Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second
| Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second [message #284040 is a reply to message #284024] |
Thu, 13 September 2007 05:37   |
|
|
| Memphis wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 07:38 |
What would you happen if you shoot a a thief in the face while he is going about his business? You don't know if this person is armed or not they could well have nothing on them at all and I would have thought murder is a worse crime than stealing a DVD player to buy some crack. I think the idea of using a gun for protection is completely flawed. On the other hand I'm not expecting you to sit him down and bake him some muffins. If someone comes in your house they are a threat therefore you would do anything you can to get them out of your property. I personally think that if someone came into my house I WOULD use a weapon (such as a Cricket or Baseball bat) not because I need it but because it is there. If I had a gun I feel is it likely that I would turn the gun on them without a moments hesitation. I wouldn't do it because I want to but because I could. You would be thinking with adrenalin and not your brain. Before anyone says that I have no idea what a gun is I have done quite a bit of target shooting and was considering getting a rifle myself but decided not to. With that in mind evidently I think firearms in sport and hunting are completely acceptable but only if they have sufficient regulation.
|
As long as you're not trying to take the guns out of my hands as personal protection, then I don't care if you don't feel comfortable wielding a gun. That's not my issue to worry about, and that's your problem when someone attacks you and you're left with "oh shit, NOW I see how a gun would have come in handy."
How the fuck is it flawed? If I'm being robbed at home or on the streets, I need to protect myself. I don't care if I would react without thinking and shoot someone. They're invading MY space with intent to HARM me, my friends, or my family, whether it be physically or financially. Why should I care about THEIR well-being when I AM the VICTIM? Whatever happens to them happens. If you're worried about that happening, you might as well throw all of your belongings out into your yard and let people take what they wish. You obviously don't seem to care.
I don't understand how people can just think that if you are unarmed that somehow you come out better in the situation. If you want to live in this fairy tale world where criminals actually respect law-abiding citizens, then be my guest, but that's far from the real world. If they respected you AT ALL, they wouldn't be robbing you, would they?
How many times must I and others say this? IF YOU REGULATE THE PURCHASING OF GUNS, YOU HARM THE LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE A GUN. CRIMINALS AREN'T AFFECTED. IF CRIMINALS ARE WILLING TO MURDER AND COMMIT OTHER CRIMES, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THEY'D OBEY A GUN LAW?
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second [message #284049 is a reply to message #283422] |
Thu, 13 September 2007 06:16 |
|
|
Now I know you people are idiots. Even Jackie Mason thinks you're all "fuckin' morons". I'm quite inclined to agree.
It boggles the mind to think that people would care more about their attackers than themselves. I don't care much for possessions, but I'm not about to give up what I have to some criminal. If I can defend myself, I will, and if it's lethal force, so be it. A dead man can't rob me or anybody else, can he?
Even if you don't care about yourself, think about what happens if you let that person go? If they rob someone once, they're bound to do it again to someone else. What if, that time, the criminal decides to HARM that other victim? It's certainly happened. Criminals generally aren't one-time criminals.
If you don't want to have a gun for fear of someone you love being hurt, then don't own one. However, don't prevent me from owning one even by regulating it. If my child or friend gets killed by my gun, then let that blood be on MY hands. Allow me to take responsibility for MY actions. I don't want your "protection" from myself.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second [message #284050 is a reply to message #284049] |
Thu, 13 September 2007 06:22 |
 |
AoBfrost
Messages: 1248
Registered: March 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 09:16 |
Now I know you people are idiots. Even Jackie Mason thinks you're all "fuckin' morons". I'm quite inclined to agree.
It boggles the mind to think that people would care more about their attackers than themselves. I don't care much for possessions, but I'm not about to give up what I have to some criminal. If I can defend myself, I will, and if it's lethal force, so be it. A dead man can't rob me or anybody else, can he?
Even if you don't care about yourself, think about what happens if you let that person go? If they rob someone once, they're bound to do it again to someone else. What if, that time, the criminal decides to HARM that other victim? It's certainly happened. Criminals generally aren't one-time criminals.
If you don't want to have a gun for fear of someone you love being hurt, then don't own one. However, don't prevent me from owning one even by regulating it. If my child or friend gets killed by my gun, then let that blood be on MY hands. Allow me to take responsibility for MY actions. I don't want your "protection" from myself.
|
Yes, Cheese is right, if they do it once, why not say they will do it again? what will stop them? no one, they will rob and hurt others as long as theyu can get what they want, thats why it should be that if you can defend yourself, then do so, call 911 if you dont wanna "fight" the guy, the just do it so cops will come atleast......
| Scrin wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 12:19 |
''whoa im the photoshop''
|
KANE LIVES!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second [message #284056 is a reply to message #284040] |
Thu, 13 September 2007 06:42 |
 |
Memphis
Messages: 227
Registered: January 2005
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 08:37 |
I don't understand how people can just think that if you are unarmed that somehow you come out better in the situation. If you want to live in this fairy tale world where criminals actually respect law-abiding citizens, then be my guest, but that's far from the real world. If they respected you AT ALL, they wouldn't be robbing you, would they?
|
That is just you being completely paranoid. Yes America can be dangerous as can other places but it is hardly a Johannesburg is it? All of this talk is just scare mongering to me as people will get the impression that at any minute an armed man will jump through your window and threaten to kill everyone if they don't get all of your jewelery and prized possessions.
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 08:37 |
How many times must I and others say this? IF YOU REGULATE THE PURCHASING OF GUNS, YOU HARM THE LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE A GUN. CRIMINALS AREN'T AFFECTED. IF CRIMINALS ARE WILLING TO MURDER AND COMMIT OTHER CRIMES, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THEY'D OBEY A GUN LAW?
|
As for controlling regulation it should mean you have a better idea of who is getting hold of this hardware and the type of people getting hold of it. This is about lethal weapons that are designed to kill being sold in a supermarket. I would have thought it would be a lot easier for criminals to steal weaponry from a supermarket than a proper armory in a gun shop. If there are less guns in circulation you would have thought it would be easier to track down ones that were not acquired by legal means.
Shootings and violence happens everywhere and it isn't just done by criminals such as in the Hungerford Massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
And the Dunblane Massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
In both of these cases these people could actually legally use the firearms which meant that they must have gone through some kind of process as to what type of person they are. If people don't even have go go through that problems such as these can only get worse.
You should really stop being so pig-headed by the way cheesesoda, calling people idiots and retards is just rude and does nothing in debates such as these. I at least am 'open' to your points even if I don't agree with them whereas you just get angry and defensive.
[Updated on: Thu, 13 September 2007 06:43] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second [message #284061 is a reply to message #283422] |
Thu, 13 September 2007 07:21 |
|
|
| Memphis |
| cheesesoda |
I don't understand how people can just think that if you are unarmed that somehow you come out better in the situation. If you want to live in this fairy tale world where criminals actually respect law-abiding citizens, then be my guest, but that's far from the real world. If they respected you AT ALL, they wouldn't be robbing you, would they?
|
That is just you being completely paranoid. Yes America can be dangerous as can other places but it is hardly a Johannesburg is it? All of this talk is just scare mongering to me as people will get the impression that at any minute an armed man will jump through your window and threaten to kill everyone if they don't get all of your jewelery and prized possessions.
|
No, the paranoia is, "LOL OMG WUT IF KIDZ GET A HOLD OF GUNZ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!/1/!?!?!/!?1/"
My whole argument is that you never know what's going to happen or when it's going to happen. Just because you can't predict it doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. Like I said earlier, I got into a car accident in 2005. Before that, I never had been, so car insurance didn't come into play... until the accident. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it won't happen.
| Memphis |
| cheesesoda |
How many times must I and others say this? IF YOU REGULATE THE PURCHASING OF GUNS, YOU HARM THE LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE A GUN. CRIMINALS AREN'T AFFECTED. IF CRIMINALS ARE WILLING TO MURDER AND COMMIT OTHER CRIMES, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THEY'D OBEY A GUN LAW?
|
As for controlling regulation it should mean you have a better idea of who is getting hold of this hardware and the type of people getting hold of it. This is about lethal weapons that are designed to kill being sold in a supermarket. I would have thought it would be a lot easier for criminals to steal weaponry from a supermarket than a proper armory in a gun shop. If there are less guns in circulation you would have thought it would be easier to track down ones that were not acquired by legal means.
Shootings and violence happens everywhere and it isn't just done by criminals such as in the Hungerford Massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
And the Dunblane Massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
In both of these cases these people could actually legally use the firearms which meant that they must have gone through some kind of process as to what type of person they are. If people don't even have go go through that problems such as these can only get worse.
|
Okay, so it regulates the type of law-abiding citizen purchasing a gun. What does it do for the type of criminal purchasing a gun? If I want a gun that badly, I could go to the black market and purchase a gun fairly easily. THEN it couldn't even be traced back to me if it's a stolen gun. Again, who's at the disadvantage? Me, the law-abiding citizen, or them, the criminal?
If those shooting happened where guns are legal, think about what happens in "Gun Free Zones".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
Both of those were in "gun free zones". That didn't help, did it?
How about some proof that guns can stop crime? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
| Memphis |
You should really stop being so pig-headed by the way cheesesoda, calling people idiots and retards is just rude and does nothing in debates such as these. I at least am 'open' to your points even if I don't agree with them whereas you just get angry and defensive.
|
I get angry and defensive because you're taking away MY rights to defend myself, my possessions, and my family. I don't take kindly to those who think they know how I should live my life better than I do. If you don't want to own a gun, that's fine. You'll only have yourself to blame if you find yourself at the business end of a gun and no way to protect yourself other than yelling, "HELP!" Good luck with that.
As for regulating the AMOUNT of guns in circulation: Guns can be created by just about anyone. While they may be crude, they'd still be effective. Even if it DID work (which defies logic), criminals would still have plenty of alternatives to choose from.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second [message #284070 is a reply to message #283422] |
Thu, 13 September 2007 08:06 |
|
AoBfrost
Messages: 1248
Registered: March 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Certain guns like BB guns, kids pellet rifles, and small low powered pistols are ok, they rally couldnt kill someone, maybe a small bird or rat, but not someone, I've accidentally shot myself with a pellet and removed it myself, yes it hurt, but life threatening? no.
vertain things like high powered shtoguns, rifles, and semi automatic guns need to require a licence, those are the deadly ones.
| Scrin wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 12:19 |
''whoa im the photoshop''
|
KANE LIVES!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second [message #284083 is a reply to message #284078] |
Thu, 13 September 2007 08:46 |
|
|
| Ryu wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 11:31 |
The real problem is the fact guns aren't controlled.
|
How in the fuck do you suppose we "control" them?
Regardless, why should we control them? The people need to control themselves. We can't control the people, and I know everybody arguing for gun control uses this as an argument, but the ideology that since we can't control the people, we must control the weapon is absurd. You're punishing people like me who would control themselves with their weapons. Just because you can't control the people doesn't give you the right to infringe on the rights of the people.
Again, who the fuck are you to tell me that I can't be trusted to be responsible for myself and my actions? Fuck the lot of you.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second [message #284086 is a reply to message #284083] |
Thu, 13 September 2007 08:51 |
 |
Ryu
Messages: 2833
Registered: September 2006
Location: Liverpool, England.
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 10:46 |
| Ryu wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 11:31 |
The real problem is the fact guns aren't controlled.
|
How in the fuck do you suppose we "control" them?
Regardless, why should we control them? The people need to control themselves. We can't control the people, and I know everybody arguing for gun control uses this as an argument, but the ideology that since we can't control the people, we must control the weapon is absurd. You're punishing people like me who would control themselves with their weapons. Just because you can't control the people doesn't give you the right to infringe on the rights of the people.
Again, who the fuck are you to tell me that I can't be trusted to be responsible for myself and my actions? Fuck the lot of you.
|
You misunderstood me, Other Governments sell them, Doesn't matter to who, As long as they profit, And they make their way to criminals.
Presence is a curious thing, if you think you need to prove it... you probably never had it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second [message #284106 is a reply to message #284086] |
Thu, 13 September 2007 09:30 |
|
|
| Ryu wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 11:51 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 10:46 |
| Ryu wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 11:31 |
The real problem is the fact guns aren't controlled.
|
How in the fuck do you suppose we "control" them?
Regardless, why should we control them? The people need to control themselves. We can't control the people, and I know everybody arguing for gun control uses this as an argument, but the ideology that since we can't control the people, we must control the weapon is absurd. You're punishing people like me who would control themselves with their weapons. Just because you can't control the people doesn't give you the right to infringe on the rights of the people.
Again, who the fuck are you to tell me that I can't be trusted to be responsible for myself and my actions? Fuck the lot of you.
|
You misunderstood me, Other Governments sell them, Doesn't matter to who, As long as they profit, And they make their way to criminals.
|
Yet if every law-abiding citizen (or most) owned guns, that wouldn't matter.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 13 14:32:45 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01320 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
