Gun Control On FG

User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

Gun Control On FG

Post by Nomad »



I know I'm "wordy" but I would just like to add, I believe in my right to

keep and bear. That comes with a huge responsibility, and part of that

responsibility is to not take ANY part of it "lightly".

__________________




That makes you a safe gun owner. I have no problem with that.
I AM AWESOME MAN
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

nothing went astray.

And I am working to keep it from going astray now.

I am emotionally invested in this topic. I deserve the right to discuss it.

BR's comment brought it strongly to mind. I'm held to account for what I post as much as anyone else is. BR has never had a problem defending herself. She doesn't hide.

Now. Let the discussion continue.
User avatar
CARLA
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by CARLA »

I agree Floppy this would have been a better approach to the topic.

[QUOTE]If you were interested in an inclusive 'healthy' conversation of the topic, you would have started with YOUR story and asked for comments.


Koan I understand your fear. I also have had a shot gun pointed and me and fired by my X-Husband, he missed. But I still tremble when I think about that day and I also have a total fear of guns. Having said that It is my fear and no one else has to jump on board with me. I also don't like to hear the word "Gun" thrown around. But I can't stop people from doing so just because I hate them. I rarely speak of this time in my past because I don't want to. Eventually I was able to face my fears by taking classes on how to shot and care for a gun. Still won't own one.

Nomad I agree also no one should be afraid here to speak their minds that includes all of us.

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Nomad

I disagree. If an individual makes a controversial statement in an open manner its fair game. This is a discussion board. Why are we so afraid to speak our minds here ? Isnt that why were here ?[/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!

MOTTO TO LIVE BY:

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.

WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"

User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

Gun Control On FG

Post by Nomad »



Nomad I agree also no one should be afraid here to speak their minds that includes all of us.




Of course. But...it seems that implying this shouldnt be talked about openly doesnt leave much room for discussion.



None the less you are correct.
I AM AWESOME MAN
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

I quite frankly don't care how I should have worded it. As I've said, I'm emotionally invested in this topic. Reading those posts made me emotional. I started the thread. Afterwards I decided to share a personal story to explain why I was upset. It was the first time I've ever told anyone that story and I was not expecting to tell it when I started the thread.

Would people stop analysing me to friggin' death around here?!

Be assured. Half the time you've got it wrong. So just stick to the topic and assume the best. Like you expect others to do for you.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

This is not a flame thread.

The attempt to turn it into such is destroying my chance for a legitimate conversation.

You all take your baggage and put it somewhere else.
User avatar
CARLA
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by CARLA »

I agree with you again. I also agree with you on BR being a wise enough women to understand what this thread is about. She knows how to stand up for herself and state her case, and so does Koan.

[QUOTE]Of course. But...it seems that implying this shouldnt be talked about openly doesnt leave much room for discussion.

None the less you are correct.[/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!

MOTTO TO LIVE BY:

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.

WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"

User avatar
fisher
Posts: 732
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:53 am

Gun Control On FG

Post by fisher »

koan;523210 wrote: this is so not about whether or not you would go to jail.

this is about how killing a human being could change you for the rest of your life.

there is no going back. you can't undo it.


I am a hunter and have many guns in my house.They are locked up of course.(Canadian law). There is no doubt it would change your life forever if you had to shoot someone. So would having a loved one murdered. So if I was ever in the position to prevent a loved one from being murdered I would do what ever possible to prevent that. I would rather live with killing someone than having a loved one killed.
A witch will get a better grip on the broom if she is without panties!
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

fisher;523298 wrote: I am a hunter and have many guns in my house.They are locked up of course.(Canadian law). There is no doubt it would change your life forever if you had to shoot someone. So would having a loved one murdered. So if I was ever in the position to prevent a loved one from being murdered I would do what ever possible to prevent that. I would rather live with killing someone than having a loved one killed.


I think the chances of someone I love dying are increased if I keep a gun or take a gun in my hands.
User avatar
valerie
Posts: 7125
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 12:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by valerie »

I just gave my OPINION that it went astray. You gave yours that it didn't.



I'm not trying to analyze you, or tell you how to post. Within the TOS,

I'll "park my baggage" anywhere I like. I made a post commenting on

what was being said.



I'm not trying to turn it into a flame thread, not AT ALL. That you don't

care how you should have worded it is fine, too. See how that works?

I would have expected no less from you. Or BR or anyone else, for that

matter. If you need me to explain myself better, let me know. I'll give

'er a go.



I've stayed out of a TON of stuff around here lately and it's known that

I have and been commented on. I very carefully considered what I would

say. VERY. Talk about not hitting the submit button. I thought before

I posted. Really, I did. I tried to consider every ramification.



Signed

Miss Integrity 2007





:yh_bigsmi
Tamsen's Dogster Page

http://www.dogster.com/?27525



User avatar
CARLA
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by CARLA »

If they a licence to carry a weapon then it is legal and they can do so that is the law. Concealed or un-concealed you have to have a licence to carry a gun.
ALOHA!!

MOTTO TO LIVE BY:

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.

WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"

User avatar
fisher
Posts: 732
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:53 am

Gun Control On FG

Post by fisher »

koan;523305 wrote: I think the chances of someone I love dying are increased if I keep a gun or take a gun in my hands.


The chances of you preventing someone dying also increases.
A witch will get a better grip on the broom if she is without panties!
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

fisher;523314 wrote: The chances of you preventing someone dying also increases.


That's debatable.

Neither one of us could guarantee that me having a gun would help.

It might cause the other person to use their gun when they wouldn't have before.

We just don't know. My choice to not have a gun could save lives as well.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

Diuretic;523332 wrote: I'm not sure but I think in some states that you can only carry the weapon openly and not concealed, it may be that Az is one of those.


I believe that the video game Postal is set in Arizona because the gun laws allow just about anything.
Carl44
Posts: 10719
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:23 am

Gun Control On FG

Post by Carl44 »

SuzyB;523234 wrote: I don't believe that as a society we should be encouraging people handling guns. The amount of kids dying over here due to guns is a tragedy. I don't think the average person is responsible to handle a gun, i know from the type of personality i have, it would of been disastrous for me to handle a gun especially in my younger years, i had a terrible temper and always struck first and thought later. Add in the lethal mix of drink or alcohol people think that they are above the law.



I have read the thread and don't think that BR or Patsy meant their comments literally, i myself quite often say to the kids i'm going to kill them, but it's only said in jest.



:-6 :-6




some things never change huh :D ... if she had a gun in the house i sure as hell would not be .... :-3 i don't want to start any more arguments with any one today i have seen some have their legs blown away i know what happens i think all guns should be banned full stop .... my opinion and your entitled to it
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislatio ... .php?st=AZ

the Arizona State gun laws

only seems concerned with juveniles and school zones.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

:eek: from that site:

Arizona: No state restriction on the sale or possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons like the AK47 and Uzi. Assault weapons are as easy to buy as hunting rifles. No restriction on the sale or possession of rapid-fire ammunition magazines that can fire up to 100 bullets without reloading. Federal law does prevent the sale of some assault weapons and rapid-fire magazines manufactured after 1994, but the federal law will sunset in 2004 unless Congress and President Bush renew it.
User avatar
fisher
Posts: 732
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:53 am

Gun Control On FG

Post by fisher »

koan;523325 wrote: That's debatable.

Neither one of us could guarantee that me having a gun would help.

It might cause the other person to use their gun when they wouldn't have before.

We just don't know. My choice to not have a gun could save lives as well.


That's right we just don't know. I hope you and I both never get in that predicament. But if I ever am I hope I have a gun for back up.
A witch will get a better grip on the broom if she is without panties!
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

jesse.

wow. now I have to worry about flying knives too. :wah:

when I wanted to buy a gun it was out of hurt, anger and a willingness to harm another person. It is a not a part of me that I wish to indulge. That is why I don't take others tossing around comments about how many guns they have or how easily they could point them at another person with any grain of salt. In my world it is not cool and a forum discussion is not a place where any serious threat to a person's well being exists.
pantsonfire321@aol.com
Posts: 2920
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:26 am

Gun Control On FG

Post by pantsonfire321@aol.com »

jesse b;523364 wrote: This model direction is straightforwardly contradicted by the Court of Appeal's judgment in Martin (Anthony).

The Privy Council's advice is, strictly speaking, obiter on the issue of perceived dangerousness. (Shaw claimed a mistake about the facts, in that he thought another person had a gun with him.) It is also persuasive rather than authoritative law in England. But it is, we submit, the better view in principle. The distinction drawn by the Court of Appeal is false. For the purposes of self-defence, there is no third category. Consider: what is it for a person to think that the situation is dangerous? It is to think that there is a risk of something harmful happening. That is a belief about the facts. Indeed, no person can ever genuinely act in self-defence unless she thinks, subjectively, that she is in danger. Diane does not act in self-defence when she thinks to herself, say, "Victor has a gun, therefore I shall shoot him." That is never enough warrant. Self-defence requires that she think, "Victor has a gun, so there is a real risk that Victor is about to kill me, therefore I shall shoot him." In other words, action is taken in self-defence only when it is motivated by and responds to a subjectively perceived threat. Not by the facts that give rise to the threat: it must respond to the threat itself.

To see this, let us flip the example around. Suppose that Daphne sees William pointing a gun at her. Not knowing the properties of guns, she fails to perceive any danger. If she then goes ahead and uses a throwing knife to kill William for reasons of her own, she does not act in self-defence. (See, e.g. Dadson (1850) 4 Cox CC 358: S&S pp. 135, 538.) If the Court of Appeal in Martin (Anthony) is to be believed, what should count here is whether, objectively, she is in danger--which she clearly is. Subjectively, Daphne sees the facts; objectively, the dangerousness of those facts is sufficient to make lethal force a reasonable response: hence, if Martin (Anthony) is right, Daphne should be acquitted. We think not.

Anthony Martin, it seems, genuinely thought that his life was in danger. Apparently he was wrong about that, and unreasonably so. But at least since Beckford v. R [1988] AC 130, a genuine albeit unreasonable belief has been sufficient to underpin self-defence. Acting in fear for one's life and limb is the very gist of self-defence, and that is what happened here. In our view, the analysis of the Court of Appeal cannot be sustained.

This model direction is straightforwardly contradicted by the Court of Appeal's judgment in Martin (Anthony).

The Privy Council's advice is, strictly speaking, obiter on the issue of perceived dangerousness. (Shaw claimed a mistake about the facts, in that he thought another person had a gun with him.) It is also persuasive rather than authoritative law in England. But it is, we submit, the better view in principle. The distinction drawn by the Court of Appeal is false. For the purposes of self-defence, there is no third category. Consider: what is it for a person to think that the situation is dangerous? It is to think that there is a risk of something harmful happening. That is a belief about the facts. Indeed, no person can ever genuinely act in self-defence unless she thinks, subjectively, that she is in danger. Diane does not act in self-defence when she thinks to herself, say, "Victor has a gun, therefore I shall shoot him." That is never enough warrant. Self-defence requires that she think, "Victor has a gun, so there is a real risk that Victor is about to kill me, therefore I shall shoot him." In other words, action is taken in self-defence only when it is motivated by and responds to a subjectively perceived threat. Not by the facts that give rise to the threat: it must respond to the threat itself.

again cps quote if you believe tha you are about to be shot you can shoot first and not be guilty of any crime

If you are in a public place with a firearm you will be done for having an offensive weapon at the very least .
Can go from 0 - to bitch in 3.0 seconds .:D







Smile people :yh_bigsmi







yep, this bitch bites back .;)
pantsonfire321@aol.com
Posts: 2920
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:26 am

Gun Control On FG

Post by pantsonfire321@aol.com »

jesse b;523384 wrote: i will not be posting on this thread any i have surpplied cps quotes that state that if you are in fear that a person is going to shoot you you can shoot them in self defence

weapon does not come in to it fear of death means self defence

therefore not guilty of murder

Maybe in your own home but not with an unregistered firearm and not in a public place .
Can go from 0 - to bitch in 3.0 seconds .:D







Smile people :yh_bigsmi







yep, this bitch bites back .;)
User avatar
Galbally
Posts: 9755
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:26 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by Galbally »

Hi, I was out walking the dog.

To again get this away from individuals here. I think its important to state here that people from different cultures, backgrounds, countries, etc have differing views on this. Europeans generally have a general attitude toward handgun ownership, whereas many in the US have a sharply differing one, (though there are many in the U.S who are not in favor of liberal gun laws as well, obviously). In general, there is broad consensus in European countries about gun ownership, in America there is a heated debate about it, (its an American issue, and one that Europeans should leave alone in my opinion because we don't like being told what to do no more than anyone else, so why do it to others).

Also, not all Americans are "crazed gun toting maniacs", no more than all English people are tea-drinking vicars in villages resembling Hobbiton, and there are many reasons why the attitude to firearms are different in the states, I don't really agree with them, but then I don't live there and its not my argument, we have enough problems in my own country (which is far from perfect) to get too heated about that issue, its not our issue. I just want to say that, because its an important point.

All people have their own attitudes towards, weapons, crime, self-defense, criminality, etc etc, and the role of any healthy legal system in a liberal democracy is to deal with these issues in accordance with the general traditions and customs of its jurisdiction, the cirsumstances of the time, and the wishes of the majority of its population. People in general don't like being told by people from other countries what to do, and its my experience of American people that they are big and old enough to work out what they want for themselves without help from others.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"



Le Rochefoucauld.



"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."



My dad 1986.
pantsonfire321@aol.com
Posts: 2920
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:26 am

Gun Control On FG

Post by pantsonfire321@aol.com »

jesse b;523396 wrote: not according to cps fear for your life is the over welming factor allows self defence

good bye to this thread from me


Infact you'll get seven years for having a firearm and i think it's one year for every bullet.
Can go from 0 - to bitch in 3.0 seconds .:D







Smile people :yh_bigsmi







yep, this bitch bites back .;)
User avatar
Rain
Posts: 3775
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:56 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by Rain »

I have to say this. Shrike is a jerk who wanted to p!ss ppl off. Plain and simple. He started off by making a loaded comment in the subject line, then starting a thread simply to be angry and to p!ss us off.

I wanted to get to the bottom of his meaning, but found out that I'd been lured in to some high schooler who was bored on a Friday night.

BR however knew right away this guys intention and wanted to get rid of him. But alas, the guy was having a ball. He is STILL having a ball! Not only is he STILL luring us in to his stupid thread, now he's got This thread going as a spin off. He's LOVING THIS! Why are we feeding his fire with gasoline?

Koan, I understand your feelings on guns, but you should see what the actual problem is. It's shrikes thread. NOT BR's words. How many times have we said to the TV screen at a murderer who's been captured, or a pedophile, to "Kill him! Shoot him and get him OUT of our world!" Ppl say thiings like that on a daily basis. Watch the movie 12 Angry Men. Don't persecute BR for her own opinion And for trying to keep the board free of idiots who's soul purpose is to keep us all coming back to argue.

BR's comments were fine. For Pete's sake ppl, She's not pointing a gun at someone. She's just typing words onto a forum she's felt comfortable with for years.

Having a thread about gun control is fine. But dragging BR into it as the instigator of a bored, mean spirited high schooler is something I'm offended by. She's a nice person and you all know it.

A real threat by a gun toting person is a problem. But I don't think BR was actually going to get on a plane (or whatever) and go shoot this guy. It's just words on an internet forum. I apologize if I've offended anyone reading this. It was meant to be an observation and was not typed in anger. Thank you for reading.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

Fair enough, Galbally.

gun laws entered the fray here. It's not as big a part of the discussion here for me now.

I'm wondering how many gun owners have actually thought about what it would feel like to kill someone. That is something that anyone from any country can think about and decide.

If you have sex you should be prepared for what you will do with the baby. It could happen.

If you own a gun you should be prepared for what you will feel if you kill someone.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

Rain,

I believe this has been discussed already.
User avatar
Rain
Posts: 3775
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:56 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by Rain »

koan;523433 wrote: Rain,

I believe this has been discussed already.


Sorry, I'm just getting online and wanted to weigh in.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38595
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Gun Control On FG

Post by spot »

Rain;523427 wrote: BR however knew right away this guys intention and wanted to get rid of him.That speaks volumes, if you don't mind my saying so. A convention that people avoid confronting posters who are settling in, either as new members or as people back from a long absence, and especially an outright refusal to ever use the word "troll" as a simple dismissive label for someone who might seem contentious, would go a long way to civilizing those of us who have fossilized into thinking we might own the site. Getting rid of people isn't a membership function. Thank you for bringing it up so clearly.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Lulu2
Posts: 6016
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by Lulu2 »

Yes, heaven forbid you should have an opinion which someone decides has already been discussed!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
User avatar
Galbally
Posts: 9755
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:26 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by Galbally »

koan;523428 wrote: Fair enough, Galbally.

gun laws entered the fray here. It's not as big a part of the discussion here for me now.

I'm wondering how many gun owners have actually thought about what it would feel like to kill someone. That is something that anyone from any country can think about and decide.

If you have sex you should be prepared for what you will do with the baby. It could happen.

If you own a gun you should be prepared for what you will feel if you kill someone.


Yes these are all difficult and emotive issues, and thats what the law is for and why its necessary for any society to have laws in the first place. Again, these are all very debatable and interesting points, and in general I think we are in agreement on a lot of them, my point is that a lot of these gun control debates turn into an America-bashing thing which I am not into (I am not saying thats what you were doing BTW, you were giving your own personal view in relation to your own life experience).
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"



Le Rochefoucauld.



"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."



My dad 1986.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

Rain;523440 wrote: Sorry, I'm just getting online and wanted to weigh in.


Fine I'm just speaking to the part of your post that related to me and my intentions. shrike's thread was about global warming. this thread is about guns.
User avatar
Galbally
Posts: 9755
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:26 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by Galbally »

koan;523457 wrote: Fine I'm just speaking to the part of your post that related to me and my intentions. shrike's thread was about global warming. this thread is about guns.


I think the global warming issue is different because obviously the climate is a global issue, so we do as individuals and countries debate that topic because it effects us all, though again hectoring and hypocrisy are not useful. Guns and criminal law are different because they are national issues, decided upon by the legal system, the people, and government within its own jurisdiction, (in western countries) and really only relevant to a society locally, thats why I tend to leave it alone.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"



Le Rochefoucauld.



"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."



My dad 1986.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38595
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Gun Control On FG

Post by spot »

Rain;523427 wrote: How many times have we said to the TV screen at a murderer who's been captured, or a pedophile, to "Kill him! Shoot him and get him OUT of our world!" Ppl say thiings like that on a daily basis. Watch the movie 12 Angry Men. The reason I took my daughter to see that play was precisely to instil in her a sense that she shouldn't ever feel such an obscene reaction to any situation. If I heard any such language from any of them - my children, that is - I'd be devastated at my failure to bring them up adequately. I sincerely doubt that I ever shall, and I certainly haven't so far. Seeing such expressions even on ForumGarden sickens me every time it happens, which is why I now and then try to restrain it by passing critical and occasionally informed comment.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

I've never had a gun pointed at me.

Can someone tell me what it feels like?
User avatar
Galbally
Posts: 9755
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:26 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by Galbally »

Diuretic;523486 wrote: I don't know why there's a fuss on. There are some fairly straightforward issues concerning firearms being discussed. I thought it was illuminating actually.


Its because its leading on from another thread, started by shrike, that got heated, and people are upset about it, because they think its a personal attack on some other long-standing members.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"



Le Rochefoucauld.



"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."



My dad 1986.
User avatar
Rain
Posts: 3775
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:56 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by Rain »

koan;523457 wrote: Fine I'm just speaking to the part of your post that related to me and my intentions. shrike's thread was about global warming. this thread is about guns.


shrikes thread was not about global warming. That was a ruse. It was about bashing the U.S. It's obvious even from his comment here on this thread.

This thread started off as complaining about certain comments by a poster to another poster, then... turing in to a gun control thread. Like I said before, a thread about gun control would be fine, but it seemed to me at the onset, that BR and Patsy were being attacked. Afterall, those were the links in your message. Just an observation.

And as for coming in late and having things "already discussed", as the day continues, even more ppl will be waking up and joining us. 6am is Very early for me. I don't get up before 10 usually.

As for gun control, I admit that the U.S. has some lame laws. While living in AZ. for 8 months, it was scary to work at a restaurant and have "The Wild West" come walking in loaded for bear. I didn't know if maybe they had a bad day and would shoot the place up. But as for words, I'm not offended easily and am amazed at ppl who are.
User avatar
Galbally
Posts: 9755
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:26 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by Galbally »

koan;523493 wrote: I've never had a gun pointed at me.

Can someone tell me what it feels like?


It tends to focus the mind very abruptly. Not enough time to be scared though, in my experience, that comes later.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"



Le Rochefoucauld.



"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."



My dad 1986.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by koan »

Diuretic;523486 wrote: I don't know why there's a fuss on. There are some fairly straightforward issues concerning firearms being discussed. I thought it was illuminating actually.


I feel the same way.

A note to all those that might join us:

I've stated my intentions.

I will not respond further to them as I wish to focus on the actual thread.

Galbally,

thank you.

Can you add more detail?

Try to capture the moment. Not just because it brings out how serious an act it is but also because, as a writer, I'm curious.

Also, anyone else who can share what it feels like to have a gun pointed at them, please share.

eta: and how it felt later when the shock wore off.
RhondaLu
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:01 pm

Gun Control On FG

Post by RhondaLu »

Rain;523440 wrote: Sorry, I'm just getting online and wanted to weigh in.


It sounded 'drippy to me' IMHO.:sneaky:

Return to “Gun Control”