Florida gun deaths suspect named as Shawn Tyson

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by ahmonrarh
we're #24 on the list...not bad!
though as an argument, # 62 would be better. oh well.....
Murder per capita stats


lol, Costa Rica and Poland are #19/20, respectively..and Russia/Mexico are #'s 5/6...so yeah...the US is Primitive!

while it IS a tragedy that people are killed unjustly, harping that "USA is primitive/guns are evil, no one should have them, but i do...for emergencies" makes no sense.

what ever happened to being #1?

We leave those honors to columbia.

reply to post by descartes90

Though then again, cars probably also save lives so I don't know, but guns definitely take far more lives than they save.

This is absolutely not true. Guns are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times a year. Out of those several thousand wind up with the criminal being shot and killed.

You can't lump all deaths attributed to the use of guns in one column and say" this is how it is". It doesn't work that way.

If a criminal dies in the act of committing a crime by the victim using a gun, too bad, so sad, don't do the crime if you're not willing to lose your head.

It's not the fact you OWN a gun that makes you partially responsible, it's the fact you support the same laws that allow disturbed people to get a hold of them.

I went through a background check, a residency check, and had to provide more than one form of ID to purchase all of my weapons. Criminals don't do that. They buy them from a guy who stole those guns or smuggled them in. This is the law of the land in all states.

Originally posted by ahmonrarh

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by ahmonrarh
we're #24 on the list...not bad!
though as an argument, # 62 would be better. oh well.....
Murder per capita stats


lol, Costa Rica and Poland are #19/20, respectively..and Russia/Mexico are #'s 5/6...so yeah...the US is Primitive!

while it IS a tragedy that people are killed unjustly, harping that "USA is primitive/guns are evil, no one should have them, but i do...for emergencies" makes no sense.

what ever happened to being #1?

We leave those honors to columbia.

oh ahahah, i thought the list was the other way around

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by descartes90

 

Though then again, cars probably also save lives so I don't know, but guns definitely take far more lives than they save.

This is absolutely not true. Guns are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times a year. Out of those several thousand wind up with the criminal being shot and killed.

You can't lump all deaths attributed to the use of guns in one column and say" this is how it is". It doesn't work that way.

If a criminal dies in the act of committing a crime by the victim using a gun, too bad, so sad, don't do the crime if you're not willing to lose your head.

If that's true, than how come countries without guns don't have way more murders than ones here? I mean yeah, maybe guns prevent PROPERTY crime, but to kill someone just for stealing your stuff is totally ludicrous.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

I don't despise guns. Personally, I legally possess a pistol that is locked away for any 'emergencies'. LOL.

You have a gun?

What exactly is your point in this thread then?...........you think you should be allowed a firearm, but nobody else should?.....what happens if you "lose the plot"? why should you be trusted with a gun?

You do recall Raul Moat.......and Whitehaven don't you? Derrick Bird owned his guns legally too..........and all this happened on our little island, where apparently, according to you, there is no gun crime, and people never get shot!

how many times, DESCARTES, have you been forcibly separated from what you worked for to own??

hopefully you live in a "gun Free" country, but even in "gun free states" that i've lived in, gunfire was heard. i doubt it was law abiding citizens that were firing randomly in the night.

if you think it's silly to defend/protect your property, dont complain when governments take your rights. they are both relative IMO.

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

 

I don't despise guns. Personally, I legally possess a pistol that is locked away for any 'emergencies'. LOL.

You have a gun?

What exactly is your point in this thread then?...........you think you should be allowed a firearm, but nobody else should?.....what happens if you "lose the plot"? why should you be trusted with a gun?

You do recall Raul Moat.......and Whitehaven don't you? Derrick Bird owned his guns legally too..........and all this happened on our little island, where apparently, according to you, there is no gun crime, and people never get shot!

I think that, like me, he is for the right to bear arms (I would only exercise it as a last resort, being a Pacifist, and even then i wouldn't actually fire) he just thinks the laws are too lenient.

Besides - the Constitution is great and all, but it's not like God wrote it. It's not a perfect document, imo 'right to bear arms' is open to interpretation.

Originally posted by descartes90


Enact the canadian laws. While criminals do get guns there RARELY, it almost never happens.

Which are?

Originally posted by ahmonrarh
how many times, DESCARTES, have you been forcibly separated from what you worked for to own??

Well, a few times, I had a guitar stolen from me, though it was a gift from my Dad, so idk if that would count. but i still haven't been able to replace it and probably will have to spend $100 of my hard-earned money to do so! but definitely a few times. i have even been mugged before, though they didn't take anything from me (aside from a bit of my dignity).

but i can't imagine having anything stolen from me that was so valuable, i would want to kill the person who took it!

Originally posted by descartes90


If that's true, than how come countries without guns don't have way more murders than ones here? I mean yeah, maybe guns prevent PROPERTY crime, but to kill someone just for stealing your stuff is totally ludicrous.

what would you do? politely ask them to refrain from taking that which doesn't belong to them?
hand over a wife/daughter?

granted this is a very specific hypothetical but i'd much rather defend my family.
i would never want to take a life and i would hope the sound of my mossberg racking would be enough to scare anyone away.

but these days.
i'll hold on to my rights.

reply to post by descartes90


If you read the amendment, there really is not much there to interpret.

Pretty straight forward.

reply to post by descartes90


Property crime?

Many of these incidents are attempted rapes, assaults, and attempted murders that were stopped by the victim having the gun.

I don't think you've thought this issue through.

reply to post by descartes90


Me neither.

But, having the safety and security of my family violated would be worth killing for. If someone comes into my home, while my family is sleeping safely there, then that person must certainly die.

I have had break-ins as well. In fact, I once had my little fledgling business bankrupted by a theft, because my insurance didn't cover cash, and i was on a shoe-string budget. The robber was never caught, but the business closed down about a month later.

Still, I wouldn't kill someone over "stuff" but I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone for violating the sanctity of my home, or body, or the home or body of a family member. And, it is doubtful that I would call the police in the aftermath. Too many complications.

reply to post by descartes90
maybe i should've said robbed face to face......things stolen while you're not there is fairly unpreventable, it's a roll of the dice whether you're burglarized while away.

either way, i'll keep my guns, and my right to defend my loved ones and property, as the alternative is not my cup of tea.

Originally posted by Skewed

Originally posted by descartes90


Enact the canadian laws. While criminals do get guns there RARELY, it almost never happens.

Which are?

they have a registry. it's also usually illegal to use them in self defense, which i do disagree with when it comes to murder and rape.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by descartes90

 

Me neither.

But, having the safety and security of my family violated would be worth killing for. If someone comes into my home, while my family is sleeping safely there, then that person must certainly die.

I have had break-ins as well. In fact, I once had my little fledgling business bankrupted by a theft, because my insurance didn't cover cash, and i was on a shoe-string budget. The robber was never caught, but the business closed down about a month later.

Still, I wouldn't kill someone over "stuff" but I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone for violating the sanctity of my home, or body, or the home or body of a family member. And, it is doubtful that I would call the police in the aftermath. Too many complications.

Would you do it in revenge or self-defense?

this is why THIS IS WHY i advocate for the second ammendment

police yeah right

giving up my right leaving the only defense a 911 call

www.zimbio.com...

this is WHYi will never yield on this subject matter.

Originally posted by slowisfast

Originally posted by descartes90


If that's true, than how come countries without guns don't have way more murders than ones here? I mean yeah, maybe guns prevent PROPERTY crime, but to kill someone just for stealing your stuff is totally ludicrous.

what would you do? politely ask them to refrain from taking that which doesn't belong to them?
hand over a wife/daughter?

granted this is a very specific hypothetical but i'd much rather defend my family.
i would never want to take a life and i would hope the sound of my mossberg racking would be enough to scare anyone away.

but these days.
i'll hold on to my rights.

edit on 18-4-2011 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)

well if they were just stealing stuff, i would probably go for the pepper spray. If they were gonna threaten my wife or daughter (I have neither yet), I would use the gun, but I wouldn't shoot it unless they pulled out one as well.

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by Skewed

Originally posted by descartes90


Enact the canadian laws. While criminals do get guns there RARELY, it almost never happens.

Which are?

they have a registry. it's also usually illegal to use them in self defense, which i do disagree with when it comes to murder and rape.

If illegal to use in self defense, what the hell good are they then? I think I will stick with our current laws then.

When seconds count, police are minutes away.

reply to post by descartes90

I think that, like me, he is for the right to bear arms (I would only exercise it as a last resort, being a Pacifist, and even then i wouldn't actually fire) he just thinks the laws are too lenient.

The trouble with your argument is there are no grey areas......it's black and white......as long as it is legal to own guns there will be gun crime, it doesn't matter which side of the Atlantic you come from, Sherlock's OP, and subsequent posts are ridiculous in claiming that gun crime does not happen, or is not an issue in the UK....of course it is!

You talk of leniency, do you really think tightening gun laws and the ownership of guns will make a difference?.......do you really think that the people that use guns illegally fill in the forms for ownership?.......guns exist....FACT!......bad people will use them.....FACT!...........and they use them here in the UK as well as in the USA......FACT!