SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Is there any dictatorship in the world that allows it's citizens the right to own and bear arms legally?

The Soviet Union used to, Libya under Gaddaffi, Iraq under Saddam, Syria, lots of the Gulf states, etc. In short, plenty.

[von Pilsner]

And conversely many democracies have strict gun control (so the answer is not that simple, unfortunately).

[nearmiss]

I mentioned, citizens. I meant that to apply to general population. Yes, collaborators with the dictatorship may have guns, which is understandable. Afterall, they are part of the dictatorship.

Hitler was paranoid and no one around him was armed, except for his carefully selected guard units.

The general population in Germany were allowed guns until Hitler came into power. Afterward, the people were imprisoned or killed for having guns in their possession.

[von Pilsner]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Hitler was paranoid and no one around him was armed, except for his carefully selected guard units.

I bet this is true for most world leaders (good and bad).

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Zorin

I'd love to see you trialed for second degree murder in such a case, cause that is exactly what you would commit. Killing someone who poses no imminent threat to your life, while you are under control of the situation with your gun drawn and intent to kill.

You are showing your ignorance.

I most certainly would NOT face trial. Why?

Because the state of Texas (like most states) does NOT have a duty to retreat (some states do). Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that, in a darkened house in the middle of the night, anyone there unlawfully poses a deadly threat.

The reason you can make that assumption is that, as ANY IDIOT SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT, by the time you determine whether or not they pose an actual threat, IT IS TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT if they do.

SO, ONCE AGAIN, THEY MADE THE CHOICE SO THEY CAN PAY THE PRICE. NOT ME!

Furthermore, in most states, your life DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IN DANGER before you can use deadly force. In most states you can use deadly force to protect yourself from INJURY.

Why? Because, AS ANY IDIOT SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT, by the time you determine if they only, "MEANT", to cause injury and NOT kill you, it's too late to do anything about if they meant to kill you.

And let's not forget about the thousands of dead people who weren't SUPPOSED to die, just get the living crap kicked out of them.

But who cares about them, the important thing is that their murderer is still alive right?

--Outlaw.

[nearmiss]

Youtube has large numbers of carefully documented accounts of atrocities associated with gun control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM0fG-dzQjE

This following video is about an hour long

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=137bW...eature=related

The historical record is clear with gun control comes some of the worst atrocities against mankind ever known.

Britons aren't happy about gun bans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKdBx...eature=related

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

I mentioned, citizens. I meant that to apply to general population. Yes, collaborators with the dictatorship may have guns, which is understandable. Afterall, they are part of the dictatorship.

Hitler was paranoid and no one around him was armed, except for his carefully selected guard units.

The general population in Germany were allowed guns until Hitler came into power. Afterward, the people were imprisoned or killed for having guns in their possession.

Err, what?

Whatever book your read, close it and throw it into the bins. There is a deeply ingrained gun culture in shooting clubs and hunting in Germany. "Schützenfeste" to this day form a solid yearly event in many german villages. It's this backwater spirit that formed a large part in the Nazis success in the first place, these guys were not going to hurt their basic support base.

Hitler's personal fear about guns around him does not change that.

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

@ outlaw For your, taking a life doesn't seem to be a big deal. If someone is in your house: fire at will. What do you make of all the people who died because of the use of a gun in a defensiv situation? I am talking about unarmed burglars, people standing near by etc.

Bystanders hit by legal defensive use of firearms is VERY low. MUCH lower than the number of people who would have been killed otherwise.

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

You can't just kill anything that might want to attack you. I don't know the law in the US, but here your life must really be treatened in order to use deadly force.

True, you can't kill anyone that might want to attack you, but you can kill anyone who reasonably poses a threat. See my reply to Zorin.

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

Especially in close quarter (like a house) a gun is not the best option.

Based on WHAT?

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

As for your question, I can only say this. I didn't advocate the interdiction of guns. But as I wrote earlier: using a gun for defense is not the way to go for many reasons I mentionned before. It will ony result in more death.

What a cop-out. Based on your non-answer I can only assume that you afraid to admit that you think it's better that myself, the child, and her mother were dead.

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

You must be a very scared man. Maybe you should think about the fact that you have a greater chance to die in a car accident then to get shot.

I'm fully aware of crash related deaths. In fact, the fact that car crashes kill 4 TIMES as many people as guns do supports my argument that the anti-gun lobby is ridiculously uneducated. If they were not, they would be lobbying for stricter controls on who is issued a driver's license and more harsh penalties for moving violations. But they do not. So they are ignoring a MUCH MORE DEADLY THREAT to go after firearms.

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

As you see we won't agree on this topic. So let just agree to disagree.

I don't agree to that!!

--Outlaw.

[von Pilsner]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

I'm fully aware of crash related deaths. In fact, the fact that car crashes kill 4 TIMES as many people as guns do supports my argument that the anti-gun lobby is ridiculously uneducated. If they were not, they would be lobbying for stricter controls on who is issued a driver's license and more harsh penalties for moving violations. But they do not. So they are ignoring a MUCH MORE DEADLY THREAT to go after firearms.

You have to take 2 tests to get a license to own a car, perhaps there should be a written and competency test for gun ownership (as well as a license).... actually not a bad idea, Outlaw!

would you object to:
1. reasonable waiting period on gun purchase
2. background check for all gun purchases
3. limiting sale of certain magazines (based on capacity)
4. so called assault weapon ban?

I ask because these are more likely to occur than an outright gun ban (which would be a bad idea) and would still allow a citizen to protect his family.

For the record I am only hesitant on 4 because I know some great people who enjoy their AR15 and AK47s (and crappy SKSs), I'm fine with the first 3.

p.s. - I don't wish you or your family to have any misfortunes and I'm glad you were there to protect them...

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Right in the first part of the sentence, wrong in the second part. Nobody "choses" to be a criminal. I yet have to find a single person who himself would consider the "baddie". Eveybody has justifications for his actions. Expecting that all these people have the education and more important "will" to follow society as a whole is what is delusional.

Justification does not prevent CHOICE. IMO, BY DEFINITION, if you know the law and intentionally violate it, you have CHOSEN to be a criminal.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Will is something you develop when you have a perspective to reach something.

From the Meriam Webster dictionary...

Free Will: voluntary choice or decision

--Outlaw.