Gun control discussion

[pomtzu]

Sorry. I grew up in the country where we could not see the closest neighbor. I lived in the city of Chicago for over 20 years. Lived in Guadalajara for two years.

Never, not once, not one single time, was I so afraid that I felt the need to be ready to kill someone.

Logic has nothing to do with it.

But have you ever been home - alone or otherwise - when someone was trying to break into your house?

I'm not for or against a gun for personal protection and I don't personally own one. And since I indeed was home when someone was trying to break in, and I live in a rural area with only the state police at our disposal and figuring about an hour to get here once called, then I would have been on the pro-gun side at that time. Fortunately, the rest of the family was home and my son took care of the situation without any weapon or assault, and it got reported to the state police. If I lived alone 24/7, then I probably would take steps to assure that I was as safe as possible, and if it included owning a gun (after gun safety and operating courses), then I most likely would. I don't "like" them, but I have a healthy respect for them - taught to me by my ex who was in law enforcement for the majority of his working days, and was a Marine and weapons instructor at The Basic School in Quantico, VA in his military days.

[mon]

There is no right or wrong on this subject in my opinion. I do believe that violence of any kind is wrong.

[Edwina's Secretary]

But have you ever been home - alone or otherwise - when someone was trying to break into your house?

I'm not for or against a gun for personal protection and I don't personally own one. And since I indeed was home when someone was trying to break in, and I live in a rural area with only the state police at our disposal and figuring about an hour to get here once called, then I would have been on the pro-gun side at that time. Fortunately, the rest of the family was home and my son took care of the situation without any weapon or assault, and it got reported to the state police. If I lived alone 24/7, then I probably would take steps to assure that I was as safe as possible, and if it included owning a gun (after gun safety and operating courses), then I most likely would. I don't "like" them, but I have a healthy respect for them - taught to me by my ex who was in law enforcement for the majority of his working days, and was a Marine and weapons instructor at The Basic School in Quantico, VA in his military days.

Well...let's see. My apartment was burglarized...the police think while I slept. I lived alone - single female for over 20 years. Car was stolen. Oh! And I was mugged outside the Walgreen's. Still...never felt the need for the "option" that enabled me to kill.

Make no mistake. That is what a gun is. The option to kill. The means to kill. A "tool" that has no purpose except to kill.

I check my oil...I prepare my vehicle...I do all that stuff. But prepare to kill?? No thanks.

LH - you claim

I have a complete disconnect because I deride the very basic viewpoint of being prepared as fear

(even though you are the one who introduced fear to the discussion...) What will it take to help you see the "other side?" You know...to connect to the light?

Oddly enough...I remember this commandment..."thou shall not kill..." and I don't remember any qualifiers! (Such as...unless you fear people wearing hooded sweatershirts in the rain....or unless the other people have their music too loudd...or unless...) But then...perhaps the rules have changed since my education????

[Lady's Human]

The commandment "thou shall not kill" is a mistranslation. That original text translates to something along the lines of don't kill innocents.

Were the commandment as you stated accurately translated into the KJV (which it wasn't) no follower of Joshua could have been following Mosiac law. Being that they were following orders from the man upstairs, however........

Nice try, I'll give you an 8 for effort, regardless of the over simplification of the argument.

As to seeing the other side of the argument, I see it, but reject the logic behind it. Relying on someone else to take care of issues just isn't something I'm inclined to do, particularly when the clean up crew is 1/2 hour away.

Congratulations on the record of being a victim, not sure how it's material ot this discussion, but it does clearly show you as someone who's more prone to relying on others for your security. After the first incident I'd have done something to prevent the others, but you're obviously of a different mindset.

[pomtzu]

I don't believe that because you own a gun for protection, that it means you have it to shoot to kill. Shoot to disable would work just fine in most cases. And if I did have a gun, I certainly would NOT have a permit to carry one with me - it would only be for my protection in my own home. But since I will never be in a position where I live alone, then this is all just "ifs" in my case. I have no problem with people who choose to have a hand gun in their home for their personal safety - it's the morons who collect many different guns and assault rifles and end up killing senselessly and viciously because something in their head goes screwy.

JMHO - be it right or wrong.............

[RICHARD]

I don't believe that because you own a gun for protection, that it means you have it to shoot to kill. Shoot to disable would work just fine in most cases. And if I did have a gun, I certainly would NOT have a permit to carry one with me - it would only be for my protection in my own home. But since I will never be in a position where I live alone, then this is all just "ifs" in my case. I have no problem with people who choose to have a hand gun in their home for their personal safety - it's the morons who collect many different guns and assault rifles and end up killing senselessly and viciously because something in their head goes screwy.

JMHO - be it right or wrong.............

And we get back to the age-old question about what exactly are the clues to someone going screwy??

The last moron - and just how the eff does a convicted murderer get a gun - shoots up a group of first responders, AFTER killing his sister and after killing his G-ma with a hatchet?

If we had a little rule about an "Eye for an eye" and had put this AH to death when presented with the chance?

We probably would not be having this conversation.

Also, why does the media find the need to hammer home the brand of a weapon?

In the years when the 'drive-by' shooting was in vogue, the media reported that the gangs were using "AK-47s" then cut to the film of the police emptying the car of bad guys and guns.

The guns were little .22 cal Rugers or shotguns....The medias obsession with putting an name/marque to a gun is 'funny' and just prods the next nut to fall from the trees.


-----------------

Another problem we have is not wanting to betray a loved one, neighbor or friend because of their odd behavior. And how many times has odd behavior turned into mass murder?

----------------

Here in town, one of the elected officials is due to see the judge for his third DUI offense in four years.

He hasn't killed anyone, yet, but why do we take the chance and not make it tougher to drive AFTER your first offense?

And why doesn't the media make light of the kinds of cars these fools drive?

I would like to know, that way I could give them a wide berth when I am on the road..........

[pomtzu]

Richard - my point is: who, in the first place, needs an arsenal of weapons in their home - be it hand guns or "assault type" weapons.?? Just about anyone can flip and go screwy (including you or me ), but someone with only that one handgun that they originally had for their own personal protection, will do a whole lot less damage than the person who has enough firepower to outfit a small army!

[RICHARD]

Richard - my point is: who, in the first place, needs an arsenal of weapons in their home - be it hand guns or "assault type" weapons.?? Just about anyone can flip and go screwy (including you or me ), but someone with only that one handgun that they originally had for their own personal protection, will do a whole lot less damage than the person who has enough firepower to outfit a small army!

When my dad died, he had 13 long guns and 7 pistols.

He wasn't a collector, but he liked guns. He loved to shoot and he was feared at the shooting comps he entered - the most common complaint from the younger men was, "why do I have to shoot against (My Dad)?". Pops was 25-40 years older than most people in the groups he shot against and he won many prizes and trophys. (He shot small and large bore pistols and rifles, so he had a variety of "shooting irons" in his arsenal).

I inherited most of the collection and would like to purchase one more rifle (along with a safe).

I find some guns to be pieces of art and think that target shooting is a challenge, sport and way to relax. The mental and physical demands of TS are pretty intense and I do find it fun.

That said? I don't find consider my guns as protection or an arsenal, I don't fear them, nor would I disrespect them. They are put away and I don't think about them until I need to move them, pull them out to see that they are not rusting or to make sure they are still there.

There are responsible gun owners and idiots, just like cars, bicycle, motorbike and ?????? owners.

Yes, guns are meant for 'one reason' but that doesn't mean that they cannot be used in other manners?

[Edwina's Secretary]

As to seeing the other side of the argument, I see it, but reject the logic behind it. Relying on someone else to take care of issues just isn't something I'm inclined to do, particularly when the clean up crew is 1/2 hour away.

Congratulations on the record of being a victim, not sure how it's material ot this discussion, but it does clearly show you as someone who's more prone to relying on others for your security. After the first incident I'd have done something to prevent the others, but you're obviously of a different mindset.

And there is where your so-called logic fails. In none of those situations would a gun have been of any use to me.

Muggers do not walk up to you and announce..."Madame, I am about to mug you so please prepare your weapon." It happens so fast. My friend who was with me and on the pay phone (pre-cell phone ubiquity) did not even see it. Had I a gun in my purse - there would have been an armed mugger afterwards.

My car? - I do not spend all night sitting outside guarding my car with a loaded gun. That's how it is when you park on a city street.

The buglary? The police believed it was my landlord - a pot smoking idiot who was angry that I was moving out. As I sleep through the whole event - assuming that is when it happened, what good would a gun have done?

And I would not think any of those situations warranted the death sentence. Rambo wannabes who fancy themselves precision sharpshooter have watched wwwwaaayyy too many movies!

Instead of a gun...I learned to be more alert about my surroundings...more careful about where I go, more sure to park my car where I should, have better locks on my doors. I got smarter. As any cop will tell you - avoiding dangerous situations is far better than being armed.

Relying on other people. I don't think so! I preferred to rely on my own good sense rather than an inanimate object.

By the way....

I do hope you will get the Pope straightened out on his misunderstanding of the Ten Commandments!

[Lady's Human]

Relying on other people. I don't think so! I preferred to rely on my own good sense rather than an inanimate object.

By the way....

I do hope you will get the Pope straightened out on his misunderstanding of the Ten Commandments!

Hebraic Insight…

The Jewish sages note that the word “ratsakh” applies only to illegal killing (e.g., premeditated murder or manslaughter) — and is never used in the administration of justice or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as “thou shalt not kill” is too broad.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Hebraic Insight…

The Jewish sages note that the word “ratsakh” applies only to illegal killing (e.g., premeditated murder or manslaughter) — and is never used in the administration of justice or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as “thou shalt not kill” is too broad.

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
00120 Vatican City, Italy, Europe

E-mail: [email protected]

Let him know....

How could so many people have been so wrong for so long...until you came along to straighten them out!

[Lady's Human]

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
00120 Vatican City, Italy, Europe

E-mail: [email protected]

Let him know....

How could so many people have been so wrong for so long...until you came along to straighten them out!

Not I, I'd put more stock in Hebrew scholars than the translators who created the KJV. The KJV bible, while wonderfully thundering language, is rife with inaccuracies in translation, and this has been known for quite some time.