Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

[piercehawkeye45]

Did the homeowners know Novakov?

The homeowner did the right thing, he couldn't have done much different.

[Hippikos]

Home owner had an AK47, the intruder had a 9 mm handgun with a laser sight, while MaggieL proudly poses with a rifle with telescope. Only in the US and A (and Iraq).

The homeowner also said that he was a hunter, and that he had a rifle and needed to defend himself and his girlfriend.

AK47 for hunting?? bin-Laden?

[piercehawkeye45]

Cause that is so much better than both the homeowner and wife dead in their own home...

Guns is a problem you can't avoid or solve. You have to prevent, and the US is probably the worst country in the western world in preventing crime.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Just to add to the fun, making the rounds is this story of use of an AK-47 in home defense. It was one of the best possible tools for the job. It simply offers one possible narrative for how a powerful semi-automatic "assault rifle" can be used to defend a home. For anyone who says "I don't see how an assault weapon is needed for home defense", if you were trained in its use and knew what you were doing, perhaps you would in fact choose it.

Point taken, but it doesn't mean that a shotgun or pistol (in properly trained hands) wouldn't have done the same thing.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Home owner had an AK47, the intruder had a 9 mm handgun with a laser sight, while MaggieL proudly poses with a rifle with telescope.

Actually, I do have a (semi-auto) AK, also. And a 9mm. They're just not in that photo. Fortunately I don't have to "justify" them to the likes of you...or I'd be just as disarmed as you are, and reduced to spouting "sour grapes."

I did explain that the .22 is a target rifle. One of the things the Pink Pistols do is training.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I'm pretty sure - since it's in black and white in your above post as a quote - that what tw said is that you do in fact advocate gun control. That is, you agree that there should be gun control.

If by "gun control" you mean that people who own firearns should control them--not someone else--then you're right. But that's not what the idiom "gun control" means in normal discourse, ordinarily it means various forms of externally imposed governmental prohibition, as you have in AU.

The US "Gun Control Act of 1968" is a case in point. I don't find it personally particularly onerous, but I don't support it.

If you're going to talk about some meaning of "gun control" that doesn't include laws, then you'd better use some other phrase to refer to it, or you will be misunderstood.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This story is not pro or anti gun control, obviously, as it was a gun that put the people at risk in the first place.

Erm...the gun didn't do anything. It's inanimate.

What put people at risk was a person with criminal intent.

[piercehawkeye45]

See below.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Erm...the gun didn't do anything. It's inanimate.

God, I hate that line. The fact is that people can use guns, and it is the most effective and easiest way of killing someone. By your logic, we should allow EVERYTHING, even weapons of mass destruction. I want a nuclear weapon, but remember, the bomb isn't at fault, it is mine. So when you send me to jail for blowing up the city of New York it is solely my fault, right? And disallowing the distribution of nuclear weapons would be against people's rights too, right?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

God, I hate that line.

Sorry, but it's the truth; you should get used to it.

Trying to blame inanimate objects for the behavior of people is misdirected animism. As you point out "people can use guns"...and they can also use bludgeons, poisons, explosives and edged weapons. They can also use them for *good* purposes; note that most police carry firearms.

The common element is the people. The issue isn't what tools they have, it's what they do with them.

If you were to blow up New York, would you blame somebody else for "letting you"? Or would you take responsibility for your own actions?

3,000 people died on 9/11; obviously the box-cutters were at fault.

[piercehawkeye45]

Trying to blame inanimate objects for the behavior of people is misdirected animism. As you point out "people can use guns"...and they can also use bludgeons, poisons, explosives and edged weapons.

As I said before, guns are the easiest and most efficient method of killing someone. Lets just give everyone the anthrax virus as well and see what happens.

They can also use them for *good* purposes; note that most police carry firearms.

And the US has a stockpile of nuclear weapons for *good* purposes too. It's called an arms race; if criminals didn't have guns then police wouldn't either.

The common element is the people. The issue isn't what tools they have, it's what they do with them.

Obviously no one thinks that guns shoot people without a person's consent, that is idiotic. But the fact that guns make killing people easier, that is what people are scared about. Everyone knows that you can get a knife and stab someone but it is a lot easier to shoot a person and if you take the gun away, people's lives may be saved because someone won’t go through more trouble to kill a person.

If you were to blow up New York, would you blame somebody else for "letting you"? Or would you take responsibility for your own actions?

How about we give a five year old a gun and say how evil your neighbor is and how happy you would be if he got killed and the kid takes the hint. It is all the kid’s fault right? Don't say, “well, the kid doesn't know any better” because adults act the same way so don't give me that bullshit.

3,000 people died on 9/11; obviously the box-cutters were at fault.

Actually the real analogy would be the planes were at fault since no one was killed directly by the box cutters but I get your point nevertheless. Once again, I speak for the majority when we agree that "guns" itselves aren't at fault for the killings but it is the convenience of it that is at fault. If we didn't have airplanes 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If it were harder to hijack airplanes 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If proper screening was used 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Catch my drift?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

...if you take the gun away, people's lives may be saved because someone won’t go through more trouble to kill a person.

You actually believe that? That someone intent on mayhem would decide not to becuse "it's too hard"?

How childishly naive.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

How about we give a five year old a gun and say how evil your neighbor is and how happy you would be if he got killed and the kid takes the hint. It is all the kid’s fault right? Don't say, “well, the kid doesn't know any better” because adults act the same way so don't give me that bullshit.

Is your moral responsibility actually comparable to a five-year old's? That's what you just said..."adults act the same way". Why the last minute rhetorical bait-and-switch?

Uh...you *are* an adult, arent you? Your apparent naïveté makes me wonder.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

..."guns" itselves aren't at fault for the killings but it is the convenience of it that is at fault. If we didn't have airplanes 9/11 wouldn't have happened...Catch my drift?

No, it would have happened. But it would have happened differently. In fact it almost did happen differently in 1993....1,500 pounds of fertilizer and fuel oil in a rental truck. Not particularly convenient. And dying in a hijacked plane would strike me as the ultimate inconvenience.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

It's called an arms race; if criminals didn't have guns then police wouldn't either.

No, that's not called "an arms race". That's called "a fantasy". Criminals manufacture guns in prison every day.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

As you can see from MaggieL's repeated emotional tirades,

The tirades, tw, are all on your side, and you're in denial about it, as is par for the course. Vulcan, shmulcan.

That is MaggieL recommending classic gun control. Somehow that is not gun control because State of New Jersey does not permit concealed weapons? Bull. MaggieL has advocated gun control. She has posted in direct opposition to NRA decrees.

Still with no visible understanding of Ringer's Paradox, I see. Might anyone suggest to you, tw, that you are no student of politics?

"NRA decrees" -- I should smile. If that is your understanding of how the NRA works, your understanding of the matter runs from the minuscule to the pathetic. Your opinion is therefore poorly based, valueless, and indeed on a par with Saddam Hussein's fan club, you tiny-minded wiper of other people's bottoms. Your postings inspire contempt among the wise.

MaggieL is handling you just fine, and good for her. While she stands in no need of reinforcement just now, it happens to be a hobby of mine to rub your nose in your own invalidity, your towering pettiness shown here in your lengthy insistent howling after a micro-point, and your myriad other examples of how lousy a human being you are. The one thing in which you excel is as a big fat target for my opprobrium. That is what's known as a worthless life.

Warts-and-all observations are not tirades, and I urge that no Cellarite try to defend the wholly indefensible, but instead that we unanimously attack it with efficiency, determination, and indeed savagery. Let the Communist suffer for his sins, and those of all Communists, five times daily throughout 2007. When all the Communists are dead, the world's better. Maybe not perfect, but better.

[piercehawkeye45]

You actually believe that? That someone intent on mayhem would decide not to becuse "it's too hard"?

How childishly naive.

Maybe you just don't get it. Like I said before, guns are the easiest, most efficient way of killing someone. If you don't have a gun it may take longer for you to get a chance to kill the person. In this extended period, the constant anger will lessen and you have more time to think over your decision and turn back on it. Or you could make it harder to get a gun (preferable) since the same effect will happen if you have to wait a week to get a gun opposed to two hours. It won’t stop all if not even the majority of killings, but if someone’s life is saved then maybe it would be worth it.

Is your moral responsibility actually comparable to a five-year old's? That's what you just said..."adults act the same way". Why the last minute rhetorical bait-and-switch?

Killing someone to gain respect from peers would be comparable to my example.

No, it would have happened. But it would have happened differently. In fact it almost did happen differently in 1993....1,500 pounds of fertilizer and fuel oil in a rental truck. Not particularly convenient. And dying in a hijacked plane would strike me as the ultimate inconvenience.

In some situations you are right, in some I am. You need to stop thinking in black and white, the level of anger it takes someone to consider to kill another varies. If someone killed my family and ruined my life, whether there are guns or not there is a good chance I will kill that person. If someone beats me on the street I may kill that person out of initial anger later that night but if I have to wait another two days, it may not be worth it.