quote:

ORIGINAL: gehennasfury

In that case Mike, I stand corrected. However, my points still stand in the debate of the pros and cons of firearm control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tsatske

26 pages later. 26. Glad the OP was smart enough to put this in politics.
why should it be political, I still don't know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Whats your point here loki...how about finding the post I was reacting to...you know the one where you did suggest that the answer to school shootings was more guns in the schools....not less.
I need no help from you in proving my point where you are concerned.....why you insist on making this easier for me is beyond my imagination.

But see, you keep proving MY point. You see the post you are referring to (but won't quote because you know you're mistaken) is post number  403. In that post, I said:

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Yeah, in the incorrect quarters it speaks to the availability of guns. But thanks for proving my point on the need for education.

You see, someone who will shoot up a school will do other things, as well. The columbine kids brought homemade bombs too, ones that can be made easily with innocent, store-bought items.

So let's talk about availability in the school scenario for a moment. The law-abiding ones who obey the sign on the school door are nothing but targets to someone willing to break the law.

Now, were they able to have their own guns for defense, perhaps they could stop the shooter.

But as I said first, it *does* speak more about parenting because for a kid to reach the point where a school shooting is a good idea, the ball was dropped long before he gets a hold of the gun.

To help you out, I marked what you focused on in italics. But I marked what you blatantly overlooked in bold. You can't pick and choose points in a single post that you think make your point. You have to read the whole thing. I know reading isn't your strong suit, but come on. Give it a try. You'll get it eventually.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
So explain again why I should have ignored your characterization of those who obey the law as easy targets(this from a stalwart defender of the LEGAL right to bear arms)or the further comment that "Now ,were they able to have their own guns for defense,they could stop the shooter"
Not a call for more guns in schools heh?
I told you loki....helping me is not a requirement.Again though I appreciate your efforts here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gehennasfury

Unfortunately Mike, that is not just a tactic from the NRA. The anti-gunners also use it as well. They use the word "control" in place of "banning". They take a certain clas of firearms and villianize them. They either don't want to recognize the fact that a gun is an inanimate object, or they ignore it. A gun does not kill people, just as a car doesn't. Cars and guns have no thought processes. They can't suddenly decide to shoot Mary or Robert or run them over. It's person handling the gun who willfully fires at a person without justification, or it's a person with NO firearms training. Same with a car. We teach people to drive and then give them drivers liscenses. It's mandatory in all fifty states to take a drivers education course befoe getting a liscense. Why can't we make it mandatory to take a firearms safety course before owning a firearm?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
When I want tips from you loki ...I'll let you know.
Don't hold your breath.....better yet,go right ahead and hold it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
 are you holding it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Laymedown60

This is from a home security site...lots of sense. Not one bit of advice says get a gun and go after the burglar

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
   The intruder was injured, not killed, and isn't breaking in to someone else's house next week because he's got three bullet holes in him.

Seems pretty successful to Me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
Perhaps, but not in this case. The man Orion shot was carrying not only a knife, but a fully loaded large-caliber handgun. The matter of whether he intended to kill may be open to debate, but it's not really relevant because the question of whether he was prepared to kill is clearly settled - he was. Just his bad luck that Orion got him first.

Edited to add: Just for the sake of clarity, I should point out that while Orion initially identified the kid's gun as a .25, he subsequently corrected that. The police told him later that day that it was a .380 with a round in the chamber.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

The system is designed so that people intruding don't need to be threatening to be shot because there are these creative ways around inconvenient facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

FR

26 pages in.. here's what I think happened. Orion is awakened at 3:45 am by sounds in the basement. He grabs his gun and goes to investigate. It's dark. He can definitely hear something moving in the storage room. His adrenaline is rushing. He's trying to be as quiet as possible, but it feels like his heartbeat is connected to an amplifier and surely the entire house can hear it. He's imagining the worst. He enters the storage room and hears noise coming from the closet. Just about ready to freak... he realizes it is a raccoon.

He shoots the raccoon.

Family members awake. He explains that everything is ok, everybody go back to sleep. But he can't sleep, because he's still dealing with an adrenaline surge. So he lays in bed, and imagines what would've happened if the noise had been from a burglar rather than a raccoon. He plays out the scenario in his head... what would be the perfect way to handle the situation? At some point, he thinks "I dare one of those gun-control freaks to criticize that scenario." Still having trouble sleeping, he turns to the boards and types up his story. He puts it in politics because he wants it to be challenged. He says he's not cooperating with the press because he's a private person. But he just posted a detailed scenario on a public message board. At some point, it gets through his head, but not the heads of many others, that the odds of "Suburban man shoots home invader" not being covered by the press are about as bad as "Beautiful Blonde Cheerleader kidnapped from local Wal-Mart parking lot" being ignored by the local media. So he retreats. States he considered calling it a hoax because he's worried about people of "malice" locating his home. (A worry that should have been apparent at first blush). Greeted with skepticism by a minority of posters, he says "It's a hoax."

Excited by the vengeance porn, people continue to argue and imagine fantasies of them protecting their families and homes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

I doubt it is a career choice for some people but desperation.

If that is how you feel why don't we dispose of the entire court system because home owners are obviously one class of people and petty thieves another. Who needs justice by jury for those thieves right? This idea that every home owner is a responsible reasonable person just like yourself is a fallacy. People who are borderline psychopaths exist in all walks of life, their actions may not become apparent though until placed in a certain situation where the response is going to go far beyond what you consider reasonable.

You are placing faith in people based on their home ownership credentials?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
Perhaps, but not in this case. The man Orion shot was carrying not only a knife, but a fully loaded large-caliber handgun. The matter of whether he intended to kill may be open to debate, but it's not really relevant because the question of whether he was prepared to kill is clearly settled - he was. Just his bad luck that Orion got him first.

Edited to add: Just for the sake of clarity, I should point out that while Orion initially identified the kid's gun as a .25, he subsequently corrected that. The police told him later that day that it was a .380 with a round in the chamber.

I wasn't really concerned with one specific scenario but the overarching system which allows one persons word to be seen as fact. Sure in this case he is honest in another hypothetical case the intruder didn't have a gun at all because the home owner placed the gun in his hand to justify the initial response.

The system is designed so that people intruding don't need to be threatening to be shot because there are these creative ways around inconvenient facts.