1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Guns, the NRA, the constitution and senseless shootings

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Johnny Dangerously, Apr 16, 2007.

Page 8 of 43
  1. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    If I was trained in knife fighting, I might have considered that option. However, I've spent thousands of hours at the range. So I was much more comfortable with using my shotgun and the element of surprise to catch him for the police.

    AQB, seriously dude, relax. We're having a civil conversation here.
     
    Inky_Wretch, Apr 16, 2007
    #85
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    It's a right that no one ever intended to be the right you believe it is. And it's hardly a civil right, in the sense that there's nothing civil about the harm guns have caused and civil rights refer to equal treatment of citizens without regard to race, sex or class, not something like gun ownership.

    A "well-regulated militia" was of genuine concern to 18th Century colonists, who were afraid there wouldn't be a central government strong enough to protect them against an invading force. It was never meant for every idiot to run around armed to the gills, particularly when you consider that they couldn't have conceived of the types of sophisticated weapons that exist today. In any case, if you really want to make a second amendment argument, which was what I think you were doing, I'll go along with it. I think our military should be "well regulated" and "bear arms." It's the toothless idiot down the block that scares the pis out of me when he bears arms.
     
    The Big Ragu, Apr 16, 2007
    #86
  3. Lyman_Bostock

    Lyman_Bostock Guest

    Wow, this is getting pretty heated. Then again, it should.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't draconian gun laws in England, enacted after a similar incident to today's, do nothing to reduce gun violence there? Hasn't gun violence actually INCREASED since passage?

    I also seem to recall a number of similar incidents in Canada, such as the Quebec university shootings and something similar in Alberta. I'm sure that's because all the guns used in those incidents came from the U.S., however.

    BTW, I don't own a gun and never would. But they should be legal, with restrictions, and I'll never criticize someone who owns one and is responsible about it.
     
    Lyman_Bostock, Apr 16, 2007
    #87
  4. Dangerous_K

    Dangerous_K Active Member

    I'm in devil's advocate mode here, so don't come unglued: Let's say someone wants an AK47 or MA4 for home protection?
     
    Dangerous_K, Apr 16, 2007
    #88
  5. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Then, much like the illegal immigration issue, enforce the fucking laws on the books.
     
    Armchair_QB, Apr 16, 2007
    #89
  6. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Statistically, she's better off carrying something non-lethal - mace, pepper spray, a Taser. The stats on self-inflected, or unintentional, injury from handgun use are pretty damning.
     
    jgmacg, Apr 16, 2007
    #90
  7. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    There's no reason to own an assault rifle.
     
    Armchair_QB, Apr 16, 2007
    #91
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Sounds good to me. And while we're at it, why not limit their manufacture and make the laws even tougher? Now you're being constructive!
     
    The Big Ragu, Apr 16, 2007
    #92
  9. boots

    boots New Member

    Yes, I agree with you on that armchair.
     
    boots, Apr 16, 2007
    #93
  10. Dangerous_K

    Dangerous_K Active Member

    OK, then if you can use a rifle to both protect yourself and hunt, then why is a handgun necessary?
     
    Dangerous_K, Apr 16, 2007
    #94
  11. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member


    Thank you, sir. We'll have our beers and get in a drunk punch-out over Martin O'Neill's legacy at Parkhead in comparison to that of Alex McLeish's at Ibrox!


    Yeah. You are right. I'm hoping that my wife or yours or whomever's gets raped and killed. That's it. ::)

    Comments like that are why you hold little water in the discussion. Well, that and the comment about it being a horrendous tragedy if the burglar is shot, which isn't what I typed.

    In the situation you described, as well as the one Inky described, the one factor that enabled the home occupier's survival was: the burglar didn't have a gun.

    If the burglar does have one, the circumstances change completely. Sadly, they would change completely for the worse. Killing someone, even in self-defense, isn't a good feeling. It changes people. And that would be in the best case scenario.
     
    Pastor, Apr 16, 2007
    #95
  12. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Other than banning "assault" weapons the laws are probably tough enough as it is. And making them tougher wouldn't prevent something like what happened today.

    Kinda like the hate crime laws. Great idea in theory but the brainless, racist fucks who kill don't worry about hate crime laws when they're chaining a guy to the back of their truck.
     
    Armchair_QB, Apr 16, 2007
    #96
Page 8 of 43
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page