Where did I say people weren't allowed to defend themselves, or use force?
Strangely, from your posts I got the impression that you thought that we should all just lie down and take it because some people have had hard lives and that excuses anything they may do. BUT I'm sure I was wrong about that.
No it isn't. But why is it ok for some people to use their difficult experiences as an excuse to break the law, and perpertrate violence against others but it's not ok for the victim to use their experience as a reason to respond as they do? Again that's just the impression I got from your posts, I'm sure I misunderstood.
Yes, I see onelongsong has a very hard time with it.
"killing your first person is hard. especially if you look into their eyes. but after that it isn't that bad. when you exterminate vermin; you do society a favour."
It sounds like it's only a hard thing to go through once, after that it's nothing, like taking out the trash.
Neither do I. But when they go about it with an attitude like onelongsong's, it fills me with disgust. I never said anything against self-defence but when your mentality is set on killing whoever crosses a certain line, I think you have serious problems.
Well I'll post it again, because the impression I got was that this negated whatever it was he was trying to say prior to it. You'll probably tell me you don't agree. Fine. We don't agree.
There's a difference. You shoot to defend yourself, your main objective should be your safety, not killing your attacker. And if in protection yourself your attacker is killed so be it, you were put in an (extreme) situation where you had to rely on extreme measures. I probably won't agree with it unless there was no other option at all but hey, that's life.
Well it's nice that you can make that judgement so clearly. Being so sure must give you a lot of comfort. But you admit that you probably won't agree unless you judge that there was no other option so that's good to know.
I have my doubts. He seems to me a very irresponsible gun owner, but what do I know, apparently there are places in the world where it's considered responsible shooting near kids and at old ladies' feet when a simple yell would have sufficed.
But then again, I think he's making a lot of stuff up. So his macho behaviour could all be an act.
Maybe. I guess you need to "walk a mile in his shoes" to understand him.
And believe me, the whole world would benefit you if managed to understand him and he you.
I am? Holy crap!!! Really? Well that's good to know Collin. Maybe if we keep rattling around like this we might be able to come to even more agreement!! Now wouldn't that be good?
No, you're right. They should fucking kill the bastards, maim them first if possible. Typical bullshit. If you have a real argument, try again.
That is a real argument Collin. How did you come up with this extreme answer?
And how is your extreme response to this part of my post any better than some of the comments made by onelongsong? The intent appears to be the same to me. Agitate.
It doesn't have to be either completely hand over everything to the person attacking you and take all that they dish out, or shoot and kill them.
Surely there is middle ground?
what if instead of handguns, we used stun guns? You still had to be licensed and registered, and you would still need to be educated in how to use one properly but this seems like a good idea. You can still defend yourself, and the chances of death are lowered. Comments?
Strangely, from your posts I got the impression that you thought that we should all just lie down and take it because some people have had hard lives and that excuses anything they may do. BUT I'm sure I was wrong about that.
I never said you should condone their actions because they had hard lives. You talked about understanding. And onelongsong talked about vermin and scum, I pointed out these are people as well and deserve understanding as well..
No it isn't. But why is it ok for some people to use their difficult experiences as an excuse to break the law, and perpertrate violence against others but it's not ok for the victim to use their experience as a reason to respond as they do? Again that's just the impression I got from your posts, I'm sure I misunderstood.
It's not ok, imo. I guess interpreting posts is not as easy is you say it is.
Well I'll post it again, because the impression I got was that this negated whatever it was he was trying to say prior to it. You'll probably tell me you don't agree. Fine. We don't agree.
You're right, I disagree. He could have used fancy words, or said it more wisely, would the message be that much different? I have this theory that true feelings often appear in the heat of the moment.
And again. Because they were only words after all and not actions.
Again, how'd you feel is someone was talking about rape, beating children... (not comparing here) would you say they are just words? If a guy comes here and starts talking that if his wife cheated on him he'd beat her and rape her, would you say, calm down Collin, you misinterpreted his posts, it's only words?
Sorry at what point did onelongsong say that he "planned" to kill?
I must have missed that.
so a kid in an urban area needs to know that if he tries to rob or carjack me; i will shoot him dead.
Doesn't sound like 'I will defend myself' or 'I will shoot him.' It says 'I will shoot dead.'
That is a real argument Collin. How did you come up with this extreme answer?
And how is your extreme response to this part of my post any better than some of the comments made by onelongsong? The intent appears to be the same to me. Agitate.
It doesn't have to be either completely hand over everything to the person attacking you and take all that they dish out, or shoot and kill them.
Surely there is middle ground?
So someone is against death he is for hugging people? No middle ground in your post.
stepping on a snake or grabbing it's tail will cause it to strike. i don't miss so the womans foot was never in danger; however; with her medical condition she would have survived a shot in the foot but not the snake bite.
again; you are trying to compare different cultures and justify your opinion as correct. it won't work. to someone living in NYC life is completely different than someone living in casper WY; and; someone living in the vast wilderness of the west. so you don't like the way we live here? boo hoo. get over it. you obviously don't understand the conditions or the lifestyle here. we don't have law here as you know it. or as someone in NYC knows it. you may have to protect your children from the neighbourhood bully but we have to protect ours from mountain lions. it may seem ok to you to let poisonous snakes roam where children play but would you feel the same if the nearest medical attention is at best 3 hours away? and even then the anti-venom has to be flown in; and that's IF the snake was identified. anti-venom for the mohave rattler must be administered within 11 minutes.
although i respect your opinion; i also realize you don't know what your talking about when you try to compare conditions here with yours.
I don't live in NYC. The only time I've lived in a big city was when I was working overseas. I think you'd be surprised how well I understand conditions where you live. I grew up on a 5,000 acre sheep farm in central New South Wales. I also grew up around some of the most dangerous snakes in the world, and we were also a considerable distance from medical help.
I've killed snakes myself, and as a little kid I used to run straight to my grandfather when I found a snake, and watch him kill it with a shotgun. I no longer kill a snake if I have any other option at all, but I completely understand the neccessity of having firearms around on a farm, and I have absolutely no problem with it. What I have a problem with is your claims that you 'saved four lives' by killing snakes, which could have been dealt with in other ways. You came across as trying to make yourself sound heroic, when really you did very little. You also seem to think that your way is the only way to survive in your environment. I'd suggest that there are other ways.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
what if instead of handguns, we used stun guns? You still had to be licensed and registered, and you would still need to be educated in how to use one properly but this seems like a good idea. You can still defend yourself, and the chances of death are lowered. Comments?
I think this is an interesting idea.
And sounds feasible as an alternative to guns.
I have to admit that stun guns scar the crap out of me too, and I don't know very much about them, but on the surface I think this sounds a much more viable option for America.
I never said you should condone their actions because they had hard lives. You talked about understanding. And onelongsong talked about vermin and scum, I pointed out these are people as well and deserve understanding as well..
It's not ok, imo. I guess interpreting posts is not as easy is you say it is.
You're right, I disagree. He could have used fancy words, or said it more wisely, would the message be that much different? I have this theory that true feelings often appear in the heat of the moment.
Again, how'd you feel is someone was talking about rape, beating children... (not comparing here) would you say they are just words? If a guy comes here and starts talking that if his wife cheated on him he'd beat her and rape her, would you say, calm down Collin, you misinterpreted his posts, it's only words?
so a kid in an urban area needs to know that if he tries to rob or carjack me; i will shoot him dead.
Doesn't sound like 'I will defend myself' or 'I will shoot him.' It says 'I will shoot dead.'
So someone is against death he is for hugging people? No middle ground in your post.
Collin, I'm done here. Seems futile to me to argue back and forth on a message board. We appear not to agree, fair enough. I CHOOSE not to argue with you further. It's been lovely, but I have to scream now!
Anyway, hopefully we will find some common ground somewhere on another topic. Good luck to you.
I don't live in NYC. The only time I've lived in a big city was when I was working overseas. I think you'd be surprised how well I understand conditions where you live. I grew up on a 5,000 acre sheep farm in central New South Wales. I also grew up around some of the most dangerous snakes in the world, and we were also a considerable distance from medical help.
I've killed snakes myself, and as a little kid I used to run straight to my grandfather when I found a snake, and watch him kill it with a shotgun. I no longer kill a snake if I have any other option at all, but I completely understand the neccessity of having firearms around on a farm, and I have absolutely no problem with it. What I have a problem with is your claims that you 'saved four lives' by killing snakes, which could have been dealt with in other ways. You came across as trying to make yourself sound heroic, when really you did very little. You also seem to think that your way is the only way to survive in your environment. I'd suggest that there are other ways.
i agree with you scott. i prefer to keep snakes around to control rodents. maybe if i'd been carrying a long enough stick i could have knocked the toddler away or the woman back into her camper. but i didn't. i'm flattered some might think of it as heroic; but for me it's just another day on the farm.
this brings me to my point; if human life is so precious; shouldn't we be allowed to protect human life by the best means possible? i've seen a few on this thread grab hold of a little piece of fur like a mongoose while missing the entire point. i don't consider myself anyone special but i contribute much more to society than the bloke that held me at gunpoint. (the end result was he got a fine and probation). so i question should we place different values on human life? for example; if he would've killed me; he would've been free to victimize someone else; however; would someone else have made the discoveries i made? or cared for the unwanted children i have; or donated to the causes i support? if my theories prove right; i may be on the brink of finding the cure for cancer. so i can agree that human life is precious; but what do we accomplish by protecting the lives of those to kill? does this make us civilized?
assault weapons for hunting seems like overkill to me. doesn't such a firearm take away the requirement of any skill needed that is necessary for hunting?
This is not only bleeding obvious, but also probably the original point of the guy who this thrwead started about. But we'll never know because he got howled down so quick by the gun weenies.
This is not only bleeding obvious, but also probably the original point of the guy who this thrwead started about. But we'll never know because he got howled down so quick by the gun weenies.
Well I don't know lucy, there's been a fair bit of howling from the other side too. I would have like to have heard about it from both sides of the debate.
Some nice, calm, informative points of view from both sides.
I can't see the point to automatic weapons myself but there has been some talk about prairie dogs or something. I mean I think it's obvious that you don't need automatic weapons as a lay person but I'd really like to hear from gun owners and the NRA in particular about why it's so important that people be allowed to own them in America.
This is not only bleeding obvious, but also probably the original point of the guy who this thrwead started about. But we'll never know because he got howled down so quick by the gun weenies.
what is an assault weapon to you? it takes tremendous skill. much more than say a good target rifle. this only goes to show how the media can sway the ignorant.
but what do we accomplish by protecting the lives of those to kill? does this make us civilized?
yes it absolutely does make us civilised if we don't allow ourselves to take a life when it can be avoided. just because we can doesn't mean we should. i would like to think what separates us from the animals is our ability to reason.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well I don't know lucy, there's been a fair bit of howling from the other side too. I would have like to have heard about it from both sides of the debate.
Some nice, calm, informative points of view from both sides.
I can't see the point to automatic weapons myself but there has been some talk about prairie dogs or something. I mean I think it's obvious that you don't need automatic weapons as a lay person but I'd really like to hear from gun owners and the NRA in particular about why it's so important that people be allowed to own them in America.
i'd like to know why gun ownership threatens so many people. if i wanted to murder someone i wouldn't use a gun.
violence begets violence. deadly force will be met by deadly force. i have no problem killing someone to save my life.
so where does it end then?
and i would absolutely put my life or the life of my chilfdren over an attacker. but as i said that does not necessary mean death as a result. but i certainly acknowledge that it could.
as for assault weapons, i consider just about any firearm an assault weapon cause basically that is the intent which which they were manufactured. though i know that's not the accepted definition.
firearms are for killing. it's as simple as that.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i'd like to know why gun ownership threatens so many people. if i wanted to murder someone i wouldn't use a gun.
It doesn't threaten me, it mystifies me. We really don't have the gun culture here in Australia that you appear to have there in the US.
I say if you need guns in the course of your day to day activities then fine, by all means own a gun. Own several for all I care. But I would question if there is any possible way that you can perform the tasks you do that require a gun in any other way? AND the only reason I ask this question is because over and over again it would appear that guns have been used by some very sick puppies to perpertrate violence against others. And that is because they have had access to them. Many violent interludes between people may have had a very different outcome if guns were not made available to the perpertrator. Do I think that ALL gun owners are irresponsible and not to be trusted with guns? NO. But as shown here in Australia, the whole world does not collapse if guns are not available to the general population other than for agreed purposes. And for that reason I'm glad that they banned automatic weapons here in Australia. I NEVER want to wake up again to the news that some psycho with an automatic weapon is chasing down little girls to shoot them and their mother in full sight and thoroughly enjoying himself as he does it. AND onelongsong, that's not having a go at gun owners at all. I am well aware that in the particular incident of which I speak that we also need to spend a shitload of cash making sure that services are available to the mentally ill and unstable. But I do believe that if you restrict access, then you also restrict the potential for disaster. And I'm just wondering, CAN you do what you need to without an automatic weapon? Before there was automatic weapons what was the procedure? Just curious really.
violence begets violence. deadly force will be met by deadly force. i have no problem killing someone to save my life.
I agree. I would certainly do everything in my power to live if someone was trying to kill me and if that meant the death of my attacker so be it. Better him than me if it had to get down to that.
But gee, I don't know onelongsong, even should that happen and I should actually kill someone, even in those circumstances, while I would be glad that I lived, I don't know that having actually killed someone else is something that would ever feel right to me. Even in extenuating circumstances. I would always know that some one somewhere would grieve the loss and suffer the pain of my actions.
It doesn't threaten me, it mystifies me. We really don't have the gun culture here in Australia that you appear to have there in the US.
I say if you need guns in the course of your day to day activities then fine, by all means own a gun. Own several for all I care. But I would question if there is any possible way that you can perform the tasks you do that require a gun in any other way? AND the only reason I ask this question is because over and over again it would appear that guns have been used by some very sick puppies to perpertrate violence against others. And that is because they have had access to them. Many violent interludes between people may have had a very different outcome if guns were not made available to the perpertrator. Do I think that ALL gun owners are irresponsible and not to be trusted with guns? NO. But as shown here in Australia, the whole world does not collapse if guns are not available to the general population other than for agreed purposes. And for that reason I'm glad that they banned automatic weapons here in Australia. I NEVER want to wake up again to the news that some psycho with an automatic weapon is chasing down little girls to shoot them and their mother in full sight and thoroughly enjoying himself as he does it. AND onelongsong, that's not having a go at gun owners at all. I am well aware that in the particular incident of which I speak that we also need to spend a shitload of cash making sure that services are available to the mentally ill and unstable. But I do believe that if you restrict access, then you also restrict the potential for disaster. And I'm just wondering, CAN you do what you need to without an automatic weapon? Before there was automatic weapons what was the procedure? Just curious really.
first; criminals will ALWAYS have access to guns. the FBI has an entire room of confiscated home-made guns. i can make a gun from every day products bought from a hardware store. i've made my own gunpowder from charcole; sulfur and nitrate.
i don't nor have i ever used an automatic weapon. i've never had to shoot twice at anything. my family holds some of the world records for exhibition shooting. my 64 yr old aunt holds the national record for skeet shooting.
the fact still remains that criminals prefer unarmed victims. in towns where guns were banned (morton grove IL for example) crime jumped. criminals will gladly travel to areas where they know they are safe to committ their crimes.
historically; crimes of passion are stabbings or strangulation. the bomb in the oklahoma city bombing was made from fertilizer. the WTC was brought down by planes. the people with knowledge know that guns are NOT good killing devices. that's why mass murders like the above are not accomplished with guns.
now; if you keep up with world news; england has banned guns yet there is still gun violence. same with canada. all these laws do is remove guns from the people you'd want to have them. that's the honest responsable people.
any country you can smuggle drugs into has guns available to criminals. drug smugglers bring guns with them. i don't have time to do the research but tomorrow i'll try to find the stats for oz. i'm sure violent crimes didn't stop when guns were banned. in fact i'll bet it went up.
now personally; i'd prefer an arrow or knife if i chose to kill someone. the victim would bleed out before help could arrive. a bullet carterizes the wound and therefore you need to hit a vital organ or an artery.
I agree. I would certainly do everything in my power to live if someone was trying to kill me and if that meant the death of my attacker so be it. Better him than me if it had to get down to that.
But gee, I don't know onelongsong, even should that happen and I should actually kill someone, even in those circumstances, while I would be glad that I lived, I don't know that having actually killed someone else is something that would ever feel right to me. Even in extenuating circumstances. I would always know that some one somewhere would grieve the loss and suffer the pain of my actions.
and i agree there; but i've been held at gunpoint; i know people that were raped; and people who've had someone break into their homes and robbed them at gunpoint. none of them; not even me; has ever really gotten over it. i'd rather live with the fact that i killed someone trying to rape my daughter then live with the fact i did nothing about it.
historically; crimes of passion are stabbings or strangulation. the bomb in the oklahoma city bombing was made from fertilizer. the WTC was brought down by planes. the people with knowledge know that guns are NOT good killing devices. that's why mass murders like the above are not accomplished with guns.
acts of terrorism are not comparable.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and i agree there; but i've been held at gunpoint; i know people that were raped; and people who've had someone break into their homes and robbed them at gunpoint. none of them; not even me; has ever really gotten over it. i'd rather live with the fact that i killed someone trying to rape my daughter then live with the fact i did nothing about it.
Ok, well I've never been held at gunpoint, but I have had the things waved in my face and pointed at me by idiots that shouldn't have been allowed near them on more than one occassion. Registered gun owners on all occassions.
One of them even shot at me. Well in my general direction. And proceeded to drop a shotgun which then went off quite close to me. Not something I'd care to participate in again. :(
I can say that I am eternally grateful that the asshole that raped me, did not have a gun. I'm quite sure I wouldn't be here now if he did, and I'm also exceptionally grateful that my deadshit ex boyfriend was only able to attack me with his fists and his trusty hammer because I spent a great deal of time wondering how I would survive even that, and I was pretty sure I was about to make the front page of the papers even then. Had he had a gun, I most definately would have. The fact that he didn't have a gun most surely saved my life. Because although in both of these cases the acts of violence perpertrated against me were both oportunistic and showed poor impulse control by the inflicter the ability to fire a gun in a time of such rage against another human being could really only ever result in the death or serious maiming of that human being. Me. And I saw how handy he was with his hammer and unable to control himself. I shudder to think what would have happened with a gun. BUT I'm also grateful that I didn't have a gun. Because I'm not sure that I wouldn't have fired the damn thing and killed either of the fuckers. AND I know I don't want to live with that. All the ramifications of that. And the fact that I did nothing to either of them in the aftermath is really not that difficult to live with. Some days yes, but it passes. I feel much better knowing that the best revenge is to live well. And that is the path I chose. To not allow my whole life to be dictated by those incidents in particular. What happens to those two particular assholes is of no consequence to me. They'll have to live with their actions. Having said that, I have been in situations where I have defended a friend, a parent and even a stranger from being attacked violently, and I can only say that in the absence of weapons, I used the best options available to me. My physical presence, my communication skills and when all else failed my physicality and my voice. Making a lot of noise and drawing attention can be really helpful here in Australia. People do help each other out most of the time. On all occassions we all managed to get away without inflicting death. Severe emotional trauma, post traumatic stress and some pretty horrific injuries but we all lived to fight another day. Well after the courtcase anyway.
I can't presume to judge your experience onelongsong. You do what you have to in the situation you find yourself in. And I'm really sorry that you found yourself in the situation that you did. I really think that what we have here is the difference between two cultures. One that has guns as a constitutional right and one that doesn't. Every view point from there will be different because our experience is different. I choose not to live with guns and do so quite happily. You choose to live with guns and appear to do so quite happily. Nobody is wrong here. Just different.
Well I don't know lucy, there's been a fair bit of howling from the other side too. I would have like to have heard about it from both sides of the debate.
Some nice, calm, informative points of view from both sides.
I can't see the point to automatic weapons myself but there has been some talk about prairie dogs or something. I mean I think it's obvious that you don't need automatic weapons as a lay person but I'd really like to hear from gun owners and the NRA in particular about why it's so important that people be allowed to own them in America.
This is something I'd like to hear too. I've heard the usual argument about their precious freedoms, but I haven't yet heard a logical, practical reason why anyone other than a soldier should be in possesion of automatic weapons.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
This is something I'd like to hear too. I've heard the usual argument about their precious freedoms, but I haven't yet heard a logical, practical reason why anyone other than a soldier should be in possesion of automatic weapons.
I guess because many Americans in general feel under attack. So coming from that view point it's hard for them to have this discussion without feeling that it's an attack on their constitutional freedoms. Which maybe it is. For them. I guess from our point of view it isn't. Right? We'd just like to know why right?
This is something I'd like to hear too. I've heard the usual argument about their precious freedoms, but I haven't yet heard a logical, practical reason why anyone other than a soldier should be in possesion of automatic weapons.
Who here has advocated for the possession of automatic weapons?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
first; criminals will ALWAYS have access to guns. the FBI has an entire room of confiscated home-made guns. i can make a gun from every day products bought from a hardware store. i've made my own gunpowder from charcole; sulfur and nitrate.
Ok OLS, this one was a wee bit longer so required some more thought.
First up here's a link to wiki (everyone's personal favorite Well mine anyway and that' all that matters imo!! ) that has some really good info about guns in Oz and the why and wherefore including crime rates.
And interestingly it does say that there's been an increase in illegal gun ownership but an overall drop in gun crime. So the crims are just procurring them somehow and waving them around I suspect. Well except here in Melbourne where they are shooting each other! But that's a whole other thread that probably wouldn't interest too many on an International level anyway! But it's been playing out like a soap opera here!
So I guess it's not my expectation that we will ever completely get rid of guns and why would we want to? Clearly they do serve several purposes.
And I see no reason for responsible gun owners to continue to own guns.
i don't nor have i ever used an automatic weapon. i've never had to shoot twice at anything. my family holds some of the world records for exhibition shooting. my 64 yr old aunt holds the national record for skeet shooting.
So important questions, because it relates to the topic of the thread.
Why don't you personally own an automatic weapon? Is that a preference or have you never had a use for them? And what are they used for in terms of hunting? As I'm assuming that would be the purpose you would want one for if you wanted one. And if you don't own one because you are able to hunt successfully with out one, why then do you think that other people would want to have them? I'm really just curious to hear your thoughts on this.
And sharp shooting and skeet shooting have always been something that I've appreciated the skill of and enjoyed watching. So that's pretty cool that your family holds records in exhibition shooting. It's quite the skill.
the fact still remains that criminals prefer unarmed victims. in towns where guns were banned (morton grove IL for example) crime jumped. criminals will gladly travel to areas where they know they are safe to committ their crimes.
Really wouldn't know about this. Didn't seem to be a major influx of crime here after the buy back. Although I would probably concede that there appears to have been an increase in stabbings and knife related crimes. Although there has been some education and investigation going on into this trend. So who knows what the outcome will be.
historically; crimes of passion are stabbings or strangulation. the bomb in the oklahoma city bombing was made from fertilizer. the WTC was brought down by planes. the people with knowledge know that guns are NOT good killing devices. that's why mass murders like the above are not accomplished with guns.
The sole reason for the banning of semi automatic weapons here in Australia and the whole buy back scheme, hinged intirely on the Port Arthur Massacre as far as I am aware. And seeing as how it was one of the most violent episodes with a one of the largest loses of life, I really can't say that I think that the outcome with regard to semi automatics was a bad one. And the most important point to remember about Martin Bryant is that he is mentally unwell and should never have had weapons made available to him in the first place. But then he should never have been walking the streets. Long before the massacre he showed some fairly obvious signs that he needed intense psychiatric care. So one has to question how is a person like that able to purchase weapons? And I guess seing as how he did manage to procur them, what can we do to make sure that such a thing NEVER happens again? As we have a much smaller population here the incidence of bombing or acts of terrorism are miniscule by comparison to the USA. Although no less significant. We have lost lives in bombing incidents both in the country and as acts of terrorism outside the country. Case in point the Bali Bombings of 2002 and 2005. Also the Hilton Bombing of 1978 which was politically motivated and the Russell Street Bombing of 1986 which was underworld related. All of these acts of violence are truly hideous and should be abhored and denounced for the evil that they are. Having said that. They really have no connection to the topic of the thread which is about automatic weapons.
now; if you keep up with world news; england has banned guns yet there is still gun violence. same with canada. all these laws do is remove guns from the people you'd want to have them. that's the honest responsable people.
any country you can smuggle drugs into has guns available to criminals. drug smugglers bring guns with them. i don't have time to do the research but tomorrow i'll try to find the stats for oz. i'm sure violent crimes didn't stop when guns were banned. in fact i'll bet it went up.
Wouldn't know about that coz I try very hard not to watch the news. It's usually always bad and it serves no purpose to me to see the suffering of others. Anyway, I think you'll find the stats you want in the link I posted. And I guess that as I agree that responsible gun owners should still be allowed to keep their guns, then the issue then is why are we not doing more to stop the sale and importation of illegal weapons? AND I guess that then brings me to the question of demand. Do you think it's possible that because there is such a demand for guns in the US that this is keeping very powerful gun manufacturers in business and therefore flooding the market with more guns than anyone could successful utilize in a lifetime? So while I agree that guns should be available to responsible gun owners, do you think that the acceptance of this as a right as per you constitution supports the over saturation of the market which in turn supports the black market, which would obviously then put the guns into the hands of those whom we do not want to have them? If the market is there for legal gun owners does this not then support the opportunity for more illegal gun owners simple because it allows for oversaturation? I'm just asking the question.
AND quite apart from that, why would there need to be so many semi automatic or assault rifles made anyway? Surely a limit to their manufacture could be brought into place? Just some ideas banging around in my head.
now personally; i'd prefer an arrow or knife if i chose to kill someone. the victim would bleed out before help could arrive. a bullet carterizes the wound and therefore you need to hit a vital organ or an artery.
Well if you really want to get into killing then as a woman, historically I can't go past poisoning. We seem to have a thing for it. And I've always been fascinated by Oleander Tea.:D But then I really can't see me going to all the trouble of taking somebody out anyway. I can't conceive of anything that someone could do to me that would illicit the urge to plan and carry out a murder. So the only circumstances in which I could invisage me killing another human being is a) if the person was a deadly threat to me or a loved one and I had no other choice or b) I killed them by accident or misadventure or possibly c) if a loved one asked me to end their suffering possibly I could be swayed to assist.
Ultimately I would really just like to stick to the topic at hand which is what happened to this guy that spoke out about assault weapons? I'd like to know your thoughts on them. If anyone has a valid use that the general population would require them for. And why people seem so worried about banning them. I'm just really curious to hear. Truly.
Comments
Well I think onelongsong made some ill advised comments. I don't think his intention before he gets started is to kill. Guess it's how you look at it.
Strangely, from your posts I got the impression that you thought that we should all just lie down and take it because some people have had hard lives and that excuses anything they may do. BUT I'm sure I was wrong about that.
No it isn't. But why is it ok for some people to use their difficult experiences as an excuse to break the law, and perpertrate violence against others but it's not ok for the victim to use their experience as a reason to respond as they do? Again that's just the impression I got from your posts, I'm sure I misunderstood.
Well I'll post it again, because the impression I got was that this negated whatever it was he was trying to say prior to it. You'll probably tell me you don't agree. Fine. We don't agree.
And again. Because they were only words after all and not actions.
Sorry at what point did onelongsong say that he "planned" to kill?
I must have missed that.
Well it's nice that you can make that judgement so clearly. Being so sure must give you a lot of comfort. But you admit that you probably won't agree unless you judge that there was no other option so that's good to know.
I agree.
Maybe. I guess you need to "walk a mile in his shoes" to understand him.
And believe me, the whole world would benefit you if managed to understand him and he you.
Well that's a shame.
I am? Holy crap!!! Really?
That is a real argument Collin. How did you come up with this extreme answer?
And how is your extreme response to this part of my post any better than some of the comments made by onelongsong? The intent appears to be the same to me. Agitate.
It doesn't have to be either completely hand over everything to the person attacking you and take all that they dish out, or shoot and kill them.
Surely there is middle ground?
Wow!! Bugger me!! Not more consensus!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I never said you should condone their actions because they had hard lives. You talked about understanding. And onelongsong talked about vermin and scum, I pointed out these are people as well and deserve understanding as well..
It's not ok, imo. I guess interpreting posts is not as easy is you say it is.
You're right, I disagree. He could have used fancy words, or said it more wisely, would the message be that much different? I have this theory that true feelings often appear in the heat of the moment.
Again, how'd you feel is someone was talking about rape, beating children... (not comparing here) would you say they are just words? If a guy comes here and starts talking that if his wife cheated on him he'd beat her and rape her, would you say, calm down Collin, you misinterpreted his posts, it's only words?
so a kid in an urban area needs to know that if he tries to rob or carjack me; i will shoot him dead.
Doesn't sound like 'I will defend myself' or 'I will shoot him.' It says 'I will shoot dead.'
So someone is against death he is for hugging people? No middle ground in your post.
naděje umírá poslední
I don't live in NYC. The only time I've lived in a big city was when I was working overseas. I think you'd be surprised how well I understand conditions where you live. I grew up on a 5,000 acre sheep farm in central New South Wales. I also grew up around some of the most dangerous snakes in the world, and we were also a considerable distance from medical help.
I've killed snakes myself, and as a little kid I used to run straight to my grandfather when I found a snake, and watch him kill it with a shotgun. I no longer kill a snake if I have any other option at all, but I completely understand the neccessity of having firearms around on a farm, and I have absolutely no problem with it. What I have a problem with is your claims that you 'saved four lives' by killing snakes, which could have been dealt with in other ways. You came across as trying to make yourself sound heroic, when really you did very little. You also seem to think that your way is the only way to survive in your environment. I'd suggest that there are other ways.
-C Addison
I think this is an interesting idea.
And sounds feasible as an alternative to guns.
I have to admit that stun guns scar the crap out of me too, and I don't know very much about them, but on the surface I think this sounds a much more viable option for America.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Collin, I'm done here. Seems futile to me to argue back and forth on a message board. We appear not to agree, fair enough. I CHOOSE not to argue with you further. It's been lovely, but I have to scream now!
Anyway, hopefully we will find some common ground somewhere on another topic. Good luck to you.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
i agree with you scott. i prefer to keep snakes around to control rodents. maybe if i'd been carrying a long enough stick i could have knocked the toddler away or the woman back into her camper. but i didn't. i'm flattered some might think of it as heroic; but for me it's just another day on the farm.
this brings me to my point; if human life is so precious; shouldn't we be allowed to protect human life by the best means possible? i've seen a few on this thread grab hold of a little piece of fur like a mongoose while missing the entire point. i don't consider myself anyone special but i contribute much more to society than the bloke that held me at gunpoint. (the end result was he got a fine and probation). so i question should we place different values on human life? for example; if he would've killed me; he would've been free to victimize someone else; however; would someone else have made the discoveries i made? or cared for the unwanted children i have; or donated to the causes i support? if my theories prove right; i may be on the brink of finding the cure for cancer. so i can agree that human life is precious; but what do we accomplish by protecting the lives of those to kill? does this make us civilized?
Well if you kill them then someone will have to kill you and then someone will have to kill that person etc.
And even when you do support the death penalty, taking the law into your own hands isn't right.
naděje umírá poslední
but protecting yourself is right. and that's where the difference comes in.
This is not only bleeding obvious, but also probably the original point of the guy who this thrwead started about. But we'll never know because he got howled down so quick by the gun weenies.
Well I don't know lucy, there's been a fair bit of howling from the other side too. I would have like to have heard about it from both sides of the debate.
Some nice, calm, informative points of view from both sides.
I can't see the point to automatic weapons myself but there has been some talk about prairie dogs or something.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
by all means yes, protect yourself. but protecting oneself does not necessarily require the death of the other person.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
what is an assault weapon to you? it takes tremendous skill. much more than say a good target rifle. this only goes to show how the media can sway the ignorant.
yes it absolutely does make us civilised if we don't allow ourselves to take a life when it can be avoided. just because we can doesn't mean we should. i would like to think what separates us from the animals is our ability to reason.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
violence begets violence. deadly force will be met by deadly force. i have no problem killing someone to save my life.
i'd like to know why gun ownership threatens so many people. if i wanted to murder someone i wouldn't use a gun.
so where does it end then?
and i would absolutely put my life or the life of my chilfdren over an attacker. but as i said that does not necessary mean death as a result. but i certainly acknowledge that it could.
as for assault weapons, i consider just about any firearm an assault weapon cause basically that is the intent which which they were manufactured. though i know that's not the accepted definition.
firearms are for killing. it's as simple as that.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
you have got to be kidding me. you can not be that naive. i can not defend myself against a gun. there is no contest. guns are indiscriminant.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It doesn't threaten me, it mystifies me. We really don't have the gun culture here in Australia that you appear to have there in the US.
I say if you need guns in the course of your day to day activities then fine, by all means own a gun. Own several for all I care. But I would question if there is any possible way that you can perform the tasks you do that require a gun in any other way? AND the only reason I ask this question is because over and over again it would appear that guns have been used by some very sick puppies to perpertrate violence against others. And that is because they have had access to them. Many violent interludes between people may have had a very different outcome if guns were not made available to the perpertrator. Do I think that ALL gun owners are irresponsible and not to be trusted with guns? NO. But as shown here in Australia, the whole world does not collapse if guns are not available to the general population other than for agreed purposes. And for that reason I'm glad that they banned automatic weapons here in Australia. I NEVER want to wake up again to the news that some psycho with an automatic weapon is chasing down little girls to shoot them and their mother in full sight and thoroughly enjoying himself as he does it. AND onelongsong, that's not having a go at gun owners at all. I am well aware that in the particular incident of which I speak that we also need to spend a shitload of cash making sure that services are available to the mentally ill and unstable. But I do believe that if you restrict access, then you also restrict the potential for disaster. And I'm just wondering, CAN you do what you need to without an automatic weapon? Before there was automatic weapons what was the procedure? Just curious really.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I agree. I would certainly do everything in my power to live if someone was trying to kill me and if that meant the death of my attacker so be it. Better him than me if it had to get down to that.
But gee, I don't know onelongsong, even should that happen and I should actually kill someone, even in those circumstances, while I would be glad that I lived, I don't know that having actually killed someone else is something that would ever feel right to me. Even in extenuating circumstances. I would always know that some one somewhere would grieve the loss and suffer the pain of my actions.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
first; criminals will ALWAYS have access to guns. the FBI has an entire room of confiscated home-made guns. i can make a gun from every day products bought from a hardware store. i've made my own gunpowder from charcole; sulfur and nitrate.
i don't nor have i ever used an automatic weapon. i've never had to shoot twice at anything. my family holds some of the world records for exhibition shooting. my 64 yr old aunt holds the national record for skeet shooting.
the fact still remains that criminals prefer unarmed victims. in towns where guns were banned (morton grove IL for example) crime jumped. criminals will gladly travel to areas where they know they are safe to committ their crimes.
historically; crimes of passion are stabbings or strangulation. the bomb in the oklahoma city bombing was made from fertilizer. the WTC was brought down by planes. the people with knowledge know that guns are NOT good killing devices. that's why mass murders like the above are not accomplished with guns.
now; if you keep up with world news; england has banned guns yet there is still gun violence. same with canada. all these laws do is remove guns from the people you'd want to have them. that's the honest responsable people.
any country you can smuggle drugs into has guns available to criminals. drug smugglers bring guns with them. i don't have time to do the research but tomorrow i'll try to find the stats for oz. i'm sure violent crimes didn't stop when guns were banned. in fact i'll bet it went up.
now personally; i'd prefer an arrow or knife if i chose to kill someone. the victim would bleed out before help could arrive. a bullet carterizes the wound and therefore you need to hit a vital organ or an artery.
and i agree there; but i've been held at gunpoint; i know people that were raped; and people who've had someone break into their homes and robbed them at gunpoint. none of them; not even me; has ever really gotten over it. i'd rather live with the fact that i killed someone trying to rape my daughter then live with the fact i did nothing about it.
acts of terrorism are not comparable.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Ok, well I've never been held at gunpoint, but I have had the things waved in my face and pointed at me by idiots that shouldn't have been allowed near them on more than one occassion. Registered gun owners on all occassions.
One of them even shot at me. Well in my general direction. And proceeded to drop a shotgun which then went off quite close to me. Not something I'd care to participate in again. :(
I can say that I am eternally grateful that the asshole that raped me, did not have a gun. I'm quite sure I wouldn't be here now if he did, and I'm also exceptionally grateful that my deadshit ex boyfriend was only able to attack me with his fists and his trusty hammer because I spent a great deal of time wondering how I would survive even that, and I was pretty sure I was about to make the front page of the papers even then. Had he had a gun, I most definately would have. The fact that he didn't have a gun most surely saved my life. Because although in both of these cases the acts of violence perpertrated against me were both oportunistic and showed poor impulse control by the inflicter the ability to fire a gun in a time of such rage against another human being could really only ever result in the death or serious maiming of that human being. Me. And I saw how handy he was with his hammer and unable to control himself. I shudder to think what would have happened with a gun. BUT I'm also grateful that I didn't have a gun. Because I'm not sure that I wouldn't have fired the damn thing and killed either of the fuckers. AND I know I don't want to live with that. All the ramifications of that. And the fact that I did nothing to either of them in the aftermath is really not that difficult to live with. Some days yes, but it passes. I feel much better knowing that the best revenge is to live well. And that is the path I chose. To not allow my whole life to be dictated by those incidents in particular. What happens to those two particular assholes is of no consequence to me. They'll have to live with their actions. Having said that, I have been in situations where I have defended a friend, a parent and even a stranger from being attacked violently, and I can only say that in the absence of weapons, I used the best options available to me. My physical presence, my communication skills and when all else failed my physicality and my voice. Making a lot of noise and drawing attention can be really helpful here in Australia. People do help each other out most of the time. On all occassions we all managed to get away without inflicting death. Severe emotional trauma, post traumatic stress and some pretty horrific injuries but we all lived to fight another day. Well after the courtcase anyway.
I can't presume to judge your experience onelongsong. You do what you have to in the situation you find yourself in. And I'm really sorry that you found yourself in the situation that you did. I really think that what we have here is the difference between two cultures. One that has guns as a constitutional right and one that doesn't. Every view point from there will be different because our experience is different. I choose not to live with guns and do so quite happily. You choose to live with guns and appear to do so quite happily. Nobody is wrong here. Just different.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
This is something I'd like to hear too. I've heard the usual argument about their precious freedoms, but I haven't yet heard a logical, practical reason why anyone other than a soldier should be in possesion of automatic weapons.
-C Addison
I guess because many Americans in general feel under attack. So coming from that view point it's hard for them to have this discussion without feeling that it's an attack on their constitutional freedoms. Which maybe it is. For them. I guess from our point of view it isn't. Right? We'd just like to know why right?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Who here has advocated for the possession of automatic weapons?
I think the thread started talking about "assault weapons", which we all take to be autimatic or at least semi-automatic.
Ok OLS, this one was a wee bit longer so required some more thought.
First up here's a link to wiki (everyone's personal favorite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
And interestingly it does say that there's been an increase in illegal gun ownership but an overall drop in gun crime. So the crims are just procurring them somehow and waving them around I suspect. Well except here in Melbourne where they are shooting each other! But that's a whole other thread that probably wouldn't interest too many on an International level anyway!
So I guess it's not my expectation that we will ever completely get rid of guns and why would we want to? Clearly they do serve several purposes.
And I see no reason for responsible gun owners to continue to own guns.
So important questions, because it relates to the topic of the thread.
Why don't you personally own an automatic weapon? Is that a preference or have you never had a use for them? And what are they used for in terms of hunting? As I'm assuming that would be the purpose you would want one for if you wanted one. And if you don't own one because you are able to hunt successfully with out one, why then do you think that other people would want to have them? I'm really just curious to hear your thoughts on this.
And sharp shooting and skeet shooting have always been something that I've appreciated the skill of and enjoyed watching. So that's pretty cool that your family holds records in exhibition shooting. It's quite the skill.
Really wouldn't know about this. Didn't seem to be a major influx of crime here after the buy back. Although I would probably concede that there appears to have been an increase in stabbings and knife related crimes. Although there has been some education and investigation going on into this trend. So who knows what the outcome will be.
The sole reason for the banning of semi automatic weapons here in Australia and the whole buy back scheme, hinged intirely on the Port Arthur Massacre as far as I am aware. And seeing as how it was one of the most violent episodes with a one of the largest loses of life, I really can't say that I think that the outcome with regard to semi automatics was a bad one. And the most important point to remember about Martin Bryant is that he is mentally unwell and should never have had weapons made available to him in the first place. But then he should never have been walking the streets. Long before the massacre he showed some fairly obvious signs that he needed intense psychiatric care. So one has to question how is a person like that able to purchase weapons? And I guess seing as how he did manage to procur them, what can we do to make sure that such a thing NEVER happens again? As we have a much smaller population here the incidence of bombing or acts of terrorism are miniscule by comparison to the USA. Although no less significant. We have lost lives in bombing incidents both in the country and as acts of terrorism outside the country. Case in point the Bali Bombings of 2002 and 2005. Also the Hilton Bombing of 1978 which was politically motivated and the Russell Street Bombing of 1986 which was underworld related. All of these acts of violence are truly hideous and should be abhored and denounced for the evil that they are. Having said that. They really have no connection to the topic of the thread which is about automatic weapons.
Wouldn't know about that coz I try very hard not to watch the news. It's usually always bad and it serves no purpose to me to see the suffering of others. Anyway, I think you'll find the stats you want in the link I posted. And I guess that as I agree that responsible gun owners should still be allowed to keep their guns, then the issue then is why are we not doing more to stop the sale and importation of illegal weapons? AND I guess that then brings me to the question of demand. Do you think it's possible that because there is such a demand for guns in the US that this is keeping very powerful gun manufacturers in business and therefore flooding the market with more guns than anyone could successful utilize in a lifetime? So while I agree that guns should be available to responsible gun owners, do you think that the acceptance of this as a right as per you constitution supports the over saturation of the market which in turn supports the black market, which would obviously then put the guns into the hands of those whom we do not want to have them? If the market is there for legal gun owners does this not then support the opportunity for more illegal gun owners simple because it allows for oversaturation? I'm just asking the question.
AND quite apart from that, why would there need to be so many semi automatic or assault rifles made anyway? Surely a limit to their manufacture could be brought into place? Just some ideas banging around in my head.
Well if you really want to get into killing then as a woman, historically I can't go past poisoning. We seem to have a thing for it.
Ultimately I would really just like to stick to the topic at hand which is what happened to this guy that spoke out about assault weapons? I'd like to know your thoughts on them. If anyone has a valid use that the general population would require them for. And why people seem so worried about banning them. I'm just really curious to hear. Truly.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
HUGE difference between the two. If by "we" you mean people who don't understand firearms, then I can see the confusion.