Man kills wife while trying to install Satelite TV

[quote name='pittpizza']That all makes sense, though you skipped a couple hundred steps (depending on how much you want to split it up) but in this situation, no gun = no death. So yeah, the gun, bullet, gun powder, firing pin, whatever you want to call it, killed her. If the guy had used a drill, no kill.

Gun = dead wife
drill = no dead wife

Get it?

Are you implying that my position is that guns, on thier own, (an inanimate object) could kill somebody, and should therefore be charged for it? I don't think you are but you seem to be confused about what I was saying.

Automobiles, like almost every other "tool" besides guns, have a useful purpose outside that of KILLING PEOPLE. And your statement about how tools are invented to make life easier doesn't really apply to guns; it's more appropriate to say that this "tool" makes death easier. To counter-argue w/ myself, there is a point to be made that guns make life easier for those using it, perhaps to hunt for food or somethign. But surely this doesnt apply to handguns, machineguns or rocketlaunchers.

Again, without the gun we wouldn't be having this conversation, though I do agree that without a really really stupid husband, we wouldn't be having this conversation either. But to equate cars to guns, c'mon.[/quote]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but aside from how to charge an inanimate object, yes, I believed that your stance was "People don't kill people, guns kill people".

In relation to your argument, you say that guns as a tool make death easier. I agree and disagree, and it's purely based on who is the attacker and who is the defender.

The attacker wants to take life, the defender wants to protect it. As a weapon, a gun is designed to take life, I can't argue that. However it is not the nature of the weapon that needs to be argued against, but rather its purpose:

In reality, there is no absolute reason to own a gun, other than to hunt for food. None. Not even for protection. In such a world safety would be an assurance and reliability to all. However we do not live in such a world.

Thus, we own guns, for protection as an American right, for recreation as a privilege. Rights will always come before privileges. The above idiot failed heavily at both, and as a criminal, will be subjected to a second-tier set of rights under the justice system (and yes, criminals do not have full rights), and lose his gun rights as well as his freedom (as if the loss of his love wasn't enough).

Though their use is less frequent than cars, they are just as necessary to civil life than anything else. Though you may not drive it to work, use it to hunt for food, or cloth yourself in it, it's availability in your home allows you to secure your livelihood when others come to take it, be it food, possessions, or your life.

Do these things really happen that often? Of course not. When my car breaks down I may lose my job for being late, but it is highly unlikely. When I cannot pay for food will I starve to death? No, I can always receive help from friends and family, and have some time until I can get back onto my feet again.

And when someone breaks into my home, to steal my things, attack my family, or just eliminate witnesses. The police are just a phone call away, and instead of taking days to repair my car, or earn my food, they will be at my home in 5 minutes to handle the situation.

5 Minutes is a short time. But calling the cops (necessary though it is) has given away my position, and though I won't engage them purposely on my own, maybe they will just take my things and leave, hopefully.

Or, they will try to take jewelry from the bedroom, or one day enter my children's rooms. Why would they enter a hostile situation unprepared? Why wouldn't they come armed themselves? 5 minutes isn't that long of a time period, but is it really?

A gun will never be used as frequently as a car.
A gun will never be as necessary as a job or food.

But when the time comes (God forbid), you will value a gun more than anything in the world for the shortest period of time before going back to living your life normally, and God willing, you will never have to use it again.

When things are right in the world, you will never have to use a gun.
When things go wrong, you'll only have to use it once, and live to be able to put it away.

Finally, yes, without guns we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, I'd rather talk about idiots misusing guns than good people losing their lives because they couldn't defend themselves.

If you want to break it down even further, and be completely unpolitically correct about my stance:

"I'd rather see Darwinism than Murder".

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Finally, yes, without guns we wouldn't be having this conversation.[/quote]

HotShotX, I agree with you everywhere except this statement.

We'd still be having the conversation, but without guns the conversation would be about some poor guy who talked about how gun ownership could have prevented his tragic loss at the hands of criminals.
 
[quote name='camoor']HotShotX, I agree with you everywhere except this statement.

We'd still be having the conversation, but without guns the conversation would be about some poor guy who talked about how gun ownership could have prevented his tragic loss at the hands of criminals.[/quote]

Agreed. Which is why I followed up with this statement:

[quote name='HotShotX']Finally, yes, without guns we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, I'd rather talk about idiots misusing guns than good people losing their lives because they couldn't defend themselves.[/QUOTE]

~HotShotX
 
Why don't people have good old fashion fist fights anymore? Usually, the winners laughs and grunts and losers runs away crying...

[quote name='VanillaGorilla']But HotShot, surely, without guns, criminals wouldn't have them either, and thus, we wouldn't NEED to defend ourselves!!!

:roll:[/quote]
 
[quote name='hero101']Why don't people have good old fashion fist fights anymore? Usually, the winners laughs and grunts and losers runs away crying...[/quote]

Because kids know when to stop throwing punches, or at least have a parent come and break it up.

Adults don't know when to stop, so to compensate they carry additional power (knife, gun, etc.).

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Because kids know when to stop throwing punches, or at least have a parent come and break it up.

Adults don't know when to stop, so to compensate they carry additional power (knife, gun, etc.).

~HotShotX[/quote]Which reminds me, we should ban knives too, since those things kill people too. Actually, didn't Mama Cass choke on a Ham Sandwich? LET'S BAN THOSE THINGS!
 
[quote name='integralsmatic']Is 150+ channels worth the death of your wife?[/QUOTE]

If you pause to think, you'd realize that that answer is inextricably contingent upon the type of channels being offered... and, of course, the quality of the wife.
 
[quote name='pacifickarma']If you pause to think, you'd realize that that answer is inextricably contingent upon the type of channels being offered... and, of course, the quality of the wife.[/quote]

Like are they HD?
 
Sweet baby Jesus, just when I thought HotShot owned the topic, he repos it and owns it again.

One other point I'd like to add to HotShot's brilliant piece, in response to pittpizza (I like you bro, but I just can't agree with your stance on this topic)'s claim that guns serve no purpose other than to kill or threats to kill, wound, maim etc.

While they certainly do act as a defense tool/mechanism, deterrent, method of de-escalating a silutation etc. simply by being exhibited or drawn, there is such a far more critical purpose they serve, again along the lines of escalation neutralization or "nuclear stalemate" etc.

They serve to keep the government just barely honest, simply by being in the hands of citizens who would fight for their rights. They allow the people to enforce and protect our rights, from the government that would take them away. Make no mistake of that, it is in every government's interest to absolutely control the rights of its citizens. Without the 2nd Amendment there would be no Bill of Rights, and we would certainly have even less of the vestige of freedom that we have now.

It doesn't matter how benevolent a government may appear, none may be trusted with a disarmed/defenseless population. See the Weimar Republic/pre-WW2 Germany, Bolshevik Revolution/early Soviet Union, etc.
 
[quote name='karkyco']Without the 2nd Amendment there would be no Bill of Rights, and we would certainly have even less of the vestige of freedom that we have now.

[/quote]And yet, that dude in the CAG Vs forum with the "Give me liberty or give me death!" signature is probably extremely anti-guns.
 
[quote name='karkyco']Sweet baby Jesus, just when I thought HotShot owned the topic, he repos it and owns it again.

One other point I'd like to add to HotShot's brilliant piece, in response to pittpizza (I like you bro, but I just can't agree with your stance on this topic)'s claim that guns serve no purpose other than to kill or threats to kill, wound, maim etc.

While they certainly do act as a defense tool/mechanism, deterrent, method of de-escalating a silutation etc. simply by being exhibited or drawn, there is such a far more critical purpose they serve, again along the lines of escalation neutralization or "nuclear stalemate" etc.

They serve to keep the government just barely honest, simply by being in the hands of citizens who would fight for their rights. They allow the people to enforce and protect our rights, from the government that would take them away. Make no mistake of that, it is in every government's interest to absolutely control the rights of its citizens. Without the 2nd Amendment there would be no Bill of Rights, and we would certainly have even less of the vestige of freedom that we have now.

It doesn't matter how benevolent a government may appear, none may be trusted with a disarmed/defenseless population. See the Weimar Republic/pre-WW2 Germany, Bolshevik Revolution/early Soviet Union, etc.[/quote]I'm not going to re-hash one of my posts in the VS forum, but needless to say, our having guns does not prevent the government from doing jack. It may have at one time, when the fire power was more even, but not any more. A bunch of people with rifles, shotguns, and hand guns, is nothing compared to the US government's arsenal. If they truly wanted to do something, we couldn't stop them, not anymore. Therefore, i propose that we are and have been disarmed for quite some time.
 
[quote name='camoor']So in your world do the police and homeowners use guns exclusively to kill people?[/QUOTE]


I don't know what world he's in, but my world is New York, and yes that's what police and homeowners use guns for, to kill people, you must live somewhere that hunting is prevalent, because that's about the only other use, and that is killing, just not of the people variety...
The old guns don't kill people cliche is overused, I mean sure if you REALLY wanted to kill someone you'd find another way, but there are a LOT of accidental deaths that can solely be placed on guns, and this is one of them, you can't even argue that, it's obvious...
-Goatman
 
[quote name='karkyco']
They serve to keep the government just barely honest, simply by being in the hands of citizens who would fight for their rights. They allow the people to enforce and protect our rights, from the government that would take them away.[/QUOTE]

Where the fuck do you live?
Nicaragua circa 1980??
-Goatman
 
Yeah at this point the only reason to own a handgun is the off chance that you would have time to get it out, load it, and shoot an intruder. Defense of your home or land. I don't see myself fending off the government. Especially since they banned standard issued military weapons like assault rifles and grenades.

My brother put it best.

"I shouldn't have a gun. I mean, if I had a gun I'd have to shoot something. Right? Right?" Followed by maniacal laughter.
 
[quote name='Apossum']This is like that Simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun and uses it for everything.

Only, this is really sad and dumbfounding.[/quote]

[quote name='GuilewasNK']This reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons when Homer bought a gun and used it as an all purpose tool around the house.

This is tragic, but really stupid.[/quote]


Right.
 
Thank you goatindaruffness and JoleitJake for proving my point.

Guns purposes is to kill or threaten to kill, and that is it. End of story. Knives (like cars) have a seperate and independent utility. A use other than "to kill or threaten to kill people."

JJ is totally right here; they're illegal in the UK and in France, and yet their governments are afraid of the people, not vice-versa where their people are afraid of the government (like in the US). So having a populace armed to the teeth serves no purpose other than to let them kill and fear each other. What better excuse to have a large police force with guns could there be?

The way to fight government oppression is with a citizenry that has a sense of personal pride, and an education, WHO VOTE. The way to oppress is to enstill the citzenry with fear (lets give em guns to fear!), and shackle them with debt.

[quote name='HotShotX']Perhaps I misunderstood, but aside from how to charge an inanimate object, yes, I believed that your stance was "People don't kill people, guns kill people".

In relation to your argument, you say that guns as a tool make death easier. I agree and disagree, and it's purely based on who is the attacker and who is the defender.

The attacker wants to take life, the defender wants to protect it. As a weapon, a gun is designed to take life, I can't argue that. However it is not the nature of the weapon that needs to be argued against, but rather its purpose:

In reality, there is no absolute reason to own a gun, other than to hunt for food. None. Not even for protection. In such a world safety would be an assurance and reliability to all. However we do not live in such a world.

Thus, we own guns, for protection as an American right, for recreation as a privilege. Rights will always come before privileges. The above idiot failed heavily at both, and as a criminal, will be subjected to a second-tier set of rights under the justice system (and yes, criminals do not have full rights), and lose his gun rights as well as his freedom (as if the loss of his love wasn't enough).

Though their use is less frequent than cars, they are just as necessary to civil life than anything else. Though you may not drive it to work, use it to hunt for food, or cloth yourself in it, it's availability in your home allows you to secure your livelihood when others come to take it, be it food, possessions, or your life.

Do these things really happen that often? Of course not. When my car breaks down I may lose my job for being late, but it is highly unlikely. When I cannot pay for food will I starve to death? No, I can always receive help from friends and family, and have some time until I can get back onto my feet again.

And when someone breaks into my home, to steal my things, attack my family, or just eliminate witnesses. The police are just a phone call away, and instead of taking days to repair my car, or earn my food, they will be at my home in 5 minutes to handle the situation.

5 Minutes is a short time. But calling the cops (necessary though it is) has given away my position, and though I won't engage them purposely on my own, maybe they will just take my things and leave, hopefully.

Or, they will try to take jewelry from the bedroom, or one day enter my children's rooms. Why would they enter a hostile situation unprepared? Why wouldn't they come armed themselves? 5 minutes isn't that long of a time period, but is it really?

A gun will never be used as frequently as a car.
A gun will never be as necessary as a job or food.

But when the time comes (God forbid), you will value a gun more than anything in the world for the shortest period of time before going back to living your life normally, and God willing, you will never have to use it again.

When things are right in the world, you will never have to use a gun.
When things go wrong, you'll only have to use it once, and live to be able to put it away.

Finally, yes, without guns we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, I'd rather talk about idiots misusing guns than good people losing their lives because they couldn't defend themselves.

If you want to break it down even further, and be completely unpolitically correct about my stance:

"I'd rather see Darwinism than Murder".

~HotShotX[/quote]

My original premise was that it is as retarded to say "Guns don't kill people...(insert pretty much anything here)" as it is to say "Guns don't kill people, bullets, or gun powder, or brain trauma etc... kill people." Of course I don't beleive that guns have minds of their own and just go around shooting people like the toys in Toy Story. C'mon man, give me more credit than that. Of course someone has to be controlling the gun.

Answer me this question Hotshot, yes or no: "Do you agree that guns make it easier for people to kill people?"

Your paragraph that begins with "In reality," is confounded and confusing. Did you mean to say "In a perfect world..." That would make more sense.

The rest of your post relies on the assumption that it is good to own a gun for protection. Did you know that it is more likely for a gun owner to have their gun used against them than it is for them to successfully use it for self defense?

Do you know anybody who has killed someone in self defense? My guess is that your answer is "No." I'd bet you don't even know anybody that knows anybody that used a gun in self defense. Hell, I'd even go so far to say that nobody in your entire myspace network even knows anybody that killed (or threatened to) someone in self defense." If I was robbed, and I'm probably in the minority here, but I would let them rob me with no regret whatsoever. (It's illegal in most states to kill a theif since they didn't threaten injury or bodily harm, so I'll stick to just robberies, where the response of deadly force is legal.) I don't need to kill a robber. I'd let him rob me. I wouldnt want the psych baggage that comes with having even a justified death on my hands (read Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky and see what Raskolnikov goes through if you think there isn't any). Obviously this dude needs my money more than me. I'd let him take it instead of risking my life to take his.

A psychopathic killer is a different story, because there their end is to kill, not to steal. These are so few and far between, and follow patterns of preying on the unarmed that it is really a completely negligible risk and moot to this discussion.

For every story of someone successfully and appropriately using a gun to defend their life or the lives of others, there are ten about accidents, mishaps, and tragedies.

My point is that a gun owner is in much more peril (and so are his kids) than the non-gun owner. Which pretty much totally blows your whole point to shit.

But yeah, at least we can agree that guns don't act like the toys in Toy Story.

BTW, I'm sick and tired of people, who have never even laid eyes on the second amendment, thinking we have a RIGHT to own a gun. NO WE DO NOT! READ THE DAMN THING:

[SIZE=+1]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [/SIZE]

The entire context for the entire amendment is in the context of a militia. "Militia" today, would translate into "police force." So it does give the right TO THE POLICE to have guns.

How many American lives is having an armed to the teeth citizenry worth to you? IMO, even one life lost is too many. Look at the stats about how many gun deaths occur in countries where you are not allowed to own guns, then compare them to the gun deaths (intentional or accidental) in the US. How many lives is it worth?

FWIW, I'm enjoying this debate and glad we can keep it civil. Sorry to bring my vs. mentality to the OT, maybe a mod ought to move it.
 
This is just stupid, I've shot more bullets than I can count and I've never killed anything. Some people just like guns and they're responsible with them. Setting up targets and shooting them is FUN. When I was a kid I messed around with bows and arrows too but again never killed anything, except maybe a tree ... maybe you should go give it a hug. Stop being so serious over sheer stupidity ... just because stupid people get their hands on guns and do stupid things with them doesn't mean the rest of us have to suffer. It's the same with video games just because stupid people let their kids play Resident Evil 4 at the age of 5 doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to play it. Ban stupidity.
 
Far as I'm concerned, guns won't "stop the escalation of violence", they just feed it more. The idea that someone breaking into your home will stop dead in their tracks at the sight of your 9mm is ludicrous... you seriously think they aren't armed as well? Great way to get yourself shot, unless you planned on using that thing. And speaking of...

Back when my uncle was a teenager, he snuck out of the house one night, and crept back in the early morning. My grandfather had heard him sneaking around, and assuming that all the kids were home in bed, thought the sounds were from a burglar.

These are the kinds of situations where handguns get used most often, when someone makes the wrong assumption and it costs the life of a family member. You go hunting? Great, get a nice rifle for yourself. But don't kid yourself thinking that a handgun will keep you safe.
 
[quote name='Dream to Dream']... But don't kid yourself thinking that a handgun will keep you safe.[/QUOTE]

No, knowing how to use one will, besides shotguns work much better. :roll:
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I'm not going to re-hash one of my posts in the VS forum, but needless to say, our having guns does not prevent the government from doing jack. It may have at one time, when the fire power was more even, but not any more. A bunch of people with rifles, shotguns, and hand guns, is nothing compared to the US government's arsenal. If they truly wanted to do something, we couldn't stop them, not anymore. Therefore, i propose that we are and have been disarmed for quite some time.[/quote]

Yes we have lost the balance of power, but that doesn't mean a basically armed militia is no longer a deterrent. Look at guerilla/rebel fighting groups around the world and you will see many that can and have stalemated much more powerful occupying or sovereign forces. Hell, look at the insurgents in Iraq, the Chechens, the Afghanis, the FARC etc.
 
[quote name='goatindaruffness']Where the fuck do you live?
Nicaragua circa 1980??
-Goatman[/quote]

Close - Los Angeles.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



Hey PP, I'm glad we're keeping it civil, and of course I've read and know the 2nd Amendment. And in my opinion it simply does not frame the entire context of said amendment around the militia clause, in fact there should be a semi colon after a free State and not a comma. It makes absolutely no sense if you attempt to place the entire amendment in the context of a militia. I see it as two distinct points - 1, a need for a well regulated militia/military/police force, and 2 the right of the people, aka US citizens, to keep and bear arms.

This is not some bullshit living document that can or should be reinterpreted to suit domestic or foreign policy in some sort of Orwellian 1984 doublespeak. You need to imagine things from the frame of mind of the patriots, the founding fathers who created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They most assuredly intended for the common man to keep and bear arms. For protection from the wilds, hostile natives, and foreign and domestic threats to their newly found freedom and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is as it should always be.

It's fine that you wouldn't mind getting robbed, but no thanks. Just as you've seen enough cases of accidental gun deaths due to careless or untrained gun owners, I've seen far too many cases of victims being murdered after fully complying with their robbers/assailants. No thanks, that's not how I'm going out.

Do I know of individuals who have had to draw and even use their weapons in self defense? Yes, not even counting the various law enforcement and military individuals I know. Here is just one, does it count since he's an assistant DA? My friend, said assistant DA was on a ride along with 2 detectives, in the back seat of an unmarked/undercover police vehicle. He has a CCW (concealed weapons permit) for the city of LA. They rolled up on these two vatos aka gangbangers hanging out on bikes, when they spotted said vehicle and new it was cops, one took off and the other actually pedalled up to the passenger side and started to draw a handgun from his wasteband. Before the officer in the front could react, my friend had pulled his piece and fired through his car window and dropped the perp. No training beyond basic gun safety. His boss was PISSED because we definitely don't want DA's going around playing lawman and shooting people, but he was 100% in the right.

I've personally deterred criminals and crimes from taking place by being armed. Sure, the perps probably went on to easier, unarmed pickings, but that's the point. It's a deterent long before it's a lethal weapon.
 
In modern day America, we have guns so that we can protect ourselves from the scum of the Earth, dangerous criminals. Take the guns out of the hands of "everyone", and regular, law abiding people are defenseless from thugs and gangbangers and criminals who, just like with "illegal" drugs, find ways to get them anyways.

I would really like someone to do a study on where most anti-gun activists live. I highly doubt that if those people lived in dangerous areas of the country, where owning a gun is a legitimate way of protecting yourself, they would be against the right to protect yourself.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']My original premise was that it is as retarded to say "Guns don't kill people...(insert pretty much anything here)" as it is to say "Guns don't kill people, bullets, or gun powder, or brain trauma etc... kill people." Of course I don't beleive that guns have minds of their own and just go around shooting people like the toys in Toy Story. C'mon man, give me more credit than that. Of course someone has to be controlling the gun.

Answer me this question Hotshot, yes or no: "Do you agree that guns make it easier for people to kill people?"[/quote]

Guns make it easier to MURDER people, they do not make it easier to kill them. Someone who has made the conscious decision to murder another being will carry it out, regardless of the method they use, be it gun, car, fire, baseball bat, etc.

However, in the case of "killing" another being, guns do not make it easier. Carelessness and ignorance make it easier for the gun to be accessed and used inappropriately, but at the same time that same carelessness can cause someone to fall off a roof, to misjudge position when switching lanes, running a red light, etc.. All can result in death, but all can also result in minor injuries, the threat level is based on the level of carelessness contributed to the act.

Your paragraph that begins with "In reality," is confounded and confusing. Did you mean to say "In a perfect world..." That would make more sense.
Click to expand...

I did, but I felt that using "In a perfect world" would be rather cliched and give away the direction I was going with the statement.

The rest of your post relies on the assumption that it is good to own a gun for protection. Did you know that it is more likely for a gun owner to have their gun used against them than it is for them to successfully use it for self defense?
Click to expand...

These statistics are pulled from people who exercise their Second Amendment rights to own a weapon but then fail to take it any further in regards to firearms proficiency, safety, etc. They believe that gun ownership is what protects them when it is gun training that saves their lives. These people fail to spend a regular amount of time at the gun range, and when the crisis finally comes they fumble every step of the way, and give away not only their position, but the possession of their weapon and thus, are no threat to the enemy.

Do you know anybody who has killed someone in self defense? My guess is that your answer is "No." I'd bet you don't even know anybody that knows anybody that used a gun in self defense. Hell, I'd even go so far to say that nobody in your entire myspace network even knows anybody that killed (or threatened to) someone in self defense." If I was robbed, and I'm probably in the minority here, but I would let them rob me with no regret whatsoever. (It's illegal in most states to kill a theif since they didn't threaten injury or bodily harm, so I'll stick to just robberies, where the response of deadly force is legal.) I don't need to kill a robber. I'd let him rob me. I wouldnt want the psych baggage that comes with having even a justified death on my hands (read Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky and see what Raskolnikov goes through if you think there isn't any). Obviously this dude needs my money more than me. I'd let him take it instead of risking my life to take his.
Click to expand...

My father served in the United States Army for the majority of his life, has fought in at least one war, and yes, has taken the life of another human being. My father made these sacrifices and worked his ass off to raise my sister and I and take care of my mother before they divorced after he retired from active duty. My father made these sacrifices so that one day I would not have to do the same and could live as a civilian.

Also, I don't use MySpace.

As for the robbery, I agree, property is not worth taking life over, it is however, worth equating force over as long as it does not go beyond hand to hand. If armed robbers break into my home, they can take whatever they want while I call the police. However, if they try to enter my bedroom or the bedroom of my children, I will be breaking out every damn weapon in the house, and those robbers will not be leaving alive if they threaten my family.

You're right, it is illegal to kill someone for stealing, but it is stupid to believe that stealing is all they will do if they try to enter your bedroom. Should that take place, you had better be armed, or else instead of just taking valuables they'll hold you at gunpoint while they have fun with your wife.

A psychopathic killer is a different story, because there their end is to kill, not to steal. These are so few and far between, and follow patterns of preying on the unarmed that it is really a completely negligible risk and moot to this discussion.
Click to expand...

Given the string of campus shootings lately, I'd say this is much more relevant to this discussion than you're giving credit for. Some schools in fact, have permitted students who have concealed carry licenses to carry guns on campus (a public campus in Utah allows this). At most at my campus, I can only have a gun locked away in my car.

For every story of someone successfully and appropriately using a gun to defend their life or the lives of others, there are ten about accidents, mishaps, and tragedies.
Click to expand...

Tragedies though they may be, many are the result of carelessness, negligence, and ignorance. Just as with driving drunk, when you misuse the privilege, you lose it. In the worst case, people lose their lives because of it, and it is the result of your own incompetence.

Again, it'd rather see Darwinism than Murder.

My point is that a gun owner is in much more peril (and so are his kids) than the non-gun owner. Which pretty much totally blows your whole point to shit.
Click to expand...

For something to blow my whole point to shit, you need to actually provide facts or at the very least some actual detail to your claim. How exactly is a gun owner in more peril than a non-gun owner? Last I checked, a gun owner wasn't fully at the mercy of his assailants. He might still fail, he might still die, but when the assailants just don't give a fuck, you know what he has that the non-gun owner doesn't?

A chance.

But yeah, at least we can agree that guns don't act like the toys in Toy Story.
Click to expand...

True, but that's because they're progressing more towards Small Soldiers.

BTW, I'm sick and tired of people, who have never even laid eyes on the second amendment, thinking we have a RIGHT to own a gun. NO WE DO NOT! READ THE DAMN THING:

[SIZE=+1]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [/SIZE]

The entire context for the entire amendment is in the context of a militia. "Militia" today, would translate into "police force." So it does give the right TO THE POLICE to have guns.
Click to expand...

The point of the Second Amendment was/is to lay grounds for the formation of a combative force in a time of crisis in order to repel the invaders. This amendment pertains more to the concept of the FORMATION of the militia rather than MAINTAINING a standing army (which is what we currently do via National Guard).

However, this applies to a much smaller scale, giving rights to individuals to defend themselves when under attack, a one-man militia, if you will. It's purpose is to justify the formation of force in crisis, not its maintenance.

How many American lives is having an armed to the teeth citizenry worth to you? IMO, even one life lost is too many. Look at the stats about how many gun deaths occur in countries where you are not allowed to own guns, then compare them to the gun deaths (intentional or accidental) in the US. How many lives is it worth?
Click to expand...

And there it is, the classic "Gun ownership will lead to chaos" argument. Owning a handgun is hardly "armed to the teeth", and there are laws in place in most states that limit the number of guns you can own. There are laws in ALL states that limit the amount of ammo you can carry under concealed carry (which is basically less than the number of bullets a cop carries).

Americans probably kill more Americans than any other cause of death in our country yearly. These are people that operate outside the law, and if you believe that gun control is going to have any affect on those numbers, you are right, because they will increase.

FWIW, I'm enjoying this debate and glad we can keep it civil. Sorry to bring my vs. mentality to the OT, maybe a mod ought to move it.
Click to expand...

As am I, it's nice to have an intelligent discussion on a particular issue.

Stick it in her pooper.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='pittpizza']The way to fight government oppression is with a citizenry that has a sense of personal pride, and an education, WHO VOTE. The way to oppress is to enstill the citzenry with fear (lets give em guns to fear!), and shackle them with debt. [/quote]

Yeah, because dictators never think to execute/jail all of the educated dissidents, turn elections into a sham process, and break the will of the remaining sheeple.
 
[quote name='karkyco']Yes we have lost the balance of power, but that doesn't mean a basically armed militia is no longer a deterrent. Look at guerilla/rebel fighting groups around the world and you will see many that can and have stalemated much more powerful occupying or sovereign forces. Hell, look at the insurgents in Iraq, the Chechens, the Afghanis, the FARC etc.[/quote]
I'd like to think that the American military/government is better armed than the Iraqi military/government.

Laser guided bombs > anything you have at home.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']In modern day America, we have guns so that we can protect ourselves from the scum of the Earth, dangerous criminals. Take the guns out of the hands of "everyone", and regular, law abiding people are defenseless from thugs and gangbangers and criminals who, just like with "illegal" drugs, find ways to get them anyways.

I would really like someone to do a study on where most anti-gun activists live. I highly doubt that if those people lived in dangerous areas of the country, where owning a gun is a legitimate way of protecting yourself, they would be against the right to protect yourself.[/quote]

It's even worse than that. The most rabid anti-gun and pro gun control politicians and celebs more often than not have CCW permits, such as Cali's 2 Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. Not to mention the ones that hire (or have the taxpayers pick up the tab for) plain clothes/off duty officers/security with CCW's. Total hypocrites.
 
everyone's focusing on the womans death and missing the real issue that isnt discussed in the article...

did he get that sumbitch installed in time to watch some wrasslin on tv or not??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top