RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school?

RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (Full Version)

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

Message

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:00:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sicarius quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Just because you believe that you should lay down, show your throat, and allow yourself to be killed by an assailant does not mean that you have even the least right to tell me that I should stand by and watch as my family is murdered. Show me where i said that? quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation For me there is no happy medium just a solution. Do not allow members of the public to have guns. How exactly do you presume to level the playing field against a 250 pound man looking to break into your home and rape you without the benefit of a gun? How do you expect any woman to, and even most other men, for that matter? By advocating a lack of every individual's ability to defend themselves with the only tool in the world that perfectly equalizes the lethal ability of every man and woman on this planet, you are effectively condoning surrender -- and slaughter. It was the legal system that let this woman down. I never said had she of had the gun she should not use it. I merely and im getting rather sick of saying this pointed out there may still have been loss of life. ================================================================ I cannot imagine how horrible it must be to be afraid to protect even yourself ... even a child. I try to be respectful of most positions and viewpoints, but I honestly find the mentality that it is better to allow a young child to be hacked apart by a mad man than to advocate armed resistance quite disgusting. Show me where i said that? quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Horrible story but if she had been allowed to take the gun home it is quite possible that there would still have been a life lost - his when she shot him. Sorry but i still do not see where i said it was ok to kill the child or woman. Amazing what will be misread. Seems to me that even when confronted by the horror of the story up above, you're still claiming that gun ownership should have been outlawed and that this woman should not have been able to purchase a gun. If you want to clarify that point, be my guest ... but several other people have already laid into you for it, so I don't think it's just myself making that assumption. -Sicarius Hmm and it never ceases to amaze me how many assumptions those in favour of guns make.

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:02:46 PM)
Oh good grief. Some people have given up their right to share this planet with us. He was just one of many such people. Unfortunately, he's not the one who was killed. The only *tragedy* here is that the wrong people are dead I agree the wrong people are dead but funnily enough i never said they weren't. As for given up rights to live - well i'll never agree on that one but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Sicarius -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:04:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Hmm and it never ceases to amaze me how many assumptions those in favour of guns make. I gave you a chance to clarify your point. I asked you to clarify your point, and instead you're choosing to remain vague and hide behind noncommital viewpoints. You're very close to launching senseless ad hominems here. Now if you want to deescalate the amount of people attacking your viewpoint right now, why don't you take a step back and clearly lay out what you believe? -Sicarius

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:06:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sicarius quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation The students shouldnt have been able to get their hands on guns in the first place. In this case the shooters stood down, but there was just as big a chance they may not have done. Not everything is as clear cut. And if those student gun owners had been anything like myself, they would not have hesitated to shoot him dead where he stood if he failed to comply with their challenge to surrender and put an end to his senseless violence and bloodshed. -Sicarius That would be your perogative. The point isn't about self defense though its about availabillity of guns that put people in these positions in the first place.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:08:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I didn't say it was better in any shape or form. All i did was point out that there may still have been life lost. In a perfect world this man would have been kept away from her by whatever means the law could and then there would have been no lives lost. However the system failed her and i can understand why she would choose to buy a gun although i dont agree with it. Any loss of life is a tragedy. Sweetie! The system did not fail! The system did exactly as it was supposed to. She was in danger. She showed that to the court. She got a piece of paper. That's all she gets now until something further happens. It would be absolutely wonderful if all that happened was he called her every 15 minutes and kept her awake all night while breaking the Order of Protection. Or it would even be okay if he just got drunk and stumbled up to her door and banged on it and then passed out on her front porch. However, he broke down her door and killed them both while she was on the line with 911. If the Order of Protection came with a personal bodyguard, it might work a little better. That is not what happens. Often the piece of paper is enough to settle a dispute and chasten the dangerous party. The threat of jail time may be enough to calm things down. But in many cases, they don't give a flying f***. They are not rational. There is no provision in the law for something that might happen, other than that piece of paper which doesn't stop a bullet or a knife or even a beating. When thast happens, law enforcement is supposed to get to you as quickly as possible, but often , it is just too late.

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:11:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sicarius quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Hmm and it never ceases to amaze me how many assumptions those in favour of guns make. I gave you a chance to clarify your point. I asked you to clarify your point, and instead you're choosing to remain vague and hide behind noncommital viewpoints. You're very close to launching senseless ad hominems here. Now if you want to deescalate the amount of people attacking your viewpoint right now, why don't you take a step back and clearly lay out what you believe? -Sicarius You're kind of funny in a thrush way. I have made my point over and over but once more just for you :- 1. I believe the public should not be allowed to carry guns licenced or not. 2. The story of the young girl and woman is terrible and never should have happened but my only point to make in that was that had she have had a gun someone may still have been killed. 3. I do not believe the woman and child should have died and not the abusive ex-husband. 4. I would certainly use self defence if anyone attacked me or my UM but i would never own a gun under any circumstances. Clear enough?

Sicarius -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:12:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation That would be your perogative. The point isn't about self defense though its about availabillity of guns that put people in these positions in the first place. Escalations of violence are the nature of an innovative species, my dear. As human beings, we are always looking to make things easier and more efficient -- whether that be cooking a slice of toast or killing other people. Guns are here, and if you believe that they will be the last stage in our escalation toward the "perfect killing machine," I feel you're in for a very rough time in the future. Fully automated means of killing people is right around the corner, and it will only be a matter of time before that technology begins to leak out into the public. Almost every time I see a seizure of violent offenders' weapons, I try to count the number of existing gun laws that were bent or broken through their use or acquisition. Most of the time in the big raids, you see all the crates in the background with foreign stamps on them ... it's very obvious that the vast majority of these weapons aren't coming out of gun shops. While I will agree with you that our continued escalation of killing implements says terrible things about our species, I'm not going to be one of the ones caught up in the flood and sacrificed because I failed to adapt and overcome to the situation that has been forced upon me. For as long as humanity has existed in any state that we would view as being completely sentient and "human," we have been inventing ways to kill. What could you possibly propose to do to put an end to all of that? -Sicarius

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:15:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I didn't say it was better in any shape or form. All i did was point out that there may still have been life lost. In a perfect world this man would have been kept away from her by whatever means the law could and then there would have been no lives lost. However the system failed her and i can understand why she would choose to buy a gun although i dont agree with it. Any loss of life is a tragedy. Sweetie! The system did not fail! The system did exactly as it was supposed to. She was in danger. She showed that to the court. She got a piece of paper. That's all she gets now until something further happens. It would be absolutely wonderful if all that happened was he called her every 15 minutes and kept her awake all night while breaking the Order of Protection. Or it would even be okay if he just got drunk and stumbled up to her door and banged on it and then passed out on her front porch. However, he broke down her door and killed them both while she was on the line with 911. If the Order of Protection came with a personal bodyguard, it might work a little better. That is not what happens. Often the piece of paper is enough to settle a dispute and chasten the dangerous party. The threat of jail time may be enough to calm things down. But in many cases, they don't give a flying f*. They are not rational. There is no provision in the law for something that might happen, other than that piece of paper which doesn't stop a bullet or a knife or even a beating. When thast happens, law enforcement is supposed to get to you as quickly as possible, but often , it is just too late. I agree. I still think more should have been done to keep him away from her but as i know, you know and i have had pointed out its far from a perfect world.**

Sicarius -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:18:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation You're kind of funny in a thrush way. I have made my point over and over but once more just for you 1. I believe the public should not be allowed to carry guns licenced or not. 1. If the day comes that you rely on a gun owner to defend your life or the lives of your family, I believe you may adopt a very different view. Don't worry. Though you slander me now, I would still protect you if forced into that situation. 2. The story of the young girl and woman is terrible and never should have happened but my only point to make in that was that had she have had a gun someone may still have been killed. 2. You're still not commenting on what your opinion is. The reason that you were confronted with this story is that the poster wanted to learn what your solution would be to this kind of violence. What do you believe should be done (could be done) to change things so that this woman and her child would not have been killed? 3. I do not believe the woman and child should have died and not the abusive ex-husband. 3. All right, we agree on that point. Thank you for clarifying. 4. I would certainly use self defence if anyone attacked me or my UM but i would never own a gun under any circumstances. 4. And I completely, thoroughly respect your decision not to. I commend it. I still do not understand why you feel that it entitles you to tell me what I should and should not be able to do in order to defend my family, though. Clear enough? Getting there. -Sicarius

iwannapullurhair -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:21:40 PM)
If you have a gun, at least you have a chance to defend yourself. You may still get killed under certain circumstances, but it is a long wait for the police when someone is trying to kill you. Even if you have your own personnal police officer dedicated just to you, he is going to take a while just to get to your house. If the cops are busy, you are really up the creek. Also, a gun is a great equalizer. A 90 pound woman can stop the biggest man there is. If you are weak or old or in a wheelchair, why should you be killed by the stronger just like in the middle ages? The celebrities and politicians that are for gun control want to disarm all the little people while the hippocrites are protected by gun toting body guards.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:23:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Horrible story but if she had been allowed to take the gun home it is quite possible that there would still have been a life lost - his when she shot him. So, checking understanding here, what you are saying is that someone is going to die anyway, so best to be the person originally intended, since it is the higher road to sit there and take it? Please don't ask Me to smile as I get shot to death, because I know I am not the one being violent. That attitude does not leave Me any less dead. Nope thats not what im saying and nor will i. Reread what i put and you will see that i only stated that the woman having a gun may not have prevented loss of life. For the record, I do not consider defense to be violence. I consider it to be a way to prevent My death and further violence. I did not encourage the shooter to come at Me with a gun, so I expect to have an even chance to defend Myself. Did i say it was? Please reread the OP. Except in the final example, where the gunman was shot by police after they arrived, not one of the shooters was killed. They were overcome or surrendered upon being challenged right back with another gun. That means we now have a standoff, and this didn't exactly figure into the shooter's plans. Lives were saved,...even the lives of the shooters, themselves. hmmmmmmmm...that should make you think, but I am not sure it will. The students shouldnt have been able to get their hands on guns in the first place. In this case the shooters stood down, but there was just as big a chance they may not have done. Not everything is as clear cut. I was wrong.. I pulled that out of context, in error, from another response you gave regarding corporal punishment. Although it pretty much amounts to the same thing. Would you propose that we sit down and try to reason with the one who did have the gun? It would be very nice, missturbation, if saying that no one in the public should have guns, would really get rid of the guns. Hello Utopia! But "the public" does include the crmimnals, and they are not usually enamored of the law. So they would be armed anyway. A new "for the record"..I am a parent and I do believe in corporal punishment. It should be handled with discretion and be a proportional consequence to the infraction. If someone is threatening to shoot Me, I consider pointing My gun back at them to be plenty proportional. In fact, if they are just trying to rape Me or rob Me, I still consider My gun to be a proportional response. And a damn fine deterrent.

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:33:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sicarius quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation You're kind of funny in a thrush way. I have made my point over and over but once more just for you 1. I believe the public should not be allowed to carry guns licenced or not. 1. If the day comes that you rely on a gun owner to defend your life or the lives of your family, I believe you may adopt a very different view. Don't worry. Though you slander me now, I would still protect you if forced into that situation. Thrush is not slander, well certainly not relating to your opinion on guns anyway. If i was defended by someone with a gun i would hope it would be the police and not a civilian. Would i feel differently if it happens? Maybe.Would it change my opinion on civilians carrying guns - no. 2. The story of the young girl and woman is terrible and never should have happened but my only point to make in that was that had she have had a gun someone may still have been killed. 2. You're still not commenting on what your opinion is. The reason that you were confronted with this story is that the poster wanted to learn what your solution would be to this kind of violence. What do you believe should be done (could be done) to change things so that this woman and her child would not have been killed? A better legal system which would have prevented this man from being able to commit the crimes he did. I have stated this over and over. 3. I do not believe the woman and child should have died and not the abusive ex-husband. 3. All right, we agree on that point. Thank you for clarifying. 4. I would certainly use self defence if anyone attacked me or my UM but i would never own a gun under any circumstances. 4. And I completely, thoroughly respect your decision not to. I commend it. I still do not understand why you feel that it entitles you to tell me what I should and should not be able to do in order to defend my family, though. As i have said it is your decision to make and have in no way told you what you should or should not do. I have merely said if it was my decision i would not allow citizens to carry guns. Clear enough? Getting there. -Sicarius

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:37:37 PM)
was wrong.. I pulled that out of context, in error, from another response you gave regarding corporal punishment. Although it pretty much amounts to the same thing. Would you propose that we sit down and try to reason with the one who did have the gun? It would be very nice, missturbation, if saying that no one in the public should have guns, would really get rid of the guns. Hello Utopia! But "the public" does include the crmimnals, and they are not usually enamored of the law. So they would be armed anyway. A new "for the record"..I am a parent and I do believe in corporal punishment. It should be handled with discretion and be a proportional consequence to the infraction. If someone is threatening to shoot Me, I consider pointing My gun back at them to be plenty proportional. In fact, if they are just trying to rape Me or rob Me, I still consider My gun to be a proportional response. And a damn fine deterrent. I never said it would get rid of all guns, there is no solution but it is my opinion the public licenced or unlicenced should not be able to carry them. If you choose to have a gun and defend yourself with it that is your decision and not for me to say you are wrong to do so. As the law stands as long as you are licenced you are doing nothing wrong.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:48:39 PM)
Sigh There must be something good to say about such naive idealism? I'll think of something...I just need a minute or two. It's very sweet, missturbation, but it is not going to save your life or lessen the gun crime. I wish it wasn't this way, but I am realistic enough to know and understand that it is this way. And I prefer not to be a sitting duck with nothing My idealism wrapped around Me for protection. You're right. I am doing nothing wrong, and I pray to God, no offense to the offended about the God thing, that the body politic does not decide that your ideas are good ones.

Sicarius -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:50:48 PM)
1. I believe the public should not be allowed to carry guns licenced or not. 1. If the day comes that you rely on a gun owner to defend your life or the lives of your family, I believe you may adopt a very different view. Don't worry. Though you slander me now, I would still protect you if forced into that situation. Thrush is not slander, well certainly not relating to your opinion on guns anyway. If i was defended by someone with a gun i would hope it would be the police and not a civilian. Would i feel differently if it happens? Maybe.Would it change my opinion on civilians carrying guns - no. No, but I consider your insinuation that I require "special attention" to be somewhat incendiary ... very close to insulting my reading comprehension or perhaps even my intelligence. It is my opinion that you have not expressed your feelings as well as you could have ... I'm not saying that that's indicative of anything with respect to yourself beyond perhaps being a bit rushed in your replies, but I believe that the rising number of people replying to you and making very similar interpretations of your writing seems to indicate that I am not alone in my "misperception." I would ask, however ... who would you rely upon if ever it was the police themselves from whom you required protection? One in your geographical location need merely look across the English Channel for examples of what I'm talking about. 2. The story of the young girl and woman is terrible and never should have happened but my only point to make in that was that had she have had a gun someone may still have been killed. 2. You're still not commenting on what your opinion is. The reason that you were confronted with this story is that the poster wanted to learn what your solution would be to this kind of violence. What do you believe should be done (could be done) to change things so that this woman and her child would not have been killed? A better legal system which would have prevented this man from being able to commit the crimes he did. I have stated this over and over. I'm not trying to be incendiary in stating this, but this does not seem to be a solution so much as a desire for someone else to come up with a solution. I am honestly not sure how else this situation could have been prevented, but I do believe that what almost all of the rest of us are saying is that if this woman had been able to buy a gun in order to protect herself and her child, the two of them may not have died. That, to me, sounds like a hypothetical solution to the problem ... and furthermore one that I believe is fairly easy to enable without burying the citizens of the United States in still more bureaucracy and red tape. 3. I do not believe the woman and child should have died and not the abusive ex-husband. 3. All right, we agree on that point. Thank you for clarifying. 4. I would certainly use self defence if anyone attacked me or my UM but i would never own a gun under any circumstances. 4. And I completely, thoroughly respect your decision not to. I commend it. I still do not understand why you feel that it entitles you to tell me what I should and should not be able to do in order to defend my family, though. As i have said it is your decision to make and have in no way told you what you should or should not do. I have merely said if it was my decision i would not allow citizens to carry guns. All right. I am very thankful, then, that the decision is not left up to you. Perhaps as a restatement of my initial retort, I do not understand why you would make that decision. You're entitled to it, but I have no idea why you feel that way. I would like to know, because only in open discourse and sharing ideas and opinions do we improve ourselves as people.

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 4:51:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold Sigh There must be something good to say about such naive idealism? I'll think of something...I just need a minute or two. It's very sweet, missturbation, but it is not going to save your life or lessen the gun crime. I wish it wasn't this way, but I am realisitc enough to know and understand that it is this way. And I prefer not to be a sitting duck with nothing My idealism wrapped around Me for protection. Your choice hun [:D] I'm a Brit and as such i think views on guns will often differ because of this.

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 5:02:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sicarius 1. I believe the public should not be allowed to carry guns licenced or not. 1. If the day comes that you rely on a gun owner to defend your life or the lives of your family, I believe you may adopt a very different view. Don't worry. Though you slander me now, I would still protect you if forced into that situation. Thrush is not slander, well certainly not relating to your opinion on guns anyway. If i was defended by someone with a gun i would hope it would be the police and not a civilian. Would i feel differently if it happens? Maybe.Would it change my opinion on civilians carrying guns - no. No, but I consider your insinuation that I require "special attention" to be somewhat incendiary ... very close to insulting my reading comprehension or perhaps even my intelligence. It is my opinion that you have not expressed your feelings as well as you could have ... I'm not saying that that's indicative of anything with respect to yourself beyond perhaps being a bit rushed in your replies, but I believe that the rising number of people replying to you and making very similar interpretations of your writing seems to indicate that I am not alone in my "misperception." I would ask, however ... who would you rely upon if ever it was the police themselves from whom you required protection? One in your geographical location need merely look across the English Channel for examples of what I'm talking about. I never said you needed special attention. You misread and added bits i had not said in my posts is all. Why would i need protection from the police? I rely on myself to look after myself. I wouldnt think 'oh someone carrying a gun will rescue me any minute now'. 2. The story of the young girl and woman is terrible and never should have happened but my only point to make in that was that had she have had a gun someone may still have been killed. 2. You're still not commenting on what your opinion is. The reason that you were confronted with this story is that the poster wanted to learn what your solution would be to this kind of violence. What do you believe should be done (could be done) to change things so that this woman and her child would not have been killed? A better legal system which would have prevented this man from being able to commit the crimes he did. I have stated this over and over. I'm not trying to be incendiary in stating this, but this does not seem to be a solution so much as a desire for someone else to come up with a solution. I am honestly not sure how else this situation could have been prevented, but I do believe that what almost all of the rest of us are saying is that if this woman had been able to buy a gun in order to protect herself and her child, the two of them may not have died. That, to me, sounds like a hypothetical solution to the problem ... and furthermore one that I believe is fairly easy to enable without burying the citizens of the United States in still more bureaucracy and red tape. I agree totally and all i did was point out that there may still have been loss of life even if she had the gun. I did not say she should or shouldnt have the gun. So your solution is to be allowed to carry a gun, well ok but to me that is not a solution either. A little of stale mate in this one i think. I'm a brit hun and as such i think we have in the main slightly different views on carrying guns to the states. 3. I do not believe the woman and child should have died and not the abusive ex-husband. 3. All right, we agree on that point. Thank you for clarifying. 4. I would certainly use self defence if anyone attacked me or my UM but i would never own a gun under any circumstances. 4. And I completely, thoroughly respect your decision not to. I commend it. I still do not understand why you feel that it entitles you to tell me what I should and should not be able to do in order to defend my family, though. As i have said it is your decision to make and have in no way told you what you should or should not do. I have merely said if it was my decision i would not allow citizens to carry guns. All right. I am very thankful, then, that the decision is not left up to you. Perhaps as a restatement of my initial retort, I do not understand why you would make that decision. You're entitled to it, but I have no idea why you feel that way. I would like to know, because only in open discourse and sharing ideas and opinions do we improve ourselves as people. I feel that way because i hear and see too many stories about idiots carrying guns and using them inappropriately. I have a friend who was 'accidently' shot by a responsible licenced gun owner and i would have no inclination to put myself in the position of accidently shooting someone or getting shot. The police shot dead a man who ran away from them that they thought was a terrorist, turned out he wasn't, he was innocent, but you know what he's still dead. I don't have the answers or the solution but i do believe not allowing civilians to carry guns would lower gun crime and 'accidental' shootings. If you think my view is naive then so be it but it is my personal opinion and i am entitled to it.

Sicarius -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 5:30:44 PM)
1. I believe the public should not be allowed to carry guns licenced or not. 1. If the day comes that you rely on a gun owner to defend your life or the lives of your family, I believe you may adopt a very different view. Don't worry. Though you slander me now, I would still protect you if forced into that situation. Thrush is not slander, well certainly not relating to your opinion on guns anyway. If i was defended by someone with a gun i would hope it would be the police and not a civilian. Would i feel differently if it happens? Maybe.Would it change my opinion on civilians carrying guns - no. No, but I consider your insinuation that I require "special attention" to be somewhat incendiary ... very close to insulting my reading comprehension or perhaps even my intelligence. It is my opinion that you have not expressed your feelings as well as you could have ... I'm not saying that that's indicative of anything with respect to yourself beyond perhaps being a bit rushed in your replies, but I believe that the rising number of people replying to you and making very similar interpretations of your writing seems to indicate that I am not alone in my "misperception." I would ask, however ... who would you rely upon if ever it was the police themselves from whom you required protection? One in your geographical location need merely look across the English Channel for examples of what I'm talking about. I never said you needed special attention. You misread and added bits i had not said in my posts is all. Why would i need protection from the police? I rely on myself to look after myself. I wouldnt think 'oh someone carrying a gun will rescue me any minute now'. Is it so unimaginable that you might, one day? I realize that in your nation's history there may not be as many examples (though there are a few), but it is certainly not uncommon in the scheme of history for a nation to turn upon its citizens. You seem to believe that the police have at least some ability to protect you, and as such I question what your condition would be if ever it was the police themselves from whom you required it. 1928 - The liberal Weimar Government (pre-Nazi Germany) enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. The law required persons to get a firearms acquisition permit before acquiring a firearm, to have an ammunition acquisition permit prior to purchasing ammunition, annual hunting permits, and place serial numbers on all handguns for tracking so the government would know where all of the firearms were. 1933 - The Nazi regime asends to power. Utilizing the information gathered on the location and ownership of firearms, they began conducting searches and seizures targeted against their political adversaries. Nazi authorities ban the importation of handguns. Firearms permits no longer granted to persons deemed "untrustworthy" by the state. 1935 - The Citizenship Law is decreed, denying Jews civil rights in Germany. In late 1935, law enforcement is commanded not to issue firearms permits to Jews. 1938 - The Nazi Weapons Law restricts gun ownership to "persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit." Jews are barred from all businesses involving firearms. 9-10 November 1938 - The Kristallnacht, or Night of Broken Glass begins. Jewish homes and shops are ransacked. Selectively-armed pro-Nazi civilians and stormtroopers destroy buildings owned by Jews. 30,000 Jewish men are taken to concentration camps. 1,668 synagogues are ransacked. 267 are set on fire. 11 November 1938 - The following day, Jews are banned from owning any weapons at all ... even knives or clubs. 2. The story of the young girl and woman is terrible and never should have happened but my only point to make in that was that had she have had a gun someone may still have been killed. 2. You're still not commenting on what your opinion is. The reason that you were confronted with this story is that the poster wanted to learn what your solution would be to this kind of violence. What do you believe should be done (could be done) to change things so that this woman and her child would not have been killed? A better legal system which would have prevented this man from being able to commit the crimes he did. I have stated this over and over. I'm not trying to be incendiary in stating this, but this does not seem to be a solution so much as a desire for someone else to come up with a solution. I am honestly not sure how else this situation could have been prevented, but I do believe that what almost all of the rest of us are saying is that if this woman had been able to buy a gun in order to protect herself and her child, the two of them may not have died. That, to me, sounds like a hypothetical solution to the problem ... and furthermore one that I believe is fairly easy to enable without burying the citizens of the United States in still more bureaucracy and red tape. I agree totally and all i did was point out that there may still have been loss of life even if she had the gun. I did not say she should or shouldnt have the gun. So your solution is to be allowed to carry a gun, well ok but to me that is not a solution either. A little of stale mate in this one i think. I'm a brit hun and as such i think we have in the main slightly different views on carrying guns to the states. All right. I'll let it go at that, for now. I believe that if she had had the gun, she might have saved herself and her child. Even enabling her to "possibly" have that outcome is better than leaving her no chance at all, in my opinion. 3. I do not believe the woman and child should have died and not the abusive ex-husband. 3. All right, we agree on that point. Thank you for clarifying. 4. I would certainly use self defence if anyone attacked me or my UM but i would never own a gun under any circumstances. 4. And I completely, thoroughly respect your decision not to. I commend it. I still do not understand why you feel that it entitles you to tell me what I should and should not be able to do in order to defend my family, though. As i have said it is your decision to make and have in no way told you what you should or should not do. I have merely said if it was my decision i would not allow citizens to carry guns. All right. I am very thankful, then, that the decision is not left up to you. Perhaps as a restatement of my initial retort, I do not understand why you would make that decision. You're entitled to it, but I have no idea why you feel that way. I would like to know, because only in open discourse and sharing ideas and opinions do we improve ourselves as people. I feel that way because i hear and see too many stories about idiots carrying guns and using them inappropriately. I have a friend who was 'accidently' shot by a responsible licenced gun owner and i would have no inclination to put myself in the position of accidently shooting someone or getting shot. The police shot dead a man who ran away from them that they thought was a terrorist, turned out he wasn't, he was innocent, but you know what he's still dead. I don't have the answers or the solution but i do believe not allowing civilians to carry guns would lower gun crime and 'accidental' shootings. If you think my view is naive then so be it but it is my personal opinion and i am entitled to it. Yes, you are certainly entitled to it. I do not believe I have ever seen irrefutable evidence linking the reduction of private firearms to lowering crime ... even gun-related crime ... to any significant degree.

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 5:43:14 PM)
It's not unimaginable no but as i say i would look after myself and my UM as best i could. I would not choose to do this with a fire arm. Nor can i imagine ever thinking someone with a gun will come rescue. All right. I'll let it go at that, for now. I believe that if she had had the gun, she might have saved herself and her child. Even enabling her to "possibly" have that outcome is better than leaving her no chance at all, in my opinion I dont disagree with you on this but i do disagree that her having a gun was the ideal solution. I still believe better law prevention would have been the solution. Naive or not if they knew he was violent and i would assume from the banning order they did and that violence had occured against her before as i assume it had otherwise why would she be getting a gun to protect herself from him? He should have been in prison if this is the case and voila no lives lost. Yes, you are certainly entitled to it. I do not believe I have ever seen irrefutable evidence linking the reduction of private firearms to lowering crime ... even gun-related crime ... to any significant degree. Me neither, that is why it is only my opinion that it would be so. If i could have cited eveidence i would have done so [:D]

Casie -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/27/2007 6:02:35 PM)
I mentioned these stories in another thread. Unfortunately I couldn't find the exact stories. I'm glad someone did. To missturbation, if the government bans firearms it is NOT going to keep criminals from getting them it will NOT make violent crime go down in anyway. DC is a perfect example as well as the UK. If someone is going to kill someone they will kill them whether they use a gun, knife, hammer, pipe bomb, or their bare hands. Humans have been killing each other since the beginning of time. There have been great massacres long before the gun was ever even thought about. That’s just how life is there are barbaric people out there. What’s next taking away knifes? After all more people are stabbed then shot? Or not let people learn chemistry because they could build a bomb and kill people? Or maybe we should censor the internet so know one can learn to do such things? Criminals are criminals, They could give to shits less if guns are illegal. Drugs are illegal yet in my small town (about 5,000 ppl) I could get any drug I wanted. And I could drive about 15 minutes and get illegal firearms. Making guns illegal won't make them go away!! Criminals prefer unarmed victims. That’s just the way it is. I for one have survival instinct. I know that faced against a gun it is VERY unlikely that a knife, mace, or taser is going to safe me. I prefer to get in my gun safe and grab the glock. Or when I'm in a bad part of a big city I like the comfort of knowing that my hubby is right beside with the glock on his side. But at the same time if I were ever in a situation that I needed to draw a gun, I would try everything in power to not have to discharge it. Making guns illegal will do nothing but make law abiding citizens at more risk!!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875