KurtGodel77 Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 another sign of a desperate man... tossing insults. Im blind, huh? http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/img_alt_srchttp_190.html http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/...34216928630.xml http://kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2668293&nav=15MUTzYc http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/8904-totshot.html http://www.cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/technique/...10/news1-s.html http://www.ktvotv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=...01&nav=1LFrTMPK http://www.kovr13.com/09sep00/091900a.htm Ok, I think that's enough for now.. My point is, you are saying that this woman should have had a gun, because it would have HELPED the situation. I said, she would have been very nervous and perhaps she wouldnt have gotten two perfect shots off. Someone said they were sure if she had a gun she was trained well enough to know how to use it... as seen above, that is OBVIOUSLY not the case. 164291[/snapback] Story 1: A mother who gives her baby Tylenol and a nap after the baby has been shot. Story 2: a 17 year old mother, and a father who'd had a felony conviction before the gun was even fired. Story 3: A mother who leaves a gun lying around in reach of her five year old son, and who has outstanding warrants against her. Story 4: An 18-year old father who'd filed the serial numbers off his gun. Prior to the gun incident, he'd been charged with aggravated simple assault, possession of a weapon, possession of illegal drugs, and terrorist threats. Story 5: A college student who was unfamiliar with weapons was messing around with a gun. Story 6: An accidental shot to the arm while loading a gun for a hunting trip. Story 7: An accidental POLICE gunshot killed a kid while the police were raiding a home; looking for the kid's father. Okay, so the first four studies prove that idiots will endanger themselves with guns. This is true, but idiots will also endanger themselves and others by operating vehicles, using machine tools, or really doing just about anything. Stories 5 and 6 show that you need to be familiar with guns to be able to safely handle them. Story 7 shows . . . what exactly? That police SWAT teams shouldn't have guns? I'm not sure why that one is in there.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 Ohh... Might I add... I could see the pro-gun's side better if the perps actually had a firearm... They didn't... That might have changed my thinking?
Alaska Darin Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 Ohh... Might I add... I could see the pro-gun's side better if the perps actually had a firearm... They didn't... That might have changed my thinking? 164377[/snapback] Yeah, because them only having a knife kept the baby from getting injured. Nice lahjik there, as usual.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 Uh, OK. 164374[/snapback] Somehow I knew you would agree.
KurtGodel77 Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 I see your point... Yet, it doesn't always go smooth. Most likely the story would have read "3 yr old gets accidently shot by mother," or " dirt bags shoot mother and child with mother's gun." What we just laid out are the possible outcomes... Of course I would take the best, it also carries the most risk... Some don't see it that way, fine. Lay out all possible outcomes and you will see that introducing a firearm makes EVERYTHING that much more risky... Nothing works perfectly in life. 164372[/snapback] I guess we see things differently. If you're a woman in the presence of men capable of stabbing a three-year-old in the abdomen, you're already in a risky situation. The only limits to what men like these will do are those you create.
Simon Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 Lay out all possible outcomes and you will see that introducing a firearm makes EVERYTHING that much more risky Yeah, particularly for the idiots who were threatening women and children w/ knives. That being said, I still think there's more to this story than meets they eye.
taterhill Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 this bores me..would anyone like to go to my place and listen to some music
Alaska Darin Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 I guess we see things differently. If you're a woman in the presence of men capable of stabbing a three-year-old in the abdomen, you're already in a risky situation. The only limits to what men like these will do are those you create. 164380[/snapback] You have to realize that you are talking to a person who doesn't think ANYTHING is worth fighting for.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 Yeah, because them only having a knife kept the baby from getting injured. Nice lahjik there, as usual. 164378[/snapback] The situation is unfortunate and terrible and the two are living because no firearm was introduced. I know in your world it is all or nothing. The important thing is getting both victims out alive... That is what happened. Yes, it would have been great if nobody sustained injuries and the perps would have been clipped... Would that have stopped the stabbing? When did the stabbing actually take place?... From what I interpreted, they weren't even sure at first if the kid had been stabbed? I heard a story about a family member (I think it took place about 40 years ago) walking in Buffalo... A guy brushed up against him... Thought nothing of it... When he got home, he noticed blood and that he was stabbed in the gut?
Mediaman Posted December 17, 2004 Author Posted December 17, 2004 this bores me..would anyone like to go to my place and listen to some music 164382[/snapback] Will you play anything from Ted Nugent?
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 Yeah, particularly for the idiots who were threatening women and children w/ knives.That being said, I still think there's more to this story than meets they eye. 164381[/snapback] I agree Simon... I am not totally in the anti-gun camp...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 You have to realize that you are talking to a person who doesn't think ANYTHING is worth fighting for. 164383[/snapback] You are way off base Darin... And unfair... All you know of me is what is said on these boards...
KurtGodel77 Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 The situation is unfortunate and terrible and the two are living because no firearm was introduced. I know in your world it is all or nothing. The important thing is getting both victims out alive... That is what happened. Yes, it would have been great if nobody sustained injuries and the perps would have been clipped... Would that have stopped the stabbing? When did the stabbing actually take place?... From what I interpreted, they weren't even sure at first if the kid had been stabbed? I heard a story about a family member (I think it took place about 40 years ago) walking in Buffalo... A guy brushed up against him... Thought nothing of it... When he got home, he noticed blood and that he was stabbed in the gut? 164385[/snapback] In THIS PARTICULAR case, the woman and her child escaped alive. Many women abducted by similar men get raped and murdered. You're acting as though a passive and submissive strategy is a low-risk one for female victims of crime. It isn't. The ONLY way to eliminate the risk a criminal creates is to put him in jail or kill him.
_BiB_ Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 and the two are living because no firearm was introduced Just how do you know that for certain? Many, many times-the perp retreats out the door as fast as he can at the mere sight of a firearm. It's very low percentage for them. It's much easier to rob or rape a defenseless target. One would assume that these are easy to find. If they advance, the key thing is to be willing to use it once it comes out. In situations where people have had their own weapon used against them, chances are they were unfamiliar with the weapon (lack of training/practice) or lacked the will to actually use it (shouldn't have had one, not emotionally equipped).
Alaska Darin Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 The situation is unfortunate and terrible and the two are living because no firearm was introduced. I know in your world it is all or nothing. The important thing is getting both victims out alive... That is what happened. Yes, it would have been great if nobody sustained injuries and the perps would have been clipped... Would that have stopped the stabbing? When did the stabbing actually take place?... From what I interpreted, they weren't even sure at first if the kid had been stabbed? I heard a story about a family member (I think it took place about 40 years ago) walking in Buffalo... A guy brushed up against him... Thought nothing of it... When he got home, he noticed blood and that he was stabbed in the gut? 164385[/snapback] I don't know and neither do you. But the "carte blanche" attitude that introducing a firearm would have automatically made it worse pisses me off, as does the use of stupid media stories from the anti-gun side of the argument. You don't want to own a gun? Fine. Just don't demonize them like you're some kind of expert on the subject.
Alaska Darin Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 In THIS PARTICULAR case, the woman and her child escaped alive. Many women abducted by similar men get raped and murdered. You're acting as though a passive and submissive strategy is a low-risk one for female victims of crime. It isn't. The ONLY way to eliminate the risk a criminal creates is to put him in jail or kill him. 164401[/snapback] I could tell stories all day about people who submitted and were then horribly abused and later killed.
Dan Gross Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 Steve, just for larks, I had done something similar to you. I did a GG search on accidental shooting burglary. This is one of the first things that came up. I suggest you read it. It's clear what the author's bias is, and I don't agree with a lot of the editorializing, but many stats in there stand out, bias considered.... http://www.haciendapub.com/edcor12.html
stevestojan Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 I don't know and neither do you. But the "carte blanche" attitude that introducing a firearm would have automatically made it worse pisses me off, as does the use of stupid media stories from the anti-gun side of the argument. You don't want to own a gun? Fine. Just don't demonize them like you're some kind of expert on the subject. 164409[/snapback] Ok, that's a level headed reply. But, let me at least take your sentence ans say it to some others here: You want to own a gun? Fine. Just don't make them seem like they will solve every bad situation like you're some kind of expert on the subject.
pdh1 Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 I don't know and neither do you. But the "carte blanche" attitude that introducing a firearm would have automatically made it worse pisses me off, as does the use of stupid media stories from the anti-gun side of the argument. You don't want to own a gun? Fine. Just don't demonize them like you're some kind of expert on the subject. 164409[/snapback] Any one on the board from the D.C. area? They had a horrible problem with carjackings. Once they passed a law allowing citizens (if they past an exam) to carry concealed fire arms, carjackings went WAY down. Doing away with guns only works if the bad guys are made to get rid of theirs as well. Otherwise it is easy pickens for them. And the bad guys are the ones who apply for a permit.
Alaska Darin Posted December 17, 2004 Posted December 17, 2004 Just don't make them seem like they will solve every bad situation like you're some kind of expert on the subject. 164422[/snapback] You find one place where I've ever said something even remotely similiar. Hint: It doesn't exist. I'm sick of the uninformed pissing on the Constitutional right that our ancestors spilled their blood to ensure.
Recommended Posts