Political Crossfire Forums

[lilwolf]

shrub buster, I am not demonstrating any thing that is odd. You asked why a man of my persuasion would carry guns and not understand why I need to do so.
First in my line of work it is essential that I carry a weapon. I changed the Avatar to illustrate that I believe in gun control.
If a weapon is used properly it is an amazing tool. Tool is an operative word here so pay attention. This tool in the proper hands is a needed item to many that are in law enforcement. I am not a cop thoug. But in my hands I have only pulled it on a bad guy 11 times in 10 years, and never shot anyone with it. I put a few knots on heads with it though.
As for my beliefs you have not taken the time to learn anything. Many if not the vast majority here have all grown up around weapons and we all seem to understand several things about them. In the wrong hands they are deadly. There is not one of us (I'll bet) that opposes keeping guns out of the hands of a criminal or a convicted felon. Not one!!!
Now, when a person or person crosses the line and tries to say that we as law abiders that are exercising or "legal" and "constitutional right" to own and possess said firearm, that's when anti-gun or gun control people get in trouble.
I have no interest in giving up my right to keep and bear arms. I also have nothing against what your statement about my avatar was or implies. Please do not insult yourself or my intelligence with some psycho babble garbage. It will not work on me.
Most all of us here are polite and civil. That goes up to a point though. Cross the line and insult us and the gloves come off. Simple as that. When you or any gun control nut comes along, many just shrug their shoulders and say well heres another one. As long as you don't attempt to cram crap at us we can all get along. You can never (in all honesty) come up with enough facts, figures, graphs, and / or charts that we have not already seen. You also cannot convince many of us about anything that would give credence to losing or giving up a right we cherish. So, sir with that Have a nice day. :-D :-D

[RooK]

shrub buster wrote: In fact lil wolf changes his avatar to demonstrate his frustration at the mere thought of someone attempting to carry on a conversation which is not consistent with his beliefs.

Here I thought he put it there because it was an interesting animated gif file of a handgun being shot (looks like a glock). At no point did I think it demonstrated any form of frustration or relate to this thread as a whole. Your preconceived notions of gun owners are distorting your interpretation of what is and is not present.

Quote: Why do all you people bother to post here if you have no interest in gun control? Are you all afraid that you will learn some unpleasant truths that will make you uncomfortable with your gun-gun mentality? I suggest that you all try responding with politeness and civility if you want to be taken more seriously.

I believe we post in the interest that we don't want further gun control laws to exist, and some reppealed, that limit citizens with no violent criminal record from obtaining and owning firearms. We have a problem with being considered guilty before we commit a crime.

[Thrilla]

shrub buster wrote: Jefferson, lil wolf, thrilla, etc. - IMO you are all demonstrating the kind of behaviour I would expect from those of your persuasions who carry guns and don't understand completely why they need to do so. Nothing any of you has said has added anything to the topic of gun control. In fact lil wolf changes his avatar to demonstrate his frustration at the mere thought of someone attempting to carry on a conversation which is not consistent with his beliefs.

Why do all you people bother to post here if you have no interest in gun control? Are you all afraid that you will learn some unpleasant truths that will make you uncomfortable with your gun-gun mentality? I suggest that you all try responding with politeness and civility if you want to be taken more seriously. please refrain from ever addressing me again.... thanks

[lilwolf]

Thank you Rook. I chose that avatar because it represents something I do believe in and it is gun control "2 AHND ON IS GUN CONTROL"
Also, shrub buster for you I did not put the avatar in here way earlier because I did not understand how to change it. Now I do and I changed it.
If it upsets you then so be it. It doesn't represent anything that is a so-called inner frustration or some such crap. You need to make an attempt at understanding law abiders that are innocent of any crime and give us a break. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[airo]

shrub buster wrote: Jefferson, lil wolf, thrilla, etc. - IMO you are all demonstrating the kind of behaviour I would expect from those of your persuasions who carry guns and don't understand completely why they need to do so. Nothing any of you has said has added anything to the topic of gun control. In fact lil wolf changes his avatar to demonstrate his frustration at the mere thought of someone attempting to carry on a conversation which is not consistent with his beliefs.

Why do all you people bother to post here if you have no interest in gun control? Are you all afraid that you will learn some unpleasant truths that will make you uncomfortable with your gun-gun mentality? I suggest that you all try responding with politeness and civility if you want to be taken more seriously.

Actually, everyone posted some very good reasons as to why they own firearms, or carry them.

You simply don't accept them as such.

If you wish to carry on a conversation, don't simply disregard a point and say "Well, you're wrong! You're wrong because i said so! WHY ARE YOU BEING SO UNCIVIL?!" Actually address what we have to say ;)

[bigstick61]

I understand quite well why I carry a gun when I do. I usually only carry when in bad areas or when I'm out in the boonies. I carry to protect myself from the gangbangers in East L.A. and other parts of L.A., where crime is high. My grandmother lives a few blocks away from USC, and there average three armed muggings along the perimeter a day, sometimes more, and that increases the further away you get from the University. I have had to draw once, which resulted in profuse apologies from the antagonists, which had knives, and their speedy withdrawal from the area (they wanted money and my watch and said some very unsavory things which need not be repeated to my little sister). That's probably the most polite they've been in their lives. In the boonies I carry because there are crazies that you run into once in awhile and help will not arrive for many hours, so you must fend for yourself. I also carry to protect myself against animals, in particular bears and mountain lions, which have killed people near my area, and hurt others. I have shot a coyote which was trying to kill my dog. Because of the draconian carry laws in Cali, I'm forced to carry revolvers which do not use fixed cartridges, as they are not regulated whatsoever, except that in L.A. you cannot mail order them and in L.A. you also have to be 16 to buy them.

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: I think most of you are smart enough to figure out where this is going by now. At least one of you admits that he wouldn't shoot the old man if it wasn't necessary. And that one thinks that if somebody shoots another person and kills the other person when it is not necessary, then the shooter is mentally unbalanced, insane, etc. in some way. That is undoubtedly correct and I think everyone agrees. So in the scenario which britboy lays out for us, it appears that the lady shot and killed the old man unnecessarily.

However, we weren't in that lady's shoes. While, in the comfort of my chair, while drinking coffee and typing on a computer, it's easy to say that she was wrong, however, if I had just been threatened with a knife, my views might be different.

shrub buster wrote: So we have established that it is legal to shoot and kill somone if they are on your property and are robbing you. (In the U.S.) (I think we have established that) But it is obviously not necessary to shoot and kill a person just because the law says you can. Therefore, can we be safe in saying that the lady used undue force and killed the old man unnecessarily? Can we now conclude that she was suffering from some form of mental illness? And if we can conclude that, can we now say that those who applaud the shooting and killing of the old man are perhaps stricken with the same mental illness as the lady in the store?

Nope. That's a stretch. As I said, while I don't think I would have done what the lady did, I don't hold her criminally responsible for it.

shrub buster wrote: Once again: Does anyone still applaud the lady's actions? Would anyone here do the same thing if they were in a situation where they didn't have to shoot and kill a person? And if any admit that they would because they were legally allowed by the law to do so, should the rest of us consider that person as being mentally ill to some degree?

Big stretch. Go back to Psych class.

shrub buster wrote: Let's deal with the scenario as laid out and not attempt to change it in any way. It may not be the exact scenario but it surely is indicative of some shooting in the U.S. and the public reaction to them. That kind of killing is applauded by many because they don't take the time to think that it was a waste of a human life for no good and valid reason. It was possibly hate motivated along with the knowledge that it was a legal thing to do. And it has added to the huge number of gun related deaths that occur in the U.S. which is far in excess of most other modern industrial countries. And perhaps it wouldn't have happened at all if som many people didn't have handguns. I'm almost certain that it wouldn't have happened that way in Canada for that exact reason.

Anyh comments so far handgunners?

I don't think that man's death was a "waste of a human life" caused by the lady. That man was a predator. He was prepared to kill that lady for a few dollars. I don't shed any tears for him, and I don't think the lady did anything illegal or immoral. It's just not what I, in the safety of my desk, think I would have done.

Also, I would like to see the clip or read something other than britboy's impressionistic view of the incident. Something about it just doesn't ring true. I think we are missing some details.

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: In fact Canadians probably have more freedoms than do Americans, and especially noticably so since the inception of your patriot act. In can think of no areas where we have less.

Freedom of speech (numerous hate speech codes). Freedom to bear arms. I'm certain there are others.


shrub buster wrote: In fact we have the freedom to go out of our homes at night and not have to worry about getting shot. The statistics in your country tell me that you don't in a lot of cases.

I've never been afraid of walking outside at night in America. I've never heard a shot fired in anger. Honestly, the only time I've ever really felt nervous in the street was on a trip to LA, when I and the students I was coaching/chaperoning for an academic competition, visited Hollywood at night. I watched some criminals staking us out. We did evasive maneuvers (went into a crowd), and they must have found other victims. I'm much more nervous in areas that don't allow concealed carry, not because I carry concealed, but because I know that the criminal assumes that I can't be carrying concealed.

If you analyze murder (and other crime) statistics in America, you will find that certain parts of the population, notably the urban poor, have much higher crime rates than do the middle class. I stick to middle class areas, and have never worried about walking the streets.

Anyway, one minor thing, not topic related. Please learn to use the quote feature. It's not that hard, and it makes it much easier to figure out "who said what."

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: Jefferson, lil wolf, thrilla, etc. - IMO you are all demonstrating the kind of behaviour I would expect from those of your persuasions who carry guns and don't understand completely why they need to do so. Nothing any of you has said has added anything to the topic of gun control. In fact lil wolf changes his avatar to demonstrate his frustration at the mere thought of someone attempting to carry on a conversation which is not consistent with his beliefs.

Why do all you people bother to post here if you have no interest in gun control? Are you all afraid that you will learn some unpleasant truths that will make you uncomfortable with your gun-gun mentality? I suggest that you all try responding with politeness and civility if you want to be taken more seriously.

We are here for a simple reason. We oppose gun control, with the exception of laws that make it illegal for people who, due to some sort of judicial action (felony conviction or committment to a mental hospital), are unfit to own guns. Any other gun control will only serve to make it harder for the law-abiding to own guns, without doing anything practical to stop criminals from owning guns.

[TNBiologist]

shrub buster wrote: biologist- IMO you alone have provided some remarks that are worth my time responding to. The rest just demonstrated anger and frustration.

And rightly so, You are treating guns owners as a group of mentally ill misfits that rely on guns to prove themselves. The only reason I am still talking to you is I am giving you the benifit of doubt that you are actually going to mae a point sometime soon.


Quote: I asked you to accept the scenario as laid out and as we understood it at that point. That was in the interest of examining it for the purpose of this discussion. Therefore I will continue to do so. So I repeat, 'if' undue force was used then I think it's safe to say that you wouldn't applaud her actions because you yourself wouldn't use undue force and kill a person when it wasn't necessary. This is a simple concept I'm asking you to understand and the reason I ask it is because I am in the process of illustrating some basic facts to you. And I think that if we accept the scenario which could have been factually told and indeed does happen in that manner quite frequently, then it's not going to do any harm to consider it as such. Just keep in mind that for the moment I am questioning the reasoning of those who appear to be saying that they would do the same as the lady even though it wasn't necessary and they would do it gleefully if we read them right. Therefore I am going to conclude that a person who kills unnecessarily is suffering from some kind of mental defect. I wouldn't do it and I assume from what you have said so far that you wouldn't either.

"If "undo force were used, I would have to look at other reasoning, had she been robbed while working before? Was she injuried in a past robbery? Those thing would effect her state of mind when dealing with this situation. That being said, I still do not believe she used undo force. She simply defended herself, anyone else that was in the store at the time, recovered money that she had worked to earn from a lowlife that thought nothing of taking from others instead of earning an honest living.


Quote: Again I have to ask you to consider the scenario as laid as being accurate. The old man tried to get out the door and escape and he was shot dead. This in all fairness does lead one to believe that the killing was not necessary and indeed as you (someone) stated, she would be tried for manslaughter in most states. Most certainly in Canada if it was found to be not a necessary killing. I think you may not accept this easily but the law is the law and there are good reasons for our laws. We portend to be civilized human beings and some of us even claim to be Christians.

Again, I still believe the womans actions were justified in this situation, even as currently presented. If I were on a jury deciding her guilt I would vote innocent. And yes I claim to be Christian and as such I respect law and order which the robber appearently did not. No where in the bible does it say to surrender to robbery or other criminals. It actually condems the actions of people who would be lazy and take the property of others. Also, no where in the bible doescondem defending yourself. There is a passage (I'll look it up when I get home) where Jesus talks says something along the lines of "those have have beat their swords into plows will serve those who have not" as well as a passage that states something like "those that have sold their sword to buy a cloak need to sell the cloak and buy a sword".

Quote: I'll repeat my words here for continuity: Let's deal with the scenario as laid out and not attempt to change it in any way. It may not be the exact scenario but it surely is indicative of some shooting in the U.S. and the public reaction to them. That kind of killing is applauded by many because they don't take the time to think that it was a waste of a human life for no good and valid reason. It was possibly hate motivated along with the knowledge that it was a legal thing to do. And it has added to the huge number of gun related deaths that occur in the U.S. which is far in excess of most other modern industrial countries. And perhaps it wouldn't have happened at all if som many people didn't have handguns. I'm almost certain that it wouldn't have happened that way in Canada for that exact reason.

We have had a recent string of shooting in Murfresboro, not far from where I live where criminals have been robbing stores owned by Indian immigrants. The store owners (most not born in this country) have defended themselves with guns. One store owner killed two men trying to rob him. Most of the community agrred with the store owners actions and teh police never charged any of the store owners with a crime. You said "perhaps it wouldn't have happened at all if som many people didn't have handguns" but the robber did not have a gun of any kind. The only thing that could have happen differently if guns were taken out of the situation (in the current scenario) is the criminal would have been th only one armed thus leaving the store clerk helpless. Bad idea. I knife can kill just as easy as a gun. If the clerk had been unarmed and the robber had stabbed teh clerk, wuold you still feel sorry for the robber?

Quote: I will rely on the statistics for the U.S. and it's horrendous number of gun related deaths. Canada doesn't have near as many handguns floating around and therefore there are far fewer shootings. Therefoe I urge you to rethink your speculations and offer another reason for why lives may be saved. The statistics don't lie and they don't lie about the rest of the countries where the shootings are far less than in your country. Why do I care? I have told you that I care because your handguns are leading over the border to Canada and we are experiencing a rise in handgun violence.

Please post your statistics.
Here are stats (per 1000 people) from the US, with 2004 as the most recent. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Here are stats from Canada (per 1000 people) with 2005 as the most recent. http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal02.htm

Look at all the crime rates. Yes the US has a higher murder rate but Canada has an assualt rate of 2.5 times that of the US. Canada's rape/sexual assualt is 2 times that of the US. Canada's burglery rate is greater that teh US rate by 100 people per 1000 of teh population. We may have a higher murder rate (not broken down in these stats as to gun/non-gun murders) but we have lower violent crime rates. I would rather risk our murder rate (5.5 per 1000) than Canada's rate of rape, burglaery or assualt.


Quote: In fact Canadians probably have more freedoms than do Americans, and especially noticably so since the inception of your patriot act. In can think of no areas where we have less. In fact we have the freedom to go out of our homes at night and not have to worry about getting shot. The statistics in your country tell me that you don't in a lot of cases. But we are leaving the topic at hand and I really would ask that you don't do that yet.

More freedoms eh? You have to registar all guns (even long guns) and pistols are hard to get. Your hatecrime legistlation would be laughable if it didnot infringe heavily on your free speech, which it does. Your federal government control almost every aspect of your lives. Granted the US has some problem with that but at least we are working on fixing that problem.

[leftneckredwing]

shrub buster wrote: Jefferson, lil wolf, thrilla, etc. - IMO you are all demonstrating the kind of behaviour I would expect from those of your persuasions who carry guns and don't understand completely why they need to do so. Nothing any of you has said has added anything to the topic of gun control. In fact lil wolf changes his avatar to demonstrate his frustration at the mere thought of someone attempting to carry on a conversation which is not consistent with his beliefs.

Why do all you people bother to post here if you have no interest in gun control? Are you all afraid that you will learn some unpleasant truths that will make you uncomfortable with your gun-gun mentality? I suggest that you all try responding with politeness and civility if you want to be taken more seriously.

Do you support the Iraqi mission? Would you demand the same level of civility from the insurgents?

[shrub buster]

lilwolf said: "When you or any gun control nut comes along, many just shrug their shoulders and say well heres another one."

I don't like being called a gun control nut. But if that's an indication of the personal insults and namecalling that is going to go on in this discussion then I will resort to calling you a gungoon, which I strongly suspect you are. I suggest you stop it now. As for your post to me, it said nothing of interest. It was the same old harping on by the gun toters in defence of their inconsistencies. Show a little politeness or I won't bother to respond to your bawling at all. Now I suggest you be quiet and learn from what I say.

[shrub buster]

rook- lilwolf's change of avatar is no surprise. When someone comes on this 'gun control' forum and attempts to interject an opposing view to the gun toters, the pictures of guns start popping up all over the place. I think it's a defensive mechanism but I am investigating it further. I know what it is intended to do but it fails dismally at that.

[shrub buster]

Thrilla has asked that I not address him ever again. He said: "please refrain from ever addressing me again.... thanks"

And I will as long as he doesn't address me or make remarks directed at my ideas which require a response from me. Gladly!

[shrub buster]

airo said: "Actually, everyone posted some very good reasons as to why they own firearms, or carry them."

airo- I saw nothing of value in what anyone said. If anyone offers a comment that is worth my time to comment on then I will. This is a 'gun control' discussion and not about people's gun related fantasies. Thanks anyway.

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: rook- lilwolf's change of avatar is no surprise. When someone comes on this 'gun control' forum and attempts to interject an opposing view to the gun toters, the pictures of guns start popping up all over the place. I think it's a defensive mechanism but I am investigating it further. I know what it is intended to do but it fails dismally at that.

What is it intended to do?

[shrub buster]

bigstick said: "I understand quite well why I carry a gun when I do. I usually only carry when in bad areas or when I'm out in the boonies. I carry to protect myself from the gangbangers in East L.A. and other parts of L.A., where crime is high. My grandmother lives a few blocks away from USC, and there average three armed muggings along the perimeter a day, sometimes more, and that increases the further away you get from the University. I have had to draw once, which resulted in profuse apologies from the antagonists, which had knives, and their speedy withdrawal from the area (they wanted money and my watch and said some very unsavory things which need not be repeated to my little sister). That's probably the most polite they've been in their lives. In the boonies I carry because there are crazies that you run into once in awhile and help will not arrive for many hours, so you must fend for yourself. I also carry to protect myself against animals, in particular bears and mountain lions, which have killed people near my area, and hurt others. I have shot a coyote which was trying to kill my dog. Because of the draconian carry laws in Cali, I'm forced to carry revolvers which do not use fixed cartridges, as they are not regulated whatsoever, except that in L.A. you cannot mail order them and in L.A. you also have to be 16 to buy them."

I'm sorry bigstick but I think you are living in a fantasy world with your gun stories. Or perhaps if it is not fantasy then you go looking for a reason to use your gun. However, I appreciate the need to carry a gun in most of your big cities. THey are polluted with violence. I don't need to carry a gun in Vancouver because I stay out of the slums but even if I did frequent the slums, I would be relatively safe without one. The statistics show that. I spend a lot of time in the wilds of British Columbia where there really are lots of cougars and grizzly bear and I don't need to carry a gun at all.

As to your name and your avatar, they are quite revealing to me. Would you like to know my opinion of what they represent. They are the most outstanding of any on this discussion!

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: airo said: "Actually, everyone posted some very good reasons as to why they own firearms, or carry them."

airo- I saw nothing of value in what anyone said. If anyone offers a comment that is worth my time to comment on then I will. This is a 'gun control' discussion and not about people's gun related fantasies. Thanks anyway.

Well, I think the feeling is mutual. I find nothing of value in most of what you have said.

Also, please use the quote feature. It's easy to use, and it makes for much more organized discussions. All you have to do is click on the quote button at the upper left of the post you're replying to.

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Quote: However, I appreciate the need to carry a gun in most of your big cities. THey are polluted with violence.

And you know this how?

[shrub buster]

perdid, you said: "However, we weren't in that lady's shoes. While, in the comfort of my chair, while drinking coffee and typing on a computer, it's easy to say that she was wrong, however, if I had just been threatened with a knife, my views might be different. "

That IMO is a comment worthy of a response. You (i think) have said that you wouldn't kill a person unnecessarily. So if the old man was madly trying to get out the door, it's pretty obvious to me that the killing was unnecessary because the lady wasn't attempting to protect her own life. Yet what is so revealing about your comment is that you don't know how you would have reacted in the circumstance. Fair enough and you have been honest to say that and thank you. Therein lies the problem with the abundance of guns. There is a good possibility that the lady was so overcome with her emotions that she couldn't prevent herself from shooting and killing.

This is what I perceive to be the biggest problem with your country's over abundance of handguns. You see, guns kill people and they even kill little children who pick them up and play with them.

Please don't spend a lot of rhetoric telling me that you don't leave yours lying around because I don't doubt that everyone on this forum is going to tell me the same thing. I've heard it all before and it probably is true for you. But the facts speak loudly.

Good discussion with you perdid!