U.S. Senator Says Videogames Are Worse Than Guns

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

TornadoADV:

Overall levels of violence and proportion of military spending to GDP has been constantly falling since the JFK days. Things are getting better, people just need to make it look like they are doing something so they can keep their jobs.

What does that have to do with the idea that right-wing nut jobs will "just die off" and a new idealistic generation will take over? This really has very little to do with my post, just as the nut jobs have very little to do with reality.

In fact, as things get more peaceful, that gives all the more reason to create artificial social scares. It's not like there's a massive trend towards atheism - religion is still going strong. It's not like there's a massive trend away from hard-core Capitalism and towards collectivism - the monied powers are just as entrenched as ever. And that's just looking at the developed Western world, not considering the developing world, where violence and fanaticism are still endemic. It's not considering changes in the way we wage wars in ever more distant, sanitized and efficient ways (drones, etc) which mask the reality.

andy_h007:
TornadoADV, indeed full auto rifles have been banned for close to 3 decades. However, any semi automatic rifle can be made full auto very easily. All you have to do is shave down the firing pin, or even easier, place a rubber band on a specific mechanism in the gun.

That's how ridiculously easy it to get a full auto gun here. That's why I feel like we need stricter gun laws.

To aelreth, you misunderstood me. I don't know anyone with a fully automatic rifle, but the people I know know how to make their rifles full auto (it's fairly simple actually) and I don't want them or anyone else to do that. I never want to own a fully automatic weapon myself. I'm actually planning to sell my rifle as I feel it is too much for home defense.

I'm simply stating that anyone who does research can figure out how to turn a semi-auto rifle into a fully-auto rifle fairly easily. That's why I think that these types of rifles should be banned.

Once again, I do not condone automatic rifles or heavy caliber machine guns.

How many calibers do you really need to take down some poor weak intruder?

Whatever the person in their own home in their case deems fit in this case. I as a man and one that can serve on a jury believe that you are fully responsible for what happens to what you are aiming at.

As for poor the weak intruder(s);

Concerning the fact that I live alone and they can bring friends (they often do), it would be in my own best interest that if my survival is on the line to cheat (they and their friends only bring the logistically feasible). You also should, it's YOUR life, you should do what you can to preserve it.

When we are in our respective dwelling if we can't defend it or our own lives, do we truly own our own flesh and our property?

Just as you, myself, and those associates of ours (or anyone that understands shop classes) can modify our own weapons so too can every single person that drives a car through ignorance or malice turn it into a multi-ton missile. Just because they can is not a reason to bind them all prematurely, we must instead encourage responsibility and discipline to be able to mitigate these things.

"I think videogames [sic] is a bigger problem than guns, because videogames affect people," he said. "But the First Amendment limits what we can do about videogames and the Second Amendment to the Constitution limits what we can do about guns."

Seems legit.

aelreth:
You also should, it's YOUR life, you should do what you can to preserve it.

When we are in our respective dwelling if we can't defend it or our own lives, do we truly own our own flesh and our property?

But on the other hand, what kind of life is it if you constantly feel the need to protect yourself in this manner? That's not a life of freedom to me, that's a life of fear. I'd rather be killed than to live life like that. I would rather live somewhere where arming myself isn't necessary.

And by and large, the threat is imaginary, and the protection offered by personal gun ownership largely ineffective or illusory. People may feel safer owning a gun, but the chance of that gun saving one's life from a home intruder is extremely low. Unless, perhaps you live in some war zone or other unusual circumstance. For most of the developed world's citizens, we will never be faced with a violent intruder. And if we are, the chances of us anticipating that intrusion, and surviving due to gun ownership is even more remote.

Aardvaarkman:

But on the other hand, what kind of life is it if you constantly feel the need to protect yourself in this manner? That's not a life of freedom to me, that's a life of fear. I'd rather be killed than to live life like that. I would rather live somewhere where arming myself isn't necessary.

And by and large, the threat is imaginary, and the protection offered by personal gun ownership largely ineffective or illusory. People may feel safer owning a gun, but the chance of that gun saving one's life from a home intruder is extremely low. Unless, perhaps you live in some war zone or other unusual circumstance. For most of the developed world's citizens, we will never be faced with a violent intruder. And if we are, the chances of us anticipating that intrusion, and surviving due to gun ownership is even more remote.

I disagree, it's not illusory, if someone breaks into my residence while I am in it, I should not needlessly endanger myself by putting myself to their mercy. I am not going to subject myself to go toe to toe with someone that has violated the sanctity of my home.

If it is a statistical anomaly that causes me to be robbed, I should have the right to remove it, by force if required, luckily the state I'm in recognizes this (Alaska Statutes - Section 11.81.335). I prefer not to be a victim. Let victims react rather than wait for a first responder to arrive after the fact. I would rather the law abiding rule the non-law abiding through fear of death by gun owner. The reality we all live in is that we are one overlooked detail away from someone making our lives much more difficult.

aelreth:
I prefer not to be a victim.

Sounds like you already are. This hypothetical intruder has already gotten you to spend your money on "protection" and your time and peace of mind worrying about something that might never happen.

Anyway, what if it happens while you're asleep, or having sex, or they just catch you by surprise? Do you sleep with one eye open, with your handgun at the ready at all times? Because there's nothing that's going to guarantee you get the upper hand.

The reality we all live in is that we are one overlooked detail away from someone making our lives much more difficult.

Sounds like they already have.

I've never actually met anybody who has actually ever had a violent break-in to their house. You're much more likely to be injured or killed by being distracted on your phone while driving or crossing the road. Maybe your country and state is particularly violent or something?

I would rather the law abiding rule the non-law abiding through fear of death by gun owner.

That's an interesting choice of words. I thought America was founded against the idea of having "rulers" and instead was about freedom and democracy. The idea that gun owners should "rule" others is pretty creepy. The only rule should be that of law. And that same fear that you want to wield against the criminals is just as easily used by criminals against the law-abiding. Fear of being shot is not exclusively a criminal phobia.

Also, your idea of the law-abiding against the others seems rather black-and-white. Have you never broken any laws? Really? You've never broken the speed limit? Not crossed the road at an intersection? Embellished your tax returns? I don't think any of us can claim to be 100% law-abiding.

aelreth:
When we are in our respective dwelling if we can't defend it or our own lives, do we truly own our own flesh and our property?

If you think murdering other people with firearms is necessary to preserve your life and property, I think your views are rather paranoid and deluded. For one thing guns disempower you. Unarmed scenario: You catch someone in your house. You either opt to try and hold them for police or just call the police. Police arrest him, give you back your stuff, problem solve. Armed scenario: You catch someone in your house. Great! Murder time! Oh wait, the burglar isn't stupid and shoots you dead first, because he knows otherwise you'll kill him. Now you're dead. How's that second amendment working for you now eh?

Guns disempower. They don't empower, simple as that.

It's provably untrue that you need a right to shoot up classrooms in order to be safe. The crime rates for comparable countries with strict weapon laws speak for themselves; guns only adds more violence and unsafety.

I don't blame the weapons. I really don't. I don't blame anything on things that humans create. I blame humans, now and forever. Case closed. Bottom line. End of argument.

theheroofaction:
So what?

Seriously, somebody said something, big fucking deal.

That made me smile. Well done.

I was going to point out that US Senators are not elected because of their intellect. This man is a clever moron.

Who know what else affects people? books,
ban that shit.

CriticalMiss:
Which part of the US Constitution protects Freedom of Stupidity? There must be one because I'm not sure how someone this dumb could rise to the position of a Senator. Oh, he's a Republican.

It's the republican party, I doubt anyone takes anything they say seriously anymore, they're like the trolls of America.

Is there some limit on IQ that you need to have in order to become a US Senator, because they seem to have the highest ratio of stupid there is.

A Smooth Criminal:

CriticalMiss:
Which part of the US Constitution protects Freedom of Stupidity? There must be one because I'm not sure how someone this dumb could rise to the position of a Senator. Oh, he's a Republican.

It's the republican party, I doubt anyone takes anything they say seriously anymore, they're like the trolls of America.

The problem is that there are people who actually do.

You're surprised republicans say stupid shit like that? It's just the NRA trying to shift the blame. Fuck them.

DVS BSTrD:

the doom cannon:

Tanis:
Republicans say...
WE WANT LESS GOVERNMENT!

Republicans do...
WE'RE GONNA PUT GOVERNMENT IN STUFF WE DON'T LIKE.
-But don't you DARE do the same, ya evil nazi.

Republicans think they lost both presidential elections because of 'voter fraud' or 'Americans are lazy/stupid/too non-white.

The REAL reason they lost is because their members keep opening up their mouths and are legitimately raping themselves as their words go on a series of tubes to the internet.

Guess that's what happens when you're the party of science deniers, six-degrees-of-Nazi-separation, homophobia, gynophobia, xenophobia, and just plain stupid.

I love being a republican on this website. I get to see all the funny generalizations that Obama-nazis make about republicans. ( see what I did there? Generalizations are great!). I registered republican because 1) I like guns. Lots of guns. Big guns. 2) because I can vote in primaries and have a miniscule chance of keeping a blubbering idiot out of the elections (not all of us are homophobic, xenophobic, believe the world was created 6000 years ago, or stupid).

Honestly if guns are all that's making you a Republican, why do you stay? It's not like us Democrats are all out to ban guns and our primaries allow to vote someone competent INTO office rather than keep those rabid fundamentalists out. The reason that those idiots keep coming to power is because of the conservative foundation of the Republican party. It's not enough that "I just wanna collect guns" (I assume that's all you intend to do with them?). Nope is has to be a right, guaranteed by the infallible founding fathers. And ANY law that might take a gun away from ANYone is un-American. We can't even enforce the gun laws we have now because NRA lapdogs like this guy gutted Federal reinforcement and oversight. Look up all the shootings in Chicago in the past week alone. Do you think that's because "when we make guns criminal, only the criminals will have guns?" Or might it be because the the gun laws OUTside the city are incredibly lax and they can just obtain them elsewhere? Or how about all the social programs to combat the poverty that leads to gangs and violent crime in the first place? The Republican establishment barely tolerates the broken system we have now (which they broke) and won't even entertain the possibility of reform them in any way besides cutting their funding. You can't afford to be a one issue voter when there are only two parties that have any real say in how this country is run.

I'm not going to pretend Democrats are perfect or all completely sane, and I'm not going to patronize you by pretending it wouldn't be a bitch for you to give up assault weapons. I am saying that the philosophy behind the Democratic party is more sound. With us it's looking forward, for your party it's looking back. Yes regulating nerf guns is overkill, but do you think that's going to do more damage in the long run than outlawing abortions or teaching creationism and abstinence only in schools? You may not support those things, but that doesn't matter as long as your candidates have to pander to the far right just to get a nomination. Reason is not basis for their views and never will be. Why don't you give us a chance?

See another reason my (throwaway) vote went to Romney was because I just don't like Obama. In my opinion, anyone would have been better. Heck I was on the whole Ron Paul bandwagon for a while. Some friends and I were actually discussing how in Cali they're now trying out a "top two" election style, which puts the 2 highest voted candidates on the ballot regardless of party. But that's more for r&p. video games are the best!

I think everyone here has got it all wrong, the senator didn't clarify that he was talking about how video games affect society positively by getting those darn kids off his lawn. He went on to lament that the first amendment prevents them from forcing all those whippersnappers to stay in their houses playing games.

Blablahb:

aelreth:
When we are in our respective dwelling if we can't defend it or our own lives, do we truly own our own flesh and our property?

If you think murdering other people with firearms is necessary to preserve your life and property, I think your views are rather paranoid and deluded. For one thing guns disempower you. Unarmed scenario: You catch someone in your house. You either opt to try and hold them for police or just call the police. Police arrest him, give you back your stuff, problem solve. Armed scenario: You catch someone in your house. Great! Murder time! Oh wait, the burglar isn't stupid and shoots you dead first, because he knows otherwise you'll kill him. Now you're dead. How's that second amendment working for you now eh?

Guns disempower. They don't empower, simple as that.

It's provably untrue that you need a right to shoot up classrooms in order to be safe. The crime rates for comparable countries with strict weapon laws speak for themselves; guns only adds more violence and unsafety.

Wow, classic projection.

How did this criminal magically get disarmed because I was? What makes you think that law breakers who break into houses with people in them won't use guns because you made them illegal. You sir are the delusional one.

People aren't allowed to have guns in Chicago so thus there shouldn't be any murders. Yet there are.

Guns empower the individual, this also means that the seat of power is at the individual not in the hands of the state.

If you disarm the individual you make the state the only entity that can protect you. Making the state the only answer.

All you want is all the power to be in the hands of the state. The state should be more responsive and flexible in how situations are dealt with. Your free to move into a state in the US that gives the burglar the freedom to ransack your valuables with utter impunity. After all if it's just a property crime it's a low priority (Thank you City of Oakland ) There is a majority of states in the US that follow the example of exodus 22-2. It isn't murder. No where in the bible says that you can't defend yourself. Not letting you defend yourself diminishes the individual.

Aardvaarkman:

Sounds like you already are. This hypothetical intruder has already gotten you to spend your money on "protection" and your time and peace of mind worrying about something that might never happen.

Anyway, what if it happens while you're asleep, or having sex, or they just catch you by surprise? Do you sleep with one eye open, with your handgun at the ready at all times? Because there's nothing that's going to guarantee you get the upper hand.

You are a gamer, if you have a modern console you could afford a pistol or shotgun at the same price.

As for my sloth like reflexes, I'm a light sleeper, I've been in the military long enough that I can manage it. It's also amazing on how many little old ladies are able to do the same. A gun in my hand can do better than a gun in a cops holster 4 miles away. my actions will be judged accordingly. It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Aardvaarkman:

I've never actually met anybody who has actually ever had a violent break-in to their house. You're much more likely to be injured or killed by being distracted on your phone while driving or crossing the road. Maybe your country and state is particularly violent or something?

You are right, it's unlikely, however you can negate your risk by paying closer attention. You can also negate the risk by not buying another console for one year and getting an 870 instead.

Aardvaarkman:

That's an interesting choice of words. I thought America was founded against the idea of having "rulers" and instead was about freedom and democracy. The idea that gun owners should "rule" others is pretty creepy. The only rule should be that of law. And that same fear that you want to wield against the criminals is just as easily used by criminals against the law-abiding. Fear of being shot is not exclusively a criminal phobia.

Also, your idea of the law-abiding against the others seems rather black-and-white. Have you never broken any laws? Really? You've never broken the speed limit? Not crossed the road at an intersection? Embellished your tax returns? I don't think any of us can claim to be 100% law-abiding.

America is an experiment to see whether man can rule himself. Without morality (the fear of god or a moral code) people would then obey the law out of fear of the bayonet of the law.

The recidivism rates say that criminals no longer fear the jail, nor the bayonet of the law.

Why is crime falling? More people are not in a regular line of work like they were decades ago. What's changed? I think it's because the scales of justice in certain states are being weighed in favor of the law abiding. These outlaws are now afraid of their would be victims.

As for me being law abiding.

I hold a security clearance as a requirement for the job I hold. So logically I'm not a criminal. I am able to pass the necessary checks to purchase a firearm using a 4473. This requires a background check.

Have you received a ticket yet? You should read the back.

The law is only broken when you fail to make the law whole, pay a fine. Failure to appear though makes you a law breaker.

Tanis:
Republicans say...
WE WANT LESS GOVERNMENT!

Republicans do...
WE'RE GONNA PUT GOVERNMENT IN STUFF WE DON'T LIKE.
-But don't you DARE do the same, ya evil nazi.

Republicans think they lost both presidential elections because of 'voter fraud' or 'Americans are lazy/stupid/too non-white.

The REAL reason they lost is because their members keep opening up their mouths and are legitimately raping themselves as their words go on a series of tubes to the internet.

Guess that's what happens when you're the party of science deniers, six-degrees-of-Nazi-separation, homophobia, gynophobia, xenophobia, and just plain stupid.

Yea the Rebulican party would do much better if they just stayed away from social issues and focused on economics instead. But they keep going against the flow of time just to earn brownie points with closed minded hateful people

Al-Bundy-da-G:

Tanis:
Republicans say...
WE WANT LESS GOVERNMENT!

Republicans do...
WE'RE GONNA PUT GOVERNMENT IN STUFF WE DON'T LIKE.
-But don't you DARE do the same, ya evil nazi.

Republicans think they lost both presidential elections because of 'voter fraud' or 'Americans are lazy/stupid/too non-white.

The REAL reason they lost is because their members keep opening up their mouths and are legitimately raping themselves as their words go on a series of tubes to the internet.

Guess that's what happens when you're the party of science deniers, six-degrees-of-Nazi-separation, homophobia, gynophobia, xenophobia, and just plain stupid.

Yea the Rebulican party would do much better if they just stayed away from social issues and focused on economics instead. But they keep going against the flow of time just to earn brownie points with closed minded hateful people

Some of them can, unfortunately the republican party is waiting for the dinosaurs to die out to make room for the next generation.

Well, then why don't we hand him a copy of Painkiller, lock him in a room together with another man carrying a gun and ask him to prove that statement?

Ranorak:
He's right though, those edges of the discs, they can kill a man!
Not to mention the lethal side effects of the plastic wrapper.

Exactly! And in truth; Being beaten to death with a videogame, or being shot. Which one would you prefer?

Roofstone:

Ranorak:
He's right though, those edges of the discs, they can kill a man!
Not to mention the lethal side effects of the plastic wrapper.

Exactly! And in truth; Being beaten to death with a videogame, or being shot. Which one would you prefer?

Depends, are we talking a current video game?
You know, just the case, disc and a 3 page manual.

Or a pc game from 10 years ago, with the cardboard box, 5 discs and a manual that had more pages than Lord of the Rings?

If the later, I pick that one over being shot. Will probably be faster.

You know what really is worse then guns, mmmm? Gun-lobbying US senators.

the only logical thing to do now is:

give every child a bushmaster AR-15 and a backpack full of ammunition and tell them to go out and play instead of playing deadly video games.

but before you start this, please close your borders. and try to get at least 6 speciments of every common species in your area to be able to repopulate the areas after years.

andy_h007:
Don't get me wrong TornadoADV. I'm not for banning all guns. I know several people with hunting rifles for different types of game depending on the season. I myself have a rifle for home defense. I just don't see the need for automatic weapons and high capacity clips to be in the hands of average joe's.

The point of the Second Amendment is that the citizens would be able to forcibly replace the US government and the army not be able to stop them. If the government became sufficiently corrupt this might be a useful safeguard. Therefore, the guns most deserving of protection under the Second Amendment are those designed for warfare, like assault rifles.

Banning all the guns designed for warfare while allowing hunting rifles, pistols etc gives you the worst of both worlds. The citizens are no longer able to overthrow a corrupt government while allowing gun crime and gun related accidents and occasional school shootings.

Arguably the Second Amendment is a bit pointless anyway these days, since US citizens just don't buy the kind of hardware they need in the quantity they need in order to revolt. Maybe a few people own tanks or fighter planes but not nearly enough to beat the army and the kinds of people who would own them are billionaires who would side with the establishment not the rebels.

Ranorak:
He's right though, those edges of the discs, they can kill a man!
Not to mention the lethal side effects of the plastic wrapper.

Let's not forget the sheer weight of a console can kill a person (if wielded properly) and them controllers (the older ones, i.e. PS2, NES controllers) could do some serious damage if swung above the head like a complete maniac... Wait, we still have the PS Move and the Wii-mote, don't we?

Capcha: Know Your Rights (Why yes, Capcha, I do)

aelreth:
You are a gamer, if you have a modern console you could afford a pistol or shotgun at the same price.

Do you really believe that effective gun ownership just amounts to the monetary cost of a weapon? Guns require maintenance. Effective use of them requires training and practice. It's not like you can just buy a weapon and then be instantly be protected by its aura. It's a lot of time and effort owning a gun. Time I would rather spend on things I enjoy, rather than something that is basically useless to me. I already have too many hobbies.

You are right, it's unlikely, however you can negate your risk by paying closer attention. You can also negate the risk by not buying another console for one year and getting an 870 instead.

No. Owning a gun increases your risk of being killed by an intruder (or family member, friend, etc). Most break-ins are just people who want to steal your things to make money. Homicidal break-ins are usually by people known to the victim, and the result of relationships, whether sexual, criminal or whatever.

So, a guy breaks into your house, and wants to steal your laptop. The chances of you getting harmed are very low, until you draw your weapon. If you don't draw your weapon, he'll usually go away, and you can claim losses with your insurance company. If you draw your weapon, that's when you are likely to be shot or bludgeoned.

America is an experiment to see whether man can rule himself. Without morality (the fear of god or a moral code) people would then obey the law out of fear of the bayonet of the law.

So, why did you say it was about gun owners "ruling" criminals? This statement is completely at odds with your previous one.

The recidivism rates say that criminals no longer fear the jail, nor the bayonet of the law.

As for me being law abiding.

I hold a security clearance as a requirement for the job I hold. So logically I'm not a criminal. I am able to pass the necessary checks to purchase a firearm using a 4473. This requires a background check.

You didn't answer the question. Have you never broken any law? Have you never exceeded the speed limit?

The law is only broken when you fail to make the law whole, pay a fine. Failure to appear though makes you a law breaker.

That's absurd. Paying a fine does not mean you didn't break the law. The fine is a penalty for breaking the law. Your logic would mean that a murderer did not break the law if he shows up to court and serves the sentence dealt to him.

You Americans are really getting concerned about the whole gun violence issue right now aren't you.

I wouldn't worry this guy is just a gun activist looking for a scapegoat, to blame for the fact that when everyone has access to weapons made for killing human beings, some people are bound to use said weapons to kill people. Funny that isn't it.

American senators, more dangerous then guns or games with their 'ideals' that 'effect' people
if only they knew what a laughing stock they were to everyone, the problem would solve itself

i quote penny arcade comics for this.

" It is a strange patriot that would destroy the first amendment to protect the second."

You want to reduce gun fatalities? Get rid of assault weapons in house-holds. The average breadwinner does NOT need a bushmaster to defend himself.

Done and done. I would throw away my right to ever buy or use guns again if it meant that no more innocent people and children will ever have to get hurt by guns again.

DVS BSTrD:
Okay let's try an experiment: Who would you be more likely to hand over your money to?
Someone pointing a videogame at you, or someone pointing a gun at you?

It's simple- videogame of course
in case of the gun I would try to defend myself
In case of game I would check the game and buy it

P.S.Anyway, guns are overrated- all I need to deal with anyone threatening my life is one or two knives. And I don't need any licenses to carry them.

Not the worst thing I've heard a US Senator say, not even this week.
It seems like just something he's being paid to say.

I cannot take such a statement seriously, so my response is - I have a gun...in my pants. AhhH! It went off! There's a mess everywhere, oh god. It's all slimy and sticky, and, getting tired and hot, and I think I need to lay down.

Aardvaarkman:

Do you really believe that effective gun ownership just amounts to the monetary cost of a weapon? Guns require maintenance. Effective use of them requires training and practice. It's not like you can just buy a weapon and then be instantly be protected by its aura. It's a lot of time and effort owning a gun. Time I would rather spend on things I enjoy, rather than something that is basically useless to me. I already have too many hobbies.

Practice isn't that hard to do. You play video games with guns why not head to a range and do the same thing. The US Army standard is once every 6 months. Maintaining a firearm requires cleaning it, this can be done during a functions check which could be done every month or quarterly, That shouldn't take more than 5 minutes of your time.

Aardvaarkman:

No. Owning a gun increases your risk of being killed by an intruder (or family member, friend, etc). Most break-ins are just people who want to steal your things to make money. Homicidal break-ins are usually by people known to the victim, and the result of relationships, whether sexual, criminal or whatever.

Family members or guests are unlikely, http://mortality-rates.findthedata.org/d/d/Accidental-discharge-of-firearms
Unfortunately, you could never be to sure on what they want to do once they get inside, According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, 38% of assaults and 60% of rapes occur in the home during an invasion. If someone is involved in a homicidal break in, it's in the best interests of the homeowner to be armed. Unless you find it moral that a home invasion that results in a homicide is somehow moral because the homeowner didn't kill the intruder in self defense.

Aardvaarkman:

So, a guy breaks into your house, and wants to steal your laptop. The chances of you getting harmed are very low, until you draw your weapon. If you don't draw your weapon, he'll usually go away, and you can claim losses with your insurance company. If you draw your weapon, that's when you are likely to be shot or bludgeoned.

You assume a rational creature breaks into someones residence while they are home. If I hear something at my door and I am not expecting guests or the mailman, I grab my pistol and chamber a round. I turn on my optics, which is a green laser. Assuming he's already past the door, he is likely going for my electronics or laptop (in the scenario you envision) that was left in my common room. I use my hearing to give a general idea of where he is, and I position myself using my urban warfare training to put him in my sights (Clearing the other rooms in my house on the way). My pistol is already aimed where I am looking. A challenge will be made. If he charges or makes a threatening movement, I fire a series of 3-5 shots in his torso. If he still moves towards me, I continue to fire, 2-3 round bursts at his torso, groin and head. Due to arrangements, if he chooses to retreat, the only direction he can go is out a sliding glass door onto a patio with a 3 story drop. No stairs for his safety.

An 870 12 Gauge would be much the same except it would involve a round fired towards his abdomen & groin. Followed by me turning around and retrieving my phone to call the police. That's my next purchase.

Aardvaarkman:

So, why did you say it was about gun owners "ruling" criminals? This statement is completely at odds with your previous one.

We do, criminals go after softer targets. Or they don't go after us at all. They go ultimately where they are in the advantage. Thus not where I and fellow gunowners are.

Aardvaarkman:

You didn't answer the question. Have you never broken any law? Have you never exceeded the speed limit?

I did, the federal government, state governments & the FBI say that I have a clean record. Which came as no surprise to me since I'm a law abiding citizen. I would advise you to read the documentation when you have a speeding ticket, it tells you how to make recourse to make amends to the law. Thus once the fine is paid you are in compliance with the law. As far as speeding tickets which I only have had one. It merely required me to forfeit a certain amount of money to remain in compliance with the law, which I did.

Aardvaarkman:

That's absurd. Paying a fine does not mean you didn't break the law. The fine is a penalty for breaking the law. Your logic would mean that a murderer did not break the law if he shows up to court and serves the sentence dealt to him.

It's the law of the land. I would again advise you to read the documentation when you have a speeding ticket, it tells you how to make recourse to make amends to the law. Felonies leave a black mark on our record and you at this point cannot have them stricken from it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here