ashmire13 wrote:I'm reasonably sure that for several years, any country that is not ruled by a dictator has not had the need to have guns carried around by the entire public. Armies are in place for protection of invasion.

I don't see that the UK, Canada, France, Australia, Sweden or similar countries have any need for the public to carry guns. On the same basis, neither should the US have the need. However, it is your 'right' to do so. So you can face the consequences and should not really complain when there is a massacre of innocents by someone who did not need to own a gun and used by someone who should never have come into contact with it.

In Norway, that nutter had a gun and used it indiscriminently. He was mental, was caught and is imprisoned. Columbine and now this attack, bares similarities I guess, but it seems too easy in the US to do so.

I'd agree in general, except for France whose politics are unstable, that these 'current' governments are generally benevolent, but once the public is disarmed, rearming will be many times more difficult if not impossible to do peacefully. The public will then have no experience around firearms, making it even more difficult to resist the armed government.  

So, disarm the population and trust that these governments will always be benevolent? Disarm the population so that only criminals have the guns? Trust government more than free citizens?

Instead hope for the best, plan for the worst. Trust free citizens 'more' than politicians and faceless officials. There is a great quote from the sci-fi writer A.E. Van Vogt, "The Right to Bear Arms is the Right to be Free."

Many of my family came from Hungary after '56. Trying to fight armed troops with bricks proved ineffective, but they tried anyway. This is not a civilized world, the people of Africa, Syria, New Orleans, etc... can attest to that.

JasonZavoda wrote:

ashmire13 wrote:Isn't that just paranoia though, thinking you need to know how to use a gun?

Isn't it naivete thinking that you don't?

I am neither naive nor paranoid. I have never owned or used a gun, and have no plans to. And I live in a crime-ridden country with 1,000 gun deaths and tens of thousands of armed robberies a year among 3 million citizens. I respect the right of every citizen to own a gun (since it's the law) but think it is retrograde to do so. I also think many other laws are retrograde (abortion comes readily to mind).

Yes, I think guns are the problem, but I also think taking them away is not the solution. Maybe there is no solution. Maybe there is, but it is beyond me. Maybe we just got to accept that evil exists and try to do good to tip the balance in our favor.

Hector.

PS. Puerto Rico is a beautiful country and couldn't be prouder of my nation. Come and visit, and just be careful!  

The problem with disarming the U.S. is that you can't disarm the criminals. Even though we have the rare event of some nutjob killing off a whole bunch of people in a school, theater or wherever, the vast majority of our gun deaths are committed by criminals using illegal guns.

I am not for disarming the U.S. in any way, shape or form. That monster is never going back in the box.

No matter what the NRA said after this latest tragedy, it was not going to be good enough. And they did not blame anything on a video game. They clearly stated that violent video games are part of the puzzle. I can't say that I agree with that all the way. Is there some merit to that idea, probably a little. The politicians on the left were licking their teeth when this happened. While the rest of were mourning the deaths of these children, they were planning and plotting how they were going to come after our guns. The truth is that the NRA has nothing to do with these events. They don't enable anyone or provoke this stuff. Some twisted, sick and insane animal killed those people. The bottom line is that you just can't avoid this stuff. Can we do something to try and protect schools? Sure you can. But it is going to cost. The government needs to work on that problem. But that is also a problem because schools are run by local and state governments. Then you have all those private schools who don't get money from the state or fed. It is a massive can of worms but it needs an honest look. That honest look is not some knee-jerk reaction by a bunch of politicians with an axe to grind so they can weasel more votes from their constituency.

Glad I live in Texas, where respect for property rights would have taken care of this one already.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -home.html

Too bad if you have parasitical renters who are young and attractive you better just get out of their way and give them what they want I guess. All the guy did wrong was not kill them with the first shot.  If they truly threatened his sacred property rights as landlord, I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. If it comes out he shot them in the street and dragged them inside, that's an entirely different scenario, but i'm not getting that from this report, and forensics should have quickly told them the shootings took place inside his property where property rights put everyone else at your disposal.  But if they were in his house with the intention of renting from him, I can't work up a lot of sympathy. He's 74 and they are teens. I'd be scared also. He probably has no criminal record, I'd be interested to see if they have one, and for what crimes. He did it inside his own house. If they owned their own home, they would still be alive. As for him, he needs to carry a larger caliber weapon so he doesn't have to fire more shots. But if I find two teens in my home after renting to them, they better hope the police get to them before I do, I have a higher caliber weapon and hollow point ammo. I'd shoot them dead. Of course I'm one that thinks Bernie Goetz deserved a medal instead of jail time.

Sardan wrote:

JasonZavoda wrote:
Isn't it naivete thinking that you don't?

No.

Good, if you never intend to use one, amazingly stupid if you ever consider using a firearm.

I can't tell if sauromatian and bad mike are being serious but are they really suggesting that the a parking dispute justifies shooting three people and killing two of them?

Also why the demonisation of people who rent?

Prufrock wrote:

Sardan wrote:I can't tell if sauromatian and bad mike are being serious but are they really suggesting that the a parking dispute justifies shooting three people and killing two of them?

Also why the demonisation of people who rent?

The old man comitted a crime.  At no time in the report does it suggest that any of the 3 who were shot had a gun or any other way of threatening this man's life.  Being young is not a threat to your life.  Just because someone is in your home does not give you the right to shoot them.  Just because someone is in your home and argues with you does not give you the right to shoot them.  Just because someone is in your home and the arguement escalates to a shoving match does not mean you can pull your gun and just start killing anyone in your home.  What the report suggest is that if you have a bad temper it is probably best that you do not own a gun.  An arguement, eveen a shoving match is not a threat to life.  Even it you are 74.  If he was truly afraid all he had to do was pull his gun and order them out of the house.  You do not have to pull the trigger of the gun for it to be a useful tool.  All he had to do was show it to them and these people back off.  

Martin

Certainly sounds the most reasonable course of action.

Yes, if someone is threatening you in your home and you have a gun, pulling it out will make a difference. A warming shot even. But to shot them all dead?
At 77, I suspect my father would've gotten into a fight if someone were threatening him in his house. He'd be scared but also protecting his property. I very much doubt he'd pull a gun and kill people, if he had one though!!!!

Badmike wrote:

Sardan wrote:I can't tell if sauromatian and bad mike are being serious but are they really suggesting that the a parking dispute justifies shooting three people and killing two of them?

Also why the demonisation of people who rent?

My post was made in the same tone of moronic over the top lunacy that Sauros was...

Mike B

I thought so.....but neither your post or Sauros "read" that way.

Martin

Sardan wrote:I can't tell if sauromatian and bad mike are being serious

That's because as Texans, we are completely psychotic. Also because the political opinions expressed on The Acaeum seem to be filtered through our characters' perspectives. My Fighter Lord wears a cloak made from the skins of his peasant laborers. He don't need no government regulation telling him the peasants have to be dead first!

I often find myself taking the conservative side in political discussions, but when compared to The Acaeum's nostalgia for feudalism I appear liberal. So "moronic over the top lunacy" ends up being the sanest path.