Gun Laws - Teh Forum

From:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	10 Oct 2014 17:05
To:	graphitone	81 of 177

41226.81 In reply to 41226.80
Don't make me use the "Guns don't kill people" speech on you mister! If I were going to kill someone I think it would be much more fun to chase them around with my car! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you don't like donut, then leave it alone. Nobody force you to eat it.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	graphitone	10 Oct 2014 20:17
To:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	82 of 177

41226.82 In reply to 41226.81
I knew that was setting me up for all sorts o' crap. :J I think that Chris Rock sketch sums it all up for me - the guns don't kill people, bullets do thing. This has probably been linked and viewed to death already, but here it is: Drawings n' that

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	10 Oct 2014 20:34
To:	graphitone	83 of 177

41226.83 In reply to 41226.82
Man CR used to be great. I wonder how many guns he owns? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you don't like donut, then leave it alone. Nobody force you to eat it.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	fixrman	11 Oct 2014 03:01
To:	graphitone	84 of 177

41226.84 In reply to 41226.82

Well, I am not really a Chris Rock fan, but there's a lot of truth in his routine. It is usually white whackos shooting up schools. Thank God I stay brown all year long. :-P

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	fixrman	11 Oct 2014 03:05
To:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	85 of 177

41226.85 In reply to 41226.81

OK, WW.

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	fixrman	11 Oct 2014 03:24
To:	Dan (HERMAND)	86 of 177

41226.86 In reply to 41226.78

Do you really believe that? I am not so sure.

I killed a squirrel the other day, intentionally. Not because I wanted to (even though I hate their destructiveness), I sort of had to. Ever had a squirrel in your house/flat? I have. It can get dicey and dangerous. They have claws and teeth. They chew on rain gutters, tree limbs and are ruining my chimney. They've taken up a nest in the Douglas fir in my front yard. I wasn't happy I killed it, rather relieved the pest was gone.

If they didn't make so much noise bounding across the roof (and ruining it) it would be one thing. But they are contantly digging in my grass to find nuts they haven't buried or are too stupid to remember where they are. They dig in our flower pots/beds for nuts that aren't there. If I get three more, the family is gone and I save a possible 18 more baby squirrels.

Squirrels have no real enemies here. A hawk will get them occasionally, but not often enough to keep populations down. I do, however, not care to fire pellets indiscriminately, so I think I will get a lethal trap and avoid problems in the future. You can kill nuisance squirrels, but shooting them is not in any way encouraged, so I will have to give it up. Trapping will do the same thing in the end and the Broad Wing may appreciate no steel in his lunch, should he find it soon enough after termination.

Perhaps I can train one...

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	11 Oct 2014 03:51
To:	fixrman	87 of 177

41226.87 In reply to 41226.86
Murdererererer! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you don't like donut, then leave it alone. Nobody force you to eat it.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	fixrman	11 Oct 2014 13:31
To:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	88 of 177

41226.88 In reply to 41226.87

Hey, it was either him or my gutters, flower pots, gardens or lawn.

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Dan (HERMAND)	11 Oct 2014 18:18
To:	fixrman	89 of 177

41226.89 In reply to 41226.86
I didn't mean happy in the sense of taking pleasure, but rather happy in the sense of something you're comfortable with as a consequence. In other words, don't shoot things you don't want dead. For example, our armed police "shoot to stop", because "shooting to kill" implies that you're going to keep on shooting until they're dead. However, they will only ever shoot someone when the idea of the person being killed is better than the alternative. Shooting to wound (and anything similar) is idiocy and a complete misnomer. It's an absolute best case scenario in a huge scale of bad things up to long drawn out death, none of which the shooter is particularly in control of. In addition, you're much more likely to fuck it up and miss and, if you can afford to miss, then you probably shouldn't be shooting at them anyway. Dan Herman

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	fixrman	11 Oct 2014 22:59
To:	Dan (HERMAND)	90 of 177

41226.90 In reply to 41226.89

Quote:

something you're comfortable with as a consequence.

I don't think anyone is "comfortable" if it is necessary to kill someone else to save their own life, rather something they are resigned to; the alternative may not be known, but against potential may be the only option available at the time.

Quote:

our armed police "shoot to stop", because "shooting to kill" implies that you're going to keep on shooting until they're dead.

In most cases may end up being the same thing.

IA; Why did you keep shooting, Nigel?

N: Because he kept coming.

IA: So when he stopped, you stopped shooting?

N: Yes.

IA: How was he when you checked him?

N: He was dead.

Quote:

Shooting to wound (and anything similar) is idiocy

Don't you think in a tense situation such as a gun standoff, people just shoot? Aim small, miss small. In a situation where one is using a gun, I don't think the thought is on whether or not they can afford to miss - or whether there is control; if there is control, there is no need to shoot. Basically when you have two people with guns, let's say one good one bad, it is a war. War is a total breakdown of communication that results in a violence being perpetrated one on the other. One individual may be a reluctant participant, yet is compelled to act in self preservation.

If one is shooting at someone, they don't want to miss because the other might not. Hopefully it is a hit and the bad guy misses. But if it is coming down to that, what is the other option?

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Dan (HERMAND)	12 Oct 2014 11:08
To:	fixrman	91 of 177

41226.91 In reply to 41226.90
I really file like you arguing wiht me over small semantics here when you know what point I'm trying to make. Yes, you can use "resigned to" instead of "comfortable with" if you wish, but the key point I was making before what that nobody should ever shoot at something that they don't want (with whatever definition you choose) dead. No idea why you picked the tiny bit of quote about shooting to stop when, again, I was just clarifying it's shoot to stop because shoot to kill has other implications (I.e., you'll run over and tap them in the head if they're still breathing). And I have no real idea where you're going with the last bit. Ken was making a point that people might shoot to injure/wound - my point is if you're shooting, you should believe that it's 99% likely that person will die. And, if you're not okay with that, you need to keep your finger off the trigger. Dan Herman

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	fixrman	12 Oct 2014 13:31
To:	Dan (HERMAND)	92 of 177

41226.92 In reply to 41226.91

Dan, I don't know you well enough to know necessarily what you mean. I am sure this discussion would go differently in person because we could see each others expressions, hear tone, experience body language - all the things helpful in discerning position. Plus, there is a little bit of a difference in our expressions here and yours there that even my English heritage doesn't fully account.

The point I am trying to make is that I do not have some sort of "cowboy" mentality when it comes to guns; I believe gun ownership carries with it great responsibility, and even greater responsibility with their use. I believe gun ownership should be difficult to get and difficult to keep. Desperados were criminals and I am not a criminal.

I believe guns should be allowed for those who have been approved via a strict process. I believe if a gun is to be used for defense it should be treated the same way we are told to drive, i.e we drive defensively, not offensively. I believe if we followed the gun laws we already have, we would not have half the problems we have now with guns.

Sorry. I forgot. If I am shooting at someone in self defense I am not sure I would injure to wound, I think I would be shooting to hit. So that means trunk area until I see that the person no longer is a threat, such as having dropped their firearm.

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Manthorp	14 Oct 2014 19:24
To:	ALL	93 of 177

41226.93
Milko is a fine example of the right of the British to bear small arms. IGMC "We all have flaws, and mine is being wicked." James Thurber, The Thirteen Clocks 1951 www.mynameislegion.org

+4/4

Reply Quote

More

From:	99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)	14 Oct 2014 21:17
To:	ALL	94 of 177

41226.94
I rather like the fact that Americans can kill each other. It makes so much more sense than them killing other things. bastard by name bastard by nature

+1/1

Reply Quote

More

From:	fixrman	15 Oct 2014 03:04
To:	99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)	95 of 177

41226.95 In reply to 41226.94

Brits can kill each other too, and have done. It is messy and takes a long time, but even a bumbershoot will do.

I'd say at this point this thread has gone long past a useful purpose, that being gun laws. You are now reducing it to taunting and ridicule. Gun laws: We have them. They aren't good enough and/or aren't being followed.

I won't convince anyone they should have or want to have guns, and you folks will not convince me to give up my right to have or own them - not that I want to do either. It is an impasse.

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Manthorp	15 Oct 2014 03:51
To:	fixrman	96 of 177

41226.96 In reply to 41226.95
Kinda what I said some time ago. But it's not an impasse because there's no meaningful dispute. We operate on different moral guages. Who's to say which is right? Morality is more relative than any of us would care to think. The common ground is in agreeing that nations and communities have the right to their own moral principles and supporting legislation. A chacun son goût, as they say. "We all have flaws, and mine is being wicked." James Thurber, The Thirteen Clocks 1951 www.mynameislegion.org

+1/1

Reply Quote

More

From:	fixrman	15 Oct 2014 16:11
To:	Manthorp	97 of 177

41226.97 In reply to 41226.96

No, actually you are right. I am not disputing we have some problems with our gun laws. They need to be followed.

The discussion got sidetracked to assertions that Americans should give up their guns and guns should be made illegal. Whether or not I agree in immaterial because it isn't up to me. I will say this though, I do not believe giving up rights for safety is a guarantee for more safety - it could mean less.

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	fixrman	20 Oct 2014 22:42
To:	ALL	98 of 177

41226.98 In reply to 41226.97

You know, one of the issues here in the U.S. that nobody seems to take account of is that here in the U.S., another reason people have guns is that we live in a much more dangerous and wild environment than folks in the U.K. do.

Here we have dogs, wolves, opossum, moose, bears, mountain lions, coyotes, crocodiles, alligators. Dog attacks alone cost about a billion dollars a year due to injuries and deaths. Even deer cause lots of vehicular damage and about 100 deaths per year. Have to cull the herds.

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	ANT_THOMAS	20 Oct 2014 22:50
To:	fixrman	99 of 177

41226.99 In reply to 41226.98
Not too dissimilar to many farmers in the UK legally owning guns. I imagine most people on here wouldn't disagree that owning guns for protection against wild animals is a reasonable thing. It's the owning guns for protection against other people that the disagreement more than likely lies. ┌─────┐ │ │ │ ┌─┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─┘ │ │ │ │ ┌─┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─┘ └─┘

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Ken (SHIELDSIT)	21 Oct 2014 01:51
To:	ANT_THOMAS	100 of 177

41226.100 In reply to 41226.99
Then they need to stop acting like wild animals! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you don't like donut, then leave it alone. Nobody force you to eat it.

0/0

Reply Quote

More