Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@saab,

saab wrote:

At the last massacre in Germany the father had not locked away his gun nor ammunition so the boy could get at it.
The father might be prosecuted.
I think it absurd to run around with a handgun. The chances that you meet a criminal are very small and if -
you probably don´t have time to pull the trigger anyway.
Even if you do you might shoot the wrong person.
It would be less dangerous if these people would carry a securtiy blanket instead or a teddybear -
those things also helps against paranoia.

Well, it appears that SOME PEOPLE believe in your philosophy, Mr. Saab.

Anyway, thay did in the past.

Consider the misadventure of the children
of John and Tephanie Carpenter:

On the morning of Aug. 23, 2000, 27-year-old Jonathan David Bruce
visited the Carpenter house in Merced, California.

Jessica Lynne Carpenter was 14 years old was home with four of her siblings --
Anna, 13; Vanessa, 11; Ashley, 9; and John William, 7 -- in the San Joaquin Valley
farming community of Merced, 130 miles southeast of San Francisco.
The children were skilled with firearms, having practiced at gunnery ranges.
There were adequate firearms in the house to address the day ’s events.

Jonathan David Bruce, a naked out-of-work telemarketer
apparently high on drugs, and armed himself with a pitchfork.
(SURELY, he must have had a license for the pitchfork from the police.)
He cut the phone lines to the house around 9 AM, broke in,
and began chasing down and stabbing the children.
Jessica Carpenter tried to dial 911. For some reason the phone was dead.

So she ran to the gun closet, but her parents had locked it
and had negligently failed to leave the children the key,
so the naked Mr. Bruce was SAFE,
as he proceeded to stab the children to death with his pitchfork.

The safety of the naked Mr. Bruce must be of DELIGHT to the supporters of victim disarmament.

When John and Tephanie Carpenter had left the house that morning, they had locked the gun closet,
but failed to leave the children the key, thereby leaving them helpless, which was very valuable to the murderer.
The children could have stopped the man by shooting him,
as the police did upon their eventual arrival.
Instead, Jessica got out of a window and fled to a neighbor’s house.
When police arrived at the home,
7-year-old John William and 9-year-old Ashley Danielle had been stabbed to death.
The supporters of gun control will be THRILLED TO KNOW that thay were both unarmed, in obedience to ALL gun control laws. That was WONDERFUL for the murderer.

Unarmed Ashley had apparently hung onto her assailant’s leg long enough
for her older sisters to escape. Thirteen-year-old Anna was wounded but survived.

Some say guns never solve anything.
Some recommend use of Teddy Bears instead of guns.
Merced County sheriff’s deputies did not agree.
When police arrived, Bruce charged with his bloody pitchfork.
So they shot him to death; with their guns.

The following Friday, the children’s great uncle, the Rev. John Hilton, told reporters:
“If only Jessica had a gun available to her, she could have
stopped the whole thing. If she had been properly armed,
she could have stopped him in his tracks.” Maybe John William
and Ashley would still be alive, Jessica’s uncle said.

Those children were assassinated by an evil partnership
between a naked telemarketer and the supporters of gun control, Mr. Saab.

`

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Sigh.

Nobody with sense is regarding percentage of gun ownership as the only important variable.

I would argue that it is one of the important ones, though....with other cultural and historical factors also being important.

I am happy that Germany is not a leader in world gun slaughter, Thomas...so you are all forgiven.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Lol!!!

Henry I of England was said to have died of a surfeit of lampreys.

Hence their killer reputation.

There is also a detective novel by Ngaio Marsh of that name.

I have to say they are so nightmarish in appearance that I shall not post a picture here.

2 Replies

@dlowan,

Really? He died of a surfeit of lampreys? Incredible!

But I will stop myself from asking further questions, or requesting lamprey photographs, because I fear taking this thread to places it should not go! Though after David's story about those parents who left the house without leaving their children the key to the gun cupboard ... I suspect that any digression might be appreciated!

0 Replies

David you are living in a dream world.
A crazy person usually will not stand as a statue and let himself get shot.
He will listen to every sound and be alert and hide, attack and defend himself.
What if he had grabbed one of her siblings as a shield and she by mistake had shot her sibling?
The girl whom you wish had killed the killer are you sure she could have lived with this? She probably has nightmares the rest of her life for what happened and for what she could not do. Her nightmares might be even worse if she had killed the man.
You don´t know how a person feels after killing another one even if it is in self defence. Some people cannot live with it, even soldiers have difficulties and so do policemen. They are trained for shooting, but they as a rule don´t like to do it. Policemen are trained to first aime at a person and shoot in a leg or arm not to kill.
You seem to wish something could happen so you can kill and prove you are right. What if it is the wrong person? What if it happens to be your neighbour out looking for his cat in the middle of the night in your garden?
If you are attacked from behind how will you shoot, how will you shoot if a person is using your wife or someone else dear to you as a shield? What if you are attacked standing in the shower? Do you carry a gun in the shower?

1 Reply

@msolga,

Hmm try some areas of Detroit or Homestead Florida. Please feel free to go into them without being arm.

The west was safe compare to those areas in fact Washington dc is where the US military train it medical people to deal wiht gun shot wounds.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Lol!!!

Henry I of England was said to have died of a surfeit of lampreys.

Hence their killer reputation.

There is also a detective novel by Ngaio Marsh of that name.

I have to say they are so nightmarish in appearance that I shall not post a picture here.

I 've heard that the official death certificate of King Henry VIII
sets forth "a surfeit of quinces" as the cause of death,
tho I have not seen the actual certificate.

David

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

I think the answer is above.

Not for more than a century, if ever.

Those irrationally attached to a "freedom"
which results in the slaughter of thousands a year have too much
influence for sanity to prevail.

My freedom to defend my property
and myself from predatory violence is not negotiable.

David

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Calamity jane suggested banning all guns, and even amending the constitution of the united states to do so.

It's not a strawman when people are actually using that as the basis of their argument.

Oy, read carefully maporsche, I spoke of amending the 2nd amendment, yes,
and the prohibition of certain firearms - not banning all guns!

What is it with you gun proponents? There seems to be absolutely no middle
ground here.

2 Replies

@saab,

saab wrote:

I believe it.
Instead of having a exhibition of carving knifes standing in a block onthe counter you should have them in a messy drawer with wooden spoons, unpaid bills, chewing gum or whatever you keep in a messy kitchendrawer.
Searching for the long knife might cool down the temprament.

YES,
but even better to slow them down
make all Englishmen have their hands always restrained in chains
behind their backs, in case any member of the family becomes angry,
it will be more difficult for him to stab anyone with even a short knife or fork.

David

0 Replies

@CalamityJane,

I believe I read quite carefully. There is nothing that I saw in your posts that suggested you're only talking about banning 'some' guns.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Very simple, then quote the passage where I want to ban all guns.

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

You mention amending the constitution. What would need to be amended in the constitution except the individual freedom to own firearms. If you think the constitution needs to be amended for gun control measures to be implemented, I don't think it's too much of a leap to think you believe that we need to amend the constitution so that we can start to remove firearms from the citizens of the USA.

You surely aren't suggesting that we need to amend the constitution so that we can mandate trigger locks or keeping firearm unloaded at home? Are you?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

How about a nice bomb that I could place under your seat and then walk away in a movie theater.

A bomb that can be created out of material that can be found in any home.

Sorry but we all have the ability to kill each other if we wish to and firearms are only one of many threat models.

Bombs made out of material found in the home require that the person
1. have enough knowledge to make one (It requires a lot more than buying and loading a gun.)
2. takes the time to make it.
3. Doesn't blow himself up in the process

It's kind of hard to compare the two Bill unless.... Here's a suggestion. People can carry a gun that they build themselves out of materials found in their home and ONLY that kind of gun. How about that?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche, yes, that's what gun control entails: not every citizen should have
a gun, as not every citizen is mentally and intellectually equipped to have one.
The 2nd amendment therefore needs to change - we're not in the 1800 century any longer where the 2nd amendment made sense. Today, the 2nd amendment brings more harm than good.

2 Replies

@CalamityJane,

What are you proposing the 2nd Amendment should be changed to? What changes to it do you think need to be made, specifically?

We already have laws to keep guns away from the mentally ill and ex-cons. Who else do you think we should exclude.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
I believe it would be preferable if no individual was in a position to instigate such a shooting spree in the first place.

And how would you do that, especially since someone with a modicum of knowledge and access to a machine shop can produce a firearm in only a few hours.

Are you going to ban all machine shops?

No need to ban machine shops. If you want to go that way, what do you think the odds are of someone being able to make a fully automatic weapon that holds 20 0r more rounds and will have no problems in extended use in just a few hours? Without a full CNC shop and the completed CNC drawings, I suggest no one would be able to do it in just a "few hours."

2 Replies

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

maporsche, yes, that's what gun control entails: not every citizen should have
a gun, as not every citizen is mentally and intellectually equipped to have one.
The 2nd amendment therefore needs to change - we're not in the 1800 century any longer where the 2nd amendment made sense.
Today, the 2nd amendment brings more harm than good.

Jane,
If I were a violent criminal,
or if I were the father of a violent criminal,
I 'd eagerly agree with u,
so that my child woud not be injured when he robs or kills his victims.

However, the victims have the inalienable right to FIGHT BACK
against the predatory violence of man or beast.

In order to get CONTROL of the situation in a predatory emergency,
the victim needs the appropriate equipment, which is a competent gun.

The future victims need to fight against your suggestion, Jane,
and defend their inalienable rights as protected by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
If u have YOUR way: future victims of predatory violence of man or beast,
will be HELPLESS in the emergency.
Victims who have adopted my philosophy will be able to stand on a plane of equality with the predator
and at least have a fighting chance.

In any event,
the rights defended by the 2nd Amendment
ARE NATURAL RIGHTS, like the right to believe what u wish to believe.

No government can end a person 's natural rights;
that government can only VIOLATE those rights.

`

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
I believe it would be preferable if no individual was in a position to instigate such a shooting spree in the first place.

And how would you do that, especially since someone with a modicum of knowledge and access to a machine shop can produce a firearm in only a few hours.

Are you going to ban all machine shops?

No need to ban machine shops. If you want to go that way, what do you think the odds are of someone being able to make a fully automatic weapon that holds 20 0r more rounds and will have no problems in extended use in just a few hours? Without a full CNC shop and the completed CNC drawings, I suggest no one would be able to do it in just a "few hours."

I have a pamphlet from the Paladin Press
that explains how to build a submachinegun,
tho I will admit that, for ME, it woud take more than a few hours
to have my submachinegun, tho building a magazine of 20+ rounds
shoud be fairly ez.

Anyway, work it until u 've got it right.
Interestingly, guns were among the world 's earliest machines with moving parts.
Its easier to make them now, with electric tools.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Anyway, work it until u 've got it right.

Which is why many guns have been redesigned after problems were found in the initial designs.

"A few hours" doesn't allow you time to "get it right" if you are attempting to design and test in that time frame.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know