Ga. mom shoots intruder 5 times, saves children

[Falcania]

You keep repeating your own posts verbatim. Perhaps you should ask yourself why other people are not addressing your posts the first time you post them.

I would be delighted to hear your answer to it.

L.E. actually after reading it again I realize most of it is actually "original" content.Yes,it does support my earlier posts but does that change the fact that it contains new information?
People from your side do what you say I'm doing even more so.

It doesn't just support your earlier posts, it is your earlier posts. It would be adorable if it wasn't so tragic.

[Jocabia]

We don't have to ignore injury prevention and health in the interest of freedom. There is a balance.

Do you recommend that we allow people to own nuclear weapons in the interest of freedom? I mean, what possible reason could we have to ban nuclear weapons that isn't based on injury prevention and health?

Nuclear weapons are not "arms" in the sense of the 2nd Amendment. Nobody would use weapons of mass destruction to resist a tyrannical regime; such would be self-defeating to say the least. Nor are "injury prevention and health" the reasons for restricting their possession. The consequences of nuclear weapon use bear no resemblance whatever to accidental or negligent discharge, or criminal use, of a handgun, for example. They don't end with "injury". A silly and non-serious question.

What effects do they have that have no bearing on injury prevention and health? Despite your silly attempt at semantics, the term "injury" as used by the CDC obviously includes anything up to and including death.

And as you pointed out, owning arms is a right that the 2nd Amendment protected, not created. The wording the amendment is irrelevant to your point. Mass destruction is often the only way to resist a tyrannical regime. Who are you to tell me what means and methods I may use to attack a military base?

I do love how half the pro-gun people are talking about most guns are owned by law-abiding citizens and the other half are talking about how they're owned by a bunch of people one law away from treason and waging war on the United States. I think you're right. Clearly, gun owners are not law-abiding. They're planning to wage war on the United States. The United States should take this into account when making gun laws, just as you say.

To that I offer the following response:

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

I give far more respect to George Washington's view on the matter than yours. Likewise to the views of others of the Founding Fathers on the same point. As for "treason", I'm sure you're familiar with Patrick Henry.

Sometimes, I can't tell if you're just pretending to be a Conservative as a joke. Because it's not possible that you don't know that's not an actual quote from George Washington. Do you have so much "respect" for George Washington's views on the matter that you'd lie about what he said?

You're right. Most gun owners aren't law-abiding. They're treasonous America haters. Thanks for making that clear.

[Defensor]

Good on the mom, shows why arming yourself can/will save your life.

I live near a bad area, and honestly, if you don't carry and you get jumped, you'll probably either be dead or wishing you were...

Till they pry it from my cold dead fingers, or crime is 100% eliminated forever...and that's not gonna happen

[Defensor]

See heres my problem with people getting up in arms to defend the robber. Its pretty much a given (as was stated before) that the individual in question ( the burglar/robber) was checking to be sure no one was home. He then broke into their home and began taking their personal/private possessions. While some of it may have been easily replaced, whos to say he wouldn't have taken something of extreme personal or sentimental value? While we're on this subject, whos to say how the robber would have reacted had he been armed? This is alot of "what ifs", I understand. But the point remains that when you step into someone else's home and begin taking their property, which they earned with their own blood;sweat and tears, just how much of an upstanding community person do you sound like? I'm not saying we need to go actively lynching every single person whos ever stolen something, but just as a child should be punished for being caught doing something wrong, these criminals are being punished for their wrong-doing.

Now before you go on a hate-filled "HOW DO YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT RABBLERABBLERABBLE" consider this. The American prison system is a joke, and not a funny one either. Living in prison is not easy ( "YA DON'T SAY?" some of you will remark), between threats and actual acts of physical and sexual assault, murder and other heinous acts. Someone that could've been thrown in for something as simple as joy-riding or other petty crimes may have to endure traumatic experiences that could turn an otherwise quiet, respectful person into a loud, violent maniac. Not to mention the fact that criminals have actually sued the very victims whom they burglarized AND WON.

Source
1: http://articles.mcall.com/2002-09-28/ne ... pellet-gun
2: http://www.dreamindemon.com/2012/10/25/ ... -shooting/

The judicial system in our country is fucked. And i'm not about to allow some schmuck who thought he should be allowed to profit off my hard-earned personal property because he can't or won't get a job.

+1

[Sub Sector Protractis]

Wow.

So a woman open fires, out of fear, on a man who broke into her house with the intent to rob it. I see nothing in this that the man intended to KILL anyone. He had a crowbar for breaking in. Hes a plan. Why not point the gun at the man without firing the gun? He obviously had no weapon to counter it. She luckily didnt kill the man after shooting him in the face and neck.

This is why I hate guns. Everyone praises that the gun saved the family from a harmless robber who would have run away at the sight of people in the house, but instead ignore how this lady almost panic-killed this man. Such double standards.

Harmless robber? Good God, what is the world coming too. I guess it's more about criminal rights then constitutional rights.

[Defensor]

Wow.

So a woman open fires, out of fear, on a man who broke into her house with the intent to rob it. I see nothing in this that the man intended to KILL anyone. He had a crowbar for breaking in. Hes a plan. Why not point the gun at the man without firing the gun? He obviously had no weapon to counter it. She luckily didnt kill the man after shooting him in the face and neck.

This is why I hate guns. Everyone praises that the gun saved the family from a harmless robber who would have run away at the sight of people in the house, but instead ignore how this lady almost panic-killed this man. Such double standards.

Harmless robber? Good God, what is the world coming too. I guess it's more about criminal rights then constitutional rights.

I hear that, people are so backwards, I'm surprised they can still walk straight >.>

[The New Aztecs]

If the man didn't break into her house in the first place, he wouldn't have been shot...

[Republica Newland]

I would be delighted to hear your answer to it.

L.E. actually after reading it again I realize most of it is actually "original" content.Yes,it does support my earlier posts but does that change the fact that it contains new information?
People from your side do what you say I'm doing even more so.

It doesn't just support your earlier posts, it is your earlier posts. It would be adorable if it wasn't so tragic.

What's more adorable is that you and your friends fail to give any pertinent counter arguments to those posts.

[Falcania]

It doesn't just support your earlier posts, it is your earlier posts. It would be adorable if it wasn't so tragic.

What's more adorable is that you and your friends fail to give any pertinent counter arguments to those posts.

So did you not read the responses made the second or third time around?

[Falcania]

Oh but what's going on with this gun control I keep on hearing about

OK.Some thoughts from the "pro-defense" or "pro-gun" side,or however you guys want to label us:

1.Blaming the woman of acting based on threat rather than acting based on action is pretty dumb.Even the police (yes,that exact same police you lefties keep rambling about - the one that you say we're supposed to call in such situations - which can apparently magically make everything go away,~oh and did I mention it has a .5 second response time??~ /sarcasm) that exact police acts based on threat rather than acting based on action.

Let me explain.When a gunman is holding a hostage,he may or may not kill the hostage,right? He does pose a THREAT,but he has yet to take ACTION.Well guess what,a police sniper kills him.Acting based on threat rather than based on action.

When a person is holding a gun and a police officer tells him to drop it,that person is posing a THREAT,he hasn't taken any ACTION yet.Well guess what,again,police act based on THREAT rather than based on ACTION when they either shoot him or his gun because he failed to drop it.

So even individuals with extensive training act based on THREAT rather than ACTION and you're going to blame a mother crawled up in a cupboard with her children of doing it? Riiiiight.

I've tried several times but I literally cannot understand what you're saying here.

2.That burglar breaking into her house is enough to justify her shooting him.The fact that she was hiding with her children in a cupboard and he opened it tops it off.In my opinion there is no room for debate here.

Yup. In your opinion, there is no room for debate here. Thank god we're not actually bound by your whimsical opinions in this debate.

3.6 shots is a bit too much but you have to remember that she was obviously terrified and panicking.Otherwise she wouldn't have hidden herself and her kids in that cupboard.

Well, I've been of the opinion in this thread that one shot was a bit too much.

4.I understand the concept that in the United States (or other places where the general population owns gun) criminals are more likely to own them (and use them) too.It totally makes sense.If I'm a burglar in the UK a blade or a baseball bat should be enough given that I know how to use them because I know that there are very low to no chances of coming across a gun when robbing someone.
This is not something hard to understand.However in the United States if the legal owners do the first step and drop the guns (apparently what some of you lefties want to) that is just plain suicidal,thinking that oh the criminals will just go about and do the same.We need to first take guns out of the hands of criminals,and then,maybe,take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens,not the other way round.

In terms of the actual practicality of the gradual disarmament of the United States, actually what you're proposing is pretty reasonable here. Culturally, it's hard to argue that firearms are deeply ingrained in the American psyche, in a way that perhaps they never were in the UK. Gun control worked in this country - of course we can't be sure that it will work as well in America but surely it's a good place to start?

[Sub Sector Protractis]

Harmless robber? Good God, what is the world coming too. I guess it's more about criminal rights then constitutional rights.

I hear that, people are so backwards, I'm surprised they can still walk straight >.>

As a Marine maybe I have a pro gun bias, but it seems that if you do not commit the crime of breaking and entering you don't have to risk getting shot in the face. I'll be honest I read this story and laughed. People would rather her have called the cops or tried "scaring" him with the gun then shoot him. Which would give him the opportunity to rob again, or hurt her and her children. I have an Idea what if he wasn't alone what if she walked him into a hall at gun point and got grabbed by an accomplice. If someone comes into my house with the intention of violating the safety and well being of my home I'm going to shoot them. Regardless of what they say, hell Ill probably tell him to give me any cash or valuables he has on him before I shoot him. So lets say in the ideal liberal utopia she calls the cops and he gets arrested and goes to jail for 5 years. So now my tax dollars have to go to reforming and taking care of a criminal. Screw that I'd gladly save tens of thousands of dollars for everyone and spend five bucks on ammo. Also whats the point if she shot him five times, if you break into someones house violating the law, you should be held to what ever punishment they see fit to distribute. I for one applaud this women and her defensive use of firearms for the safety of her children and herself.

[Republica Newland]

Oh but what's going on with this gun control I keep on hearing about

OK.Some thoughts from the "pro-defense" or "pro-gun" side,or however you guys want to label us:

1.Blaming the woman of acting based on threat rather than acting based on action is pretty dumb.Even the police (yes,that exact same police you lefties keep rambling about - the one that you say we're supposed to call in such situations - which can apparently magically make everything go away,~oh and did I mention it has a .5 second response time??~ /sarcasm) that exact police acts based on threat rather than acting based on action.

Let me explain.When a gunman is holding a hostage,he may or may not kill the hostage,right? He does pose a THREAT,but he has yet to take ACTION.Well guess what,a police sniper kills him.Acting based on threat rather than based on action.

When a person is holding a gun and a police officer tells him to drop it,that person is posing a THREAT,he hasn't taken any ACTION yet.Well guess what,again,police act based on THREAT rather than based on ACTION when they either shoot him or his gun because he failed to drop it.

So even individuals with extensive training act based on THREAT rather than ACTION and you're going to blame a mother crawled up in a cupboard with her children of doing it? Riiiiight.

I've tried several times but I literally cannot understand what you're saying here.

2.That burglar breaking into her house is enough to justify her shooting him.The fact that she was hiding with her children in a cupboard and he opened it tops it off.In my opinion there is no room for debate here.

Yup. In your opinion, there is no room for debate here. Thank god we're not actually bound by your whimsical opinions in this debate.

3.6 shots is a bit too much but you have to remember that she was obviously terrified and panicking.Otherwise she wouldn't have hidden herself and her kids in that cupboard.

Well, I've been of the opinion in this thread that one shot was a bit too much.

4.I understand the concept that in the United States (or other places where the general population owns gun) criminals are more likely to own them (and use them) too.It totally makes sense.If I'm a burglar in the UK a blade or a baseball bat should be enough given that I know how to use them because I know that there are very low to no chances of coming across a gun when robbing someone.
This is not something hard to understand.However in the United States if the legal owners do the first step and drop the guns (apparently what some of you lefties want to) that is just plain suicidal,thinking that oh the criminals will just go about and do the same.We need to first take guns out of the hands of criminals,and then,maybe,take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens,not the other way round.

In terms of the actual practicality of the gradual disarmament of the United States, actually what you're proposing is pretty reasonable here. Culturally, it's hard to argue that firearms are deeply ingrained in the American psyche, in a way that perhaps they never were in the UK. Gun control worked in this country - of course we can't be sure that it will work as well in America but surely it's a good place to start?

Well,I'm glad we can both agree on smth.

On the other hand,most of my points that you claim have been replied to 2 or 3 times haven't been replied even once - You even said that yourself: Perhaps you should ask yourself why other people are not addressing your posts the first time you post them.
I still wonder why.

"I've tried several times but I literally cannot understand what you're saying here." - from what I understand you blame the woman of taking action although the burglar didn't have the chance to. What I have said perfectly explains this.

"Well, I've been of the opinion in this thread that one shot was a bit too much." - OK then,would it be better if she would've stabbed him in the eye or something? After all,what part of this is morally incompatible with you? Self-defense in general or does it (weirdly) only apply to guns?

"Yup. In your opinion, there is no room for debate here. Thank god we're not actually bound by your whimsical opinions in this debate." - Everyone can form his own opinions so I hear.And as long as I don't claim my opinions are facts,it's perfectly fine for me to let my opinions be heard.

[Terraius]

It is also a case of personal experience. Until my own house was broken into I was liberal in my philosophy of burglars, but since then I've come to side with the self-defense side.

I have more respect for a murderer or drug-dealer than I do for a thief, anyways.

[Falcania]

I've tried several times but I literally cannot understand what you're saying here.



Yup. In your opinion, there is no room for debate here. Thank god we're not actually bound by your whimsical opinions in this debate.



Well, I've been of the opinion in this thread that one shot was a bit too much.



In terms of the actual practicality of the gradual disarmament of the United States, actually what you're proposing is pretty reasonable here. Culturally, it's hard to argue that firearms are deeply ingrained in the American psyche, in a way that perhaps they never were in the UK. Gun control worked in this country - of course we can't be sure that it will work as well in America but surely it's a good place to start?

Well,I'm glad we can both agree on smth.

On the other hand,most of my points that you claim have been replied to 2 or 3 times haven't been replied even once - You even said that yourself: Perhaps you should ask yourself why other people are not addressing your posts the first time you post them.
I still wonder why.

"I've tried several times but I literally cannot understand what you're saying here." - from what I understand you blame the woman of taking action although the burglar didn't have the chance to. What I have said perfectly explains this.

"Well, I've been of the opinion in this thread that one shot was a bit too much." - OK then,would it be better if she would've stabbed him in the eye or something? After all,what part of this is morally incompatible with you? Self-defense in general or does it (weirdly) only apply to guns?

"Yup. In your opinion, there is no room for debate here. Thank god we're not actually bound by your whimsical opinions in this debate." - Everyone can form his own opinions so I hear.And as long as I don't claim my opinions are facts,it's perfectly fine for me to let my opinions be heard.

The basic kernel of my argument is that no part of this story should have happened because A) she shouldn't have had a gun, and 2) she shouldn't have expected him to have a gun. My principal concern is that in these confrontations, self-defence should be the absolute, absolute last resort - after running, hiding, pleading, bargaining, after it truly has been brought down to a confrontation. After all efforts at de-escalating the confrontation have failed. And firearms, more often than not, escalate the conflict, and with lethal force. The notion of self-defence through bearing arms is an anachronism in a civilised society. The eradication of crime cannot, should not - and I suspect, will not - be achieved bullet by bullet.

[Republica Newland]

Well,I'm glad we can both agree on smth.

On the other hand,most of my points that you claim have been replied to 2 or 3 times haven't been replied even once - You even said that yourself: Perhaps you should ask yourself why other people are not addressing your posts the first time you post them.
I still wonder why.

"I've tried several times but I literally cannot understand what you're saying here." - from what I understand you blame the woman of taking action although the burglar didn't have the chance to. What I have said perfectly explains this.

"Well, I've been of the opinion in this thread that one shot was a bit too much." - OK then,would it be better if she would've stabbed him in the eye or something? After all,what part of this is morally incompatible with you? Self-defense in general or does it (weirdly) only apply to guns?

"Yup. In your opinion, there is no room for debate here. Thank god we're not actually bound by your whimsical opinions in this debate." - Everyone can form his own opinions so I hear.And as long as I don't claim my opinions are facts,it's perfectly fine for me to let my opinions be heard.

The basic kernel of my argument is that no part of this story should have happened because A) she shouldn't have had a gun, and 2) she shouldn't have expected him to have a gun. My principal concern is that in these confrontations, self-defence should be the absolute, absolute last resort - after running, hiding, pleading, bargaining, after it truly has been brought down to a confrontation. After all efforts at de-escalating the confrontation have failed. And firearms, more often than not, escalate the conflict, and with lethal force. The notion of self-defence through bearing arms is an anachronism in a civilised society. The eradication of crime cannot, should not - and I suspect, will not - be achieved bullet by bullet.

In the hands of their legal owners,guns don't escalate conflicts,they neutralize them

I'm sorry but this argument isn't even revolving around guns.With or without guns,this could have still happened.

However,a woman has a better chance of protecting herself with a gun against a burglar also wielding a gun,especially considering the element of surprise,than protecting herself with a knife/baseball bat/fists against a burglar also wielding a knife/baseball bat/fists.

In the situation in which they both have guns,the woman has a high chance of neutralizing the conflict because of the element of surprise.

In the (real) situation in which she had a gun and he had a crowbar,chances are pretty much the same (remember a crowbar to the head can be as deadly as a gun)

In the situation in which neither of them had guns,the element of surprise is pretty much useless - maybe she could have hit him or stabbed him once - but then she'd be screwed.

L.E.: Oh,and in the situation in which he would've had a gun but not her,she would've been even more screwed.

[Falcania]

The basic kernel of my argument is that no part of this story should have happened because A) she shouldn't have had a gun, and 2) she shouldn't have expected him to have a gun. My principal concern is that in these confrontations, self-defence should be the absolute, absolute last resort - after running, hiding, pleading, bargaining, after it truly has been brought down to a confrontation. After all efforts at de-escalating the confrontation have failed. And firearms, more often than not, escalate the conflict, and with lethal force. The notion of self-defence through bearing arms is an anachronism in a civilised society. The eradication of crime cannot, should not - and I suspect, will not - be achieved bullet by bullet.

In the hands of their legal owners,guns don't escalate conflicts,they neutralize them

Granted it's the last escalation, but in the hands of anybody, lawful or not, either party producing a weapon is an escalation of conflict. Escalation of conflict, more or less, is defined as an increase in the force you are willing to use compared to your opponent.

I'm sorry but this argument isn't even revolving around guns.With or without guns,this could have still happened.

However,a woman has a better chance of protecting herself with a gun against a burglar also wielding a gun,especially considering the element of surprise,than protecting herself with a knife/baseball bat/fists against a burglar also wielding a knife/baseball bat/fists.

In the situation in which they both have guns,the woman has a high chance of neutralizing the conflict because of the element of surprise.

In the (real) situation in which she had a gun and he had a crowbar,chances are pretty much the same (remember a crowbar to the head can be as deadly as a gun)

In the situation in which neither of them had guns,the element of surprise is pretty much useless - maybe she could have hit him or stabbed him once - but then she'd be screwed.

L.E.: Oh,and in the situation in which he would've had a gun but not her,she would've been even more screwed.

The point is that the eventual aim of gun control (as I have hoped for it to be implemented, at least) is that none of these scenarios have to happen, because none of the parties will have a gun. You're less likely to be killed in a fistfight than in a gunfight.

[Terraius]

The point is that the eventual aim of gun control (as I have hoped for it to be implemented, at least) is that none of these scenarios have to happen, because none of the parties will have a gun. You're less likely to be killed in a fistfight than in a gunfight.

A world where noone has a gun sounds great and all, but I do not believe the US government is equip to handle such a thing. They can barely enforce a drug ban, so I cannot trust them to enforce a gun ban. Until which time they are able to make such a reality possible, I have to side with pro-gun ownership.

[Republica Newland]

In the hands of their legal owners,guns don't escalate conflicts,they neutralize them

Granted it's the last escalation, but in the hands of anybody, lawful or not, either party producing a weapon is an escalation of conflict. Escalation of conflict, more or less, is defined as an increase in the force you are willing to use compared to your opponent.

I'm sorry but this argument isn't even revolving around guns.With or without guns,this could have still happened.

However,a woman has a better chance of protecting herself with a gun against a burglar also wielding a gun,especially considering the element of surprise,than protecting herself with a knife/baseball bat/fists against a burglar also wielding a knife/baseball bat/fists.

In the situation in which they both have guns,the woman has a high chance of neutralizing the conflict because of the element of surprise.

In the (real) situation in which she had a gun and he had a crowbar,chances are pretty much the same (remember a crowbar to the head can be as deadly as a gun)

In the situation in which neither of them had guns,the element of surprise is pretty much useless - maybe she could have hit him or stabbed him once - but then she'd be screwed.

L.E.: Oh,and in the situation in which he would've had a gun but not her,she would've been even more screwed.

The point is that the eventual aim of gun control (as I have hoped for it to be implemented, at least) is that none of these scenarios have to happen, because none of the parties will have a gun. You're less likely to be killed in a fistfight than in a gunfight.

"..is that none of these scenarios have to happen, because none of the parties will have a gun."

"In the situation in which neither of them had guns,the element of surprise is pretty much useless - maybe she could have hit him or stabbed him once - but then she'd be screwed."

Oh - and on the argument about whether or not he would have acted violently if he would have had the chance to - Watch the news report again. The guy had already been arrested 6 times since 2008 prior to the burglary. His most recent offence was battery. But oh then you go and tell me how peacefully he would have acted. Riiight..

By the way.I have no remorse or sympathy for him.He was obviously not desperate or anything.He fled the scene with his own car,an SUV.My car is probably cheaper than his and I make my money through work,not crime. First sell all your shit and then we'll talk about dropping tears for you

[Gun Manufacturers]

I give a lot of respect for that woman to be protecting her children even if it means that she has to kill a person to make sure that her children are safe. This is what makes the third amendment in our constitution so powerful ladies and gentlemen.

Wrong amendment. The protection against the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent has nothing to do with this debate.

BTW, the guy didn't die.

[Big Jim P]

In the hands of their legal owners,guns don't escalate conflicts,they neutralize them

Granted it's the last escalation, but in the hands of anybody, lawful or not, either party producing a weapon is an escalation of conflict. Escalation of conflict, more or less, is defined as an increase in the force you are willing to use compared to your opponent.

I'm sorry but this argument isn't even revolving around guns.With or without guns,this could have still happened.

However,a woman has a better chance of protecting herself with a gun against a burglar also wielding a gun,especially considering the element of surprise,than protecting herself with a knife/baseball bat/fists against a burglar also wielding a knife/baseball bat/fists.

In the situation in which they both have guns,the woman has a high chance of neutralizing the conflict because of the element of surprise.

In the (real) situation in which she had a gun and he had a crowbar,chances are pretty much the same (remember a crowbar to the head can be as deadly as a gun)

In the situation in which neither of them had guns,the element of surprise is pretty much useless - maybe she could have hit him or stabbed him once - but then she'd be screwed.

L.E.: Oh,and in the situation in which he would've had a gun but not her,she would've been even more screwed.

The point is that the eventual aim of gun control (as I have hoped for it to be implemented, at least) is that none of these scenarios have to happen, because none of the parties will have a gun. You're less likely to be killed in a fistfight than in a gunfight.

Unless someone brings a crowbar.

[Inyourfaceistan]

If the man didn't break into her house in the first place, he wouldn't have been shot...

Ikr...

[Republica Newland]

Granted it's the last escalation, but in the hands of anybody, lawful or not, either party producing a weapon is an escalation of conflict. Escalation of conflict, more or less, is defined as an increase in the force you are willing to use compared to your opponent.



The point is that the eventual aim of gun control (as I have hoped for it to be implemented, at least) is that none of these scenarios have to happen, because none of the parties will have a gun. You're less likely to be killed in a fistfight than in a gunfight.

Unless someone brings a crowbar.

I don't think they realize that a fit man can potentially kill someone with 1 punch to the head,let alone with a crowbar.

[Big Jim P]

Unless someone brings a crowbar.

I don't think they realize that a fit man can potentially kill someone with 1 punch to the head,let alone with a crowbar.

Indeed. The fatal flaw in every gun-control plan is this: While civilized, law abiding citizens will give up their guns, the uncivilized criminal will not, and even if restrictions on gun ownership prevent them from obtaining one, they will resort to other weapons. Other weapons used against a now unarmed civilized population. Personally, I would love to live in a world where everyone is civilized and peaceful and guns (or any other weapon for that matter) are no longer necessary, but to believe we live in one now and that no one is a dangerous, uncivilized animal is to deny human nature and reality itself.

Until we can fully eliminate the beast in man, then it behooves us to at least be able to defend ourselves against the beast.

[Frisivisia]

I don't think they realize that a fit man can potentially kill someone with 1 punch to the head,let alone with a crowbar.

Indeed. The fatal flaw in every gun-control plan is this: While civilized, law abiding citizens will give up their guns, the uncivilized criminal will not, and even if restrictions on gun ownership prevent them from obtaining one, they will resort to other weapons. Other weapons used against a now unarmed civilized population. Personally, I would love to live in a world where everyone is civilized and peaceful and guns (or any other weapon for that matter) are no longer necessary, but to believe we live in one now and that no one is a dangerous, uncivilized animal is to deny human nature and reality itself.

Until we can fully eliminate the beast in man, then it behooves us to at least be able to defend ourselves against the beast.

Because gun control isn't regulations on guns, it's taking away your guns. Because all criminals are uncivilized. Because somehow, despite being told this so many times, you still can't understand that gun control doesn't take away your guns.

Also, Martial Law is best law.

[Big Jim P]

Indeed. The fatal flaw in every gun-control plan is this: While civilized, law abiding citizens will give up their guns, the uncivilized criminal will not, and even if restrictions on gun ownership prevent them from obtaining one, they will resort to other weapons. Other weapons used against a now unarmed civilized population. Personally, I would love to live in a world where everyone is civilized and peaceful and guns (or any other weapon for that matter) are no longer necessary, but to believe we live in one now and that no one is a dangerous, uncivilized animal is to deny human nature and reality itself.

Until we can fully eliminate the beast in man, then it behooves us to at least be able to defend ourselves against the beast.

Because gun control isn't regulations on guns, it's taking away your guns. Because all criminals are uncivilized. Because somehow, despite being told this so many times, you still can't understand that gun control doesn't take away your guns.

Also, Martial Law is best law.

Not quite sure of your point.