Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Fitbit
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 1-25 of 114 posts in this discussion
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.

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 8 Jan 2013, 03:27:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 8 Jan 2013, 03:35:40 GMT
Molly Brown says:

I suppose it happens everywhere at sometime or another, but not everyday like the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora,_Colorado#Demographics

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 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


I would also like to know what people think of this imo unusual response.

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, 16:29:27 GMT
Fencible 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, 16:24:44 GMT
Fencible 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.

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, 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.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jan 2013, 07:34:35 GMT
Fencible 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, 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, 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 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 5 Jan 2013, 21:45:23 GMT
D. Murphy says:
I broadly agree, but there are almost as many guns in circulation as people, so I think even if the will was there (it isn't) its almost impossible to bring guns back under control.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Jan 2013, 21:44:07 GMT
D. Murphy says:
As you must know Americans are fanatical about being allowed their guns. And to most of them the ongoing slaughter of innocents is irrelevant to the argument. They are addicts of guns. The NRA answer is to ensure all schools have armed guards or teachers given guns, as they can then kill the miscreants. They hate real facts on this subject as well : such as Britain is every bit as violent and criminal as the US - except their murder rate is more than 5 times ours, and their gun crime rate several hundred times ours. yet they pity us lacking guns and fondly think we suffer more crime as a result.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Jan 2013, 02:32:28 GMT
Last edited by the author on 5 Jan 2013, 02:34:37 GMT
Charlieost says:
Thumbs up for you on that one Helen.

A few years ago while I was visiting a friend in the UK, a person who I subsequently found out had been at a party I was holding the previous Saturday, broke into my cottage through a panel in the front door and stole amongst other things, my grandfathers First World War medals and my partner of the times fathers binoculars, (her father had died a couple of years before of cancer and her sisters hoovered most of his posessions up but this was just one thing she managed to get). This piece of trash had heard that we were going to the UK and staying for a week on Anglesey when he came to the party accompanying a womwn I knew. So not only did he drink my wine and eat my food and I presume dance to the music I was providing but he repaid me by stealing from me.

If I could go back in time to the moment that he stuck his head through the hole he had made in the door I would happily score a home run on his head with a baseball bat I used to keep around for the occasional game of rounders on the acre. More than happily, absolutely joyfully and tingleing in anticipation. And then through the door and beat the daylights out of him in the lane. :)

Housebreakers are scum. Shooting them saves others misery. Good luck with the gun. I hope you bag one and if by odd coincidence (since in pursuit of him once I found out who had done it, he had moved back to the UK) then you could plug the one who stole my stuff. What a bonus that would be.

Best wishes and straight shooting. C

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jan 2013, 20:27:46 GMT
Fencible says:
A burglar is most definitely vermin, Spin. If one chooses to break into our home they do so at their own risk. Were an armed burglar shot to death in the commission of a crime I do not think a jury would see that as murder. I would call your attention to a recent case where three armed rats broke into a house and were met with a discharge of shot from one of the residents under attack. The judge told the criminals they got what they deserved - I second his observation on their injuries. If your argument is valid then it will be an easy thing for you to demonstrate how every gun user has ended up 'shooting strangers in a public area'. I look forward to your evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jan 2013, 18:32:57 GMT
Spin says:
Helen: Not only have you completely missed my point but, by saying "if only a burglar would try his luck...", you have also verified my arguments that the term "vermin" is subjective ( you would treat a burgalar as you treat a rat) and that gun-users are potential murderers. You seem to await the opportunity to use a firearm on a human. And, just as shocking is the fact that you see no shame or fault in expressing such an attitude.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jan 2013, 12:13:41 GMT
Fencible says:
If only a burglar would try his luck at the business end of my husband's Webley & Scott! He's been a user of firearms most of his life and has not yet set about strangers in a public area. My children have used weapons but neither of them have (so far) been moved to employ them murderously against our fellow citizens.

I enjoyed ratting with guns and terriers and would do so again provided the activity were still legal. At the moment there is no legal definition of vermin. A medical definition would include lice and fleas and I would certainly not advocate trying to shoot them. I am not sure how I would follow your example and reason with them in order to resolve any health issues arising from their presence on a pet or human.

Posted on 4 Jan 2013, 11:11:15 GMT
I'm not sure that a gun is unkind in terms of killing rats. Have you seen the size of some of them? They can be about half the size of a cat. If you used poison you would have to use a lot, with the danger that it would also kill a cat or dog, or heaven forbid a child.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jan 2013, 08:32:41 GMT
Spin says:
Helen; First, people manage to kill vermin without firearms. Second, one does not own a gun unless one ios prepared to use it. And such use is dependent on the subjective and fallible opinion of what, and whom, one considers to be "vermin". Such is human nature that the potantial for the misuse of firearms is always present. Indeed, from shooting rats to shooting burgalurs to shooting strangers in a public area; all involve a belief in the fantasy that a gun can resolve any issue. I teach my kids to resolve issues through reason not violence; an ideology proven to be more advantageous to the self and society than that advocating a mythical "wild west" attitude towards life and its experiences...

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jan 2013, 17:34:57 GMT
Fencible says:
Both my children used weapons to kill vermin, neither of them grew up to become involved in gun-related crime and violence.

Posted on 3 Jan 2013, 15:44:35 GMT
Spin says:
Guns are designed and used for only one purpose. To kill. Any adult who encourages a child to train in gunmanship or to shoot other species (when there are less violent and more effective methods of pest control) is an irresponsible, immoral parent. Only those with a love of guns, or the "power" guns provide, teach thier children to love them too. This creates a vicious circle that leads to gun-related crime and violence. Educate your kids in methods of destruction, and they will pay the price.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jan 2013, 15:42:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 3 Jan 2013, 15:42:49 GMT
Pipkin says:
Hi Pop, Happy New Year....
What a good idea....
Too easy a solution though, and not enough profit for the Military Industrial Complex? And what would we do with the population explosion?
Mags x
‹ 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


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.