9 year old girl shot yesterday...

MG79478

g under p wrote:

I disagree with you that if you follow your training you will never have an accident. NEVER to me is too finite of word in gun safety. I've had a DC police softball friend let me handle his service revolver, safetied it, removed the magazine and he thought there was not a round in the chamber. I checked it, checked the sites and there was a round in it, he didn't believe me till I gave it back to him. He realized his mistake and I told him I understood. That's why it's always key to never point a loaded (with the safety on) or unloaded weapon at anyone.

So because you followed your training, nothing happened. That is exactly my point. If you always follow your training, you will always be safe.

dunkman wrote:

you seem convinced you're going to be a slave of some kind? why do you fear a government in this way? it's not rational? at least the people of 30s Germany had something to fear.... a nazi dictator... but the worlds largest democracy? odd.

Which country is that? My country is a Republic, not a democracy.

You know there were people worried about the Nazis in the 1930s, and there were people like you saying they were crazy. I don’t understand why some of you think that “times have changed” and history will not repeat. I think you have been listening to you 1995 Christmas single too much.

fife wrote:

actually its mother against drunk driving not drunk drivers. Those mother have also gone against alcohol. they have tried to limit the amount of alcohol a person can have when they are driving. They realize that the "tool" which is the alcohol is a weapon just like people realize that guns are a weapon. I just don't know how you can separate a tool and a person. if the person doesn't have access to that tool they can't use it.

The mission of MADD is to stop drunk driving. Without the person, there can be no drunk driving. You could put a bottle of vodka in a car, and nothing will happen unless someone chooses to use it.

If you are working on a project at home and need one tool, say a hammer, but don't have one. What do you do? Do you use another tool to accomplish the same task? Do you go acquire a hammer at the hardware store? Would you stop your project just because you didn't have the exact tool you thought you needed at that instant?

See the point? If a person doesn't have access to the tool one way, he will get it another way, or find a substitute.

MG79478

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Are you for real? What kind of country have you deluded yourself into thinking you live in?! Don't make me laugh.

I work for an organisation that works in 27 countries, all of which are infinitely more unstable and fucked-up places than the US, ones that make the US look like HappyClappyMerryGoRoundLand. And it's those countries where everyone is toting a gun, and spouting off about armed rebellion like you, that are the ones that are in states of intractable anarchy and murderous mayhem. To convince yourself that the US is the same kind of place is not only laughably naive, it is quite unspeakably dangerous.

History is littered with examples of unarmed rebellions that didn't have to resort to killing people. In fact, that's precisely what the democracy America is so boastfully proud of is supposed to be for.

So unless you're in Burma, or Sudan, or 1970s Cambodia - someplace where you have a legitimate and real reason to fear the government, then let's hear no more foolishness about needing guns to protect yourself against your government. It's preposterous and delusional. Just be happy that you live where you do and not somewhere where your argument might actually be valid.

Wow you liberals really love your government, I guess I would too if I was dependant upon them. I guess every government in the world is run by really nice people who just want to help, and it will always be that way? Go read the entire thread if you think you need to post your two cents, your post is completely irrelevant to the conversation. You get in to stuff that was never brought up. Before you come back and enlighten us with any more of your crazy rants, you might want to read up on your history, or at least learn that America is not a Democracy.

Moonpig

MG79478 wrote:

g under p wrote:

I disagree with you that if you follow your training you will never have an accident. NEVER to me is too finite of word in gun safety. I've had a DC police softball friend let me handle his service revolver, safetied it, removed the magazine and he thought there was not a round in the chamber. I checked it, checked the sites and there was a round in it, he didn't believe me till I gave it back to him. He realized his mistake and I told him I understood. That's why it's always key to never point a loaded (with the safety on) or unloaded weapon at anyone.

So because you followed your training, nothing happened. That is exactly my point. If you always follow your training, you will always be safe.

dunkman wrote:

you seem convinced you're going to be a slave of some kind? why do you fear a government in this way? it's not rational? at least the people of 30s Germany had something to fear.... a nazi dictator... but the worlds largest democracy? odd.

Which country is that? My country is a Republic, not a democracy.

You know there were people worried about the Nazis in the 1930s, and there were people like you saying they were crazy. I don’t understand why some of you think that “times have changed” and history will not repeat. I think you have been listening to you 1995 Christmas single too much.

fife wrote:

actually its mother against drunk driving not drunk drivers. Those mother have also gone against alcohol. they have tried to limit the amount of alcohol a person can have when they are driving. They realize that the "tool" which is the alcohol is a weapon just like people realize that guns are a weapon. I just don't know how you can separate a tool and a person. if the person doesn't have access to that tool they can't use it.

The mission of MADD is to stop drunk driving. Without the person, there can be no drunk driving. You could put a bottle of vodka in a car, and nothing will happen unless someone chooses to use it.

If you are working on a project at home and need one tool, say a hammer, but don't have one. What do you do? Do you use another tool to accomplish the same task? Do you go acquire a hammer at the hardware store? Would you stop your project just because you didn't have the exact tool you thought you needed at that instant?

See the point? If a person doesn't have access to the tool one way, he will get it another way, or find a substitute.

Lad what is your fascination with 1930s Germany, how are you even comparing the 2, please give it a rest with the whole government thing, you are really coming across as paranoid.

This is not meant as a personal slate, your government is not out to get you, you're just not that important. Let go of the fear and paranoia and just get on with your life. There are times when decisions your government will make are in your favor and you may see the consequences - great, however can also screw you in some decisions aswell, that's life, has always been, doesn't mean life as you know it is coming to an end.

MG79478

Moonpig wrote:

Lad what is your fascination with 1930s Germany, how are you even comparing the 2, please give it a rest with the whole government thing, you are really coming across as paranoid.

This is not meant as a personal slate, your government is not out to get you, you're just not that important. Let go of the fear and paranoia and just get on with your life. There are times when decisions your government will make are in your favor and you may see the consequences - great, however can also screw you in some decisions aswell, that's life, has always been, doesn't mean life as you know it is coming to an end.

All is well, All is well, All is well. Enjoy your youth while you can son. Maybe someday you take off the blinders and realize that all is not well. Someday you will realize that history repeats, and we should learn from it, 1930s Germany just an example. Just because it doesn't fit your agenda, doesn't make it any less true. Here is some more history to learn from, quotes from another "Wacko":

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " - Thomas Jefferson

Byrnzie

MG79478 wrote:

If a person doesn't have access to the tool one way, he will get it another way, or find a substitute.

So then how do you explain the fact that murders with firearms are 30 x higher per capita in the U.S than in the U.K?

Byrnzie

Yep, sure looks like the U.S has no problem with firearms:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... h-firearms

Murders with firearms (most recent) by country

Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm.

Showing latest available data.

Rank Countries Amount

# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369
# 5 Philippines: 7,708
# 6 Mexico: 2,606
# 7 Slovakia: 2,356
# 8 El Salvador: 1,441
# 9 Zimbabwe: 598
# 10 Peru: 442
# 11 Germany: 269
# 12 Czech Republic: 181
# 13 Ukraine: 173
# 14 Canada: 144
# 15 Albania: 135
# 16 Costa Rica: 131
# 17 Azerbaijan: 120
# 18 Poland: 111
# 19 Uruguay: 109
# 20 Spain: 97
# 21 Portugal: 90
# 22 Croatia: 76
# 23 Switzerland: 68
# 24 Bulgaria: 63
# 25 Australia: 59
# 26 Sweden: 58
# 27 Bolivia: 52
# 28 Japan: 47
# 29 Slovenia: 39
= 30 Hungary: 38
= 30 Belarus: 38
# 32 Latvia: 28
# 33 Burma: 27
# 34 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 26
# 35 Austria: 25
# 36 Estonia: 21
# 37 Moldova: 20
# 38 Lithuania: 16
= 39 United Kingdom: 14
= 39 Denmark: 14
# 41 Ireland: 12
# 42 New Zealand: 10
# 43 Chile: 9
# 44 Cyprus: 4
# 45 Morocco: 1
= 46 Iceland: 0
= 46 Luxembourg: 0
= 46 Oman: 0

wolfamongwolves

MG79478 wrote:

Wow you liberals really love your government, I guess I would too if I was dependant upon them. I guess every government in the world is run by really nice people who just want to help, and it will always be that way? Go read the entire thread if you think you need to post your two cents, your post is completely irrelevant to the conversation. You get in to stuff that was never brought up. Before you come back and enlighten us with any more of your crazy rants, you might want to read up on your history, or at least learn that America is not a Democracy.

It's got nothing to do with "loving" your government. You speak of my post as being irrelevant, but yet yours is just making wild presumptions that have absolutely nothing to do with my post.

As it happens, my government is far from nice, does very little other than help itself, and I will act against it by using my vote. That's what civilised societies do. And it works, at least somewhat. Certainly better than guns!

You say America is not a democracy, it's a republic. Are the two things mutually exclusive? No. I also live in a democratic republic.

And for a country that is not a democracy (I will agree that it is not a proper democracy - the electoral colege system shows that), your leaders (in particular GWB) have done an awful lot of "exporting democracy" in recent years.

As to whether my post isrelevant, it was a direct response to a post of yours, so...

MG79478

Byrnzie wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

If a person doesn't have access to the tool one way, he will get it another way, or find a substitute.

So then how do you explain the fact that murders with firearms are 30 x higher per capita in the U.S than in the U.K?

Well if true, it would probably be because firearms aren't as readily available. But you have to look at the entire picture. Are murder rates higher with other weapons? You can't just look at one peice of the puzzle. There are many factors.

Also, how do you prove that total murders would be less without guns? How do you know that someone just wouldn't find another way?

MG79478

wolfamongwolves wrote:

You say America isnot a deemocracy, it's a republic. Are the two things mutually exclusive? No. I also live in a democratic republic.

And for a country that is not a democracy (I will agree that it is not a proper democracy - the electoral colege system shows that), your leaders (in particular GWB0 have done an awful lot of "exporting democracy in recent years.

We are a representative republic.

Byrnzie

MG79478 wrote:

Well if true, it would probably be because firearms aren't as readily available.

No shit Sherlock. And if all those people in the U.K - to use an example - who picked up a knife and killed someone with it could have grabbed a gun instead then I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot less Brits walking the Earth today.

MG79478

Byrnzie wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

Well if true, it would probably be because firearms aren't as readily available.

No shit Sherlock. And if all those people in the U.K - to use an example - who picked up a knife and killed someone with it could have grabbed a gun instead then I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot less Brits walking the Earth today.

See you did it again. You looked at just the peice that supported your argument, and ignored the entire picture. First it was by just looking at murder rate by gun, secondly it was by just looking at one line of my post.

Moonpig

MG79478 wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

Lad what is your fascination with 1930s Germany, how are you even comparing the 2, please give it a rest with the whole government thing, you are really coming across as paranoid.

This is not meant as a personal slate, your government is not out to get you, you're just not that important. Let go of the fear and paranoia and just get on with your life. There are times when decisions your government will make are in your favor and you may see the consequences - great, however can also screw you in some decisions aswell, that's life, has always been, doesn't mean life as you know it is coming to an end.

All is well, All is well, All is well. Enjoy your youth while you can son. Maybe someday you take off the blinders and realize that all is not well. Someday you will realize that history repeats, and we should learn from it, 1930s Germany just an example. Just because it doesn't fit your agenda, doesn't make it any less true. Here is some more history to learn from, quotes from another "Wacko":

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " - Thomas Jefferson

This is getting really old, so I'm blinded because I don't think my government is going to lock me away or come and take my sweets off me?? My issue with 1930s Germany is not that you used it, it's that you continue insisting on using it, even when it has been shown to be a very very poor example to apply.

And another thing, I don't need lectures on learning from history, and offering up quotes made a few hundred years back does nothing to bolster your point - look I can play the game too....

"They think that they have pacified Ireland. They think that they have purchased half of us and intimidated the other half. They think that they have foreseen everything, think that they have provided against everything; but, the fools, the fools, the fools! — They have left us our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace. " Pearse

Things said in past long gone, you are not applying the events and circumstances in which they were said. I believe Jefferson would be horrified to see himself quoted out of context like that - my opinion.

wolfamongwolves

MG79478 wrote:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " - Thomas Jefferson

Suddenly, despite what you just said, it seems my post is relevant, because this is exactly what I was talking about.

The notion that there is tyranny in the government in the US is laughable, particularly when viewed in relation to very many other places in the world.

These quotes are hypothetical. They are not representative of the US's current situation. The US is not within a million miles of that "last resort" that would make these quotes currently relevant.

Look at the countries I mentioned, look beyond the US, and put it in a realistic context.

MG79478

wolfamongwolves wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " - Thomas Jefferson

Suddenly, despite what you just said, it seems my post is relevant, because this is exactly what I was talking about.

The notion that there is tyranny in the government in the US is laughable, particularly when viewed in relation to very many other places in the world.

These quotes are hypothetical. They are not representative of the US's current situation. The US is not within a million miles of that "last resort" that would make these quotes currently relevant.

Look at the countries I mentioned, look beyond the US, and put it in a realistic context.

Yeah, because that is 100% exactly the same as the wacky shit you posted.

wolfamongwolves

MG79478 wrote:

Yeah, because that is 100% exactly the same as the wacky shit you posted.

Please explain how what I posted was "wacky".

And coming just one post after you berated someone for picking what they respond to and what they don't, you have done the very same yourself.

MG79478

Moonpig wrote:

This is getting really old, so I'm blinded because I don't think my government is going to lock me away or come and take my sweets off me?? My issue with 1930s Germany is not that you used it, it's that you continue insisting on using it, even when it has been shown to be a very very poor example to apply.

And another thing, I don't need lectures on learning from history, and offering up quotes made a few hundred years back does nothing to bolster your point - look I can play the game too....

"They think that they have pacified Ireland. They think that they have purchased half of us and intimidated the other half. They think that they have foreseen everything, think that they have provided against everything; but, the fools, the fools, the fools! — They have left us our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace. " Pearse

Things said in past long gone, you are not applying the events and circumstances in which they were said. I believe Jefferson would be horrified to see himself quoted out of context like that - my opinion.

It is getting old History never repeats, Eddie sang about it, so it's true. We shouldn't learn form the past. All is well, all is well. The 1930s Germany example is great. Except you have this false premise that what happened yesterday doesn’t matter. There are other examples, but I was keeping it simple. When did I ever say that the government was going to lock me away? You are just making shit up now. I’ve said a long time ago that having the government fear the people is just a nice secondary benefit of gun ownership.

I’m tired of this, I have to work to support our growing welfare state. Believe what you want, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",

MG79478

wolfamongwolves wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

Yeah, because that is 100% exactly the same as the wacky shit you posted.

Please explain how what I posted was "wacky".

And coming just one post after you berated someone for picking what they respond to and what they don't, you have done the very same yourself.

I dont' want to respond to EVERY specific point in your post, I don't have all day. You go off on wild tangents. You post as if you didn't read every previous post. You put words in my mouth. Basically it's complete non sense and not worth any more of my time.

wolfamongwolves

MG79478 wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

Yeah, because that is 100% exactly the same as the wacky shit you posted.

Please explain how what I posted was "wacky".

And coming just one post after you berated someone for picking what they respond to and what they don't, you have done the very same yourself.

I dont' want to respond to EVERY specific point in your post, I don't have all day. You go off on wild tangents. You post as if you didn't read every previous post. You put words in my mouth. Basically it's complete non sense and not worth any more of my time.

I don't see how it was tangential at all. It was asking you to place your position in a more realistic context. If you are going to talk about the need to protect yourself against your government, I think it's perfectly relevant that you consider what youare saying in the context of countries where that is far more a reailty than it is in the US. How is that nonsense?

And as your post in response made perfectly clear, it is you who are putting words in my mouth.

Sorry you're so pushed for time.

MG79478

wolfamongwolves wrote:

I don't see how it was tangential at all. It was asking you to place your position in a more realistic context. If you are going to talk about the need to protect yourself against your government, I think it's perfectly relevant that you consider what youare saying in the context of countries where that is far more a reailty than it is in the US. How is that nonsense?

And as your post in response made perfectly clear, it is you who are putting words in my mouth.

Sorry you're so pushed for time.

If you would have read everything and not made assumptions, you would have seen my point that:

Guns have many primary benefits. Having the government fear the people is a nice Secondary benefit of gun ownership.

See how talk of coups and armed rebellion are completely tangential?

wolfamongwolves

MG79478 wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

I don't see how it was tangential at all. It was asking you to place your position in a more realistic context. If you are going to talk about the need to protect yourself against your government, I think it's perfectly relevant that you consider what youare saying in the context of countries where that is far more a reailty than it is in the US. How is that nonsense?

And as your post in response made perfectly clear, it is you who are putting words in my mouth.

Sorry you're so pushed for time.

If you would have read everything and not made assumptions, you would have seen my point that:

Guns have many primary benefits. Having the government fear the people is a nice Secondary benefit of gun ownership.

See how talk of coups and armed rebellion are completely tangential?

Sorry, no, I don't. Because in the quote of yours to which I was referring, you said this:

"If the citizens are not armed, they are helpless. If they are armed, the could rise up, and the government must fear and respect them."

I was responding directly to what you said the purpose of a gun was in protecting oneself against the government. What I said was entirely relevant. You were responding to a direct question that was solely about protecting yourself against the government with a gun. In that context there was no primary or secondary. That was the one issue in the question you were responding to.