Susan's Place Transgender Resources

So, the media made a lot about the Connecticut shooting, and so rightfully so..it was horrific..
Well, if a well trained citizen would have been arm with a gun perhaps some of those Innocent children may be alive today, right?

You said, no? Well, it just happen not to long ago that an armed citizen shot a would be killer and prevented another murderous rampage from taking place.

Of course the media has not widely reported this "pro gun' event; who knows why? it may be politically incorrect but it is a true story.

The lesson, get a gun, get trained, do practice, and do carry!

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-antonio-theater-shooting-2524596.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-antonio-theater-shooting-2524596.html)

They had trained security who were armed in Columbine when those shootings occured. Sadly, that did not help at all.

Also, one of the most important things they drilled into our heads in the Police Academy is that your training goes right out of the window when the situation presents itself where you have to discharge your firearm. That is why our training stated it was paramount to neutralize the offender before she or he fires their gun

We've read countless stories of Police Officers who were trained and certified in their firearms who would miss their target by as much as 20 feet when they were presented with a firefight.

When we did a mock night time raid, every single one of us missed 80% of the targets...and ones we did hit..we hit well outside the target diagrams of the silhouette...and those things weren't firing back.

This is a contemporary story of what I mean:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57502545-504083/empire-state-building-shooting-sparks-questions-about-nypd-shot-accuracy/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57502545-504083/empire-state-building-shooting-sparks-questions-about-nypd-shot-accuracy/)

So, being a such a situation would you prefer to be armed or unarmed?

I think that if every adult that was authorized to carry a gun, did we would see much less violence and crime. I used to carry due to an occupational hazard, but I no longer do mainly because I much prefer a blade.

Quote from: peky on January 11, 2013, 06:23:47 PM
So, the media made a lot about the Connecticut shooting, and so rightfully so..it was horrific..
Well, if a well trained citizen would have been arm with a gun perhaps some of those Innocent children may be alive today, right?

You said, no? Well, it just happen not to long ago that an armed citizen shot a would be killer and prevented another murderous rampage from taking place.

Of course the media has not widely reported this "pro gun' event; who knows why? it may be politically incorrect but it is a true story.

The lesson, get a gun, get trained, do practice, and do carry!

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-antonio-theater-shooting-2524596.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-antonio-theater-shooting-2524596.html)

Sorry Peky,

You would not want me to carry and use a gun. I have used them before but I can not see well enough to be sure of my aim at longer distances,and I refuse to put myself into a situation that if I hit the wrong target I do not want to carry that guilt.

I prefer to disarm with my warmth and charm but sometimes i bring out the big guns: i wrap a perp up with my two bare arms and bring them to the ground.

I have two semi automatic pistols at home, but I have no desire to carry one.

Quote from: peky on January 11, 2013, 06:23:47 PM
So, the media made a lot about the Connecticut shooting, and so rightfully so..it was horrific..
Well, if a well trained citizen would have been arm with a gun perhaps some of those Innocent children may be alive today, right?

You said, no? Well, it just happen not to long ago that an armed citizen shot a would be killer and prevented another murderous rampage from taking place.

I don't own a gun, I don't belong to the NRA but at the same time I don't have a problem with people owning weapons including assault weapons. My neighbors are armed to the teeth so when the zombies come at least I know where to go :)

I'm totally down with the 2nd Amendment (it's wing-nuttery I'm against), but... "No."

It will take a traumatic head injury to cause me to believe that more guns are the most appropriate response to gun violence.

Is it not most often true that the most effective deterrent to evil is brute force?

Bad guys are only stopped by fear.  The only way to stop an animal is to appear to be a bigger, stronger animal. 

In a perfect world, where everyone was a good person, and did nothing but seek out peace and love and happiness, we wouldn't need guns, or nukes or any other thing to kill or protect ourselves with. Until it becomes a perfect world, it seems like there will always be a need for weapons.

The US second amendment gives the people the choice to own and make use of firearms, no more or less. It's also a choice to try to engage an active shooter or wait for the calvary (police). There is little point in speculating either way how to prevent an event where the criminal has chosen in advance and has the upper hand as the one to throw the first punch so to speak.

This is one area where I'm a shrinking violet. I don't even want to think about, much less own, a machine whose only purpose is to fire a projectile fast enough to tear a hole in another human being's flesh.

I know it's a naive, timid, woosy point of view, and I'll probably die one day because of it. I am in awe and admiration of people who can deal with owning and using guns but it's just not me.

Quote from: Incarnadine on January 11, 2013, 08:27:08 PM
Is it not most often true that the most effective deterrent to evil is brute force?

Bad guys are only stopped by fear.  The only way to stop an animal is to appear to be a bigger, stronger animal.

Only if you're willing to admit that you're at an intellectual disadvantage... I can think of numerous ways to deal with - let's say - an animal, short of appearing to be a "bigger, stronger animal".

Quote from: Sadie May on January 12, 2013, 08:13:36 AM
Only if you're willing to admit that you're at an intellectual disadvantage... I can think of numerous ways to deal with - let's say - an animal, short of appearing to be a "bigger, stronger animal".

Ok then how would you purpose to out think and disarm a lunatic with a gun who burst into a theater? With the ony goal and objective of going in there and doing the most damage possible.  There really isn't reasoning with insanity or criminals, if there was then we wouldn't have either.  Now, I'm not saying that we should go and hand out guns to anyone, but let's be real with the fact that a criminal or someone looking to do harm is not going to go though proper channels to obtain a weapon.  If they want one, they'll find a way to get one.  Stricter gun control laws really only affect those who are law abiding and.... Probably the exact people that would be harmed by a criminal.  I guess I would say that anyone of sound judgement should have the right to protect themselves because unfortunately we live in a world where reason doesn't always prevail.

Quote from: Penny Gurl on January 12, 2013, 08:33:54 AM
Ok then how would you purpose to out think and disarm a lunatic with a gun who burst into a theater?

It's unlikely that I'm equipped with that much persuasion.

Seems to me that a better solution would be to explore ways to keep lunatics from advancing to the stage of being armed in a theater... but hey - maybe that just requires too much effort, and it's much easier (and certainly less strain on the noggin) to just join the crossfire.

Quote from: Sadie May on January 12, 2013, 08:58:09 AM
It's unlikely that I'm equipped with that much persuasion.

Seems to me that a better solution would be to explore ways to keep lunatics from advancing to the stage of being armed in a theater... but hey - maybe that just requires too much effort, and it's much easier (and certainly less strain on the noggin) to just join the crossfire.

The answer is both.  Identify the true source of that issue, which was a lunatic, not a firearm.  Then deal with the true source of that issue, which is a lunatic, not a firearm.

If the first recourse fails (dealing with the lunatic), then the last resort is to counter the animal with a bigger animal.  If you can remove the smaller animal using your noggin', then that saves the defender $.99 for his bullet, depending on what he's carrying. 

If that last resort is taken away, then the anti-gun perspective is just as lop-sided and fanatical as the many of the anti-gun crowd accuse the pro-defense crowd of being.

(besides the fact that the 2nd Amendment was meant in part to keep the federal government in check, but that's opening up a whole 'nuther can'o'worms)

Quote from: Incarnadine on January 12, 2013, 09:17:56 AM
(besides the fact that the 2nd Amendment was meant in part to keep the federal government in check, but that's opening up a whole 'nuther can'o'worms)

And this particular crowd makes the loudest argument for keeping guns out of the hands of mentally-unbalanced persons...

On the one hand, this:

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/909_10151325935108774_1591308428_n.jpg)

On the other, this:

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theodoresworld.net%2Fpics%2F0310%2FwarthogImage4.jpg&hash=7d2860d9979e13d94bdd624fb9f1915646395d94)
"Meet my little friend."

Quote from: Sadie May on January 12, 2013, 09:33:36 AM

Quote from: Incarnadine on January 12, 2013, 09:17:56 AM
(besides the fact that the 2nd Amendment was meant in part to keep the federal government in check, but that's opening up a whole 'nuther can'o'worms)

And this particular crowd makes the loudest argument for keeping guns out of the hands of mentally-unbalanced persons...

On the one hand, this:

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/909_10151325935108774_1591308428_n.jpg)

On the other, this:

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theodoresworld.net%2Fpics%2F0310%2FwarthogImage4.jpg&hash=7d2860d9979e13d94bdd624fb9f1915646395d94)
"Meet my little friend."

The "arab spring" uprising called, they want their history back.

Quote from: Flan on January 12, 2013, 10:44:14 AM
The "arab spring" uprising called, they want their history back.

:laugh: No problem: The history of those uprisings is threaded with military support, domestic and/or foreign. Civil resistance was also key, in some instances.

The one thing they have in common is that they were not seen to fruition by Johnny Buckshot and his trusty firearm, Ol' Bessy.

That sort of thinking is really somewhat unrealistic: anyone wanna give odds on ye local tri-corner-hat vigilante vs. the Modern Soldier, or an Apache Gunship, or an M-1 Abrams (assuming the military backed a tyrannical government - if the military did not back a tyrant, then Johnny can stand down: he/she will be in good hands...)?

88% of Americans own a gun, statistically speaking,...seems to be the will of the free people to own a gun my friend

Quote from: peky on January 12, 2013, 11:32:06 AM
88% of Americans own a gun, statistically speaking,...seems to be the will of the free people to own a gun my friend

I was in a sporting goods store the other day as it was closing.  One of the 2 shopkeepers mentioned that just today, he himself had personally ran 40-ish federal background checks for that day.  Most of those, he said, were for first-time buyers.  That wasn't counting what his co-worker had run.  This was in NY, where legislators are considering some extremely stringent population-disarming laws.

What's interesting is that in my small suburb in upstate NY, there are somewhere between 50-100 registered Republicans; the rest are mostly Democrat.  It is doubtful that many of my fellow inner-city residents have NRA memberships.

Quote from: Sadie May on January 12, 2013, 09:33:36 AM
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/909_10151325935108774_1591308428_n.jpg)

Then the 2nd Amendment has been successful!  The animal of tyranny has been unable to rear its head because the bigger animal of an armed population has kept it in check.

Someone has said that the beauty of the 2nd Amendment isn't needed until they try to take it away. 

It doesn't always happen that a tyrant arises, but a disarmed population cannot stop that tyrant if he does.  The same with crime - just because a citizen isn't armed doesn't mean he will become a victim, but if he is armed, he can be protected from becoming a victim. 

many years ago I stoped a guy who was trying to mug me by pulling a gun on him

no amount of anti firearm rhetoric will change my views that guns are a nessesary evil

also, I hunt, so we have guns, they are all black powder as I am a buckskinner nerd, but they are sure to do the job if I need them

Welll hey 1 day someone will learn banning personal guns can prevent those school guner murders I hear so much about... Oh well have your guns I doesnt affect me :P

A person can do far more damage with a lighter than a gun. Shall we bann the bic lighter and matches while we are at it? You know so no more people get locked into churches and torched...(yes that happened and it was one of the most horendus mass murders of its day)

Quote from: Annah on January 11, 2013, 06:37:13 PM
They had trained security who were armed in Columbine when those shootings occured. Sadly, that did not help at all.

I doubt that, where the hell were they then? I recall seeing the news videos of the swat team showing up and disembarking from their police van and crouching outside like a bunch of heavily armed pussies while the two punks in the cafeteria continued to shoot their classmates in the head. If there had been anyone there with any kahones, they would have run inside toward the shooting and popped both those little bastards with a double tap to the head. I've run headlong into the face of withering fire in Asia long ago to survive a VC ambush, which when well executed produces a 90% kill ratio within the first four seconds. Every second that is dithered away will produce casualties exponentially. Unfortunately most police are paid to do what they do, meaning they are mercenaries and for them it's always a matter of their own survival over that of those who are being victimized by killers! It wouldn't hurt to have an armed and highly dedicated person on security duty in schools. And it would make a lot of sense for Congress to revise the laws that protect known mental cases who are now currently safe from forced psychiatric evaluations for the sake of the rest of the population. But we know there is too much common sense in that kind of thinking and besides "A crisis is too good a thing to waste!"

Quote from: LilDevilOfPrada on January 12, 2013, 12:11:04 PM
Welll hey 1 day someone will learn banning personal guns can prevent those school guner murders I hear so much about... Oh well have your guns I doesnt affect me :P

According to BATFE there are upwards of 300,000,000 guns out in the U.S. you're going to ban them. So what will that accomplish? How will you suggest that they all be found? When that happens will anyone other than the murderers and miscreants have a firearm of their own? Just how will banning anything work? The government banned illegal drugs, and at one time booze, how did that work out?

Quote from: Shantel on January 12, 2013, 01:13:29 PM
According to BATFE there are upwards of 300,000,000 guns out in the U.S. you're going to ban them. So what will that accomplish? How will you suggest that they all be found? When that happens will anyone other than the murderers and miscreants have a firearm of their own? Just how will banning anything work? The government banned illegal drugs, and at one time booze, how did that work out?

I was simply giving my opinion no need to derail the thread over it.

Quote from: LilDevilOfPrada on January 12, 2013, 01:15:51 PM
I was simply giving my opinion no need to derail the thread over it.

I do not see a derail. I see a dead on response to your post.

So when someone starts shooting people who do we call? Guys with guns.

I am not anti gun, but I am anti nuke or chemical weapons, any kind of weapon of mass destruction.

All I am saying is owning a gun brings safty because everyone else in america owns one so you need one but look at the UK not even the police just carry around guns because if there are no guns you dont need the whole fire with fire mentaily.

I am not judging the american culture on guns I am simply saying if no guns existed this world would be better off because you wouldnt need to fend of a gun with another one when none were around.

If you want to argue with me on this then do so on pm.

Quote from: LilDevilOfPrada on January 12, 2013, 01:29:41 PM
All I am saying is owning a gun brings safty because everyone else in america owns one so you need one but look at the UK not even the police just carry around guns because if there are no guns you dont need the whole fire with fire mentaily.

I am not judging the american culture on guns I am simply saying if no guns existed this world would be better off because you wouldnt need to fend of a gun with another one when none were around.

If you want to argue with me on this then do so on pm.

I won't argue with you on the gun ownership issue, but I'll add this question to consider. 

Before guns were invented, were there violent crimes?  Does violent crime, murder, etc., exist because guns exist?  Or will violent people seeking to commit a crime simply use any tool at their disposal for the simple fact that they are violent people seeking to commit a crime?

Quote from: Incarnadine on January 12, 2013, 01:41:14 PM
I won't argue with you on the gun ownership issue, but I'll add this question to consider. 

Before guns were invented, were there violent crimes?  Does violent crime, murder, etc., exist because guns exist?  Or will violent people seeking to commit a crime simply use any tool at their disposal for the simple fact that they are violent people seeking to commit a crime?

Guns just make them easier :P thats fact.

Actually, yes there was a sheriff on campus at Columbine high school before the shooting started. He was on the opposite side of the campus.

And Virginia Tech has its own police force.

And Fort Hood is a freaking military base.

But to address the question "Why do you need to carry a GUN," the answer is that it would be a very bad idea. I am confident that if psych evals were necessary to be a gun owner, I would not pass and would be denied ownership. I was a gun owner, I can assure you I would not be making this post right because I would have been dead due to a self-inflicted gunshot.

I guess it all depends on your local culture.

My neighbor owns some impressive guns. But it doesn't cross my mind much. When I see him outside with one of his guns I get excited and happy. It means he is out hunting and if he is a sure shot, I will have wild game on my dinner table. (he hunts our families land and shares the bounty)
Now when I lived in Los Angeles any time I saw a gun I was imediatly on my gaurd.

Self defense is a natural right.  I want to be on equal terms with those who would violate my person, my family, my property, or my community.

I don't know where to start with this thread.

Where there are guns, there is more homicide:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/)

To be clear though, I'm not necessarily pro banning guns.  I also feel that altering gun control laws- whether they be greater or more lax restrictions- won't [WHOA what a typo that was] prevent disasters such as Newtown, et al.  A psychopath is a psychopath, and they'll acquire their assault weaponry however necessary.  What I'm not comfortable with, though, is the thought that a totally-armed public is a safe public.  Most of us (hopefully/thankfully) are never in the situation where we need to pull a weapon for self defense.  Do we really think that, in our adrenaline rush, we're capable of neutralizing the point of danger?  Personally, if I were held at gunpoint, no...I wouldn't want a gun to level the playing field.  Introducing another gun will only add to the tension, and increase the chance of deadlier crossfire.

Quote from: cynthialee on January 12, 2013, 01:20:59 PM
So when someone starts shooting people who do we call? Guys with guns.

Guys with guns, better trained to control their emotions through simulations (as Annah explained), who are taught to use their weapons as a last resort.

Having been in the military I have the training, and the last thing I would want is to be unarmed with someone else pointing a gun at me. I have a definate aversion to the idea of using deadly force, but you can bet your life if I have a gun and I am facing a shooter I am manuevering for position and returning fire. To fail to do so would be a failure of morals.

Kia Ora,

Why do you some [Americans] need to carry a GUN ?

::) Because it's hard for some to shake off the old somewhat imaginary Hollywood larger than life movie image of the 'Wild West'-And the need for their Hollywood fantasies to become their reality  :icon_pistoles:

I could be wrong...But I doubt it...

I should also add, the somewhat 'romanticised' wild west image has impacted other countries too...

Meta Zenda :)

"Lizzie Borden had an axe and gave her mother forty whacks, and then when she was done, she gave her father forty-one"

Obviously guns were not her problem. Nut cases will use whatever is available to harm others when they go off the rails. Jared Lee Loughner who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others in Arizona,  James Holmes who murdered the theatergoers in Aurora, Colorado,  and Adam Lanza the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook Elememtary School shootings all had something in common, they were all obviously wild-eyed lunatics that anyone with a brain in their head would have noticed. But because of political correctness and laws protecting crazies from being institutionalized against their wills, they were ignored until they committed their horrific crimes. Adam Lanza's own mother was herself complicit because she bought the assault rifle and handguns for her obviously mentally deranged son. Until we are willing to address the actual cause of these mass murders rather than opposing the ownership of inanimate objects by legal owners nothing will change, in which case then axes should then be banned.

And what do you do about suicide bombers or guys like Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Bombing) who can build bombs with fairly common and easy to get materials.

Quote from: SarahM777 on January 12, 2013, 05:31:33 PM
And what do you do about suicide bombers or guys like Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Bombing) who can build bombs with fairly common and easy to get materials.

That's another issue entirely and BTW - those materials are no longer so easily accessible. Purchases of large amounts of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane are now controlled items.

Quote from: Shantel on January 12, 2013, 05:18:27 PM
But because of political correctness and laws protecting crazies from being institutionalized against their wills, they were ignored until they committed their horrific crimes.

It's not just "political correctness." Many of the uninstitutionalized here in CA are out due to policies enacted by Gov. Ronald Reagan to "cut costs." These shootings are definitely a mental health issue. But conservatives generally don't want to see monies spent on addressing these concerns.

Quote from: Constance on January 12, 2013, 05:55:13 PM
It's not just "political correctness." Many of the uninstitutionalized here in CA are out due to policies enacted by Gov. Ronald Reagan to "cut costs." These shootings are definitely a mental health issue. But conservatives generally don't want to see monies spent on addressing these concerns.

I'll concede that was a huge mistake and although it may seem awfully mean of me to bring this up it seemed to me in retrospect that the negative intent of that decision may have come back to haunt him later as he suffered and died with Alzheimers. Other than that I liked him because he was able to unite both parties rather than the disunity we are experiencing now.

There is no tidy solution to the gun issue, and the best hope we're going to have is one with a nuanced approach.  I think it'd be bad if hunting was suddenly turned into an underground activity, the possibility of someone having a concealed gun may put some amount of fear into a person (who illegally possesses a gun) who might pull a gun on another, and leaning too hard on "mental fitness" for restrictions can unjustly discriminate against various subgroups in the population (TGs are more likely to classified as having disorders, and that may be used to more often deny them guns) as well as discourage people with mental problems from getting professional help (as seeking help can lead to a documentation of their mental state and reduce their rights/privileges).  On the other hand: having laws that give people easy access to guns where they might abuse it is bad (no waiting periods facilitate "hot-blooded" murder, guns in bars gives weapons to people while they are intoxicated and have compromised judgment), background checks can identify people who have abused weapons in the past, "open carry" laws makes it easier for would-be gun-abusers to identify when they can ~safely pull their guns on someone, teachers carrying guns is impractical due to them constantly being surrounded by students (and a teacher who moves around the classroom cannot guarantee their gun remains secured while fully focusing on teaching), and there is simply not enough armed security to go around to secure all the schools/malls/theaters/etc from someone with the element of surprise and the advantage of striking during a moment of greatest vulnerability (Fort Hood was attacked effectively by a lone individual, and Fort Hood is a place with lots of people who have guns and who know how to use them).

Likewise, we can't selectively turn video games, TV, movies, and/or the news into the scapegoat(s) (like the NRA president does).  There is a lot of absolutely horrible content, but a lot of it is quite good, and it is not the sort of thing sorted out by counting the number of times the f-word is used or how many people are killed in a movie (and the first amendment limits what legal authorities can do to constrain them anyway).  Religion, economic (in)equality, human rights for social minorities, drugs, and interpersonal interaction also have complex effects on society.  We can call on the government to do some things to help set us on a better course, but a great deal of the onus is going to be on individuals (not just in terms of "personal responsibility," but also in terms of the world we create for others).

Quote from: Dee on January 12, 2013, 03:02:36 PM
I don't know where to start with this thread.

Where there are guns, there is more homicide:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/)

I also feel that altering gun control laws...

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf)

Criminals don't care about laws. Murder is illegal and making it more illegal won't stop a criminal from murdering. The Bath School bombing, Oklahoma City federal building bombing, "Happy Land" fire were all done without a firearm. If the goal is reducing murder by firearm ALL forms of violence must be addressed at the same time otherwise it's trading one bad thing for another.

I don't like guns and in Australia they are difficult to get unless you are an Outlaw Biker or some such. Yes they are available under licence for people who legitimately need them.

I wouldn't go fishing in the NT without a firearm, crocs are difficult to reason with and suffer no mental health issues.

But guns are very common in the USA and I cannot see any way that they will not continue to be so. I have to admit I find it odd that certain classes of weapon are available but that happens.

There is always going to be a knee jerk reaction to massacres and in the USA the campaign to get rid of the gun dependent mentality following the recent massacre is understandable. But in itself I cannot see it solving a problem.

In Australia there was a massive gun buy back after the Port Arthur massacre, a massacre that makes others fade in comparison. I do not mean that glibly or without heart felt pain for other people brutally murdered.

The removal of guns had very little effect on the possession of guns by criminals. By definition these people have no regard for the law so gun buy backs have no impact on them.

In the USA and in Australia we seem to have developed a mental health care system based on don't bother to do anything and we can out them in gaol when they get too crazy. It is a poor health model in my opinion.

There is also an acceptance of violence in the general community as a means of resolving problems.

This is not new by any means, and some will argue that society is less violent than it used to be. But the capacity for violence by an individual is compounded by the ability to obtain weapons that are designed to kill large numbers of people quickly.  That after all is the purpose of military grade weapons, they are designed to inflict the maximum damage in the shortest period of time. They really have no other function.

I have no answers to this complex and very difficult problem. One suggestion is that there needs to be a divorce of very powerful industrial lobby groups from government decisions. Difficult I know, but as long as the NRA pays for political power then their opinions cannot be seen in any useful way.

In Australia we have the same problem with the mining industry, they are massively powerful and any government intervention into controlling their activity will fail.

I see the USA has the same problem with the coal industry for example, 'Climate change? what climate change?'

But I feel this is an area that needs to be discussed.

What is the government for? Is it to rule the country for the benefit of the individual or for the conglomerate mass, that in turn is uninterested in individual rights.

Sorry if this was a bit long but I enjoyed thinking through the issues while I was putting them down

Cindy

Quote from: peky on January 12, 2013, 11:32:06 AM
88% of Americans own a gun, statistically speaking,...seems to be the will of the free people to own a gun my friend

"Statistically speaking" being key; but I rather imagine that you are above trying to fool people with statistics, pardner. In America there are about 88.9 guns per 100 people, but the actual number of households with guns hovers around 45%.

Quote from: Incarnadine on January 12, 2013, 11:57:11 AM
Then the 2nd Amendment has been successful!  The animal of tyranny has been unable to rear its head because the bigger animal of an armed population has kept it in check.

Someone has said that the beauty of the 2nd Amendment isn't needed until they try to take it away. 

It doesn't always happen that a tyrant arises, but a disarmed population cannot stop that tyrant if he does.  The same with crime - just because a citizen isn't armed doesn't mean he will become a victim, but if he is armed, he can be protected from becoming a victim.

I can only recall the rise of one tyrant in American history, and he successfully quelled the rebellion against him... regardless - if you are suggesting that the murders of tens of thousands of innocent children, friends, family members, and folks otherwise minding their own business is an acceptable trade-off, in order to keep the number of imaginary tyrants in check... well then - voila! I reckon we can quit worrying about it now... and the next time a bunch of kindergarteners get their brains sprayed across a chalkboard we'll just drape little American flags on their coffins and say, "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori."

Seems legit.

Secondarily, it was mentioned somewhere (maybe not in this thread - I can't remember...) that the outcome in Aurora (sp?) may have been different had folks in the theatre been armed... I got to thinking about that some, and I imagine that the outcome would have been considerably different: suppose ten folks in there were packing... gun fire erupts... return fire ensues... who are you gonna shoot? The guy dressed like a swat team member, or just fire in every direction that you perceive gun shots to be originating from? All this amidst a panicked mass of people... my best guess is that everyone in that theatre would have died if there were more folks there with guns. 

I'm not actually against gun-ownership - but we truly need to review that right in a reasonable way.

Wounded Knee

Alright, so far everyone has missed the point of the topic of this thread entirely. It's all about how the media and press has abrogated it's responsibility to report events that might counter their obviously skewed desire to purposefully ignore any story contrary to their agenda. They learned well from the former Soviet Union which used disinformation to control the masses, even now the editorial board at Pravda are laughing at Americans for their sheepishness knowing full well that they have just extricated themselves from the very place we are now headed. Read the article and lets have some comments about the media and drop the stupid mantra about those awful guns.

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'd like to know.

I don't know that folks in this thread have missed the point entirely- I believe Peky raises a number of questions about whether and why we should carry guns.  But you are right, not much conversation about how the media handled the NM story.

The most I can say about this point, is that media industry personnel use their intuition with what and how they report any story.  And please don't read this as a defense of their morality- sometimes this intuition is to avoid association with an unpopular message which might prevent greater career opportunities.  Other times, it's like what you mentioned Shantel: stop a story dead in it's tracks in attempt to curb behavior.

I can easily see a national journalist being conflicted with something like the NM story- do we want to influence the attitude that we should carry weapons, in case we need to become vigilant?  Does the weight of that decision define and, to an extent, deteriorate the integrity of our journalism?  As a media professional, I can tell you this is something I struggle with:

Quote from: Sadie May on January 13, 2013, 09:23:05 AM

Secondarily, it was mentioned somewhere (maybe not in this thread - I can't remember...) that the outcome in Aurora (sp?) may have been different had folks in the theatre been armed... I got to thinking about that some, and I imagine that the outcome would have been considerably different: suppose ten folks in there were packing... gun fire erupts... return fire ensues... who are you gonna shoot? The guy dressed like a swat team member, or just fire in every direction that you perceive gun shots to be originating from? All this amidst a panicked mass of people... my best guess is that everyone in that theatre would have died if there were more folks there with guns. 

I'm not actually against gun-ownership - but we truly need to review that right in a reasonable way.

Because this isn't an unrealistic scenario.  To never pull a trigger, and feel responsible for fostering that type of culture.

[And just because I can never tell how my tone comes off: it's a very personal topic to many of us here, but I think highly of each of your comments and arguments.  Hugs to everyone!  Just please don't poke me with your pistol  ;)]

  I the past few years I've been looking at the Glock webpage.  This is not due to my TG condition, but the deteriorating conditions in my neighborhood.  The only several times since my '71 navy boot camp days I handled firearms was at the cabin is when others brought them in.  I rather shoot with my camera.  However, I often reason off of buying a gun is the fact that it will not defend against a shot in the back. 

  Joelene

Quote from: Shantel on January 12, 2013, 01:13:29 PM
According to BATFE there are upwards of 300,000,000 guns out in the U.S. you're going to ban them. So what will that accomplish? How will you suggest that they all be found? When that happens will anyone other than the murderers and miscreants have a firearm of their own? Just how will banning anything work? The government banned illegal drugs, and at one time booze, how did that work out?

The part in bold was also brought up by my dad.  To ban all of the guns in the U.S. and to enforce that ban would involve going door-to-door with a police force [not everyone is going to be willing to go to the town hall to hand over their guns] and possibly a military force.  That's the making of a police state right there.  Plus what about the families who rely on guns for food?  How is the government going to remove guns in rural areas?  How are they going to fund this forced removal?

Then you have the issues of criminals.  Criminals don't care if something is illegal.  They're going to do what they want when they want.

Anyway, back on topic.

I don't personally own a gun, but my dad has several [for hunting though he wouldn't hesitate to use it if someone broke into the house].  I plan on owning a gun when I'm out on my own for protection.  I won't carry it around everywhere as I don't trust myself not to accidentally shoot myself because I tripped or something, but it will be nicely secured and ready for use beside my bed just in case someone breaks into my home.

As a someone who has looked at teaching, I wouldn't carry a gun if I was teaching at a school that allowed it.  The thought of there being approximately 30 kids in the classroom and there being a gun disturbs me.  30 kids can easily overpower a teacher if it got into their heads to do so.  The gun could also cause trust issues if the students found out about it and trust is something that is key when it comes to teaching.

Edit:

On the topic of the media covering news inaccurately, that happens a lot.  It's one reason I never trust the media for my sole source of information.  They also "sensationalize" every single thing that they cover, and they pick-and-choose what they cover.  It's why you see so many negative things in the news about guns.  They choose to cover that and not any story where someone benefited from a gun.

Quote from: Cindy James on January 13, 2013, 03:46:41 AMIn the USA and in Australia we seem to have developed a mental health care system based on don't bother to do anything and we can out them in gaol when they get too crazy. It is a poor health model in my opinion.

My mother a very traditional US Liberal Democrat said exactly the same thing.  The mental health care system is totally broken.  We have no mechanism to address the truly needy including some who need commitment against their will.   We can fix anything that is included on a mental health insurance rider--at least as long as the coverage lasts.  The mental health market has moved to where there is a viable cash flow.

I understand those who find firearms reassuring.  Finding solutions for the disassociated prior to their flipping over the edge would be a worthwhile project. 

Quote from: mistressstevie on January 13, 2013, 08:57:25 PM
My mother a very traditional US Liberal Democrat said exactly the same thing.  The mental health care system is totally broken.  We have no mechanism to address the truly needy including some who need commitment against their will.   We can fix anything that is included on a mental health insurance rider--at least as long as the coverage lasts.  The mental health market has moved to where there is a viable cash flow.

I understand those who find firearms reassuring.  Finding solutions for the disassociated prior to their flipping over the edge would be a worthwhile project.

Very good point Misstressstevie...perhaps a certificate of sanity issued by a psychiatrist should be required to purchase, own, and carry any kind of firearm..this should include the military and police...food for thought, comments?

Quote from: peky on January 14, 2013, 03:50:50 PM
Very good point Misstressstevie...perhaps a certificate of sanity issued by a psychiatrist should be required to purchase, own, and carry any kind of firearm..this should include the military and police...food for thought, comments?

That sounds like a good idea to me. And considering the recent judgement against the drunk DC cop who shot 3 transwomen, shooting under the influence should carry a stiffer penalty.

Quote from: DianaP on January 14, 2013, 04:05:43 PM
Considering the fact that the damage is so extensive and all guns can't be taken back, that's probably the best path. Then again, I never bought into psychiatric evaluations (I would fail every time  :P). After all, on the ink blot test, the guy asked me what I saw and...

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.lib.umn.edu%2Fnich0185%2Fmyblog%2F640px-rorschach_like_inkblot-svg.png&hash=a9517f98874ce6109eb4c2a35f06a56f973da798)

...two welders flipping up their masks and eating the eyeballs off of a clown while simultaneously high-fiving. The one on the left ate it faster, causing a trail of blood on the left side of the clown's face.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fobeyclothing.com%2Fmedia%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2Finkblot.png&hash=e0e0ec5388beba8876366c4c5fe346a6caaa795d)

... two giant birds from a mad scientist's lab carrying a giant beetle that will replicate and eat all of the metal in a city, unless a ransom is paid to said scientist.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.lib.umn.edu%2Fvanm0049%2Fmyblog%2Ftumblr_lnmn0amEdS1qi1nq6o1_400.gif&hash=c10c72e06069921e787434805ea428b41d77132f)

Mutant panda.

No gun..wait..no nail clippers for you girl!!!

Quote from: DianaP on January 14, 2013, 04:05:43 PM
Considering the fact that the damage is so extensive and all guns can't be taken back, that's probably the best path. Then again, I never bought into psychiatric evaluations (I would fail every time  :P). After all, on the ink blot test, the guy asked me what I saw and...

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.lib.umn.edu%2Fnich0185%2Fmyblog%2F640px-rorschach_like_inkblot-svg.png&hash=a9517f98874ce6109eb4c2a35f06a56f973da798)

...two welders flipping up their masks and eating the eyeballs off of a clown while simultaneously high-fiving. The one on the left ate it faster, causing a trail of blood on the left side of the clown's face.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fobeyclothing.com%2Fmedia%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2Finkblot.png&hash=e0e0ec5388beba8876366c4c5fe346a6caaa795d)

... two giant birds from a mad scientist's lab carrying a giant beetle that will replicate and eat all of the metal in a city, unless a ransom is paid to said scientist.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.lib.umn.edu%2Fvanm0049%2Fmyblog%2Ftumblr_lnmn0amEdS1qi1nq6o1_400.gif&hash=c10c72e06069921e787434805ea428b41d77132f)

Mutant panda.

Coronal sections through the the hind brain

Quote from: DianaP on January 14, 2013, 04:21:46 PM
You cannot tell me that you didn't see what I said were in those pictures. Just look.  :) :P

maybe if I inhale some weed I would  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

back to some serious considerations

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2085401831001/mom-who-shot-intruder-becomes-part-of-national-gun-debate/?intcmp=obnetwork (http://video.foxnews.com/v/2085401831001/mom-who-shot-intruder-becomes-part-of-national-gun-debate/?intcmp=obnetwork)

Quote from: peky on January 14, 2013, 04:51:09 PM
back to some serious considerations

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2085401831001/mom-who-shot-intruder-becomes-part-of-national-gun-debate/?intcmp=obnetwork (http://video.foxnews.com/v/2085401831001/mom-who-shot-intruder-becomes-part-of-national-gun-debate/?intcmp=obnetwork)

Gee, wonder why she just didn't submit to the man like a good politically correct American housewife? The poor fellow was probably from a disadvantaged background and poor upbringing, perhaps he was hungry and just needed something to eat. She could have offered him a little money from her purse. Now the taxpayers will be stuck with paying his hospital bills, well that really sucks doesn't it? Those awful guns!

Quote from: Shantel on January 14, 2013, 05:09:04 PM
Gee, wonder why she just didn't submit to the man like a good politically correct American housewife? The poor fellow was probably from a disadvantaged background and poor upbringing, perhaps he was hungry and just needed something to eat. She could have offered him a little money from her purse. Now the taxpayers will be stuck with paying his hospital bills, well that really sucks doesn't it? Those awful guns!

This made me laugh so hard!!

Quote from: Shantel on January 14, 2013, 05:09:04 PM
The poor fellow was probably from a disadvantaged background and poor upbringing, perhaps he was hungry and just needed something to eat. She could have offered him a little money from her purse.

I know clergy persons who probably would have done just that.

I don't care what someones intention is when they broke into my house. If you break in, you are not there with good thoughts and well wishes. Therefore, you will not be leaving alive. I will make sure of that personally. If I am not there, my roommate will get you with her 12 gauge which is a worse way to go than I would have made it. Best advice. Knock.

Quote from: Constance on January 14, 2013, 05:25:02 PM
I know clergy persons who probably would have done just that.

Of course you know I was being facetious, the clergy man would probably wind up in the hospital if he was really lucky.

I'm for the ban on assault rifles. I'm for people having guns and rifles to protect their family and homes.
I personally would not own a gun.

The one element that is being ingored is that in all the mass shootings, the perpetrator was on anti-psychotic
medication. No one is talking about that. If you watch all the commercials on tv, the pharma companies are
always pushing a pill for this, a pill for that. The media isn't going to tell you this because they are behind the
campaign blitz for these drugs.

Quote from: gennee on January 14, 2013, 06:50:05 PM
I'm for the ban on assault rifles. I'm for people having guns and rifles to protect their family and homes.
I personally would not own a gun.

The one element that is being ingored is that in all the mass shootings, the perpetrator was on anti-psychotic
medication. No one is talking about that. If you watch all the commercials on tv, the pharma companies are
always pushing a pill for this, a pill for that. The media isn't going to tell you this because they are behind the
campaign blitz for these drugs.

Amen to that drug company business, you are so right!

Guns are as dangerous as the person who owns them.  Guns do kill, but only if the person who is carrying it pulls the trigger.

Quote from: DianaP on January 14, 2013, 07:06:46 PM
Yes, and considering the tens of thousands of annual gun violence deaths in the US, I'd say quite a few people are pulling the triggers.

Besides, guns make it so easy to kill. Point, click, guy's dead.

Tens of thousands? Oh Please, get your figures right before commenting.

More people are killed in auto accidents in the US than by guns, they are actually dangerous in the hands of some people, they should be banned from the roads.

Quote from: DianaP on January 14, 2013, 04:05:43 PM
Considering the fact that the damage is so extensive and all guns can't be taken back, that's probably the best path. Then again, I never bought into psychiatric evaluations (I would fail every time  :P). After all, on the ink blot test, the guy asked me what I saw and...

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.lib.umn.edu%2Fnich0185%2Fmyblog%2F640px-rorschach_like_inkblot-svg.png&hash=a9517f98874ce6109eb4c2a35f06a56f973da798)

...two welders flipping up their masks and eating the eyeballs off of a clown while simultaneously high-fiving. The one on the left ate it faster, causing a trail of blood on the left side of the clown's face.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fobeyclothing.com%2Fmedia%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2Finkblot.png&hash=e0e0ec5388beba8876366c4c5fe346a6caaa795d)

... two giant birds from a mad scientist's lab carrying a giant beetle that will replicate and eat all of the metal in a city, unless a ransom is paid to said scientist.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.lib.umn.edu%2Fvanm0049%2Fmyblog%2Ftumblr_lnmn0amEdS1qi1nq6o1_400.gif&hash=c10c72e06069921e787434805ea428b41d77132f)

Mutant panda.

You're right they are there (Overactive imagination perhaps) :)

(Although I think the last one is a mutant leopard)  :P

Quote from: peky on January 14, 2013, 03:50:50 PM
perhaps a certificate of sanity issued by a psychiatrist should be required to purchase, own, and carry any kind of firearm..this should include the military and police.

I do not know how to do so without a registration system which has pitfalls of its own.

The history of governments murdering citizens points out there is some logic in your including the military and the police in that.  And, on the other side why many oppose registration. 

Rudolph Rummel documents what he calls democide as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder" http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills)

His numbers grow frighteningly high to the hundreds of millions.   

The attached charts show some summaries. 

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hawaii.edu%2Fpowerkills%2F20TH_C_MORTACRACIES.GIF&hash=7b8e3dda424b87a675e3f1ac9434d44d67941ac2)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hawaii.edu%2Fpowerkills%2FPRE-20TH.GIF&hash=b0d3ee4492afd8aa894e73318c99188eadcbdd95)

Quote from: DianaP on January 14, 2013, 07:40:31 PM
I did check my figures:

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/ (http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/)

Also, are you trying to say that guns aren't dangerous in the hands of some people? The use of the word "actually" is a bit misleading. Besides, cars are actually needed for transportation. Not everyone has a good public transportation system or the time needed to commute 20 miles via a bad one. There is no actual need for guns. Learn to throw a knife, use a sword, or get a longbow, which can actually pierce a bulletproof vest. Don't use false comparisons in an argument. Most automobile deaths are inevitable accidents and are higher in number than gun killings because cars are used much more often than guns. The fact that cars kill more people doesn't mean that a "point, click, and kill" weapon should be allowed frivolously.


And don't give me that 2nd amendment garbage.
1. The right to bear arms is to promote a well-maintained militia. That's way outdated, and if taken literally, should mean that all civilians should have access to tanks and F22 raptor jets. The Constitution calls for a militia, not an individually armed, everyone-for-themselves slug-fest.

2. The Constitution was written by a bunch of people who believed that blacks weren't equal and who were also exposed only to the musket, a crappy weapon. Not exactly the most reliable people.

Glad someone sees it.  ::)

Only 11,000 deaths due to homicide by gun.

Only 40,000 deaths due to drinking and driving

I do not see you trying so desperately to ban alcohol! Why?

Furthermore CDC estimates that up to 100,000 deaths a year are due to excessive alcohol consumption, that is 10 time more that the deaths caused by gun homicides

Quote from: mistressstevie on January 14, 2013, 07:41:10 PM
I do not know how to do so without a registration system which has pitfalls of its own.

The history of governments murdering citizens points out there is some logic in your including the military and the police in that.  And, on the other side why many oppose registration. 

Rudolph Rummel documents what he calls democide as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder" http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills)

His numbers grow frighteningly high to the hundreds of millions.   

The attached charts show some summaries. 

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hawaii.edu%2Fpowerkills%2F20TH_C_MORTACRACIES.GIF&hash=7b8e3dda424b87a675e3f1ac9434d44d67941ac2)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hawaii.edu%2Fpowerkills%2FPRE-20TH.GIF&hash=b0d3ee4492afd8aa894e73318c99188eadcbdd95)

Great point Missstevie,

For all the bitching by the Europeans and the Brits about the "American Cowboys and Cowgirls and their guns," I do not see the USA listed a having committed any democides.

When I come to think, we have two intervene twice last century to save them for annihilating themselves.

Quote from: peky on January 14, 2013, 08:13:51 PM
I do not see the USA listed a having committed any democides.

For all the flaws the US system may have it was structured with layers of internal checks and balances.  The clearest explanation about the balance firearms hold in the US constitutional system were articulated by John Adams who penned the Declaration of Independence with Thomas Jefferson and went on to be the second President of the US. 

QuoteArms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense.

source: – John Adams, A DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, at 475, (Philadelphia 1788)

if you ban guns... how do you purpose you collect them?

ohhh! by using guns LOL... hypocrites

nobody is anti gun... they are only pro gun for an elite group of people (police?) owned by gov people farmers

Quote from: oZma on February 06, 2013, 05:15:13 PM
if you ban guns... how do you purpose you collect them?

ohhh! by using guns LOL... hypocrites

nobody is anti gun... they are only pro gun for an elite group of people (police?) owned by gov people farmers

Good one oZma, I'm beginning to like you. Not only pretty but smart!

Quote from: DianaP on February 06, 2013, 05:23:23 PM
Your anti-govt attitude reminds me of a silly argument against gun regulation: "We need to protect ourselves from tyranny."

Seriously, if the US govt wanted to, it would easily stop any rebellion in 24 hours. However, that wouldn't be good for money, so it doesn't.  :P

Well, I for one am anti-gun, for your information.  :P

However, circumstances have made them a necessary evil for the police. When criminals have guns, it's only reasonable to arm those who are supposed to protect people appropriately. Don't bag on the police; they are far from elite. Plus, consider what would happen without a police force. Just ask the victims of the Boston police strike. Oh, wait, you can't; they're dead.  :(

As much as I would love all guns to evaporate into nothingness, the damage is done in the US. I would never be caught dead using one. Maybe I should move to Scotland...  :)

oh and hey, after we ban guns... lets tackle cocaine and heroine next?

Quote from: DianaP on February 06, 2013, 05:36:01 PM
Don't assume that I'm for banning guns; I'm for gun REGULATION. Background checks, waiting periods, etc. Banning guns would be a stupid idea since only law-abiding citizens would forfeit their guns, leaving only criminals armed with firearms. Banning guns is only a good idea in countries that never had them to begin with.

I frankly don't care for drug bans, either. If people want to ruin their lives, let them. Save some money and resources while we're at it. Plus, if drugs are legalized, they can be sold and taxed, leading to lower incentive to use them. Not to mention that the "cool" factor would be gone.  :P

You assume too much.   :P

not necessarily assuming... just because I hit the quote button doesn't mean I was responding only to you... I was really just trying to add onto my original post and since you already replied and I was reading it, I hit the quote button. plus its hard to navigate these forums on a cell phone LOL

I'll try to be more straight forward next time !

One overlooked position in this argument is who is affected by laws.  In reality only the middle class is really obedient to laws, because they have the most to lose.  The rich can buy their way out and the extreme poor have nothing (or very little) to lose.

The majority of deaths are caused by people who legally aren't supposed to own or possess guns in the first place.  Chicago is an excellent example, rampant gun violence mostly by gangs, and aren't guns illegal in Chicago?  Our issue of gun violence compared to other industrialized nations is not a factor of guns, but rather a factor of our fastest growing sector of society which is low income, uneducated, and fairly barbaric.

I firmly believe the more law abiding citizens who are trained and proficient with fire arms we have the less violence we will have.  We need to enforce the laws we already have and hand out extremely stiff penalties to those who break them.

Quote from: kimdp999 on February 06, 2013, 05:52:33 PM
One overlooked position in this argument is who is affected by laws.  In reality only the middle class is really obedient to laws, because they have the most to lose.  The rich can buy their way out and the extreme poor have nothing (or very little) to lose.

The majority of deaths are caused by people who legally aren't supposed to own or possess guns in the first place.  Chicago is an excellent example, rampant gun violence mostly by gangs, and aren't guns illegal in Chicago?  Our issue of gun violence compared to other industrialized nations is not a factor of guns, but rather a factor of our fastest growing sector of society which is low income, uneducated, and fairly barbaric.

I firmly believe the more law abiding citizens who are trained and proficient with fire arms we have the less violence we will have.  We need to enforce the laws we already have and hand out extremely stiff penalties to those who break them.

Right on, good common sense commentary on the realities, rather than the usual whiny, knee-jerk, delusional drivel.

Kia Ora,

"Why do you need to carry a GUN  ?"

What does this say about the effectiveness of American Law Enforcement-if American citizens feel the 'need' to carry guns !
This is not a slight on US police-they put their life on the line each day, but it does beg the question when it comes to putting ones trust in their ability to "protect and serve"....

Metta Zenda :)

something I didn't write but it should be taken into consideration:

QuotePolice have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Oh my god Peky you're trying to make everybody on Susan's hate one another, aren't you? :laugh:

Kia Ora,

That's interesting [#99]...So if the American police are not there to protect the individual, and their job is only to protect society 'as a whole' [and individuals make up a society]then who or what are they meant to be protecting?

In reality 'society' does not exist, it is nothing without the individual...

So the American citizen who understands the role of the police officer has no other option[a part from migration] but to protect themselves.

Which brings it back to my original comment/post about the Hollywood style "The Wild West" mentality...Again this is not a slight on the American people as a whole' ...Just an observation on why guns [so it would seem] are a popular part of American culture/psyche...

However when it comes to the frequent shootings and the ineffectiveness of policy/law makers who seem to end up watering down the laws, and expect them to make a difference, Einstein's  definition of insanity is quite appropriate ie, "Continuing to do 'the same thing' over and over again, each time hoping for a different result/outcome !" 

But in saying all this...I know there is no magic bullet [excuse the pun] when it comes to solving America's gun problem...

Metta Zenda :)

Guns are illegal in the UK,even if they were legal I don't think I would have one and definitely not without being trained how to use it.

Quote from: Zenda on February 06, 2013, 11:44:32 PM
Kia Ora,

"Why do you need to carry a GUN  ?"

What does this say about the effectiveness of American Law Enforcement-if American citizens feel the 'need' to carry guns !
This is not a slight on US police-they put their life on the line each day, but it does beg the question when it comes to putting ones trust in their ability to "protect and serve"....

Metta Zenda :)

The idea that police are hired and trained by departments to protect individuals is something of an illusion. There have been attempts at lawsuits in various cities and municipalities by individuals who have been raped, robbed, and experienced home invasions who have called the police and experienced a sluggish response or none at all. Their lawsuit, based on the idea that the police are there to protect them from harm has been thrown out on the premise that they are not there to provide protection for any individual. Their primary mission is to protect the municipal infrastructure and serve as a deterrent against criminal activity, which includes arresting anyone involved in an infraction of the law at their discretion. They are therefore unable to preempt murders, rapes and home invasions but in most cases will take a report after the fact. Normally the head of any household is responsible for the protection and wellbeing of his/her family, this isn't something that can realistically be abrogated in favor of the police who are usually stretched beyond their capacity to respond to every call. It's clearly delusional for anyone to assume otherwise. Ask your local prosecutor, they will tell you that this is indeed true.

Quote from: DianaP on February 07, 2013, 05:39:57 AM
Yes, because any good point that disagrees with your views is just whiny, knee-jerk, delusional drivel.  ::)

Not always, but in this case yes!

I tend to avoid the gun debates. My dad was a big NRA fan, but no longer. For me (and it's just a personal view of no real relevance to the political struggle), I know that I very nearly managed to kill myself in my teens in part thanks to the presence of guns in the house. Fortunately, I didn't really want to do it, or I would have actually followed through. And this was in a household where gun safety was fairly and responsibly enforced... my dad was careful to make sure that we all knew how to use them properly, but also that they remained under lock and key all the time.

To me, it seems clear, and did even from NRA propaganda in the 70s, that there's a far greater risk associated with having guns in a house than the odds of preventing something bad with one or more of them, if only because good people doing stupid things at home is a lot more common than home invasions or other bad things. 

At least part of the "fault" for the Connecticut shooting was the denial in the shooter's mother's mind that allowed her to decide to keep her guns in the house when she knew she had a child there who was a potential threat... but maybe she really didn't see that threat? Or did she rationalize it? I don't know... people have a tendency to not make such terrible connection, don't they?

Quote from: kimdp999 on February 06, 2013, 05:52:33 PM
One overlooked position in this argument is who is affected by laws.  In reality only the middle class is really obedient to laws, because they have the most to lose.  The rich can buy their way out and the extreme poor have nothing (or very little) to lose.

I need to call you on this. It's a gross generalization at best. There are a huge number of poor folks who scrupulously follow laws. The statement that poor people are lawbreakers is prejudicial. And it is not the case that rich folks can buy their way out (ask Plaxico Burress, star NFL receiver who spent years in prison for violating New York City gun laws).

Quote from: cynthialee on February 06, 2013, 11:58:39 PM
It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime

Oddly, this is the main reason why I think gun regulation is a must. Given that the police are not going to ride up on their white horses and save me if a gunfight breaks out nearby, I feel much safer in places where guns are rare.

Quote from: agfrommd on February 07, 2013, 08:55:50 AM
Oddly, this is the main reason why I think gun regulation is a must. Given that the police are not going to ride up on their white horses and save me if a gunfight breaks out nearby, I feel much safer in places where guns are rare.

I actually feel the opposite. Because the police are not going to be there to protect me, I feel safer when there are more guns around. To me, the more people that have a gun the less likely one will be used in violence. The criminal is too afraid of getting shot by someone else. My views however, are built from a life where it was mandatory to carry a gun. Therefore, all those I used to be around, to include myself, were professionally trained to properly handle firearms. I'm not talking police type training because let's face it, their training is grossly lacking.

Quote from: agfrommd on February 07, 2013, 08:55:50 AM

Oddly, this is the main reason why I think gun regulation is a must. Given that the police are not going to ride up on their white horses and save me if a gunfight breaks out nearby, I feel much safer in places where guns are rare.

The problem lies in the errant thought with over 3 million + firearms in circulation and many in the hands of those who wouldn't obey any laws, how will you find any place in CONUS where guns are rare? No-one has an answer to that question.

I was out with half a dozen TG girlfriends several years ago following a TG Group session. We were going to have a few drinks and follow up on the evening since everyone was dressed to the nines and had their makeup on. We were approached by three sloppy looking dorks, when one said, "Hey look, lets kick some ->-bleeped-<- asses" and started for us. It was frightening, so out came my heat and they took off running. After my Adrenalin rush had subsided the discussion over drinks later was all about what we should do for protection. It was a given that if a cop had been close by he might have looked the other way as we all got our faces smashed in.

Some of the details of the story below are true but some have been change to protect the innocent



So, a few years ago, in a moonless and clear-sky summer night, my friend Pete and his teen daughters rode to a desolated rural area to do some amateur astronomy.  To make a long story short, four man passing by tried to attack them but fortunately Pete was carrying his gun. All Pete had to do is shot in the air, and like magic the criminals were gone. Pete told me that evening that though he was shock, he would have shot to kill to defend his girls have the criminals come any closer...


The sad part is that it took a few years for the girls to get over the scare...and their budding passion for astronomy vanished with the echo of the shot..Regretfully this type of the stories do not receive "high" exposure in the National media   :(

It's cause most americans seem to feel he world would be so soooo much safer if everybody had a gun.

Doesn't explain why more weapons are produced by Russia and China.

It seems like I've heard about a time like that, where everyone carried a gun.  The American West.

Everyone had the chance to protect themself, but people still died, criminals still roamed the land.

It had its good points and its bad points.  The thing is, people will be people.
--------------------------

I do own a 38 special, I've never had to use it, but it is there and I think it is our right to own a gun or rifle.  I was trained to shoot by our dear old military, rifle, pistol (45), machine gun and bazooka.

It's kind of like how rat poison in every cupboard would make us all safer.  Not exactly the same logic, but similar.   And yeah the wild wild west was easily the safest place and time ever.

Quote from: peky on February 07, 2013, 10:13:39 AM
The sad part is that it took a few years for the girls to get over the scare...and their budding passion for astronomy vanished with the echo of the shot..Regretfully this type of the stories do not receive "high" exposure in the National media   :(

And this is the part that sticks with me. We do live in a country (those of us in the US) where guns are commonplace, so I don't judge or want to try to make some case against his doing what seemed necessary. But in the end, we have wound up living in a culture of fear, as a result... something that no particular gun legislation is likely to do much to change or improve. That's also why I try to avoid these discussions, since it winds up reducing to anecdotal cases and I just wind up feeling more depressed in general about the state of the culture.

you can't legislate safety or equality... to think you can just empowers 'professional' politicians that get off on you voting for them.  to me, politics, legislature, gov is disgusting and I will not support ANYTHING they do because I am a non violent person with a non-aggression principle.  gov is a monopoly on the legal use of force, read violence...

just think about what a politician is... a person whose job it is to decide what's best for YOU! what you can eat, drink, say, do, act! a person that decides the best way to spend YOUR fruits of YOUR Labor! and if you don't agree... b you have to give them more money, and even go to jail! because you disagree with them?! wtf! sorry I'm getting off topic but my point being that you cannot legislate safety and all attempts with have negative consequences :-)


Guns: Say What You Mean (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eatt6SgI8c#)

That's rather anarchistic, isn't it?  Maybe that's your point, that you're an anarchist?  I'm not saying the government has never overstepped, but i think having laws against bad things is a generally good thing.

Does it stop people from doing bad things? No.  But it makes it harder, makes it so fewer people bother, and it makes life pretty annoying and terrible for people that do (and get caught.)

Quote from: Jen on February 07, 2013, 12:44:41 PM
That's rather anarchistic, isn't it?  Maybe that's your point, that you're an anarchist?  I'm not saying the government has never overstepped, but i think having laws against bad things is a generally good thing.

Does it stop people from doing bad things? No.  But it makes it harder, makes it so fewer people bother, and it makes life pretty annoying and terrible for people that do (and get caught.)

Laws against "bad things" are good, and will help to keep order in society. But, when the government tries to tell you how to live your life they are overstepping. Take something as small as the seatbelt law. If I want to die, or get injured in a car accident, that is my choice. Why should I have to be forced to do something like that? I fully support seat belts for children because they are not old enough to realize what they are risking. But, adults are. Those kinds of laws are stupid.

Quote from: oZma on February 07, 2013, 12:32:44 PM
you can't legislate safety or equality... to think you can just empowers 'professional' politicians that get off on you voting for them.  to me, politics, legislature, gov is disgusting and I will not support ANYTHING they do because I am a non violent person with a non-aggression principle.  gov is a monopoly on the legal use of force, read violence...

just think about what a politician is... a person whose job it is to decide what's best for YOU! what you can eat, drink, say, do, act! a person that decides the best way to spend YOUR fruits of YOUR Labor! and if you don't agree... b you have to give them more money, and even go to jail! because you disagree with them?! wtf! sorry I'm getting off topic but my point being that you cannot legislate safety and all attempts with have negative consequences :-)

Exactly, well stated! Unfortunately there are many who would prefer to live under the limits and sanctions of a nanny state!

Quote from: Brooke777 on February 07, 2013, 12:54:12 PM
Laws against "bad things" are good, and will help to keep order in society. But, when the government tries to tell you how to live your life they are overstepping. Take something as small as the seatbelt law. If I want to die, or get injured in a car accident, that is my choice. Why should I have to be forced to do something like that? I fully support seat belts for children because they are not old enough to realize what they are risking. But, adults are. Those kinds of laws are stupid.

How many lives have seatbelt laws saved?   I get your point, but that's like the most annoying example and I'm not even sure those laws are bad is all I'm saying.

How about texting while driving?  Do you feel there should be laws against that?

Quote from: Brooke777 on February 07, 2013, 12:54:12 PM
Laws against "bad things" are good, and will help to keep order in society. But, when the government tries to tell you how to live your life they are overstepping. Take something as small as the seatbelt law. If I want to die, or get injured in a car accident, that is my choice. Why should I have to be forced to do something like that? I fully support seat belts for children because they are not old enough to realize what they are risking. But, adults are. Those kinds of laws are stupid.

The issue with it is that if you get hurt because you aren't wearing a seatbelt, your insurance pays and that is basically a pool supported by a large group of people and you willfully put yourself at a higher risk and its reducing our pool so it does affect more than just you. Seat belts and airbags are to reduce injuries which saves money. Or would you be ok with waiving your rights to insurance paid care if you were in a car accident, whether it was your fault or not?

Quote from: Jen on February 07, 2013, 12:59:56 PM
How many lives have seatbelt laws saved?   I get your point, but that's like the most annoying example and I'm not even sure those laws are bad is all I'm saying.

How about texting while driving?  Do you feel there should be laws against that?

I agree, seat belt laws have saved a lot of lives. But, were they lives that wanted to be saved? Why is it up to the government to decide if someone should want to protect themselves with a seatbelt or not. If they don't care if they get hurt in an accident, that is their choice. Personally, I think not wearing a seatbelt is stupid. I just don't like the government telling me I have to.

I do think there should be laws against texting because that has the potential of hurting others. It's like driving while drunk. If you are texting while driving you could cause a serious accident and kill someone else. Those laws are to protect the other drivers from the texters, not the texters from themselves.

Do you see where I see the difference? I hope that makes sense, if not I will try to explain it better.

Quote from: crazy at the coast on February 07, 2013, 01:04:35 PM
Or would you be ok with waiving your rights to insurance paid care if you were in a car accident, whether it was your fault or not?

This, right here. If you choose to participate in an action that will cause you to incur undo damage, insurance should not have to pay. I have no problem with my insurance not paying for me if I'm not wearing a seatbelt. Granted, I don't even turn my car on without having my seatbelt on.

Quote from: Brooke777 on February 07, 2013, 12:54:12 PM
Laws against "bad things" are good, and will help to keep order in socie bty. But, when the government tries to tell you how to live your life they are overstepping. Take something as small as the seatbelt law. If I want to die, or get injured in a car accident, that is my choice. Why should I have to be forced to do something like that? I fully support seat belts for children because they are not old enough to realize what they are risking. But, adults are. Those kinds of laws are stupid.

so who decides what's 'bad'? intuition? the majority? what if the majority wants to rape children? must be good right? no... now I know that's a silly argument but it paints a picture that 'bad things' are arbitrary and NOBODY can, from a moral perspective, tell you what you are doing is 'bad' unless its harming someone else, their rights, or their property.

as for the anarchy question... I'm more of a minarcist :-) or a libertarian, although I do believe anarchy is possible and shouldn't be a dirty word... a better word is voluntarianism :-)

here is positive practical anarchy discussion
The Proof of Anarchy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw#)

Libertarian is a nice word for anarchist :).  I'm not against your views, I just have a very different stance on a lot of things from libertarians, but that's okay.  Regarding what is right or wrong, we all decide that.  Everybody that belongs to the culture in question.  It's a social contract.  Different cultures define good and bad differently, but I think things just run smoother for any society when it can decide on a certain way to live together.   Everybody can agree murder is bad.  Then you just have to argue incessantly about the more gray areas.  It's not perfect, but it's better than everybody for themself, imo.

Quote from: Jen on February 07, 2013, 01:50:37 PM
Libertarian is a nice word for anarc hist :).  I'm not against your views, I just have a very different stance on a lot of things from libertarians, but that's okay.  Regarding what is right or wrong, we all decide that.  Everybody that belongs to the culture in question.  It's a social contract.  Different cultures define good and bad differently, but I think things just run smoother for any society when it can decide on a certain way to live together.   Everybody can agree murder is bad.  Then you just have to argue incessantly about the more gray areas.  It's not perfect, but it's better than everybody for themself, imo.

and that's fine :-) but what happens if the society decides things like gays illegal, or we can't transition?  can't be female? can't smoke a leaf? once you start making rules in the gray area, things get messy... when things become illegal or 'bad' as you put it... you enforce it with tickets which swell the size of gov which in turn just makes new rules.

we make approx 40000 new laws in 2012... a total of now 4500 federal criminal laws.  we are all criminals... from speeding and seat belts, to making bets with friends, to singing happy birth day in public, piracy, unsecured wifi... the list goes on and on... to me, its just an excuse to legally rob us

you support these 'bad' things by supporting the idea that 'bad'things should be illegal. 

now if the legal system was simple, and straight forward... id have nothing to complain... but since it isn't...  the whole system needs to go

I mean dancing is illegal at the Jefferson memorial? serial?
ARRESTED - ILLEGAL TO DANCE at JEFFERSON Memorial Adam Vs The Man. May 28 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNNYWqZNgSI#)

Quote from: DianaP on February 07, 2013, 03:22:32 PM
Well, here are some points I have to make:

1. No one said that the police protect individuals before crime happens. A police for is a deterrent that scares potential criminals from breaking the law, which includes harming other people. Also, if the police happen to be near a crime at the time it is performed, a criminal can be shot, if needed, and the police would have protected people. The fact that the police aren't at your side 24/7 doesn't mean that they can't protect you. They do it indirectly, which is why a lot of people under-appreciate police officers. If there wasn't a police force, we'd know what would happen, and we have seen it happen in relatively recent history.

so you support controlling people through fear? interesting... what does that say about the incredibly and increasingly vague term of 'criminal'?  is it OK for police to scare me into not smoking marijuana?  scare me into paying taxes? does that mean the gov can declare x, y, z is criminal activity and use their police goons to control us with fear?  sounds like 1984

it's much better to educate people than distill fear in them... but then again, if what you want is immoral... it might help to indoctrinate the youth with lies and keep them in check with fear all the while telling them that they are protecting you LOL

Quote

3. Govt. regulation isn't always a bad thing. Seat belt laws are good because they make it less likely for people to have to pay for your large hospital bills. Plus, what about the mother of a person who was killed because he/she didn't wear a seat belt? There are other people besides yourself, you know. Gun regulation is no different. For all of you gun lovers, why are you so against gun regulation? If you don't have anything to hide in a background check, then you should have nothing to worry about, right? Not to mention that it is only reasonable to regulate the possession of a weapon that can kill someone as easily as point, pull trigger, kill. Or should we all be allowed to have RPGs, too?

regardless, you should educate, not legislate..
never force people to do anything... let them choose to act... the basis of freedom

every piece of legislation is ultimately backed by a gun... is it really necessary to have an invisible gun in your car threatening you unless you 'click it'? I don't support the threat of violence.  I don't support coercion.

Quote
4. An armed society is not a safe society. There are plenty of mindless killing that involve no plan of escape or regard for legal ramifications. This type of person would not consider consequences. Plus, within a population of millions, there are bound to be people that would go crazy. Holding a gun makes people feel powerful and could easily lead to an irrational decision. Guns should be regulated, not allowed throughout the public readily.

there will always be crayzy people... when seconds count, the police are only minutes away :) let people defend themselves from crayzy

Quote
6. Anarchy, while not deserving of the stigma it has, is a delusional person's dream. Anarchy involves following rules not because a government sets them out with consequences, but simply out of your own good character. An anarchist society requires that every individual governs his/her own actions, requiring that each individual be a perfect person. Not going to happen.

did you watch that video?  the gov exists in a state of anarchy itself LOL... who watches the watchmen? the gov doesn't have a gov... if it did Bush would have gone to jail :-)

and do you really think that low of people that they can't govern themselves? really? you think the majority of people need authority to tell them how to act? that the majority of people have bad character? really?


everything comes down to education and the government schools... well they like to perpetuate their gospel and demand you pay worship through taxes... they will NEVER teach true freedom... if they did, they would be obsolete

Quote from: DianaP on February 07, 2013, 06:10:48 PM
Considering that nothing else works, fear of consequences is the only way to keep the masses in check. Heck, that's even why religion became powerful.

People shouldn't all be armed. If there was a shooting, people would try to "defend" themselves by firing whichever way they hear gunfire in the middle of a panic.

The govt. has checks and balance of power. The government is far from anarchy.

Finally, people cannot govern themselves. Authority is needed. A majority of people would perform criminal acts simply because there would be no consequences by a legal system. No law, no government assistance, or regulation of business. The world would descend into chaos. Believing otherwise is ignoring reality.

wow, this sums up your views... people need a master, controlling them with fear is a good thing, and they should not be able to protect themselves... big brother will do that for them :-)

Quote from: oZma on February 07, 2013, 06:18:09 PM
wow, this sums up your views... people need a master, controlling them with fear is a good thing, and they should not be able to protect themselves... big brother will do that for them :-)

On the other hand checkout what is going on on places that lack strong governments: Somalia, Central African, Nigeria, Sudan, Mexico, Colombia, etc....

Quote from: DianaP on February 07, 2013, 06:48:20 PM
Oh, I wasn't going off-topic. If my point wasn't clear, it did pertain to guns. Govt. regulation has strong value and people cannot be trusted to be running amok with guns. As much as I would love for this to be false, it's not.   :(

Doesn't change the fact that people aren't filled with caramel and sprinkles on their insides. Regardless of the nation, it's proof that people need guidance. America is no different.

just like all the guidance we needed when we came here fleeing from an overreaching British gov

im sorry, I'm so over trying to defend freedom to people who are unwilling to learn and understand the principles of liberty... have fun kids

Quote from: DianaP on February 07, 2013, 06:55:10 PM
Liberty is not equal to doing whatever you want, which includes buying a gun without proof that you can be trusted with it.

I seriously laughed out loud!

Quote from: oZma on February 07, 2013, 06:57:19 PM
I seriously laughed out loud!

From what I remember about Diana, she understands true liberty very well, and she demonstrates it constantly and consistently with her views. I do not think laughing at her was your most productive comment.

Quote from: peky on February 07, 2013, 06:38:23 PM
On the other hand checkout what is going on on places that lack strong governments: Somalia, Central African, Nigeria, Sudan, Mexico, Colombia, etc....

I don't think oZma was saying we need a weak government, however the people should control the government and not the other way around.  Over regulation and socialization actually work to weaken the citizens by making them dependent on the government.  Every individual should have the right to protect themselves, not only from the government but in a more likely case from each other.  A criminal doesn't care about laws, regulations and city ordinances, if they did then they wouldn't be a criminal, however over regulation can hurt those obeying the law and disarming those who would actually benefit from protection.  Personally I feel firearm education should actually be something that is taught in school since it is a constitutional right and education could result in better respect and handling of firearms.  A gun or a bullet doesn't kill, a person does. And if we had firearm education then truthfully you would probably be more likely to find those who could show tendencies of misuse BEFORE it happens.  Just my two cents.

Quote from: oZma on February 07, 2013, 06:57:19 PM
I seriously laughed out loud!

I don't understand why you laughed, its not at all funny.

Quote from: DianaP on February 07, 2013, 06:55:10 PM
Liberty is not equal to doing whatever you want, which includes buying a gun without proof that you can be trusted with it.

#1 who determines if you can be "trusted"? the gov? you have to see how arbitrary these things really are.
#2 the idea of "proving" you can be trusted?  prove what? that you'll jump through legal hoops and bend over when they tell you? prove you haven't committed a crime... yet? this is arbitrary, but i'm not completely against it... just somewhat arbitrary

liberty: the value of individuals to have agency (control over their own actions)

i assume your definition of liberty is "the value of individuals to have control over their actions... deemed acceptable by government?"... lets take that a step further... "the value of individuals to have control over their actions... deemed acceptable by a group of elites?"

you speak of your approval of controlling people with fear.  controlling people is wrong... using fear, threats of violence against non-violent people is immoral even if what your doing is "percieved" as a good thing.  don't control people... encourage them (and not through taxes)! just like you train a dog... with treats! not with slaps across the face or threats of putting it in a cage... we know that doesn't work! ask the dog whispererer

one day Mrs. 18 year old, you will grow up and see all the indoctrination you have went through... when i was 18... i was a neo-con... i supported nation building!... i voted for BUSH!!?! we all make mistakes... i don't don't judge you for what you have been "educated" with.

have an open mind when it comes to politics... don't assume you know everything, i know how easy it is to feel that way... remember... i was a neo-con! i knew everything! lol in fact, i knew nothing

:) have a good day ya'll

Quote from: Shawn Sunshine on February 07, 2013, 07:35:34 PM
I don't understand why you laughed, its not at all funny.

because she said liberty is not equal to doing what you want and in fact it is... as long as you don't hard others, or their property...

Quote from: oZma on February 07, 2013, 07:37:58 PM
because she said liberty is not equal to doing what you want and in fact it is... as long as you don't hard others, or their property...

you proved her point right there, personal liberties are great until you step on the liberties of someone else, and for that we need people to hold you accountable for doing such a thing.

Quote from: Shawn Sunshine on February 07, 2013, 07:41:04 PM
you proved her point right there, personal liberties are great until you step on the liberties of someone else, and for that we need people to hold you accountable for doing such a thing.

so the act of buying a gun, without the consent of government, is harming someone? please

I'm not saying NO regulation, I'm talking about OVER regulation.  Example, the city I live in has an ordinance that you may not own a hand gun that can hold more then twelve rounds, however many hand guns come with a clip capable of holding fifteen, so in reality are three bullets going to make a difference? I mean let's get real, how much time and tax payer money was spent on arguing over three rounds? As far as a waiting period sure, run a background check that's reasonable.  However I think it's silly that one type of firearm there's no wait, while another is three days... I believe in Illinois a rifle you can buy with no wait but a hand gun you have to... Or maybe a shot gun there was no wait... Either way it's inconsistent, make it simple so that law abiding citizens have access yet criminals do not... Besides, if someone was truly set on murder a firearm is not the only way to go about it.  No matter what, if someone has ill intentions and have the will then they will find a way.  Most crimes of passion that you describe in your example are not premeditated and usually resources at hand are the first weapons of chance and opportunity used.  Any idea how many things in your home could be used to kill someone? Pretty much anything if used with enough force and rage.  Over all in GENERAL the average American is not going to commit a violent crime.  There will ALWAYS be the select few that stray from the norm and no amount of planning, law making or prevention will create a system that is 100% violence free.  As much as we try and cover it up with "humanity" we are all still animals pretending to be humans, and there are some that no matter what will just be savage beasts.

Quote from: DianaP on February 07, 2013, 07:56:51 PM
And when a dog acts badly, you punish it, making it so the dog won't misbehave again.

no, i don't punish her... i encourage good behavior and ignore her when she misbehaves.  ill tell her NO, but i won't punish her...

DianaP, it seems that you are under the assumption that owning a gun lends a person the violence. And as far as some one going off the handle and trying to shoot a cheating spouse, it's hard to hit a moving target and in addition it is highly unlikely that someone picking up a gun off the shelf and attempting to use it for the first time will be able to land a shot let alone a kill shot.. How do I know.. Unfortunately though personal experience where someone tried to do the exact thing to member of my family who was cheating with their spouse... The way that ended was the assailant taking thief own life in the home with the weapon, trust me, not something you want to see.. Oh and what's that they lived in a state that required a background check and waiting period.. A lot of good that did.  So honestly the whole cheating spouse line holds zero weight with me because I've seen it p close.  As long as someone else's liberties are not being impeded there is no reason why someone shouldn't be able to own a firearm.  Oh and you can buy tanks and F-22 when they get decommissioned, he'll the given tent needs to pay off that national debt somehow! But the barrels are plugged and any sensitive equipment removed.. But heck who wouldn't want a tank... Take that winter snow and ice! Granted the gas mileage sucks.. Oh well trade offs...  >:-)

You can not buy functioning artillery, which a fully armed tank would be.  However depending on the company you own and with the proper licensing you can in fact have certain types of artillery.. Like avalanche patrols use  to shoot at potential avalanche prone areas ect..  But not the average Joe.  But if you own a ton of land, have the cash and want a tank to tear up your yard or plant turnips with then who cares, you can't drive it on the street, besides there have been more cases of people stealing tanks from armories and joy riding then people who actually bought them legally.  Which comes back to the point that criminals don't  care about laws...  A good person isn't going to go bad because of a gun.  A gun is a THING people make choices, I'd venture a guess that kitchen knives probably are used in more violent crimes then guns.. I'd love to continue the debate of a fruitless conversation, but it's past my bedtime... And what will I be dreaming of..  A truly free society where you have the right to live your life and own what you please as long as it doesn't step on your neighbors toes, or petunias for that matter.

"You can not buy functioning artillery" 

No, but you can make your own:

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1279.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy537%2FDevlynMarie%2FDSC05729_zps1fee2a90.jpg&hash=8595b3740652f8934a3b4c3e06aa285cadf4f41e)

Welcome to Pumpkin Chunkin'

Because like bras, leg holsters are so comfortable to wear

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsimage1.sportsmansguide.com%2Fadimgs%2Fs%2F1%2F128128_ts.jpg&hash=bd1661021868c384e1cd3a439d91d38a1c3a29ae)

Does it have to be a real gun?

Quote from: DianaP on February 07, 2013, 08:17:50 PM

what's stopping you from buying an F22 raptor jet armed with sidewinder missiles?

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of a position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

Hmm, I wish I hadn't got busy at work.  I would have liked to finish the conversation I was having, but obv y'all have moved on from that lol.  Oh well..

Quote from: kkut on February 07, 2013, 10:09:21 PM
DianaP, you make incorrect assumptions (the strawman) and state them as your opposition's. You then attack it which is now easy to do. In order to be armed, you need the latest weapons??? That's a complete nonsequitur. If you truly feel you're more secure with a completely unarmed citizenry, you must polish up on your history.

thank you kkut... i really didn't want to respond to her again lol

Kia Ora,

::)  "Why do you need to carry a GUN ?" to keep the peace on this thread  :icon_pistoles: :icon_2gun: :icon_biggrin:

Metta Zenda :)

Because Chicks with Guns are Hot

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi89.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk226%2FHollis6475%2Fchickswithguns.jpg&hash=18349f38500445ea5e53ec222bea355c99d7e540)


Okay friends  :police:

Time to take a break, take a breath and find something constructive to do with yourselves

This topic is temporarily locked

Thank you

V M