Not One More !

a reply to: voyger2

Actually, there are often plenty of warning signs. There certainly were in this case and there were attempts to intervene and prevent this tragedy from occurring. Unfortunately, those attempts didn't materialize into action by the authorities, and yes, that's something that needs to be improved upon.

As for people 'freaking', as you say, I'd say that proposing to punish 100 million people by stripping away their rights based on the actions of a relative few qualifies in that regard. Its a knee jerk reaction based in emotion that goes way past what's reasonable.

originally posted by: voyger2
Never ever I thought that you had inside you so much anger and rage for those who ask questions about gun's...

Do not confuse passion with anger, again, you and the other poster were the only ones desiring violence on other people. Additionally, both of you repeatedly avoided answering direct questions.

I was wrong, I admit.

Right or wrong is not the issue, it was your conduct.

a reply to: seagull

I was 15 and 108 lbs and fought off attackers without a gun. For sure, I wish I had one at the time. But I found courage within. Women do not need protection anymore than you do. Just brains.

a reply to: MOMof3

Just brains.

"Not all women were created equal, Col. Colt made them equal."

a reply to: MOMof3

Oh stop it...next you will be telling us there was six of them armed with guns.
Why don't you respect the american culture eh?.
Your very rude and just wrong frankly

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: seagull

I was 15 and 108 lbs and fought off attackers without a gun. For sure, I wish I had one at the time. But I found courage within. Women do not need protection anymore than you do. Just brains.

Leftist mentality here.

Just because YOU don't need one equates to NO-ONE needing one.

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The debate its for your society to make. I just wanted to post my opinion about what I think is wrong, hurts/kill people, and should be questioned by your own.

And actually I didn't know that you guys where so extremists on this issue. For me it was a shock, and sometimes, since I started this thread made me want to quit from this forum. Never ever I thought that you had inside so much anger and rage for those who ask questions about gun's...

I'm an outsider of course, I liked to be here and learn w/ you guys, but this thread made me rethink the values that really your culture defend. I was wrong, I admit.

You are picking at a very sore scab. It is understandable that someone from outside our borders would not understand all the underlying issues related to this debate. But think of it like this: we started out with unbridled freedom. THrough a series of laws, each taking more than the prior, we have been left with only a very small sliver. We happily agreed to give up stuff like bombs and howitzers. We didn't complain too much about giving up machine guns. But we are down, now, to the bare basics.

People use terms like "assault weapons" like it means something. It doesn't If you know about guns, then you know an assault weapon is the same as a regular rifle, with only cosmetic differences. To outlaw that is senseless, as there is no real reason functionally.

"Not one more"....that is my battle cry here, too. Not one more inch, not one more law....no more encroaching on my freedom. If there are issues with murderers, then deal with murders. Not me.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Do not confuse passion with anger, again,

I'm not confusing anything. You are. It was anger, yes it is.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
you and the other poster were the only ones desiring violence on other people.

not true. where did I desire violence on other ppl?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Additionally, both of you repeatedly avoided answering direct questions.

What questions? Why don't answer questions of topic. And most of the questions where already replied in my posts, but ppl didn't read them.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Right or wrong is not the issue, it was your conduct.

I was wrong about american values . my conduct has nothing to do whit it.

a reply to: beezzer

I am not saying taking your guns. I am asking, when did guns replace courage in american men?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: voyger2

Let me see if I follow you.



I can bash a home invader's skull in with my 36 ounce Louisville Slugger or gut him with my 12" Wusthof Chef's knife but if I flat blast him with my trusty Sig Sauer I am a bad, bad man?



How do the much more civilized Portuguese citizens deal with a home invasion scenario?

Meaning as always the user is responsible, not the tool.

A great stupid Jeshua scenario, strap in...
The accident with the Trident doing a 3/4 gainer off the
kitchen counter is my problem, and no one else's.
But it beat moving too fast with a reloader; all I got for
my salad was a somewhat manageable hole in the foot.
I will submit no pictures for all to behold how I pierced me.

On the other hand, when you know your layout, it's dark in
the living room, and the intruder is unsure of your exact
location: "Nothing like a good piece of hickory." Clint


My contention is simple, "All that can destroy evil is a greater
evil." I just want to be nasty enough to save myself-- and maybe
make the perp too stupid later to ever again know which end to use.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: beezzer

I am not saying taking your guns. I am asking, when did guns replace courage in american men?

They didn't.

What makes you ask that?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

ah, and for the debate, don't forget to add this from the American Journal of Public Health
ajph.aphapublications.org...

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

a reply to: voyger2

being shot is not dying.

I think the measurement is, "Did use of a gun keep you alive?" Do you have any studies on that?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

How do you know? Do you go anywhere without a gun?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: beezzer

I am not saying taking your guns. I am asking, when did guns replace courage in american men?

You said,

Women do not need protection anymore than you do. Just brains.

Courage is all good and well.

But courage cannot protect you from armed criminals meant to cause you harm. Courage isn't bullet proof.

But if you really want to look for further definitions of courage, they might be;
Standing up for yourself.
Not relying on government or police to save you.
Protecting/relying on yourself.

a reply to: MOMof3

Oh come off it.
It is getting obvious you are just trying wind folk up now.
You don't know anyone's history here so don't call anyone a coward for having the means to protect themselves and their families.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Here is a conclusion for you:
Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

ajph.aphapublications.org...