Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter

reply to post by getreadyalready


the quote you might be looking for if not already said ?!?

"God created Man Samuel Colt made them equal"


....also metaphors don't work if they are incorrect or don't make sense

and the MAJOR factor that anti-gun nuts refuse to accept, is its their choice to not carry a gun or own one, WHY do they feel the need to DICTATE their ideas and will on others, EVEN...even in the face of real world facts that suggest otherwise

oh and the statistic about you have a better chance at being shot when owning a gun is skewed because if your protecting yourself with a gun about the only thing a criminal can do is shoot you. What about ALL the crimes committed by criminals, this number has to be much higher then crimes committed by criminals on victims that are packing.

PLEASE reread that last sentence, if that were not true being a criminal would be too dangerous

reply to post by purplemer


It is a lot like guns. You don't want to give a gun to some one that has said, "I want to shoot every jew in the face." You don't want a country that has said Isreal should be wiped off of the map to have the power to do that.

You don't want some one with a history of unprovoked violence to have a gun. You don't want a country with a history of unprovoked attacks against their neighbors to have nukes.

Unfortunately, with the second one we could eliminate nearly every nation from the list. With the first paragraph we could eliminate many african Nations and South American countries based on the way they treat their ethnic minorities. The sad truth is that most governments wouldn't even pass the basic back ground check Americans have to pass when buying a gun from the store.

The American government wouldn't even pass the limits it places on their own citizens.

reply to post by purplemer


You pose a hypothetical that people fear, however you have absolutely no proof that people wouldn't be safer if every country had nukes. However we do have laws that at least attempt to keep known offenders from getting weapons (which they get through illegal means) so pretty much the argument is pointless.

Apply the gun situation in American into an international nuke situation it's the same thing we try to keep the known offenders from getting them so they go through illegal routes to obtain the weapons so it is good that we and our friends have them in case someone attacks we can stop them before maximum damage.

It is really impossible to say how safe we would be until we lived in that world. I doubt it would be too much different.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

i was just curious. I have kinda of changed my views on guns a bit. i still dont like people having them. but i have reade this thread and done some more reading and really it all kinda contradicts itself. i think guns should be banned but after looking at some of the stats i dont think its all clear cut...

kx

Originally posted by Randall07
I don't understand why guns have to be carried around like we're in the old west? Why can't we just keep them in our homes in case someone breaks in?

Errr, let's see genius, bad people might try mugging / raping / stealing or otherwise making your day an absolute nightmare.
Or maybe do you think the criminals / loonies out there have a ceasefire when people are outside their homes?

reply to post by purplemer


If you ban guns you are taking away something we should be allowed to have.
Banning guns is unfair to everyone and doesn't fix the problem. If someone came to you with the option to ban guns from everyone or give free mental health care to anyone who needed it, you would most likely still pick guns which shows severe bias.

We should be allowed to protect ourselves. It's too late to take them.
I was like you, I was extremely against guns. I am very liberal. I changed my mind on this issue for two reasons, I can't go back in time and fix the problem of easy gun access to criminals and mentally ill and we may need our weapons one day in the future. Not to mention they hold value and are very useful.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

i was just curious. I have kinda of changed my views on guns a bit. i still dont like people having them. but i have reade this thread and done some more reading and really it all kinda contradicts itself. i think guns should be banned but after looking at some of the stats i dont think its all clear cut...

kx

You absolutely have the right not to like guns! I dont like pearl onions and would like the little "orbs from hell" to be eliminated. I just keep that to my own little sphere

My wife and I argue (happily) about how she likes them in my stew and i think they multiply out of spite!

You may have reasons to not like guns. You seem to be a person that abhores violence for any reason. Good on ya! Quakers are the same way. Are they bad? Nope. Do I want to change them? Nope.

There is no harm in having a different opinion on a matter. I dont think we "gun folks" should force you to have one in your home and we wont be forced not to have one in ours.

When it gets thick though, your welcome to weather the storm at my house Lemer. Thats the way it works.

BTW, I wont force you to eat the "evil orbs" in my stew!

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by purplemer

 

Actually, as I stated earlier your logic is flawed.
The reason countries seek nukes is as a deterrent to their enemies that have them.
Countries don't want to nuke countries that can nuke them back.

and that statement is right in line with: "armed criminals dont want to raise a gun at a citizen who can do the same."

all in all, this thread was a decent one, i seen few personal insults hurled back and forth, people mostly came with decent arguments for and against guns. and looks like even the original poster rechecked their position, and admitted it, which is honorable...though i doubt he'd personally plan on owning a weapon, if he could.

i'd still invite you to an american gun range and spend a day plinking OP!
my wife, even though i've owned guns in our homes since we were dating, was a staunch ANTI-gunner, until i made a deal she couldnt refuse...i remodel your bathroom, if you go to the range with me....needless to say, she owns her own gun now....ahhh....i remember her cringing up as she held it. i could see all these thoughts running through her head about the worst case scenarios...but when she squeezed the trigger and the bang, recoil was over before she could blink...she looked back at me with a 'new toy smile' and said "can i shoot it again!!!!??"

when me and my wife got home, with her freshly swiss cheesed target, we talked about guns again and i told her, "you know i've been around guns all my life, and i've told you time and time again, some things are worth protecting, even to the extreme. GUNS ARE ONLY AS BAD AS THE PERSON HOLDING IT."

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by Primordial

Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter

If his weapon didn't discharge then he didn't almost shoot anybody.

The way I see it, if he had gotten there sooner he could have potentially stopped the gunman from shooting a bunch of people.

So rather than 'he almost shot an innocent man', really, he almost saved a bunch of people.

See how twisting things around works?

edit on 21-1-2011 by Primordial because: (no reason given)

Yes that is a far point and to some extent it caused me to reavalute my thought process. It has equal credence to the statement i made earlier.. But i do find it hard to follow it out. my common sense argues the opposite.
Using the premise that armed citizens can protect themselves against assilants...arming all people would reduce crime..
If this is the case would arming every country with nuclear wepons also reduce war?

kx

I wouldn't say the world would be safer if EVERYBODY had guns, I do know some pretty unstable people. I know it's that slippery slope argument to suggest restricting certain people because of mental state, as in who gets to decide what constitutes a mental state unsuitable to have firearms. There is room for abuse there. However, there should be (IMO) some sort of line drawn based on prior history, but that's for another debate. I don't believe disarming everybody because of the bad ones makes sense.

The criminals who would use guns to commit crimes are almost always obtaining those guns illegally already, so what's the point of restricting otherwise law abiding citizens? You are essentially advocating making it illegal to do something that is already illegal...obtain a gun illegally.

If this is the case would arming every country with nuclear wepons also reduce war?

There have been some terrorists attacks but I can't recall any nation carrying out any major attack on another who they knew had nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons haven't been around for very long and out of all the nations on earth relatively few have them so it's difficult to answer the question.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by jessejamesxx

 

No if more people are armed then events like this are more likely to happen.

Could you for once substantiate anything you say on this topic?

Uninformed opinion does not make a fact, no matter how many times dogmatically repeated.

Fine, two can play at:

Switzerland has the highest rate per capita of gun ownership, yet the lowest or next to lowest rate of gun crime.

The cities and states in the US with the highest rates of gun crime are also those with the most extreme and restrictive gun laws - most of the northeast, Chicago and Washington DC for example.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


the reference i was refering to above was this..reported in the new scienitst... does that hold subtance for you..
kx

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

www.newscientist.com...

reply to post by felonius

You absolutely have the right not to like guns! I dont like pearl onions and would like the little "orbs from hell" to be eliminated. I just keep that to my own little sphere My wife and I argue (happily) about how she likes them in my stew and i think they multiply out of spite! You may have reasons to not like guns. You seem to be a person that abhores violence for any reason. Good on ya! Quakers are the same way. Are they bad? Nope. Do I want to change them? Nope. There is no harm in having a different opinion on a matter. I dont think we "gun folks" should force you to have one in your home and we wont be forced not to have one in ours. When it gets thick though, your welcome to weather the storm at my house Lemer. Thats the way it works. BTW, I wont force you to eat the "evil orbs" in my stew

hey that works both ways round too, when the crap hits the fan your more than welcome at my secluded abode too. plenty of fish and stuff here..and always a nice cup of tea

:-)

reply to post by mydarkpassenger

Switzerland has the highest rate per capita of gun ownership, yet the lowest or next to lowest rate of gun crime.

i am aware that culture plays a role in violence also.

kx

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

You pose a hypothetical that people fear, however you have absolutely no proof that people wouldn't be safer if every country had nukes. However we do have laws that at least attempt to keep known offenders from getting weapons (which they get through illegal means) so pretty much the argument is pointless.

i posted that question in an attempt to understand the relationship between wepons and defence. Not trying to use it to win a debate or anything...

kx