Shootings in Tucson

[dan-cat]

It was a joke (hence the little smilie).

It wasn't very funny. I recommend a two week cooling off period to reflect.

.

.

.

 

[Kryst51]

Most of the world would say - you as Americans have got out of hand with your guns , domestically or internationally?

We are talking about domestic gun use/ private gun use, let's keep the scope applicable... And that's fine the rest of the world can think what they want... I'm OK with that, there are things the rest of the world does that I don't agree with too (and things we do here in the US).

 

[Kryst51]

It was a joke (hence the little smilie).
Many (most?) of Col's questions are, at best, leading and inflammatory and often unreasonable.

I knew it was, but Others were thinking I thought it was, so I thought it best to remain serious.

 

[ChipperT]

I think Tony asks a very legitimate question. If I were your next door neighbor and chose to use my garage as a bomb building factory, would you object to that? Ignore the fact that it is presently illegal. That is another question. Just would YOU object to my right to bear arms (in this case, homemade bombs)? How about if I were producing neuro-toxic gas? Where does the "right to bear arms" end, and just why that limit?

 

[dan-cat]

What do you mean?

The exaggerated attention-seeking self-pity dripping from your post reminded me of Col. As with Col, I've decided not to take you seriously. Press on.

 

[Kryst51]

I think Tony asks a very legitimate question. If I were your next door neighbor and chose to use my garage as a bomb building factory, would you object to that? Ignore the fact that it is presently illegal. That is another question. Just would YOU object to my right to bear arms (in this case, homemade bombs)? How about if I were producing neuro-toxic gas? Where does the "right to bear arms" end, and just why that limit?

I think most people agree that (Which is why it's the law) that is not acceptable..... Let's keep the conversation grounded at least.

 

[Brianwarnock]

. If someone were attacking my child (I don't have any, this is hypothetical) I wouldn't hesitate to shoot them if I had a gun. .

So if you see somebody smack your child that's it no questions asked?
You see thta's the problem where do you draw the line, which was the point of my raising that article early in the thread.

I'm an OAP who couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag, and think that maybe it would be great to have a gun in the house for protection, but maybe that intruder only wants to pinch a few quid to buy a pint, not very Christian to blow him away is it?

Brian

 

[Kryst51]

So if you see somebody smack your child that's it no questions asked?
You see thta's the problem where do you draw the line, which was the point of my raising that article early in the thread.

I'm an OAP who couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag, and think that maybe it would be great to have a gun in the house for protection, but maybe that intruder only wants to pinch a few quid to buy a pint, not very Christian to blow him away is it?

Brian

I am specifically talking about an intruder in my home.... don't take my comments out of context. If I were in public and someone came up and smacked my child I would definitely take issue, but I am talking ATTACKING as in trying to kill, maybe not just reprimand... Jeez you guys are hard to deal with, you have to spell everything out so carefully... It's kinda exasperating.


EDIT: And I said in the same post that if they were trying to only steal then they are welcome to it....

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

The exaggerated attention-seeking self-pity dripping from your post reminded me of Col. As with Col, I've decided not to take you seriously. Press on.

Christ - how precious are you today?

It was a legitimate question wasn't it? One that was attempted to be dismissed as one worthy of Col.

So tongue in cheek , I said I know how he feels every now and again?

Thats it? I dont know how you have your knickers in a twist about it - youve had a few intolerant weeks on here for you.

 

[Brianwarnock]

You see its not black and white, I never said that it was in public, this intruder was trying to steal your tV, your child hits him to stop him he hits/pushes the child, you see this and in your words you would not hesitate, bang bang he's dead.

Sure I know what you are trying to say but the trouble is in the descision making,

sorry goto go and prepare the evening meal

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I think most people agree that (Which is why it's the law) that is not acceptable..... Let's keep the conversation grounded at least.

I think its perfectly unreasonable to own a gun, as is building other weapons?

Why do you stop at guns, why not stop at knives? Or indeed go further?

 

[ChipperT]

I think most people agree that (Which is why it's the law) that is not acceptable..... Let's keep the conversation grounded at least.

I think it is a legitimate question. Why a handgun and not a bomb? Why a 20 round magazine but not a 30 round magazine? Why is a semi-automatic perfectly OK when a fully automatic is not? What is the rationale behind the boundaries we set on the Constitutional broad statement of the "right to bear arms".

 

[dan-cat]

If someone were attacking my child (I don't have any, this is hypothetical) I wouldn't hesitate to shoot them if I had a gun.

This highlights my point about how the carrying of a gun effects your thought process. For you, with the gun comes the dismissal of hesitation. As Brian eludes to, this hesitancy could afford the time needed to reveal to you that shooting is actually unnecessary.

It is this short-circuiting of the thought process that will happen to the majority of gun holders that convinces me it's a bad idea.

Best to live your life without a gun and the microscopic chance that your child will be fatally attacked than carry this "readiness to kill" around with you every second of your life.

 

[Kryst51]

I think it is a legitimate question. Why a handgun and not a bomb? Why a 20 round magazine but not a 30 round magazine? Why is a semi-automatic perfectly OK when a fully automatic is not? What is the rationale behind the boundaries we set on the Constitutional broad statement of the "right to bear arms".

OK, I'll answer your question..... I don't know the answer. But surely even you understand the difference between a handgun and a bomb....

 

[dan-cat]

Thats it? I dont know how you have your knickers in a twist about it - youve had a few intolerant weeks on here for you.

Nothing wrong with your question. Carry on.

 

[Kryst51]

This highlights my point about how the carrying of a gun effects your thought process. For you, with the gun comes the dismissal of hesitation. As Brian eludes to, this hesitancy could afford the time needed to reveal to you that shooting is actually unnecessary.

It is this short-circuiting of the thought process that will happen to the majority of gun holders that convinces me it's a bad idea.

Best to live your life without a gun and the microscopic chance that your child will be fatally attacked than carry this "readiness to kill" around with you every second of your life.

Well, as I have said, I don't even own a gun.... But I have lived in places where people have been shot outside my bedroom window (when I was a child) and I am sure those guns used were probably not legally owned.... As a child someone entered our house and tried to kill my mother, she is divorced... it was me and her... I don't think that anyone could have mistaken the intent of the man in our home kneeling over my mom with a knife.... Sometimes Experience affects (Effects? I still can't get the hang of it) (Don't worry no one was shot, and my mom didn't get stabbed) what you believe in... I don't carry around a readiness to kill.... I am thinking some hypothetically and some from personal experience. But the fortunate thing is that I choose to live in a place where it is allowed if I want to own a gun, and you can choose to live in a place where it is not. I think that's part of what's great about allowing people to have their own opinions.

 

[ChipperT]

OK, I'll answer your question..... I don't know the answer. But surely even you understand the difference between a handgun and a bomb....

If we take the statement in the Constitution as the far right and gun advocates take it, one of the primary purposes is be able to overthrow our government if it does things we don't like, so maybe bombs should be OK. It would be difficult to do with just handguns, rifles and shotguns.

Myself, I prefer to overthrow the government through the ballot box, but it is a legitimate question. If we say that the 2nd Ammendment did not mean, or cover, bombs,. missles, WMD's, fully automatic weapons ("assault rifles"), 30-round clips, etc etc etc, then why can we not say that it did not mean, or cover, handguns of any kind?

 

[dan-cat]

Thats it? I dont know how you have your knickers in a twist about it - youve had a few intolerant weeks on here for you.

By the way it would be polite if you revealed who you actually are. It's clear you're well versed in both mine and Col's idiosyncrasies. I'll leave it with you.

 

[Kryst51]

If we take the statement in the Constitution as the far right and gun advocates take it, one of the primary purposes is be able to overthrow our government if it does things we don't like, so maybe bombs should be OK. It would be difficult to do with just handguns, rifles and shotguns.

Myself, I prefer to overthrow the government through the ballot box, but it is a legitimate question. If we say that the 2nd Ammendment did not mean, or cover, bombs,. missles, WMD's, fully automatic weapons ("assault rifles"), 30-round clips, etc etc etc, then why can we not say that it did not mean, or cover, handguns of any kind?

Well as long as we're talking about what we would just like to have happen, then yes, I would like guns not to be needed, I would like to think that if they were outlawed a lot of lives would be saved, but I just don't believe that the world works that way.

 

[dan-cat]

I don't carry around a readiness to kill.... I am thinking some hypothetically and some from personal experience.

Well despite your experiences I believe you have made the wiser decision. If you were carrying a gun that night, you MAY have killed when as it turned out, it wasn't necessary. This is not only beneficial for the criminal but beneficial for you.

You remain free from this coercion that gun ownership seems to enforce. It is this freedom that I think is more valuable than being able to kill at any given time.

But the fortunate thing is that I choose to live in a place where it is allowed if I want to own a gun, and you can choose to live in a place where it is not. I think that's part of what's great about allowing people to have their own opinions.

This is the only part where we part company. I think that the common man shouldn't be allowed to be coerced in the way that gun ownership does. What's at stake is too valuable.