quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
Well I think it depends on how you use it, the difference is in empathy or the lack of, if you don't get it there is your shortcoming not mine.

Back about 6 weeks ago, we had the shooting spree in Las Vegas. A couple who was too extreme for the militia out at Bundy's ranch, were asked to leave, so they decided to go on a rampage and shoot up a Walmart. A man with a carry permit tried to intervene, got the drop on one of the suspects, but didn't know that the wife was also involved and was himself shot. People here mocked his death. Did you criticize them for doing so? Where was your empathy then?

You some how assume I'm supposed to know about it, or that I was part of a group of person that live on the other side of the globe. Of course I'm sympathetic with the victim of a random act of violence, but I do not use a single extreme episode to build some sort of law on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
Well I think it depends on how you use it, the difference is in empathy or the lack of, if you don't get it there is your shortcoming not mine.

Back about 6 weeks ago, we had the shooting spree in Las Vegas. A couple who was too extreme for the militia out at Bundy's ranch, were asked to leave, so they decided to go on a rampage and shoot up a Walmart. A man with a carry permit tried to intervene, got the drop on one of the suspects, but didn't know that the wife was also involved and was himself shot. People here mocked his death. Did you criticize them for doing so? Where was your empathy then?

You some how assume I'm supposed to know about it, or that I was part of a group of person that live on the other side of the globe. Of course I'm sympathetic with the victim of a random act of violence, but I do not use a single extreme episode to build some sort of law on it.

Ok, I was a tad unclear. I wasn't assuming that you'd know about a shooting that took place on the other side of the world from you. When I said "people here mocked him", I meant people here on this forum. There was a thread about the incident, here on collarspace, where posters mocked him. Saying things along the lines of, carrying a gun really helped him, huh? Or so much for gun carriers preventing crime. Since you tend to pop up in just about every gun thread, it seemed reasonable to assume that you saw that one.

quote:

No guns = no problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

No guns = no problems.

Does anyone not made of straw really think this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

You some how assume I'm supposed to know about it, or that I was part of a group of person that live on the other side of the globe.

Whoa, where is Italy now? I didn't even know they moved it.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
Well I think it depends on how you use it, the difference is in empathy or the lack of, if you don't get it there is your shortcoming not mine.

Back about 6 weeks ago, we had the shooting spree in Las Vegas. A couple who was too extreme for the militia out at Bundy's ranch, were asked to leave, so they decided to go on a rampage and shoot up a Walmart. A man with a carry permit tried to intervene, got the drop on one of the suspects, but didn't know that the wife was also involved and was himself shot. People here mocked his death. Did you criticize them for doing so? Where was your empathy then?

You some how assume I'm supposed to know about it, or that I was part of a group of person that live on the other side of the globe. Of course I'm sympathetic with the victim of a random act of violence, but I do not use a single extreme episode to build some sort of law on it.

Ok, I was a tad unclear. I wasn't assuming that you'd know about a shooting that took place on the other side of the world from you. When I said "people here mocked him", I meant people here on this forum. There was a thread about the incident, here on collarspace, where posters mocked him. Saying things along the lines of, carrying a gun really helped him, huh? Or so much for gun carriers preventing crime. Since you tend to pop up in just about every gun thread, it seemed reasonable to assume that you saw that one.

so the "you" in the two rethorical questions was meant to be like "you people advocating gun control" and not 2nd person singular?

I don't think I fit the stereotype of the "american gun control activist", because I come from a culture that is on the opposite side of the spectrum in probably most of the aspects, so I can talk about my expereince in a country with kind of strict gun laws, and my perception of safety in this situation. I have opinions (and I feel free to express them) on the subject that lie outside the mere presence of a gun, as you like to say it's not the gun that by it's own initiative kills someone, it's violent or ham-fisted gun owners that kill other people with a tool, but this doesn't mean the gun culture, as a whole, combined with an extreme individualism has no responsability in the violence proliferation and the "intense enviroment". That's why I don't see a point in focusing on a single example ignoring what's around, probably in order to exclude those aspect of your life you are prone to question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

I moved a little bit on and was also explaining why I do not feel to fit the group you were talking about and why my point is.
I considered your question answered with the polite version of "I have no fucking idea what thread you are talking about" and the sentence: "Of course I'm sympathetic with the victim of a random act of violence" that should answer this other question, so no I'm not okay with that neither.
I suspect you are now just trying to validate some prejuduce you have on me and won't care what I write, I cleard my point and answered your questions, as I said to BamaD in the first post you quoted: if you don't get it it's your shortcoming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
Well I think it depends on how you use it, the difference is in empathy or the lack of, if you don't get it there is your shortcoming not mine.

Back about 6 weeks ago, we had the shooting spree in Las Vegas. A couple who was too extreme for the militia out at Bundy's ranch, were asked to leave, so they decided to go on a rampage and shoot up a Walmart. A man with a carry permit tried to intervene, got the drop on one of the suspects, but didn't know that the wife was also involved and was himself shot. People here mocked his death. Did you criticize them for doing so? Where was your empathy then?

You some how assume I'm supposed to know about it, or that I was part of a group of person that live on the other side of the globe. Of course I'm sympathetic with the victim of a random act of violence, but I do not use a single extreme episode to build some sort of law on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

No guns = no problems.

Does anyone not made of straw really think this?

quote:

Does anyone on the left have a functioning sarcasm detector?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Does anyone on the left have a functioning sarcasm detector?

I detected a fair bit of sarcasm, all of which seemed to turn on the smug premise of "Thank God, we're not naive enough to think guns are the only problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
Well I think it depends on how you use it, the difference is in empathy or the lack of, if you don't get it there is your shortcoming not mine.

Back about 6 weeks ago, we had the shooting spree in Las Vegas. A couple who was too extreme for the militia out at Bundy's ranch, were asked to leave, so they decided to go on a rampage and shoot up a Walmart. A man with a carry permit tried to intervene, got the drop on one of the suspects, but didn't know that the wife was also involved and was himself shot. People here mocked his death. Did you criticize them for doing so? Where was your empathy then?

You some how assume I'm supposed to know about it, or that I was part of a group of person that live on the other side of the globe. Of course I'm sympathetic with the victim of a random act of violence, but I do not use a single extreme episode to build some sort of law on it.

Only because it was discussed at length on here and most of the usual anti gun people showed up to gloat about how that was the inevitable fate of all ccw holders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Was that bow rifled? Because un-rifled bows shoot arrows all over the place. Aiming is like....ancient times. But with a rifled bow, those shots can pull wings off a fly at 300 yards during a hurricane!

All kidding aside....

Way to take the 'wicked, mega, extreme' here folks. You wonder why so many find you silly and lunatic-ish on any firearm debate here? That your taking things well out of context to make a point that is just stupid and lame. What's next? A story of someone being killed by a ballista mounted on the back of a pickup truck? I understand some of you dislike firearm laws; yet, the people making such laws dislike the laws you support. We all support our views of the US Constitution, but beyond it, there is much debate on a whole section of laws and ideas for future laws. What I find particularly sad is that if people dislike a law, that they can not offer up something in exchange for that law being reduced or removed by those that want it stuck in place. Every day most of you give up something you like to keep (i.e. money) to get something of value in return (i.e. goods and services). But yet, when it comes to laws, there is a total breakdown in the process. That breakdown has many problems, the most of which, is perception. The 'other side' looks to you running around, flailing your arms in all different directions, screams gibberish, foaming at the mouth, and insanity; why would anyone want to do business with people that behave like that?

Its really up to you. If you want to get some of these laws changed or removed, its up to you to give something of value to the people that are keeping those laws in place. And you don't want to. So no one cares of your bitching and moaning about firearm laws. Those people are going to keep on making such laws until they have something to gain by not making such laws. Threat of force, is not the path of a democratic republic, but of a tyrant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
Anyhow I reserve the right in the future to criticize the behaviour of a person acting in self defence if I find it reckless and led to consequences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
Anyhow I reserve the right in the future to criticize the behaviour of a person acting in self defence if I find it reckless and led to consequences.

There is being smart on self defense and being stupid on self defense. I don't have a problem with those that defend themselves in an intelligent and wise manner.

'Someone' recently resurrected a thread from back in March of this year. In that thread, it was about a man that killed a much older gentleman suffering a spell of Alzheimer's. The guy had called the police when the unidentified intruder started to bang on his door. Rather than hold down the fort, and defend from an elevated position of advantage (i.e. stay up on the second floor), the guy went out the side door. He looped around to confront the intruder. No back up, no clear line of retreat. No knowledge if that intruder was alone. Or if that intruder and his buddies were armed. Or that an ambush was set up. Since having a firearm instantly makes him immune to such things. Without a flashlight, he was had trouble identifying his target in the dark (it was night at the time). He can afford a firearm but not a flashlight? So the guy gives three or four warning, and then just starts unloading on the intruder at near point blank range. Why? Because the intruder had a flashlight (which wasn't on) that the guy mistook for a firearm. Imagine how many people here would be all over a police officer if he had done the same thing (if its not ok for the police officer, its not for the firearm owner either). Rather than giving ground or retreating, the guy shot the man at near point blank range and killed him.

Only later did the guy find out the intruder had that dreadful disease, was having an 'episode' and really needed the kindness of a fellow human being to help him out. What he got was some lunatic with a firearm that had no clue on tactics or self defense knowledge.

This is an example of being stupid with self defense.

The ones that were being smart with self defense are generally not heard of in the media.