Why gun control is necessary

“It's already a crime for criminals to possess handguns and guess what ... criminals possess handguns. So what's the effect of the law?”

“geo, right after sept 11 I was at a local range (state runs it) and the range officer was passing out targets of OBL. Lots of folks shot "him" up that day.”

“Where do "illegal handguns" come from?

Are they born illegal? (that is, are there illegal manufacturers producing guns in hiddden factories and putting them out on the streets in a secret black market). Is there a gun manufacture system equivalent to the drug trade? Secret meth labs . . .secret handgun labs???


NO.

Handguns are manufactured legally. Domestically, and imported from abroad.

They are then stolen, or lost or somehow otherwise end up being defined as "illegal handguns".

So it would seem that if "illegal handguns" are committing the crimes. And ALL handguns start off "legally". then the only sure solution is to cut off, and completely eradicate the manufacture and import of legal handguns.

By doing so you will capitate the potential supply of illegal handguns.


You should then CONFISCATE ALL legal handguns. Somehow, in some way . ..these guns are becoming "illegal". Owners are losing them, they are being stolen . . .persih the thought but irrerutable dealers are selling them to intermediaries who sell them to . .. criminals.

So. Choke off the supply. Zero tolerance.

Your report cites ample evidence that LEGAL gun owners are irresponsible morons. They lose or let their guns be stolen. THEIR LEGAL guns (now illegal in the hands of a criminal) are being used to kill police officers.

People can't be trusted to keep their legal guns out of the hands of criminals.


If we reduce the number of handguns circulating towards zero . .the number of murders will plummet.





Anyone who argues with that last statement is an unmitigated moron.


First. Its logic conclusion is zero handguns = zero handdgun murders.

Second there is way too much evidence of other countries with significantly more restrictive gun laws than ours who simply don't experience our level of gun violence.


To argue that defies logic. It defies a civilized view of the world. It is barbaric. it is stupid, primitive, antiquated, and dumb.




Have a happy easter.”

“So. Choke off the supply. Zero tolerance.

Please Google "war on drugs". Different supply. Different demand. Same zero tolerance. Same lame results.

If we reduce the number of handguns circulating towards zero . .the number of murders will plummet.

Please Google "Britain murder and crime rates".
last edited: 4/05/07 4:20:51 PM”

“I did.

Once you get past the BullSH-T pieces on the PERCENT increase in homcide.
!!!!!INCREASES OF 35% OVER 5 YEARS!!!!!



YOU FIND OUT THAT F-ING GREAT F-ING BRITAIN HAD . .. .


ARE YOU READY ---


HAD ---


READY??????



765 HOMICIDES IN 2005/06. THIS INCLUDES THE 52 PEOPLE KILLED IN THE F-ING TRAIN BOMBING.



Nigal ---

Don't be quite so thick. Read what follows. The stasticsisisi on the "wild increases" include 58 chinese folks who soffocated.

and the victims of a mass murdered who killed YEARS ago, but his victims were lumped in on year.


Cut and paste:

There were a total of 765 homicide offences recorded in 2005/06, a decrease of twelve per cent compared to the previous year. The figure of 765 includes 52 homicide victims of the 7 July London bombings.
Increases in homicides in recent years, and in particular 2002/03, have been influenced by the victims of Harold Shipman, whose deaths will have occurred some years prior to the period in which they were recorded.
The figures for 2000/01 include 58 Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in a lorry en route to the UK.
Homicide includes the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide.
Data for the British Transport Police are included from 2002/03 onwards.



With a baseline of 713 murders a year . ..it would take 250 to raise it 35%.



Wait.

let me google the murder numbers in 2005/06 for the U - f-ing S of F-ing A>

Moron.”

“Look at this:

Cut and paste:

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.

The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.

Trend
Year Number of offenses Rate per 100,000 inhabitants
2003 16,528 5.7
2004 16,137 5.5 Percent change -2.4 -3.3”

“That is

16,137 in the US in 2004 or 5.3 per 100,000 people.



HEY for fun let's google the population of Britain shall we???”

“Okay


There are:

United Kingdom
Population: 60,609,153 (July 2006 est.)



So 60 million people. 765 murders.

How many is that per 100,000??


the math escapes me.


But the ratios don't.

US:

300 million people 16,000 murders.


Britain

60 million people 765 murders.



They have 1/5 or our population and

1/20th of our murders.



EAT YOUR F_ING GOOGLE OF GREAT BRITAIN!!!!!


Happy passover.”

“I'm glad you don't have a gun:)”

“What about kitchen knives? You can kill people with these, right? Should we outlaw these as well?”

“Crimes by nation per capita:

Britain- #6
America- #8

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Crimes victims by nation:

Britain- #3 (Australia, also a gun banning country was #1)
America- #15

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims

Gun control does not make you safer. And let's remember that the first murder was committed with a rock.”

“Wait.

let me google the murder numbers in 2005/06 for the U - f-ing S of F-ing A>

Moron.

No matter how weak your argument may be I see no reason for insults friend. :)”

“And ALL handguns start off "legally". then the only sure solution is to cut off, and completely eradicate the manufacture and import of legal handguns.

By doing so you will capitate the potential supply of illegal handguns.


You should then CONFISCATE ALL legal handguns. - lee

Congratulations - you win the idiotic post of the year. Even if you are right about this (you're not), if you think this "final solution" is even remotely possible then you are so far removed from reality that you should be committed to an insane asylum.

Jesus, you think the technology and the methods are simply going to disappear? No one would try to profit? What kind of kindergarten utopia do you live in?

It defies a civilized view of the world. It is barbaric. it is stupid, primitive, antiquated, and dumb. - lee

Good lord. You are giving MarkO a run for his money for Dumbest TTer. You've made a lot of sense on other subjects in the past, but on this you are completely batsh1t insane. This is almost like a religion with you. You have this irrational faith in a completely impossible, childish fairy tale. So much for you being a rational atheist.

You might as well believe in something as stupid as xtianity if you believe what you're saying about guns.”

“Jesus doesn't kill people. People kill people.”

“In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=11856

Doctors are Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 225,000 Deaths Every Year.
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm

Medical system is leading cause of death and injury in US
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/10/29/medical_system_is_leading_cause_of_death_and_injury_in_us.htm



THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION:

Let’s ban doctors!

If we reduce the number of doctors practicing towards zero. .the number of deaths will plummet.



You can’t argue with "gun control" control freaks. What they won’t even admit to themselves is that they want to save us all from ourselves by controlling everyone else’s behavior.

These “liberals” can’t even understand how totalitarian their mindset is. How do you expect them to listen to anything other than their own, “I know better” mindset?

I live in a “liberal” town. Believe me; most of these folks think public safety traffic laws are for other people to obey. Is it any wonder they ignore the Constitution? Thank God there are judges who overturn some of their inane ideas as just happened in D.C.

D.C.: (formerly) strictest “gun control” legislation in the country, highest murder rate.

But the “liberal” control freaks will start sputtering all sorts of excuses as to why we can ignore that dandy little statistic.



It’s very simple with them. They want to take away my Constitutional right to protect myself and make me reliant on the state.

Their philosophy is consistent from “gun control” to economics.”

“But Nimblefoot did hit it on the head .. .I will never own one . ..

Look.


Mutt is of course correct from a practical perspective. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.


But. But. It is simple fact that the proliferation of handguns in the US; the sheer number of them; produced and imported legally, then falling into illegal hands . ..is directly related to the exponentially higher death by handgun rate in the US.

This is simple fact.

We have exponentially more handguns. There are exponentially more handgun deaths.

Its pretty simple.


Now. As a matter of public and social policy you can decided that there is an acceptable level of handgun deaths in exchange for maintain our "right" to bear arms.

And that is what we have done. We, as a society, (or at least the lobbists form the NRA) have determined that the current level of handgun deaths is acceptable.


DON'T pretend, don't argue and certainly don't believe that somehow more handguns makes us a safer society. That is just stupid.

Mutt . . .clearly you can follow that logic. More guns equals less safe.



That's all well and good. But don't pretend that the US is some "city on a hill" paragon of virtue and good values. Don't look down your nose at the lawlessness in russia, and africa and pretend that our society is better than that.

YOU have condoned a level of murder and lawlessness that puts us well below the top tier of civilized nations.

By condoning the proliferation of handguns as we have, and accepting the level of violence that is inseperable from that, we as a society have made a choice to be a less civilized nation.\

Maybe not a par with Palestine or Sudan .. .but certainly less civilized than those societies that you might think of as our peers: Britain, Japan, Western Europe, Switzerland. etc.


What about Switzerland? everyone serves in the army. Everyone has an army issue registered weapon in their house.

What's their level of handguns and handgun murders.

And don't ever trot out dumbass half baked theories about the proliferation of handguns somehow making us safer as a society. It just makes you look and sound dumb. Be a man (or woman) and admit that you are willing to play roulette. YOu are hoping that someone in your family or that you know doesn't get taken out so that you can maintain the "right" to own and carry.”

“you arguement is so stupid I wasn't going to respond. I didn't want to take the time.


So I'll keep this short and pretty simple.


Ready??

A couple of questions even your pea-sized brain can handle.

Ready??

Is the purpose of a Doctor, to: A) save lives or B) take lives?

That is: For what purpose are doctors created?


NOW. it is absolutely true that Doctors take lives. They cause death. In most cases I'm guessing this in not intentional. It is an accident.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say . . and i don't think ths is a leap . ..that doctors SAVE more lives than they take.

Would you be willing to concede that?



NOW. Part two.


Handguns are created to . . . .WAIT. And idea. Let just ask the SAME question.


Handguns are created to A) Save lives or b) take lives.

Now this is a tuffy. In your gut you know the answer is B. Take lives.

But the NRA has been conditioning you to think the answer is A.

Let's think it through for a minute.


Stripping out all the hysteria, and political emotional overtones . . .what is the purpose of a handgun . . . what SELLS a handgun???
Stopping power??? FPS??????? Power, range, concealability???

Clearly the purpose of a handgun is to take lives.


In fact . ..we can flip around the analogy with doctors . . ..handguns are MEANT to kill people. That's their job... Its only and accident when they "save" someone's life (which really, means, of course, killing someone else).


Gimme a break.”

“No matter how many times their arguments are totally disproved, certain people continue to draw comparisons between the US and UK on gun control - interestingly it's people who appear never to have been to the UK who make these comparisions.
The different histories of these histories and dramatically different levels of gun ownership in the population and the different social and cutural makeup of the countries make comparisons impossible.

Nigal - are you so blind on this issue that you can't even see that even the stats you link to show the murder rate in the US to be at least three times that of the UK?

In general though, I'd say that Nigal, Arclite, and the boy Muttley find it impossible to contrast between their experiences with gun ownership in largely law-abiding fairly peaceful parts of the country with those in places like Prince Georges County, Md, where the murder rate is going through the roof.

What I would say is that my opinion on gun ownership has changed since I've been here.

The fact that there are so many irresponsible gun owners out there not willing accept that their right to own and carry comes with responsibilities means it will always be too easy for the 'outlaws' to get hold of firearms. Until gun owners are willing to accept at least some degree of responsibility, and the authrorities are actually prepared to enforce existing guns laws, then further gun control legislation will probably do little.”

“What effect have some laws had?

Let's see ...

Marijuana outlawed. Still a major cash crop.

Murder outlawed. Yeah, that's been an effective law.

Exceeding the speed limit. Ha!

Killing cops. Right!

If you took legal guns away from law-abiding people, shut down manufacturing, shuttered all the gun shops, how long would it take for illegal guns in the hands of criminals to rust or break down? And how many innocent people would die in that time?

And when the last gun oxidized away, would it really impact the murder rate? The murder rate in ancient Rome was apparently quite high, and that was not due to guns. Of course, swords were not banned in Rome, but then neither were clubs and spears in the ancient worlds. Nor are they banned in this. Nor would kitchen knives or rope, both of which make handy weapons.

Banning guns is about the silliest argument I've ever heard.

There are other factors at play here. Crime and murder predate the invention of the firearm. In all the history of civilization, nobody has come up with a simple solution to the complex problem of crime. It's rooted in human nature - some people have no respect for themselves or others and resort to taking what they can't earn. And if somebody gets in their way, they take them out.

And there are crimes of passion - love affairs gone wrong, cheating spouses ...

They've done it with guns, knives, rope, screwdrivers, scissors, hand grenades, poison, even with bare hands.

Why has the murder rate increased across the nation in the past few years? Could it have something to do with 9/11 and the war on terra? Could it be that life was cheapened? Could it be a national fatalistic attitude has set in?

Who is committing the murders? Are there common threads?

There aren't a lot of answers out there, and banning firearms is a facile attempt to solve a complex problem, and it would be borne by law abiding citizens while the criminals would have illegal guns.”

“'Course, I'm just a silly libbie.”

“I think banning guns in the US would be pointless too, they are part and parcel of America and the American way of life.

I think lee was just pointing out the stupid basis on which some of the 'pro'gun arguments are based.

There does seem to be a refusal on the part of most gun owners to accept that their right to have a gun does have some costs.

As Lee pointed out, the number of killings,
The occasional spree killing at work
Occasinal school shootings
Occasional accidents with guns involving both children and adults.

To use other comparisions my ownership of a car and the ease with which I could get a licence means there are probably more traffic accidents and deaths than there needs to be.

We accept that in asking doctors to try and save lives that a nummber of them may actually contribute to dealths.

These are prices we're willing to pay.”

“And to go back to one of Nigal's points, there's far too much low-level crime in the UK. Bar fights, petty theft, car thefts, house break-ins. Widespread gun ownership could well cut these crimes - but a consequence would be an increased murder rate.”

“Where I live the murder rate is exceedingly low. Should we consider requiring the ownership of handguns? Nigal, you mentioned "choking off the supply" on an earlier post. That never worked with my chicken either:)”

“You could just move to PG County instead Nimble ;o)”

“How many lives are saved when law-abiding citizens carry firearms?

It’s the same sort of statistical conundrum we have with FDA regulations. For example: beta blockers. Beta blockers were denied approval by the FDA for years in this country. Some scientists estimated that 10,000 lives could have been saved by early approval of beta blockers. But how do you prove that statistic? How can you measure how many WOULD have been saved? It’s much easier to measure what occurs after a drug has been approved and one person dies after taking it.

And the government officials who approved drugs have much more to lose when they approve a drug and it fails. When your job is at stake, it’s easy to feel that it’s better to be safe than sorry. It’s a system that has incentives for delaying approval of possibly beneficial medicines.

And the lengthy approval process costs us all a lot of money. Most “liberals” are incapable of telling us how much the cost of medicine has increased since the creation of the FDA. Besides, they blame it all on greedy pharmaceutical companies anyway.

The cost of medicine goes up and “liberals” cry for government intervention. The cost of medicine goes up more, and “liberals” cry for more government intervention. The cost of medicine goes up more, and “liberals” cry for government run “universal healthcare.”

What kind of deluded mentality do you have when you keep pounding your head against the wall like that? I wouldn’t mind so much but the consequences of “liberal” actions forces me to pound my head as well.




Florida was the first state to implement “castle doctrine” laws. Violent crime in Florida decreased. Is there a statistical correlation between carry laws and criminal behavior? I’m not sure because there are so many variables.

“Liberal” Ray Nagin ignores the U.S. Constitution and confiscates firearms from their legal owners. His actions are declared illegal by the courts but he pays no political price in the Democratic Party stronghold of New Orleans. Is there a statistical correlation between “liberals” and ignoring U.S. laws? Witness the percentage of ex-felons who vote Democrat. I’m much more sure about this one.


The real questions are philosophical. Do I have a choice to take personal responsibility for protecting my own safety and the safety of those I love? Or must I submit to the tyranny of “liberals” who want to take away my constitutionally guaranteed rights and give responsibility for my life over to the “liberal” collective?


"Any doctrine that…weakens personal responsibility for judgement and for action…helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state."

John Dewey


“In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.”

Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)


“An armed society is a polite society.”

Robert A. Heinlein
last edited: 4/06/07 11:45:12 AM”

“Bottom line: I just don't trust most people to do the "right thing" with their guns. Apparently, people like arclite do.”

“Nice admission of being a control freak, Rosey.


Of course you can’t see any option other than the one you already feel is right.

The pattern continues over, and over, and over, …


Another way of telling Y2 what I did on another site is this:

Every time there is a “discussion” here, I ask questions.

Invariably the “liberals” ignore my questions and ask their own.

When I ask the “liberals” to answer my questions they often become indignant and insist that I answer their questions instead.

Invariably “liberals” ignore my questions and my suggested readings. There have been many excuses given, but no examination of opposing facts, figures, statistics, or opinions by the “liberals.”

Many times not only are my suggested readings ignored, but “liberals” will insist I read something that they suggest.

Many times I have. I have learned some very interesting things from examining the viewpoints of others.

The people who think of themselves as open-minded “liberals” ought to give it a try.




But the pattern continues over, and over, and over, …”

“Sure, when it comes to a means of impeding on my quality of life, I'm all about control. This extends into vehicle operation, air quality, food regulation, wire taps and an assortment of other critical aspects of American society that impact, me, you and everyone. Without these controls, we would not the ability to establish and enforce social norms and there would be anarchy.

Maybe it's that you have a pattern of being overly verbose, cutting and pasting, drawing extreme conclusions and pidgeon-holing everyone into a certain political spectrum that just turns a lot of people off from wanting to read your posts.

Be up front, state your questions and by all means, hold back on the whining.”

“I control my handgun...period; where it is, where it goes,what it's used for, and I'm permited, the gun is registered, yada yada yada....(You know, responsible).

I carry in school zones, federal buildings, stores that sell alcohol, states where I'm not permitted, on federal installations, etc....(You know, criminally).

Lee, you are on the side that says handguns were designed to kill...we are on the side that says the NRA is right, they are to protect life and property, (like Doctors who malpractice they can be misused....).

YEP, Doctors can be misused, and so can hand guns...both are CAPABLE of killing, and indeed DO. Handguns also serve as a deterent; and not just to criminal intent, but to abuse of power of those who make the rules.

I will carry 24/7, until I am killed or arrested. and while I know that riles you, may even scare you a little, strangely, you can take comfort from it, because while I break the carry laws occasionally, I do so without a criminal intent to do injury or worse to anyone.

FBI CONFIRMS IT: CRIMINALS IGNORE GUN LAWS

Heck, I'M THE PROOF OF THAT!”

“Well at least you didn’t deny you’re a control freak, Rosey.

What do you call it when you want to control the behavior of others because you don’t trust them to do the right thing? Hmmmmmmm?

The right thing according to you? So you have determined what is right for everyone and now you are trying to force others to conform to beliefs that you find acceptable? Hmmmmmmm?

Rosey, there are all sorts of dysfunctions associated with those thoughts.

I don’t put much stock in control-freak pre-emptive control. I would much prefer freedom of action with consequences.



One of the interesting points made in Bowling for Columbine was that Canada has more firearms per capita than the U.S., but not nearly as high a murder rate. Do you suppose this might mean that the problem with murder rates does not lie solely with firearms? Do you suppose that there might be other solutions than confiscating firearms from legal owners?

I smell another emotionally generated knee-jerk “liberal” reaction here.



The problem when you keep taking people’s freedoms away is that you move closer and closer to Totalitarianism.

Apparently I am willing to accept a more dangerous society that is free, while you want a safer Totalitarian state.

So what did you think of the quotes I posted previously? If our typical “liberal” pattern holds, I’ll bet you didn’t think about the philosophical implications for more than a nanosecond, if you read them at all.




Talk about a post that was too stupid to respond to. Lee, exactly what matter does it make what the intentions are?

That is the same sorry excuse you “liberals” make for all your failed social programs. “But our intentions were good.”

The fact is that many more people die each year from medical mistakes than firearms. And NOBODY would be so stupid as to suggest we need to ban doctors. Especially not someone so stupid as to use firearm deaths as a reason for thinking confiscating them from legal owners will end murder.


Death rates incomparable

MARTIN L. FACKLER
September 25. 2006


The Sun's Sept. 12 editorial, "The other atrocity," compares the number of gun deaths in the U.S., in 2003, with the number of deaths from the attacks of 9-11. These are not comparable.

All 2,973 of the deaths from the 9-11 attacks were premeditated intentional homicides. The comparison implies that all 30,136 of the 2003 gun deaths were also intentional homicides; thus comparable to the 9-11 deaths. The FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2003, however, reveals that two-thirds of the gun deaths (19,907) were suicides.

The editorial also failed to mention that criminals killed by the police, or by honest citizens in defense of their lives or the lives of others, were also included in the 30,136; as were unintentional gun deaths.

The number of 2003 gun deaths truly comparable to the 9-11 deaths was no more than one third of the 30,136. The spurious comparison also implies that gun violence in 2003 was of great or increasing concern. In The Gainesville Sun Oct. 18, 2005, article "Murder rate in U.S. hits 40-year low," however, we find that the murder rate in 2003 was the lowest since 1965, and we now know that it declined 3.3 percent more in 2004.

Murder rates in the United States do remain a problem in some of our large cities: Washington, D.C., is the prime example. It has the most stringent gun control laws in the country - and the highest murder rate. Prohibitive gun control disarms the honest citizen - and criminals obviously prefer unarmed prey.

This point is strongly supported by the steady decrease in violent crimes with firearms over the past decade concomitant with increasing numbers of firearms in the hands of U.S. citizens.

Florida enacted its nondiscretionary concealed-handgun right-to-carry law, in 1987. Other states followed suit, bringing the number of states currently permitting qualified citizens to carry concealed handguns to 40. That increasing numbers of law-abiding citizens carrying concealed handguns deters crime should come as no surprise. It is, in fact, what any unbiased rational analysis would predict.

Interestingly, as I was working on this response, Kimveer Gill shot 20 persons in Montreal. Those who remember the Canada of a decade ago will likely be shocked by this. The firearm literate will not be surprised. England, Canada, and Australia now have violent crime rates double that in the United States - partly due to our decreasing rate, but mostly because of the strict gun control laws adopted by these countries in the past decade.

Martin L. Fackler is a retired military trauma surgeon who lives in Gainesville.


http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060925/EDITORIALS0102/209250337&SearchID=73258032359588



Murder Rates by country:
http://www.rkba.org/research/cramer/murder.txt”

“Sure Arc. It's easy to say, let the ball roll where it may and then deal with consequences. What you call "freedom," I call lazy and uninvolved. What you "pre-emptive," I call planning.

I never mentioned the "right thing" according to me. We live in a society with laws. Society makes the determination about what those laws will be and how they are enforced.

You got it wrong. I'm all about live and let live, just not in instances where the actions of others in society could cut my life short.”

“I just love it when Arc finds a good issue to sink his teeth into. LOL!”

“A true believer in centralized planning. Who gets to do the planning Rosey? I don’t want to tell you what to do. You appear to have no moral insight that makes you question your perceived need to control the behavior of others.

Lazy and uninvolved? I’m drooling here. Taking personal responsibility for your actions is lazy and uninvolved? You believe that pre-planning someone’s life through government regulation, and absolving people of the responsibility for making choices, isn’t a recipe for creating lazy and uninvolved people? You must be one heck of a parent.

You didn’t read those quotes at all, did you? Let me repeat one:

"Any doctrine that…weakens personal responsibility for judgement and for action…helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state."

John Dewey


Goes right over your head, doesn’t it?




Rosey, what part of the English language are we having trouble with?

Now I know you’re feeling like engaging in rhetorical whitewashing, but when you say:

“Bottom line: I just don't trust most people to do the "right thing" with their guns.”

as an argument for controlling the behavior of others, do you understand that you believe you need to control the behavior of others because you don’t feel they’re doing what you believe is the right thing?

That statement doesn’t mean we all have the same ideas about what’s the right thing. It certainly doesn’t mean I have the same ideas about what’s right and wrong as you.

What is the right thing, Rosey? With that statement, are you saying that you don’t trust me to protect myself? Is that not the right thing?

Are you saying that you don’t trust people not to harm innocent bystanders when shooting someone who imminently threatens their life?

Are you saying that it is not right to shoot a person who imminently threatens your life?

Are you saying you don’t trust people not to turn into psychopaths and shoot everyone in sight once they have a gun?



When you make a statement like that you are making value judgments about what you believe are the right things.

Are we clear here?




And then you top it all off with a statement that says, “It’s all about me.” You don’t care about my rights for freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and what are my choices to protect my family?

Your statement:

"I'm all about live and let live, just not in instances where the actions of others in society could cut my life short."

says that you are willing to take away my rights because YOU “feel” threatened although there is no imminent threat TO YOU.

Whatta guy!


These concepts are confusing you, aren’t they?
last edited: 4/06/07 4:43:27 PM”

“Pish! Let the feds handle everything Arc...



BTW- the little ugly spotted one to the left there is Ohio. LOL!”

“A you sure Nigal?

I'm thinking Ohio is probably confused and trying to suckle food from his daddy because he's a ...

LOOOOOOOOOOSER!”

“Why gun control is necessary:

1) Goobers.
2) Drunks.
3) Drunk goobers.”

“Why birth control is necessary:

1) Constitution ignoring "Liberals"
2) Totalitarian Control Freaks
3) Either of the above, they're the same thing”

“Word on the street is that Britain's government is taking swift action in efforts to stop alternative weapons from replacing guns. They have now suggested a baked bean ban as they are obviously a danger to the public.

”

“If anyone has spent a night in a tent with CERTAIN backpackers this could be a good debate.”

“LOL @ Nigal and XL.

If the Brits are willing to give up their beans on toast, maybe it proves they are serious about violence.”

“Baked beans don't kill people. People with baked beans kill people.

They'll have to pry my baked beans out of my cold, dead hand.

These are my baked beans, this is my gun. These are for killing, this is for fun.”

“I don't know why I have to keep reminding you people that guns are fun.”

“WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, Mich. -- A woman who was angry because her husband wanted her to turn up the heat pulled out a gun and shot their flat-screen TV while he cowered behind a pillow, Macomb County authorities say.

The 65-year-old man called 911 Sunday night from the basement of their Washington Township home, about 25 miles north of Detroit.

"My wife's got a gun. She's shooting at me," Joseph Grucz said in the recorded call.

He told the operator that Cheryl Grucz, 61, was angry because he wanted the heat turned up. She fired a round while he hid his head in a pillow, striking the plasma TV, then went upstairs, the Detroit Free Press said.

"She's all excited about it because she's so cheap," the husband said.

His wife, who had picked up another extension, told the operator she wanted to tell her side.

"I'm not going to hurt him. He has pushed me over the edge, that was all," Cheryl Grucz said, according to a recording obtained by WXYZ-TV. "He has had a stroke, and he's taking it all out on me."

"No I'm not," her husband said.

"Yes, he is," she told the dispatcher.

http://blog.mlive.com/kzgazette/2007/12/thermostat_war_leads_to_gunfir.html”

“

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007712180379”

“Only violin would use spouse abuse to further his own slimey goals.”

“Statistics suck, huh vman.”

“Vman likes spousal abuse.”

“(How else are we going to hit what we aim at?)”

“Actually, I think it hits pretty close to home for violin. After all, his hoochie wife has him thoroughly dominated and emasculated. It's no wonder he doesn't want her to have guns.”