| Author |
|
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 15 July 2010 at 9:59pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
So if your gun goes off in the privacy of your bedroomand goes through a window, across the street, through another window,and kills a sleeping kid, that's totally cool.
Brad, maybe I actually have to point out that this would be criminal negligence or manslaughter or something. I just assumed you knew the difference between owning a gun and being responsible under law for killing someone, either accidentally or on purpose.
You can drink and you can drive, but you can't drink and drive.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 15 July 2010 at 10:05pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Brad, I was a soldier. I know a gun is for killing, but it isn't for murder. If you shoot me in the head, you are not using it properly, you are using it to commit murder.
Guns and alcohol are worse than cars and alcohol and should not be allowed for the same reason.
All three are and should be allowed separately.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 15 July 2010 at 10:08pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
If you walk into a crowded mall with a gun and pick people off, that'sawesome! You're doing what you should be doing with that gun!
And Al thought my crazy comments were too much! Brad, read that again.
No one should be doing that with a gun. Hopefully, someone would have and properly use a gun to shoot that bastard in the face.
Thanks for helping me make my point.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1698
|
| Posted: 15 July 2010 at 10:08pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Ted Pugliese wrote:
| You can drink and you can drive, but you can't drink and drive. |
|
|
But why? Why is my freedom to consume a legal beverage restricted in this way? Surely as long as I'm not over the blood-alcohol limit then I'm not endangering anyone else? So I live in a free country but I can't drink a single beer in my car? Sounds like the communist nazi terrorists have already won. Most laws are created with regard to practical considerations. The reason why we can't have an open container of alcohol in a vehicle is because in practical terms it's much easier to simply restrict this freedom than to try to test every single driver's blood-alcohol level every day to catch the abusers. Similarly, if everyone carries guns around, it becomes a practical nightmare to enforce the law. Police have to assume that anyone is carrying a gun. In any dispute, you have to assume that the person you're arguing with might pull out a loaded weapon. In crowded areas, a single person can cause a horrendous amount of damage if he/she goes crazy. That's an awful lot of people to trust with responsibly handling a deadly weapon. Surely the sanest and safest way is simply to ban people from carrying guns, whether criminals or ordinary citizens.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 15 July 2010 at 10:20pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
You can't carry a gun in my state, New Jersey, but you can where I'm from, Florida.
I'm not sure how I feel about that. I have been talking about the right to buy guns and have them at home to defend yourself.
It bothers me that people are against this, as this is and should be my right, and no concern of theirs.
What you do in your house should be your business. Whether it's have a gun, drink, smoke, or whatever.
I am amazed that people and the media are so against this, but quick to defend what others do behind closed doors.
It's the same thing. You should be bale to do what you want in your house as long as it does not affect anybody else.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: 15 July 2010 at 10:25pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Ted - I've never had any real discussions with you before, so forgive me if I'm blunt when I ask what's wrong? I've never noticed you making the kinds of arguments you've been making in this thread before. Not the difference of opinion, per se, but the randomness and the seemingly faulty logic of your responses.
Your full quote about comparing gays to gun owners was appalling, first of all, but also completely ridiculous. You in italics, me in bold -
As long as I have the right to keep and bear arms, then you should have the right to say you don't like it. Similarly, if a man has the right to live with and sleep with another man, then someone else should have the right to say they don't like it. Not sure why I am using this example, but those men sleeping together and some other person owning a gun (or two or three or more), do not impact anyone else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. They are both harmless and both should be allowed in a free society.
So if your gun goes off in the privacy of your bedroom and goes through a window, across the street, through another window, and kills a sleeping kid, that's totally cool. Because if the gay guy's gun went off, in his boyfriend, in the privacy of their bedroom, that kid across the street would be killed by the gayness of it all.
Yep, those are totally equal things!
Brad, maybe I actually have to point out that this would be criminal negligence or manslaughter or something. I just assumed you knew the difference between owning a gun and being responsible under law for killing someone, either accidentally or on purpose.
You can drink and you can drive, but you can't drink and drive.
Do you even see where you went off the rails there? Two guys being totally gay and having the gay sex is totally harmless. I agree. They aren't bothering me with that business. Owning a gun though? That wasn't totally harmless. Someone could die from that. Very easily. If two homo men are in a room boning, and there's a sleeping kid across the street, that sleeping kid is in no danger. If there's a loaded gun in that same room, the potential for that child to be harmed - even from across the street - is much much greater than if there was no gun. In fact, there's probably nothing else in that house that could harm that child from that distance as easily as said gun.
The gun is not harmless. The gun is full of the potential to kill. The purpose of that gun IS to kill. It was actually designed, made, and tested, to make sure it could kill at a distance easily and efficiently. If that gun goes off - accidentally, intentionally, criminal negligence and manslaughter be damned, it's literally a killing machine.
How is that AT ALL like two gay guys humping?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1698
|
| Posted: 15 July 2010 at 10:25pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Ted Pugliese wrote:
| I am amazed that people and the media are so against this, but quick to defend what others do behind closed doors. |
|
|
If you're talking about gay rights, the point is that gays can't accidentally 'go off' and kill someone else! You storing a gun at home in a way in which it is virtually impossible for it to be stolen is fine in theory. In practice for that gun to be of any use to you, it must be stored loaded and ready to use in an instant. That means it can result in accidental shootings, as well as theft which then contributes to more guns in the hands of petty criminals, to name but two examples of things which do impact on others. The same argument used to be widely used for smoking "but I want to do it and it hurts noone else, what I do behind closed doors is my own business" until not only the dangers (and annoyance) of second-hand smoking were pointed out (especially to that person's kids for example), but also the burden it places on our taxes through higher medical bills for smokers. If you can assure me that there is a system which can secure a gun against casual theft, that every single gun owner will be responsible and never go crazy, that you are certain that accidental shootings will be a thing of the past, then I'll be right there with you marching for your right to own that gun.
Edited by Koroush Ghazi on 15 July 2010 at 10:27pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: 15 July 2010 at 10:29pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
And Koroush and I posted at the same time. Hey buddy! Thanks for saying what I said in less words and making me look all rambly-like!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: 15 July 2010 at 10:37pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
It's the same thing. You should be bale to do what you want in your house as long as it does not affect anybody else.---
You owning a gun in your house COULD affect me very easily though. Even if you're using it in your own way and you shoot at an intruder, my life could be at risk from those bullets if I'm your neighbour. You put everyone within a certain radius at risk with a gun. Everyone. Kids, puppies, grandma. Just sitting there, sleeping here, walking up the street.
Collateral damage is an acceptable price to pay for your freedom?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1698
|
| Posted: 15 July 2010 at 10:39pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Brad Krawchuk wrote:
| Collateral damage is an acceptable price to pay for your freedom? |
|
|
100,000 dead Iraqi civilians say yes! Ok, ok so maybe I shouldn't have injected that into the discussion. But it is relevant in that once we start accepting the notion that our own security concerns overwhelm the rights of other people to live in safety, we head down the path that was the Iraqi invasion. Anyway I don't see why a gun is necessary in protecting you against a robber or home invader. Surely there are plenty of non-lethal weapons like tasers which can be just as effective without posing the same risks?
Edited by Koroush Ghazi on 15 July 2010 at 10:42pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 15 July 2010 at 10:46pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Brad, I was purposely going about this out of character, seriously, for two reasons. One, because I don't do this and thought it would be a kick, and two, because I really believe in the right to own guns.
I used the gay example because I really believe in that too. For me, it's a good analogy because I believe gun owners should be allowed to own guns and gays should be allowed to be gay.
I also used that analogy because I feel that both issue are that polarizing. Some people are seriously against gays, and some people are seriously against guns.
Thirdly, I used the analogy because you can own a gun in your house without consequence (thousands do) and two gay people could be together in a house and no one even know.
Aside from these three points, the analogy falls apart, clearly, but that's not the point.
To continue the point, I had to switch analogies and move on to cars and alcohol, etc.
But I was trying to be polarizing, because I was going to be up and thought I would actually get into one of these debates. I haven't done so in years here. Since I have been on more recently, I thought I would give it a shot.
The funniest thing, like I said, is I don't have a gun and I'm not gay.
But the issue here for me is freedom and the freedom to own guns and be gay, to believe in God or not, to be man, woman, black, white, etc and live a life in the pursuit of hapiness, free to be and free to speak, even if you don't like what I have to say.
Hope this sounds more like me.
P. S. I wonder what it was that upset Al. Not sure, but I should have the freedom to say it, and I would hope someone would respect my right to do so. Maybe I did take it a little too far...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 15 July 2010 at 10:51pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Even if you're using it in your own way and you shoot atan intruder, my life could be at risk from those bullets if I'm yourneighbour.
Good point, but handguns are for carrying. Come into my house, and I would have shot you with a shotgun.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
