This is your paranoid gun culture...

Guns won't protect you from the chemical weapons currently being used on you.

And unfortunately, the same guns you count on for protection, make the 12 yr old punk or the angry husband deadly.

Having said that, I've always enjoyed target practice.

reply to post by Lillydale


Not everyone who gets a "gun" think they're suddenly superman...don't stereotype, please.

I own several firearms and am more than merely proficient with them, but trust me when I say, I don't consider myself even remotely invincible. Nor do most owners of firearms...

inalienable rights are natural rights.

Dude acted irresponsibly, thus he should be judged accordingly. There are so many deadly implements in this world and for the most part we get on with life because folks are at least semi-responsible and don't do stupid things. Last I checked there was not a 50% chunk of the population in jail for murder with a car, gun or antifreeze (poisoning) to justify outlawing any of those things, so anybody who is even thinking that this unfortunate incident is ammo for restrictions needs to go get a breath of fresh air. If we just emphasized personal responsibility things would be fine because those who decided to be stupid would be dealt with by the systems in place without having to unjustly penalize the freedoms that others can enjoy responsibly.

reply to post by bismarcksea


Well just look at our government, if only the "smart" people were allowed to have guns, it would just be them. And us citizens wouldn't have anyway to be self-suffiecient (hunting) or to protect ourselves (intruders,government). So if you support only "smart" people having guns, you're supporting only the government/elite to have guns.

reply to post by nikiano



I even told one of my boyfriends, "Listen, dude. I have bipolar disorder. I've been in the psych hospital for mania-induced psychosis 3 times. I don't want a gun anywhere near me in case I should ever get manic again, because when I get psychotic I often can't tell reality from fantasy, and the last thing I would want around me is a gun.

Wow, I am with you, I don't think you should be allowed to own a gun. MOF, I think we should include sharp objects among the things you are not allowed to own.

reply to post by ANOK


Simply looking at the story as presented I see 2 possibilites here
1. It was genuinely an accident as he claims
2. He's using the 'accident' story to cover a premeditated act (murder)

In the case of (1), if he didn't have access to a deadly weapon enabling him to kill effectively & efficiently at a distance with virtual anonymity IE he had to get up close and personal with a simple hand-held weapon then the fatality would have been unlikely as the identity of the suspected 'intruder' would have been determined.
In case (2), well it wouldn't make any difference how near or far he was if the death was intended and the distance is then only a function of the weapon of choice combined with the skill of the user.

I don't see the MSM report on the incident as incorrect in the salient details like a death DID occur and it was caused by a firearm wielded by he who admits to having committed the act. Maybe they beat it up a bit to get more attention but the basic facts of it are real - just as the media does with most of their stories, especially the 'headline' stuff.

I'm no firearm 'wowser' but to an outsider, the US gun situation is a mess with no obvious solution. You need to be armed to protect yourselves from all the people with weapons who would use them against you. I've seen all the arguments for and against but what you currently have is a self-perpetuating problem with no clear way out and to some of us it looks more like your 'right to bear arms' is really doing more to enslave you than guarantee freedom. You desperately need change but maybe it's already too late for that.

I have the right to bear arms where I live too, well the right to own firearms of approved types as long as I comply with the regulations on use and storage. I used to own a variety of firearms but I chose to get rid of all of them - why? I didn't need them or use them much any longer mainly due to pressures of work and no longer living conveniently close to the shooting venues I used to compete regularly at. They were never considered by me to be a means of personal defense although I have had military training.

If I felt I needed an assault rifle to defend myself, my home and family I'd be packing up and moving somewhere more suitable (to me).

Just my coupla cents on the subject.

I can just imagine how this went down. The man woke up in the wee hours of the morning and heard a noise. Still not totally awake he gets his gun and shoots his fiance. AT that mans age, he have any medical issues that might affect his judgement or perception? He was in his 60's. The gun is not the issue here, too many factors that the media is not going to reveal because it will take away from what they are trying to portray.

reply to post by moniker


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed"

The second amendment is there to insure that Americans have a means of self-defense against a potentially out-of-control government, and every other use for guns (self defense, hunting, recreation) are just added benefits.

And the constitution just outlines how the federal government should be set up and the rules and duties set upon each branch. The first 10 amendments are what are known as the "bill of rights" and are what guarantees American's personal and state freedoms. The other 17 amendments are a mixture of more rights and limits on/powers given to the government to better work for a more modern country. In a nutshell, anyway.

Point one, the man is guilty of negligent manslaughter. You can look up the statute. He should be prosecuted and given a sentence of removing his 2nd amendment rights to own guns (he does not know how to use them) and sentenced to a 1 hour visit to his ex-fiance's grave site daily for a year.

Point Two, change the FRACKING CONSTITUTION if you do not like it. OR SHUT THE FRACK UP about my rights. Notice in the 2nd Amendment it mentions "or infringe upon those rights". Well the government has no right to require me to license, register, train, or FRACKING anything else without a specific Amendment to the Constitution.

SO QUIT YOUR WHINING ABOUT MY RIGHTS or come take'em.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Apparently, this was a horribly tragic accident.

It hardly matters though.

When you're a leftist, it's just grist for the mill.

How about our rabid car culture?

Man, that's a really fecund topic.

Your analogy is pretty poor.

A car is a tool used to transport people and goods. A car can be used in many ways that are beneficial as far as moving things. If a car is used improperly it can cause injury or death.

A gun is a tool used to cause injury or death. If a gun is used improperly it can cause injury or death. If a gun is used properly it can cause injury or death.

You are on to something though...far too many unqualified people are allowed to operate both.

The police have "no general duty" to protect you.. they don't even have to respond to your calls for help. A gun is also tool that gives you claws to protect yourself.... kinda beneficial if you have grown used to breathing.

Everyone is qualified to defend themselves, some people choose to have an effective tool for doing so.. others stumble around the dark in their underoos wielding a 9 iron or baseball bat hoping the police show up at some point.

D.C.'s highest court ruled: "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Link

..a gun is also a tool that can put 'food on your family'.

Originally posted by watcher73
Very good, you two get gold stars. Knives were designed to kill also. Wheres the uproar over those?

There in fact is in my country. As well as guns.

Originally posted by watcher73

Originally posted by moniker

... with a gun. If the gun hadn't been there, chances are she might still be alive despite the same people being involved in the event.

If the gun hadnt have been there and it was a real intruder chances are they might both be dead. Then you people could whine about criminals having guns.

I fail to see how that can possibly justify the killing of innocent people.

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Apparently, this was a horribly tragic accident.

It hardly matters though.

When you're a leftist, it's just grist for the mill.

How about our rabid car culture?

Man, that's a really fecund topic.

Your analogy is pretty poor.

A car is a tool used to transport people and goods. A car can be used in many ways that are beneficial as far as moving things. If a car is used improperly it can cause injury or death.

A gun is a tool used to cause injury or death. If a gun is used improperly it can cause injury or death. If a gun is used properly it can cause injury or death.

You are on to something though...far too many unqualified people are allowed to operate both.

The police have "no general duty" to protect you.. they don't even have to respond to your calls for help.

Now that is quite different from the duties of the police in my country and elsewhere in Europe. The police even have to drive people home if they run the risk of not getting home safely otherwise. What, then, is the duty of a US police if not to protect the citizens? Protect the country? I thought that was the duty of the military.

reply to post by moniker


The police DO protect and serve people in America, but the point he was trying to make is that there are no federal police (there are federal investigators, but no federal street cops) nor is there any law that says states/counties/municipalities need to provide a police force. Because of this, the constitution (i'm unsure about individual state laws regarding police forces) provides people with a way to protect THEMSELVES instead of being dependent on a possibly non-existent police force.

Of course, this is all based on what I've gathered from very little research, so if anyone has any information that counters this, believe them instead of me.

reply to post by nikiano


Yeah I'm with you on that one. Long ago when I bought my gun.. I decided that if I ever have any psychological problems that come up that could make me dangerous in that manner, such as: Schizophrenia, Manic depressive, PTSD, ect.. I would lock my gun up, and hand it over to my dad. Then I would make sure there would be a lock on every gun in the house.. (I can't ask my dad to get rid of his, locks with hidden keys are entirely sufficient. )


All the right vs left in this thread, I well knew it would spiral out of control.

I own guns. If I am at the ready to shoot someone. I am going to verify my target is intending to kill me. They have the chance to leave my house at first warning. I don't want to kill anyone. They could steal my TV, all the stuff I own. I will not kill over simple property. But I am going to kill if they intend to hurt me.

The man in the story was a moron. He was paranoid, and he was untrained. Most people I know that own guns are not paranoid and they have had safety training.

Many leftists will knock the NRA. But the NRA does good things, they have created a standard to help make sure that everyone that owns a firearm is qualified to use it.

I don't care what the liberals, leftists, or whatever think. It's not their right to regulate my right.

Sooner or later the second amendment will prove itself to everyone.

I believe that the media blows way to many things way out of proportion. People begin to believe that whatever the media says is true, as long as it is not too insane. Just think back to the Salem Witch Trials a few hundred years ago, that is exactly what happened, accusations were blown way out of proportion and half of the town ended up executed, all stemming from a couple of people wanting the land of others and accusing them of witchcraft.
I do not think that it will get to that point nowadays, but you never know. People are really getting freaked out by these media stories, so they jump to conclusions and things like this happen.

reply to post by CriticalThinking


They weren't married.

The man lived alone.

There was an uknown person in his house.

(still and idiot for violating Rules 1 through 5)

Originally posted by conspiracyrus
reply to post by Lillydale

 

The first one a horrific tragedy happened.... the second a horrific tragedy happened... no i dont see the difference

The difference is, the first one the idiot should have gave a warning. The second one, there is no chance of a warning when the chainsaw slips.

The dude with the gun was a moron. Always size up the situation before you pull the trigger.

BLAH

Originally posted by ANOK
Police: Man Kills Fiancee On Eve Of Wedding...

www.wmur.com...

He thought he had an intruder, he shot the intruder.

The intruder was his fiance, he was about to marry the next day.

Don't get me wrong I feel for the guy, I can't imagine the hell he's going through right now. But is this a sign of a country driven to complete paranoia?

In reality is crime really as bad as the media portrays it? We all know the media blows stuff way out of proportion, and the population acts on that due to ignorance. Can we not find other methods to protect our homes, without reverting to shooting anything that moves without warning? Is the media destroying any common sense, and perspective we should have?

I say yes, what do you think?

[edit on 11-10-2009 by joeofthemountain]