gmac17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 And quite frankly, since you brought up the driving example...if I were to go out in my car and blow a redlight and kill someone because I was talking on my cell phone or chaning the CD, I would most certainly be charged with vehicular manslaughter. I didn't mean to kill someone, but I because I did I have to bear resonsibility for my actions. Just as a gun owner should bear responsibility for the use (by anyone) of his firearms. thats a terrible example. a better example would be that you didn't lock the gate to your pool and someone fell in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Simply put, the right to bear arms is outdated. When it was added to the Constitution as the 2nd Admentment to the Bill of Rights, it was relevent. It isnt anymore. Guys like Alaska Darin and others like to own guns for either sport and/or protection. If every person was as responsible and knew as much as people like them did, there would be little issue with it, at all. However, I would love to ask everyone here, in their lifetime, how many times have you found that you have actually been in a situation where you had wished you had a gun? After reviewing that situation in your head (if you even have one), would a gun have made things better, or far worse. Now, we can assume that most people have not ever needed a gun to protect themselves. Just recently, my house got broken into. After doing some inventory on what was gone, it is almost certain that is was a couple of local kids. Now, I don't own guns, but should I have been the type to, and had I been home, according to some "they would be cleaning stains off my carpet", or "they would be leaving in a herse". Well, I will tell you right now, I was pissed off when I found out some kids had ransacked my house. But, do I want them dead or crippled because they stole my playstation and a couple DVDs? ummm, no. Now, you might argue, but what if an armed burglar breaks in? Well, in that case, it seems like having a gun would be beneficial. Well, that's a MAJOR catch-22. Like some have said "how can you keep a loaded weapon in your house?" So, now, someone breaks into your house, and you have to go get the key to your gun box, go get the ammo, and load the thing before mr home invader gets to you? And THEN sees you have a gun? No thanks. I think it was DC Tom who said he lives alone, and keeps his gun on his nightstand. Fine. That is OK in my book. But then again, I know there are gun advocates here who DO have kids. And to think that you refer to the gun as "self defense", and yet claim you wouldn't leave it loaded is, like I said, a catch 22. Or, the good old "my kid knows better"... always get a good laugh out of that. I'm sure the Columbine shooters' parents thought their kids knew better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duey Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 thats a terrible example. a better example would be that you didn't lock the gate to your pool and someone fell in. 201701[/snapback] While I won't admit that my example was TERRIBLE, I do agree that yours is much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duey Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Simply put, the right to bear arms is outdated. Now, we can assume that most people have not ever needed a gun to protect themselves. Just recently, my house got broken into. After doing some inventory on what was gone, it is almost certain that is was a couple of local kids. Now, I don't own guns, but should I have been the type to, and had I been home, according to some "they would be cleaning stains off my carpet", or "they would be leaving in a herse". Well, I will tell you right now, I was pissed off when I found out some kids had ransacked my house. But, do I want them dead or crippled because they stole my playstation and a couple DVDs? ummm, no. I think it was DC Tom who said he lives alone, and keeps his gun on his nightstand. Fine. That is OK in my book. I'm sure the Columbine shooters' parents thought their kids knew better... 201707[/snapback] On the first quotation...excellent, excellent point. And there was also the possibility that had you owned guns, and not locked them up, they would have been stolen as well. Now they're on the street, either being played with or being sold to God knows who. On the second quotation...WHY does DC Tom keep his gun on his nightstand? And on the last quotation...regarding the Columbine shooters' parents...it was very apparent that they had no freaking idea what their kids were up to...no clue whatsoever. The kids had locks on their rooms that the parents didn't have keys to...and that didn't concern them?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 You must be responsible when it comes to guns. I own a handgun. The gun is kept in a locked box under my bed, unloaded, although I have two fully loaded clips in the box. I have no children. Should there ever be a burglar, it would take less than 20 seconds to grab the gun out of the lockbox and load the clip into it. Since I have no children, I do not have a gun-lock on it. When I do have children, there is no question that I will have a gun-lock on it, burglars be damned. It just not worth the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Pesky facts. British crime rise after ban. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm Other pesky stuff. http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Pesky facts. British crime rise after ban. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/uk/1440764.stm 201721[/snapback] Can't view the article, and I am currently on a direct route. Either way, I'll bet even if the "crime rate" went up, murders did not. And even if that is wrong, explain this like Columbine, or the DC sniper, etc.. if they didnt have access to guns, and only a VERY few, well background checked, well psychologically tested few could buy guns, how many people would still be alive? I dont have a problem with people owning guns (even though like i said, I don't see how they would "protect you"). But they should be people who are tested OVER and OVER to make sure they are not potential time bombs. And one mess up, JUST ONE (an illegale discharge of the weapon even) and a lifetime ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Can't view the article, and I am currently on a direct route. Either way, I'll bet even if the "crime rate" went up, murders did not. And even if that is wrong, explain this like Columbine, or the DC sniper, etc.. if they didnt have access to guns, and only a VERY few, well background checked, well psychologically tested few could buy guns, how many people would still be alive? I dont have a problem with people owning guns (even though like i said, I don't see how they would "protect you"). But they should be people who are tested OVER and OVER to make sure they are not potential time bombs. And one mess up, JUST ONE (an illegale discharge of the weapon even) and a lifetime ban. 201732[/snapback] Check again, now. Psychological "tests" were a chief tool of the Soviets to put people away to the gulags. Read some history, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Check again, now. Psychological "tests" were a chief tool of the Soviets to put people away to the gulags. Read some history, my friend. 201737[/snapback] oh lord... psychological background checks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I agree 100%, but just give this thread a while, and the gun nuts will give you some funny stats of how many people's lives have been saved by guns... 201611[/snapback] Yeah, nothing worse than those "gun nuts" whining about their constitutional rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Simply put, the right to bear arms is outdated. When it was added to the Constitution as the 2nd Admentment to the Bill of Rights, it was relevent. It isnt anymore. Reading your posts makes me think the first amendment might be outdated too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The problem is that people extend their standards of rationality to irrational people. A good number of folks think that they can argue a rational point with the human equivalent of a dangerous breed of dog. Not so. A curiosity in all this is the State of Vermont. Left-wing politicians - Howard Dean, Sens. Leahy and Jeffords, Rep. Bernie Sanders. But in Vermont, you can carry a handgun in your pocket. No laws, no rules. and it is an exceptionally free of violent crime. Methinks the criminals know that and act accordingly. If you choose not to protect yourself and your family, well, that's your choice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I think it was DC Tom who said he lives alone, and keeps his gun on his nightstand. Fine. That is OK in my book. 201707[/snapback] Uhhhh...no, on both counts. I live with my wife (though why she lives with me I'll never know). And seeing as how I'm a very high suicide risk, gun ownership for me would be grossly irresponsible. Even so...I've had the need maybe three or four times in my life for self-defense purposes. That doesn't mean, however, that guns should be banned simply because I can't accept responsibility for owning one. The central point is the one you alluded to in your first paragraph, then blithely ignored for the rest of your post: personal responsibility. I exercise that personal responsibility by not owning a gun; I know others who exercise it by owning a gun. But there's more than a few people who would strip the issue of personal responsibility from the equation completely in favor of government interference...including, it seems, you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Reading your posts makes me think the first amendment might be outdated too. 201744[/snapback] No. The First Amendment only guarantees the right to express your opinion. It makes no provision for any presumed right to be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I went to school with the father, Mark Sacha. He was in most of my classes and was a star B-Ball player at Cheektowaga Central. The son is sixteen and the daughter who was killed is 11. The parents were at the hospital visiting his gravely ill father. I haven't seen him since the first year of college (over 25 years ago), but he did not seem like the irresponsible type. A sixteen year old is fully capable, even with massive instruction by his parents not to, to get the gun out and take the gun lock off (if it had one). My brother had a 22 rifle when he lived at home. For all I know it may still be in the closet where he kept it. In this case it may have even been in a crawlspace for all we know. Unless we know all of the circumstances, we shouldn't be making sweeping statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 And seeing as how I'm a very high suicide risk, 201759[/snapback] You'll live to be 90. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 This is a horrible tragedy, and I feel so bad for the 16 year old kid. He is going to have a tough life, in all likehood. But, one thing that bothers me a little is how fast the DA's office said no prosecution. If the father wasn't an ADA, would they have been so fast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I own guns in my home.....have all my life But I have a gun safe....my ammunition is stored separately from my weapons. Only myself and my wife have the combonation. I dont hide my guns from my kids either.....they know exactly where they are at but they cannot get to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 As usual, an emotionally charged situation brings out those who are all about enhancing their "freedom" at the expense of "yours". "The Second Amendment is outdated". In a place where ridiculous statements are made EVERY day, there are few that could possibly trump this one. I'm not surprised it was made by someone with so little life experience. Your children are FAR more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or in a bicycle accident than they are with a firearm. Not that the mass media will ever tell you that. Nor are they likely to report the 3,000-8,000 times EVERY DAY (depending on whose figures you believe) that a private citizen protects their property using a privately owned firearm. Instead, they concentrate on stories of that will whip you into a frenzy (not unlike the Randy Moss faux pants dropping) and you buy into it hook, line, and sinker. Currently there are about 2000 citizens per police officer in this country. You don't want to own a firearm, that's fine - good luck with "Dial a Prayer". Just don't tell me the 2nd Amendment is less relevent because it's quite the contrary. The right to protect ones' self and property is fundamental. If you don't believe me, go watch Hotel Rwanda. Big picture people. Leave myopia to the bureaucrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 This is a horrible tragedy, and I feel so bad for the 16 year old kid. He is going to have a tough life, in all likehood. But, one thing that bothers me a little is how fast the DA's office said no prosecution. If the father wasn't an ADA, would they have been so fast? 201775[/snapback] Certainly not. Welcome to justice for the priviledged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts