  Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 2608 Registered: 09-2005 |
As of yesterday, Thecarl, "the millions of responsible gun owners" you are so worried about included the shooter who killed the minister. He was one of your so-called "common citizenry" exercizing good judgement. Until he didn't. Tomorrow, another 10, or 100, or 1,000 of your responsible gun owners will make that magical switch. Which ones? Your neighbor? Your co-worker? Your relative? Kinda hard to tell, isn't it? They're all responsible, until they're not. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 822 Registered: 03-2008 |
Dude..do you have ANY idea how many folks in America are killed by irresponsible drivers every year? Why do you not threaten everyone who drives with confiscation/taxation in retaliation for these senseless deaths? Ban cars! Punish the many for the actions of the few! Fuck all those car-huggers who would protest, you've got a WORLD to save, dammit! While you're at it, better get everyone's knives out of the cutlery drawer and in government lockup, where they'll be safest..if you wish to eat steak, you can fill out a form and you'll be allowed use of utensils after a minimal waiting period.. And I don't wanna see any little league games being played with unregistered bats! Those things are dangerous.. Do ya think all of the above looks like childish ranting? Who would seriously limiting the use of modern conveniences due to the actions of a few miscreants? Well, that's what YOUR post looks like to anyone who understands that a gun is nothing more than a tool. It's a simple mechanical device that performs the task it is designed for, not a demonic object that warps the mind of those who dare to touch it.. "Guns kill"..pfft..might as well say "keyboards are responsible for moronic postings." | ||
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto Post Number: 3582 Registered: 10-2003 |
".do you have ANY idea how many folks in America are killed by irresponsible drivers every year?" Of course, car owners are required pay into an insurance pool to cover possible injuries to others. Are gun owners required to pay into an insurance pool to cover possible mishaps too? As for knives, I've never heard of a stray knife flying through somebody's window and killing them, and can you imagine how much quieter Detroit would be at midnight on new years if people tossed knives into the air? (Message edited by barnesfoto on March 09, 2009) | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 823 Registered: 03-2008 |
You're splitting hairs..stray knife, stray bullet, stray car, stray baseball..all can cause injury or kill, but none will do so without the help of a human mind to set them in motion. And is the insurance pool thing really your gripe, or are you knee-jerking? You obviously wouldn't deem gun-related deaths "acceptable" merely because there was a financial compensatory system in place, despite the fact that most do exactly that when rationalizing car-related deaths. It's not about the lack of insurance money for victims, it's not about the number of dead..it's rather obvious that what it IS about is some sort of irrational fear or dislike of the firearm itself. Guns are what they are..a tool. If you could wave a magic wand and "disappear" all the guns, then those who maim or kill would simply choose a different tool to complete their task. In the meantime, legitimate gun owners are far less likely to kill with their tool of choice (based on real numbers) than car owners are. It amazes me that folks who drive in the Detroit area (putting their lives in the hands of every fool in the oncoming or crossing lanes of traffic) could find it in them to fear a little chunk of lead so much..odds of getting killed by a few tons of Detroit's finest are far better than those of meeting up with a bullet. | ||
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan Post Number: 821 Registered: 08-2005 |
quote: I wonder how you would respond if the title of this thread were "responsible black man of the week" and then featured a story about a black man committing a crime. After all, all black men are responsible...until they magically switch over to being dangerous criminals. How many black men will commit crimes tomorrow in Metro Detroit alone? 500? 1000? 5000? Hey, it's only fair to stereotype, right? I could probably even cherry-pick some statistics to back up such a racist premise. Regarding the story about the Church shooter, you could have also labeled it "Responsible Christian of the week." After all, why limit ourselves to irrationally hating just one demographic based on the actions of a fraction of one percent of them? With that story, we could demonize both gun owners AND Christians! It's a two-fer! (Message edited by warriorfan on March 09, 2009) | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3417 Registered: 02-2007 |
Incidence of gun violence per amount of gun owners is off the charts low. Very small group of people abusing the right. These are the same folks typically that break all sorts of laws, deal drugs etc. They are your problem, not guns. Guns are the only means free people have of truly defending THEIR country against an overtake of their democracy by the likes of a government we just had. Some day you ignorant anti-everything-you're-not-int erested-in types might be thanking us. Hell, you may even want a gun of your own  Don't ever give up your firearms, especially now. As the economy worsens, and if it gets bad enough, you're going to need firearms to protect your assets. Like food. | ||
Emuaaron Member Username: Emuaaron Post Number: 49 Registered: 07-2005 |
Some american just acted like a prick in another country. I guess we're all pricks as well. /Barnesfoto | ||
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto Post Number: 3583 Registered: 10-2003 |
I guess it's necessary to reprint part of one of the articles: "One of the daughters crouched in the back of the car and cried to an Eastpointe police dispatcher after calling 911 that she didn't want to die, police said. Meanwhile, Lisa Griffin made her own panicked 911 call from the front seat. Sheriff's Capt. John Roberts said the calls lasted about 10 minutes as the vehicles raced from Van Dyke and I-94 in Detroit to north of 23 Mile in Chesterfield Township. Both vehicles were going more than 100 m.p.h., he said. Both men were intoxicated, the sheriff said, with Griffin showing a preliminary blood-alcohol content of .09% to Hatchett's .12%. Lisa Griffin also was intoxicated, at .08%, Hackel said. In Michigan, a person with a blood-alcohol content of .08% or higher can be convicted of drunken driving. All three have permits to carry a concealed weapon, but it's illegal to do so while drunk, so each faces a 93-day misdemeanor. (WHAT? Only 93 days? That doesn't sound like "special rights" does it?) Hatchett and Dion Griffin also are charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and drunken driving. No one was shot, but bullets hit both vehicles." For years we've been hearing the cliche' "An armed society is a polite society" Mr. Hatchett and Mr Griffin, both armed with easy to obtain handguns, ammo and the required permits, show the fallacy of that cliche' Warriorfan wrote: "I wonder how you would respond if the title of this thread were "responsible black man of the week" Last I knew, Black people are born black. Are gunhuggers born hugging guns? Were you conceived by a mother and father who clutched weapons during sex? I think not. Wave your flag of misunderstood victim if you like, but the only demographic that you resemble is that of another special interest group- The Shrieking Miami Cuban lobby- whose organization (The CANF) -like the NRA- has created a subculture of Americans with "special rights" extraordinaire. "And is the insurance pool thing really your gripe?" Yes. I'll admit that there is some logic to the oft repeated gun hugger arguments about cars being dangerous too. But when I point out that car owners are required to have insurance policies in case of car accidents, but gun owners are not, I get not an iota of admission that there is indeed a double standard. Car owners, who are in charge of something that can cause people harm, are required to carry insurance. Bar owners, who sell substances that can cause people harm, are required to carry insurance policies. I'm guessing that even baseball teams, who use bats, are required to carry insurance policies. Why are gun owners, who own a tool that can easily cause not only harm but death, NOT required to carry insurance policies in case they "suddenly" slip into "irresponsible" mode, as Mr. Griffin and Mr. Hatchet last week... Don't worry, I'm not really expecting a logical answer. What I'm expecting to hear is that that if only ALL the motorists on the freeway had been armed that night on I94 they all could have fired at the firers (you know, with one hand carefully on the steering wheel) and goodness would have prevailed. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3421 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "Both men were intoxicated," See a pattern here? Sounds like they need to outlaw intoxicants. Or control them better at least. Some people shouldn't drink at all. They were responsible gun owners until they started drinking, which impaired their judgment. How do you feel about outlawing alcoholic beverages? Should a drinkers insurance be implemented. Drinkers do kill and cause a lot of damage. Let me guess, I'll bet you're a "responsible" drinker. | ||
Umtim Member Username: Umtim Post Number: 40 Registered: 12-2007 |
Look; Lot's of folks temporarily become hateful. Some on here. If you are holding a mouse and a keyboard no one gets hurt much. If you have no weapons you can try and beat a guy to death with your hands. If you have a knife you have to walk right up the guy and knife him. He has a chance to run away. But if you have a gun you can shoot the poor guy from 100 yds and he doesn't have a chance. And if you have a drone you can do it from another continent. For myself nothing works like self restraint. But if I were to go nuts I'm glad I don't have a gun. I'm not sure that I trust some of the 2nd ammendment tools on here to maintain their compassion and love for their fellow man. | ||
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto Post Number: 3584 Registered: 10-2003 |
well, once again the man who advocates that other people speak, read and write English correctly seems to be less than perfect at reading English... Exactly where did I use the verb "Outlaw"?? " Bar owners, who sell substances that can cause people harm, are required to carry insurance policies." Why aren't gun dealers/owners required to pay into insurance pools for those harmed by guns? As for alcohol use, there has been a steady increase in penalties for DUI, thanks to organizations like MADD advocating for the rights of the families of drunk driving victims. And guess what? DUI rates have dropped. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/facts heets/drving.htm That's called "reasonable regulation" I think. In addition to the previously mentioned insurance policies carried by bar owners, there are hefty taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Why not on guns and ammo? " Special rights", anyone? | ||
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 2611 Registered: 09-2005 |
S'moo: "Some day you ignorant anti-everything-you're-not-int erested-in types might be thanking us." - And some day, when one of those "resposible gun owners" you know goes off the deep end and shoots your wife, sister, daughter, father, or best friend, you might be cursing the day you advocated for such unrestricted, reckless gun ownership. I doubt that you will be in the mood, however, to thank us for trying to help you avoid your personal tragedy. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3423 Registered: 02-2007 |
Qoute: "Exactly where did I use the verb "Outlaw"??" You didn't, I did. " hefty taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Why not on guns and ammo?" If I'm not mistaken, they're already is. There are definitely associated revenues from hunting licenses. Most states take in billions on those sales. When people stop buying them, what would you propose to replace the lost income? You have to keep in mind, gun violence is only a considerable problem is a few counties in the state. Quite frankly, I think Lansing could care less about either of them. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3424 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "when one of those "resposible gun owners" you know goes off the deep end" Responsible gun owners don't do that, if they did they wouldn't be "responsible", now would they? When a person commits a crime they are a "criminal". Responsible gun owners know that. Criminals don't care. | ||
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 2612 Registered: 09-2005 |
ZRx_doug: ...a gun is nothing more than a tool. It's a simple mechanical device that performs the task it is designed for, not a demonic object that warps the mind of those who dare to touch it.." Swell. A nuclear bomb is a mechanical device that performs the task it was designed for. Should we have unrestricted access to those also? Further, until you attack and kill someone with your kitchen Cuisinart, or your Black & Decker rotary car polisher, your tool analogy looks a bit ridiculous. | ||
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan Post Number: 826 Registered: 08-2005 |
quote: Not "special rights," it's "Bill of Rights." Look it up. The Bill of Rights guarantees the individual right to own firearms, and that this right shall not be infringed. The Supreme Court of the United States, the ONLY body with the authority to interpret the Constitution, just affirmed that the Second Amendment does indeed confer an individual RIGHT. You don't have to like guns, but you cannot line-item veto the Bill of Rights. That's makes you no better than Bush and the Republicans. It is what it is, the Founding Fathers put that Amendment in there. That document is the foundation of our laws. If you don't like it, then seek to change it through the proper means...a Constitutional Amendment ratified by 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of state legislatures. Seeking to subvert a Constitutional Right for whatever reason (increased safety, or to appease your personal tastes) makes you sound like a fascist. If you're going to ignore the parts of the constitution that you don't like, then please go join the GOP. Make all the comparisons to driving that you want; driving is a privilege not a right. Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Nobody said the Constitution was perfect, but you sure as fuck just can't ignore it because you don't like something. | ||
Thecarl Member Username: Thecarl Post Number: 917 Registered: 04-2005 |
quote: alan, your emotion is clearly getting in the way of facts. the person who shot the minister was widely known to be mentally unstable. he was not a member of the common citizenry to which i made reference, and you ought to know that. this is not a person who exercised good judgement on the day of record, or prior to the horrible incident. then again, i don't know, maybe this is the type of person you feel is normal. that wouldn't surprise me. and alan, what makes you think i am "so worried" about responsible gun owners? what i'm worried about is you, because your observations are so heavily clouded by your emotions. and think, alan - you state that gun owners are responsible until they aren't. well, non gun-owners don't own a gun, until they do. so by your compelling logic, we don't own guns, then we own guns, then we shoot each other. people who don't own guns are two steps away from shooting someone, instead of just one. it's just a matter of time. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3426 Registered: 02-2007 |
Great post Warriorfan. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 829 Registered: 03-2008 |
It's not a "tool analogy," it's a statement of fact. A gun is a tool..it's a device used to fire a projectile. A bullet-throwing tool, if you will. Take away your emotional response and look at the firearm in clarity, and it's just a hunk of cold metal. It doesn't have the power to do evil things..unless it is in the hands of an evil person. There is a loaded twelve gauge hanging above my computer monitor, not two feet from my scary gun-owner fingers as I type this..the shotgun has been kept there fairly steadily for as long as I've owned a computer (we're talking mid eighties, here)..and as I'm sure you've noticed, sometimes I am an angry man when it comes to speaking my piece online..oddly enough, the gun has only been removed for trips to the range, and on perhaps four occasions when my dogs assured me that the boogeyman was trying to break & enter.. My point? I've often been pretty damned cheesed off at the world as I sit in this chair over the past twenty-odd years, yet here hang seven rounds of potential mayhem within easy reach, and it never even occurred to me to go on a spree with it. Apparently, there's something wrong with me, I'm way overdue for my homicidal maniac conversion.. Funny thing is, of the thousands (no, really THOUSANDS) of fellow gun-folk I deal with online, not a one of them has snapped yet, either. Weird, huh? I suspect that one of us here is making claims that are somewhat skewed..  | ||
Lpg Member Username: Lpg Post Number: 121 Registered: 02-2008 |
If I am not mistaken, if you shoot someone, even in self-defense, you will most likely be sued. So liability insurance does play into it. A friend of mine is a retired police officer and works part-time in a store. His employer wanted him to carry his personal weapon when working. When he asked about being covered by the stores liability insurance, he was told they would not cover him. He refused. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4513 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Actually, the verbage used in the Second Amendment is "bear arms", which is a bit broader than "own firearms". What we have to keep in mind, though, is that although we have the right to bear arms, we don't have a right to carry guns wherever we feel like, to shoot at whatever the hell we feel like, for whatever reason we feel like. | ||
Ferntruth Member Username: Ferntruth Post Number: 775 Registered: 11-2006 |
"What we have to keep in mind, though, is that although we have the right to bear arms, we don't have a right to carry guns wherever we feel like, to shoot at whatever the hell we feel like, for whatever reason we feel like." Then how do you expect male gun-owners to prove their "manhood"? They ALL can't buy sports cars! =) | ||
Detroitchef Member Username: Detroitchef Post Number: 140 Registered: 09-2008 |
actually, the Second Amendment also refers to a 'well ordered militia' having the right to bear arms and not the individual private citizen. There was no standing army of the USA at the time it was written, merely militia groups of volunteer citizen-soldiers. The object was to allow for a 'militia' instead of a standing army and the idea of a citizen EARNING the rights set forth was inherant. Most of the nuttso gun-fans today who throw this supposed 'Bill of Rights' around I know are simply Military jockstrap sniffers, and would last about three seconds even in a Reserve unit. They demand the rights that serving militarymembers have earned for everyone. That's not to say that they are all dysfunctional sociopaths, merely a unfortunatly vocal minority | ||
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto Post Number: 3586 Registered: 10-2003 |
"the person who shot the minister was widely known to be mentally unstable" Really? Who sold this man a gun and ammo? Why is the person who sold this lunatic a gun (and ammo) not held accountable? Why is it possible that the person who sold this man a gun and ammo does not pay into an insurance pool that would compensate the family of the victim not for the loss of their husband/father (impossible) but for the lost wages?, -especially given that walking into a public place and shooting strangers is a weekly occurance in America? How is it possible that if every person who buys/operates a car (because as ZRX reminds us, a gun is just an object like a car) is required to purchase insurance, every person who buys/operates a gun is not required to purchase insurance? Again, two words: Special Rights | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3431 Registered: 02-2007 |
^Just a macho thing huh? Not really, that may be correct for some. The vast majority of gun owners are exercising their right to protect their family and home. I've seen many anti-gun types converted. All it took was some creep to start terrorizing their family/kids. And they realized how vulnerable they truly were. Cops aren't going to camp out in your driveway and restraining orders aren't worth the paper they're printed on in some cases. | ||
Wally Member Username: Wally Post Number: 586 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: quote:Looks like it says PEOPLE to me. (Message edited by wally on March 10, 2009) | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 3766 Registered: 06-2008 |
Zimm and Doug: I'm not sure why you guys are arguing about who's right here when the facts of this incident pretty much cancel out both of your arguments. "not only were both drivers carrying guns, both guns were legal, and both owners have CCW's." The fact that the initial aggressor had a legal gun and a CCW supports Zimm's argument. The fact that the 2nd guy was able to defend himself to some degree because he had a legal gun and a CCW supports Doug's argument. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4514 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: There is no RIGHT to protect your family and home with a firearm. There is a RIGHT to "bear arms"--not a right to shoot anyone you think might be threatening you. | ||
Bulletmagnet Member Username: Bulletmagnet Post Number: 1817 Registered: 01-2007 |
Barnesfoto, this is not a case of responsible gun ownership, but you know that. This is a good example of why EVERYONE should be required to be trained, and carry. Perhaps Mr. Responsible would have had second thoughts if he knew he was going to get shot back at. Bang-Bang. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 3767 Registered: 06-2008 |
"There is no RIGHT to protect your family and home with a firearm." Um, on the contrary. Every state in the union recognizes a legal right to use deadly force in order to defend oneself or 3rd persons against the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. |
