guns (in the wrong hands) can make for more crime. Gun control isn't crime control.

There is no "Gun Show Loophole" except as labeled by people who want to make something of nothing. 

Going to a gun show to sell a firearm (or beef jerky or "The Poor Man's James Bond") isn't different from an individual posting on a gun message board he's selling XYZ and another person buying it.    Do we call that the "chat room loophole?"    Or a person taking out an ad in a newspaper and selling to another person.  Is that the "newspaper ad loophole?"

That said, if ABC wants to give me $5000, I'll go to the next gun show and get BOTH guns AND ammunition.  Maybe a little beef jerky too.   And I won't turn them over to the police at the end of the show either...I'll take them to the range for some practice.

quote:

Just read this post,was dissapointed at the bias...but it was to be expected.

yes I was very disappointed at the lack of professional journalism and the obvious agenda-based reporting.  That's why I ALSO mentioned John Stossel, of the same company, and his take on the issue of guns.

quote:


Your post disregarded the fact that guns in the hands of criminals and killers make escalation of crimes pretty much a given

Firearms are going to be in the hands of criminals, no matter what laws are in place.  So you want to make the unfair fight even more unfair, I get that.  In a "perfect world" we'd all get along, we wouldn' t need any weapons of any kind, and Mr. Rodgers would be our role model.  The world isn't perfect.  People don't follow the laws. And, at least to me, people should have the opportunity to have an opportunity to level the field when it comes to people who want to harm them in some way, fiscally, emotionally, or physically.

You also seem to not get the point that if you aren't armed, YOU are at risk these days at being shot anyway, more than once, because that is the new "code" of many of the gangs out there.  With a firearm, you stand a chance of scaring them off, stopping them, or yes, giving them another gun from your cold dead fingers.  Note:  you are cold and dead.

quote:


"owning a gun just increases the chances of survival" care to cite statistics here...or will we just take your word for it.Are you factoring in those that are shot by their own weapons,whether self inflicted,shot by an intruder...or just an accident.

There are plenty of stats out there.  They have been covered to death in other posts here.  Check out the FBI's website.  Check out http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html   Do some googling and post some counter stats from valid sources.

quote:


There is no way to know how many fewer victims Cho would have been able to rack up if his access to easily obtained weapons had been curtailed.

No kidding.  But again, a "criminal"  was able to obtain a weapon, and the laws state that students can't have ANY projectile weapons, including tear gas, in an "educational facility."  Hence schools and other "off limit to firearms" places make great shooting galleries for those so intended.

Just because Cho got one, no one should have one? 

quote:


Crush were you kidding with the "Ask anybody who has served in an armed conflict or war" line....are you seriously comparing the utility of possessing a firearm in a firefight....to possessing a firearm when one goes to get a gallon of milk?Surely ,even with our "gun control" problems the streets of America are not this dangerous....are they?

mike, you misrepresent my words.  Let me try again:  Just because you have a firearm , it doesn't make you invincible.  It DOES however, give you a chance.  "Bearing arms" vs "Bare arms" in a sense.  
A soldier going into combat knows that it is better to have a firearm and not need it than to not have one and need it.  The same for walking to the store, buying milk.  If I never have to use my firearm to defend myself or others, then great.  BUT if there ever comes a time when I have to, I sure hope I carried one and had a chance to utilize it.

Some questions for you mike:  A) have you ever been face to face with a pistol?  B) Been pistol-whipped so that it leaves permanent jaw damage?  C) Have you ever driven to a bank and found out you can't go in because it was robbed 15 minutes earlier...and you were delayed 20 minutes on the phone on your way to the bank?

I can answer YES to each question.  And that is one reason I decided to carry a firearm.   I may not win, but I won't go whimpering.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Why?

quote:



Aw, c'mon, Rule, that's absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that you've never heard of Mother Against Drunk Driving? Teens Against Drunk Driving? You've never heard of any drunken driving education programs, any alcohol awareness programs relating to drunken driving, any of the countless government and private studies into what causes drunken driving and how to prevent it? You've never heard of any of this? You can't possibly be serious.

quote:



It isn't a question of whether it's justified, it's simply the reality of it. If, as so many of you argue, the very nature of the problem is that there are so many guns in the country, you're never going to get rid of them. You say yourself later in your post that you're not advocating a ban on firearms, so you yourself are acknowledging my very point  - that there will always be guns available in this country. So you yourself are supporting my point. Any effective solution is simply going to have to reflect that reality. What is it you're criticizing here?

quote:



But I have. Several times on these boards, and numerous times in the larger national debate. I see it mentioned fairly often, as a matter of fact. For many people on the other side of the debate, that is their desired outcome. And they often make no secret of it.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda


So yeah, he is absolutely correct in what he says. A little research might have saved you from unfairly castigating him.

Unfairly castigating him?


[sm=insane.gif]

I only repeated his own words:

slaveboyforyou, post#84:  " It is illegal for me to go out and purchase firearms than give them to minors ...".


It's not incumbent on me to research someone's argument for them, I only respond to what's posted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Why?

Because it is trying to attribute a sociological excuse for the murders that have happened and excuse the role of firearms as an inconsequential "tool" that just happened to fall into the mix.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

Some questions for you mike:  A) have you ever been face to face with a pistol?  B) Been pistol-whipped so that it leaves permanent jaw damage?  C) Have you ever driven to a bank and found out you can't go in because it was robbed 15 minutes earlier...and you were delayed 20 minutes on the phone on your way to the bank?

I can answer YES to each question.  And that is one reason I decided to carry a firearm.   I may not win, but I won't go whimpering.

Some questions for you Crush:  A) have you ever been face to face with a hurricane?  B)Been tossed around by its winds leaving permanent damage to your home?

I can answer YES to each question.

And that is one reason why my home in Ohio has hurricane shutters and hurricane-resistant construction.
You can never be too careful!!!!!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

Some questions for you mike:  A) have you ever been face to face with a pistol?  B) Been pistol-whipped so that it leaves permanent jaw damage?  C) Have you ever driven to a bank and found out you can't go in because it was robbed 15 minutes earlier...and you were delayed 20 minutes on the phone on your way to the bank?

I can answer YES to each question.  And that is one reason I decided to carry a firearm.   I may not win, but I won't go whimpering.

Some questions for you Crush:  A) have you ever been face to face with a hurricane?  B)Been tossed around by its winds leaving permanent damage to your home?

I can answer YES to each question.

And that is one reason why my home in Ohio has hurricane shutters and hurricane-resistant construction.
You can never be too careful!!!!!!!!

mike, I live in Florida...I know hurricanes.  I've lived and repaired through them.  SEVERAL of them.
Of course, your questions are irrelevant to the discussion and are mere deflections.. but you have your answers. 

Of course, you haven't answered mine....