RE: Gun Control And Tragedy

RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 9:06:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Taking guns away from people will not solve the causes that drove this person to murder a whole bunch of people, it will only add a level of complexity to him doing so. I would prefer to deal with the cause of the problems, rather than the methodology the problem is expressed. Sinergy Right 1000% on target! banning guns is like trying to cure aids with an aspirin

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 9:19:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster All right, when people claim to believe that air flight would be safer if passengers were allowed to bring firearms on board, I'd say the conversation has reached the point of no return. Something tells me you don't truly believe that, and you just can't think a way out of the dead end that your ideology has now led you into--but, really, whether you do or don't, there's not much point in taking this further. Have fun, guys. What i believe? i believe the safest i have ever felt is around lots of armed people as in shooting tournies. Why because if some idiot opens fire on me i know he will have an equal amount of lead in him before i hit the ground. you have to understand the mentality and purpose of these people and their plans are foiled when others can fight back. It just put all sorts of kinks in their plans to think an army of people will be shooting back at them.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 9:23:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SEVADom quote: It would probably lead to explosive decompression and cause the plane to crash anyway but that's beside the point. Actually, the explosive decompression thing (caused by handgun fire) is a myth propagated by Hollywood. The size holes that could be caused by handgun ammo (and yes, they definitely would create holes if they hit the fuselage) would cause air leaks. It would take a several foot across hole created all at once (say, with a bomb) to cause explosive decompression. So I vote to allow ccw holders to carry on planes. Were that to happen, and become known, I suspect the incidence of hijackings on American aircraft would decrease to near zero. (I'd feel safer, whether I was carrying or not.) What you say is exactly correct, a bad case of "educated by hollywood" people watching to many freakin movies and thinking that is what real life is about LOL i agree with all this, if someone shoots a bullet hole in the plane just stick a freakin peice of bubble gum in it for pete sake.

meatcleaver -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 9:23:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Aileen68 That's sad that you think that gun owners sit around all day wondering and fretting about all around them. I have a lot of guns in my home. I'm not paranoid in the least. In fact, just the opposite. I'm quite comfortable knowing that I have a better chance of protecting myself and my family from an intruder or an animal. I live in a rural area without a police force. We rely on the state police and their response time is fifteen minutes at a minimum due to the area they cover. A lot can happen in fifteen minutes. There must be an awful lot of intruders in America for people to be so concerned about them. I have never worried about that in my life. I lived bordering the Sierra National Forest growing up... all our neighbors had guns. We had wild animals... never felt afraid of the animals either. There are places I have felt afraid, thankfully I have never had to live in one of those places. I don't know America enough to comment and perhaps where I have been is not typical but on the whole I have never felt in more danger there than I do here in Europe. Though some of the gun lobby on CM would have you believe there is a deranged gunman around every corner, in every shadow and just waiting for you to turn off the light before going to sleep at night. There is a rumour that even some Americans die of old age. Most murder victims know their killers anyway, at least here in the European countries I know about and suspect it is true of America too so having a gun to protect oneself from strangers when the you probably know but are unaware of the real danger, makes having a gun seem pointless. My daughter goes to America for a long holiday this summer. If I thought for one moment I was putting her in more danger than she is here, I just wouldn't let her go.

lockedaway -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 9:29:56 AM)
There are a number of states where you can strap a gun to your hip and walk around. You aren't carrying concealed. So what country are you thinking of?

lockedaway -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 9:31:41 AM)
Well, by God, I stand corrected. When do we start?

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 9:36:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 The state has a right to protect the citizens, but sometimes (actually many times) the state isnt able to. It can take police 15-30 minutes to respond to an emergency call. If someone is breaking into my house, who is going to protect my family since police are the only ones allowed to have a gun? The whole anti-gun philosophy just doesn't work. The state can't do everything for you. In the time it takes for police to get there, you are on your own. And the burgler has a huge advantage. Homeowners owning a gun evens the playing field. In fact, there is a city in the state of Georgia that has made it mandatory for every household to own a gun. Since the law was passed, burglaries and theft have plummitted. And the homicide rate did NOT increase. Even going one step further...what if you live in an area prone to natural disasters? Say a major hurricane for instance. If you get a bad one that knocks out power, phones, and emergency services are overwhelmed... you will be on your own for sometimes a number of days. You have to have some sort of back-up for self-defense. i do not mean to knit pick here but when people say that the "government", state feds or otherwise has the "right" that is completely false. You could correct state they have the duty, or charter or a host of other ways to say it but government in this country "has no rights", governemnt "is" a straw man of our creation as administrator to protect our rights and affairs that are designated by us, we the people, "nothing" more. To give the government a "right" is to claim subservience to "their" (the straw mans), control rather than a gov "of the people", so by saying it that way you change it to a people of the gov. Its as bad as calling this country a democracy which is not the country that the constitution represents. i think it is important for all of us to get out of the habit of saying it that way so we do not lose sight that we are incharge of the gov not the other way around. Maybe a few more people would vote... and i agree with you that the anti gun thing does not work and katrina is a good example of many reasons why we want to keep ourselves armed.

lockedaway -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 9:41:50 AM)
Cho killed a lot of people with the guns he used, no doubt about it. But the guy that snapped and soaked the front door of the Happy Land Night Club with gasoline in the Bronx killed 83 people. Whether you have guns or not, if you are hell bent on killing people, you are going to. People seem to keep saying that this guy "snapped" and he didn't. He plotted this over a period of time. If you take guns out of the equation, people will find other ways to kill a great number of people but stiking a target where people are massed together and escape routes are few. While I am ardently opposed to gun control, I do agree that the average guy on the street does not need teflon coated bullets or magnesium tipped bullets, etc. But that is pretty much where it ends for me. In this country, you cannot own a fully automatic weapon with a Federal license. I agree with that although shooting fully automatic weapons is a huge amount of fun. Whenever a disaster like the V.Tech shooting happens--and it is pretty rare for a country of over 300 million--the pro gun control people come out to try to limit the rights of law abiding citizens who, 99% of the time, aren't a threat to anyone.

juliaoceania -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 9:47:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway There are a number of states where you can strap a gun to your hip and walk around. You aren't carrying concealed. So what country are you thinking of? I have been to Nevada, South Dakota, Minnesota, Nevada, Idaho, Montana. I lived in Oregon and in Wyoming. I have passed through Colorado. I even spent time in Atlanta. I have never seen anyone with a gun strapped to their hip that was not law enforcement.... but I am not going to argue the point with you. I would appreciate a list of these states so I can avoid them when it comes to spending my tourism dollars. I am not saying that I would never go to them, they will just be lower on the list of places I want to visit. Perhaps the states I have been through allowed gun holsters from random people too (would not surprise me if Montana and Wyoming did), but I just managed to miss those who wore them. Edited to add, in California there are weapons permits, but in most places one cannot just walk around with their gun hanging out...they are not allowed in classrooms.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 10:02:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I think there has been one thing made abundantly clear by many pro-gun Americans, they are paranoid. This preoccupation of 'what if' this happens or that happens goes beyond any rational and sensible consideration. They must be looking over their shoulders most of the time, they must viewing their neighbours with suspicion and any stranger they happen to meet they must be wondering as to what mischief they are planning. How can people live with what must be a constant suspicion that everyone they interact with or anyone just out of vision must plotting against them. Either that or they are stretching reality to fit in with their desire to possess and play with guns. I've lived in supposed questionable inner city areas most of my life because I find them much more stimulating areas than suburbia but I've never had a constant nagging fear that I need to be armed to protect myself. I just don't think the vast majority of people I meet are planning to do me down and even if they were, I'm not going to ruin my life by being constantly paranoid. As i have seen there are major differences in the philosophies when it comes to your hemisphere versus ours. It starts here where as a republic we do (at least on paper) have freedom to the maximum that it can be extended to any human. you do not. By design we that is every citizen collectively is responsible for insuring that our government keeps in line with our desires based on our republican form of government. if necesary by force and with the use of guns. The founders "knew" this and that is why we have the right to bear. On your side you depend on the government to protect you and are subject to the government, so you submit your freedoms to the gov and the gov is responsible for you. This is a whole different mindset than we have. It is difficult to understand i am sure, as much as it is for us to understand that altho they are religioulsy intolerant in the ME they have much more freedom than we do in application. Its not that simple as paranoia, it is the knowledge of what really exists as real dangers that really happen as is proven with this massacre. It really happened you have to agree. These what if's are not some fantasy. If not a gun, knives, poison, gas, bombs, i mean if someone is out to get the world there are many ways to choose from to accomplish that end. That and you cannot overlook that "fact" that there is more "violent" crime in the UK than here. Are you going ot violently attack me if you think i may have a gun to blow your azz away? most likely not. In the UK sure they dont have a gun so why not. i think those in your hemisphere are in denial of the realities of life if you think this is based on paranoia and would question if you were paranoid of guns. It is a trade off more gun deaths or less violent crime, choose your poison.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 10:11:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I have been to Nevada, South Dakota, Minnesota, Nevada, Idaho, Montana. I lived in Oregon and in Wyoming. I have passed through Colorado. I even spent time in Atlanta. I have never seen anyone with a gun strapped to their hip that was not law enforcement.... i have seen several store owners i think in buffalo ny, this was in about 95ish, with 44's strapped on their hips, that and a loaded gun sitting beside their cash register etc, and when i went through wyoming had a conversation with one of the shop owners about how occasionally a couple gbuys will get drunk and go out into the street to have an old time gun fight, not sure if that applies but they didnt seem to think anything of it lol Upper wisconsin you see a lot of it in the country, but not in town.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 10:36:26 AM)
quote: You paint a wonderful picture of America. Sorry... you want a travel brochure, go to another thread. Nice, completely irrelevant comment though. First you bash Americans for wanting to own guns because there's no reason given your uninformed view over there. Then you throw out this irrelevant statement when someone points out some truth to the contrary. We can play "cultural superiority" all day long but by all means, do that in another thread where it's actually relevent (perhaps the one where the brochures are being distributed). Back to the subject at hand, you inadvertently put your finger on the pulse of the argument however, with this statement: quote: I've lived in supposed questionable inner city areas most of my life because I find them much more stimulating areas than suburbia... This is why America is such a wonderful place to live (Not implied as a comparative statement). We have the freedom to own property and be assured it is secured from seach and seizure, to drive a car that's capable of tripling any legal speed limit, to speak out against the government, and to own AR-15s. In short we have freedoms that many/most other places don't. These freedoms are an integral part of the "stimulation" that draws people to this land. With stimulation comes such "questionability". So be it. That is the price of the freedom. So who are you or (anybody else for that matter) to judge me/others for having/liking/using firearms? When you live an eco-Christlike existence where you live with no luxuries or excesses and have your side of the street spic and span in terms of morality and productivity then you and your criticism(s) might have a leg to stand on. So by all means, walk down the street tall and proudly in your smug superiority because you don't "need" a gun. Pardon my sadism if life deals you a tragic hand we know about in the future and I can't restrain myself from wallowing in the irony. But in the mean time I suggest you and your ilk come down from those high horses of yours when you hear about someone enjoying one of their eccentric pastimes, or feeling the need to prepare in such a way, unless of course you are prepared for similar scrutiny with your choices in life. Oh and cloudboy... It's "AD hominem", which is the exact opposite of what you though you were trying to say. I just thought you'd like to know.

juliaoceania -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 10:54:35 AM)
quote: gbuys will get drunk and go out into the street to have an old time gun fight I lived in Jacksonhole, and while there were many transient trouble makers, I never witnessed that to be completely honest. Not saying it did not happen, but I did not see it if it did. I was there before the drinking age changed too.

Archer -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 10:56:48 AM)
Wonderfull again it goes from being concerned that it might happen enough so that I take basic self defense steps so that if it does I'm not defenseless and instantly it jumps to paranoia. So seatbelt wearers must be paranoid too and OSHA with their safety regulations, and all those other small but still worth protecting yourself from, those make us paranoid instead of prudent as well I guess. I consider gun ownership a prudent precaution, that's it, nothing paranoid not lloking behond every bush for a bad guy. Simply having the means to protect myself because I know that during that 5 -10 minutes the police take to get here, alot can happen. The law says the police are responsible to protect SOCIETY not individuals (see the thousands of restraining orders/ stalking cases where they can't do anything until the person breaks an actual law after which time the staked may be dead.) They are by law not tasked with your INDIVIDUAL SAFETY (multiple court cases say so). You can't sue them for failing to protect you when the intruder hurts you.

caitlyn -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 11:05:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Your relativism stance here makes it seem we debating matters of taste (vanilla v. chocolate ice cream) instead of public policy. When I say that I don't need to debate or prove anything ... the only relevant point is that my side of the issue is currently the law. That just is, what it is. If you want to change opinions, it would be up to people on your side, to convince people on mine. Insisting that I must support mine, will get you nothing. I don't have to support mine ... mine is already the law. Reading my unwillingness to support a position, when I really don't have to, as something more than the reality it is ... will also get you nothing. Resorting to meatcleaver tactics of calling people paranoid (total strangers, whom he doesn't even know, by the way), will not only get you nothing, but will destroy any chance you have to make a point that people will accept. I'm happy with all the tactics people on your side are using. They are poorly thought out, ineffective, and do more to prop the pro-gun position than anything I could ever do. So you see ... I have no intention of supporting my postion, because you are doing a splendid job of ensuring that my side will always win, and yours will always lose.

igor2003 -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 11:29:30 AM)
Just a little FYI. I live in Idaho, i do have a CCW permit which i first decided to get after being attacked by two dogs while out hiking. It IS legal in Idaho to carry a pistol without a permit, strapped to your hip as long as it is in plain sight and not covered by a coat or shirt tail or something. The CCW permits are only needed within city limits. Outside city limits you can carry concealed without a permit. There are places you cannot go with a firearm whether you have a permit or not such as government buildings, libraries, schools...oh...and believe it or not you cannot carry a concealed weapon in a mining camp! Also, the CCW permit is only for handguns, certain knives, and various martial arts weapons. It is perfectly legal with or without a permit to walk down the street with either a rifle or shotgun under your long coat.. I'm not saying the laws make sense...i'm just saying what they are.

cloudboy -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 12:23:48 PM)
Can't say that I follow you. Breaking the whole thing down into sides pretty much tosses truth and debate out the window. Its sheer relativism. I'll leave it at that. LaM pretty much hit the nail on the head best.

caitlyn -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 1:32:31 PM)
I'm all for LaM's point, especially when he say we should take this no further. I like the laws the way they are, so that serves my purpose. Given that you seem to want to change them, I'm not sure why you find familier with his post ... but, that's not my call. [;)]

popeye1250 -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 1:57:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I think there has been one thing made abundantly clear by many pro-gun Americans, they are paranoid. I think the only thing that's abundantly clear here is you cannot stop yourself from bashing anyone with whom you share a difference of opinion. quote: I'm not going to ruin my life by being constantly paranoid. No, you're going to ruin it by being bitter and alone. Yes, that's so much better. ~stef LMAO!

meatcleaver -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/20/2007 2:16:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack quote: You paint a wonderful picture of America. Sorry... you want a travel brochure, go to another thread. Nice, completely irrelevant comment though. First you bash Americans for wanting to own guns because there's no reason given your uninformed view over there. Then you throw out this irrelevant statement when someone points out some truth to the contrary. We can play "cultural superiority" all day long but by all means, do that in another thread where it's actually relevent (perhaps the one where the brochures are being distributed). Back to the subject at hand, you inadvertently put your finger on the pulse of the argument however, with this statement: You painted the picture not me. You have the high gun crime rates and fatalities over there and you acknowledge them and say you need a gun to protect yourself from it. quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack quote: I've lived in supposed questionable inner city areas most of my life because I find them much more stimulating areas than suburbia... This is why America is such a wonderful place to live (Not implied as a comparative statement). We have the freedom to own property and be assured it is secured from seach and seizure, to drive a car that's capable of tripling any legal speed limit, to speak out against the government, and to own AR-15s. In short we have freedoms that many/most other places don't. These freedoms are an integral part of the "stimulation" that draws people to this land. With stimulation comes such "questionability". So be it. That is the price of the freedom. So who are you or (anybody else for that matter) to judge me/others for having/liking/using firearms? When you live an eco-Christlike existence where you live with no luxuries or excesses and have your side of the street spic and span in terms of morality and productivity then you and your criticism(s) might have a leg to stand on. So by all means, walk down the street tall and proudly in your smug superiority because you don't "need" a gun. Pardon my sadism if life deals you a tragic hand we know about in the future and I can't restrain myself from wallowing in the irony. But in the mean time I suggest you and your ilk come down from those high horses of yours when you hear about someone enjoying one of their eccentric pastimes, or feeling the need to prepare in such a way, unless of course you are prepared for similar scrutiny with your choices in life. So guns are an eccentric pass time and not necessary now? As for excesses, I have my share, I just don't believe they should be of the type that fuck other people's lives up. Allowing guns in the hands of sanctimonious mister macho men is just what I call an excess too far. Freedom is in the head, not on a piece of paper or being allowed to own property and anyway if you're poor and can't afford healthcare, being allowed to own property is pretty meaningless. As for being allowed to drive cars that are capable of tripling the speed limit is also pretty meaningless considering most states have speed limits which are heavily policed from my experience over there. Perhaps you should move to Germany where you can open up on a no limits autobahn.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.785156E-02