Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Why hasn't anyone asked why an elderly woman, working at at a kindergarten and with a mentally ill son, was in possession of a gun?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-114 of 114 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 5 Jan 2013 21:47:34 GMT
D. Murphy says:
He is not a hypocrite over this. He is president of the USA not the world. Nothing he can do about the barbarism in China or Afghanistan. It's those people who are the barbarians and their activities are their fault, not Obama's

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jan 2013 00:03:43 GMT
Spin says:
Helen; is yor community plagued with armed burgalars making it necesary to own a gun and teach your kids in the use of firearms? If so, then the solution is, as I said, to ban the free and open sale of guns. Second, I never claimed that every gun-user ends up kiling folk in public areas. But a gun-user is a potential muderer, as you make quite clear in your statement that you will, without hesiation, shoot a burglar. You will intentionaly take a life without any consderation for alternativre solutions. Further, the instances of gun-related crime, icluding publc massacres, is proportionally higher in communities where gun-ownership is prevalent. In the US, the "right to bear arms" has resulted in a disproportionate amount of public massaxres. Every community has its share of mentally unstable citizens, but to allow anyone access to weaponry is to ensure the most violent and disturbed of these people can carry out their fantasies.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jan 2013 00:10:58 GMT
Spin says:
D: Indeed. A crime is commited regardless of the weaponry available, but the access to guns increases the violence of the crime. One can rob a person or a store with a knife or baseball bat, but to do so at gunpoint increases the potential for the loss of life. So, a nation that bans access to firearms may have a high crime rate, but, unlike a nation which a passion for guns, has a minimal loss of life.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jan 2013 07:34:35 GMT
>>> says:
You privilege the armed attacker over the householder, Spin. You condemn those wishing to protect their family and property from harm with a legally owned and licensed firearm. The burglar is uninvited and unwelcome and has chosen to break the law and subject others to fear and distress. If they come prepared for violence then that is exactly what they will get. The solution is simple enough, don't break into other people's homes.

Every gun-user is a potential murderer? What is the weight of this inanity? Every car user is a 'potential getaway driver' or a 'potential ram raider'? We are all 'potential murderers', gun owners or not. Dr.Harold Shipman murdered some 300+ people without firing a shot, Thomas Hamilton murdered 17 people using 9mm Browning pistols and ,357 Magnums.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jan 2013 11:54:09 GMT
Spin says:
Helen: I do not "privilage" anyone over anyone. Remember that a burglar is someones child, partner or parent. If armed burglars are common in your community I suggest you install burglar alarms and other security systems, lobby for the banning of the sale of guns and take action to educate and employ those who resort to crime instead of sleeping with a firearm by your side in the hope that one gets a chance to play at being "Dirty Harry". As for your last point, unlike guns cars are not weapons and are not specifically designed to kill.

Posted on 6 Jan 2013 15:44:12 GMT
Last edited by the author on 6 Jan 2013 15:46:52 GMT
So where does paintballing fall into this equation? Am I going to kill people in a public place or is there more chance of that happening because I went to stag do?

(the car analogy doesnt work btw, cars were designed to transport people around, guns were designed to kill/disable. Using a car to kill is not using a car for its intended purpose. Using a gun to kill is in my opinion using the gun for its intended purpose, therefore the two cannot be compared in the way many people already have on this thread.)

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jan 2013 16:24:44 GMT
>>> says:
Remember the victims of your burglars are someone's child, someone's partner, someone's parent too, Spin. Only, unlike the criminals you admire, they are not breaking the law. May I invite you to join me in condemning burglary? I make no apology for stating that a criminal who goes armed with the intent using their weapon to cow into submission, disable, or kill their victim is in no position to repine at being themselves the object of lawful violence.

I feel our gun laws are pretty effective but they do cover only legally acquired firearms. Illegal weapons are, de facto, beyond legal control. The minority of armed burglars who favour firearms tend to buy them illegally, you would disable the law abiding citizen and exhort them to understand their assailant while giving full rein to the thug to rob them at will. I am prepared to understand and educate the assailant only after they have been disarmed and restrained. If I were to disrupt their criminal activity and they were unwilling to lay down their weapon and be educated, their tuition would be in lead shot.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jan 2013 16:29:27 GMT
>>> says:
Who said cars were designed to kill? Neither of the crimes I mentioned involved killing. Motor cars are designed to transport people - which would include transporting criminals away from the scene of their crime. Using a car to transport people after a crime would be part of its intended purpose, namely to transport people. I am, having the ability and means to drive, a potential getaway driver. Ought my licence be revoked, Popcorn?

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jan 2013 17:16:08 GMT
Fair enough even if slightly out of context. Guns and cars do however have a similarity, they both make killing easier.
I'm not against guns btw. Massacres like the one this thread mentions are going to happen one way or another aslong as humans exist.
Its things like this that remind us that we are human.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jan 2013 20:58:58 GMT
Pipkin says:
Hya Pop,
''Massacres like the one this thread mentions are going to happen one way or another aslong as humans exist.''
Or perhaps there could be another reason????

Robert Holmes, the father of James Holmes ( Aurora movie shooter) and Peter Lanza father of Adam Lanza ( Conn. School shooter ) and both scheduled to testify in the LIBOR SCANDAL.
Is this a very strange coincidence or something more?
Anybody want to dig a little deeper and get to the bottom of this?
Have you heard anything about this Helen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQhdiqv3NN4&feature=endscreen&NR=1

I would also like to know what people think of this imo unusual response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7JMsOgSLRM&feature=endscreen&NR=1

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Jan 2013 14:29:39 GMT
"I broadly agree, but there are almost as many guns in circulation as people"

In the US there are 89 guns in public ownership (ie not owned by shooting ranges, law enforcement etc) for every 100 adults.

You're also 3 times as likely to be killed in a robbery with a gun present than any other weapon. The same applies to domestic violence, if there's a gun in the house it's 3 times more likely to end in a fatality than if not.

But saying that I don't think the legality of guns is the main problem (although making them illegal wouldn't hurt). Look at Switzerland, guns are legal and apart from the US it has the highest rate of gun ownership of any democratic country, but it's firearms murder rate is lower than ours where guns are illegal.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jan 2013 03:27:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 8 Jan 2013 03:35:40 GMT
Molly Brown says:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/three-women-killed-swiss-village-shooting-125507250.html

I suppose it happens everywhere at sometime or another, but not everyday like the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora,_Colorado#Demographics
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamespoulos/2013/01/05/another-deadly-shooting-in-aurora-its-time-for-gun-buyback/

Posted on 8 Jan 2013 16:32:35 GMT
Spin says:
Future generations will be astonished at the apathy of this age...

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 01:19:59 GMT
D. Murphy says:
Similar to that Star Trek episode, except the losers were the killed. Problem with your idea is that it requires everyone to agree it. Were I an al-qaeda terrorists for example I would agree it, wait until you all had dropped your guns and played games, then kill you all. So, although I like the idea, it wont work.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Financially rich homosexual couples are usually the ones surveyed in gay adoption studies --UNFAIR! 111 1 hour ago
Ukraine. Send in the SAS? 101 3 hours ago
Banned In The U.S. Amazon Forums 3503 6 hours ago
Roundheads vs Cavaliers...the battle continues. 135 11 hours ago
Amazon's poor service 47 1 day ago
Why Do The Newest "Designer Drugs" Seem Aimed More At Murder Than Thrills? 947 1 day ago
For Compassion's Sake Let The Relatives Bury Their Dead. Someone Say Sorry and Mean It 33 3 days ago
Labour to increase taxes? 50 4 days ago
How will the the Cypriot economic crisis affect both Europe and the Cypriot territorial conflict with Turkey? 85 5 days ago
Is it wise to allow China to invest so heavily in UK infrastructure? 68 7 days ago
How Did the U.S. End Up Such A Slave to Bad Politicians and a Manipulative Media? 496 8 days ago
160 Palastinians deaths. No Israelis killed... 63 8 days ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  16
Total posts:  114
Initial post:  16 Dec 2012
Latest post:  26 Jan 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions