What is this 'defensive' use of firearms against (again, something that one wonders how they can be counted)? Crimes involving other firearms? Waving a gun at the neighbour because he called you a prick and you found that 'threatening'? Or maybe the neighbour's dog because he took a dump on your lawn - just shot in the air to scare it away? I understand that these 'defensive' uses could be for something more serious, but who says a gun was necessary? Especially the figures quoted!
I never said a gun was necessary in all cases. A gun wasn't necessary in this murder case either.
Again, you must be joking. Ninjas aside, ancient history is full of mass-murders. From the Peloponnesian War to the Han Dynasty, mass-murder is nothing new.
I never said a gun was necessary in all cases. A gun wasn't necessary in this murder case either.
No but you are advocating the right of having a gun for defensive purposes and quoting statistics to justify your reasoning.... What I'm asking is what kind of defensive purpose were these statistics quoting? No one knows.....
Obviously the gun was necessary in this murder case as it was his right and choice to use this weapon....
This incident isn't unusual, or rare, in the States is it. If it was then I or anyone else would be forgiven for looking for answers elsewhere.
Of course it is rare and unusual. If it weren't the papers, news broadcasts and message boards wouldn't have been dominated with reports, discussions and debates.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Damn.. when they lifted their kilts and taunted the ennemi.. that was scary! No need for guns then.. just balls!!!!!!
Lol. We're thinking of the same movie.
I remember watching that the first time and thinking of the balls it must have taken to charge head on into a battle like that.
Bullets generally give you some distance, and a potentially quicker death once you're hit.
Of course it is rare and unusual. If it weren't the papers, news broadcasts and message boards wouldn't have been dominated with reports, discussions and debates.
Unfortunately, it isn't.. What is dominating the papers, etc. is 'how can this happen again?'
You must be kidding. Carnage and fear long predate guns, and have existed on much higher levels than they do in modern societies with guns.
Again, you must be joking. Ninjas aside, ancient history is full of mass-murders. From the Peloponnesian War to the Han Dynasty, mass-murder is nothing new.
those are wars though and we still fight those with weapons. you don't hear about the village blacksmith snapping and killing 30 people. he wouldn't get that far. joe peasant cannot kill mass numbers of people without a gun.
those are wars though and we still fight those with weapons.
The first is war. The second is sport killing.
you don't hear about the village blacksmith snapping and killing 30 people. he wouldn't get that far. joe peasant cannot kill mass numbers of people without a gun.
No I'm not. I've advocating the right of having a gun, period. Purposes are irrelevant.
The statistics I quoted are simply in response to your own that you either didn't consider or chose to leave out.
.
Owning the gun for defensive purposes is part of owing one for the sake of it.. you just seemed to put emphasis on this when SOMEONE ELSE quoted statistics..
I haven't quoted any statistics.. I used to deal with statistics.. you can do what you want with numbers..... make say what you want to serve your purpose.. It is very difficult to get 'raw' statistics...
Unfortunately, it isn't.. What is dominating the papers, etc. is 'how can this happen again?'
WTF? Is it horrible and tragic? Yes. Does it occur too frequently? Yes, once is too frequently. Is is rare and unusual? Of course it is. You are actually claiming this is normal and common? Please.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Why does Hollywood serve up guns and violence as entertainment?
That's a pretty interesting question when you really think about it.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Owning the gun for defensive purposes is part of owing one for the sake of it.. you just seemed to put emphasis on this when SOMEONE ELSE quoted statistics..
I'm not sure what you mean here. I've already said that my position here is purpose-irrelevant. I couldn't care less why someone owns a gun. I'm not using self-defense stats to justify gun ownership. I'm using them to counter the ridiculous arguments from people who say that owning a gun is murder in and of itself.
I haven't quoted any statistics.. I used to deal with statistics.. you can do what you want with numbers..... make say what you want to serve your purpose.. It is very difficult to get 'raw' statistics...
Of course it is very difficult to get "raw" statistics, particularly in this case. But the stats we do have show that defensive uses far outnumber murderous ones. And that seems to fly in the face of those who want to cite those murder statistics to justify their positions.
sport killing by those who had superior weaponry. again, the slave couldn't snap one day and start killing at random. im more worried about that than about the "master" abusing his power. we've got enough numbers that i feel secure we could respond to authoritarian abuse if necessary. we cant do a damn thing about a nobody who loses it and goes shooting.
and the guy ou quoted was a serial killer who murdered 1) children and 2) over a period of time. we would not stop jeffrey dahmer. if this guy had run round the village hacking up kids in public, i guarantee he would have been stopped after the first victim. no way would he have been able to slaughter 30 children in 2-3 hours without being stopped.
sport killing by those who had superior weaponry. again, the slave couldn't snap one day and start killing at random. im more worried about that than about the "master" abusing his power. we've got enough numbers that i feel secure we could respond to authoritarian abuse if necessary. we cant do a damn thing about a nobody who loses it and goes shooting.
How is "superior weaponry" relevant to this? Your police forces have superior weaponry than I do. Can I keep my gun now? When you ban guns, the guy with a crossbow is going to have "superior weaponry". Will you have to ban that too and so on?
You seem to keep equating guns with carnage when people "lose it", but guns are also what you use to stop those people. The guns are simply the weapon of choice today.
and the guy ou quoted was a serial killer who murdered 1) children and 2) over a period of time. we would not stop jeffrey dahmer. if this guy had run round the village hacking up kids in public, i guarantee he would have been stopped after the first victim. no way would he have been able to slaughter 30 children in 2-3 hours without being stopped.
I don't understand why you keep speaking in silly absolutes here. Of course someone could slaughter 30 children in 2-3 hours without being stopped. This happened 10 years ago in Oklahoma, and none of those children were shot.
WTF? Is it horrible and tragic? Yes. Does it occur too frequently? Yes, once is too frequently. Is is rare and unusual? Of course it is. You are actually claiming this is normal and common? Please.
I have never claimed that this kind of event is normal or common. But I stand my ground that it is no longer a rare occurrence in the US - there was a post in one of these threads detailing recent school shootings (from very young children to teenagers). As you say, once is too many but even my daughter who is 12 can name 6 different shootings.. scary stuff. Whether the first shooting of the kind or the 20th, the tragedy is the same. Just as war.. occurring over and over again but same human tragedy each time.
People should wake up, open their eyes and see why this is happening...
aaaah, the good old gun debate...christ, they haven't even cleaned up the scene, and the Pro-gun lobby is in full gear...
it's sad really...guns are a business, they make lots and lots of money for some, therefore, the likes of the NRA has to lead the rally to keep that institution rolling and making the green...
guns are not necessary, they are choice...no body dies from not having a gun, they usually die when they are shot by a gun...
let me ask: how did our lax gun laws prevent this from happening...? I mean, it's fairly easy to get a gun...how come the ease of ownership did not stop this event...?
also, why not make if very difficult and costly to own a gun...? what's the harm...? our current laws don't seem to be stopping any of this sort of thing...why not look to more strict gun control laws...?
aaaah, the good old gun debate...christ, they haven't even cleaned up the scene, and the Pro-gun lobby is in full gear...
it's sad really...guns are a business, they make lots and lots of money for some, therefore, the likes of the NRA has to lead the rally to keep that institution rolling and making the green...
guns are not necessary, they are choice...no body dies from not having a gun, they usually die when they are shot by a gun...
let me ask: how did our lax gun laws prevent this from happening...? I mean, it's fairly easy to get a gun...how come the ease of ownership did not stop this event...?
also, why not make if very difficult and costly to own a gun...? what's the harm...? our current laws don't seem to be stopping any of this sort of thing...why not look to more strict gun control laws...?
who does it harm...?
You're joking, right? Please? Its the ANTI-GUN lobby that immediately plunges in every time this happens.
so you agree with my point..? or just cherry picking...?
I agree with some of it, but your rant about pro-gunners was ridiculous. The first people you hear from after any school shooting are anti-gun lobby folks. Then you hear the pro-gun fools like the NRA responding.
I agree with some of it, but your rant about pro-gunners was ridiculous. The first people you hear from after any school shooting are anti-gun lobby folks. Then you hear the pro-gun fools like the NRA responding.
well, at 10:30 am yesterday, I heard neil boortz going off about "how they are going to try to take our guns"....
with the exception of Chuck Norris, no-one can kill 32 people in such a short time before being stopped without a gun. Nowhere near 32.
Why the fuck would you even need to legalise guns? How do you think this makes the US look to civilised countries when you even feel the need to talk about it, let alone that you can buy them while you're getting you're milk in? (i know the US barely even recognises there ARE any other countries but just imagine there are, and that they're NEARLY as civilised as the US.)
with the exception of Chuck Norris, no-one can kill 32 people in such a short time before being stopped without a gun. Nowhere near 32.
:rolleyes:
Dude, people have been killing each other in mass quantities for 10,000 years. The gun is 500 years old. Figure it out.
Why the fuck would you even need to legalise guns? How do you think this makes the US look to civilised countries when you even feel the need to talk about it, let alone that you can buy them while you're getting you're milk in? (i know the US barely even recognises there ARE any other countries but just imagine there are, and that they're NEARLY as civilised as the US.)
You've just disproven yourself here with your own attitude.
OK, i guess you want me to mention IED's? American Politics? George Bush? Heavy Armour? Apache Gunships? Rockets? A10's? what??
Doesnt really seem relevant but if you like you can paste into my sentence anything you like, or is there someone harder than Chuck Norris in Iraq who's roundhouse kicking people to death in mass numbers?
FFG, sadness personified, whats the point? Arguing with, or even talking to, anyone who is scared to live without a Gun is not really my thing. Shoot yourself, that'd be funny
Comments
I never said a gun was necessary in all cases. A gun wasn't necessary in this murder case either.
1998 Seattle 7-21
2000 Seattle 11-06
2003 Seattle Benaroya 10-22
2005 Gorge 9-1
2006 Gorge 7-23
Obviously the gun was necessary in this murder case as it was his right and choice to use this weapon....
Of course it is rare and unusual. If it weren't the papers, news broadcasts and message boards wouldn't have been dominated with reports, discussions and debates.
Lol. We're thinking of the same movie.
I remember watching that the first time and thinking of the balls it must have taken to charge head on into a battle like that.
Bullets generally give you some distance, and a potentially quicker death once you're hit.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
The latter isn't even a war. It's simply the mass-murder of slaves as sport.
Murder, and mass-murder, predate guns.
those are wars though and we still fight those with weapons. you don't hear about the village blacksmith snapping and killing 30 people. he wouldn't get that far. joe peasant cannot kill mass numbers of people without a gun.
No I'm not. I've advocating the right of having a gun, period. Purposes are irrelevant.
The statistics I quoted are simply in response to your own that you either didn't consider or chose to leave out.
You can read the paper here:
http://jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/2/193
Huh? That wouldn't mean it was "necessary".
The first is war. The second is sport killing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais
Owning the gun for defensive purposes is part of owing one for the sake of it.. you just seemed to put emphasis on this when SOMEONE ELSE quoted statistics..
I haven't quoted any statistics.. I used to deal with statistics.. you can do what you want with numbers..... make say what you want to serve your purpose.. It is very difficult to get 'raw' statistics...
WTF? Is it horrible and tragic? Yes. Does it occur too frequently? Yes, once is too frequently. Is is rare and unusual? Of course it is. You are actually claiming this is normal and common? Please.
That's a pretty interesting question when you really think about it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'm not sure what you mean here. I've already said that my position here is purpose-irrelevant. I couldn't care less why someone owns a gun. I'm not using self-defense stats to justify gun ownership. I'm using them to counter the ridiculous arguments from people who say that owning a gun is murder in and of itself.
Of course it is very difficult to get "raw" statistics, particularly in this case. But the stats we do have show that defensive uses far outnumber murderous ones. And that seems to fly in the face of those who want to cite those murder statistics to justify their positions.
sport killing by those who had superior weaponry. again, the slave couldn't snap one day and start killing at random. im more worried about that than about the "master" abusing his power. we've got enough numbers that i feel secure we could respond to authoritarian abuse if necessary. we cant do a damn thing about a nobody who loses it and goes shooting.
and the guy ou quoted was a serial killer who murdered 1) children and 2) over a period of time. we would not stop jeffrey dahmer. if this guy had run round the village hacking up kids in public, i guarantee he would have been stopped after the first victim. no way would he have been able to slaughter 30 children in 2-3 hours without being stopped.
How is "superior weaponry" relevant to this? Your police forces have superior weaponry than I do. Can I keep my gun now? When you ban guns, the guy with a crossbow is going to have "superior weaponry". Will you have to ban that too and so on?
You seem to keep equating guns with carnage when people "lose it", but guns are also what you use to stop those people. The guns are simply the weapon of choice today.
I don't understand why you keep speaking in silly absolutes here. Of course someone could slaughter 30 children in 2-3 hours without being stopped. This happened 10 years ago in Oklahoma, and none of those children were shot.
I have never claimed that this kind of event is normal or common. But I stand my ground that it is no longer a rare occurrence in the US - there was a post in one of these threads detailing recent school shootings (from very young children to teenagers). As you say, once is too many but even my daughter who is 12 can name 6 different shootings.. scary stuff. Whether the first shooting of the kind or the 20th, the tragedy is the same. Just as war.. occurring over and over again but same human tragedy each time.
People should wake up, open their eyes and see why this is happening...
it's sad really...guns are a business, they make lots and lots of money for some, therefore, the likes of the NRA has to lead the rally to keep that institution rolling and making the green...
guns are not necessary, they are choice...no body dies from not having a gun, they usually die when they are shot by a gun...
let me ask: how did our lax gun laws prevent this from happening...? I mean, it's fairly easy to get a gun...how come the ease of ownership did not stop this event...?
also, why not make if very difficult and costly to own a gun...? what's the harm...? our current laws don't seem to be stopping any of this sort of thing...why not look to more strict gun control laws...?
who does it harm...?
You're joking, right? Please? Its the ANTI-GUN lobby that immediately plunges in every time this happens.
so you agree with my point..? or just cherry picking...?
I agree with some of it, but your rant about pro-gunners was ridiculous. The first people you hear from after any school shooting are anti-gun lobby folks. Then you hear the pro-gun fools like the NRA responding.
well, at 10:30 am yesterday, I heard neil boortz going off about "how they are going to try to take our guns"....
so, the first "shot" I heard was from Pro-gun...
not really, his opinion is shared by quite a few people out there. obviosuly i disagree, but that doesnt really matter to them
Jeffery Dahmer did. Ed Gein Did. Andrei Chikatilo killed 53.
All without the use of a gun.
Why the fuck would you even need to legalise guns? How do you think this makes the US look to civilised countries when you even feel the need to talk about it, let alone that you can buy them while you're getting you're milk in? (i know the US barely even recognises there ARE any other countries but just imagine there are, and that they're NEARLY as civilised as the US.)
You haven't heard much news from Iraq I take it.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
:rolleyes:
Dude, people have been killing each other in mass quantities for 10,000 years. The gun is 500 years old. Figure it out.
You've just disproven yourself here with your own attitude.
for painfully obvious reasons
OK, i guess you want me to mention IED's? American Politics? George Bush? Heavy Armour? Apache Gunships? Rockets? A10's? what??
Doesnt really seem relevant but if you like you can paste into my sentence anything you like, or is there someone harder than Chuck Norris in Iraq who's roundhouse kicking people to death in mass numbers?
FFG, sadness personified, whats the point? Arguing with, or even talking to, anyone who is scared to live without a Gun is not really my thing. Shoot yourself, that'd be funny