Quote: DaButt @ January 27 2009, 1:31 PM GMTbut the right for law-abiding citizens to possess firearms is an important one.
No it's not. That is a very, very odd thing to say.
Quote: Lee Henman @ January 27 2009, 3:06 PM GMTLike I said - it's futile trying to reason with a pro-arms American. So I won't.
Yup, anyone who thinks MORE guns, or guns at all, is a good thing, well, I don't know really what to say to that person, because it's clearly an absurd point of view.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 28 2009, 11:56 AM GMTNo it's not. That is a very, very odd thing to say.
Not for an American. And let's face it, we in Europe love America's crazy gun laws because it makes us feel morally superior to them.
Quote: chipolata @ January 28 2009, 11:59 AM GMTNot for an American.
Perhaps someone should have a quiet word with them.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 28 2009, 12:00 PM GMTPerhaps someone should have a quiet word with them.
Iran?
Quote: Lee Henman @ January 28 2009, 11:50 AM GMTAgain - I find that incredible. What if it was some impressionable 15 year old kid on a dare? What if it was a mentally-ill person looking for shelter? Or a desperate homeless person who thought your property was empty and was looking for a bed for the night? Do they deserve to die for making a mistake?
15-year-old scenario is burglary, not a dare. What kid is stupid enough to try that? I've never heard of such a thing. Bang.
Mentally ill person may be the most dangerous of all. Bang.
Homeless person is a burglar and knows there are shelters that don't involve breaking and entering. Bang.
The only scenario which wouldn't merit deadly force would be if a small child wandered in through an open door. A 10-year-old autistic boy entered my bedroom a few years ago (and proceeded to try to steal some CDs and video games) and I just took him outside to his frantic father.
If a door is kicked in or a window is shattered you can be quite certain that the person is planning to take your possessions at the very least, and possibly your life. I'd prefer they just stayed away from my house, but I'll shoot them if I have to. If I ever buy a gun, of course.
Quote: DaButt @ January 28 2009, 12:03 PM GMTBang.
Bang.
deadly force
Kind of all I need to hear there really.
Quote: DaButt @ January 28 2009, 12:03 PM GMTMentally ill person may be the most dangerous of all. Bang.
Or not. What's it matter though, right? They're dead now.
DaButt, do you live in an excessively violent area? Is that what informs your views?
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 28 2009, 11:58 AM GMTYup, anyone who thinks MORE guns, or guns at all, is a good thing, well, I don't know really what to say to that person, because it's clearly an absurd point of view.
I'm not arguing for guns or more guns, I'm arguing for the right to own a gun as put forth in our constitution and upheld continuously by the Supreme Court.
I'd never trust a government which has disarmed me.
Quote: DaButt @ January 28 2009, 12:17 PM GMTI'm not arguing for guns or more guns, I'm arguing for the right to own a gun as put forth in our constitution and upheld continuously by the Supreme Court.
That's kind of a tired excuse. It's in the constitution, so I can own a gun. When was this constitution put together? Quite a wee while ago now. Things are different in this day and age; guns are a bad thing, simple as that.
Quote: chipolata @ January 28 2009, 12:12 PM GMTDaButt, do you live in an excessively violent area? Is that what informs your views?
Absolutely not. I've never been the victim of a crime or assault in my home. Once in a very dangerous part of L.A. a scary dude tried to reach inside the car window and unlock the door. The guy sitting next to me drew a pistol that I didn't know he had and the wannabe robber fled.
I live in a large city and there have already been at least 2 incidents where intruders have been shot by the residents of the home. One of the intruders was armed with a pistol and the guy who shot him would be dead now if he hadn't fired first.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 28 2009, 12:20 PM GMTguns are a bad thing, simple as that.
Guns are neither good nor bad. There are good people and bad people, but a gun is just a hunk of metal until a person takes hold of it.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 28 2009, 12:20 PM GMTQuite a wee while ago now. Things are different in this day and age
The Supreme Court just upheld the law in 2008. It is still relevant today.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 28 2009, 11:58 AM GMTYup, anyone who thinks MORE guns, or guns at all, is a good thing, well, I don't know really what to say to that person, because it's clearly an absurd point of view.
Just coming in on the news today, a few hours ago -
A guy in the US having been sacked from his job, shot and killed his wife and five kids, and then himself. Apparently when he was being sacked he was told he should have blown his brains out rather than turn in for work. In a suicide note both he and his wife agreed that it would be wrong to leave their kids to be brought up by someone else. The note doesn't say whether the kids were in agreement with that strategy.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090128/twl-sacked-dad-kills-wife-and-five-kids-41f21e0.html
Quote: DaButt @ January 28 2009, 12:25 PM GMTGuns are neither good nor bad. There are good people and bad people, but a gun is just a hunk of metal until a person takes hold of it.
Of course guns are a bad thing. They are deisigned to kill. If you are in a society where guns are more readilly available, then it will be that much easier for someone to get hold of one and utilise it for that very purpose. This seems quite simple to me.
Quote: DaButt @ January 28 2009, 12:25 PM GMTThe Supreme Court just upheld the law in 2008. It is still relevant today.
Yeah, that's correct. Don't know what I was thinking.
Quote: DaButt @ January 28 2009, 2:36 AM GMTif you blast a gangbanger
*snigger*
Quote: chipolata @ January 28 2009, 11:59 AM GMTNot for an American. And let's face it, we in Europe love America's crazy gun laws because it makes us feel morally superior to them.
Oh believe me, it's not that which makes us feel morally superior.
Quote: chipolata @ January 28 2009, 12:01 PM GMTIran?
In 1998 UK legislation came into force reducing the number of pain-killer tablets that could be sold in each packet in an effort to combat deaths from suicide by overdoses. Since then hospitals have reported up to a 50% decline in suicides by this method AFTER the legislation was introduced, and in a report by Birmingham University hospital, it concluded:
"Legislation restricting paracetamol pack-size reduced the incidence and severity of poisoning."
In a similar vein, what would happen if the US Supreme Court restricted gun ownership I wonder?
P.S. Yippee! Just done a spell-check before posting and it said "no spelling errors were identified". There's a rarity. (Didn't know I could spell paracetamol in one go).
P.P.S. Was in a queue at the corner shop last night and the bloke in front asked for two packets of paracetamols - he was refused and only served the one packet. (Suppose he could come in every day until he had 'enough').