Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 10,251-10,300 of 12,463

[Tim]

Mary wrote: "Why is any legislation too much? Why is the pro-gun cry "any loss/death is acceptable as long as I can have whatever gun, in whatever quantity I want"? Why is there no room for compromise?"

I have been following this debate for a few days, but not saying too much. What Mary says on the matter makes the most logical sense to me.

I don't know what path America will take on this matter, but it seems that 'business as usual' is not working out.

Some see it as an inailiable right to own as many guns as they like, and this will never change.

But let me ask you this: if you knew that your chances of defending yourself against attack in your home were minimal unless you wore your gun on you constantly, but at the same time you knew for certain that the chances of being attacked in your home were greatly increased by having it known that you own a gun, would you still own a gun? No long-winded answers please. Would you still own a gun?

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "Why is any legislation too much? Why is the pro-gun cry "any loss/death is acceptable as long as I can have whatever gun, in whatever quantity I want"? Why is there no room for compromise?
"

Did I say that, Mary? Did I say any legislation is too much? Did I say compromise isn't an option?

I must say I'm a bit confused.

[David]

Travis said, "the people who have guns don't want any laws that would inconvience them"

Why do you want to inconvenience gun owners?

"So, a large group of heavily armed people, with no restrictions."

Who statistically commit near 0% of all crimes. I think we have established who is really paranoid. Gun owners just want to be left alone and not have your busybody intrusions.

[Tim]

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[David]

Travis said, "I own no guns, never have never will, I still have the right to defend myself."

Let's be more practical. How would you defend yourself against two men with knives? Let's say you are a 100 pound woman facing two 300 pound men with knives. How would you defend yourself?

[Travis]

David wrote: "Travis said, "the people who have guns don't want any laws that would inconvience them"

Why do you want to inconvenience gun owners?

"So, a large group of heavily armed people, with no restrictio..."


I think anybody who owns a thing designed solely for killing should be inconvienced.

So, people with guns commit near 0% of the gun crimes?
I have to question both the math and the logic of that statement.

[Travis]

David wrote: "Travis said, "I own no guns, never have never will, I still have the right to defend myself."

Let's be more practical. How would you defend yourself against two men with knives? Let's say you ar..."

It's practical to turn me into a 100 lb woman?
Wouldn't it be equally practical to make me a 300 lb woman with a knife defending myself from an unarmed 100lb man?

See, I'm not arguing the effectiveness of guns, heck, you want to kill something, they are the tool for the job, I'm arguing that saying gun restrictions are the same as they are taking away my right to defend myself is a false statement.

Here's my practical question, how many dead children would be required to get you to think some gun restrictions might be a good idea?

[David]

Travis said, "So, people with guns commit near 0% of the gun crimes? I have to question both the math and the logic of that statement."

No, the people who own most of the 300 million guns in the US commit no crimes. For that matter, most crimes do not involve guns at all. So a very small minority of LEGAL gun owners commit gun crimes, statistically close to zero.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I'm arguing that saying gun restrictions are the same as they are taking away my right to defend myself is a false statement.
"

Is this based on extensive research or personal opinion?

[[deleted user]]

Dani wrote: "I would rather live in a world without religion, because basically both World Wars started because of feuds between religions, as well as the Holocaust against Jewish people. If their were no relig..."

Would you mind explaining how WWI started because of religion?

Or, ... how the Pacific theater was started because of religion, during WWII?

Further, are you aware more wars have been waged over things other than religion? You might want to consult the BBC war audit.

[David]

Tim and Mary,

It appears that you think that removing guns from society will solve some problem. I think that you would only exchange one problem for another.

England and Australia banned and confiscated most guns years ago. They certainly have less gun crime but what we gun owners say will happen has happened in both of those places - law abiding citizens become victims more often because now they have no effective means of defending themselves.
In England and Wales 3.6 per cent of the population were victims of violent crime in 1999. Among developed nations, they are second Australia which is at 4.1 per cent.

Only 2 percent of US citizens were victims of violent crime.

[Tim]

No-one can answer my question. Because it would mean having to admit that in certain circumstances it is foolish to own a gun.

[Tim]

I'll repeat it for those who missed it:

But let me ask you this: if you knew that your chances of defending yourself against attack in your home were minimal unless you wore your gun on you constantly, but at the same time you knew for certain that the chances of being attacked in your home were greatly increased by having it known that you own a gun, would you still own a gun? No long-winded answers please. Would you still own a gun?

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I own no guns, never have never will, I still have the right to defend myself. "

You're a man. Do you think that might make a difference?

[[deleted user]]

Tim wrote: "I'll repeat it for those who missed it:

But let me ask you this: if you knew that your chances of defending yourself against attack in your home were minimal unless you wore your gun on you consta..."

Could I ask a question, Tim?

Why do people in your country know who owns guns and who doesn't?

But, yes, I'd still have a gun. It was given to me by my father, a family tradition.

Even so, yes.

[David]

Travis said, "Here's my practical question, how many dead children would be required to get you to think some gun restrictions might be a good idea?"

That is a logical fallacy called playing on emotions. Will there be no dead children after a gun ban?

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I own no guns, never have never will, I still have the right to defend myself. "

You're a man. Do you think that might make a difference?"

No, everyone has the right to defend themselves.
The weapon is not the right, it can be the means, but it is not the right.

ownership of a weapon and your sex do not grant/take away the right.

[Travis]

David wrote: "Travis said, "Here's my practical question, how many dead children would be required to get you to think some gun restrictions might be a good idea?"

That is a logical fallacy called playing on em..."

Kids getting shot are closer to reality than my transforming into a 100lb woman.

I'm just looking for a number. How many dead children are your guns worth?

[David]

Tim wrote: "I'll repeat it for those who missed it:

But let me ask you this: if you knew that your chances of defending yourself against attack in your home were minimal unless you wore your gun on you consta..."

I didn't bite the first time because the question is based on a false premise. I'm not biting now.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "The weapon is not the right, it can be the means, but it is not the right.

ownership of a weapon and your sex do not grant/take away the right.
"

You're right.

The Bill of Rights, precedent, and a recent Supreme Court decision give American women that right.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I'm just looking for a number. How many dead children are your guns worth? "

Questions....

You're for a woman's right to abortion. Right? That's her right, her body.

You're for a woman's right to universal health care. Right? Basic human right.

You're for a woman's right to marry her gay partner. Right? Again, you'd argue that it's a basic human right.

But, ....

What?

Are you against a woman's right to own a gun, a right granted by our government, to defend herself?

Are you against that?

Could you explain?

One would think, being a proponent of human rights, you'd support a woman's right to defend yourself? Oh, you do. Yes. But, how....

Tell me.... How would the young mother in Oklahoma have defended herself against two armed men while waiting for close to an hour for the police to arrive? Could you please, honestly, answer that question? How would she have defended herself?

Is her life and the life of her baby less valuable than the lives of anyone else?

I have problems following your logic.

Would it be nice to live in a country in which one in five women aren't raped? Yes.

Until we do, I'd rather men not suggest my right to own a gun isn't a right. That I have a right to defend myself ... but that is different from whether or not I own a gun and protect myself with a gun.

[Mary]

David wrote: "Tim and Mary,

It appears that you think that removing guns from society will solve some problem. I think that you would only exchange one problem for another.

England and Australia banned and ..."

You have jumped to a conclusion. I find this happens often with people who believe "any loss is acceptable as long as I can have any gun, in any quantity, I want."
I find these people can only think in extremes:

Any gun legislation = banning all guns
Gun legislation does no good, ever, no matter what.


There are many, many moderate people, myself included, who DO NOT feel that guns should be banned. I do however think we should care who buys them. I do think we should care what kind are sold and where they go. It is harder to adopt a dog from the pound than it is to buy a gun.
Guns do kill, in fact, it is the express purpose of this object. Unlike a car, that is primarily for transportation, a gun is for killing. But we regulate cars. We insist on license and registration, on insurance, on drivers training. We regulate against drunk driving, and for seat belt usage and traffic laws. Does this legislation never work? Does any legislation for driving mean cars are banned? No, it means we want to operate them safely.
Does this mean accidents never occur? No, but it reduces accident rates.
Do I think regulating guns will prevent all gun violence. Of course not, but if it prevents even one child's death, isn't that a good thing?
Why are guns so special, so magical, that any attempt to regulate them simply won't work?
I find many areas of American life where having a gun is acceptable. Farmers, hunters, law enforcement, and even personal protection. But I do not see any need for assault weapons, or large capacity magazines.
We do not live in the movie "Red Dawn." The government is not out to get us. The NRA loves to use fear to justify owning more guns, but derides anyone who is saddened by Sandy Hook, or any of the many, many senseless gun deaths as "emotional."
We have to have some sort of reasonable, fact based conversation on how we want to live with guns in this country. Other countries do it. 2nd amendment says "well-regulated". Well, let's get some good regulations. Like comprehensive background checks, registering guns, no private sales without background checks and being able to track the gun. Those things are not unreasonable. They're just not.

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "The government is not out to get us."


Might be the wrong week to make that argument, Mary.

Groups with "patriot" and "constitution" and "9/12" and "tea" in their names might disagree. (IRS)

The AP might disagree.

I'm not paranoid, etc.... But, the timing for that statement is unfortunate given the governments' bad behavior.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "The government is not out to get us."


Might be the wrong week to make that argument, Mary.

Groups with "patriot" and "constitution" and "9/12" and "tea" in their names might disagr..."

Is anyone really surprised/shocked that the IRS gave a little extra scrutiny to groups that loudly declared they didn't want to pay taxes and had members burning the president in effigy and talking about killing him?

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "The weapon is not the right, it can be the means, but it is not the right.

ownership of a weapon and your sex do not grant/take away the right.
"

You're right.

The Bill of Rights..."

That's my point having or not having a gun has no effect on your right to defend yourself.
It effects your means, but not your right.

People saying 'taking my gun takes away my right to defend myself' is where I have a problem.
It's a logical fallacy.

[Nur Banu]

Religion shouldn't be separated, it should be integrated. As a Muslim, I see both religion and science as essential things in my life.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I'm just looking for a number. How many dead children are your guns worth? "

Questions....

You're for a woman's right to abortion. Right? That's her right, her body.

You're for ..."

Who is saying you don't have a right to own a gun or that you don't have the right to defend yourself?

I don't like guns, and think there should be more restrictions, stronger laws and that the current system needs fixing, but that doesn't mean I think or believe that Obama needs to take away your guns.

What about the rights of those twenty dead kids from Newtown?
Is your right to bear arms more important then those children's right to make it to second grade?

A gun, wether you use it right or wrong, kills something and I have a problem with people that think there should be restrictions on something that is made only to kill something else.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I'm just looking for a number. How many dead children are your guns worth? "

Questions....

You're for a woman's right to abortion. Right? That's her right, her bo..."

Well, ....

I was replying to your post, Travis, which stated,

"Travis wrote: "I'm just looking for a number. How many dead children are your guns worth? "

Please clarify ....

Even though you asked how many dead children are [our] guns worth, you're not contending that we shouldn't have guns? Is that it?

Because, to me, I'd think someone who would ask how many dead children are worth my right to own a gun would advocate that I not own a gun.

Though, please do explain.

What does that question imply?

What is your stance?

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "What about the rights of those twenty dead kids from Newtown?
Is your right to bear arms more important then those children's right to make it to second grade?"

I asked you a question, too. I'll ask it again. Will you answer it?

Were the lives of the mother in Oklahoma and her baby not as valuable as the lives of the children of Sandy Hook?

(Somewhere, cHriS is thinking ... emotive.)

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "not having a gun has no effect on your right to defend yourself"

Right ....

I asked you a question. You didn't answer.

When two men showed up at an Oklahoma home, broke through the locked outer door, broke through the bedroom door, and brandished a 12-inch hunting knife, how was the Oklahoma mother to defend herself?

She'd locked her doors.

She called 911; she was told police wouldn't get there for 45 to 60 minutes due to her remote location.

Was she to defend herself by throwing her baby's bottle at the attackers?

How was she to defend herself, Travis? Buck up. How? You claim not having a gun doesn't impact a woman's right to defend herself.

Okay.... How was she to defend herself ... and her baby?

I'll tell you. I've taken self-defense courses, twice. I was pretty good at it. However, I seriously doubt I'd be able to fight two men and a 12-inch hunting knife.

But, please, enlighten me.

How could she have saved herself and her child?

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Is anyone really surprised/shocked that the IRS gave a little extra scrutiny to groups that loudly declared they didn't want to pay taxes and had members burning the president in effigy and talking about killing him?"

The president seemed shocked and said it was five shades of wrong.

Was he wrong?

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I'm just looking for a number. How many dead children are your guns worth? "

Questions....

You're for a woman's right to abortion. Right? That's he..."

People act like the second amendment is a sacred thing and any attempt to even hint at changing the gun laws is unthinkable.

any suggestion of trying something different has been met with 'they want to our guns and our right to defend ourselves!'

Which has never been what I've suggested. My argument is that we need to change things. No magic or muslim socialist is making the guns go away, but we need to try something different, as it doesn't seem to be working great for us at the moment.

I'm told that just can't happen. Either everyone thinks thing are great as is, or they are convinced anything different would be horrible... mass hysteria! Dogs and cats living together...!

So, i just want to know how many dead kids are your guns worth to you?
You can keep your guns, but the price is more dead children.
Heck, even if we manage to change any part of the gun laws, you guys still get to keep your guns.

What number will make it okay to try something different?

If there's a specific number, I'll accept that, but a ballpark estimate will be fine.
We know it's higher than twenty, because Newtown didn't make any difference, but i need it narrowed down.

How many dead kids before we can really talk about changing things?

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Is anyone really surprised/shocked that the IRS gave a little extra scrutiny to groups that loudly declared they didn't want to pay taxes and had members burning the president in effigy and talking about killing him?"

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/natio...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/politic...

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "not having a gun has no effect on your right to defend yourself"

Right ....

I asked you a question. You didn't answer.

When two men showed up at an Oklahoma home, broke through t..."

Why does any discussion of gun control always immediately end up with 'No guns!'

So, the only options are what we have now and no guns?
There's no middle ground?

If that woman in Oklahoma got her gun legally, then why wouldn't she be allowed to keep it?

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "So, the only options are what we have now and no guns?
There's no middle ground?

If that woman in Oklahoma got her gun legally, then why wouldn't she be allowed to keep it?
"


Why are you refusing to answer my questions? Stands out. Starkly.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Is anyone really surprised/shocked that the IRS gave a little extra scrutiny to groups that loudly declared they didn't want to pay taxes and had members burning the president in eff..."

Oh, it was wrong for that IRS office to do it, but the fact that these groups was checked out, shouldn't be a shock.
If the IRS was going after the humane society or the Anne Hathaway fan club then it's a shock and a surprise.

and yet, despite it all, the groups were given their tax exempt status.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Oh, it was wrong for that IRS office to do it, but the fact that these groups was checked out, shouldn't be a shock.
If the IRS was going after the humane society or the Anne Hathaway fan club then it's a shock and a surprise.

and yet, despite it all, the groups were given their tax exempt status.
"

Not one of the questions I was referring to ... but thanks for answering that one.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "not having a gun has no effect on your right to defend yourself"

Right ....

I asked you a question. You didn't answer.

When two men showed up at an Oklahoma home, broke through t..."

Every life is worth defending.

Again, the gun is the means, I'm not arguing that people should not be allowed guns for defense, what I am saying is the logic of her having the RIGHT does not change because of a gun.
Means, ability etc does change, but not the right.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "So, the only options are what we have now and no guns?
There's no middle ground?

If that woman in Oklahoma got her gun legally, then why wouldn't she be allowed to keep it?
"

So, how about you set a good example for me:

How many dead kids are your guns worth?

Or how many more dead kids before we can change the gun laws?




Why..."

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Again, the gun is the means, I'm not arguing that people should not be allowed guns for defense, what I am saying is the logic of her having the RIGHT does not change because of a gun.
Means, ability etc does change, but not the right. "

So, ....

You have no intention of answering....

Answering my questions about how the Oklahoma mom could have defended herself ....

Answering my questions about the rights you argue for but ....

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "So, how about you set a good example for me:

How many dead kids are your guns worth?

Or how many more dead kids before we can change the gun laws?"


The question seems inappropriate to me. Sophie's Choice. Which baby should live, Shannon? The baby in Oklahoma or the babies in Sandy Hook?

I was horrified by Sophie's Choice. Haunted. Had nightmares. I remember thinking and feeling ... I wouldn't choose. I'd attack the rat ba****. We'd all die, together, before I picked one child over another.

So, ....

Here you are ....

Which baby has more worth, Shannon?

Which baby should be saved?

The baby with the bottle in Oklahoma or the toothless (front teeth) first grader in Sandy Hook?

Do you really want me to answer the question, Travis?

I'm being serious here.

Is this really what you want to do? Is this really the question you want to ask, while refusing to answer any tough questions yourself, by the way?

I'll do it. I'll answer.

But, first, I really want you to think about this. You're about to take a stand on something, the idea that it's appropriate to ask this sort of question. So, is this the type of thing you really want to stand for?

If so, say it and I'll answer.

[Alice]

be hard to choose - I believe in both as you can't have one without the other

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "So, how about you set a good example for me:

How many dead kids are your guns worth?

Or how many more dead kids before we can change the gun laws?"


The question seems inappropria..."

But, my question isn't an 'either or'. I'm not asking you to chose specific children.
Never saw 'Sophie's choice', my question isn't even 'The lady or the tiger'.

I'm asking, if gun rights are going to be treated as a sacred right, that cannot be touched, altered or even discussed then how many dead children before we can?


I am taking away no one's right to defend themselves, I personally haven't even suggested taking away the means, so that woman in Oklahoma is safe and as heavily armed as she is legally allowed to be.
You guys get to keep your guns, it's a win/win.
Not taking the guns ( I'll repeat, because no one seems to read that part) all I want to know is when will you guys be willing to really and honestly be willing to do something about this?


My only stand is I think the whole idea that guns are more important than people is sad, but that is the choice we made as a country.

[Sarah]

Withput religion science is soo much more important :)

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I'm asking, if gun rights are going to be treated as a sacred right, that cannot be touched, altered or even discussed then how many dead children before we can?
"

You're asking this of the woman who said she was for the tightening of background checks. Who said she was for banning certain weapons that, frankly, aren't necessary, in my opinion, for hunting or home protection.

I said those things. Clearly.

You say you're not against American's having guns. Then, you ask if my gun rights are worth dead babies? If so, how many dead babies are worth my right to own a gun.

Take that in for a moment.

First, be honest. Aren't you against guns? After all, how can you be for gun ownership in one breath and ask if the right of people to own guns is worth dead babies? How many dead babies?

To be clear, .... I'm for talking about the issue. (All of it ... not just what is in vogue ... mental health, too ... our culture, too ...) I'm for background checks at gun shows.

So, I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it and make changes.

Do you still want to ask me this question?

And, by the way, you absolutely are, in my mind, asking me to choose between the baby in Oklahoma and the babies in Sandy Hook.

It's all in your phrasing.

You've not asked ...

How many dead babies do you need before you're willing to talk about stricter gun control laws?

That's not what you asked and are asking.

Though, is that what you really mean to ask?

You asked and are asking ....

How many dead babies are worth your gun rights? (Gun rights in general. Right to own a gun. And, on the heels of your claims that one can defend oneself without a gun.)

If it's the latter, you're asking me to choose, while answering no tough questions ... you're willing to pose the most horrific question possible. Which baby is worth more?

So, make your choice. Pose your question. But, be sure.

If you insist on the latter, be clear ....

I'll be setting up a "Shannon's Law" ... calling foul on people who ask the most emotive and morally abhorrent questions and demanding an answer while refusing to answer any hard questions oneself.

People with shout, "Shannon's! Don't talk to him! Shannon's Law!"

So, be sure.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I'm asking, if gun rights are going to be treated as a sacred right, that cannot be touched, altered or even discussed then how many dead children before we can?
"

You're asking thi..."

I think it'd sound more dramatic if when you shout 'Shannon's law' you are standing on a rooftop at night and just as you shout it, there's a bolt of lightening behind you.

Maybe even a cape, fluttering in the breeze.

I never denied that I don't like guns and think they are, at best a necessary evil. I have also said I'm aware they are not going away, so what is needed is better laws for dealing with them.
There's no 'Ah-ha!' moment here. No hidden agenda.

and I'm asking this of the people on this thread that have gotten their panties in a twist over the idea of changing any gun laws.
The ones that act like god got together with Santa and Oprah to write the second amendment.
Are you one if those people?
If you are for changing any of the gun laws and talking about what can be done differently, as you just said you are, than why are you arguing with me about it?

This awful choice you are being forced to...talk for paragraphs about how you are not going to answer, you jumped in and volunteered to be in the middle of, despite not holding the opinion it is focused on!

I'm tempted to break Shannon's law in the hopes that you mean it, and will follow the advice of the shouting people.

[Mary]

Mary wrote: "The government is not out to get us."


Might be the wrong week to make that argument, Mary.

Groups with "patriot" and "constitution" and "9/12" and "tea" in their names might disagree. (IRS)

The AP might disagree.

I'm not paranoid, etc.... But, the timing for that statement is unfortunate given the governments' bad behavior.

Shannon, you cannot equate the IRS looking at groups who claim to hate taxes with total anarchy. The government has often behaved much worse than that...say..take us to war on false pretenses? Iran-Contra? Watergate? Teapot Dome Scandal, if you want to go way back.
Which actually proves that although our government is far from perfect, and has had many examples of corruption and scandal, we all seem to still be here and not under martial law.

In response to your other post where you took offense at my statements, I was responding to David and his statements, not yours.

My stand is clear.
I do not have a gun. I do not want to prevent others from owning guns for personal protection. But I do think there is sane, moderate legislation that can be put in place to reduce gun violence. Nothing will ever totally eliminate it. But I value life, and not just my own.

I teach in a neighborhood that most people on this board would not want to drive through in broad daylight, with their windows rolled up, at a high rate of speed. But I do not fear someone coming on to our campus Sandy Hook style. Why? Because school/mall/workplace shootings are perpetrated a majority of the time by white males. This is an almost exclusively a white, middle class area phenomenon. I fear for my students who live with gang violence and drugs. They might be killed in a street robbery, but school shootings are not something we worry about.

I know that our country needs to stop worshiping violence. In media, in video games, in life. We need to truly invest in all our children, and we need serious mental health care. But you know what? The same people who scream about the government taking their guns are the same who do not want to give one more dime for health care, welfare or anything else. SO on one hand they say legislation won't help, but they don't really want to give any time or money to the things that will make the most difference.
It is the "any loss is acceptable as long as I get to keep any gun, in any quantity, I want" mentality. It is what David expressed himself and what I was replying to.

If I had to be flippant, but also with a large kernel of truth, I would say that since most gun violence is perpetrated my the male of the species, then it might be worth a look banning men from having guns, and only allowing women to own them.
David?....discuss.....

If you want anecdotal evidence here's some. Before the age of 18, this man was institutionalized 7 times for impulse and rage issues. He was kicked out of schools, had fights etc. A few years later he shoots at another driver on the freeway in D.C who cut him off in traffic, missing the drivers head by an inch or so. He goes to prison for 10 yrs. He owned all his guns legally. Seems like he had many red flags, but still he owned guns. Crazy right? Even crazier still is that he is David Micheal Keene, son of the current NRA president. Not a made up story, it's all public record. Maybe that's why the NRA doesn't want to have enhanced background checks, maybe too many of them wouldn't pass.

[Tim]

I have never supported the Gun Free South Africa campaign. Nowhere in what I have posted do I say that you should think about changing your laws. What I was suggesting is that you consider, as we have done, to voluntarily start owning fewer guns.

David. Could you explain how it is based on a false premise? Owning guns in South Africa makes you a target. Everyone here knows this. Studies have confirmed it. More than a thousand farmers and policemen are killed every year in South Africa, and in every instance, they are robbed of their guns.

Shannon: how would people know you owned a gun? Well, you would have to either wear it on your person or have it in the gun safe. Having it in a gun safe would be if no use if you are attacked. Most wealthy middle to upper class South Africans have domestic workers or gardeners, or employ a garden service. Criminals pay these people for information on who owns what. Word gets out quickly who owns lots of guns.

I love using guns. When I was fifteen I was the best marksman in my province here, of all age groups. But I don't own guns any more.

You're just pig-shit stupid if you think owning a gun here in South Africa is going to make you less of a target. And you're even more stupid if you think that your property is worth dying for, because more often than not they just want your shit, not your life.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I'm tempted to break Shannon's law in the hopes that you mean it, and will follow the advice of the shouting people.
"

And, ... not talk to you. If not, what advice have the shouting people offered? Other than, "Don't talk to him."

Is that because you don't like having to explain yourself?

Is that because you waxed poetic about people having the right to defend themselves but not the right to do so with a gun ... and that they can do so without a gun? Then, I asked you how. How would the woman in Oklahoma have done so against two men with a 12-inch knife? And, you...? Would rather not have to answer the question? Or the questions about rights that were posed? Ask questions? Yup. Say people can defend themselves without guns, like it's the truth? Yup? Force yourself to think and back your play? No.

That's cool. If you want to make sweeping statements and not back them up ... If you want to ask ridiculous questions even though you supposedly hold with gun rights .... If you want to suggest that people not talk to you .... Well, if that's the stuff you stand for, knock yourself out.

For Gary....

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define...

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "Shannon, you cannot equate the IRS looking at groups who claim to hate taxes with total anarchy. The government has often behaved much worse than that...say..take us to war on false pretenses? "

Were you talking about the government being "out to get us" or were you talking about total anarchy? I could have sworn you were talking about the government being out to "get us" .... ??

Regarding the war in Iraq, .... That was wrong. I've said that here before. It was BS, for sure. Though, ... I'm not sure that is an example of the government being out to get us. I think we were out to get SHussein, who tried to kill W's father ... and maybe oil.

Regarding my being offended, I'm almost positive I said I was confused. When I'm offended, I come out and say it.

Regarding your teaching in a horrid neighborhood, thank you. Thank you for your service and sacrifice.

While at my old school, I broke up to 7 or so fights, was punched, kicked or thrown around 5 times, was thrown up against walls and held there twice, was threatened with being hit or killed by two boys on multiple occasions, and had an icepick taken to my tire. I know how tough teaching in such a school and community can be. Therefore, I thank you.

Now, I must say ... the idea of an America with only armed women is somewhat fascinating; I'd almost give that the nod. I think, though, that we'd be charged with sexual discrimination.