88 replies to this topic

[F3SS]

The Silver Thong, on 22 January 2013 - 05:17 AM, said:

And what if a paronoid gun owner in the store shot the man because they had no idea his intention and just saw an assault weapon.

Like you? Now I think your just looking for advice.

[The Silver Thong]

Eonwe, on 22 January 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

Then clearly we would establish not every gun owner is crazy and that the owner murdered a man while he legally had a weapon on him.

So it takes a dead person to figure out who had a right or not and that does not include the right to live. Both may have been at fault in my case above but who wins if both are legal gun carriers.  What if the guy started shooting people and others joined in. Who is the bad guy in a shoot up where nowbody knows. People just end up shooting people with guns.  I fell safer in a nation where that is very unlickly to happen.  For example the shooting in Colorado, what if everyone started shooting in a dark theater. I will say the death toll would double having inocients killing inocients all in the name of being some hero.

[The Silver Thong]

-Mr_Fess-, on 22 January 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

I didn't watch. I was under the impression that it took place in public. I'm pretty sure that if anywhere but your house you seen someone with a gun and blew his brains out that it would be murder. I've seen some questionable characters in public with guns before. I wasn't comfortable with it but if for no other reason I killed him I would be in jail.

So you have a family cornerstore and a guy walks in with an ar 15 what do you do. nothing because for one you don`t know his intention or just risk him using it on you and your family because he has some right to carry a weapon built to kill people in the tens.

[F3SS]

The Silver Thong, on 22 January 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

So it takes a dead person to figure out who had a right or not and that does not include the right to live. Both may have been at fault in my case above but who wins if both are legal gun carriers.  What if the guy started shooting people and others joined in. Who is the bad guy in a shoot up where nowbody knows. People just end up shooting people with guns.  I fell safer in a nation where that is very unlickly to happen.  For example the shooting in Colorado, what if everyone started shooting in a dark theater. I will say the death toll would double having inocients killing inocients all in the name of being some hero.

Even in the event that someone else had a gun in that theater and in the unfortunate event that he killed someone else I don't think they would carelessly go on shooting as many people as possible just to find his target. And all around gun brawls are rare. When's the last time you heard of one?

[F3SS]

The Silver Thong, on 22 January 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

So you have a family cornerstore and a guy walks in with an ar 15 what do you do. nothing because for one you don`t know his intention or just risk him using it on you and your family because he has some right to carry a weapon built to kill people in the tens.

I didn't say don't be prepared. I bet you don't like hearing stories of cops who had an itchy trigger finger.

[Kafkaesque]

-Mr_Fess-, on 22 January 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

Like you? Now I think your just looking for advice.

Hey now, he does have a point that after Newtown some people are wary about other people with guns in public.

The Silver Thong, on 22 January 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

So it takes a dead person to figure out who had a right or not and that does not include the right to live. Both may have been at fault in my case above but who wins if both are legal gun carriers.  What if the guy started shooting people and others joined in. Who is the bad guy in a shoot up where nowbody knows. People just end up shooting people with guns.  I fell safer in a nation where that is very unlickly to happen.  For example the shooting in Colorado, what if everyone started shooting in a dark theater. I will say the death toll would double having inocients killing inocients all in the name of being some hero.

I believe guns provide an opportunity to protect one's right to live. If a man saw another come up into his store with an assault rifle I suppose he has every right to be suspicious. The owner runs the place and owns the property; he has a few more rights than a customer because the customer voluntarily enters said man's property, so he's subjected to the owner's will to an extent. Would it be fair for one of them to get paranoid and start shooting? No, I don't believe that works out for any one. With both sides pointing fingers at one another and calling each other paranoid, it would be a hard confrontation to work out.

But then again, would you rather legislate someone out of the right to have a concealed license than let them keep it? Sure, lives could have been on the line if someone pulled out a gun in the theaters in Colorado - but lives were already on the line. If I was in the theater I would have tried my best to get other people out of harms way while I drew the shooter with my fire. In situations like those there's a ridiculous amount of stress and risk. Humanly, dealing with those stresses isn't always easy. In that scenario, could a person with a pistol do more harm than good? Definitely. But in a life in death situation there aren't many choices other than to fight, flee, or die.

Does a gun provide the illusion of safety? I guess. We're all going to die anyways. How and when don't really matter.

But if that illusion of safety allows me enough courage to save another person from unnecessary pain, I'll take that.

Edited by Eonwe, 22 January 2013 - 05:44 AM.

[The Silver Thong]

-Mr_Fess-, on 22 January 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

Even in the event that someone else had a gun in that theater and in the unfortunate event that he killed someone else I don't think they would carelessly go on shooting as many people as possible just to find his target. And all around gun brawls are rare. When's the last time you heard of one?

Bing so tell me would a gun in the theater have stopped a nut bar from killing or make it worse. Would a guy in the school in Sandy hook have stopped it oe made it worse. Did an armed gaurd at Columbine make things better or worse. No it would have made thing much worse further intising the shooter to shoot more.  Insanity is the thinking that guns save lives as there sole purpose is to take them.

[acidhead]

The Silver Thong, on 22 January 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

So it takes a dead person to figure out who had a right or not and that does not include the right to live. Both may have been at fault in my case above but who wins if both are legal gun carriers.  What if the guy started shooting people and others joined in. Who is the bad guy in a shoot up where nowbody knows. People just end up shooting people with guns.  I fell safer in a nation where that is very unlickly to happen.  For example the shooting in Colorado, what if everyone started shooting in a dark theater. I will say the death toll would double having inocients killing inocients all in the name of being some hero.

The law down there works the same as up here in Canada bro.  A individual is not allowed to drag another individual onto their property and shoot him in cold blood.  They have to prove their innocence.

[The Silver Thong]

Eonwe, on 22 January 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

Hey now, he does have a point that after Newtown some people are wary about other people with guns in public.



I believe guns provide an opportunity to protect one's right to live. If a man saw another come up into a store with an assault rifle I suppose he has every right to be suspicious. The owner runs the place and owns the property; he has a few more rights than a customer because the customer voluntarily enters another man's property, so he's subjected to the owner's will to an extent. Would it be fair for one of them to get paranoid and start shooting? No, I don't believe that works out for any one. With both sides pointing fingers at one another and calling each other paranoid, it would be a hard confrontation to work out.

But then again, would you rather legislate someone out of the right to have a concealed license than let them keep it? Sure, lives could have been on the line if someone pulled out a gun in the theaters in Colorado - but lives were already on the line. If I was in the theater I would have tried my best to get other people out of harms way while I drew the shooter with my fire. In situations like those there's a ridiculous amount of stress and risk. Humanly, dealing with those stresses isn't always easy. In that scenario, could a person with a pistol do more harm than good? Definitely. But in a life in death situation there aren't many choices other than to fight, flee, or die.

Did guns and armed personal gaurds save Kennedy or Reagan from getting shot.

[The Silver Thong]

acidhead, on 22 January 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

The law down there works the same as up here in Canada bro.  A individual is not allowed to drag another individual onto their property and shoot him in cold blood.  They have to prove their innocence.

Not sure what you mean by dragging someone into your house or property and shooting them and thinking thats ok man.

[Kafkaesque]

The Silver Thong, on 22 January 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

Did guns and armed personal gaurds save Kennedy or Reagan from getting shot.

Have guns and armed personal prevented anyone from ever getting shot?

They certainly didn't save Lincoln or Kennedy.

Does ice melt? Do wheels turn? Does the moon come out at night?

Again, we're all going to die. When and where ultimately don't matter.

All that matters is we have enough time to enjoy what we have.

Guns, although an illusion of safety in a fatalist sense, can buy people more time they might deserve.

Edited by Eonwe, 22 January 2013 - 05:48 AM.

[acidhead]

Eonwe, on 22 January 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

Hey now, he does have a point that after Newtown some people are wary about other people with guns in public.



I believe guns provide an opportunity to protect one's right to live. If a man saw another come up into his store with an assault rifle I suppose he has every right to be suspicious. The owner runs the place and owns the property; he has a few more rights than a customer because the customer voluntarily enters said man's property, so he's subjected to the owner's will to an extent. Would it be fair for one of them to get paranoid and start shooting? No, I don't believe that works out for any one. With both sides pointing fingers at one another and calling each other paranoid, it would be a hard confrontation to work out.

But then again, would you rather legislate someone out of the right to have a concealed license than let them keep it? Sure, lives could have been on the line if someone pulled out a gun in the theaters in Colorado - but lives were already on the line. If I was in the theater I would have tried my best to get other people out of harms way while I drew the shooter with my fire. In situations like those there's a ridiculous amount of stress and risk. Humanly, dealing with those stresses isn't always easy. In that scenario, could a person with a pistol do more harm than good? Definitely. But in a life in death situation there aren't many choices other than to fight, flee, or die.

I hear what you are saying.

At the batman shooting more than one men died shielding his wife or girlfriend.  ...................

.......imagine if one of them had a weapon to defend with?

[The Silver Thong]

Eonwe, on 22 January 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

Have guns and armed personal prevented anyone from ever getting shot?

They certainly didn't save Lincoln or Kennedy.

Does ice melt? Do wheels turn? Does the moon come out at night?

Again, we're all going to die. When and where ultimately don't matter.

All that matters is we have enough time to enjoy what we have.

Guns, although an illusion of safety in a fatalist sense, can buy people more time they might deserve.

I guess the threat of mutual distruction ended the cold war but not in the case of the lawless nature of the right to have what ever gun one deems fit. I see that as a call to war against not only the government but fellow citizens.

[acidhead]

The Silver Thong, on 22 January 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

Not sure what you mean by dragging someone into your house or property and shooting them and thinking thats ok man.

Its because its not the number of guns in the USA that is the problem.  This is only a symptom of a larger problem of why these GOV drugged addicts are committing these horrendous crimes in the first place.  Punishing the whole mass for mistakes committed by few is not the answer.

[The Silver Thong]

acidhead, on 22 January 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

I hear what you are saying.

At the batman shooting more than one men died shielding his wife or girlfriend.  ...................

.......imagine if one of them had a weapon to defend with?

One shooter fires aka the bat man then another and another then another.