The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 302
  1. #261
    Join Date
    Feb. 15, 2004
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    8,141

    Default

    Everyone keeps saying that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns... well, I bet the mother was a law abiding citizen, wasn't she? Still, did that help her? No, because the guns were accessible to someone unstable... So, I also believe that the more guns, the more accessible they will be to the ones who want to get them.

    It makes me feel very uncomfortable to read about so many owning guns and willing to use them if someone trespasses their property. Wow...

    Comparing the guns to knives, cars, etc. is stupid... just trying to again skirt the problem and not deal with it.

    I am glad I grew up and I live in a different culture... really... I don't think the rest of the world is very impressed by the American way of life right now... but, you probably don't care... Scary, very scary! It is a vicious circle ...


    5 members found this post helpful.

  2. #262
    Join Date
    Mar. 14, 2004
    Location
    Left coast, left wing, left field
    Posts
    6,426

    Default

    I have some questions. First of all, many folks on this board are saying that they are responsible gun owners, and I fully believe this. That being the case, what restrictions do you think would be made under gun control that would personally affect you? What tests or restrictions would you be likely to fail? And if you were to fail them does that mean they are wrong? Or is it just the very idea of restriction that causes so much anguish?

    Secondly I am being bombarded on Facebook with examples of murders and crimes committed without guns. I don't see how this is relevant. Because we cannot stop everything we shouldn't stop anything? At the risk of sounding horrible, wouldn't it have been better if fewer children had died in Connecticut? Fewer because it wasn't possible to spray so much gun power in such a short period of time? What if someone said they had heard about an old lady getting confused and driving her car into a crowd of people. Because of that it isn't fair to condemn drunk drivers. After all here was an example of a tragedy occurring where the person wasn't drunk.

    I'd be happy if we just made it more difficult for horrible things like the Connecticut shooting to happen. I don't need to make it impossible to feel like progress has been made. And I don't see how this would ever affect the law-abiding gun owning citizens that COTHers seem to be.
    Arrange whatever pieces come your way. - Virginia Woolf

    Did you know that if you say the word "GULLIBLE" really softly, it sounds like "ORANGES"?


    3 members found this post helpful.

  3. #263
    Join Date
    Jan. 19, 2000
    Location
    Ellijay, GA
    Posts
    6,040

    Default

    For those of you that say you are appaulled by the number of people who own guns who say they would use them if someone broke into their home, etc....Ok...what would YOU do in that situation?

    If you were home, with your children, or alone and someone broke into your home what is your plan of action? I am not trying to say one way is better than the other, I am just wondering how those of you without guns or who think us gun owners are gun toting "yahoos" would react in that situation?

    The mother of the killer had guns in her home that were assecable to a mentally disabled person...she may have had those guns legally, but she should have known better, as a mother and as a human. She should not have had them at all, or in the least, where he had access to them.

    I keep saying this over and over, this is MORE than a gun control issue folks and if all we are going to do is point fingers and blame all gun owners than it will never get solved.
    Busy Bee Farm, Ellijay, GA
    Never Ride Faster Than Your Guardian Angel Can Fly
    Way Back Texas~04/20/90-09/17/08
    Green Alligator "Captain"


    2 members found this post helpful.

  4. #264
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    8,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by relocatedTXjumpr View Post
    For those of you that say you are appaulled by the number of people who own guns who say they would use them if someone broke into their home, etc....Ok...what would YOU do in that situation?

    If you were home, with your children, or alone and someone broke into your home what is your plan of action? I am not trying to say one way is better than the other, I am just wondering how those of you without guns or who think us gun owners are gun toting "yahoos" would react in that situation?

    The mother of the killer had guns in her home that were assecable to a mentally disabled person...she may have had those guns legally, but she should have known better, as a mother and as a human. She should not have had them at all, or in the least, where he had access to them.

    I keep saying this over and over, this is MORE than a gun control issue folks and if all we are going to do is point fingers and blame all gun owners than it will never get solved.
    She should have known better than to buy a gun for personal protection when there was a dangerous individual around in her family? When are guns suitable for personal protection then? When there are NO dangerous people around who may use your own personal protection device to shoot you in the face and go kill 26 others?
    But isn't the whole point of "personal protection" to protect yourself against dangerous people?

    So she apparently, hindsight being 20/20 and all, was supposed to deliberately divest herself of her personal protection because her dangerous contacts were obviously too dangerous for her to be having this personal protection lying around, but all the other perceived dangers that are going to come get people on their farms, those are ok dangerous people to personally protect yourself from (you know, as long as they don't shoot you in the face first), the key logic here being that if people who might harm you are really and truly dangerous and psycopathic, you should know better and get rid of your guns, because then obviously anyone can see that the weapons are more likely to be used against the gunowner and other innocents than to actually serve any protective purpose for you individually.

    Okey dokey.



  5. #265
    Join Date
    Jan. 19, 2000
    Location
    Ellijay, GA
    Posts
    6,040

    Default

    She should have made sure he didnt have access to them, and damn sure shouldnt have taken him to the gun range. Youre afraid of your kid and want a weapon just in case, fine...but lock it in a safe or somewhere only YOU have access to.
    Busy Bee Farm, Ellijay, GA
    Never Ride Faster Than Your Guardian Angel Can Fly
    Way Back Texas~04/20/90-09/17/08
    Green Alligator "Captain"


    3 members found this post helpful.

  6. #266
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    8,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by relocatedTXjumpr View Post
    She should have made sure he didnt have access to them, and damn sure shouldnt have taken him to the gun range. Youre afraid of your kid and want a weapon just in case, fine...but lock it in a safe or somewhere only YOU have access to.
    So then when this kid you are terrified of comes in you house with a meat cleaver, you can say, "Hold on a minute. Let me just get the closet key from the desk in the den, and then unlock the closet so I can get to the safe where I keep the semi automatic weapons for personal protection, and when I have all that unlocked I'll get the bullets from under the bed in the guest room and then I'll come back downstairs and then we can talk."

    If the guns are not going to be "accessible" to the dangerous people, they also won't be "accessible" (at least not in a timely manner) to their owners. So, if you are going to have a gun you may want to think in advance that it will be just as accessible (or not) to you as anyone else.

    Either way, I'm pleased to see the thread has turned to blaming the lawful gunowners who should have known better when the semi automatic weapons they insisted on buying for personal protection (rah rah second amendment!!) then get used to slaughter innocents, since you know, THEN they should have known better.

    Try telling that to the gun owners BEFORE their own guns get used to slaughter seven year ds.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #267
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2007
    Location
    Hollowed out volcano in the South Pacific.
    Posts
    11,479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meupatdoes View Post
    So then when this kid you are terrified of comes in you house with a meat cleaver, you can say, "Hold on a minute. Let me just get the closet key from the desk in the den, and then unlock the closet so I can get to the safe where I keep the semi automatic weapons for personal protection, and when I have all that unlocked I'll get the bullets from under the bed in the guest room and then I'll come back downstairs and then we can talk."

    If the guns are not going to be "accessible" to the dangerous people, they also won't be "accessible" (at least not in a timely manner) to their owners. So, if you are going to have a gun you may want to think in advance that it will be just as accessible (or not) to you as anyone else.
    You Tazer the little shit and proceed to kick him in the head repeatedly with a few stomps here and there for good measure until the Police arrive. That's how you handle a kid with a meat cleaver.
    Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!


    2 members found this post helpful.

  8. #268
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    8,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post
    You Tazer the little shit and proceed to kick him in the head repeatedly with a few stomps here and there for good measure until the Police arrive. That's how you handle a kid with a meat cleaver.
    So the approved weaponry has been downgraded to Tasers now?

    Is this only for people who fear truly dangerous connections they may jave, or for everyone else too?



  9. #269
    Join Date
    Jan. 19, 2000
    Location
    Ellijay, GA
    Posts
    6,040

    Default

    I am not blaming lawful gun owners...I am one.

    In the case of mental illness, I think you have to change your entire way of thinking, not just about protection, but about everyday life. If your that scared of the kid, keep you carry gun ON you, or carry a taser, carry pepperspray, something else to deter him until you can either get to your weapon, get out of the house, or call police, or all of the above. There are other options.

    Since you are so quick to jump on me for making a statement, why dont you offer a solution??

    See, THIS is the problem, no one can have a meaningful, respectful conversation or debate about this because people get offended and are quick to judge and say "because I can!", and "who are YOU to say..."
    Busy Bee Farm, Ellijay, GA
    Never Ride Faster Than Your Guardian Angel Can Fly
    Way Back Texas~04/20/90-09/17/08
    Green Alligator "Captain"


    3 members found this post helpful.

  10. #270
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2003
    Location
    Happily in Canada
    Posts
    4,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by relocatedTXjumpr View Post
    In the case of mental illness, I think you have to change your entire way of thinking, not just about protection, but about everyday life. If your that scared of the kid, keep you carry gun ON you, or carry a taser, carry pepperspray, something else to deter him until you can either get to your weapon, get out of the house, or call police, or all of the above. There are other options.
    I'm going to go ahead and agree with meupatdoes' premise. That is exactly what I think, too. Either the gun is accessible to you AND the "bad guy" - or it isn't.

    As you pointed out above, there are other options available than a gun. Yet most gun owners I've spoken to (here) say you shouldn't have or aim a gun, unless you mean to kill. That is the mindset that I find scary. I would rather have people who are aiming to deter, disable, get away, call police.
    Blugal

    You never know what kind of obsessive compulsive crazy person you are until another person imitates your behaviour at a three-day. --Gry2Yng



  11. #271
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    8,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by relocatedTXjumpr View Post
    I am not blaming lawful gun owners...I am one.

    In the case of mental illness, I think you have to change your entire way of thinking, not just about protection, but about everyday life. If your that scared of the kid, keep you carry gun ON you, or carry a taser, carry pepperspray, something else to deter him until you can either get to your weapon, get out of the house, or call police, or all of the above. There are other options.

    Since you are so quick to jump on me for making a statement, why dont you offer a solution??

    See, THIS is the problem, no one can have a meaningful, respectful conversation or debate about this because people get offended and are quick to judge and say "because I can!", and "who are YOU to say..."
    My proposed solutiong is to ban assault weapons. This way, citizena no matter how law abiding will not be able to take the risk (for everyone else who doesn't get a say) that their personal assault weapon will be used to slaughter other people's seven year olds. They don't get to say, "Me having this gun in worth that risk."

    That's my proposed solution.

    Especially since, as you astutely point out and so helpfully listed, there are so many other options for personal protection that dob't carry as much risk for the rest of the population who isn't the individual gun owner.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  12. #272
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2007
    Location
    Hollowed out volcano in the South Pacific.
    Posts
    11,479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by relocatedTXjumpr View Post
    I am not blaming lawful gun owners...I am one.

    In the case of mental illness, I think you have to change your entire way of thinking, not just about protection, but about everyday life. If your that scared of the kid, keep you carry gun ON you, or carry a taser, carry pepperspray, something else to deter him until you can either get to your weapon, get out of the house, or call police, or all of the above. There are other options.

    Since you are so quick to jump on me for making a statement, why dont you offer a solution??

    See, THIS is the problem, no one can have a meaningful, respectful conversation or debate about this because people get offended and are quick to judge and say "because I can!", and "who are YOU to say..."
    You get it. Exactly. Guns are not the best solution for defense in many cases. Say you live by a school and you are "defending yourself" with a gun. You fire several shots, some hit the person attacking you and the rest go wide, and then some poor kid or maybe even two is wounded or traumatized by those stray rounds. Or let's say you draw your gun and lose control of it to the person attacking you. Now you're really screwed. Same thing applies in a townhouse or the nearest urban ghetto. Lots of kids got injured or killed in the drive-by and gang fight days of the 80's and 90's by stray rounds that came through the walls and windows of their homes or by guns they found laying around. Anyone who says that is an acceptable price to pay for self-defense is no better than the kid who killed those teachers and students. No better at all. Using a non-lethal means like a Tazer, pepper spray/pepper foam, or whatever else might be suitable, is far more practical in most self-defense situations because you and other innocents will not be put at risk to your choice backfiring.
    Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!


    4 members found this post helpful.

  13. #273
    Join Date
    Jan. 19, 2000
    Location
    Ellijay, GA
    Posts
    6,040

    Default

    Blugal...when you take a gun saftey course you are trained to not pull your weapon unless you mean to kill the person you are aiming it at. The idea behind it is that you either dont have the mindset to pull the trigger and just showed the "bad guy" you have a weapon so now he can take it away from you and use it on you...or, if you just injure him, he can sue you.

    Every class I have taken has been taught my either state patrol or local police and they all say the same thing in regards to pulling your weapon. Its not to be taken lightly...if you pull it, use it.

    meupatdoes I agree...I dont see the need for high power assult guns for the every day average Joe either. I know some people use them for shooting contests, and others use them for hog hunting, etc...but I personally dont see the need for guy down the street to have one. Does that make me anti-gun, No...there is a solution somewhere among all of the anger and hatred...we just have to find it.

    The entire system needs over-hauled...from the ease of obtaining a weapon or permit legally, to the access to mental healthcare, to more county and local police, etc. It all has to change.
    Busy Bee Farm, Ellijay, GA
    Never Ride Faster Than Your Guardian Angel Can Fly
    Way Back Texas~04/20/90-09/17/08
    Green Alligator "Captain"


    3 members found this post helpful.

  14. #274
    Join Date
    Dec. 28, 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blugal View Post
    I'm going to go ahead and agree with meupatdoes' premise. That is exactly what I think, too. Either the gun is accessible to you AND the "bad guy" - or it isn't.

    As you pointed out above, there are other options available than a gun. Yet most gun owners I've spoken to (here) say you shouldn't have or aim a gun, unless you mean to kill. That is the mindset that I find scary. I would rather have people who are aiming to deter, disable, get away, call police.
    That's a basic tenet of gun safety. It's about respecting the potentially dangerous force you wield. It has more to do with preventing accidents than with murderous intent.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  15. #275
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    18,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by relocatedTXjumpr View Post
    For those of you that say you are appaulled by the number of people who own guns who say they would use them if someone broke into their home, etc....Ok...what would YOU do in that situation?

    If you were home, with your children, or alone and someone broke into your home what is your plan of action? I am not trying to say one way is better than the other, I am just wondering how those of you without guns or who think us gun owners are gun toting "yahoos" would react in that situation?

    The mother of the killer had guns in her home that were assecable to a mentally disabled person...she may have had those guns legally, but she should have known better, as a mother and as a human. She should not have had them at all, or in the least, where he had access to them.

    I keep saying this over and over, this is MORE than a gun control issue folks and if all we are going to do is point fingers and blame all gun owners than it will never get solved.
    After I was a hostage in a bank robbery (with my then 8 year old daughter), I installed an alarm system and used it. I also have 3 large dogs. Better than guns, as far as I'm concerned. The alarm system was more for my daughter's mental health than anything, really. She was absolutely terrified.

    Yes, it's more than gun control or gun sense. It's about mental health, its about violence in our movies and video games and yes, it's about guns too. We need gun sense. So far, I'm not seeing any evidence of sense.
    Last edited by LauraKY; Dec. 18, 2012 at 12:52 PM. Reason: Spelling
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    1 members found this post helpful.

  16. #276
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    18,866

    Default

    I asked this on another thread. So far no one has answered me. This is a serious question.

    The second amendment says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Who decides what "arms" are? A nuclear weapon is considered to be arms (we've had several nuclear arms treaties), a missile launcher is considered to be arms. Who has decided that any gun and any size ammunition clip will be classified as arms under the second amendment but that nuclear weapons and missile launcher (as an example) are not?

    I actually curious and serious.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    1 members found this post helpful.

  17. #277
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2003
    Location
    Happily in Canada
    Posts
    4,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sithly View Post
    That's a basic tenet of gun safety. It's about respecting the potentially dangerous force you wield. It has more to do with preventing accidents than with murderous intent.
    Quote Originally Posted by relocatedTXjumpr View Post
    Blugal...when you take a gun saftey course you are trained to not pull your weapon unless you mean to kill the person you are aiming it at. The idea behind it is that you either dont have the mindset to pull the trigger and just showed the "bad guy" you have a weapon so now he can take it away from you and use it on you...or, if you just injure him, he can sue you.

    Every class I have taken has been taught my either state patrol or local police and they all say the same thing in regards to pulling your weapon. Its not to be taken lightly...if you pull it, use it.
    Exactly. So when you guys are talking about "personal protection" you are talking about killing someone. And many examples just cited in this thread show that "someone" may not be the "bad guy."

    I didn't say "murderous intent" - but if "self-defense" means your only plan is to wield a weapon with intent to kill, it's not far off.

    How are house alarms/locks/gates, dogs, pepper spray, even tasers, not alternative solutions?
    Blugal

    You never know what kind of obsessive compulsive crazy person you are until another person imitates your behaviour at a three-day. --Gry2Yng


    1 members found this post helpful.

  18. #278
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    I asked this on another thread. So far no one has answered me. This is a serious question.

    The second amendment says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Who decides what "arms" are? A nuclear weapon is considered to be arms (we've had several nuclear arms treaties), a missile launcher is considered to be arms. Who has decided that any gun and any size ammunition clip will be classified as arms under the second amendment but that nuclear weapons and missile launcher (as an example) are not?

    I actually curious and serious.
    As of this date, the only limitation is cost. The ATF can issue a license for a grenade, missile, bomb, machine gun, cannon, etc. I don't say they will issue you a license, just they can. You'll have to build it your self since the gov't won't sell you one of theirs. (research the various NFA classes yourself) I even think a nuclear bomb may be had if you could clear the various reg agencies. (nuclear reactors are privately owned for example)



  19. #279
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blugal View Post
    Exactly. So when you guys are talking about "personal protection" you are talking about killing someone. And many examples just cited in this thread show that "someone" may not be the "bad guy."

    I didn't say "murderous intent" - but if "self-defense" means your only plan is to wield a weapon with intent to kill, it's not far off.

    How are house alarms/locks/gates, dogs, pepper spray, even tasers, not alternative solutions?

    Blugal .. no ... protection means stopping the threat. For example... After I shoot a person breaking through my door. he's laying there unconcious, likely bleeding to death. He 's still breathing. I've stopped the threat. A legal and justified shoot. I then put a bullet in his head. I've committed murder.

    A gun is the most effective and quickest means to stopping a threat. House alarms, gates, pepper spray, only slow the threat. The alarm depends on outside help getting to you. Police are minutes away. The threat to you is seconds away. In my example, the threat just came through the door. He shot my dog. I'd rather depend on my 12 guage shotgun to stop the threat.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #280
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoZ View Post
    . That being the case, what restrictions do you think would be made under gun control that would personally affect you? What tests or restrictions would you be likely to fail?
    .
    A hard question but I guess I'd just say that waiting until I was personally impacted, while others are denied their constitutinal rights, has been demonstrated by teh 20th century to be very dangerous. Would I be personally harmed to see various kinds of protests outlawed? Probably not and in some cases I would likely be delighted. Would I be personally harmed if we "banned" art that some deem offensive? Or radio that I don't like? Or did away with the stupid 5th amendment that no doubt protects criminals? Maybe not directly but eventually, of course I would!! Because, as they say, eventually they'd impact something near and dear to me but there'd by no one left to help!

    Someone earlier said something about a discussion of reducing gun violence rather than gun ownership, and I think that is an excellent direction for discussions to take, as gun owners do not want violence either, and would much more likely come to the table to discuss various options. I suspect reducing violence would gain a much larger support following that limiting guns.


    2 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Colorado Amendment 64
    By dani0303 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: Nov. 8, 2012, 07:03 PM
  2. Replies: 56
    Last Post: Jun. 26, 2012, 03:24 PM
  3. Replies: 283
    Last Post: Sep. 21, 2005, 01:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness