Gunman opens fire at U.S. church, kills two

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Thats silly, you are comparing apples with grapes.....

Both cars and guns are useful tools that easily can be used to kill innocent people through malice or negligence.

Both are used for exactly that purpose, cars more so than guns.

Cars are also destroying the environment, cost a crapload of taxpayer money on infrastructure and do not save lives for civilians to have them.

How are they different.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Cars on the Roads and Highways?

And the Roads, and the Cafes, and any store thats roadside, and parking lots.

Quite frankly, you have to worry about them everywhere you worry about legal guns. Cause if your worrying about guns in your home, that means someone is already breaking the law to bust in, and they have the intent to harm you because they are armed.

That makes no sense at all.

I have to worry about cars everywhere I have to worry about "Legal" guns? Where I live, the only "Legal" guns around are either on police officers, military police at the nearby base, or deep deep in the dank dark woods in the hands of someone hunting some food... far far away from where I live..... as there is no hunting within such and such a proximity to homes.

Most people around here, don't carry guns in the first place, because #1, there's no need... and #2, unless you're going to break a law, why else would you have a gun on you in the first place? (If you think you're going to get robbed or attacked at any moment of any day, then you need to seek therapy)

If you need a handgun to defend yourself on an everyday basis where you live, then that says something about the place you live.

And the question is very much the same. Do you restrict peoples freedom to own useful tools on the basis that you assume they are by default, incompetant. And if they are incompetant by default, why do you let them vote.

#1, A hammer, screwdriver, a dildo, a computer are tools..... a firearm is a weapon, designed to be a weapon, designed to kill, very much like a bomb, nerve gas, and such.... not fix things. I'm sure you can try and nail a few boards together with a gun, but it won't work very well.

#2, you should have a right to defend yourself, but you shouldn't have the right to kill someone, and no matter how much you or anybody else shouts "It's a right! it's a freedom!" it still doesn't solve the problem of the millions of people who abuse that right.... that freedom to terrorize your other rights and other freedoms.

If you're living a life where you don't get jumped or attacked on an everyday basis and you feel safe where you live, and you have never needed to use or posess a firearm in any paticular time in your life, you have no enemies, nobody out to get you, and for the most part.... if you have a gun, and it's sitting home collecting dust in between the times you take it to the range..... then you certainly won't miss it and you clearly don't need it.

If you do need it and you're being attacked all the time, being robbed, people are out to get you and you live day in and day out wondering if you're going to die..... then perhaps you should move. And doesn't that tell you something about the police force in your neighborhood? Be it the police and societies fault, or your own actions which cause people to come after you in which you fear your life all the time..... that sounds like a really sh*tty place to live if you ask me.

As it goes for people being incompetant by default when it comes to the use of firearms, I say yes.... you hand someone a gun who's never held, let alone used a gun before, they're not going to be all that great, not to mention safe.

Just like you can't just toss someone into a car and throw them on the highway to fend for themselves without any education......

.... oh and that's the difference between your car / gun comparison.... people need training to get their lisence to drive.... with guns, you just need your drivers lisence in most States and you get a gun.... even though your drivers lisence doesn't cover how to operate a firearm. Does that make sense? Nope. Just to see that you're old enough to have a gun, and that you live in that state and you can get one.

Great background check.

As for voting.... that's not even remotely the same, and although this is another long straw, I'll entertain that for a bit as well.

Everybody has the right to express their opinions and concerns, and words don't directly kill. People can have the right to decide who will have their best interests at play, but those same people don't have the right to decide who lives and who dies with a gun. A vote is a non-violent action.... where you pick someone on a card in a little booth and continue on with your life like everyone else..... nobody's health and/or life are at risk by those actions.

Oh but you're gonna say the politician they voted in killed a bunch of people, and hince was a weapon and the people who voted the guy in are responsible? No.... People who vote are responsible for the person they selected to lead their country..... the person leading their country is responsible for their own decisions they made that may have killed people. Unless the voter actually voted for the direct killing of someone, they are not responsible.

I mean, seriously, how far down the rabbit blame hole are you wanting to go? Blame the people who killed an innocent? Blame the Politician for his decisions that allowed those people to kill an innocent? Blame the people who voted in that politician? Blame their parents for giving birth to the voter? Blame their parents before them and the votes they made that led up to this point?

Geez.... eventually you're going to get down to blaming God.... and why not with that mentality?

A firearm isn't a tool, or a car, or a vote.... it's a weapon, and just because you hit adult age to use a car, or to vote, or work in construction, all of those things have a level of training and education to them, including voting, as there are continual ads and information being bombarded to us everytime to know where each person stands.

Got a lisence? Ok, here's a gun and some ammo.... figure it out for yourself.... have fun.

Yeah, wonderful comparisons.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
This news was reported differently here: the gunman spewed hatred against liberals for being too beneficent in society. Yet, he was supposedly angry because his food stamps (a product of liberal social thinking) were taken away from him. Quite ironic.

Yeah, and used his NRA backed, conservative pumped up right to shoot people.... quite a combination if you ask me.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Both cars and guns are useful tools that easily can be used to kill innocent people through malice or negligence.

Both are used for exactly that purpose, cars more so than guns.

What the hell are you smoking? Vehicles are used for transportation, not to start your own Death Race 2000.... seriously, what the hell can make you think the two are the same?

Both are used for the exact purpose to kill innocent people through malice or negligence?

CAR:
*Closes Eyes and Steers Sharply into the Sidewalk and kills several people*

"Oops, sorry, that's what I was ment to do!!" :-?

That's got to be the most foolish thing I read so far today.

Cars are also destroying the environment, cost a crapload of taxpayer money on infrastructure and do not save lives for civilians to have them.

Ever gash your arm open at home and it was quicker to drive to the hospital then to wait for an ambulance? Ever need to get the hell out of the woods quickly from a camping accident? Ever have to drive your girlfriend or wife to the hospital when they're giving birth?

Let me guess.... if you're arm was cut badly and you were bleeding to death, you'd do what? Shoot off your gun and use the heated barrel to burn the wound closed or just shoot yourself in the head?

Let me guess.... you're stuck in the woods and need to get out in a hurry because of a camping accident, you'd do what? Shoot the person who needs the medical attention and then you can continue your camping trip without worry?

And for your wife or girlfriend giving birth, you'd do what? Start screaming at the vagina with a gun, telling your baby to hurry the hell up because you're missing your game?

What? None of that makes any sense? Yeah I know it doesn't.

How are they different.

:roll:
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
That makes no sense at all.

I have to worry about cars everywhere I have to worry about "Legal" guns? Where I live, the only "Legal" guns around are either on police officers, military police at the nearby base, or deep deep in the dank dark woods in the hands of someone hunting some food... far far away from where I live..... as there is no hunting within such and such a proximity to homes.

Most people around here, don't carry guns in the first place, because #1, there's no need... and #2, unless you're going to break a law, why else would you have a gun on you in the first place? (If you think you're going to get robbed or attacked at any moment of any day, then you need to seek therapy)

If you need a handgun to defend yourself on an everyday basis where you live, then that says something about the place you live.



#1, A hammer, screwdriver, a dildo, a computer are tools..... a firearm is a weapon, designed to be a weapon, designed to kill, very much like a bomb, nerve gas, and such.... not fix things. I'm sure you can try and nail a few boards together with a gun, but it won't work very well.

Read Canadian law......anything is a weapon that is intended to be used as a weapon.....firearms may be used as weapons, same as screwdrivers dildos or computers.....or they may be used to punch holes in targets....it is intent that makes a weapon.

#2, you should have a right to defend yourself, but you shouldn't have the right to kill someone, and no matter how much you or anybody else shouts "It's a right! it's a freedom!" it still doesn't solve the problem of the millions of people who abuse that right.... that freedom to terrorize your other rights and other freedoms.

If you're living a life where you don't get jumped or attacked on an everyday basis and you feel safe where you live, and you have never needed to use or posess a firearm in any paticular time in your life, you have no enemies, nobody out to get you, and for the most part.... if you have a gun, and it's sitting home collecting dust in between the times you take it to the range..... then you certainly won't miss it and you clearly don't need it.

Free men have the right to keep arms....it has always been so. Simple as that. Read a little history.

If you do need it and you're being attacked all the time, being robbed, people are out to get you and you live day in and day out wondering if you're going to die..... then perhaps you should move. And doesn't that tell you something about the police force in your neighborhood? Be it the police and societies fault, or your own actions which cause people to come after you in which you fear your life all the time..... that sounds like a really sh*tty place to live if you ask me.

As it goes for people being incompetant by default when it comes to the use of firearms, I say yes.... you hand someone a gun who's never held, let alone used a gun before, they're not going to be all that great, not to mention safe.

I don't really have a problem with simple licensing and training....I have a problem with laws and procedures simply meant to harass and make the ownership and use of weapons such a pain in the butt that the exercise of our rghts becomes a rarity....easily eliminated.


Just like you can't just toss someone into a car and throw them on the highway to fend for themselves without any education......

.... oh and that's the difference between your car / gun comparison.... people need training to get their lisence to drive.... with guns, you just need your drivers lisence in most States and you get a gun.... even though your drivers lisence doesn't cover how to operate a firearm. Does that make sense? Nope. Just to see that you're old enough to have a gun, and that you live in that state and you can get one.

Great background check.

As for voting.... that's not even remotely the same, and although this is another long straw, I'll entertain that for a bit as well.

Everybody has the right to express their opinions and concerns, and words don't directly kill. People can have the right to decide who will have their best interests at play, but those same people don't have the right to decide who lives and who dies with a gun. A vote is a non-violent action.... where you pick someone on a card in a little booth and continue on with your life like everyone else..... nobody's health and/or life are at risk by those actions.

Oh but you're gonna say the politician they voted in killed a bunch of people, and hince was a weapon and the people who voted the guy in are responsible? No.... People who vote are responsible for the person they selected to lead their country..... the person leading their country is responsible for their own decisions they made that may have killed people. Unless the voter actually voted for the direct killing of someone, they are not responsible.

I mean, seriously, how far down the rabbit blame hole are you wanting to go? Blame the people who killed an innocent? Blame the Politician for his decisions that allowed those people to kill an innocent? Blame the people who voted in that politician? Blame their parents for giving birth to the voter? Blame their parents before them and the votes they made that led up to this point?

Geez.... eventually you're going to get down to blaming God.... and why not with that mentality?

A firearm isn't a tool, or a car, or a vote.... it's a weapon, and just because you hit adult age to use a car, or to vote, or work in construction, all of those things have a level of training and education to them, including voting, as there are continual ads and information being bombarded to us everytime to know where each person stands.

Got a lisence? Ok, here's a gun and some ammo.... figure it out for yourself.... have fun.


see above. :)
Yeah, wonderful comparisons.

I am always amazed that the left....the "voice of the people", doesn't actually TRUST the people......
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
lol
The fact remains that vehicles kill & maim more people than firearms do. In cities and towns, the only reasons I can see for a resident owning firearms is for target shooting (sport) or else for collecting (there's some very ingenious and some very artistic pieces of machinery out there).
If gov'ts had gotten their poop in a group they could have drastically limited personal vehicle traffic in their cities and towns by developing adequate mass transit in the first place. Here, it would still be practical to disallow any local personal traffic in town and beef up the public transit systems. That would actually open up places to park for the tourists that this place loves to lure here. It would probably cause more locals to use bicycles and the buses.
Anyway, aside from the people who intend on being malicious, the average dood rarely picks up a firearm for the purpose of killing person or people. This person is more likely to go get drunk or high and end up killing a person or people with their vehicle. If this dummy in the church had driven his car into the church he could have done a lot more damage than killing two and injuring a few others. Good thing he didn't think of that.
Anyway, Praxius, maybe to you firearms are weapons, but to me and a lot of other people I know, they are tools. We use them to get food, to keep things like bears and cougars from robbing us of our apple crops and chickens, etc. So not everyone has your attitude towardsthem, fortunately. But don't feel bad, I am not picking on you, just kinda feeling sympathetic for you because you seem to dwell on all the nasty people and things you hear about. Not everyone is evil or wacko.
 
Last edited:

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
lol
The fact remains that vehicles kill & maim more people than firearms do. In cities and towns, the only reasons I can see for a resident owning firearms is for target shooting (sport) or else for collecting (there's some very ingenious and some very artistic pieces of machinery out there).
If gov'ts had gotten their poop in a group they could have drastically limited personal vehicle traffic in their cities and towns by developing adequate mass transit in the first place. Here, it would still be practical to disallow any local personal traffic in town and beef up the public transit systems. That would actually open up places to park for the tourists that this place loves to lure here. It would probably cause more locals to use bicycles and the buses.
Anyway, aside from the people who intend on being malicious, the average dood rarely picks up a firearm for the purpose of killing person or people. This person is more likely to go get drunk or high and end up killing a person or people with their vehicle. If this dummy in the church had driven his car into the church he could have done a lot more damage than killing two and injuring a few others. Good thing he didn't think of that.

One way or the other it was wrong.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
That makes no sense at all.

I have to worry about cars everywhere I have to worry about "Legal" guns? Where I live, the only "Legal" guns around are either on police officers, military police at the nearby base, or deep deep in the dank dark woods in the hands of someone hunting some food... far far away from where I live..... as there is no hunting within such and such a proximity to homes.

Well, that unlikely. Lots of city folk go hunting, and depending on bilaws, they keep their guns in their home. My father lives in the inner city and has 2 shotguns, a rifle, a musket and a crossbow. All legal, all in the city.

Most people around here, don't carry guns in the first place, because #1, there's no need... and #2, unless you're going to break a law, why else would you have a gun on you in the first place? (If you think you're going to get robbed or attacked at any moment of any day, then you need to seek therapy)
Well, as someone who has been robbed, at 7pm on a tuesday walking to the convenience store at knifepoint, that would seem to me that you need therapy if you believe it can't happen. Is it likely to happen? Hell no. I consider it a fluke on my part, but what gives you the right to decide for others? The odds you will need to lock your doors is pretty minimal in many places too, you wouldn't ban locks (as they can impede fire rescue and cost lives).

If you need a handgun to defend yourself on an everyday basis where you live, then that says something about the place you live.

So? Its not like there is an unending stream of work and homes. Sometimes you live in bad neighbourhoods where you are not safe. I had to for a year. Not everyone can live in an ivory tower protected by rainbows and unicorns.


#1, A hammer, screwdriver, a dildo, a computer are tools..... a firearm is a weapon, designed to be a weapon, designed to kill, very much like a bomb, nerve gas, and such.... not fix things. I'm sure you can try and nail a few boards together with a gun, but it won't work very well.

Or you can get rid of rabid raccoons before they bite your kid. You know who has one of the highest gun ownership rates?

The Amish, are you saying the Amish are all out to kill?

A gun is a tool, no different than mousetrap.

#2, you should have a right to defend yourself, but you shouldn't have the right to kill someone, and no matter how much you or anybody else shouts "It's a right! it's a freedom!" it still doesn't solve the problem of the millions of people who abuse that right.... that freedom to terrorize your other rights and other freedoms.
So, someone who is violating your rights to live should be protected? Defending yourself often does mean you have to respond with equal force. There is a reason we give cops guns.

Name one situation a cop would need a gun for that a civilian could never be placed in? So the question becomes, should all civil control be in the hands of police? Looking at their record of tasering crippled victims repeatedly and beating the crap out of people they drag from cars, that doesn't seem like a better solution.


If you're living a life where you don't get jumped or attacked on an everyday basis and you feel safe where you live, and you have never needed to use or posess a firearm in any paticular time in your life, you have no enemies, nobody out to get you, and for the most part.... if you have a gun, and it's sitting home collecting dust in between the times you take it to the range..... then you certainly won't miss it and you clearly don't need it.
And it clearly won't hurt anyone either.

If you do need it and you're being attacked all the time, being robbed, people are out to get you and you live day in and day out wondering if you're going to die..... then perhaps you should move.
Perhaps they win the lottery and live in a mansion, until then, thats life.

And doesn't that tell you something about the police force in your neighborhood? Be it the police and societies fault, or your own actions which cause people to come after you in which you fear your life all the time..... that sounds like a really sh*tty place to live if you ask me.

I agree, but so what? You can't just up an move, otherwise, no one would live in a third world hellhole they would just move too. Sometimes your stuck in a ****ty place.

As it goes for people being incompetant by default when it comes to the use of firearms, I say yes.... you hand someone a gun who's never held, let alone used a gun before, they're not going to be all that great, not to mention safe.

Looking at who gets elected, the same can be said of voters who have no concept of how their government is run, what various policies mean, whats feasible and whats not...

Just like you can't just toss someone into a car and throw them on the highway to fend for themselves without any education......

I agree, I have no problem with lisencing.

.... oh and that's the difference between your car / gun comparison.... people need training to get their lisence to drive.... with guns, you just need your drivers lisence in most States and you get a gun.... even though your drivers lisence doesn't cover how to operate a firearm. Does that make sense? Nope. Just to see that you're old enough to have a gun, and that you live in that state and you can get one.

I agree its overdone too, better lisencing. But then if you can show you can safely operate an assault rifle, I would assume you would have no problem with someone owning one.
Great background check.

As for voting.... that's not even remotely the same, and although this is another long straw, I'll entertain that for a bit as well.

Everybody has the right to express their opinions and concerns, and words don't directly kill. People can have the right to decide who will have their best interests at play, but those same people don't have the right to decide who lives and who dies with a gun. A vote is a non-violent action.... where you pick someone on a card in a little booth and continue on with your life like everyone else..... nobody's health and/or life are at risk by those actions.

Oh but you're gonna say the politician they voted in killed a bunch of people, and hince was a weapon and the people who voted the guy in are responsible? No.... People who vote are responsible for the person they selected to lead their country..... the person leading their country is responsible for their own decisions they made that may have killed people. Unless the voter actually voted for the direct killing of someone, they are not responsible.

I mean, seriously, how far down the rabbit blame hole are you wanting to go? Blame the people who killed an innocent? Blame the Politician for his decisions that allowed those people to kill an innocent? Blame the people who voted in that politician? Blame their parents for giving birth to the voter? Blame their parents before them and the votes they made that led up to this point?

Geez.... eventually you're going to get down to blaming God.... and why not with that mentality?

your right, it is ridiculous, up there with blaming an inanimate object for the crime a thinking person committed with it.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
What the hell are you smoking? Vehicles are used for transportation, not to start your own Death Race 2000.... seriously, what the hell can make you think the two are the same?

Both are used for the exact purpose to kill innocent people through malice or negligence?

CAR:
*Closes Eyes and Steers Sharply into the Sidewalk and kills several people*

"Oops, sorry, that's what I was ment to do!!" :-?

That's got to be the most foolish thing I read so far today.


Prosecutors said the women lured the men off the street, housed and cared for them for two years, and ran them over to collect on life insurance policies the women had bought for the men. The women were abusing a law that says insurers cannot contest life policies after two years, prosecutors said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-olgahelen16-2008jul16,0,5422268.story

People use cars to commit murder (intentional) and to commit manslaughter(accidental, ie drunk driving) more than they do guns.

Cars are murder weapons.

Ever gash your arm open at home and it was quicker to drive to the hospital then to wait for an ambulance? Ever need to get the hell out of the woods quickly from a camping accident? Ever have to drive your girlfriend or wife to the hospital when they're giving birth?

Let me guess.... if you're arm was cut badly and you were bleeding to death, you'd do what? Shoot off your gun and use the heated barrel to burn the wound closed or just shoot yourself in the head?

Let me guess.... you're stuck in the woods and need to get out in a hurry because of a camping accident, you'd do what? Shoot the person who needs the medical attention and then you can continue your camping trip without worry?

And for your wife or girlfriend giving birth, you'd do what? Start screaming at the vagina with a gun, telling your baby to hurry the hell up because you're missing your game?

What? None of that makes any sense? Yeah I know it doesn't.


All of those are examples of ignoring an official government agent (ambulance usually) who is trained to do the job with proper tools

In favour of an untrained civilian doing his best to do it himself because he believes its in his safety.

IE,

If I cut my arm badly and Im bleeding to deaths, should I get behind the wheel of a two tonne death machine and race through traffic at high speeds to try and reach a hospital while im bleeding to death and fading in and out of conciousness (Oh look, a schoolbus, BOOM)

Or apply pressure and wait for a trained professional to fix me.

Does that mean its better to wait for the trained professional to deal with all your problems for you? No.

So why is it magically that the police are the only ones capable of protecting you.


Someone goes into your house , you can either sit on the phone and wait 30 minutes for the cops to arrive while they kill and or rape your family. Or you can shoot them.

Oh, but why live in a neighbourhood where that happens?

Why go camping if you could get hurt?

But its very unlikely it will happen.

Its very unlikely I'll cut myself badly and the best option is to drive myself.

If you are in an area where that happens alot, move.

If your wife is getting due, go to the hospital/midwife early, like they used to do.


There is no need for a car. Its very easy to know that, because many people do not have cars, and no one is guaranteed the right to own a car. And they do just fine.

"you" feel safer with a car (even though now that everyone has one more people die), so "you" feel its your inalienable right to own one.

Much the same as responsible gun owners feel. "It can protect me, I am responsible with it, why should I lose my gun because some idiots can't operate one, take theirs away".

Double standard.

:roll:
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Maybe that stupid right should be changed? You know it dates back to the civil war times for an entirely different reason that suggested today (self defence and protecting personal property during those tough times).

I know that the right to bear arms dates back to the Civil War? Gee...I thought it was a right given when they wrote the Constitution in 1787. You were off by 70 years. Where do you come up with your information? You should try looking up things before you post them because you make yourself look foolish.

The Right to Bear arms was a right granted to the people for ALL TIMES.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
It would reduce the amount, yes. You can't even debate that, because it's just common sense. I know form personal experience from my own teenaged years and suicidal moments around that time, and what I would have done to those around me, if I had the resources available to me. I didn't, a knife wasn't going to get me very far in what I wanted to do, so I learned to get through that crap and deal with it.... moved on, people in my school are laid off from the steel mill, married their high school sl*ts, 4.5 kids, and never got anywhere.... it all works out in the end.

Case in point:

Situation #1 -
Guy A gets angry at Guy B for whatever reason.... enough that he lost control of his emotions. Guy A grabs his gun which is readily available and shoots Guy B. Guy B dies. Guy A is now a criminal and goes to jail.

Situation #2 -
Guy A gets angry at Guy B for whatever reason.... enough that he lost control of his emotions. Guy A looks for a gun to shoot the guy. No gun available or locked away back home and has to go home, open the gun cabinet, assemble his gun..... frig that, by the time Guy A got home, he probably has enough time to think through his actions and decide not to do it.

Situation #3 -
Guy A gets angry at Guy B for whatever reason.... enough that he lost control of his emotions. Guy A Beats the hell out of Guy B and they both go at it like the good old times. Guy A and Guy B are tired, sore and forgot why they were fighting in the first place and decide to goto the bar and have some more drinks.

All hypotheticals. All situations that no matter if a gun is available.

Guy A grabs knife and stabs Guy B.
Guy A beats Guy B and Guy B dies of injuries.



Still doesn't make it right.... a centuries old mistake is still a mistake. Just an old one.

So you say but many down here do not agree with you nor would we want you taking away the right to bear arms because some people are of the opinion that it is old and outdated.



Not from the information I've read in many cases..... V-Tech for example.

Have you ever been to Blacksburg Virginia, Home of Virginia Tech? I have and it is hardly an urban environment.

And sorry, but doesn't your statement contradict your belief all together when you say it's a right to own firearms, and then blame the violence on illegal gun owners? How can they be illegal if it's a right?

Not at all. The Consitution is not a means for self destruction. Yes we have rights granted to us but we are also a nation of laws and there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. When people commit violent and illegal acts they are forfeiting their freedoms as they are not responsible. When you commit a felony you no longer havethe right to bear arms...ever. We have a right to vote, and assemble but when you are in jail you have by your actions forfeited your rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: L Gilbert

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Situation #3 -
Guy A gets angry at Guy B for whatever reason.... enough that he lost control of his emotions. Guy A Beats the hell out of Guy B and they both go at it like the good old times. Guy A and Guy B are tired, sore and forgot why they were fighting in the first place and decide to goto the bar and have some more drinks.

This situation often results in murder charges Prax. My cousin went home after one such incident, and the police were at his door that morning, arresting him for murder. The guy had gone home, laid down on his couch, and promptly died of a brain bleed inflicted from the blows. He's not the first to die that way either.

Violence is violence. Committing violent acts against people is illegal whether you do it with a gun or your fists.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
All hypotheticals. All situations that no matter if a gun is available.

Guy A grabs knife and stabs Guy B.
Guy A beats Guy B and Guy B dies of injuries.





So you say but many down here do not agree with you nor would we want you taking away the right to bear arms because some people are of the opinion that it is old and outdated.





Have you ever been to Blacksburg Virginia, Home of Virginia Tech? I have and it is hardly an urban environment.



Not at all. The Consitution is not a means for self destruction. Yes we have rights granted to us but we are also a nation of laws and there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. When people commit violent and illegal acts they are forfeiting their freedoms as they are not responsible. When you commit a felony you no longer havethe right to bear arms...ever. We have a right to vote, and assemble but when you are in jail you have by your actions forfeited your rights.
Yup. It's a bit obvious that certain rights as individuals should be and are regulated by society's wants and needs. Unfortunately, the obvious escapes some people.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Actually i'd say the opposite.

Individuals rights must be respected against societal wants.

They wouldn't be rights if they only had meaning when people felt like it. The Jim Crow laws are a perfect example of why a right is meaningless if public opinions change them at whim.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Prosecutors said the women lured the men off the street, housed and cared for them for two years, and ran them over to collect on life insurance policies the women had bought for the men. The women were abusing a law that says insurers cannot contest life policies after two years, prosecutors said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-olgahelen16-2008jul16,0,5422268.story

People use cars to commit murder (intentional) and to commit manslaughter(accidental, ie drunk driving) more than they do guns.

Cars are murder weapons.

No they're not. A vehicles' original design and intention of use is for transportation, since everybody couldn't own a train and horses were slower in comparison.

A firearm is a weapon, designed to kill, be that an animal or other humans. Just because you can find a couple of cases where someone intentionally used a vehicle to kill someone, doesn't make vehicles a plaque of such magnitude as firearms, which... once again, in case you didn't get it before..... Are Designed To Kill Things.

There is no other alternative use for firearms other then to kill things. You can't open your beer can with them, you can't write an exam with them, you can't fix your damn car with them.... all you can do is shoot things.

And if killing things means a firearm is a tool, then that makes me wonder what kind of business you are in.

All of those are examples of ignoring an official government agent (ambulance usually) who is trained to do the job with proper tools.

And you're allowed to refuse any medical treatment you wish, including an ambulance... esspecially if they're going to charge you a couple of hundred dollars to use it. Don't forget that medical treatment in the US isn't cheap.

In favour of an untrained civilian doing his best to do it himself because he believes its in his safety.

IE,

If I cut my arm badly and Im bleeding to deaths, should I get behind the wheel of a two tonne death machine and race through traffic at high speeds to try and reach a hospital while im bleeding to death and fading in and out of conciousness (Oh look, a schoolbus, BOOM)

Hey, if you're that much of an idiot that you can't drive properly and you gotta go race your dumbass through traffic, disregarding the rules of the road, then I have no sympathy for you. If you injured your arm bad enough that you can not properly steer or shift gears with one hand (And yes, for myself in paticular, I drive a standard, so normally I only have one hand on the wheel most times, esspecially in downtown traffic) then if you had a brain, you wouldn't drive and risk the lives of other people. You can always get someone else to drive you to the hospital who is fully capable of maintaining control over the vehicle.

Or apply pressure and wait for a trained professional to fix me.

Which by that time, you maybe dead.

Does that mean its better to wait for the trained professional to deal with all your problems for you? No.

Does that mean you get to pop a cap into everybodys ass who crosses you and take their lives? No.

But this is where you say that the constitution doesn't give people that right and only criminals do that.... well reality check.... that's the only thing the constitution is doing, is giving people that extra excuse as to why they should own a firearm and use it against their fellow man.

And when it comes to a life and death situation, I don't need a gun to kill someone.... that's just uncreative and lazy..... but hey, whatever makes people feel like big men.

So why is it magically that the police are the only ones capable of protecting you.

Gee.... um.... It's their damn job? Perhaps because that's what our tax dollars are used for? I dunno.... :roll:

Someone goes into your house , you can either sit on the phone and wait 30 minutes for the cops to arrive while they kill and or rape your family. Or you can shoot them.

Yes, because that happens every day..... oh and that only a gun can save you.... jesus.

Oh, but why live in a neighbourhood where that happens?

Why go camping if you could get hurt?

Oh ok, well with that mentality, you can stay locked up in your home, with your family hiding in the cellar with all your guns, and I'm sure you'll be perfectly safe. Must be some life to live, don't forget to write.

But its very unlikely it will happen.

Its very unlikely I'll cut myself badly and the best option is to drive myself.

You have more chance of injuring yourself throughout your life more often then someone else injuring you. This is why people also have first aid kits in their homes.

Oh but then you're going to try and relate a first aid kit to owning a firearm..... and yet.... a first aid kit is designed to improve health and save lives.... once again, firearms are designed to do the total opposite..... there is no relation.

If you are in an area where that happens alot, move.

If your wife is getting due, go to the hospital/midwife early, like they used to do.

There is no need for a car. Its very easy to know that, because many people do not have cars, and no one is guaranteed the right to own a car. And they do just fine.

I never said they did, as I already repeated myself as saying that more and better training is required down there for obtaining a lisence. In fact, I never even brought up vehicles as a comparison in the first place. I already agreed towards the problem with vehicles, and I presented a very simple solution.... I also presented a simple solution to reducing gun related violence and crimes.

"you" feel safer with a car (even though now that everyone has one more people die), so "you" feel its your inalienable right to own one.

Wrong... I never said a vehicle was a right to own.... a vehicle and the use of the roads is a privilage, not a right.... one big difference in which shoots your comparison of the two down. Nobody is just handed a car, as I have already repeated.... learn to read ffs.

And nobody should be just handed a gun.

Much the same as responsible gun owners feel. "It can protect me, I am responsible with it, why should I lose my gun because some idiots can't operate one, take theirs away".

Double standard.

:roll:

Only a double standard because you didn't read wtf I was saying.

You're continually trying to compare apples to shoes, not reading what has already been said, putting words into other's mouths which they never said and it's not working for you, sorry to say.

And no matter how many straws and long reaches you try to use, none of it supports your argument, because they either contradict what was already said, or you mis-represent what others have just said and mis-quote them.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Actually i'd say the opposite.

Individuals rights must be respected against societal wants.

They wouldn't be rights if they only had meaning when people felt like it. The Jim Crow laws are a perfect example of why a right is meaningless if public opinions change them at whim.
Then the individual shouldn't live in societies. The whole idea behind societies is to benefit the mass, not the individual.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
No they're not. A vehicles' original design and intention of use is for transportation, since everybody couldn't own a train and horses were slower in comparison.
A firearm is a weapon, designed to kill, be that an animal or other humans. Just because you can find a couple of cases where someone intentionally used a vehicle to kill someone, doesn't make vehicles a plaque of such magnitude as firearms, which... once again, in case you didn't get it before..... Are Designed To Kill Things.
SOME vehicles are designed for transportation. Some are designed for the purpose of digging. Some for the purposes of cartage. SOME firearms are designed for the purpose of acquiring food. Some are designed for the purpose of sport (as in target shooting).

There is no other alternative use for firearms other then to kill things.
Bullsh|t
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
I know that the right to bear arms dates back to the Civil War? Gee...I thought it was a right given when they wrote the Constitution in 1787. You were off by 70 years. Where do you come up with your information? You should try looking up things before you post them because you make yourself look foolish.

The Right to Bear arms was a right granted to the people for ALL TIMES.

BTW, the American Right to Bear Arms is a reflection of the right recognized in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which in its turn recognizes the right as an "ancient right". In that they are correct, as the precedents go back to the Magna Carta and beyond, to Canute........

And BTW (for Risus) the right to keep and bear arms is not merely for self-defense, nor for hunting, it is primarily intended as a deterent for tyrants......are you saying tyranny is a thing of the past?

If not, you should be on the side of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
All hypotheticals. All situations that no matter if a gun is available.

Guy A grabs knife and stabs Guy B.
Guy A beats Guy B and Guy B dies of injuries.

The guy still has a better chance at living afterwards from his injuries then he would with a bullet bouncing back and forth inside their body, destroying organs, tissue and bone.

So you say but many down here do not agree with you nor would we want you taking away the right to bear arms because some people are of the opinion that it is old and outdated.

Then get used to me posting more articles of mass shootings in the US as they occur and the message that you guys still won't do anything about them, except to just accept it as a reality of your everyday life. Disagree all you like... it doesn't remove the fact that you guys have the worst level of gun related crimes in all of the developed countries.

Have you ever been to Blacksburg Virginia, Home of Virginia Tech? I have and it is hardly an urban environment.

It could be a zoo for all I care, there's no need for the level of lax gun control in that State.

Not at all. The Consitution is not a means for self destruction. Yes we have rights granted to us but we are also a nation of laws and there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. When people commit violent and illegal acts they are forfeiting their freedoms as they are not responsible. When you commit a felony you no longer havethe right to bear arms...ever. We have a right to vote, and assemble but when you are in jail you have by your actions forfeited your rights.

That's all well and good, but it does nothing to prevent a crime from happening.... all of those things are punishments after the fact, when most caught alive don't care, or they shoot themselves before getting caught.

As I have said thousands of times already and I'll say it again, I'm not for the total removal of firearms... what I am for is some kind of regulation and checkup on people prior to handing them a weapon. If they fail a written mental evaluation or pose a risk to others if given a firearm, either they can seek further training and help to address those issues, or don't give them a gun in the first place.

I don't see how that can be such a big problem. Nobody is being refused their rights in this approach, they can still obtain a gun if they go through the proper processes to make sure their chances of harming other civilians are reduced as much as possible.

The right to bear arms was geared for people of sound mind I would imagine, who are capable of defending the constitution and the State.... it wouldn't be wise to hand weapons to someone in a hospital of the criminally insane, so why would it hurt to check people first to make sure they don't belong there before you toss them a gun?

Hell, you're allowed to fly in planes and travel the world, but you're still screeened from head to toe when entering the Airport to make sure you're not a threat to others..... same goes for vehicles.... you are tested prior to be given what you are tested for.

I would probably have a bit more ease of mind if I knew the people around me who have the right to carry their firearms, were properly checked, trained and screened before hand.

Yes, I and many other people are well aware that this won't remove gun related violence all together.... nothing can remove anything all together no matter what you're talking about.

But that doesn't mean you can't at least try and reduce it..... and if one or two extra people lived because of such regulations, then it'd be worth it if you ask me.