|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 14, 2008 19:30:37 GMT -6
I understand that you're not willing to embrace the fact that life is dangerous, period, and some inventions we use are more dangerous than others. I'm pointing out that despite your prattling about guns, at least several things you use every day are much more of a danger to you than guns. I know it blunts your arguments, but then, that's why I raise the issue. Tell me, do you have a swimming pool? ;D I have raised the issue because, quite frankly, I am tried of turning on the 6 o'clock news to see a child's outline in chalk. How many people have to be gunned down before we say enough is enough? I maintain that serious reform to our gun laws are needed and long overdue. why do you insist on continuing to prattle on that criminals obey the law? EVERYTIME, without exception, that you mention banning guns, that is the ONLY thing that you are saying. the abject stupidity that more gun control would reduce the murder rate is just dumb on it's face. at any rate, the two countries in the world with the lowest crime rate, finland and switzerland, mandate that everyone own a gun. that simple fact conclusively proves your thesis a total fallacy
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 14, 2008 21:55:00 GMT -6
I have raised the issue because, quite frankly, I am tried of turning on the 6 o'clock news to see a child's outline in chalk. How many people have to be gunned down before we say enough is enough? I maintain that serious reform to our gun laws are needed and long overdue. why do you insist on continuing to prattle on that criminals obey the law? EVERYTIME, without exception, that you mention banning guns, that is the ONLY thing that you are saying. the abject stupidity that more gun control would reduce the murder rate is just dumb on it's face. at any rate, the two countries in the world with the lowest crime rate, finland and switzerland, mandate that everyone own a gun. that simple fact conclusively proves your thesis a total fallacy I can see that you didnt read the entire post, I have maintained through 4 pages now that people HAVE the right to own guns, Comprende? However, I also think that some restrictions are needed. So I am assuming you want to apply that scenario to the US? Okay lets give EVERYONE a gun - from the mentally retarded to the convicted felons to the 16 year old gangbangers. You did say everyone, right? Want to rethink the bs your sprewing?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 14, 2008 22:06:09 GMT -6
Of course the students etc had a right to defend themselves. Howeve, my point is that the presence of guns is the root and cause of the problem. If guns were properly regulated and controled, there would be no need for the students even worry about self defense right guns are not the root and cause of anything, people's minds are. guns CAUSE absolutely nothing. either bullets kill people or people kill people, pick one. quote] Wow! That is the dumbest thing I heard since Captain Caveman. Did you really just say Guns causes nothing? Let me guess -the bullets are magically shot out of thin air at 900 feet per second- and nothing is causing that projection. I guess that in your illogical world the laws of science cease to exist. However, on Earth - you know what Earth is right- a bullet is harmless without a gun. See you may not know this, but you can even pick a bullet up in your bare hands to examine it. Wow what a thought. However, and this may be a shock to you, but stay with me, when you fire a bullet out of a gun, it may be just a tiny bit dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 14, 2008 22:11:13 GMT -6
Of course the students etc had a right to defend themselves. Howeve, my point is that the presence of guns is the root and cause of the problem. If guns were properly regulated and controled, there would be no need for the students even worry about self defense right guns are not the root and cause of anything, people's minds are. guns CAUSE absolutely nothing. either bullets kill people or people kill people, pick one. guns are not regulated?? gimme a break here show me one other consumer product that requires the FBI's permmission to purchase. just one 20,000 state, local and fedaral guns laws are in place, and yet still someone falls throught the cracks. that is why students, or anybody for that matter should have at least the option to defend themselves. Did you say 'someone falls through the crack"? In case you have not forgotten, there are thousands of people shot every year by guns. That must be a wide crack However you tell me how criminals are getting the guns? Consider these four scenarios A) Criminals stole them from people who use them lawfully B) Somebody else brought the guns for the criminals C) A person who uses them lawfully gets fed up with life, work, etc. and goes on a shooting sphree D) Criminals are able to walk into a store and buy a gun with maybe a stolen creds or cash to a struggling owner. Who knows? Like I said above, if even one is true, don't you think it just might be worth finding a solution ? See the four
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 14, 2008 22:18:05 GMT -6
Ah, so you think there should be some restrictions on guns. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about restrictions. That is precisely the argument I been making. If you go back and read my orginial post, I said that people should be able to own guns for 1 hunting and 2 self defense but we need restrictions. You may want to give that reading comprehension teacher a call your self there pal. never said there was no place for some restrictions. I said, and still you can't grasp this, I said there is not a "need" to explain to you or anybody why I want a particular, legal item. would you like me to come into your life and decide for you what I think you "need" I rather doubt it You must have a hard time grasping basic English. I think I said a dozen times now that people should be allowed guns but restictions are needed. You finally acknowledged that we need restrictions and people can own guns. I think the fog may be finally starting to lift. Dude, this is a free country. if you feel the urge to buy a gun, you don't have to explain to me. I couldn't give 3 quarts of cat *deleted* what you do. However, my point - one that you are finally starting to see- is that before you get your gun there should be serious restrictions in place. For example, a national database that tracks the exact gun you buy just might be helpful. That wasnt so hard, now was it?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 14, 2008 22:20:21 GMT -6
It's not about needs. It's about rights. If someone is law-abiding, there's no problem with that person having an automatic weapon. But society hasn't changed regarding firearms, and neither has the need to keep the government in check. quote] Oh, please provide your plan for keeping the gov in check and I will define it as 'extremist' and possibly 'terrorist' If the people think they can control gov with by using guns, tell me what law and order there is? along with your other failings, you are obviously deluded that the police have some sort of duty to protect you. that absurdity was wiped out back in 1981 lad. it has been settled law for 27 years that the police do NOT have a duty to protect anyone go read warren vs district of columbia So protect yourself, you dunce. When did I say you couldn't?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 14, 2008 22:28:08 GMT -6
This is insane! You are actually going to equate cars with guns. How many people have been sent to death row for the use a car as a murder weapon? Now tell me how many people have been sent to death row because of guns? Your point is lunacy as your comparing traffic violations and accidents with cold blooded murder I wasn't talking about death row. simply death. apparantly in your world there is good death and bad death. I've attended funerals for car death and murder by gun death and suicide by gun death. the people at the car death funerals didn't seem all that more happy about it. Why not mention cancer and wild animals? People die by them right? However, since you can't understand, let me speak slowly for you. THIS topic--you got that part right- is about - still with me- guns. G-U-N-S. The topic- DC VS Heller- is not about any other thing. Cars, trucks, SUV, hell even pregnant Rhinos are not related. Can you stay on the topic of guns ?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 15, 2008 9:09:39 GMT -6
why do you insist on continuing to prattle on that criminals obey the law? EVERYTIME, without exception, that you mention banning guns, that is the ONLY thing that you are saying. the abject stupidity that more gun control would reduce the murder rate is just dumb on it's face. at any rate, the two countries in the world with the lowest crime rate, finland and switzerland, mandate that everyone own a gun. that simple fact conclusively proves your thesis a total fallacy I can see that you didnt read the entire post, I have maintained through 4 pages now that people HAVE the right to own guns, Comprende? However, I also think that some restrictions are needed. So I am assuming you want to apply that scenario to the US? Okay lets give EVERYONE a gun - from the mentally retarded to the convicted felons to the 16 year old gangbangers. You did say everyone, right? Want to rethink the bs your sprewing? don't be daft. reality lad. we already have more than sufficient restrictions and regulations on the books
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 15, 2008 9:13:26 GMT -6
Of course the students etc had a right to defend themselves. Howeve, my point is that the presence of guns is the root and cause of the problem. If guns were properly regulated and controled, there would be no need for the students even worry about self defense right guns are not the root and cause of anything, people's minds are. guns CAUSE absolutely nothing. either bullets kill people or people kill people, pick one. quote] Wow! That is the dumbest thing I heard since Captain Caveman. Did you really just say Guns causes nothing? Let me guess -the bullets are magically shot out of thin air at 900 feet per second- and nothing is causing that projection. I guess that in your illogical world the laws of science cease to exist. However, on Earth - you know what Earth is right- a bullet is harmless without a gun. See you may not know this, but you can even pick a bullet up in your bare hands to examine it. Wow what a thought. However, and this may be a shock to you, but stay with me, when you fire a bullet out of a gun, it may be just a tiny bit dangerous. STILL wrong all the way around. when you can come up with an instance of a gun harming someone, all by itself, with NO ONE touching it in any way, you will have a point. until you can, there is no merit whatsoever to your thesis. a gun has NEVER killed anyone. the human WITH the gun did. no similarity whatsoever
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 15, 2008 9:16:14 GMT -6
I can see that you didnt read the entire post, I have maintained through 4 pages now that people HAVE the right to own guns, Comprende? However, I also think that some restrictions are needed. So I am assuming you want to apply that scenario to the US? Okay lets give EVERYONE a gun - from the mentally retarded to the convicted felons to the 16 year old gangbangers. You did say everyone, right? Want to rethink the bs your sprewing? don't be daft. reality lad. we already have more than sufficient restrictions and regulations on the books If we have more than sufficient restrictions and regulations on the books, please explain how guns are still falling into the hands of criminals.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 15, 2008 14:45:35 GMT -6
Question to Bob: What does the law say in California with regards to the use of a gun for home self defense? Or are there more local laws which apply?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 15, 2008 20:25:55 GMT -6
Question to Bob: What does the law say in California with regards to the use of a gun for home self defense? Or are there more local laws which apply? Local laws are generally preempted by those of the state. To use deadly force in California, you must be in fear of your life and unable to flee.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 15, 2008 20:51:24 GMT -6
For example, a national database that tracks the exact gun you buy just might be helpful. That wasnt so hard, now was it? Such a database is currently in place and has been for years.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 16, 2008 15:30:54 GMT -6
To use deadly force in California, you must be in fear of your life and unable to flee. Thanks. One wonders, are you considered to be "able to flee" from inside your own home?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 16, 2008 17:09:32 GMT -6
To use deadly force in California, you must be in fear of your life and unable to flee. Thanks. One wonders, are you considered to be "able to flee" from inside your own home? Generally speaking, if you use deadly force inside your own home, you're not going to be prosecuted, no matter what the law says. District attorneys are elected officials, and cops are sympathetic to such actions. California may not have a castle doctrine de jure, but it sure has one de facto.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 16, 2008 19:16:04 GMT -6
California may not have a castle doctrine de jure, but it sure has one de facto. Castle Doctrine. That's the phrase I was looking for. Video vidi visum.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 16, 2008 19:48:55 GMT -6
guns are not the root and cause of anything, people's minds are. guns CAUSE absolutely nothing. either bullets kill people or people kill people, pick one. quote] Wow! That is the dumbest thing I heard since Captain Caveman. Did you really just say Guns causes nothing? Let me guess -the bullets are magically shot out of thin air at 900 feet per second- and nothing is causing that projection. I guess that in your illogical world the laws of science cease to exist. However, on Earth - you know what Earth is right- a bullet is harmless without a gun. See you may not know this, but you can even pick a bullet up in your bare hands to examine it. Wow what a thought. However, and this may be a shock to you, but stay with me, when you fire a bullet out of a gun, it may be just a tiny bit dangerous. STILL wrong all the way around. when you can come up with an instance of a gun harming someone, all by itself, with NO ONE touching it in any way, you will have a point. until you can, there is no merit whatsoever to your thesis. a gun has NEVER killed anyone. the human WITH the gun did. no similarity whatsoever That is the intellect rivaled only by garden tools. Why do you suppose a prosecuter will hold up a gun and blantly tell the court "this is the murder weapon"?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 16, 2008 20:48:56 GMT -6
]That is the intellect rivaled only by garden tools. Why do you suppose a prosecuter will hold up a gun and blantly tell the court "this is the murder weapon"? Because it's true? When the prosecutor says "this is the defendant," get back to me. Talk about garden tools. Or just plain tools. ;D By the way, I mentioned in a previous post that the database you proposed is in place and has existed for many years. No reply about that from you yet. I've noticed you selectively reply.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 16, 2008 21:22:23 GMT -6
By the way, I mentioned in a previous post that the database you proposed is in place and has existed for many years. No reply about that from you yet.
I've noticed you selectively reply. [/quote]
Is the database cross-referenced with the permits and licences? Are you really going to tell me the NCIS is beyond any improvements and the system is pinpoint perfect? If so, what else is there to say?
Of course, there never be a gun as a defendant (well maybe in civil court). Could the DC snipers have killed without using a gun? Yes, its possible they could have used a crossbow for example. However, I am sure that you would agree that a gun can be fairly dangerous. Would you let a 1 yr old- who has no knowledge of how guns work or how to pull the trigger- play with a loaded .38. Of course not. Yet in this case, since the child didn't what he was doing with the gun, it stands to reason the gun caused the shooting.
In conclusion, our opinions differ greatly on the subject. Further debate is probably not going to change either of our minds. So, what do you say we call this draw and be done with it?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 17, 2008 8:50:42 GMT -6
Of course the students etc had a right to defend themselves. Howeve, my point is that the presence of guns is the root and cause of the problem. If guns were properly regulated and controled, there would be no need for the students even worry about self defense right guns are not the root and cause of anything, people's minds are. guns CAUSE absolutely nothing. either bullets kill people or people kill people, pick one. quote] Wow! That is the dumbest thing I heard since Captain Caveman. Did you really just say Guns causes nothing? Let me guess -the bullets are magically shot out of thin air at 900 feet per second- and nothing is causing that projection. I guess that in your illogical world the laws of science cease to exist. However, on Earth - you know what Earth is right- a bullet is harmless without a gun. See you may not know this, but you can even pick a bullet up in your bare hands to examine it. Wow what a thought. However, and this may be a shock to you, but stay with me, when you fire a bullet out of a gun, it may be just a tiny bit dangerous. :DI cannot believe you fell for this, hook, line and sinker you even actually tried to explain that a bullet cannot be fired with out a gun AND with out any acknowledgement the SOMEBODY had to load, point and fire the gun. NOTHING. I am truly embaressed for you. hence, my statement stands, either bullets kill people or people do. pick one
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 17, 2008 8:55:17 GMT -6
guns are not the root and cause of anything, people's minds are. guns CAUSE absolutely nothing. either bullets kill people or people kill people, pick one. guns are not regulated?? gimme a break here show me one other consumer product that requires the FBI's permmission to purchase. just one 20,000 state, local and fedaral guns laws are in place, and yet still someone falls throught the cracks. that is why students, or anybody for that matter should have at least the option to defend themselves. Did you say 'someone falls through the crack"? In case you have not forgotten, there are thousands of people shot every year by guns. That must be a wide crack However you tell me how criminals are getting the guns? Consider these four scenarios A) Criminals stole them from people who use them lawfully B) Somebody else brought the guns for the criminals C) A person who uses them lawfully gets fed up with life, work, etc. and goes on a shooting sphree D) Criminals are able to walk into a store and buy a gun with maybe a stolen creds or cash to a struggling owner. Who knows? Like I said above, if even one is true, don't you think it just might be worth finding a solution ? See the four it's been estimated that there are 80 million gun owners in the united states. less than 10,000 used guns criminally resulting in death. not a pleasant statistic but still basically a crack. sure, find a solution, let's hear it (also it's not 42,000 either)
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 17, 2008 9:00:08 GMT -6
never said there was no place for some restrictions. I said, and still you can't grasp this, I said there is not a "need" to explain to you or anybody why I want a particular, legal item. would you like me to come into your life and decide for you what I think you "need" I rather doubt it You must have a hard time grasping basic English. I think I said a dozen times now that people should be allowed guns but restictions are needed. You finally acknowledged that we need restrictions and people can own guns. I think the fog may be finally starting to lift. Dude, this is a free country. if you feel the urge to buy a gun, you don't have to explain to me. I couldn't give 3 quarts of cat *deleted* what you do. However, my point - one that you are finally starting to see- is that before you get your gun there should be serious restrictions in place. For example, a national database that tracks the exact gun you buy just might be helpful. That wasnt so hard, now was it? now you are just twisting things around. one of your first posts said YOU did NOT understand why anybody NEEDS a gun that fires 90 rounds a minute. nobody has suggested NO restrictions may be needed, simply that no "need" exists to own a legal object. have you found that other consumer product that requires the FBI's permmission to buy? logic isn't exactly your forte is it?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 17, 2008 9:03:38 GMT -6
don't be daft. reality lad. we already have more than sufficient restrictions and regulations on the books If we have more than sufficient restrictions and regulations on the books, please explain how guns are still falling into the hands of criminals. again with over 20,000 guns already on the books we are all still waiting for that special law you have in mind that will prevent criminals from getting guns.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 17, 2008 9:16:48 GMT -6
By the way, I mentioned in a previous post that the database you proposed is in place and has existed for many years. No reply about that from you yet. I've noticed you selectively reply. it stands to reason the gun caused the shooting. [/quote] unbelievable I guess if the child was playing behind a parked car, out of sight, with no knowledge of how cars work, then if somebody got in and backed up it would stand to reason in your world that the car caused the accident. of course you are not interested in other comparisons because that would require an answer from you about other deadly aspects of our lives. stay on topic LT, stay on topic. after all when pregnant rhinos are allowed, only outlaws will have pregnant rhinos. like Cali said, you are entertaining
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 17, 2008 10:42:51 GMT -6
oooopps, it is supposed to say "outlawd" not allowed not quite so funny when you have to explain/correct it, huh?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 17, 2008 17:12:55 GMT -6
like Cali said, you are entertaining He's surrendered to me, LTDC. He's all yers. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 17, 2008 22:07:21 GMT -6
like Cali said, you are entertaining He's surrendered to me, LTDC. He's all yers. ;D I didn't surrender anything. However, it is rather pointless to continue a discussion that neither side is gaining any ground. Fact is that you have zero chance of changing my view point, and vice versa. However, if you want to continue discussing guns and their impact, we most certainly can.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 17, 2008 22:16:40 GMT -6
guns are not the root and cause of anything, people's minds are. guns CAUSE absolutely nothing. either bullets kill people or people kill people, pick one. quote] Wow! That is the dumbest thing I heard since Captain Caveman. Did you really just say Guns causes nothing? Let me guess -the bullets are magically shot out of thin air at 900 feet per second- and nothing is causing that projection. I guess that in your illogical world the laws of science cease to exist. However, on Earth - you know what Earth is right- a bullet is harmless without a gun. See you may not know this, but you can even pick a bullet up in your bare hands to examine it. Wow what a thought. However, and this may be a shock to you, but stay with me, when you fire a bullet out of a gun, it may be just a tiny bit dangerous. :DI cannot believe you fell for this, hook, line and sinker you even actually tried to explain that a bullet cannot be fired with out a gun AND with out any acknowledgement the SOMEBODY had to load, point and fire the gun. NOTHING. I am truly embaressed for you. hence, my statement stands, either bullets kill people or people do. pick one And you are failing to see that the bullet cannot kill with the gun. At the point the gun is fired, where is the bullet? It is inside the gun. Tell me, without the gun, how can a bullet kill? So in your backwards way of thinking, it would be okay to regulate the bullets, but not the guns? That makes about as much sense as urinating on an electric fence.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 17, 2008 22:22:24 GMT -6
Did you say 'someone falls through the crack"? In case you have not forgotten, there are thousands of people shot every year by guns. That must be a wide crack However you tell me how criminals are getting the guns? Consider these four scenarios A) Criminals stole them from people who use them lawfully B) Somebody else brought the guns for the criminals C) A person who uses them lawfully gets fed up with life, work, etc. and goes on a shooting sphree D) Criminals are able to walk into a store and buy a gun with maybe a stolen creds or cash to a struggling owner. Who knows? Like I said above, if even one is true, don't you think it just might be worth finding a solution ? See the four it's been estimated that there are 80 million gun owners in the united states. less than 10,000 used guns criminally resulting in death. not a pleasant statistic but still basically a crack. sure, find a solution, let's hear it (also it's not 42,000 either) Ok. 10,000 guns used in death. That does not even account for the nonfatal shootings, or the armed robberies. Even if we do not include those two, do you think that there might be a problem if 10,000 guns that were probably originally brought legally - remember enforced by the ATF- are falling into illegal hands. Doesn't that suggest that there might be a problem with the current regulations and restrictions?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 17, 2008 22:24:29 GMT -6
You must have a hard time grasping basic English. I think I said a dozen times now that people should be allowed guns but restictions are needed. You finally acknowledged that we need restrictions and people can own guns. I think the fog may be finally starting to lift. Dude, this is a free country. if you feel the urge to buy a gun, you don't have to explain to me. I couldn't give 3 quarts of cat *deleted* what you do. However, my point - one that you are finally starting to see- is that before you get your gun there should be serious restrictions in place. For example, a national database that tracks the exact gun you buy just might be helpful. That wasnt so hard, now was it? now you are just twisting things around. one of your first posts said YOU did NOT understand why anybody NEEDS a gun that fires 90 rounds a minute. nobody has suggested NO restrictions may be needed, simply that no "need" exists to own a legal object. have you found that other consumer product that requires the FBI's permmission to buy? logic isn't exactly your forte is it? Your use of double negatives shows improper english. Learn to write clearly and I will address your point.
|
|