Well, well... I see one edited her post to remove some stupid 'finger pointing elitism' (ie, you're not one of 'us' so you wouldn't know...), pretending it never happened.
But too late!.... it's been quoted!
I rethought because you were so upset by that last time, others too,
and kindness is what we want to accomplish here... and understanding. Is that not right redrock?
I see you are still upset by your reaction ... :shock:
He made the decision to shoot a police officer that knocked on his door for no reason. I have a hard time believing that he felt much remorse. After shooting at people for 30 minutes!
People often feel remorse when dying don't you think?
]It's on page 51. I posted it in full, but highlighted that portion. I'm trying to understand in which situation and to which victims those statements apply, because whenever anyone has referenced those comments we've been called insensitive. If you could very clearly explain to me in which situations and perhaps give an example of someone being a victim due to weakness, etc that would help clarify. I'm trying to understand the difference between a deserving and undeserving victim. Thanks.
As I am trying to understand what some mean by the term 'responsible' gun owner (since it would seem all rests on this word). In context of gun ownership, in their own words - not a cut and paste of the meaning of the word 'responsible'. What exactly does one have to do to be 'responsible' in terms of owning a gun. Clarification would indeed be useful in this thread.
What does one do to be responsible when driving a car?
He made the decision to shoot a police officer that knocked on his door for no reason. I have a hard time believing that he felt much remorse. After shooting at people for 30 minutes!
People often feel remorse when dying don't you think?
No clue. I've never died. I've also never killed 2 people.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
I have read the full thought and I'm very willing to admit I don't get it. If you could help me understand in which situations those statements about victims apply, that would be great. Thanks.
What page was my orginal thought on then ? ...
you must have focused greatly more than I on it
really think I won't muddle through 120 pages and I think was that a couple weeks ago now
but I don't think I gave any situations in my original thought
as it was about people in general how they react to protecting themselves and their methods... with or without a gun...
I think it came from more of a philosophical place, though I was thinking of a couple
personal situations and regret felt for not being more prepared.
I know you and many focused on it using it as though I was attacking victims,
something I would never do, make a crime their fault, although we do regret after.
But you already know this...
funny trying to turn what is not an attack into one ... ironic indeed
It's on page 51. I posted it in full, but highlighted that portion. I'm trying to understand in which situation and to which victims those statements apply, because whenever anyone has referenced those comments we've been called insensitive. If you could very clearly explain to me in which situations and perhaps give an example of someone being a victim due to weakness, etc that would help clarify. I'm trying to understand the difference between a deserving and undeserving victim. Thanks.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Well, well... I see one edited her post to remove some stupid 'finger pointing elitism' (ie, you're not one of 'us' so you wouldn't know...), pretending it never happened.
But too late!.... it's been quoted!
I rethought because you were so upset by that last time, others too,
and kindness is what we want to accomplish here... and understanding. Is that not right redrock?
I see you are still upset by your reaction ... :shock:
Haha... futile attempt at saving face! Not working! If I hadn't picked up on it, you wouldn't have changed a word! It was a direct attempt at devaluing what I have to say (but it backfired, didn't it?).
]It's on page 51. I posted it in full, but highlighted that portion. I'm trying to understand in which situation and to which victims those statements apply, because whenever anyone has referenced those comments we've been called insensitive. If you could very clearly explain to me in which situations and perhaps give an example of someone being a victim due to weakness, etc that would help clarify. I'm trying to understand the difference between a deserving and undeserving victim. Thanks.
As I am trying to understand what some mean by the term 'responsible' gun owner (since it would seem all rests on this word). In context of gun ownership, in their own words - not a cut and paste of the meaning of the word 'responsible'. What exactly does one have to do to be 'responsible' in terms of owning a gun. Clarification would indeed be useful in this thread.
What does one do to be responsible when driving a car?
Oops... there we go... the car analogy... Unable to give an answer so one 'diverts'
Again, this is a thread about shootings and guns - not cars.
Voted to address loopholes???? These things aren't put up to a vote. They are changed by lawmakers!
Did you vote in your lawmakers?
Don't act helpless in this if you want the laws changed get out and change them.
I do my best to. Usually they lose to NRA controlled, paranoid gun folks who don't see any reason to do our best to stop lunatics from shooting up schools and movie theaters.
My bad.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
Well, well... I see one edited her post to remove some stupid 'finger pointing elitism' (ie, you're not one of 'us' so you wouldn't know...), pretending it never happened.
But too late!.... it's been quoted!
I rethought because you were so upset by that last time, others too,
and kindness is what we want to accomplish here... and understanding. Is that not right redrock?
I see you are still upset by your reaction ... :shock:
Haha... futile attempt at saving face! Not working! If I hadn't picked up on it, you wouldn't have changed a word!
Upset? Please... give us some credit!
you sure look upset ... lots of exclamation points there
I changed my post before seeing yours. If you had seen it why change it? :?
common sense ...
and again it's about kindness and understanding is that not right redrock?
He made the decision to shoot a police officer that knocked on his door for no reason. I have a hard time believing that he felt much remorse. After shooting at people for 30 minutes!
People often feel remorse when dying don't you think?
No clue. I've never died. I've also never killed 2 people.
Does whether the shooter felt remorse even matter?
I feel more for the constable who was shot, and what went through his heart and mind as life left his body...not the over-reactionary fuck who killed him.
I have read the full thought and I'm very willing to admit I don't get it. If you could help me understand in which situations those statements about victims apply, that would be great. Thanks.
What page was my orginal thought on then ? ...
you must have focused greatly more than I on it
really think I won't muddle through 120 pages and I think was that a couple weeks ago now
but I don't think I gave any situations in my original thought
as it was about people in general how they react to protecting themselves and their methods... with or without a gun...
I think it came from more of a philosophical place, though I was thinking of a couple
personal situations and regret felt for not being more prepared.
I know you and many focused on it using it as though I was attacking victims,
something I would never do, make a crime their fault, although we do regret after.
But you already know this...
funny trying to turn what is not an attack into one ... ironic indeed
It's on page 51. I posted it in full, but highlighted that portion. I'm trying to understand in which situation and to which victims those statements apply, because whenever anyone has referenced those comments we've been called insensitive. If you could very clearly explain to me in which situations and perhaps give an example of someone being a victim due to weakness, etc that would help clarify. I'm trying to understand the difference between a deserving and undeserving victim. Thanks.
Wow page 51 holy camoly.
What times have you or others referenced this pertaining to real life victims?
Perhaps I have missed this. Perhaps you can quote those also. So I can better understand your misunderstanding of my words.
Did you or others joke about a death or draw a conclusion that the victim
was somehow in the wrong?
I guess that would be insensitive yes. I can see how others would think that.
Is this what you get out of the words?
That I think the victim is in the wrong. Which is not the case.
Did I ever put a real life scenario to those words?
If not how could anyone apply them correctly ?
I will ponder my whole philosophical statement,
I didn't know there was going to a test
and see what other info I can come up with for you,
if other than I have already stated in numerous posts.
Does whether the shooter felt remorse even matter?
I feel more for the constable who was shot, and what went through his heart and mind as life left his body...not the over-reactionary fuck who killed him.
you sure look upset ... lots of exclamation points there
I changed my post before seeing yours. If you had seen it why change it? :?
common sense ...
and again it's about kindness and understanding is that not right redrock?
No dice. I just think you weren't quick enough. Talk about kindness and understanding from others whilst, admittedly underhandedly and deviously, dishing out snide little remarks. And I will not bore anyone here with a grammar lesson regarding the use of exclamation marks. Oh.. and the emoticons are a good hint of my 'feelings' towards your post!
Furthermore, why would I be upset? Can you tell me why you think that? That would be interesting....
Actually - it won't. Let's just put this further little 'mishap' on your part to rest! (exclamation mark)
Wow page 51 holy camoly.
What times have you or others referenced this pertaining to real life victims?
Perhaps I have missed this. Perhaps you can quote those also. So I can better understand your misunderstanding of my words.
Did you or others joke about a death or draw a conclusion that the victim
was somehow in the wrong?
I guess that would be insensitive yes. I can see how others would think that.
Is this what you get out of the words?
That I think the victim is in the wrong. Which is not the case.
Did I ever put a real life scenario to those words?
If not how could anyone apply them correctly ?
I will ponder my whole philosophical statement,
I didn't know there was going to a test
and see what other info I can come up with for you,
if other than I have already stated in numerous posts.
I'm trying to understand what YOU meant by the words. If you said them out of turn to make a point and dont really mean them, I can understand that and will drop my questions about it; but if you do mean them I'd really like clarification so I can understand your point of view. This is a very important issue to me, so I'm really trying to understand.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
this is a thread that is going nowhere and fast. yet i do get a kick out of some of the comments here. many witty folks in the 10c community. other than that it's going no place
this is a thread that is going nowhere and fast. yet i do get a kick out of some of the comments here. many witty folks in the 10c community. other than that it's going no place
Oh tthhhaaaat's why you keep presenting it! You haven't realized it doesn't make any logical sense. Now you know- the amount of everyday car usage obliterates the amount of gun usage and comparatively speaking (even though it is very difficult to compare a transportation mode with a killing weapon), the percentages reveal automobiles to be infinitely safer.
If you had presented an analogy where you spoke of how dangerous pavement is and how many falls we have each year on pavement that result in death or injury... you might have had a better chance of convincing someone that guns aren't as dangerous as everyday items.
You have a gun problem in your country, sir. You have an idiot problem too. It is hard to establish which people are the idiots at face value (at the point of purchase). The answer isn't more accessible guns. The answer is careful screening and limiting the types of weapons people can have. That might mean that a good person doesn't get a handgun to spin on his finger while shooting beer cans, but it does mean people can go watch Batman with some safeguards in place.
fixed...
Yesssss! I've got a second. All in favour? A deafening AAAaayyyy. All opposed? :fp:
Well. I guess that settles it. Gun legislation wins. Yay!
this is a thread that is going nowhere and fast. yet i do get a kick out of some of the comments here. many witty folks in the 10c community. other than that it's going no place
What does one do to be responsible when driving a car?
Oops... there we go... the car analogy... Unable to give an answer so one 'diverts'
Again, this is a thread about shootings and guns - not cars.
Its a great analogy... in fact the very best..
most especially when talking about a responsible person.
What do irresponsible people do when driving a car?
Maybe that helps in drawing a conclusion, looking at it from
that perspective.
Diverting again. No need for analogy. Just a response to, what I would think, is a very simple question.
If you cannot explain, in your own words, what 'responsible' means in context of gun ownership and what are the steps for a gun owner to be responsible - just say so. You are basing your 'debate' on this term 'responsible gun owners' but are unable/unwilling to explain what you mean by this and how, for example, you consider your husband to be a 'responsible' gun owner (since, technically, you don't own the gun you can't be 'responsible') and how he achieved this 'responsibility'. Shouldn't be difficult - is this not one of your life experiences that you can draw upon? Unless of course you do not consider him 'responsible'.
Comments
ok i've changed my mind :think:
i want a rpg launcher to blow this thread to hell
and kindness is what we want to accomplish here... and understanding.
Is that not right redrock?
I see you are still upset by your reaction ... :shock:
I was thinking an Abrams, actually...
No clue. I've never died. I've also never killed 2 people.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Don't act helpless in this if you want the laws changed get out and change them.
Haha... futile attempt at saving face! Not working! If I hadn't picked up on it, you wouldn't have changed a word! It was a direct attempt at devaluing what I have to say (but it backfired, didn't it?).
Upset?
Oops... there we go... the car analogy... Unable to give an answer so one 'diverts'
Again, this is a thread about shootings and guns - not cars.
I do my best to. Usually they lose to NRA controlled, paranoid gun folks who don't see any reason to do our best to stop lunatics from shooting up schools and movie theaters.
My bad.
Is that really big? Will it blow this thread to smithereens? Can one obtain this via the internet?
http://www.thestar.com/topic/eatoncentreshooting
And on July 16, there was a shooting in Scarborough, Ontario, two died and 19 injured at BBQ Party.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/16 ... arborough/
It just really upsets me that these people can commit horrific acts.
I changed my post before seeing yours. If you had seen it why change it? :?
common sense ...
and again it's about kindness and understanding
is that not right redrock?
I feel more for the constable who was shot, and what went through his heart and mind as life left his body...not the over-reactionary fuck who killed him.
Wow page 51 holy camoly.
What times have you or others referenced this pertaining to real life victims?
Perhaps I have missed this. Perhaps you can quote those also. So I can better understand
your misunderstanding of my words.
Did you or others joke about a death or draw a conclusion that the victim
was somehow in the wrong?
I guess that would be insensitive yes. I can see how others would think that.
Is this what you get out of the words?
That I think the victim is in the wrong. Which is not the case.
Did I ever put a real life scenario to those words?
If not how could anyone apply them correctly ?
I will ponder my whole philosophical statement,
I didn't know there was going to a test
and see what other info I can come up with for you,
if other than I have already stated in numerous posts.
No dice. I just think you weren't quick enough.
Furthermore, why would I be upset? Can you tell me why you think that? That would be interesting....
Actually - it won't. Let's just put this further little 'mishap' on your part to rest! (exclamation mark)
most especially when talking about a responsible person.
What do irresponsible people do when driving a car?
Maybe that helps in drawing a conclusion, looking at it from
that perspective.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
congratulation
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Yesssss! I've got a second. All in favour? A deafening AAAaayyyy. All opposed? :fp:
Well. I guess that settles it. Gun legislation wins. Yay!
Diverting again. No need for analogy. Just a response to, what I would think, is a very simple question.
If you cannot explain, in your own words, what 'responsible' means in context of gun ownership and what are the steps for a gun owner to be responsible - just say so. You are basing your 'debate' on this term 'responsible gun owners' but are unable/unwilling to explain what you mean by this and how, for example, you consider your husband to be a 'responsible' gun owner (since, technically, you don't own the gun you can't be 'responsible') and how he achieved this 'responsibility'. Shouldn't be difficult - is this not one of your life experiences that you can draw upon? Unless of course you do not consider him 'responsible'.
A straight answer will suffice.
I thought you found it reprehensible to sympathize with the victimizer.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014