what type of gun nut are you?

[Mitchrapp]

i think anyone would likely have PTSD after someone broke into their home, whether that person had a weapon or not and whether they killed the intruder or not. PTSD from such an event is not specific to guns, it is just a common thing. whether in a car accident, experienced a fire, or whatever...people can have PTSD from it. heck, my bet is there are many who have PTSD from the events around Hurricane Sandy.

someone breaks into my home and my actions result in their death...i'm good with it, whether they are armed or not, because i do not know their full intention nor whether or not they would kill me or a family member, with a gun, knife, bare hands, or other weapon...it is impossible to know exactly how that person is going to behave or react upon discovering someone in the home. will they be frightened and kill or injure out of fear? don't know, don't care...defending my home and family comes first and that person's choice of entering my home was the cause of their death, not my choice to defend my property and/or family.

I haven't been in a situation like that but knowing myself I'd be happy that I protected my kids and wouldn't feel bad at all, knowing what the alternative would have been.

 

[redandguilty]

Yeah, this is really fuckin' relevent; I'm glad you brought it up...

It might be. Have you read the "I am Adam Lanza's mother" blogger story? Someone in her spot may turn to something like this if it was an option.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I haven't been in a situation like that but knowing myself I'd be happy that I protected my kids and wouldn't feed star bad at all, knowing what the alternative would have been.

I don't think very many people want to take anybody's handgun out of anybody's home.

I don't want to.

There's a handgun in my home; it's my wife's.

My wife bought it during the LA riots before we got together.

I don't want anybody from the government coming to our door, and telling her she has to hand it over.

 

[tinselwolverine]

It might be. Have you read the "I am Adam Lanza's mother" blogger story? Someone in her spot may turn to something like this if it was an option.

Cool.

Let me know when it's ready.

50 years, is it?

I'll almost surely be dead then, but, cool, nonetheless...

 

[redandguilty]

Cool.

Let me know when it's ready.

50 years, is it?

I'll almost surely be dead then, but, cool, nonetheless...

Google's new Director of Engineering thinks we'll be able to extend life dramatically before then.

 

[redandguilty]

Also...memristors: Go Blue!
http://www.hrl.com/hrlDocs/pressreleases/2012/prsRls_120323.html

"MALIBU, CA – March 23, 2012. In a step toward computers that mimic the parallel processing of complex biological brains, researchers from HRL Laboratories, LLC, and the University of Michigan have built a type of artificial synapse.

They have demonstrated the first functioning “memristor” array stacked on a conventional complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) circuit. Memristors combine the functions of memory and logic like the synapses of biological brains."

 

[tinselwolverine]

Google's new Director of Engineering thinks we'll be able to extend life dramatically before then.

Wow, the hits just keep on comin' today, don't they?

Although I was kinda looking forward to being in Heaven by that time...

 

[Michchamp]

'nother shooting in CO. 4 dead in domestic murder suicide. article includes this quote: "According to a May report by the Washington, D.C.-based Violence Policy Center, Colorado was one of 10 states where gun deaths outpaced motor vehicle deaths in 2009."

yikes.

 

[tinselwolverine]

You know, I've been thinking through this whole "cars kill people, too, should we do away with them...?" argument...


And it doesn't make sense.

What actually makes sense is, since we can't stop cars from killing people, what we should do is, we should get rid of all these cumbersome and inconvenient car and traffic laws and regulations instead.

What the hell, why bother having people get drivers licenses, or undergo driver training, since it's ineffective in stopping cars from killing people?

And all these stop signs, and traffic lights and speed limits - what good are they anyway?- they haven't been able to stop cars from killing people.

And obviously we won't need to spend any money on traffic law enforcement - because there won't be any traffic laws; we might be able to pay off the national debt on that alone.

 

[redandguilty]

Yup. Most things that people use that can hurt or kill people get regulated. A balance should be struck to maximize usefulness and minimize danger and the infringement of rights. Neither usefulness, nor safety, nor rights arguments absolutely trump the others.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Yup. Most things that people use that can hurt or kill people get regulated. A balance should be struck to maximize usefulness and minimize danger and the infringement of rights. Neither usefulness, nor safety, nor rights arguments absolutely trump the others.

I have to say, the unfettered gun rights enthusiasts on these boards have persuaded me, and I have come to wholeheartedly disagree.

Anything we can't stop from harming or killing people, we shouldn't waste our time bothering to regulate at all.

 

[redandguilty]

I have to say, the unfettered gun rights enthusiasts on these boards have persuaded me, and I have come to wholeheartedly disagree.

Anything we can't stop from harming or killing people, we shouldn't waste our time bothering to regulate at all.

That's not even the worst argument. I think the worst is that there are other unregulated, deadly things, therefore there's no point in regulating any deadly thing. (e.g., homemade bombs exist, therefore, it's dumb to regulate guns - just think of the extension of that principle.) There are some ways to bring the comparison to other deadly things into the discussion (such as to illustrate that it would be possible to over-prepare for gun violence) but blanket defenses of any type of gun use/ownership isn't it.

 

[Michchamp]

I have to say, the unfettered gun rights enthusiasts on these boards have persuaded me, and I have come to wholeheartedly disagree.

Anything we can't stop from harming or killing people, we shouldn't waste our time bothering to regulate at all.

I am loving this. You're doing some solid work here.

I don't even have anything else to add to this thread.

it's always nice when I don't have to be the source of 99% of the sarcastic, wise ass responses to the dumb shit people say here (excluding the comments from M&B which DR typically responds to).

 

[byco42]

I am loving this. You're doing some solid work here.

I don't even have anything else to add to this thread.

it's always nice when I don't have to be the source of 99% of the sarcastic, wise ass responses to the dumb shit people say here (excluding the comments from M&B which DR typically responds to).

I'm having difficulty finding your wedding registry online. Was it Walgreens or Circle K?

 

[tinselwolverine]

e.g., homemade bombs exist, therefore, it's dumb to regulate guns

Oh that's right, homemade bombs; I had forgot about those.

Those have killed people too, so let's let everybody who wants to just make and have as many as they want.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Here's a question, should we allow the government to start searching whatever homes they want without reasonable suspicion just to make us safer?

It's a similar in the sense that we're willing to give up part of, or all of, a Constitutional right based on the justification that it makes us safer.

 

[Michchamp]

Here's a question, should we allow the government to start searching whatever homes they want without reasonable suspicion just to make us safer?

It's a similar in the sense that we're willing to give up part of, or all of, a Constitutional right based on the justification that it makes us safer.

:ashamed:

 

[redandguilty]

Here's a question, should we allow the government to start searching whatever homes they want without reasonable suspicion just to make us safer?

It's a similar in the sense that we're willing to give up part of, or all of, a Constitutional right based on the justification that it makes us safer.

no. balance.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

no. balance.

What balance? It's all about protecting the children right? It seems we're talking about limiting, or giving up parts, of our Constitutional rights to make everyone safer.

 

[redandguilty]

What balance? It's all about protecting the children right? It seems we're talking about limiting, or giving up parts, of our Constitutional rights to make everyone safer.

Nothing is all about anything. You need to find balance between competing motivations. Citing a more extreme example to highlight only one motivation is useful if you are fighting the opposing extremist viewpoint, but it does not help identify the right degree of balance between competing motivations, like safety and rights.