tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post2746263862669195795..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Who Owns All the Guns and Why They Need to be ControlledAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-45398526419729776722011-12-26T15:35:12.841+01:002011-12-26T15:35:12.841+01:00mikeb302000: and I'm still waiting for you to ...mikeb302000: and I'm still waiting for you to correct me on the Castle Doctrine.someguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-63823383597629086082011-12-26T12:45:13.602+01:002011-12-26T12:45:13.602+01:00someguy, you sound like a bullshit tough-talker an...someguy, you sound like a bullshit tough-talker and a bully to me. That's my opinion. Capn Crunch on the other hand seems to have a bit of reasonableness about him.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-17242614550905825062011-12-25T12:09:02.840+01:002011-12-25T12:09:02.840+01:00Cap'n Crunch:
Happy Holidays!*
* I'm...Cap'n Crunch:<br /><br />Happy Holidays!*<br /><br /><br /><br />* I'm not only Gunless, I'm GODless, as well;>)democommiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08714733977927594559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-41545078290019539402011-12-25T04:03:39.421+01:002011-12-25T04:03:39.421+01:00Okay, I can see how MikeB's comment didn't...Okay, I can see how MikeB's comment didn't refer to all firearm owners democommie.<br /><br />Merry ChristmasCapn Crunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05494225553563073179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-48640204984353838212011-12-24T20:28:30.629+01:002011-12-24T20:28:30.629+01:00"Your response was really lame. All you can d..."Your response was really lame. All you can do is make a sweeping statement that firearm owners are cowards. "<br /><br />Once again, a criticism of a statement that was not made.<br /><br />This:<br /><br />"If two guys chase my wife home and try to come inside, I'm not assuming they're wanting to have a tea party. Simply put, if you don't want to get dead, don't break into someone's home."<br /><br />would certainly qualify as "tough guy talk" in my book, but that's not the point. <br /><br />Mikeb302000 did not lump all gun owners into that group. Actually he didn't mention gun owners, except for this:<br /><br />"That's how the tough-talking gun owners would do.".democommiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08714733977927594559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-14469537182729868022011-12-24T19:00:36.633+01:002011-12-24T19:00:36.633+01:00mikeb302000: Really? I honestly thought you had mo...mikeb302000: Really? I honestly thought you had more class than that. I guess when you run out of argument, you have to jump to personal attacks. I'm really not surprised, though. You're the one who would blame a homeowner for shooting an intruder instead of blaming the intruder for putting himself in that situation. By your way of thinking, if a woman get's raped, it's her fault for not wearing a chastity belt.<br /><br />Since you seem to think that I am wrong on the Castle Doctrine please explain to me how I misinterpreted it. Here's a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine<br /><br />After reading my post above, I fail to find any tough talking and bullying, please point that out to me as well.someguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-78466245375446711682011-12-24T14:48:45.432+01:002011-12-24T14:48:45.432+01:00MikeB,
Your response was really lame. All you ca...MikeB,<br /><br />Your response was really lame. All you can do is make a sweeping statement that firearm owners are cowards. How about something of substance. Tell us what tactical mistake someguy made: explain the error, how it was bad for public safety, and what he could have done better.<br /><br />I touched upon the tactical mistakes of dog gone's suggested course of action. She advocated giving up the advantage of distance, superior force, cover, and concealment (the door and home furnishings). Further, she recommended that someguy, being outnumbered without any backup on the way and without training in police tactics, engage the criminals and try to subdue them with pepper spray. What she described gets law enforcement officers injured and killed every year.<br /><br />And all of this came from dog gone, who suggests that no one in the public should be allowed to carry much less use their firearms because they do not have police training.Capn Crunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05494225553563073179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-18539174297962798422011-12-24T08:16:20.342+01:002011-12-24T08:16:20.342+01:00someguy is such a tough talker defending the castl...someguy is such a tough talker defending the castle doctrine like that, wrongly too, but that's no nevermind. The point is he's a tough talker.<br /><br />I always remember bullies in the school yard when they occasionally met their match and ran home crying to mama. That's how the tough-talking gun owners would do. When finally faced with a real-live danger they'd first piss their pants and then fall down begging for mercy.<br /><br />Real tough guys don't have to talk tough.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-31535137450412568532011-12-24T01:07:27.626+01:002011-12-24T01:07:27.626+01:00dog gone: you said " Using greater force than...dog gone: you said " Using greater force than necessary is illegal for the police, and it is illegal for you."<br /><br />and you are incorrect. The police are restrained, yes, but not the homeowner. You see, there is this thing call the "Castle Doctrine" and in my state, if a person lawfully occupies a building or automobile, and someone is unlawfully trying to gain entry into said building or automobile, and the lawful occupant feels that they, or someone else, is in danger of death or great bodily harm, lethal force is allowed. If two guys chase my wife home and try to come inside, I'm not assuming they're wanting to have a tea party. Simply put, if you don't want to get dead, don't break into someone's home.<br /><br />You go on to say that I should have blasted them with pepper spray. Why, simply pointing a firearm at them did the trick.<br /><br />you also said "You went for the most lethal force which left them loose on the public." Now you're advocating that I should have killed them so that they couldn't further their criminal activities after they got out of jail?<br /><br />My firearm is not a big penis substitution, that's what the truck if for.<br /><br />Then you said "There are situation that require deadly force." Yep, you're absolutely correct, and that's why I have a firearm.someguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-73275783119359846812011-12-23T22:14:16.813+01:002011-12-23T22:14:16.813+01:00dog gone,
You really don't see your own contr...dog gone,<br /><br />You really don't see your own contradictions, do you?<br /><br />In one statement you tell someguy,<br />"Further in cases where there are two assailants to one person with a gun, often one or both will grapple with the armed homeowner for the weapon. Any advantage that a firearm provides of lethal force at a distance from one's adversary was lost."<br /><br />And then you say,<br />"Once your wife was safely in the house, you could have opened the door and blasted the two bad guys with pepper spray, AGAIN, rendering them helpless"<br /><br />First you criticize the homeowner for a course of action that could lead to him losing his advantage of distance. Then you tell the homeowner to give up his advantage of distance!!! AND you tell him to open the door AND try to apply pepper spray to the tiny target area of the attackers' eyes.Capn Crunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05494225553563073179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-26283762911192034912011-12-23T21:09:09.906+01:002011-12-23T21:09:09.906+01:00dog gone,
I had asked,
(3) Explain why we cannot...dog gone,<br /><br />I had asked,<br />(3) Explain why we cannot use "force mulipliers" [e.g. rocks, clubs, firearms] to defend ourselves ...<br /><br />Part of your reply was,<br />"Because the number of instances where your LETHAL force multipliers are used in bad ways far far far outnumbers the number of people helped or saved by them."<br /><br />I have provided several hard numbers from FBI Uniform Crime reports. For example there were 232 justifiable homicides by citizens with firearms in 2010 ... a "bad use" in your mind. And I mentioned the Violence Policy Centers' Concealed Carry Killers where they list something like 300 people with concealed carry licenses that have murdered someone since 2007. I mentioned the State of Michigan's annual concealed carry license holder crime report that indicated none of that state's almost 300,000 concealed carry licensees murdered anyone in 2010. And I mentioned the dearth of news reports indicating the same. Any way you look at it, citizens, whether armed at home or carrying in public with concealed carry licenses, are only killing something like 380 people per year. And there is no evidence that these armed citizens are spraying bullets and injuring any more. I keep asking and you keep avoiding it: provide numbers from credible sources!!!!!<br /><br />And you also replied,<br />"The REALITY - not your frantically death-gripped myth - is that those firearms make YOU less safe, and they sure as hell make the rest of us less safe also."<br /><br />I already listed in another post how one in 36.5 familes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Statistical area had a at least one family member who was a victim of violent crime in 2010 (assuming a family of four people) -- that is a fact, not a myth. I also stated how one in 52 families in the Baltimore Metropolitan Statisticaly area would have had at least one family member who was a victim of violent crime in 2010 (assuming a family of four people) even after subtracting all violent crimes where the criminal used a gun. That is a fact, not a myth. I didn't make up those numbers. I got them from the 2010 FBI Uniform Crime Reports.<br /><br />And I have asked repeatedly for sources that list the thousands or even hundreds of events every year where armed citizens have sprayed bullets into innocent bystanders. You haven't produced a single documented instance much less thousands of instances.<br /><br />I have simple, hard numbers ... facts, not myths. Where are your facts? Show me that your fears and assertions are rational.<br /><br />What you propose may decrease the statistical probability of a violent crime affecting my family around 10%. The problem is that 10% decrease in the probability of an attack would come at the expense of having no means to defend my family during the few seconds of a brutal attack. How does that increase my family's safety?!?!?!?!?<br /><br />You know who really gains from your proposal? Criminals. And maybe some people that would have ended their lives through suicide. While I hate to hear about anyone committing suicide, at least they had a choice in the matter. Under your proposal, you strip my family's choice to defend ourselves -- people who care about saving our lives deeply -- in favor of people that want to end their lives.Capn Crunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05494225553563073179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-49571973637918012242011-12-23T21:08:44.097+01:002011-12-23T21:08:44.097+01:00dog gone,
I had asked,
(2) Is everyone born with ...dog gone,<br /><br />I had asked,<br />(2) Is everyone born with a right to protect themselves ... to defend themselves from attack?<br /><br />Part of your reply was,<br />"... pro-gunners ... don't use or carry a cell phone which could get them help, they do not also carry smaller, lighter, less lethal weapons like tasers and/or pepper spray. They only carry the most lethal weapons they can manage. They then dehumanize potential people they would shoot, and glamorize shooting them. This negates the premise that this is about anyone's safety."<br /><br />I disagree with your sweeping assertions and you can post your sources another time. There are three problems with your response that are obvious at face value. First, some states do not allow citizens to carry tasers. So that option is off the table in various jurisditions. That leaves us with pepper spray. Aside from the fact that pepper spray has limited ability to incapacitate anyone, you have to be at arms length to administer it. At that point you are in mortal danger of the attacker's fists, feet, knives, clubs, or any other weapon. As for a cell phone, the worst thing you can possibly do when a criminal engages you is take your eyes off of the criminal and your surroundings to try and call for help on a cell phone ... that is if your cell phone even works at that location. And what do you think an attacker is going to do when they see you reaching for your phone? Politely wait while you call and describe the situation to a dispatcher? You also fail to recognize the most effective non-lethal defensive weapon of all: a gun pointed at a criminal without firing a shot. Common sense tells us that criminals will turn and run almost every time someone points a gun at them. Commonly available statistics support that. And I have seen countless surveillance videos that confirm it. Plus there is another benefit. If the person holding the gun mistakes a citizen for a criminal, the citizen doesn't get hurt and the person holding the gun goes to jail for assault (and loses their carry license to boot if they have one)!Capn Crunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05494225553563073179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-35689480325787725412011-12-23T19:28:53.923+01:002011-12-23T19:28:53.923+01:00someguy wrote"Negative ghost rider. You want ...someguy wrote"<i>Negative ghost rider. You want to save the life of a criminal attacking me, tell him don't attack me and his life won't be put in danger. </i><br /><br />Wrong, someguy. What I wrote was ". That has to be non-lethal force rather than lethal force wherever possible. "<br /><br /><b>That is because you don't get to execute someone when less force will end the confrontation. Using greater force than necessary is illegal for the police, and it is illegal for you.</b><br /><br />And most of you make absolutely NO effort whatsoever to employ less force where it is appropriate. You do not carry anything except the greatest possible lethal force, in some cases like Greg, not even a cell phone to contact emergency assistance.<br /><br />That tells me you have no interest whatsoever in allowing law enforcement to do the job they're paid to do, and that you are ONLY interested in lethal force wherever you can possibly find a pretext to use it.<br /><br />Case in point, the one you described. Once your wife was safely in the house, behind a locked door, you could have called 911. Did you? Were either of the men pursuing your wife armed that you could see?<br /><br />Not per your description. Instead what you allowed to happen was that by your description, two somewhat dirtier for wear bad guys are still a threat to the safety of others. Further in cases where there are two assailants to one person with a gun, often one or both will grapple with the armed homeowner for the weapon. Any advantage that a firearm provides of lethal force at a distance from one's adversary was lost.<br /><br />You would have been safer to call the cops and everyone else who the bad guys might prey on would be safer as well.<br /><br />Once your wife was safely in the house, you could have opened the door and blasted the two bad guys with pepper spray, AGAIN, rendering them helpless until law enforcement could arrive. Did you do so? No. You went for the most lethal force which left them loose on the public. <br /><br />But you want us to believe that you are somehow making good decisions, that you have excellent judgment.<br /><br />Doesn't sound like it to me. What it sounds like is you had an occasion to wave around your big penis substitute and got a fetish rush out of the deal, judging from your swaggering description of an incident that could have been described in less emotional terms. The emotional swagger is why we allude to firearms as fetish objects.<br /><br />The same advantages would exist with a stun gun.<br /><br />There are situation that require deadly force. There are many more which do not and where it should not be used, and not only to avoid KILLING the bad guy before he can go through the rule-of-law judicial process rather than vigilante execution. It also makes it far far safer for bystanders and often the victim as well.<br /><br />Had you popped off a snap shot at the two men on your doorstep -- what would be behind them, should the bullet either miss or go through a part of one of them?<br /><br />How far away was anyone potentially, and how clear a line of sight to the nearest residence/building, vehicle, or pedestrian did you have?dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-28416072526881591212011-12-23T18:48:40.958+01:002011-12-23T18:48:40.958+01:00mikeb302000: Well, the SCOTUS and the constitution...mikeb302000: Well, the SCOTUS and the constitution disagree with you. <br /><br />dog gone: "'(2) Is everyone born with a right to protect themselves ... to defend themselves from attack?'<br /><br />To a point. That has to be non-lethal force"<br /><br />Negative ghost rider. You want to save the life of a criminal attacking me, tell him don't attack me and his life won't be put in danger. Now on a more personal note. I once had to use my trusty ole .45 to protect my wife from being attacked. She was chased through our front yard into our house where she closed and locked the door. The fellas chasing her began to bang on the door as she's telling me what's going on. I grabbed my pistol, opened the door as they were trying to get it opened and pointed the gun at head of one of the aggressors. No shots fired, no blood in the streets, no carnage in the driveway. Just one fella who wet himself and the other who soiled himself. Me, I stayed dry and clean and my wife stayed safe. You see, dog gone, it was less than lethal force that I used, but at least I wasn't limited to that.<br /><br />democommie said: "The vast majority of humans do not have constitutions with guarantees of the right* to keep and bear arms.<br />* A right which is disputed in many conlaw arguments--it is NOT settled law, obviously."<br /><br />The constitution doesn't bestow rights on the people, it recognizes and protects rights that already exist. Obviously you are not familiar with SCOTUS rulings on this matter. You see, the court has already ruled that yes, people do in fact have a right to protect themselves and that they have a right to use a firearm to protect themselves.someguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-24543970053760527662011-12-23T16:27:59.918+01:002011-12-23T16:27:59.918+01:00""Trouble is, everybody isn't born w...""Trouble is, everybody isn't born with a gun.........."<br />But everyone is born with the Right to own and carry a firearm. Everyone is born with the Right to protect themselves and gun control laws infringe on that right."<br /><br />Argument from fallacy.<br /><br />The vast majority of humans do not have constitutions with guarantees of the right* to keep and bear arms.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />* A right which is disputed in many conlaw arguments--it is NOT settled law, obviously.democommiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08714733977927594559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-89868091764573363112011-12-23T15:42:13.619+01:002011-12-23T15:42:13.619+01:00Capn Crunchy wrote
Let's back up a little.
(1...Capn Crunchy wrote<i><br /><br />Let's back up a little.<br />(1) Is everyone born with a right to live?</i><br /><br />Yes. And there are thousands of deaths from firearms every year, nearly all of them avoidable. Those deaths occur from causes like the following:<br /><br />1. legal guns where a previously lawful gun owner stops acting lawfully; OR<br />2. legally owned guns transferred to criminals who use them in 40% of crimes,OR<br />3. guns purchased by legal buyers for criminals in straw purchases OR<br />4. criminals got previously legal weapons that had then passed into the hands of OTHER criminals<br /><br /><i>(2) Is everyone born with a right to protect themselves ... to defend themselves from attack?</i><br /><br />To a point. That has to be non-lethal force rather than lethal force wherever possible. Most of the pro-gunners who want this right don't make that effort; they don't use or carry a cell phone which could get them help, they do not also carry smaller, lighter, less lethal weapons like tasers and/or pepper spray. They only carry the most lethal weapons they can manage. They then dehumanize potential people they would shoot, and glamorize shooting them. This negates the premise that this is about anyone's safety. And they resist strenuously any tracking of those weapons through registration or any REASONABLE and useful efforts to restrict firearms to the safe and responsible people. They also resist ACCOUNTABILITY for the actions of shooting someone who scares them, even if they are unreasonably scared, not objectively fearful. All of which argues that this is not REALLY about anyone's safety, it is about an emotional relationship to weapons that have no objective or practical basis in self defense.<br /><br /><i>(3) Explain why we cannot use "force multipliers" to defend ourselves from attack. Force multipliers include the likes of rocks, staffs, clubs, slings, archery equipment, firearms.</i><br /><br />Because the number of instances where your LETHAL force multipliers are used in bad ways far far far outnumbers the number of people helped or saved by them. <br /><br />There is a big difference between the non-lethal 'force multipliers' - call them what they are, WEAPONS- and firearms, a very specific type of weapon. None of us here are arguing that you shouldn't use any of the above OTHER than firearms. The difference is the degree of lethality. And that extends not ONLY to the bad guys not getting killed so they can go through the legal process and consequences, it means that those NON LETHAL weapons are also not going to be useful to hurt others nearly as much as the firearms are.<br /><br />The REALITY - not your frantically death-gripped myth - is that those firearms make YOU less safe, and they sure as hell make the rest of us less safe also.<br /><br />THAT is why we advocate to restrict them. You are not as a group all that damned law abiding- ie. people like Mark Meckler in New York. You don't respect other people, you don't respect life, and you don't respect law ENOUGH.dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-32690629752268627592011-12-23T15:41:32.944+01:002011-12-23T15:41:32.944+01:00And MikeB,
Explain why we (humans) don't have...And MikeB,<br /><br />Explain why we (humans) don't have a right to own and carry a gun for the purpose of defending ourselves from violent attack?<br /><br />Every creature in the world defends itself from attack with every possible means it can muster. Grizzly bears use their teeth, claws, weight, and strength. Spitting cobras spit their venom or bite and inject venom. Elephants use their weight and strength. And guess what, if you happen to be an "innocent bystander" next to a person that threatened one of those creatures, there is a very good chance you will get injured/killed in the fray.<br /><br />Now I didn't make that last comment to justify firearms owners acting irresponsibly. What I am illustrating is that it is natural for all life to defend itself ... and that the act of defending oneself from a violent attack sometimes spills over into the surroundings.Capn Crunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05494225553563073179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-81703842638730050172011-12-23T15:04:10.648+01:002011-12-23T15:04:10.648+01:00MikeB,
Let's back up a little.
(1) Is everyo...MikeB,<br /><br />Let's back up a little.<br />(1) Is everyone born with a right to live?<br />(2) Is everyone born with a right to protect themselves ... to defend themselves from attack?<br />(3) Explain why we cannot use "force multipliers" to defend ourselves from attack. Force multipliers include the likes of rocks, staffs, clubs, slings, archery equipment, firearms.Capn Crunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05494225553563073179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-10747664675251605912011-12-23T13:15:11.765+01:002011-12-23T13:15:11.765+01:00someguy, you wish that were true and so you guys k...someguy, you wish that were true and so you guys keep repeating it like so many children whistling in the dark. The truth is owning and carrying a gun is not a basic human right. The fact that many of you guys say it is, doesn't make it so.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-36087571728300947892011-12-23T12:38:39.792+01:002011-12-23T12:38:39.792+01:00democommie:
"Oh, how very clever of you!&quo...democommie:<br /><br />"Oh, how very clever of you!"<br />Thank you.<br /><br />"Trouble is, everybody isn't born with a gun.........."<br />But everyone is born with the Right to own and carry a firearm. Everyone is born with the Right to protect themselves and gun control laws infringe on that right.someguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-73180119858755514032011-12-23T02:01:15.804+01:002011-12-23T02:01:15.804+01:00Laci,
To address your original comment, gun owner...Laci,<br /><br />To address your original comment, gun owners oppose registrations, background checks, and various regulations because all of those have been used (whether in the U.S. or in other countries) to disarm "good guys" en masse.<br /><br />I submitted a poignant post in the other article "Fix the Gun Check System" that would end all of this. I'll bet gun rights advocates would agree to all sorts of background checks, registrations, etc. if there were a Constitutional Amendment that stated all of those systems/databases/registries could only be used to disarm individual criminals. And the amendment would also have to forbid laws that either prevent or have the effect of preventing "good guys" from owning, carrying, and using guns.<br /><br />And we would need a mechanism to guarantee swift personal criminal and personal punitive action on authorities who work against the Amendment. Right now authorities all over the country impede the ability of "good guys" to own, carry, and use firearms. Since most people cannot afford a civil lawsuit to invoke an injunction against the authority, and because the government employees who hold that authority face no criminal or civil liability for impeding the "good guys", they keep doing it. As they say a policy or law "is worthless if it doesn't have any real teeth".<br /><br />Would you agree to that?Capn Crunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05494225553563073179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-39687413047751997072011-12-22T21:33:09.424+01:002011-12-22T21:33:09.424+01:00democommie,
You bring up an interesting idea on a...democommie,<br /><br />You bring up an interesting idea on an equivalent to the sex offender registry for criminals who used firearms. Off the top of my head I like the idea; I would have to think about that a while. The only down side I see are people that were truly innocent but pleaded guilty for a short sentence because they have a really shaky defense. This actually happened to my wife's uncle. Rather than risk a decade in prison, he pleaded guilty to a crime he didn't commit to ensure he spent only 6 months in jail. But it seems like the firearm thing would be more clear cut.<br /><br />I know that people are not born with firearms. What they are born with is a right to live and defend themselves. If it is morally right for someone to defend themselves with their fists, feet, pepper spray, or a club, what makes it morally wrong to defend themselves with a pistol or a shotgun?<br /><br />Interesting F.Y.I. In one particular state, it has historically been illegal to carry anything that you could use for self defense. The formal list included knives, dirks, daggers, stilettos, swords, clubs, bludgeons, blackjacks, brass knuckles, tasers, pepper spray, and all manner of firearms. That particular state recently allowed pepper spray with up to 10% O.C. and may soon allow people to carry tasers. The only defensive weapon that state allowed was concealed handguns and then only with a license to carry it which was next to impossible to acquire in many areas.<br /><br />Add in any manner of physical disability or weakness and quite often the only potentially effective choice is a firearm.Capn Crunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05494225553563073179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-19635530434280839972011-12-22T20:01:41.776+01:002011-12-22T20:01:41.776+01:00someguy:
Oh, how very clever of you!
Trouble is,...someguy:<br /><br />Oh, how very clever of you!<br /><br />Trouble is, everybody isn't born with a gun. Nor is everyone born with the desire to right the wrongs of the world by fucking bad people to death. I'm not saying that there AREN'T tons of really bad people out there whose dicks (or feminine analogs) shouldn't be registered as dangerous weapons and controlled by an external authority. I'm just saying that we're all born with some sort of sex organ (except for those with some birth defect), guns? not so much.<br /><br />Actually, I don't think that there are any "Gun offender" registries which require that people found guilty of armed robbery or some other crime involving their use of a gun have to let anyone else know where they live when their sentence is completed (including any parole). In fact, killers, according to more than a few commenters here and elsewhere should, like any other criminal, have their rights to own gunz restored when they've served their sentence. Paedophiles don't get that deal. Not that I'm a paedophilephile but, what's up wit dat?<br /><br />Before you and a couple of the true idiots here start running around shrieking and pulling hair out, I am not suggesting that paedophilia is not a serious crime OR that paedophiles should not be monitored and "kept in the system".democommiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08714733977927594559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-509494839464320782011-12-22T18:47:52.222+01:002011-12-22T18:47:52.222+01:00Mikeb302000,
I have a problem with your numbers. ...Mikeb302000,<br /><br />I have a problem with your numbers. If your numbers are correct, then basically the whole population is crazy. But I work from the idea that most people are sane and decent. There are a few bad actors. They tend to have multiple problems. Most of us, though, are healthy, mentally and morally.Greg Camphttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-5413954759734973942011-12-22T15:40:50.917+01:002011-12-22T15:40:50.917+01:00You have people with sexual desires. Naturally, al...You have people with sexual desires. Naturally, all of these people with sexual desires do not fit into one single group. So, to simplify matters, here's what I've come up with.<br /><br />First, we devide the group called "people with sexual desires" into two samller groups. Let's call them the "good guys" and the "bad guys". Immediately, our first problem arises. How do we qualify them? A generally accepted rule of measurement is, since we all believe in the presumption of innocence, sexual preditor convictions. Anyone with a sexual preditor conviction is a bad guy.<br /><br />Everyone else, they're all "good guys". Do you see the problem already? They include all of the folks that have yet to be convicted of a sexual crime. How can we let all of these suposed "good guys" live next to schools and parks and places where children play? How can we allow these alleged "good guys" work in candy stores and exercise there God given, Constitutionally protected right to live where they want to live?<br /><br />Excuse me for not using my real name, you see, I'm one of those "bad guys" who hasn't gotten a permit to exercise my rights protected by the First Amendment.someguynoreply@blogger.com