no guns

[jellen]

I don't own a gun , and never will. Have you ever known of any one who was shot to death, either accidently or purposely? I knew a few and have concluded that another gun would just be more death. You probably claim to be pro life. If so then how can you support carrying a weapon? If I'm wrong, well I'm sorry but I'll never advocate allowing total restriction free gun use.:mad: :mad: :mad:

[here_is_to_hope]

1. I am pro life and I am

very pro 'my families' life....
Copy?

[EstimatedProphet]

2. Very few people are talking about total restriction free gun use

The argument is in where to draw the line almost every time. I therefore reject your argument as irrational.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. I've treated dozens of victims of gunshot wounds.

None have been accidents all have been the result of criminal activity. I support law abiding citizens being able to defend themselves.

David

[Wickerman]

4. Welcome to DU!

I hope you have an asbestos fire suit handy. You'll need it down in the DU-Gun-geon!

:hi:

[bossy22]

7. asbestos fire suit...

not unless you want lung disease....today we use kevlar, nomex, and other high-tech polymers to protect us from fire....don't forget to don your SCBA....always wear your hood......check your pass alarm..........

[Wickerman]

9. kill joy

asbestos fire suit has such a better ring to it. Asbestos underwear rings even more true. Shoulda used that.

[bossy22]

12. fire proof undewear!!!!

every firefighter needs pair of those....patent it and you will be a millionare lol

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. at least a jock strap anyway.

kevlar and carbon with extra padding hehe.

David

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

27. Fireproof jock strap? You think ....? Nah!

:rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. Package protection huh?

[east texas lib]

44. What a burn!

Now the Shrub will have to get by asbestos he can.;-)

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

45. At least he doesn't have to reach all the way to his bootstraps

to pull himself up.

:rofl:

And that was a horrible pun!
:spank:

[iverglas]

16. and none of it will protect you against

[Wickerman]

19. Why I oughta...

I wish I could pin my rules to the top of the forum

[iverglas]

26. pin your rules to the top of the forum with a

?


I have the lawn darts and I can do it.

Ban shman. They're in the garash somewhere ... they were my grandfather's, and they'll have to pry them from my hot sweaty hands.

Garash? Not enough shleep ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. The dreaded lawn dart.

Danger Will Robinson. Hard to believe those things were on the market huh.

David

[MercutioATC]

5. You present about a dozen different arguments in your post...

...if you'd like to discuss them one by one, there are many here (on both sides of the issue) that would be more than willing.

[bossy22]

6. even some of the most ardent supporters of the 2A

believe there should be some restrictions- but the question where does the line get drawn

"You probably claim to be pro life. If so then how can you support carrying a weapon?"
i never claim to be "pro-life", im pro my life and my families life, i can care less about the guy trying to break into my house. I can support carrying a weapon to protect myself and my loved ones. Thats what CCW is all about- self-protection.

some gun use restrictions make perfect sense and are compatible with the 2A- Background checks, prohibited persons from owning....all those make sense and don't infringe on our rights.

"Have you ever known of any one who was shot to death, either accidently or purposely?"
yes, my friends father committed suicide with a legally registered pistol he owned

[Irreverend IX]

8. no booze

I don't drink, and never will. Have you ever known of any one who drank themselves to death, or was killed by a drunk driver? I knew a few and have concluded that more alcohol would just be more death. Because knee-jerk emotional responses to anecdotes are so much better than rationally weighing the costs and benefits of proposed government policies.

Also, I'm pro-choice with regards to both reproduction and self-defense.

[Redneck Socialist]

10. Welcome to DU

I see your hobbies include carrying around a full can of gas in one hand and a lit torch in the other. Enjoy. :hi:

[bossy22]

11. ,...ehhhh

i have had bad experiences with a guy holding a gas can in one hand and a torch in the other....he ended up lighting himself on fire while trying to light his mistresses house on fire....woke me up at 7 am, and i found the guy on the side of the house....after i stepped on his stomach and my boot got lodged in his intestines.....it was not a great day.....though at the end of the day i had to drive up to college...yeah that day sucked

[derby378]

14. No guns, no Congress...

It's just that simple. You want Democratic control of Congress? You want decent health care, education, economy, etc.? Then stand down and get used to your fellow Democrats owning guns.

[gorfle]

15. Yes guns.

I don't own a gun , and never will.

That is your choice to make. I respect your choice.

Have you ever known of any one who was shot to death, either accidently or purposely?

No.

I knew a few and have concluded that another gun would just be more death.

Possibly so. The question is, who's dying? Good guys or bad guys? When the good guys are disarmed they are at the mercy of the bad guys.

You probably claim to be pro life. If so then how can you support carrying a weapon?

As I've said before, I'm torn on the abortion issue. When I was single, I was all for risk-free getting laid. Now that I have a daughter, I would never consider killing her, at any stage of her life.

Nonetheless, I can see how the most ardent pro-lifer can be pro-death in certain cases. Usually they are for the life of the innocent, and for the death of the corrupt and dangerous. Surely it cannot be hard to differentiate between a baby and a thug.

If I'm wrong, well I'm sorry

You're wrong, and apology accepted. :)

but I'll never advocate allowing total restriction free gun use.

Well you should be quite happy to know that we don't have "total restriction free gun use" today. There are numerous restrictions on gun use.

[iverglas]

17. you just get worse, doncha?

Surely it cannot be hard to differentiate between a baby and a thug.

For somebody who can't differentiate between his daughter and the pregnancy of a woman he doesn't know whose decisions are none of his business ... well, I might fear for the safety of babies in his house.

[gorfle]

18. Come again?

For somebody who can't differentiate between his daughter and the pregnancy of a woman he doesn't know whose decisions are none of his business

Firstly, I most certainly can differentiate between my daughter and the pregnancy of a woman I don't know, and it is disgusting of you to insinuate otherwise.

Secondly, it is my opinion that decisions concerning an unborn child most certainly are the business of the father. Does the mother have more at stake? Certainly. Does this mean it is none of the father's business? No.

well, I might fear for the safety of babies in his house.

Your fears are unfounded, and it is despicable of you to insinuate that my children are at danger from me.

Have you ever had children, Iverglas? My guess is no.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. And you accuse others of despicable behavior.

The hypocrisy is really bad this time Iverglas. Usually you wait like 24 hours before contradicting yourself.


David

[Tejas]

23. jellen, don't look now but

but Iverglas is on your side and ready to help your cause against guns.

[iverglas]

28. for the hard of discerning

As I've said before, I'm torn on the abortion issue. When I was single, I was all for risk-free getting laid. Now that I have a daughter, I would never consider killing her, at any stage of her life.

gorfle has just called women who have abortions murderers.

gorfle has indicated his inability to distinguish between his daughter, a human being, and a fetus, i.e. to distinguish between human beings and fetuses.


Nonetheless, I can see how the most ardent pro-lifer can be pro-death in certain cases. Usually they are for the life of the innocent, and for the death of the corrupt and dangerous. Surely it cannot be hard to differentiate between a baby and a thug.

gorfle has already demonstrated his inability to distinguish between human beings and fetuses.

gorfle obviously wants us to interpret "differentiate between a baby and a thug" as meaning "differentiate between a fetus and a thug". It doesn't mean that. Babies are human beings. Fetuses are not babies.

The difference between a fetus and a thug is that a thug is a human being and a fetus isn't. It's quite easy to distinguish between a fetus and a thug.

Human beings have a right to life. Thugs are human beings. Pregnant women are human beings.

gorfle plainly believes that it is okay for thugs to deprived of life w/o due process and w/o the equal protection of the law.

If a fetus were a human being, then it would have the right not to be deprived of life w/o due process and w/o the equal protection of the law, i.e. abortion would have to be outlawed.

Outlawing abortion is a denial of the right to life of pregnant women w/o due process and w/o the equal protection of the law.


If gorfle can't distinguish between a fetus and a human being -- a really quite amazingly simple task that he has demonstrated he cannot perform -- then I would have serious doubts that he can distinguish between a baby and a thug, babies and thugs being much more similar than fetuses and human beings.

If gorfle can't distinguish between a baby and a thug, and if gorfle believes that it is acceptable to kill thugs at will, then I would be reluctant to leave a baby in gorfle's house.


It's all called "Aristotelian logic". Enjoy.

[gorfle]

35. Replies.

gorfle has just called women who have abortions murderers.

Yes indeed, and I have said so before. I believe abortion is in fact murder. Like I have also said, however, I don't believe all murders are necessarily bad. We murder certain criminals. Our troops go forth and murder those we direct them to murder. We murder people we find invading our homes. We murder people who are trying to harm us.

I do not see much point in drawing any lines in the sand at some magical moment during a fetus' development where before that it is not a human and afterwards it is. To me there is only one clear demarcation line, and that is conception. I believe if you terminate a pregnancy after conception you have killed a human being who would otherwise almost certainly have grown up to be a normal person.

As I have also already said, however, I am torn as to whether or not this is always a bad thing. For example, is it better to die than to be born to people who hate you? Is it better to die than to be born to people who cannot provide for your well being?

At the moment, I am still largely pro-choice. Abortion would never be a choice that I would make, however, in the hindsight of having a child. Fortunately I am in a position where I can make that choice.

gorfle has indicated his inability to distinguish between his daughter, a human being, and a fetus, i.e. to distinguish between human beings and fetuses.

I reject your definition that fetuses are not human beings.

In terms of the generic "sanctity" of life, at face value there is no difference between a human being and a fetus. Note that I put "sanctity" in quotes as I do not subscribe any special value to life in general - our lives are as valuable or worthless as we make them. But at face value, there is no difference in my mind between a 2 year old and a fetus. Both are highly immature forms of human being. In terms of relative value to me personally, they are equal.

gorfle obviously wants us to interpret "differentiate between a baby and a thug" as meaning "differentiate between a fetus and a thug". It doesn't mean that. Babies are human beings. Fetuses are not babies.

As I said, in terms of relative value to me personally, fetuses and babies are the same.

I usually suspect when people try to make the argument that you are making - that fetuses are not human beings - that they are simply dehumanizing fetuses to make them easier to kill. It is much like how the military indoctrinates its soldiers and how nations whip up support for wars. By dehumanizing the person you wish to kill, it makes it less mentally traumatic to follow through.

I don't feel the need for any such measures. If you want to justify the murder of fetuses, then justify the murder of fetuses. I believe there are instances when such murder can be justified. For example, a baby to be born to people that know they cannot afford to raise it properly. Or possibly a baby to be born to drug addicts. Hell, maybe even a fetus that the parents just don't want.

The difference between a fetus and a thug is that a thug is a human being and a fetus isn't. It's quite easy to distinguish between a fetus and a thug.

You are concentrating on technical differences, when my intent was clearly to highlight philosophical differences. And philosophically, there is no difference to me between a fetus and a newborn baby. I believe you are being intentionally obtuse.

The primary philosophical difference between a thug and a fetus is not the stage of development, but the fact that one is innocent of , and in fact incapable of, any wrongdoing, while a thug is, by definition, one who has engaged in criminal behavior.

Human beings have a right to life. Thugs are human beings. Pregnant women are human beings.

Fetuses are also human beings, just human beings at an earlier stage of development.

gorfle plainly believes that it is okay for thugs to deprived of life w/o due process and w/o the equal protection of the law.

And Iverglas plainly believes that fetuses are of less value than thugs.

Yes I do, when they are caught in the act of endangering someone else's life. I do not believe life is inherently valuable, and I believe that we can, through our own actions, make our lives worthwhile or render our lives worthless. I believe it is quite possible for a person to render their life unworthy of due process and equal protection of the law. For example, if you break into my home and attempt to murder me, you will have just rendered yourself unworthy of due process and equal protection under the law, and most courts around here would agree with me if I killed you for it.

If a fetus were a human being, then it would have the right not to be deprived of life w/o due process and w/o the equal protection of the law, i.e. abortion would have to be outlawed.

And there are lots of folks who try to make just that case, Iverglas. I personally am torn on the issue, as I have said before. I still tend to lean towards pro-choice, murder or not.

You seem to need to differentiate between human and non-human so as to differentiate between those who are worthy of due process and those who are not.

I need no such differentiation, because I believe that not all humans are worthy - we are only worth what we make of ourselves. And it is quite possible for someone - human or not - to perform actions that render themselves unworthy of any due processes and protection under the law. Anyone who breaks into my home - human or otherwise - will learn this lesson quickly.

If gorfle can't distinguish between a fetus and a human being -- a really quite amazingly simple task that he has demonstrated he cannot perform -- then I would have serious doubts that he can distinguish between a baby and a thug, babies and thugs being much more similar than fetuses and human beings.

If you believe that babies, who are innocent of any wrongdoing, and thugs, who are criminals, are more similar than generic fetuses and human beings, then you are wrong.

Actually, you are more than just wrong, but I'd hate to have my post deleted, so I 'll leave it at that.

If gorfle can't distinguish between a baby and a thug, and if gorfle believes that it is acceptable to kill thugs at will, then I would be reluctant to leave a baby in gorfle's house.

I have already demonstrated that I can distinguish between a baby and a thug, and by what metric. It is you who are trying to equate babies to thugs. The fact that you would try and form an argument that puts criminals on equal moral footing with babies is shocking, but coming from you, Iverglas, is becoming less surprising.

I'll ask you again, Iverglas, do you have children?

[gorfle]

41. And crickets chirp again.

I'll ask you again, Iverglas, do you have children?

I'll assume from the lack of response that you have no children.

I hope some day you experience the complete love that a child gives to its parents, and the joy of parenthood. You may find that it changes your outlook on who is and is not a human being.

[iverglas]

42. assssoome whatever you like

I don't give out my location on the internet. I don't give out my email addresses. I don't state my name or my occupation. And I don't respond to demands that I provide personal information that is none of the demander's business, where the demand is made in an attempt to extract information that the demander hopes to parade around as proof of something it is not proof of.

Because that is exactly what you are doing, I would not answer if I had no kids, I would not answer if I had 6 kids, I would not answer if I'd had one kid who died tragically of childhood cancer, I would not answer if I'd had 47 abortions and I would not answer if I'd tried for 20 years to have kids and had only 4 miscarriages for my trouble.

You can assume whichever of those scenarios you like, or any other scenario you might dream up.

And you can contemplate what kind of an asshole might say something like:

I hope some day you experience the complete love that a child gives to its parents, and the joy of parenthood. You may find that it changes your outlook on who is and is not a human being.

to a person who had lost a child to cancer or who had never been able to have children despite dearly wanting to and, one way or another, failing.

And then you can go along your merry, disgusting, incivil way.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

52. oh dear, I seem to have missed this

Lucky I caught it ...

You've confirmed what you are Iverglas, a fascist.

... 'cause I don't think it'll be here long.


You shout down, belittle, mock and are completely intolerant of people who don't agree with your ideas. Never mind that many of your ideas are based on your screwed up view of the world that stems from all of the crap you've been through. It is reasonable for people to have different views and still hold to the same values. In addition to your fascism your hypocrisy is incredible. You have castigated people over and over for interpreting what you have written and then saying what you mean, then you go and do the exact same thing. Please go get some help and come back when the anger is gone.

Fascinating.

And it had ... what? ... to do with my response to an unspeakably obnoxious and incivil post containing unfounded allegations and commentary on my personal life?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. It's been there for 2 days.

That's probably good enough.

David

[Howzit]

51. California Supreme Court uphold conviction for murder of human fetus

http://www.nrlc.org/unborn_victims/CASupremeCourtruling040504.html

I guess someone should tell the CASC that a human fetus is not a human.

[iverglas]

53. "I guess someone should tell the CASC that a human fetus is not a human."

I guess someone should indeed tell it that a human fetus is not A HUMAN BEING.

And that treating someone who causes the termination of a pregnancy against the wishes of the pregnant woman has committed a serious crime AGAINST THE WOMAN, but treating him/her as if s/he has killed a human being is a violation of your constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the law, for starters. Why not just treat shoplifting as if it were homicide?

You have all sorts of nastly little laws down there, doncha just?

I know all about these ones. And I know exactly how unconstitutional they are, despite anything your various right-wing courts may say.

And the fact that you chose to post a link to an organization as vile and filthy and fascistic as the NRLC tells me about all I need to know about you, by the way.

[Howzit]

55. "the fact that you chose to post a link to an organization as vile and filthy and fascistic

as the NRLC tells me about all I need to know about you, by the way"

Yes, it tells you I am lazy. That I simply grabbed the first reference that spelled out "Lacy's law" found on Google. If I had found another reference to the same law, would it really make any difference?

Not being politically savvy like you, I don't keep lists of organizations that are acceptable and unacceptable.

[Howzit]

54. Suicide by cop vs suicide by citizen

"gorfle plainly believes that it is okay for thugs to deprived of life w/o due process and without due process and without the equal protection of the law".

If a thug kicks in my front door at 3AM and demonstrates that he is quite willing to take my life without due process, I would like the means to stop him readily at hand. If he does not cease and desist and I use a gun to stop him, resulting in his death, have I deprived him of due process? Or has he done the equivalent of jumping off a cliff?

In California a criminal can be charged with murder if a police officer accidently kills a third party in trying to stop the criminal. By extension, If a thug breaks into an occupied dwelling and is killed by the legal occupant during a criminal display of life threatening behavior, the criminal as the first party becomes responsible for his own death, as the third party.

Everyone has heard of "suicide by cop". Likewise, a thug that threatens an ordinary citizen and gets killed for his trouble has committed "suicide by citizen". Why should cops have the right to defend themselves with deadly force, but not ordinary citizens?

[iverglas]

57. are cops not citizens?

Whadda you people do, hire undocumented residents for the job or something?


If a thug kicks in my front door at 3AM and demonstrates that he is quite willing to take my life without due process, I would like the means to stop him readily at hand. If he does not cease and desist and I use a gun to stop him, resulting in his death, have I deprived him of due process? Or has he done the equivalent of jumping off a cliff?

Neither, as long as you had a reasonable belief that he was about to cause you to die or suffer serious injury, and that you had no reasonable alternative for avoiding death or serious injury.

What you have done, in that case, is use force in self-defence, something that is generally permitted in pretty much any society and recognized as a justification/excuse that will prevent criminal responsibility attaching.


What you said had nothing to do with what I said that you quoted:

gorfle plainly believes that it is okay for thugs to deprived of life w/o due process and without due process and without the equal protection of the law.

Did you have some sort of point?


In California a criminal can be charged with murder if a police officer accidently kills a third party in trying to stop the criminal. By extension, If a thug breaks into an occupied dwelling and is killed by the legal occupant during a criminal display of life threatening behavior, the criminal as the first party becomes responsible for his own death, as the third party.

I'm sorry, but that's just totally dumb.

If anyone engages in behaviour, commonly called "assault" (which includes threats), that causes someone else to have a reasonable belief that his/her life is in danger, that person is justified in using force to prevent being killed or serious injured, even if the force causes death. (In civilized societies, the endangered individual is not allowed to cause death intentionally.)

This has completely nothing to do with people being charged with murder by proxy.

No one who is killed by anyone else is "responsible for 'his' own death". The person who killed him/her is plainly responsible for the death, having been the one who caused it -- s/he is simply not criminally responsible in societies that accept self-defence as a justification for the use of force (provided, in civilized societies, that the force used was no more than was necessary).


Everyone has heard of "suicide by cop".

That's, like, some sort of technical legal term, is it?

I'd always thought it was pop jargon for someone getting killed by a police officer who had no reasonable alternative but to use force for a purpose for which the police are authorized to use force, or in self-defence.


Why should cops have the right to defend themselves with deadly force, but not ordinary citizens?

Why would you ask me this ignorant, insulting question, which can only be intended to convey the idea that I don't think members of the public should be entitled to defend themselves with the same force with which the police may do so?

Where I'm at, that doesn't include intentionally "deadly force" in either case, but that's of no never mind.

I have never stated any opinion that would suggest to you or anyone else that I propose that members of the public not be permitted to use force in self-defence to the same extent as the police.

So what would you like to do with that ignorant, insulting question now?

[Howzit]

59. "So what would you like to do with that ignorant, insulting question now?"

"I have never stated any opinion that would suggest to you or anyone else that I propose that members of the public not be permitted to use force in self-defence to the same extent as the police."

May I reword the question to ask if it is OK for mere citizens to own guns for the express purposes of defending their own lives?


Edited to add " " marks

[iverglas]

60. what's a "mere citizen"?

You don't hold your fellow citizens in high regard?


May I reword the question to ask if it is OK for mere citizens to own guns for the express purposes of defending their own lives?

Well, I'll reword that one to assume you were talking about members of the public, and that you don't make what would be an obnoxious distinction between citizens and lawful permanent residents.

And the answer is: no. It is not okay.

Just so you're clear, since I suspect you may be a bit muddled, the police do not carry firearms for the express purpose of defending their own lives.

They carry firearms for the express purpose of performing their duties in the public interest, under public oversight. It may, on occasion, be necessary for them to use firearms to defend their lives in order to perform their duties in the public interest.

I've asked others, but I may as well ask you. Are you engaged in the performance of some duty in the public interest, under public oversight, in the course of which it might be necessary for you to defend your life?

Or would you prefer to keep on trying to conflate Thing A with Thing B?

If it amuses you, feel free.



typo fixed

[Howzit]

62. Bingo! I thought you would say that

I said: "May I reword the question to ask if it is OK for mere citizens to own guns for the express purposes of defending their own lives?"

Your response: "And the answer is: no. It is not okay."

So, if I understand your position correctly, it may be OK for members of the public to use force in defense of their lives, but you would not permit them to use guns as a means for defense? If not guns, what force may a member of the public use to ward off an illegal attack?

I say, let them have guns because this make even the old, the weak and the disabled equal to even the most brutish bully that chooses to attack them.

As for public service; if I apprehend a thug in my house at gunpoint and perform what is known as a "citizen's arrest", I am performing a public service. If a thug goes around raping and killing people in their homes until he is arrested by me during such an attack, have I not performed a public service by preventing further attacks on the greater public? If it takes shooting the thug to stop his attack then that's what it takes. I am much less likely to be able to perform this public service and prevent the thug from roaming around freely and hurting more innocents if I don't have a gun.


PS You are correct that by "citizens" I meant members of the public, including legal residents.

[iverglas]

64. round and round and round

So, if I understand your position correctly, it may be OK for members of the public to use force in defense of their lives, but you would not permit them to use guns as a means for defense? If not guns, what force may a member of the public use to ward off an illegal attack?

First: I did not say that it MAY be OK for members of the public to use force in defence of their lives.

I said it IS okay. Why would you decide to distort what I said?

I also did not say that I would not permit anyone to USE firearms as a means of defence. Largely because I was answering a question asked by you, and that is not the question you asked me. You asked me this, and I add emphasis to assist you:

May I reword the question to ask if it is OK for mere citizens to own guns for the express purposes of defending their own lives?

My concern is with the presence of firearms, and access to firearms, in my society.

No one "owns guns for the express purposes of defending their own lives" -- because no one's life is in danger when they acquire a firearm and for the overwhelming vast huge majority of the time during which they are in possession of it. Presumbly, they acquire and possess it just in case some day they need it to defend their life. They may have the concurrent intention of using it to protect their property should the need arise. I suspect many such people have just such concurrent intentions, actually.

There is no way that anyone's intent can be determined when s/he acquires a firearm and while s/he is in possession of it. None. Statements of intent are entirely meaningless, since they can be false as easily as true.

A person has a firearm, period. What s/he claims to have it for does not in any way determine what it may one day be used for. What s/he claims to have it for also does not provide any guarantee that it will not be stolen by someone else and used for less glorious purposes, or accessed by someone else and used in a way that accidentally causes harm.

So I find it reasonable, there being really no other approach that could be taken, to permit possession of firearms that are suitable and ordinarily used for hunting and for predator/pest control. (I would permit ownership, but not ongoing possession, of firearms that are suitable and ordinarily used for sporting purposes.) I do not find it reasonable to permit possession of firearms that are not suitable for those purposes and that are most suitable, and ordinarily used, for shooting people: generally, handguns. Or firearms that go well beyond what is suitable for hunting and predator/pest control.


If not guns, what force may a member of the public use to ward off an illegal attack?

What might you imagine? What has the vast majority of the population of the earth in the history of humanity used in such circumstances, and what do people do now on the rare occasions that they arise?

It's my understanding, from reading all the stuff one reads here, that most homicides in the US occur in internecine warfare between bad guys. I have yet to see anything that suggests that the huge overwhelming vast majority of the US population ever encounters a situation in which his/her life is in danger *and* a firearm would be effective in averting the danger.


I say, let them have guns because this make even the old, the weak and the disabled equal to even the most brutish bully that chooses to attack them.

Fine. Let the old, the weak and the disabled have handguns.


As for public service; if I apprehend a thug in my house at gunpoint and perform what is known as a "citizen's arrest", I am performing a public service.

Once again: where is this "public service" coming from? Why are you unable to address what I say? Why do you have to pretend I said something different?

What I said was "performing a duty in the public interest". Not volunteering to do something you happen to think is a public service.


If a thug goes around raping and killing people in their homes until he is arrested by me during such an attack, have I not performed a public service by preventing further attacks on the greater public?

RAPE! RAPE!! RAPE!!!

I just had to acknowedge that you have fulfilled the duty of exploiting the criminal victimization of women to shove your own agenda. I think you guys get points for that, and I don't want any of you to miss out.


I am much less likely to be able to perform this public service and prevent the thug from roaming around freely and hurting more innocents if I don't have a gun.

Words generally fail me round about this point. I just don't know how to hold a rational conversation with people who base their arguments on fantasies like this.

You are not deputy dawg, and no one has assigned you to take out bad guys. So no one is under any obligation to let you keep firearms around just in case you encounter someone someday who you think is a bad guy needing takeing out.

[Howzit]

65. Thanks for the concession

howzit: I say, let them have guns because this make even the old, the weak and the disabled equal to even the most brutish bully that chooses to attack them.

iverglas: Fine. Let the old, the weak and the disabled have handguns.

[iverglas]

66. thanks for pretending

not to understand sarcasm.

[Howzit]

67. I wasn't pretending.

I believed you because the idea makes sense to me.

Sure had me fooled.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. You complain about civil discourse then you post stuff like this.

Iverglas, you have demonstrated yourself to be utterly intolerant. You mock, belittle and denigrate people who disagree with your own little warped world view. We all know why your world view is warped so that doesn't matter. To be on a progressive web site you are terribly intolerant. Maybe the mods will like this one better. I'm glad the other one was up for 2 days though.

David

[iverglas]

63. "stuff like this"

Yeah. Logical stuff. How rude of me.

You mock, belittle and denigrate people who disagree with your own little warped world view.

Yeah. My own little warped world view: that women are human beings and have the same fundamental, inalienable, constitutional, human rights as other human beings. Hit me. I'm disgusting.

To be on a progressive web site you are terribly intolerant.

Tell ya what -- you bring me a KKK member and a neo-Nazi, and I'll practise being tolerant. Then I'll try again on the question of whether women are human beings with the same fundamental rights as other human beings, and see whether I can be tolerant of someone who calls women murderers for exercising those rights in the way any other human being expects to be able to exercise his/her rights.

Maybe you could take a shot at it. Let's hear some tolerance of KKKers and neo-Nazis. Show me how it's done. What's the best way to exhibit tolerance of people who vilify groups of people in ways that will plainly assist in the effort to violate their fundamental rights?

Maybe the mods will like this one better. I'm glad the other one was up for 2 days though.

And I find it charming that you are so proud of intentionally violating the rules by insulting another member in a manner that you have no justification for. It kinda makes me feel all tolerant.


typo fixed ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. Who is plainly assisting in the effort to violate their fundamental rights?

[spin]

22. If you choose not to own a weapon for any reason,

that's your personal choice and most gun owners would have no problem with your decision. They might argue with your conclusion that "another gun would just be more death".

Fortunately very few firearms are ever used to murder or to kill in self defense. Firearms are used for many purposes. Hunting, target shooting, plinking, collecting and self defense are examples. In many situations an honest citizen may employ a firearm to deter an assault or criminal activity without ever having to fire a shot.

Most gun owners also do not support "total restriction free gun use". Misuse of firearms by criminals, people with severe mental problems, people with anger management problems and those who abuse alcohol fuel efforts to pass draconian gun legislation. Honest gun owners are not upset by reasonable and effective gun laws that make it difficult for irresponsible people to acquire firearms.

If you choose not to own a weapon but have concern about your personal safety, there are viable alternatives. Pepper or OC spray can be effective as long as you choose a spray similar to what the police carry. Taser International is now marketing a civilian version of their stun gun. If you are reasonably physically fit, a self defense course can be valuable. For home defense a good alarm system, motion sensor lights, a dog, a secure safe room and a cell phone are all items to consider.

Welcome to DU.

[Mercracer]

24. Guns Don't Kill..., Doctors, Alcohol, Cigarettes and Automobiles Do.

You have a better chance catching an infection while staying in a hospital which you didn't have when you are admitted than you do getting shot. You have a greater chance getting killed while driving to the gun store than you do being shot by a gun. Children have a greater chance of drowning in your pool than they do being shot by a firearm...
Yes.. I know several persons who have taken their own life. Only one of those were by gunshot.. I know of persons accidently killed or wounded by gunshot. I know several times more who have died in stabbings, in car crashes, motorcycle accidents, work injuries and on the operating table...
If you honestly look at statistics, firearms are statistically relatively safe.
I am a Christian. I AM Pro Life. I believe in the sanctity of life. Life is precious enough that it should be defended with deadly force. Firearms are legitimate tools for defense. The life of innocent persons should be defended against those who would take it by force...
With the use of firearms comes great responsibility. You are morally and ethically obligated to be proficient in the safe use of any firearm which you own. IF you choose to use a firearm in self defense, you must be prepared to face the legal, moral and psychological consequences for your actions....

[sgt lackey]

25. Very Very Very Very

Nicely Put Mercracer!!!!!!!!!

[aikoaiko]

30. Interesting, almost every gun owner agrees that we should not have "total restriction free gun use"

And so we argue about where to draw the line.

I am, for what its worth, keeping abortions a medical matter between a doctor and woman.

[slackmaster]

31. I'm pro-choice on guns

Just like pretty much everything else (including abortion FWIW).

If you don't want to have them around, I respect your choice. I ask only the same in return.

[iverglas]

33. I'm pro-choice on speed

If you don't want to drive at 150 km/h, I respect your choice.

Just stay the hell out of the passing lane.

[slackmaster]

34. It's official - iverglas is more pro-choice than slackmaster

slackmaster thinks people should obey laws.

[iverglas]

36. ah yes, laws

They drop like lawn darts from the sky.

All is well if one happens to like the laws as they are, eh?

If the laws required registration of firearms and such, then nobody would be complaining, because people should obey laws ...


I'll bet you can miss this point too, without even breaking a sweat!

[slackmaster]

39. Do you actually have some kind of point here other than a lame personal smear?

:nuke:

[iverglas]

58. y'know, I pondered the stupid response I got

I pondered it, wondering whether you actually thought it was a response to what I said.


You said you were pro-choice on guns, and everybody should just leave you alone.

I said I was pro-choice on (vehicle) speed, and everybody should just leave me alone.

And you replied that you thought people should obey the law.


I pondered ... could someone as clever as the slackmaster actually have thought this was a response to what I said?

If the US federal assault weapons ban were still in place and you were arguing against it -- because you're pro-choice on guns -- and I said "people should obey the law", would you take this as a complete answer to all your arguments against the ban?

If you seriously think that you provided an answer to what I said, then yes, you would.

Somehow, I don't think that's what would happen.


So why you imagine that "people should obey the law" is an answer to my objections to speed limits -- because I'm pro-choice on speed -- well, I really just can't imagine, myself.

So I don't think you thought it was, actually. I think you knew it wasn't. I think you just hoped there was someone in the vicinity who was stupid enough to think: yeah, that's right, he sure done told her!

The sad thing is: there probably was.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. Fortunately the Supreme Court would have something to say about that.

So go ahead and get the democrats to try to pass a strict registration law. After the democrats lose the white house and congress again, we'll get more conservative judges to strike down more anti gun legislation. I guess that's what you really want.

David

[iiibbb]

32. I can appreciate your feelings about them...

but I've been on the other end violence and I prefer to have the option of defending myself.

However, I doubt you'll find anyone for "restriction-free gun use".

[SteveM]

37. In spite of the asbestos warnings, pro-2A folks have treated you respectfully...

1) I have known of one person who was murdered by, presumably, a stick-up criminal.
2) "...another gun would just be more death." The guns owned by civilians has grown steadily and by some estimates has reached 290,000,000. Yet, the murder rate by guns has declined throughout the nineties and into this millennium. You conclusion is not justified.
3) I am pro-choice.
4) I do not carry a weapon (except when hunting) but respect the right of those to carry after they meet the tests and fulfill the regulations necessary to carry. I keep a gun for self-defense in my home.
5) I believe you are wrong on some of your counts, but "allowing total restriction free gun use" is not really an issue. There are many restrictions on guns/gun use.

Welcome to DU.

[benEzra]

38. I choose to own guns. You choose not to. I am OK with that.

I do not know anyone personally who was shot to death. I do have one friend who committed suicide after his marriage broke up, but I do not know if he used a gun or not.

My father had a "save" with a legally carried handgun when I was a child (rural NC, early to mid 1970's). He did not have to fire any shots, and no one was hurt; his would-be assailants saw the gun, backed off, and left.

I am pro-choice on abortion just as I am on guns; I do not personally like abortion, and it is not a choice my wife and I would make, but it is not our place to make that decision for you. Your body, your choice; my body, MY choice.

I do not advocate "total restriction free gun use." I DO, however, support the right of mentally competent adults with clean records to lawfully own and use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 civilian firearms under .51 caliber without further hassle.

[virginia mountainman]

43. no pools

I don't own a pool , and never will. Have you ever known of anyone whom drown, either accidently or purposely? I knew a few and have concluded that another pool would just be more death. You probably claim to be pro life. If so then how can you support owning a pool? If I'm wrong, well I'm sorry but I'll never advocate allowing total restriction free pool use. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[DonP]

47. Same goes for deadly lakes and rivers too. Ntxt

[maxidivine]

46. Really laying on the stereotyping and intolerance huh?

So what you are saying is that you believe that anyone who owns a gun must be anti-abortion? Aside from the heavy stereotyping of gunowners=republicans and republicans=fundamentalist christian conservatives and fundamentalist christian conservatives=bad which seems to be shining through your post, do you honestly believe that if you bought a gun you would go shoot someone with it? Although I have to give you kudos for not statiung it as "murdered by a gun" like some people have a nasty tendency to do.

And what does being pro-life have to do with carrying a weapon? I am very strongly pro-life, I love being alive, but my love of life does not extend infinitely out to every human being. I love life, but I'm not about to give mine up because some junkie or meth addict wants my wallet and doesn't like me telling him there's no money in it (there isn't, ever), or so some home invader who doesn't want to leave a witness can go on living their life.

I suggest you take a basic handgun safety course that has some range timeat the end of the class, I think you will learn a lot and it will help you make more informed judgements, instead of passing down judgements on people for their choice of hobby and level of preparedness.

[facepalm]

49. I'm not pro life, I'm pro choice

And in any case, I would be more pro life on behalf of the victim than the attacker.

If you choose not to protect yourself then enjoy your rape and the satisfying smugness that comes from your pointless and self destructive moral superiority. I choose to protect myself, my family and my neighbors.


Coincidentally,
-the only reason Ghandi had to use non-violence was because the Indians didn't have guns while the British did. He is on record as speaking out against the British disarming his nation.
-the only reason MLK had to use non-violence was because black people are a relatively small minority of the population. If they had resorted to fighting for their civil rights with guns, they would probably have lost. Using non-violence helped win the sympathies of white people.

[Boomer 50]

69. I lost one of my closest friends to violence.

He was shot in the chest and bled out in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Why? He only had $10 on him. The robber got angry and shot him. Randy (my friend) wasn't able to protect himself against a pathetic dope head who didn't abide by any of the thousands of gun laws on the books already.

In 1993 I used my concealed carry handgun in defense of my life against a rabid animal. I had to discharge the handgun.

In 1996 I used my concealed carry handgun in defense of my life and the life of my girlfriend against an armed robber. I didn't have to fire my handgun that evening.

I've had a gun in my face and yes, it's a scary thing. Criminals count on that fear to overpower us. Anyone who thinks gun control works is has a lot to learn about the real world.

I'll put this challenge up. If anyone who believes so adamantly that gun control will solve all of the violence in the world is willing to back up their stance I'll buy into it. Put your money where your mouth is. Make yourself financially responsible to the victims family should gun control fail and someone loses their life. If you are so sure that gun control is the answer, put your money where your mouth is.

George Bush is President now because of our party's insistance on embracing gun control. Thanks to that, we now have little right to privacy, no right to a speedy or fair trial, and no right to redress grievences with our Government. Thanks anti's.

[iverglas]

70. I hope you find someone

If anyone who believes so adamantly that gun control will solve all of the violence in the world is willing to back up their stance I'll buy into it.

I'll be quite fascinated to meet such a bizarre specimen, myself. Will you promise to bring him/her here once found??


Put your money where your mouth is. Make yourself financially responsible to the victims family should gun control fail and someone loses their life. If you are so sure that gun control is the answer, put your money where your mouth is.

But hey, you don't need to wait; you can pony up right away. If you are so sure that guns are the answer, we know of 10,000 people per year in the US whose families will happily take your money, I'm sure.



George Bush is President now because of our party's insistance on embracing gun control.

It's the big fib. Over and over and over ...

[old mark]

71. Thanks,jellen, for your post.

You are certainly free to choose, and I respect your choice although I don't understand it.
Please respect my choice to own and carry guns in defence of my self and my family.

Thanks.

mark