beheading in buffalo
-
My description of your attitude is as accurate, fair, and valid as is your's of mine.
Christian Graus wrote:
The money/food/etc would just evaporate, right ?
Economic efficiency feeds more people than does economic inefficiency. At some point, any economy must err on the side of efficiency if it is to survive regardless of the demands that efficiency must place on those at the bottom. My opinion is that it is best to err on the side of expecting every able bodied person to be as productive as they possibly can be, and to rely upon the good will of the society itself to provide for everyone else rather than relying upon a political bureaucracy to manage wealth in a way they feel appropriate by means of forced confiscation of wealth. When I reach into my own pocket to help the less fortunant, it is an honorable, noble, laudable act. When you reach into my pocket for exactly the same purpose, it is nothing but theft.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When I reach into my own pocket to help the less fortunant, it is an honorable, noble, laudable act. When you reach into my pocket for exactly the same purpose, it is nothing but theft.
When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor are hungry, they call me a communist. ~ Mother Teresa
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
What, I think they are for shooting things ? What else are they for ?
Do you think knives are for more than cutting things? But you see utility in that. I see utility in shooting. I enjoy it, not for killing things, which I have done and found I don't enjoy. But should I have to kill someone to protect my family, I hope I will be able to. In the mean time, I enjoy putting holes in paper, at a distance. Personally, I go a different route, I believe that guns are in the 2nd amendment because they were the 'superweapon' of the era. If it was written now, it would probably be more specific - the citizens would be allowed to have any weapon the government was allowed to have. Remember, this was written by people who saw the utility in the citizens being able to rise up and overthrow the government. Not that I advocate that for any reason other than for the protection of the constitution.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think knives are for more than cutting things?
All of their uses revolve around cutting things, yes. Just like all the uses of a hammer, are hitting things ( unless it's a claw hammer ). But, you can have a real need to cut things that don't involve causing anyone any harm.
RichardM1 wrote:
I see utility in shooting. I enjoy it, not for killing things, which I have done and found I don't enjoy.
Well, you're talking about a hobby now, shooting at targets. The only reason people pursue such a hobby, is so they can be good at using a gun to hurt people.
RichardM1 wrote:
But should I have to kill someone to protect my family, I hope I will be able to.
See what I mean ?
RichardM1 wrote:
n the mean time, I enjoy putting holes in paper, at a distance.
OK, good for you. I mean, that's fine. BUT, given the inherent danger in the activity, surely you're not suggesting that you should be able to have a gun at home and set up targets in your backyard ?
RichardM1 wrote:
I believe that guns are in the 2nd amendment because they were the 'superweapon' of the era.
Correct, and that's why the suggestion that gun ownership keeps your government honest, is really pathetic.
RichardM1 wrote:
If it was written now, it would probably be more specific - the citizens would be allowed to have any weapon the government was allowed to have.
Assuming the citizens could afford to buy them.
RichardM1 wrote:
Remember, this was written by people who saw the utility in the citizens being able to rise up and overthrow the government
And I'm sure there was a time when this could have been done. Not anymore.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Haha, I get it - sarcasm. But in your sarcasm, you blow off the real issue - this woman had followed every step the government required of her, for the government to defend her, and it did no. Oh, hey, suck it up, the government wasn't there to protect you - that is clearly a better situation that her being able to defend herself. People have the right to self defense. You would take away that right. No no, I would just take away guns, so everyone would be safer. The woman had her head chopped off, she wasn't shot.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
this woman had followed every step the government required of her, for the government to defend her, and it did no.
This woman appears to me to be a moron. The government isn't going to protect you in that situation, at least not easily. Owning a gun is not the answer, what she should have done, if she had any real idea of the danger she was in, was got out of dodge. It's a tragedy, but if she had a gun, she'd still be dead, I have no doubt of that. And if she wasn't, for every woman saved, 3 innocent guys would be shot dead by a scared woman walking the same path home late at night.
RichardM1 wrote:
that is clearly a better situation that her being able to defend herself.
The argument is BS. Simple as that. What I am trying to point out, is that arming all the citizens does not create a law abiding society. It creates anarchy, where might is right and the weak die.
RichardM1 wrote:
. You would take away that right.
Well, no, that's a pile of crap.
RichardM1 wrote:
No no, I would just take away guns, so everyone would be safer.
Yes, exactly. Arming everyone would not make everyone safe at all.
RichardM1 wrote:
The woman had her head chopped off, she wasn't shot.
And if he had reason to believe she was armed, he may have shot her instead. Your core point appears to be that because one woman who was not armed, died, that proves that people not having guns and relying on police protection won't stop all murders. So, I assume you're claiming that if everyone was armed, no murders would take place. Otherwise, you've got nothing. Is that your position ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think knives are for more than cutting things?
All of their uses revolve around cutting things, yes. Just like all the uses of a hammer, are hitting things ( unless it's a claw hammer ). But, you can have a real need to cut things that don't involve causing anyone any harm.
RichardM1 wrote:
I see utility in shooting. I enjoy it, not for killing things, which I have done and found I don't enjoy.
Well, you're talking about a hobby now, shooting at targets. The only reason people pursue such a hobby, is so they can be good at using a gun to hurt people.
RichardM1 wrote:
But should I have to kill someone to protect my family, I hope I will be able to.
See what I mean ?
RichardM1 wrote:
n the mean time, I enjoy putting holes in paper, at a distance.
OK, good for you. I mean, that's fine. BUT, given the inherent danger in the activity, surely you're not suggesting that you should be able to have a gun at home and set up targets in your backyard ?
RichardM1 wrote:
I believe that guns are in the 2nd amendment because they were the 'superweapon' of the era.
Correct, and that's why the suggestion that gun ownership keeps your government honest, is really pathetic.
RichardM1 wrote:
If it was written now, it would probably be more specific - the citizens would be allowed to have any weapon the government was allowed to have.
Assuming the citizens could afford to buy them.
RichardM1 wrote:
Remember, this was written by people who saw the utility in the citizens being able to rise up and overthrow the government
And I'm sure there was a time when this could have been done. Not anymore.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
The only reason people pursue such a hobby, is so they can be good at using a gun to hurt people.
You have no idea why I enjoy it. You think you can just say it and it's true? I sharpen knives because I like to, sometimes. I throw knives, sometimes. Not because I can use them in self defense, but because I like to. If it is the only thing I have to protect myself, I will run someone over, hit them with a baseball bat, whatever. That does not make that the primary use of the thing, any more than it makes killing people the primary reason i own guns. Whether you will admit it or not, guns are an interesting hobby, for other reasons than killing people. You seem to be really fixated on them. Did you have a bad experience with them? Someone close hurt or killed? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm curious.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think knives are for more than cutting things?
All of their uses revolve around cutting things, yes. Just like all the uses of a hammer, are hitting things ( unless it's a claw hammer ). But, you can have a real need to cut things that don't involve causing anyone any harm.
RichardM1 wrote:
I see utility in shooting. I enjoy it, not for killing things, which I have done and found I don't enjoy.
Well, you're talking about a hobby now, shooting at targets. The only reason people pursue such a hobby, is so they can be good at using a gun to hurt people.
RichardM1 wrote:
But should I have to kill someone to protect my family, I hope I will be able to.
See what I mean ?
RichardM1 wrote:
n the mean time, I enjoy putting holes in paper, at a distance.
OK, good for you. I mean, that's fine. BUT, given the inherent danger in the activity, surely you're not suggesting that you should be able to have a gun at home and set up targets in your backyard ?
RichardM1 wrote:
I believe that guns are in the 2nd amendment because they were the 'superweapon' of the era.
Correct, and that's why the suggestion that gun ownership keeps your government honest, is really pathetic.
RichardM1 wrote:
If it was written now, it would probably be more specific - the citizens would be allowed to have any weapon the government was allowed to have.
Assuming the citizens could afford to buy them.
RichardM1 wrote:
Remember, this was written by people who saw the utility in the citizens being able to rise up and overthrow the government
And I'm sure there was a time when this could have been done. Not anymore.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, good for you. I mean, that's fine. BUT, given the inherent danger in the activity, surely you're not suggesting that you should be able to have a gun at home and set up targets in your backyard ?
No. For it to be interesting, I would have to shoot through my neighbor's house. But that is just because I live in a town house. But If I wanted to set up a range in my basement, with a backstop appropriate to the caliber used, tell me again why you should care anymore than you should care that I use my car safely?
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think knives are for more than cutting things?
All of their uses revolve around cutting things, yes. Just like all the uses of a hammer, are hitting things ( unless it's a claw hammer ). But, you can have a real need to cut things that don't involve causing anyone any harm.
RichardM1 wrote:
I see utility in shooting. I enjoy it, not for killing things, which I have done and found I don't enjoy.
Well, you're talking about a hobby now, shooting at targets. The only reason people pursue such a hobby, is so they can be good at using a gun to hurt people.
RichardM1 wrote:
But should I have to kill someone to protect my family, I hope I will be able to.
See what I mean ?
RichardM1 wrote:
n the mean time, I enjoy putting holes in paper, at a distance.
OK, good for you. I mean, that's fine. BUT, given the inherent danger in the activity, surely you're not suggesting that you should be able to have a gun at home and set up targets in your backyard ?
RichardM1 wrote:
I believe that guns are in the 2nd amendment because they were the 'superweapon' of the era.
Correct, and that's why the suggestion that gun ownership keeps your government honest, is really pathetic.
RichardM1 wrote:
If it was written now, it would probably be more specific - the citizens would be allowed to have any weapon the government was allowed to have.
Assuming the citizens could afford to buy them.
RichardM1 wrote:
Remember, this was written by people who saw the utility in the citizens being able to rise up and overthrow the government
And I'm sure there was a time when this could have been done. Not anymore.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
And I'm sure there was a time when this could have been done. Not anymore.
See what giving exclusive ownership of high power weapons to the government has done? We are no longer is a position to throw off the tyranny of the government if it gets out of control. It is not just an exercise in reasoning. It is how the US started.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The only reason people pursue such a hobby, is so they can be good at using a gun to hurt people.
You have no idea why I enjoy it. You think you can just say it and it's true? I sharpen knives because I like to, sometimes. I throw knives, sometimes. Not because I can use them in self defense, but because I like to. If it is the only thing I have to protect myself, I will run someone over, hit them with a baseball bat, whatever. That does not make that the primary use of the thing, any more than it makes killing people the primary reason i own guns. Whether you will admit it or not, guns are an interesting hobby, for other reasons than killing people. You seem to be really fixated on them. Did you have a bad experience with them? Someone close hurt or killed? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm curious.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
You have no idea why I enjoy it. You think you can just say it and it's true?
The only usefulness of such a hobby, is to get better at shooting a gun, the purpose of which is.....
RichardM1 wrote:
You seem to be really fixated on them. Did you have a bad experience with them? Someone close hurt or killed? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm curious.
No, just fascinated by the stream of idiocy I've encountered online in defense of gun ownership from people who I'd generally regard as intelligent. I live in Australia, where the odds of such a thing happening are far lower than in the US.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, good for you. I mean, that's fine. BUT, given the inherent danger in the activity, surely you're not suggesting that you should be able to have a gun at home and set up targets in your backyard ?
No. For it to be interesting, I would have to shoot through my neighbor's house. But that is just because I live in a town house. But If I wanted to set up a range in my basement, with a backstop appropriate to the caliber used, tell me again why you should care anymore than you should care that I use my car safely?
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
But If I wanted to set up a range in my basement, with a backstop appropriate to the caliber used, tell me again why you should care anymore than you should care that I use my car safely?
So long as you do it safely and responsibly, my concern would not be with you specifically, more with the general society that would allow you to have guns in your house, and ( going back to your original statement ) would encourage people to carry guns for protection.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
And I'm sure there was a time when this could have been done. Not anymore.
See what giving exclusive ownership of high power weapons to the government has done? We are no longer is a position to throw off the tyranny of the government if it gets out of control. It is not just an exercise in reasoning. It is how the US started.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
See what giving exclusive ownership of high power weapons to the government has done?
Won two world wars ? Are you saying the government should not have been allowed to develop battleships or nukes until the market was able to produce them at affordable prices ?
RichardM1 wrote:
We are no longer is a position to throw off the tyranny of the government if it gets out of control.
You have not been for a long, long time, and the main reason is that most people don't care. Government IS out of control.
RichardM1 wrote:
It is not just an exercise in reasoning. It is how the US started.
In theory. Australia started as a prison, that doesn't mean that things can't change over time.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
this woman had followed every step the government required of her, for the government to defend her, and it did no.
This woman appears to me to be a moron. The government isn't going to protect you in that situation, at least not easily. Owning a gun is not the answer, what she should have done, if she had any real idea of the danger she was in, was got out of dodge. It's a tragedy, but if she had a gun, she'd still be dead, I have no doubt of that. And if she wasn't, for every woman saved, 3 innocent guys would be shot dead by a scared woman walking the same path home late at night.
RichardM1 wrote:
that is clearly a better situation that her being able to defend herself.
The argument is BS. Simple as that. What I am trying to point out, is that arming all the citizens does not create a law abiding society. It creates anarchy, where might is right and the weak die.
RichardM1 wrote:
. You would take away that right.
Well, no, that's a pile of crap.
RichardM1 wrote:
No no, I would just take away guns, so everyone would be safer.
Yes, exactly. Arming everyone would not make everyone safe at all.
RichardM1 wrote:
The woman had her head chopped off, she wasn't shot.
And if he had reason to believe she was armed, he may have shot her instead. Your core point appears to be that because one woman who was not armed, died, that proves that people not having guns and relying on police protection won't stop all murders. So, I assume you're claiming that if everyone was armed, no murders would take place. Otherwise, you've got nothing. Is that your position ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
This woman appears to me to be a moron. The government isn't going to protect you in that situation, at least not easily. Owning a gun is not the answer, what she should have done, if she had any real idea of the danger she was in, was got out of dodge. It's a tragedy, but if she had a gun, she'd still be dead,
I believe your believe she would still be dead. I can say 'I know she would be alive'. That is all BS. Maybe the guy was ball-less, and if he thought she would have fought back, he would have stayed away. She had no chance, under your rules. Under your rules, she had to ditch her life and try and start somewhere else, with a different name or whatever. Screw that. She should not have to. The bullies are not supposed to win, just because you don't like guns.
Christian Graus wrote:
The argument is BS. Simple as that. What I am trying to point out, is that arming all the citizens does not create a law abiding society. It creates anarchy, where might is right and the weak die.
Talk to the Swiss about owning guns and social anarchy. Their experimentally valid point of view is that if everyone knows there is an assault weapon and trained shooter in every house, people don't break in.
Christian Graus wrote:
Your core point appears to be that because one woman who was not armed, died, that proves that people not having guns and relying on police protection won't stop all murders. So, I assume you're claiming that if everyone was armed, no murders would take place. Otherwise, you've got nothing. Is that your position ?
No. My position is that as a law abiding citizen, I have the right to defend myself, and that if I misuse the right, I should be held responsible. If people are known to be able to defend themselves, they very often don't have to. Is your point is that the woman just needs to suck up dying, because you don't like it that people can have guns? That THAT is acceptable social justice? Is it that if people have guns, they will end up in anarchy, killing each other, quickest draw is right? You have nothing , if that is your position. If you give weapons to a lawless society, it may well increase the death rate. Show me where allowing them to a lawful society has increased the death rate.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
You have no idea why I enjoy it. You think you can just say it and it's true?
The only usefulness of such a hobby, is to get better at shooting a gun, the purpose of which is.....
RichardM1 wrote:
You seem to be really fixated on them. Did you have a bad experience with them? Someone close hurt or killed? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm curious.
No, just fascinated by the stream of idiocy I've encountered online in defense of gun ownership from people who I'd generally regard as intelligent. I live in Australia, where the odds of such a thing happening are far lower than in the US.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
The only usefulness of such a hobby, is to get better at shooting a gun, the purpose of which is.....
Much like sex since my vasectomy, I enjoy shooting just for the sake of shooting. Just like pool players play pool for putting the balls in the hole, it is an exercise in skill.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, just fascinated by the stream of idiocy I've encountered online in defense of gun ownership from people who I'd generally regard as intelligent.
Do you have any experience with guns, or are you one of those people who thinks that because you have not been tainted by them, your opinion is somehow better than someone's who enjoys them?
Christian Graus wrote:
I live in Australia, where the odds of such a thing happening are far lower than in the US.
Of what happening? Being regarded as intelligent? :-D (I know, low blow, etc, I have nothing against Oz, it was just too tempting to pass up)
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
But If I wanted to set up a range in my basement, with a backstop appropriate to the caliber used, tell me again why you should care anymore than you should care that I use my car safely?
So long as you do it safely and responsibly, my concern would not be with you specifically, more with the general society that would allow you to have guns in your house, and ( going back to your original statement ) would encourage people to carry guns for protection.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
But what's your take on this?
-
RichardM1 wrote:
See what giving exclusive ownership of high power weapons to the government has done?
Won two world wars ? Are you saying the government should not have been allowed to develop battleships or nukes until the market was able to produce them at affordable prices ?
RichardM1 wrote:
We are no longer is a position to throw off the tyranny of the government if it gets out of control.
You have not been for a long, long time, and the main reason is that most people don't care. Government IS out of control.
RichardM1 wrote:
It is not just an exercise in reasoning. It is how the US started.
In theory. Australia started as a prison, that doesn't mean that things can't change over time.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Are you saying the government should not have been allowed to develop battleships or nukes until the market was able to produce them at affordable prices ?
Nope, just that anyone who can afford them and is not a felon should be able to own them. I'm just not sure where I would put the damn thing, if I had it.
Christian Graus wrote:
You have not been for a long, long time, and the main reason is that most people don't care. Government IS out of control.
Not everyone cared about the British taxes, either. But this government does buy off more citizens than the British ever did.
Christian Graus wrote:
In theory.
Nope. In fact. And subservience of the government to the citizens was part of the initial idea, after that revolution.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The only usefulness of such a hobby, is to get better at shooting a gun, the purpose of which is.....
Much like sex since my vasectomy, I enjoy shooting just for the sake of shooting. Just like pool players play pool for putting the balls in the hole, it is an exercise in skill.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, just fascinated by the stream of idiocy I've encountered online in defense of gun ownership from people who I'd generally regard as intelligent.
Do you have any experience with guns, or are you one of those people who thinks that because you have not been tainted by them, your opinion is somehow better than someone's who enjoys them?
Christian Graus wrote:
I live in Australia, where the odds of such a thing happening are far lower than in the US.
Of what happening? Being regarded as intelligent? :-D (I know, low blow, etc, I have nothing against Oz, it was just too tempting to pass up)
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
Much like sex since my vasectomy, I enjoy shooting just for the sake of shooting.
ROTFL - brilliant.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you have any experience with guns
I live on 11 acres. I don't have a gun, but my neighbours do, they use them to kill animals that can't be cured, that sort of thing. I have no issue with that. It doesn't bleed into our general society.
RichardM1 wrote:
or are you one of those people who thinks that because you have not been tainted by them, your opinion is somehow better than someone's who enjoys them?
We have moved a long way from the core point, which is your suggestion that it would be a good thing if everyone carried a gun. Any discussion of your hobby has been tainted by my trying to work out what it is that makes you think more guns in suburbia will make people safe.
RichardM1 wrote:
Of what happening?
Of anyone being shot, apart from a criminal. If someone invades your house, you have to assume they have a gun. I would assume they do not, and grab a block buster or something to take them out with.
RichardM1 wrote:
Being regarded as intelligent?
Nah, that would never happen.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So long as you do it safely and responsibly, my concern would not be with you specifically
But you do not believe that I could carry safely?
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
But you do not believe that I could carry safely?
It's got nothing to do with you as an individual. It's got to do with the general concept of assuming that most people I see every day, have guns. Including the guy with a bad temper who I cut off, or the nervous 20 yo girl who happens to take the same path I take home every night, and is walking in front of me on a night when she's feeling nervous.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Are you saying the government should not have been allowed to develop battleships or nukes until the market was able to produce them at affordable prices ?
Nope, just that anyone who can afford them and is not a felon should be able to own them. I'm just not sure where I would put the damn thing, if I had it.
Christian Graus wrote:
You have not been for a long, long time, and the main reason is that most people don't care. Government IS out of control.
Not everyone cared about the British taxes, either. But this government does buy off more citizens than the British ever did.
Christian Graus wrote:
In theory.
Nope. In fact. And subservience of the government to the citizens was part of the initial idea, after that revolution.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
Nope, just that anyone who can afford them and is not a felon should be able to own them
Such as terrorists ? Who else would want to own a nuke ?
RichardM1 wrote:
But this government does buy off more citizens than the British ever did.
Yes, which only happens because the citizens are happy to let it happy. Until it's a dictatorship, you COULD take control ( that is you Americans ), but most people just accept they are being screwed. If anyting, it's worse in Oz.
RichardM1 wrote:
Nope. In fact.
I wonder what % of the people in the US wanted that, or understood it. That's what I mean by, in theory. Probably most people were as apathetic or at least felt as helpless as they do today.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
This woman appears to me to be a moron. The government isn't going to protect you in that situation, at least not easily. Owning a gun is not the answer, what she should have done, if she had any real idea of the danger she was in, was got out of dodge. It's a tragedy, but if she had a gun, she'd still be dead,
I believe your believe she would still be dead. I can say 'I know she would be alive'. That is all BS. Maybe the guy was ball-less, and if he thought she would have fought back, he would have stayed away. She had no chance, under your rules. Under your rules, she had to ditch her life and try and start somewhere else, with a different name or whatever. Screw that. She should not have to. The bullies are not supposed to win, just because you don't like guns.
Christian Graus wrote:
The argument is BS. Simple as that. What I am trying to point out, is that arming all the citizens does not create a law abiding society. It creates anarchy, where might is right and the weak die.
Talk to the Swiss about owning guns and social anarchy. Their experimentally valid point of view is that if everyone knows there is an assault weapon and trained shooter in every house, people don't break in.
Christian Graus wrote:
Your core point appears to be that because one woman who was not armed, died, that proves that people not having guns and relying on police protection won't stop all murders. So, I assume you're claiming that if everyone was armed, no murders would take place. Otherwise, you've got nothing. Is that your position ?
No. My position is that as a law abiding citizen, I have the right to defend myself, and that if I misuse the right, I should be held responsible. If people are known to be able to defend themselves, they very often don't have to. Is your point is that the woman just needs to suck up dying, because you don't like it that people can have guns? That THAT is acceptable social justice? Is it that if people have guns, they will end up in anarchy, killing each other, quickest draw is right? You have nothing , if that is your position. If you give weapons to a lawless society, it may well increase the death rate. Show me where allowing them to a lawful society has increased the death rate.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
I believe your believe she would still be dead.
I believe she probably would have been, her husband would have known she carries a gun and planned his crime accordingly.
RichardM1 wrote:
She had no chance, under your rules.
That's not true. She had the chance to relocate. She had plenty of chances, they just narrowed when she put herself where he could attack her.
RichardM1 wrote:
Under your rules, she had to ditch her life and try and start somewhere else, with a different name or whatever. Screw that. She should not have to. The bullies are not supposed to win, just because you don't like guns.
So, if this guy did nothing against the law, she just said 'I am scared' and then she shot him, she'd be allowed to go free ? Would she get a medal ? How many other guys would get shot b/c a woman realised she could get away with it. This is the core point. This woman, and the rules you'd create using her as an example, would have flow on effects to the rest of society. I am saying I don't want to live in a place where people solve their differences by shooting each other.
RichardM1 wrote:
Talk to the Swiss about owning guns and social anarchy.
Obviously Swiss society teaches values that US society does not.
RichardM1 wrote:
Their experimentally valid point of view is that if everyone knows there is an assault weapon and trained shooter in every house, people don't break in.
That's one conclusion. It's one that assumes a cause and effect that may not be there, tho.
RichardM1 wrote:
No. My position is that as a law abiding citizen, I have the right to defend myself, and that if I misuse the right, I should be held responsible
Define misuse. If this woman shot her husband before he attacked her, would that be misuse ?
RichardM1 wrote:
Is your point is that the woman just needs to suck up dying, because you don't like it that people can have guns?
Is your point that if she had a gun, not only would she not have died, but no-one else would ever get shot when they had done nothing wrong ?
RichardM1 wrote:
Show me
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Much like sex since my vasectomy, I enjoy shooting just for the sake of shooting.
ROTFL - brilliant.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you have any experience with guns
I live on 11 acres. I don't have a gun, but my neighbours do, they use them to kill animals that can't be cured, that sort of thing. I have no issue with that. It doesn't bleed into our general society.
RichardM1 wrote:
or are you one of those people who thinks that because you have not been tainted by them, your opinion is somehow better than someone's who enjoys them?
We have moved a long way from the core point, which is your suggestion that it would be a good thing if everyone carried a gun. Any discussion of your hobby has been tainted by my trying to work out what it is that makes you think more guns in suburbia will make people safe.
RichardM1 wrote:
Of what happening?
Of anyone being shot, apart from a criminal. If someone invades your house, you have to assume they have a gun. I would assume they do not, and grab a block buster or something to take them out with.
RichardM1 wrote:
Being regarded as intelligent?
Nah, that would never happen.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
We have moved a long way from the core point, which is your suggestion that it would be a good thing if everyone carried a gun. Any discussion of your hobby has been tainted by my trying to work out what it is that makes you think more guns in suburbia will make people safe.
Where did you see me saying everyone should have one, or that doing that would make suburbia safer? I just want ME to be able to own one, so that I can go shooting, and for the odd assumption below.
Christian Graus wrote:
Of anyone being shot, apart from a criminal. If someone invades your house, you have to assume they have a gun. I would assume they do not, and grab a block buster or something to take them out with.
I'm 50 years old, out of shape, with a ruptured disk. I don't assume anyone invading my house has a gun, I assume they are some young tough who can kick my ass. And that is why people should be able to have guns, so we are not at the mercy of some ass who is stronger than them. Especially when the police are not around, like happened to this woman.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Nope, just that anyone who can afford them and is not a felon should be able to own them
Such as terrorists ? Who else would want to own a nuke ?
RichardM1 wrote:
But this government does buy off more citizens than the British ever did.
Yes, which only happens because the citizens are happy to let it happy. Until it's a dictatorship, you COULD take control ( that is you Americans ), but most people just accept they are being screwed. If anyting, it's worse in Oz.
RichardM1 wrote:
Nope. In fact.
I wonder what % of the people in the US wanted that, or understood it. That's what I mean by, in theory. Probably most people were as apathetic or at least felt as helpless as they do today.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Such as terrorists ? Who else would want to own a nuke ?
Nukes are not real effective at curbing civil disturbance. I am not worried about the government using them that way, as it would be suicide, in a real sense - you can't soak off a dead population, the government would die.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, which only happens because the citizens are happy to let it happy.
Not all of use(oops).
Christian Graus wrote:
Probably most people were as apathetic or at least felt as helpless as they do today.
I suspect not quite to the same degree, it didn't pay too well back than. But you are right. There are always more sheep than either wolves or sheepdogs.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.