Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:45:08 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs+stopspam+.missouri.edu
|
Viewed:
|
724 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Dee wrote:
>
> But can you rule out the possibility that you might face a non-mortal
> danger, that results in you drawing and using the gun? Non-mortal=
> emotional trauma, where violence is not involved, for instance. (Not
> addressing the issue, just the particular statement).
As much as anyone can. Can you rule out the possibility that you might
freak out and decide to use your automobile as a deadly weapon? Since
you can not rule that out any more than Mike can rule out the same WRT
his handgun(s), I figure that if ownership of one is allowed, then
ownership of the other must be also. Right?
> > If someone breaks into my home with the intention of taking what is
> > mine or harming me or my family, he will more than likely be shot to
> > death, as he deserves. If someone smashes my car on the road
> > (happened twice now) he won't even get a rise out of me - my insurance
> > company will take care of it.
>
> To death? Someone's life is worth a yellow lego castle or a television?
Right on. Let's say that there is only a 1% chance of being killed by
an intruder anytime an intruder is burglarizing a house. I would prefer
to kill the ratfilth SOB even though I'm not in much danger such that I
prevent him from killing 1/100 of his victims. And even without
considering his future victims, I value my life much much more than 100
times how I value his.
> Even an "eye for an eye, life for life" philosophy would suggest
> that as being "over-kill" for something as trivial as theft. (Trivial
What's so special about that philosophy? It's really pretty primitive
after all.
> when compared to murder). The car, what if they deliberately rammed you?
Killing someone for breaking into your house isn't about retribution,
it's about protection. if the guy ramming your car is then going to
jump out with a hammer and try to kill you that way, then you shoot him
and be done with it. If he's injured and you have the option of just
letting the police have him, then call it attempted murder and put him
in jail.
> > > Or is gun ownership a really important right for some people?
> > > Why?
> >
> > If you have to ask you will either never understand or you don't care.
> > I'd guess a little of both based on other things you've said.
>
> Possibly the former. That I don't care would be inaccurate. I
> care about the consequences of irresponsibility relating to and
> frequently demonstrated by ownership. Concerned that unstable
Demonstrated in what way? How frequently? Twice as many kids die of
eating household products than die as a result of firearms misuse...it's
not that common.
> people get a hold of guns.I am concerned that
> some owners of guns are too selfish to accept *any*
> regulation or control or restriction of gun ownership. I am
That's me!
> concerned that not enough is done, anywhere, to address the
> issues that result in people feeling the need to protect
> themselves.
Agreed.
> A relief that you claim to be a responsible gun owner. No
> doubt instilled in you from your army service. Of less
Those of us that grow up in a gun-toting society are taught to respect
guns before army service is possible. I'd bet that Mike had guns around
when he was a kid and there was a significant father-son thing related
to taking care of them and learning safety. This could be totally off
the mark in his case but it is very common.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:45:08 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following profundities... (...) And, as much as I hate guns, can no more say now how my opinions would change (or not) had I or someone close to me been, or should become, a victim of (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| On Sun, 16 May 1999 16:26:40 GMT, Mike Stanley uttered the following profundities... (...) Unable for those particular items. However, as stated elsewhere, requested the information to lead to understanding and enlightenment. It is possible to (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
