Quote :

"I guess it's just me, but my attitude is that whenever someone ends up dead, that's not a good thing."

I honestly do not give two shits about some scum bag that is attempting to break into my house, mug me, or intending to do me bodily harm.

A taser or pepper spray may be "less lethal" but up against some 250 lb crip gang bang wanna be, i'll take a pistol thank you.

Quote :

"this planet is overpopulated, and some of these fucktards need to go. When I hear about some douchebag criminal getting killed by his would-be victim, I rejoice a little bit inside. That doesn't mean I want to be the one pulling the trigger unless it's unavoidable. However, I'm not like some of the bitchass liberals in here who would rather just lay down and become a statistic instead of entertaining the possibility of fighting back and protecting their own life."

Exactly.

I wish some liberals would get off their bubble or drive out of chapel hill and actually see the real world.

3/16/2010 11:15:58 PM

Okay, so you ask me to provide solutions, and I come up with something you don't like, then what is your answer? You have to have a response. There has to be something to decrease the level of gun perpetrated crime in this country.

I already said I don't care what it is, just come up with something. And IF YOU WON'T make efforts to police yourselves by coming up with proposals that deal with the issue of illegal gun usage without violating what you see as your personal rights, then how can you possibly be surprised when other people try to do so, and not in a way that you feel is respecting your rights?

There are many issues in our country which should be addressed, and although it's not tops on the list by far, considering the number of acts of violence which are allowed to occur because of the large quantity of guns and the way we use them, something should be done. I'm all for other options, but not the status quo.

You're right in that it is a small invasion of privacy for the government to have this information about you, but if they had the knowledge of where many guns used in crimes originally came from, don't you think those who are illegally selling would be held more accountable, and those of you who are being responsible would have less hassles to deal with?

(I am sorry I don't know the whole Katrina thing, I gather it has something to do with taking away the guns of legal owners...I can see how that would get people upset. I can't speak to the details of it without knowing more. Of course, what also get's me upset is a statistic I just googled that says from 1987-90, 2.6 million incidences of gun violence occurred in the U.S., with 46,000 gun homicides.)

My idea was complete shit, apparently. So tell me guys, are we going to keep things the same? Does this mean you have no problem with the hundreds of thousands of incidences of gun violence each year, or are you just claiming that they have absolutely no correlation to our gun regulations and attitude towards firearms? And if you do claim that, then to what do you attribute it? I am not looking for a "my way is the only way," but help me out here. I know you are concerned about your individual rights, but at what point can we see that a pattern of behaviors are leading to harm for the whole society?

Are these figures no one's fault? Is it just our nature, and we should all just say fuck it, that's life? What's the cause, and then, what's the solution? Help me to understand your case.

^^And see, you guys are totally not even reading what I said. Again, you're painting me as an anti-gun nut, which seems to be a pretty common thing. I said I don't think about the gun issue often, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion. I also said I think fewer guns would be better, but I don't care that much about that issue either, just that crime decreases. YOU care so much about keeping all your damn guns, not me. It's still my opinion, that fewer guns would be better. That doesn't mean I plan to run out and go apeshit over the issue and try to take all your shit. I think abortions are not a great idea, and fewer would be better, but I don't oppose the ability of a woman to have it at all. We are already clearly coming from different perspectives, but when you (and right now, it's the collective you) mischaracterize my intentions and opinions, that makes it so that I don't even want to listen to what you have to say, regardless of merit.

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 11:25 PM. Reason : c]

3/16/2010 11:18:47 PM

^^Ehh, there are a few people who are just rotten to the core, and I love to see them die. I'd like to kill them myself.

In the majority of cases, the person has been failed by many people along the way, and has failed himself, and the culmination is the person in question being part of the problem instead of part of the solution, and it's unfortunate when the final result is the person getting killed.

In other words, it's a sad story when someone grows up without a father, raised poor by a dumbass mother, does poorly in school with nobody really taking any serious interest in pushing him to do well, and so on...sooner or later, he tries to rob me because he really needs the money, and I kill him.

I mean, yeah, that really is a sad story, and not unusual, and I wouldn't really get any satisfaction from killing someone in that scenario. Without having been in that position, I'm as confident as I can be that I'd still shoot them 100% of the time, though. I'm sorry for the hand life dealt you, and I hate that you chose to compound your problems through destructive behavior, but I'm not sorry enough to get myself hurt or killed because you're a fuck-up.

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 11:30 PM. Reason : ^^]

3/16/2010 11:28:44 PM

I can understand that perspective, and although it's harsher than my own, it's at least better articulated and thoughtful than many others. But when we are talking about gun ownership, are we really only talking about the right to defend yourself if a crime occurs? I mean, although we have tens of millions of gun owners, the incidence of personal protection is limited to maybe 10-20,000 a year I'd guess, nationwide.

I'm just handing out a hypothetical here, but if actions were taken to reduce the overall level of gun violence by 50-100,000 (based on the statistic above, I would think that is doable), wouldn't the tradeoff result in BETTER protection for you and your family?

Or are there other issues as well?

3/16/2010 11:35:05 PM

Quote :

"Okay, so you ask me to provide solutions, and I come up with something you don't like, then what is your answer? You have to have a response. There has to be something to decrease the level of gun perpetrated crime in this country. "

If we ban pistol ownership then we will surely reduce violent gun related crimes, AM I RITE?

3/16/2010 11:45:12 PM

Quote :

"But when we are talking about gun ownership, are we really only talking about the right to defend yourself if a crime occurs?"

i think we were all assuming that you didn't have an issue with guns as a sport or hobby.

Quote :

"I'm just handing out a hypothetical here, but if actions were taken to reduce the overall level of gun violence by 50-100,000 (based on the statistic above, I would think that is doable), wouldn't the tradeoff result in BETTER protection for you and your family? Or are there other issues as well?"

the only way it would matter would be if gun crimes were reduced to zero and there was some way to know for sure that there would never be another gun crime, and that is not possible. and this is ignoring everyone who enjoys guns as a hobby. the main reason i have a gun is because its a lot of fun to go to the range; anytime i have stuff to think about i had to the range and clear my head.

3/17/2010 11:28:44 AM

Look at how all the harsh drug laws have done so much to get all drugs off the street. Obviously making guns illegal would work just as well! Either that, or we'd just send millions more to prisons for stupid non-violent crimes, create larger black markets centered around gangs and violence, and send this country even further into the dumps.

3/17/2010 11:34:38 AM

^ while i agree we should be able to own guns (inc pistols) this is a weak argument.

Ive never met somebody who has to get their next gun "Fix". I don't see many people who are addicted to guns after firing that first shot.

3/17/2010 11:51:16 AM

oh, look.

he thinks people care about what he has to say.

3/17/2010 12:40:06 PM

One great solution would be to enforce the laws that we already have.
There are tons of laws on the books that get ignored, and then more are written.
Plaxico got an easy sentence because he was famous and had money. (based on the laws)


In Canada and Australia gun registration was the first step to confiscation.


By most reports, there are between 600,000 and 2 million uses of a firearm in defensive situations in the US annually. This number can not be accurately counted because many instances are not reported, and shots are never fired. The mere presence of a firearm stopped the criminal and ended the confrontation

3/17/2010 1:01:31 PM

Okay, assuming all this information is correct, are we saying that the best solution to the problem is to have everyone with more guns?

Kind of like having nuclear weapons with us and the Soviets, MAD?

I don't think I'd like to live in a world where everyone has a gun. I'll be honest with you, even if I have a gun of my own, knowing that most of the people around me have guns and have the potential to shoot me would make my life relatively uncomfortable. If guns are the only way we have to safeguard ourselves, maybe we've become the kind of society that is a little too screwed up to make it much further.

3/17/2010 1:27:42 PM

Quote :

"Ive never met somebody who has to get their next gun "Fix". I don't see many people who are addicted to guns after firing that first shot."

Except that about half of drug related arrests are for marijuana, which is less addictive than caffeine. I don't think addiction has much to do with it.

3/17/2010 1:35:14 PM

Quote :

"are we saying that the best solution to the problem is to have everyone with more guns?"

of course not, why do people always jump to conclusions like this

ie "I think if CCPs were allowed on college campuses, the VT shooter might not have killed as many people"

"so you think every student on campus should have a gun?"

3/17/2010 1:39:52 PM

Which is why i disagree with some of the drug laws for thigns such as pot.

3/17/2010 1:41:00 PM

More guns has been correlated to reduced crime in a given area. The opposite is also true, as where there are the highest restrictions and the fewest guns, there is the highest crime rate.

People have guns around you every day when you are in public. In nc it is about 1.5% of the population that has a CHP. Does that make you uncomfortable? If so, some basic firearms training, and understanding of the laws would probably help. The people around you have the possibility of stabbing you with a pencil when you are standing in line, and that could be lethal as well.

Firearms are the most efficient tool in our proverbial tool box. Mace, Pepper spray, stun guns, and knifes all have a place, but they all have major draw backs that a firearm does not. The 'drawback' to a firearm is that in its use to stop a threat, the bag guy has a tendency to leak, and sometimes die. Now, that is when it is used as in trigger pulled. The vast majority of defensive uses of a firearm do not require a shot to be fired.

If you look at studies (can be found on the internet) done by the FBI, and the state of Texas, a Concealed Weapon Permit holder is less likely to be convicted of a crime than police officers. As a whole, we are more law abiding. Think about that one.

Police are not everywhere, nor can they be. The response time in Raleigh is 4+ minutes. What confrontations where someone is in fear or serious bodily injury or death last that long?

CHP holders aren't going to just shoot someone for walking up and and saying "give me your wallet."
If that same someone shows a knife or gun, then they may get shot, they may not. If that someone walks up with a knife or gun out, then they will get a wallet.

It is largely about situational awareness, training, and statistics. All of these play a role in determining an outcome to a given situation.

But yes, more guns equals less crime.


________________________________________________________________________________
unrelated.
People who have valid CHPs should be allowed to carry on college campuses. What makes our rights that we use every day not apply once we cross the imaginary line of campus property. That is an argument for a different thread, or search and read previously created ones.

[Edited on March 17, 2010 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

3/17/2010 1:45:11 PM

For those who don't like guns, why does it not bother you to see police with guns? They're just people. They can misuse guns as easily as anyone else. There really is no difference, besides the uniform and the fact that society has become accustomed to seeing police carry guns.

3/17/2010 1:52:22 PM

^They guy who was shot and killed once he was face down and in hand cuffs in San Fran, CA shows that police miss-use firearms on some occasions.

3/18/2010 2:30:20 AM

Quote :

"Police are not everywhere, nor can they be. The response time in Raleigh is 4+ minutes. What confrontations where someone is in fear or serious bodily injury or death last that long? "

I would like to reiterate this point here. A few years back I lived just off trailwood. This is back when RPD had a sub station in the avent ferry complex by the food lion about 5 minutes by car, and 20 minutes walking distance. One of our neighbors (we think, they never found the gun) decided to take a few shots at out building one of which came through the window and would have seriously injured or killed my roommate had he not decided to go lie down not 5 minutes earlier. We called RPD to report shots fired in a residence, and waited ... and waited ... and waited. It took 45 minutes for RPD to send anyone out to investigate and find out what the hell was going on, and this was for a call about real bullets coming through windows. Yes, no one was hurt, but I personally would not like to have to wait until someone is bleeding out before the cops show up in a timely manner to an assault.

The likelihood of the police showing up in time to stop and assault or crime in progress is vanishingly small. Not only can they not be everywhere at once, but there simply aren't enough of them. When seconds count, the only person who can or will be able to defend you is yourself.

3/18/2010 8:01:04 AM

this

Quote :

"If someone is threatening my safety, I'm not concerned with his welfare. I'd much prefer to armed with a gun for a variety of reasons. If the bad guy has to die because I want the best tool for the job when it comes to saving my own ass, I have no problem with that."

this

Quote :

"when someone violates the social contract and puts myself in danger they lose the right to have me worry about their well-being; at that point my only concern is for my own safety and the safety of those immediately in my charge. if put in that situation i will use whatever i deem necessary to defend myself and have no responsibility to the other person. "

so we can kill people that leave home contageous?

and this

Quote :

"But doesn't it seem like a lot of the comments are less about you HAVING to defend yourself in a way that results in a loss of life or serious bodily harm to someone else, and more about WANTING to? It's like people relish the fact that they might end up killing someone. I guess it's just me, but my attitude is that whenever someone ends up dead, that's not a good thing. It happens sometimes, and in some cases it's the best of the bad alternatives, but there's just a little too much pleasure being taken from the whole thing here for my tastes. If we are really the kind of people who think it's cool to kill someone else, instead of it being a regretful scenario, then whether it's guns or not is secondary to other, larger questions. "

are not isolated opinions are sure and exactly the reason why guns should be outlawed. Too many "shouldn't have fucked with me" type of people that want to be badass and take a life just because someone "fucked with them". Not enough value for life in our society to allow people to own lethal weapons.

Quote :

"A taser is better, but is also defeated by layers of clothing, or if one of the prongs miss. Then there's the fact that if you miss the first shot, your only alternative is close range contact shock, which is even less effective than the initial tase at incapacitating your assailant. Note that civilian tasers allow you to basically press the taser button up to 6 times (30 second tase) because when the shock is done, your assailant is perectly capable of getting back up and continuing the attack, so the idea is that you push the full tasing time into the taser and put it down and take off running. A 30 second head start is great, but you must put down your taser, thereby disarming you. A taser is also less effective against multiple assailants. "

its 2010. there are effective forms of non-lethal weapons

3/18/2010 11:13:03 AM

I feel guns should be mandatory. Anyone caught without their gun should be shot, just to prove the point. - Titus

3/18/2010 12:38:25 PM

mambagrl: what don't you understand about "serous threat of bodily injury or death"
I know you are just a troll, but really......

3/18/2010 1:06:08 PM

I still think Mambagrl is a troll

3/18/2010 2:03:04 PM

^^when a person has a gun they use their own judgement. "serious threat of injury" is a huuge judgement call and we shouldn't leave that up to people to decide weather someone lives or dies.

If I rob you, you might feel that you are in serious threat

If I break into your home and you arrive to find me inside, you might feel that you are in serious threat

If someone is in your home having consensual sex with your daughter and you discover, you might feel she is in surious threat.

Theres so many everyday situations where someone could get scared, angry or sad and use the gun in an unfortunate way.

[Edited on March 18, 2010 at 3:31 PM. Reason : slippery slope]

3/18/2010 3:30:56 PM

Quote :

"Theres so many everyday situations where someone could get scared, angry or sad and use the gun in an unfortunate way."

Luckily we have such people in our modern society that help us make such decisions. They are called JUDGES.

If some "ethnic" dude is having sex with my daughter and I shoot him, then i will in no doubt be put away. If some redneck is ripping my daughter's clothes off forcefully after breaking into my house during the night; then surely the judge will rule this as self-defense

3/18/2010 4:34:26 PM

You know guys... she's right. We shouldn't have the right of self defense. It's just wrong. I mean, those robbers, rapists, and murderers deserve a fair chance at committing their crimes; their lives are much more valuable than your own. We should all, including the police, turn in our guns, and wave our white flags.

[Edited on March 18, 2010 at 4:55 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2010 4:53:36 PM

Quote :

"^^when a person has a gun they use their own judgement. "serious threat of injury" is a huuge judgement call and we shouldn't leave that up to people to decide weather someone lives or dies."

You do realize it's the exact same standard whether you use a gun, a knife, a sledge hammer, an axe, hot glue or your bare fists right? The standard doesn't change whether you have a gun or not, the law is about lethal force. Whether you use a gun or not is irrelevant.

3/18/2010 7:28:50 PM

Criminals obtain guns illegally now and they will continue to obtain guns illegally if guns are ever banned. So let the rednecks shoot their animals. Who gives a shit.

3/18/2010 8:25:48 PM

Quote :

"We called RPD to report shots fired in a residence, and waited ... and waited ... and waited. It took 45 minutes for RPD to send anyone out to investigate and find out what the hell was going on,"

The cops probably had more pressing like busting a college party, pulling over drivers going 46 in the 40 mph zone along avent ferry,

and catching 25 yr olds smoking pot.

Quote :

"so we can kill people that leave home contageous?"

Yes

Quote :

" its 2010. there are effective forms of non-lethal weapons "

NO, perhaps they shoudl have thought of the consequences before resorting to a life of crime, beatings, and raping chicks.

Quote :

"murderers deserve a fair chance at committing their crimes; their lives are much more valuable than your own."

sounds like the typical democrat mindset

Quote :

"Criminals obtain guns illegally now and they will continue to obtain guns illegally if guns are ever banned. So let the rednecks shoot their animals. Who gives a shit. "

exactly.

3/19/2010 8:12:33 AM

When a person has the choice of defending themselves or not, they use their own judgement. the tool that is used in self defense is secondary. If the escalation of force results in lethal force being used/necessary, then the response of the victim is to end the attack swiftly and completely; in which many cases a firearm is the best option. No matter the tool, the use of lethal force is always a last resort and only used when an attack has to be stopped immediately and completely, thus pepper spray, tazers, etc. ARE NOT tools that are basically guaranteed to stop an attack in this manner.

[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 8:30 AM. Reason : .]

3/19/2010 8:28:52 AM

For the most part I'm not worried about people who use their guns in self defense. I'm worried about people who either:

A) claim to be using their guns in "self defense", but in reality have a very instigatory mindset to begin with (also, FYI, if they had a knife, I wouldn't be nearly as scared, because I could run like hell and feel okay even if I was unarmed, so the weapon of choice does matter)

B) usually use their guns in a responsible way, but then lose their cool one day and decide that since they have the tool available, they'll do some damage

C) intimidate others simply with the possession of their weapons in such a way as to make it clear that "no one fucks with me" (think about the people who were carrying guns outside of the Obama speeches just to prove that they had the right to do so)

I agree that of the 70 million or so gun owners in this country, the majority are very responsible people who present no danger to society, and it's entirely possible that their possessing guns can help to make things somewhat safer for us overall. at least, if the statistics presented are true, then i will agree for the sake of argument.

However, I again say that I think the ease of access and comfort we have with weapons as a society leads to more gun violence because as you increase the number of people with guns, although the percentage of those people who commit crimes with guns will remain the same (let's say only 5% of gun owners use them inappropriately), the absolute number of crimes committed will increase.

I guess I would also hope we could propose some solutions that would address the issue of crime that many gun control advocates want addressed, because it seems like gun owners are addressing the same problem, but in their own way. They don't feel the state provides enough protection, or satisfactory protection, and so they handle it themselves. Maybe we should attempt to try and address the root causes of crime more effectively so that people won't feel the need to carry guns as much to defend themselves, and with fewer crimes being committed, gun control supporters will not feel the need to address the issue because it is taken care of via another method.

3/19/2010 1:17:21 PM

Quote :

"A) claim to be using their guns in "self defense", but in reality have a very instigatory mindset to begin with (also, FYI, if they had a knife, I wouldn't be nearly as scared, because I could run like hell and feel okay even if I was unarmed, so the weapon of choice does matter)"

this is illegal, and they would be charged with murder/assault

Quote :

" B) usually use their guns in a responsible way, but then lose their cool one day and decide that since they have the tool available, they'll do some damage"

they could loose their cool with a knife or anything else, and again this is already illegal.

Quote :

"C) intimidate others simply with the possession of their weapons in such a way as to make it clear that "no one fucks with me" (think about the people who were carrying guns outside of the Obama speeches just to prove that they had the right to do so)"

this, also, is usually illegal

3/19/2010 5:02:26 PM

when you can kill someone with the push of a button it makes it a lot easier. It takes much more thought to stab someone to death than it takes to pull the trigger.

3/19/2010 5:11:53 PM

Quote :

"With shootings declining, Hub sees more stabbings Despite a much-touted reduction in shootings in Boston, police are now confronting a troubling rise in the number of stabbings, which have jumped 10 percent over the same period last year and are on track to reach their highest point in four years. Savvy criminals, aware of the tougher punishments levied for gun violations, have begun wielding blades instead, Boston law enforcement officials believe. Gangs are instructing members to carry knives rather than risk an 18-month minimum sentence for possessing an unlawful firearm, Superintendent Daniel P. Linskey said, and more young people are carrying the weapons for protection, then using them to hurt rivals during fights. "Carrying a knife is not going to expose anyone to a minimum of 18 months or beyond," said Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley. "And they're more easily accessible, too. You can pick up a knife at an army-navy store, or mom-and-pop variety store." Police reported 350 stabbings from Jan. 1 to Sept. 10, which was 10 percent more than in the same period last year. Shootings, meanwhile, plunged nearly 18 percent, from 283 to 233 for the same time period. The number of stabbings through Aug. 26, the latest date for which year-to-year comparisons were available, is at the highest level since 2004."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/09/18/with_shootings_declining_hub_sees_more_stabbings/

3/19/2010 5:34:22 PM

Quote :

"when you can kill someone with the push of a button it makes it a lot easier. It takes much more thought to stab someone to death than it takes to pull the trigger."

Yes, we should make it harder for people to defend themselves. Do you even listen to yourself or do you just quote comments verbatim from huffingtonpost?

^ The UK is also seeing the same thing. So much so that their politicians honestly are considering enacting knife bans. Apparently the didn't learn their lesson the first time.


[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 7:06 PM. Reason : skfjg]

3/19/2010 7:04:30 PM

the police are there to defend you. just like the military is there to defend you from nukes. everyone has a cell phone. call 911. Its extremely rare that a random criminal comes with the intent to harm. Usually they just want a wallet or soemthing trivial.

You can't determine if thier intent is to harm you or not so shooting first asking questions later is a bad idea. They could've having consensual sex with your daughter/wife but you heard screaming and thought she was in danger and busted in to shoot the guy. They could've simply been in your home to steal a tv while nobodys home but you surprised them. Kids could be playing a childish prank. Just because somebody is crossing you doesnt mean they deserve to die. Its an anti-christian way of thinking too which is funny because most gun advocates claim to be christian.

Easing economic desparity and other pressures is the best way of reducing violent crime anyhow

[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 7:14 PM. Reason : legislature]

3/19/2010 7:10:12 PM

too bad the supreme court ruled that the police have no obligation to defend ANYONE

3/19/2010 7:11:12 PM

Yes, that's correct, and that means that the police are worthless. As a matter of fact, we should have no police. Since they aren't required to do anything, why bother?

Or maybe it's possible that the reason the Supreme Court made that finding was because they were attempting to prevent people from overwhelming the system with lawsuits against police who were unable to help every person. Oh, yeah, that's it....don't put out a comment like that without including appropriate context.

Also, your statistics basically show that the stabbings increased by about 35 while the shootings declined by 50. Even if those numbers are a wash, I can tell you that I wouldn't like to be stabbed, but I am much more afraid of a gun than a knife. Like I said in my post, I feel much better about my chances of escaping from a knife than a gun.

Also, I understand that all of the things I mentioned were illegal. But we aren't really talking about the need for gun control for those people who use their weapons LEGALLY, are we? Seriously, pay attention. I'm not running around saying "No guns, no guns!!!" like a chicken with my head cut off.

And what's wrong with prosecuting gun crimes in a heavier way? Doesn't it make it less likely you will face a criminal with a gun, because he's worried about the legal repercussions more? And given that you guys still have your guns, it doesn't change your level of effectiveness at all, especially if he pulls out a knife now, and you still have your gun. Seems like that story shows why gun laws are working, not why they are failing.

3/19/2010 7:41:56 PM

So you are saying more laws, even though you acknowledge that the acts that they are used for are already illegal?

Knives are WAY more dangerous and destructive than guns.

3/19/2010 7:48:50 PM

Quote :

"Yes, that's correct, and that means that the police are worthless. As a matter of fact, we should have no police. Since they aren't required to do anything, why bother?"

not at all what I said. I said the police have no duty to defend you, so expecting them to do so is absurd

3/19/2010 7:55:19 PM

Quote :

"Seems like that story shows why gun laws are working, not why they are failing."

That wasn't a commentary on the effectiveness of gun laws. That was in response to mambagrls belief that guns are the cause of violent crime and not just a tool for violence. The violent crimes still happen, they just happen with knives instead.

3/19/2010 8:03:15 PM

no my concern is mainly for "trespassers" being shot and killed in "self defense"

3/19/2010 8:04:24 PM

They shouldn't be trespassing then.

3/19/2010 8:10:09 PM

can't legally use deadly force on a trespasser in NC and many other states... gun or not

[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 8:12 PM. Reason : .]

3/19/2010 8:11:52 PM

people shouldnt be mean, selfish, bullying, rude, or cold at all. Doesn't mean they deserve to die.

also this

Quote :

"forgive us our trespasses AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US"

3/19/2010 8:31:28 PM

yes, Jesus was talking about people coming on to other people's land, lol

3/19/2010 8:38:36 PM

really anything done against you

3/19/2010 8:59:19 PM

^please read, or make some attempt at learning what the laws in place are, before opening your mouth on any firearm related topic. You don't help, and none of your 'points' make any damn sense.

3/19/2010 9:00:42 PM

aaron, i know that's not what you meant. i was just extrapolating out, because it seemed that you did the same for several of the other comments made. but your comment was in response to another statement about the police protecting us.

of course we know the cops won't always be there. sometimes it may be better to have a firearm to protect yourself from crime, but i just think that if you put the pros on one side and the cons on the other of our current gun ownership habits and behaviors, the cons outweigh the pros, which makes me believe we should do something differently.

3/19/2010 9:30:32 PM

Quote :

"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;"

Exodus 22:2

3/19/2010 9:30:57 PM

old testament vs jesus

[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 9:34 PM. Reason : hence the whole point of jesus]

3/19/2010 9:33:54 PM