Originally Posted By ecdc <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28436046&nid=757&title=guns-in-home-increase-suicide-homicide-risk&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-4">http://www.ksl.com/?sid=284360...=queue-4</a> Hey, whaddya know! >>Proponents of stricter gun laws have another headline to bolster their efforts: Access to firearms in the home increases the risk of violent death.<<
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I was justified in all cases.<< Uh huh. I'm sure you think you are. Kar2oonMan said it best: when all you've got is a hammer....
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Justified perhaps, but necessary? 1. Would announcing your presence and telling him to knock it off accomplished the same thing? 2. If they were not in your home you would have likely had no right to actually shoot, so you were just scaring them off. Wouldn't the alarm from a home security system (my home has one) have accomplished the same thing? 3. That's what door locks are for. 4. Go inside (if you were outside), slam the door in his face and lock it. What always concerns me is the people most likely to be killed by a gun in the home are the gun owner or someone who lives there. Is it worth the risk? By the way... I don't have a big problem with the two instances when you were at your home. That is a whole different deal than carrying one in public.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Tell you what - we'll allow you to require presenting a photo ID to vote if you allow requiring an ID to buy ammo.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer And, Donny, once again you are missing the point. There is nothing in gun registration laws that would prevent you from carrying a gun to protect your family. No one here is trying to take guns away from lawful owners, only to make sure that people with guns can lawfully have them. No one here is trying to take guns away from lawful owners, only to make sure that people with guns can lawfully have them. No one here is trying to take guns away from lawful owners, only to make sure that people with guns can lawfully have them. No one here is trying to take guns away from lawful owners, only to make sure that people with guns can lawfully have them. No one here is trying to take guns away from lawful owners, only to make sure that people with guns can lawfully have them. No one here is trying to take guns away from lawful owners, only to make sure that people with guns can lawfully have them. No one here is trying to take guns away from lawful owners, only to make sure that people with guns can lawfully have them. No one here is trying to take guns away from lawful owners, only to make sure that people with guns can lawfully have them.
Originally Posted By Donny Tell you what - we'll allow you to require presenting a photo ID to vote if you allow requiring an ID to buy ammo. perfect. Done
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "I know the girl at the mailbox was very very thankful I was there." You're probably lucky the guy who had the girl didn't have a gun, if he had he probably would have pulled it out, things would have escalated and most likely it would have gotten really ugly from there. She may have even gotten injured or worse.
Originally Posted By ecdc Exactly. These are not stories about how swell guns are, they are stories of absolute luck that could've gone horribly wrong a million different ways.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip And today a student in a classroom at Purdue University was shot to death. Just one more casualty in the ongoing battle to protect our constitutional rights. Praise God and pass the ammunition. [rolleyes] TomSawyer... I would restrict the right to carry a weapon in public places other than shooting ranges etc. No one needs to be carrying guns into classrooms, theaters, restaurants, etc except for law enforcement personnel or those with an occupational need to do so(such as professional, paid security guards).
Originally Posted By Donny Yeah I guess it's more acceptable if he is drunk and in a car to kill someone.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ No, as MANY have said here before,it ISN'T. That is why it is illegal.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck Something to consider... <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://youtu.be/8j0E5sI-QfY">http://youtu.be/8j0E5sI-QfY</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Something to consider…<< That was posted well before Obama was reelected. It doesn't apply here.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Now more than ever, I'm convinced that Donny is against gun registration because he would be denied ownership if it were required. Maybe it pertains to his military discharge. Perhaps PTSD? No way any vet with PTSD would ever qualify for gun ownership should registration become the law of the land. And rightfully so, I might add. For very good reasons!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Now more than ever, I'm convinced that Donny is against gun registration because he would be denied ownership if it were required. Maybe it pertains to his military discharge. Perhaps PTSD? No way any vet with PTSD would ever qualify for gun ownership should registration become the law of the land. And rightfully so, I might add. For very good reasons!>> I have no idea if it involves PTSD or even if it involves being refused gun ownership if he had to register his weapons. I do STRONGLY suspect that it involves something personal... his obsession seems way beyond anything that would be created by religious dogma. I don't know if he had an alcohol problem at some time in the past, or if alcohol use by others at some time had a major impact on him or his family. But there is something here that we don't know about.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Yeah I guess it's more acceptable if he is drunk and in a car to kill someone*** No, it's illegal and thus less acceptable. What people are demanding here is that they both be unacceptable. But you have comprehension issues, or else you're ignoring these statements purposefully (I'm guessing option "A").
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I do STRONGLY suspect that it involves something personal... his obsession seems way beyond anything that would be created by religious dogma" <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKedRiHhnUk">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...dRiHhnUk</a>
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Donny, you are an idiot. You don't have to be in combat to experience PTSD. Domestic violence survivors often have PTSD. Witnesses of one single instance of violent crime often get PTSD. Rape victims routinely suffer from PTSD. Even individuals whose homes have been burglarized and their possessions violated while they were away have become sufferers of PTSD. Simply serving in the military and training for the demands of combat have triggered PTSD in many individuals. You are displaying all of the classic paranoid thoughts and anxious declarations of someone who suffers from some kind of psychological dysfunction such as PTSD. Maybe you don't have PTSD. But you're definitely a narcissist with paranoid delusions. Any cop would tell you that all four of those instances where you pulled out your gun basically invited death. You're damned effn lucky you weren't shot. My brother-in-law trains cops at his local police academy and at two nearby community colleges. He would have *never* pulled out his gun (he's required to carry 24/7) in any of those situations without backup. Especially on the guy who had his roommate in a choke hold. You're lucky that idiot didn't have a gun tucked in his waistband ready to be pulled out and used against you in the blink of an eye. Given your George Zimmerman attitude towards other individuals and your zeal to play 'pretend police' like Zimmerman in these four situations, it's a wonder you're still alive.
