Gun Control

[ZEB]

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
Zeb,

Leave H factor alone his stating the truth in that IF and a big IF handing in our guns it would solve this issue…but it won’t and he knows it he is just making a stastent, He agrees with you.

[/quote]

Rick, Zeb and H have a running flirt, eh, I mean feud going. [/quote]

Pretty much this. I made him look bad in one thread a while back and he can’t get over it so trolls every thread I enter. Hell I don’t think he even post anymore unless it’s to troll me. All I ever try to do is defend myself from the constant trolling he starts all the time. [/quote]

You were dreaming of making me look bad. But even though you stalked me from thread to thread I proved you wrong every time. Still hunting through my posts trying to figure out where and when I disagreed with GW bush? LOL.

But…whatever helps you sleep at night.

Stalking me…calling yourself a libertarian…whatever it takes.

[ZEB]

[quote]H factor wrote:

You will be hard pressed to find someone argue against gun control more passionately than me. [/quote]

I read all of that and thought here he is trying to be a libertarian. Then I read you state that you would gladly give them up to prevent the killings.

So…it’s basically you being you. Claiming to be a libertarian while at the same time espousing liberal beliefs.

If I do nothing else by keeping you honest I will force you to pretend all the time that you’re a libertarian…or not. Either way, you are not going to have it both ways.

[ZEB]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

If a non-lethal alternative to the gun existed would you settle for that, or still defend the right for a gun?[/quote]

Like what? Killing a rapist softly with my love?
[/quote]

LOL

[Alpha_F]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Working on the assumption she was relatively sane, I still wouldn’t go as far as to outright prohibit her from owning guns on the basis of her sons mental condition - but at the very least make sure there was something to make it less easy to access (case, padlock, etc).

Of course, this in turn would necessitate a third party to check every so often - should this be government or privately (contracted by the government) done? And while enlarging the government is traditionally (and probably rightfully) seen as bad, is this an instance of acceptable growth?[/quote]

My next door neighbor is relatively sane. She does have a mental illness and receives treatment.
She has four children, including a 19 year old son, and no father is around.
My husband and I are actively engaged in their lives in small ways.

I can tell you for a fact that if she decided to own a gun and the government was going to check from time to time - I would not trust it.
As a neighbor she would lose my association and I would chose to move out if she continued to keep the guns.

My neighbor has the common sense not to own guns in her situation.

This woman, Nancy Lanza, failed herself, her child, her community and her country.

I am strongly inclined to believe growth is in the direction of mental health acceptance, support, transparency and direct contact/interference.

Why not have social services call at Nancy Lanza’s house to check on her and her son’s mental health from time to time instead of checking whether she has put her guns away appropriately after every weekly shooting at the range?

And what was her mentally ill son doing at the shooting range?

[sufiandy]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

If a non-lethal alternative to the gun existed would you settle for that, or still defend the right for a gun?[/quote]

Like what? Killing a rapist softly with my love?
[/quote]

Why is killing a requirement? If for some reason it was, couldn’t you just do it with a knife or large object after they were unconscious from using the non-lethal gun?[/quote]

If he doesn’t have a problem raping me and destroying my life why should my conscience have a problem killing him?

If I lived in an area where a woman had shot a rapist I would be grateful she eliminated him from our midst.
Instead of paying tax money to feed and house him in prison while he continues to satisfy his sexual appetite also by raping others.

I am a 5"5 female.

What are the odds a highly charged testosterone equipped male will submit to me throwing rocks at him or using any object to make him unconscious? not even the police is trained to risk their lives like that.

Even if I had Bruce Lee skills, why would I chose a close contact weapon over the effectiveness of a gun?

And what chance does a woman have with a knife against a violent man who is probably armed with a gun himself?

What if he has a knife? Are we equal? No.

The gun is the equalizer for women against rape.
[/quote]

What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.

[nickj_777]

Time and time again this is not a new phenomena in society and the temporal aspect where people say “It is because America is sicker now and has lost its values is the problem,” is not an accurate historical assessment of American society. This approach looks at American through nostalgic eyes and dreams of a long gone non-existent society.

American’s have to accept it is a culture of violence that borne this country and it is one that has persisted since this country’s inception. The list of violence goes on and on Columbus and Native American genocide, American Revolution, American Civil War, War of 1812, slavery, Mexican-American War, Spanish-Philipines American War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Somalia, Latin American Wars, Baltic Wars, Iraq 1 and 2, Afghanistan etc…

The list of mass violence domestically includes Timothy Mcveigh, Theodore John “Ted” Kaczynski, George Hennard, James Huberty, Jiverly Wong, Howard Unruh, James Holmes, James Pough, Michael McLendon, Charles Starkweather, Andrew Kehoe, Seung-Hui Cho, Charles Whitman, Mark Essex, Columbine etc…

When will people realize that all our issues with ourselves and others does not require violence to mediate our state of discontent. The media is just as guilty for glamorizing violence and selling it as a product to be consumed.

The culture needs to be changed away from the belief that violence needs to be a mainstay in society.

[ZEB]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

If a non-lethal alternative to the gun existed would you settle for that, or still defend the right for a gun?[/quote]

Like what? Killing a rapist softly with my love?
[/quote]

Why is killing a requirement? If for some reason it was, couldn’t you just do it with a knife or large object after they were unconscious from using the non-lethal gun?[/quote]

If he doesn’t have a problem raping me and destroying my life why should my conscience have a problem killing him?

If I lived in an area where a woman had shot a rapist I would be grateful she eliminated him from our midst.
Instead of paying tax money to feed and house him in prison while he continues to satisfy his sexual appetite also by raping others.

I am a 5"5 female.

What are the odds a highly charged testosterone equipped male will submit to me throwing rocks at him or using any object to make him unconscious? not even the police is trained to risk their lives like that.

Even if I had Bruce Lee skills, why would I chose a close contact weapon over the effectiveness of a gun?

And what chance does a woman have with a knife against a violent man who is probably armed with a gun himself?

What if he has a knife? Are we equal? No.

The gun is the equalizer for women against rape.
[/quote]

What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]

In theory I think you have a great idea. But here’s the problem, a would be assailant would not he afraid knowing that in an hour or so he’d wake up with no harm done. There is no deterrent effect. They attack you with a real gun and have a huge advantage both with weaponry and mentally.

[ZEB]

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Time and time again this is not a new phenomena in society and the temporal aspect where people say “It is because America is sicker now and has lost its values is the problem,” is not an accurate historical assessment of American society. This approach looks at American through nostalgic eyes and dreams of a long gone non-existent society.

American’s have to accept it is a culture of violence that borne this country and it is one that has persisted since this country’s inception. The list of violence goes on and on Columbus and Native American genocide, American Revolution, American Civil War, War of 1812, slavery, Mexican-American War, Spanish-Philipines American War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Somalia, Latin American Wars, Baltic Wars, Iraq 1 and 2, Afghanistan etc…

The list of mass violence domestically includes Timothy Mcveigh, Theodore John “Ted” Kaczynski, George Hennard, James Huberty, Jiverly Wong, Howard Unruh, James Holmes, James Pough, Michael McLendon, Charles Starkweather, Andrew Kehoe, Seung-Hui Cho, Charles Whitman, Mark Essex, Columbine etc…

When will people realize that all our issues with ourselves and others does not require violence to mediate our state of discontent. The media is just as guilty for glamorizing violence and selling it as a product to be consumed.

The culture needs to be changed away from the belief that violence needs to be a mainstay in society.[/quote]

Oh stop it.

Your examples are very poor. Let’s compare apples to apples. Tell me where were all of the school shootings in the 1920’s 30’s 40’s 50’s 60’s 70’s and 1980’s? This has only been a phenomenon of the 1990’s to this point in time, growing every few years. And it has everything to do with a very sick society.

Just look around, from language to dress, to movies and TV shows. We are exposing our youth to more filth each decade.

We are a society that is in decay. And this is one I won’t blame Obama for as it transcends politics. It’s been happening at a very slow pace for the past 50+ years. It is now upon us and I assure you that it will get worse. And eventually there will be a gun ban of some type. Maybe not in 5 or 10 years but is is coming.

[Makavali]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The guy said he would give them up as well. Pay attention treco. H factor has been gaming this entire board now for better than a month.[/quote]

Stop omitting the rest. He said he would give them up if he thought it would help stop things like this happening.

Which he doesn’t.

[Makavali]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Working on the assumption she was relatively sane, I still wouldn’t go as far as to outright prohibit her from owning guns on the basis of her sons mental condition - but at the very least make sure there was something to make it less easy to access (case, padlock, etc).

Of course, this in turn would necessitate a third party to check every so often - should this be government or privately (contracted by the government) done? And while enlarging the government is traditionally (and probably rightfully) seen as bad, is this an instance of acceptable growth?[/quote]

My next door neighbor is relatively sane. She does have a mental illness and receives treatment.
She has four children, including a 19 year old son, and no father is around.
My husband and I are actively engaged in their lives in small ways.

I can tell you for a fact that if she decided to own a gun and the government was going to check from time to time - I would not trust it.
As a neighbor she would lose my association and I would chose to move out if she continued to keep the guns.

My neighbor has the common sense not to own guns in her situation.

This woman, Nancy Lanza, failed herself, her child, her community and her country.

I am strongly inclined to believe growth is in the direction of mental health acceptance, support, transparency and direct contact/interference.

Why not have social services call at Nancy Lanza’s house to check on her and her son’s mental health from time to time instead of checking whether she has put her guns away appropriately after every weekly shooting at the range?

And what was her mentally ill son doing at the shooting range?
[/quote]

I’m not suggesting just check on the guns, but when you have mentally ill people, there needs to be a system of barriers in place to stop them from hurting people. There are some barriers, there just need to be a few more.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]

Minus the killing part means plus he is coming back for vengeance.

Would you wish that on your wife?

Would you enjoy your freedom being at leisure or at work in the knowledge that an animal with no conscience is coming back to violate what is only yours?

And where do we “store” this unconscious animal once he regains consciousness?

Are you ok with paying to keep evil alive?

What is your plan for dealing with the rapist that regains consciousness?

Sure I can use a tranquilizer gun. But then what? What system do you have in place to ensure I am safe from that threat and at what cost?

[Alpha_F]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Working on the assumption she was relatively sane, I still wouldn’t go as far as to outright prohibit her from owning guns on the basis of her sons mental condition - but at the very least make sure there was something to make it less easy to access (case, padlock, etc).

Of course, this in turn would necessitate a third party to check every so often - should this be government or privately (contracted by the government) done? And while enlarging the government is traditionally (and probably rightfully) seen as bad, is this an instance of acceptable growth?[/quote]

My next door neighbor is relatively sane. She does have a mental illness and receives treatment.
She has four children, including a 19 year old son, and no father is around.
My husband and I are actively engaged in their lives in small ways.

I can tell you for a fact that if she decided to own a gun and the government was going to check from time to time - I would not trust it.
As a neighbor she would lose my association and I would chose to move out if she continued to keep the guns.

My neighbor has the common sense not to own guns in her situation.

This woman, Nancy Lanza, failed herself, her child, her community and her country.

I am strongly inclined to believe growth is in the direction of mental health acceptance, support, transparency and direct contact/interference.

Why not have social services call at Nancy Lanza’s house to check on her and her son’s mental health from time to time instead of checking whether she has put her guns away appropriately after every weekly shooting at the range?

And what was her mentally ill son doing at the shooting range?
[/quote]

I’m not suggesting just check on the guns, but when you have mentally ill people, there needs to be a system of barriers in place to stop them from hurting people. There are some barriers, there just need to be a few more.[/quote]

Yes. I agree. Though I wonder if a rich, educated and “charitable” woman would be opened to be checked mentally.

The things I have read about her so far make me highly suspicious.
I think perhaps part of her move to a small trusting community and buying her neighbors so she could continue in her secret home life could be a sign of wanting to slip through the system.

And slip through the system was exactly what happened to that Lanza boy.

[nickj_777]

ZEB,

yes I agree school shootings is a relatively new phenomena but there is no doubt that America has a history of violence and the use of violence to settle inner turmoil with ourselves and with others.

There is a proliferation of violent content in America and it is exacerbated by video games that desensitize, the internet and mass media but you cannot separate the media from the culture. America is and has always been violent and the data is there in Uniform Crime Reports, historical crime statistics, artifacts, time pieces etc…

We cannot look at history through a lens and yearn for “better” times. We have to be honest about history. People do not even remember how violent New York use to be with the Draft Riots of 1863.

[undoredo]

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Just what is it you think Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he drafted the 2nd Amendment? Paintball? [/quote]

“If he fhall fhould confider affault on my perfon or effential libertief, he fhall acquire a cap in hif aff”
[/quote]
Outstanding! I hope my guffawing just now did not wake any of my neighbors.

[sufiandy]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]

Minus the killing part means plus he is coming back for vengeance.

Would you wish that on your wife?

Would you enjoy your freedom being at leisure or at work in the knowledge that an animal with no conscience is coming back to violate what is only yours?

And where do we “store” this unconscious animal once he regains consciousness?

Are you ok with paying to keep evil alive?

What is your plan for dealing with the rapist that regains consciousness?

Sure I can use a tranquilizer gun. But then what? What system do you have in place to ensure I am safe from that threat and at what cost?
[/quote]

Okay that is a fair answer. Death penalty for an attempted crime.

[undoredo]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Working on the assumption she was relatively sane, I still wouldn’t go as far as to outright prohibit her from owning guns on the basis of her sons mental condition - but at the very least make sure there was something to make it less easy to access (case, padlock, etc).

Of course, this in turn would necessitate a third party to check every so often - should this be government or privately (contracted by the government) done? And while enlarging the government is traditionally (and probably rightfully) seen as bad, is this an instance of acceptable growth?[/quote]

My next door neighbor is relatively sane. She does have a mental illness and receives treatment.
She has four children, including a 19 year old son, and no father is around.
My husband and I are actively engaged in their lives in small ways.

I can tell you for a fact that if she decided to own a gun and the government was going to check from time to time - I would not trust it.
As a neighbor she would lose my association and I would chose to move out if she continued to keep the guns.

My neighbor has the common sense not to own guns in her situation.

This woman, Nancy Lanza, failed herself, her child, her community and her country.

I am strongly inclined to believe growth is in the direction of mental health acceptance, support, transparency and direct contact/interference.

Why not have social services call at Nancy Lanza’s house to check on her and her son’s mental health from time to time instead of checking whether she has put her guns away appropriately after every weekly shooting at the range?

And what was her mentally ill son doing at the shooting range?
[/quote]

I’m not suggesting just check on the guns, but when you have mentally ill people, there needs to be a system of barriers in place to stop them from hurting people. There are some barriers, there just need to be a few more.[/quote]

Yes. I agree. Though I wonder if a rich, educated and “charitable” woman would be opened to be checked mentally.

The things I have read about her so far make me highly suspicious.
I think perhaps part of her move to a small trusting community and buying her neighbors so she could continue in her secret home life could be a sign of wanting to slip through the system.

And slip through the system was exactly what happened to that Lanza boy.
[/quote]
Very difficult.

[Alpha_F]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]

Minus the killing part means plus he is coming back for vengeance.

Would you wish that on your wife?

Would you enjoy your freedom being at leisure or at work in the knowledge that an animal with no conscience is coming back to violate what is only yours?

And where do we “store” this unconscious animal once he regains consciousness?

Are you ok with paying to keep evil alive?

What is your plan for dealing with the rapist that regains consciousness?

Sure I can use a tranquilizer gun. But then what? What system do you have in place to ensure I am safe from that threat and at what cost?
[/quote]

Okay that is a fair answer. Death penalty for an attempted crime.[/quote]

No, “death penalty” is justice properly given by a judge and jury with the full protection of the legal system. “Self defense” is protecting oneself from grave bodily injury or death from a violent criminal threat.

Your suggestion was fantasy in the first place. I mentioned tranquilizer guns but they have been around a long time and are not shown to be reliable against human assailants. Star Trek phasers don’t exist either. All there was was a totally imaginary idea of the person who was out to kill me being knocked out for an hour.

Well, to protect myself I don’t want him pursuing me again after an hour! It is not my desire that he be killed but rather that I not be pursued again by this criminal within 60 minutes time. Mr Sandman putting him nappy-nap for 60 minutes may not accomplish that. A solid hit from a gun will. If he did not want to be shot he should not have taken the actions towards raping or killing me. That would the cause of his being shot, not me or any individual “imposing the death penalty.”

[Alpha_F]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]

Minus the killing part means plus he is coming back for vengeance.

Would you wish that on your wife?

Would you enjoy your freedom being at leisure or at work in the knowledge that an animal with no conscience is coming back to violate what is only yours?

And where do we “store” this unconscious animal once he regains consciousness?

Are you ok with paying to keep evil alive?

What is your plan for dealing with the rapist that regains consciousness?

Sure I can use a tranquilizer gun. But then what? What system do you have in place to ensure I am safe from that threat and at what cost?
[/quote]

Okay that is a fair answer. Death penalty for an attempted crime.[/quote]

And yet you enjoy the death penalty for the crime of being unborn and minding one’s business in the womb.

Yes, it is her body and it is my body, too, being violated with this rapist.

Be consistent.

[sufiandy]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What if you had a weapon just as effective as a gun minus the killing part. Like point, aim, shoot, boom they are unconscious for an hour or so guaranteed. I’m not saying one exists right now but if there was.[/quote]

Minus the killing part means plus he is coming back for vengeance.

Would you wish that on your wife?

Would you enjoy your freedom being at leisure or at work in the knowledge that an animal with no conscience is coming back to violate what is only yours?

And where do we “store” this unconscious animal once he regains consciousness?

Are you ok with paying to keep evil alive?

What is your plan for dealing with the rapist that regains consciousness?

Sure I can use a tranquilizer gun. But then what? What system do you have in place to ensure I am safe from that threat and at what cost?
[/quote]

Okay that is a fair answer. Death penalty for an attempted crime.[/quote]

And yet you enjoy the death penalty for the crime of being unborn and minding one’s business in the womb.

Yes, it is her body and it is my body, too, being violated with this rapist.

Be consistent.
[/quote]

Not sure what you mean there. I did not disprove of what you said even though it may have been interpreted as sarcastic, which it was not.

[ZEB]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The guy said he would give them up as well. Pay attention treco. H factor has been gaming this entire board now for better than a month.[/quote]

Stop omitting the rest. He said he would give them up if he thought it would help stop things like this happening.

Which he doesn’t.[/quote]

Liberals say things like, “I would give up my weapons if it would help stop things like this from happening.” So, all you’ve done is repeat what I’ve been saying.

Whereas real libertarians would never consider saying such a thing.

But you know all that.