Pro-gun article

[RedskinRat]

Any anti-gunner care to read this article and suggest a way that the Colorado couple NOT having a gun would have improved the outcome:

Intruder shot dead at home of rural Colorado prosecutor

DENVER (Reuters) - An intruder who forced his way into the mountain home of a Colorado deputy district attorney was shot dead by either the prosecutor or her police officer husband, authorities said on Tuesday.
The shooting, shortly before midnight Monday, comes two weeks after Colorado's prisons director was slain as he answered the front door to his home, and two days after the district attorney of Kaufman County in Texas was found shot to death with his wife.

[firstdown]

The story didn't say if the intruder was armed. If they had listened to Joe Biden they would have taken their double barrel shot gun and gone out side and shot to shots into the air to scare him off.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Sorry Rat, but you posting that article and then asking how NOT having a gun would improve the situation is pretty stupid.

I could post these articles and ask you to explain how HAVING a gun helped in these situations:

Father Accidentally Shoots Seven-Year-Old Son Outside Gun Store

A seven-year-old boy was killed over the weekend when a handgun his father
was trying to sell accidentally discharged ...

YCSO: 12-year-old accidentally shoots, kills father

...man dead after he was accidentally shot by his 12-year-old son...

Father Accidentally Shoots Son while Cleaning Shotgun

...10-year-old boy was accidentally shot in the head and killed Sunday
by his father at a home...

Startled Father Fatally Shoots His Daughter - NYTimes.com

A girl who jumped out of a closet and shouted, "Boo!" when her parents came home in the middle of the night was shot and killed by her own father...

That point aside, why would anyone object to OFFICERS OF THE LAW having guns? Given recent events in Colorodo, its possible, if not likely, that if the intruder was armed, he was there to carry out a hit on them BECAUSE they were officers of the law. And if it was just a random burglary, the intruder probably did not have a gun or intent to cause harm.

Ultimately, neither side is going to change the others' minds. Lets consider two scenarios:

Scenario 1 - A law is passed outlawing all guns
Criminals would still have them. So some innocent people would die because they couldnt defend themselves from criminals. But lives of innocent people would be saved by eliminating gun-related accidents caused by members of their own family. Its a matter of whose lives you want to save. People are going to die either way.


Scenario 2 - Magically, you can take guns away from EVERYONE, good guys and badguys alike
Criminals could still kill you with knives. But on the other hand, its hard to accidently stab someone to death with a knife. So we're in the same situation. People are going to die either way - its a matter of which group you want to save.

THE only way to stop violence is to get rid of all the violent people. Dont send them to prison for a few years. Dont allow them to be a part of society. Get rid of them.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Sorry Rat, but you posting that article and then asking how NOT having a gun would improve the situation is pretty stupid.

It's provocative, not stupid. If you live in a rural area calling cops isn't an option. But I got what I wanted, a gun debate. Yay!

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I could post these articles and ask you to explain how HAVING a gun helped in these situations:

Father Accidentally Shoots Seven-Year-Old Son Outside Gun Store



YCSO: 12-year-old accidentally shoots, kills father



Father Accidentally Shoots Son while Cleaning Shotgun



Startled Father Fatally Shoots His Daughter - NYTimes.com

I could post far more 'Saved by the Gun' stories, I chose not to. All those stories you posted are essential undisciplined gun owners.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

That point aside, why would anyone object to OFFICERS OF THE LAW having guns? Given recent events in Colorodo, its possible, if not likely, that if the intruder was armed, he was there to carry out a hit on them BECAUSE they were officers of the law.

I hope you're not suggesting that only Law Enforcement should be trusted with firearms?

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

And if it was just a random burglary, the intruder probably did not have a gun or intent to cause harm.

If you go onto someones property uninvited who decides the intent? I don't want to wait to see why someone is there before I react.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Ultimately, neither side is going to change the others' minds. Lets consider two scenarios:

Scenario 1 - A law is passed outlawing all guns
Criminals would still have them. So some innocent people would die because they couldnt defend themselves from criminals. But lives of innocent people would be saved by eliminating gun-related accidents caused by members of their own family. Its a matter of whose lives you want to save. People are going to die either way.


Scenario 2 - Magically, you can take guns away from EVERYONE, good guys and badguys alike
Criminals could still kill you with knives. But on the other hand, its hard to accidently stab someone to death with a knife. So we're in the same situation. People are going to die either way - its a matter of which group you want to save.

<Eric_Cartman_voice>"I *hate* scenarios......"

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

THE only way to stop violence is to get rid of all the violent people. Dont send them to prison for a few years. Dont allow them to be a part of society. Get rid of them.

Now you're touching on one of my favorite topics: Eugenics. We can breed certain anti-social traits out.
Mmmmmmmmmm.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

It's provocative, not stupid. If you live in a rural area calling cops isn't an option. But I got what I wanted, a gun debate. Yay!

I think its stupid. And i also think it would be stupid if i posted a thread taking the oppositite position. there are enough stories that could be told supporting either side of the issue, so using stories to support either position is stupid.

I could post far more 'Saved by the Gun' stories, I chose not to. All those stories you posted are essential undisciplined gun owners.

Well thats the thing. The laws dont say you have to be disciplined to buy a gun. A gun can be sold to any idiot. As a result innocent people (who didnt make the decision to purchase a gun without knowing how to use it) get hurt/killed.

The military and law enforcement agencies dont give their solders/officers guns without training them first. So why is it we think its acceptable to essentially let anyone buy a gun?

You should be required to have formal training, attend classes psych evaluations, etc. and get certification from some sort of independant agency before being allowed to purchase a gun. That would pretty much eliminate gun-related accidents.

I hope you're not suggesting that only Law Enforcement should be trusted with firearms?

As far as handguns go, I wouldnt have a problem with that. The only reason to own a handgun is to take another human life. Officers of the law are trained, not just in HOW to use their handguns, but WHEN to use them. They are trained, when possible, to shoot to injure, not kill. Unless civillian gun owners are given that same training, No, i dont think they should be allowed to have handguns.

If you go onto someones property uninvited who decides the intent? I don't want to wait to see why someone is there before I react.

This is related to my previous point. If someone breaks into your house and is just trying to steal something, warn them, but dont shoot them unless they express intent to cause you or your family bodily harm. Human life - even that of a non-violent thief - is worth more than property.

<Eric_Cartman_voice>"I *hate* scenarios......"

LOL... i was just trying to point out that, there's no "real" solution to gun-related violence. Pretty much any law that they could come up with would have flaws.

Now you're touching on one of my favorite topics: Eugenics. We can breed certain anti-social traits out.
Mmmmmmmmmm.

LOL, im not talking about Eugenics. I know certain traits can be passed on reproductively, but people still have choices in how they chose to act. For violent crime, i think there are two options - you either reform them or you execute them. Whats the point in allowing someone who deliberately and unlawfully took another persons life to be locked up for life? Youre going to think im joking but i dont think a Judge Dredd type system of justice would be entirely bad. If you catch someone in the act of committing a murder or rape, just shoot them right then and there and save society the time and effort of a trial, long prison term, appeals, etc.
that would be a pretty strong deterrent to committing violent crime too.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I think its stupid. And i also think it would be stupid if i posted a thread taking the oppositite position. there are enough stories that could be told supporting either side of the issue, so using stories to support either position is stupid.

Or it could be called substantive.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Well thats the thing. The laws dont say you have to be disciplined to buy a gun. A gun can be sold to any idiot. As a result innocent people (who didnt make the decision to purchase a gun without knowing how to use it) get hurt/killed.

Here (in CA) you have to go through a background check and take a Basic Firearms test. It's fairly well regulated until you get to the area of private sales.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The military and law enforcement agencies dont give their solders/officers guns without training them first. So why is it we think its acceptable to essentially let anyone buy a gun?

I never said it was.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

You should be required to have formal training, attend classes psych evaluations, etc. and get certification from some sort of independant agency before being allowed to purchase a gun. That would pretty much eliminate gun-related accidents.

It already happens in CA, as I mentioned. Society as a whole needs to be more proactive and less concerned about stigma of mental illness along with pscyh evaluations. We have those for CCW's here. I don't think it would limit accidents, however. People are always going to have accidents and they will be proportionately harmful in direct correlation to the object being used.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

As far as handguns go, I wouldnt have a problem with that. The only reason to own a handgun is to take another human life.

They can also be used as a deterrent and a hobby (i.e. Target shooting).

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Officers of the law are trained, not just in HOW to use their handguns, but WHEN to use them. They are trained, when possible, to shoot to injure, not kill. Unless civillian gun owners are given that same training, No, i dont think they should be allowed to have handguns.

I was in the military, I can tell you categorically that shooting to injure is not realistic. A bit like not targeting a WR's head when you tackle them, then they curl up as you hit them and you hit them in the head.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

This is related to my previous point. If someone breaks into your house and is just trying to steal something, warn them, but dont shoot them unless they express intent to cause you or your family bodily harm. Human life - even that of a non-violent thief - is worth more than property.

What if they feel disrespected by your warning and things escalate?

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

LOL... i was just trying to point out that, there's no "real" solution to gun-related violence. Pretty much any law that they could come up with would have flaws.

There are flaws to everything in life, we just have to mitigate those flaws to the point that they become insignificant.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

LOL, im not talking about Eugenics. I know certain traits can be passed on reproductively, but people still have choices in how they chose to act. For violent crime, i think there are two options - you either reform them or you execute them. Whats the point in allowing someone who deliberately and unlawfully took another persons life to be locked up for life? Youre going to think im joking but i dont think a Judge Dredd type system of justice would be entirely bad. If you catch someone in the act of committing a murder or rape, just shoot them right then and there and save society the time and effort of a trial, long prison term, appeals, etc.
that would be a pretty strong deterrent to committing violent crime too.

With a combination of computers and sociopathic police we can get this shit straightened out.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

People are always going to have accidents and they will be proportionately harmful in direct correlation to the object being used.

They can also be used as a deterrent and a hobby (i.e. Target shooting).

Random thought - how realistic would it be to allow whatever kind of guns you want, but only allow the sale of less powerful ammo. Something like a rubber bullet could still have a good deal of stopping power to defend yourself from an intruder or attacker. There's still the potential for a lethal headshot, but in most cases you'd just knock the wind out of someone or hurt them enough to where they would no longer be a threat.

I was in the military, I can tell you categorically that shooting to injure is not realistic. A bit like not targeting a WR's head when you tackle them, then they curl up as you hit them and you hit them in the head.

i get what youre saying, but the military is different. in that situation, youre trained to shoot to kill because youre fighting in a war. Police officers generally are trained not to go for the kill shot unless its a life/death situation.

What if they feel disrespected by your warning and things escalate?

Then by all means do you what you have to do to protect yourself.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I think its stupid. And i also think it would be stupid if i posted a thread taking the oppositite position. there are enough stories that could be told supporting either side of the issue, so using stories to support either position is stupid.




Well thats the thing. The laws dont say you have to be disciplined to buy a gun. A gun can be sold to any idiot. As a result innocent people (who didnt make the decision to purchase a gun without knowing how to use it) get hurt/killed.

The military and law enforcement agencies dont give their solders/officers guns without training them first. So why is it we think its acceptable to essentially let anyone buy a gun?
You should be required to have formal training, attend classes psych evaluations, etc. and get certification from some sort of independant agency before being allowed to purchase a gun. That would pretty much eliminate gun-related accidents.




As far as handguns go, I wouldnt have a problem with that. The only reason to own a handgun is to take another human life. Officers of the law are trained, not just in HOW to use their handguns, but WHEN to use them. They are trained, when possible, to shoot to injure, not kill. Unless civillian gun owners are given that same training, No, i dont think they should be allowed to have handguns.



This is related to my previous point. If someone breaks into your house and is just trying to steal something, warn them, but dont shoot them unless they express intent to cause you or your family bodily harm. Human life - even that of a non-violent thief - is worth more than property.




LOL... i was just trying to point out that, there's no "real" solution to gun-related violence. Pretty much any law that they could come up with would have flaws.


LOL, im not talking about Eugenics. I know certain traits can be passed on reproductively, but people still have choices in how they chose to act. For violent crime, i think there are two options - you either reform them or you execute them. Whats the point in allowing someone who deliberately and unlawfully took another persons life to be locked up for life? Youre going to think im joking but i dont think a Judge Dredd type system of justice would be entirely bad. If you catch someone in the act of committing a murder or rape, just shoot them right then and there and save society the time and effort of a trial, long prison term, appeals, etc.
that would be a pretty strong deterrent to committing violent crime too.

Thats a silly thing to say since most of the training is showing them how to kill people with said weapons.

Thats utter horse crap.
How could you pretend to know why every swinging dick in the USA bought a hand gun?
I certainly didnt buy mine for that purpose.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Sorry Rat, but you posting that article and then asking how NOT having a gun would improve the situation is pretty stupid.

I could post these articles and ask you to explain how HAVING a gun helped in these situations:

Father Accidentally Shoots Seven-Year-Old Son Outside Gun Store



YCSO: 12-year-old accidentally shoots, kills father



Father Accidentally Shoots Son while Cleaning Shotgun



Startled Father Fatally Shoots His Daughter - NYTimes.com




That point aside, why would anyone object to OFFICERS OF THE LAW having guns? Given recent events in Colorodo, its possible, if not likely, that if the intruder was armed, he was there to carry out a hit on them BECAUSE they were officers of the law. And if it was just a random burglary, the intruder probably did not have a gun or intent to cause harm.

Ultimately, neither side is going to change the others' minds. Lets consider two scenarios:

Scenario 1 - A law is passed outlawing all guns
Criminals would still have them. So some innocent people would die because they couldnt defend themselves from criminals. But lives of innocent people would be saved by eliminating gun-related accidents caused by members of their own family. Its a matter of whose lives you want to save. People are going to die either way.


Scenario 2 - Magically, you can take guns away from EVERYONE, good guys and badguys alike
Criminals could still kill you with knives. But on the other hand, its hard to accidently stab someone to death with a knife. So we're in the same situation. People are going to die either way - its a matter of which group you want to save.

THE only way to stop violence is to get rid of all the violent people. Dont send them to prison for a few years. Dont allow them to be a part of society. Get rid of them.

Well all you have to do is look at Chicgo and their problems with violence and they have had a hand gun ban for 30 yrs.

[Alvin Walton]

True story about a dumbass at my place of work.
This guy, lets call him Doug, buys a pistol which his wife does not want in the house.
So hes trying to win over his wife on how safe the gun really is.
He is in the kitchen showing it to her and he accidentally shoots the fridge.
Not sure if he still has it.....

[RedskinRat]

Ban Axes

A man has gone on a rampage with an axe in a village in central India, killing four women and five girls, police say.

The motive for the attack in Chhattisgarh state is unclear but police said the man, named as Panduram, appeared to be having "mental problems". They added that the man had recently been left by his wife.


Killers will always find a way to kill, sadly. If only they'd start with themselves.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Ban Axes

A man has gone on a rampage with an axe in a village in central India, killing four women and five girls, police say.

The motive for the attack in Chhattisgarh state is unclear but police said the man, named as Panduram, appeared to be having "mental problems". They added that the man had recently been left by his wife.


Killers will always find a way to kill, sadly. If only they'd start with themselves.

Youre right, but guns make it easier. Also, stabbing/hacking/bludgeoning requires the killer to get up close, personal, and bloody with the victim. Its easier on a psychological/emotional perspective for a killer to just pull the trigger from a distance. What im saying is, more people are capeable of pulling a trigger from a distance than are capeable of the up close and personal kill. People who do that are tend to be more "psychotic" where as anyone can get upset and pull a trigger.

Its also easier to defend/disarm yourself from a knife attack - you can dodge/run away. Unless your Neo, you cant dodge or outrun bullets.

I would also imagine that accidental weapon-related killing would be all but eliminated without guns. We read about people accidentally shooting a friend/family remember all the time. I've never read of a child accidentally stabbing his friend to death.

Knives and axes are also not designed to be murder weapons - they have other uses. The primary use of a handgun is to shoot another person. You can say you like shooting targets for fun, but thats not the inherent purpose of the weapon. When youre target shooting, all youre doing is practicing for a real live target.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Youre right, but guns make it easier. Also, stabbing/hacking/bludgeoning requires the killer to get up close, personal, and bloody with the victim. Its easier on a psychological/emotional perspective for a killer to just pull the trigger from a distance. What im saying is, more people are capeable of pulling a trigger from a distance than are capeable of the up close and personal kill. People who do that are tend to be more "psychotic" where as anyone can get upset and pull a trigger.

Its also easier to defend/disarm yourself from a knife attack - you can dodge/run away. Unless your Neo, you cant dodge or outrun bullets.

I would also imagine that accidental weapon-related killing would be all but eliminated without guns. We read about people accidentally shooting a friend/family remember all the time. I've never read of a child accidentally stabbing his friend to death.

Knives and axes are also not designed to be murder weapons - they have other uses. The primary use of a handgun is to shoot another person. You can say you like shooting targets for fun, but thats not the inherent purpose of the weapon. When youre target shooting, all youre doing is practicing for a real live target.

Thats just utterly ridiculous.
More tin foil hat loonyness.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Thats just utterly ridiculous.
More tin foil hat loonyness.

If his post is so ridiculous. Would you be fine if you could only get rubber bullets as amunition? You know, if it's primarily for target practice then rubber bullets will be more than sufficient.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Daseal

If his post is so ridiculous. Would you be fine if you could only get rubber bullets as amunition? You know, if it's primarily for target practice then rubber bullets will be more than sufficient.

No I wouldnt be fine.
It wouldnt make a big enough bang to suit me.
It wouldnt give me a proper understanding of how it would work in a combat situation.
It wouldnt blow up milk jugs the way I like.
It wouldnt explode tannerite properly.
It wouldnt do a lot of things I like.

Thats like asking me if I wanted to stop doinking Kate Upton and do Ellen Degeneres instead.