How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:37 pm

I don't assume with Accountable. He still has some surprises left!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:44 pm

AnneBoleyn;1420659 wrote: I don't assume with Accountable. He still has some surprises left!

Many times and all the better for it

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:12 pm

AnneBoleyn;1420645 wrote: & Lincoln for habeas corpus? I'm trying to understand you completely. So, it has nothing to do with the right participation in a particular war? Explain also, please, about Truman.I'm not sure what you mean by the "right participation in a particular war" phrase. But yes, the numerous blatant violations of our Constitution.

Bryn Mawr;1420663 wrote: [QUOTE=AnneBoleyn;1420659][QUOTE=Bryn Mawr;1420651]Presumably for authorising the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.I don't assume with Accountable. He still has some surprises left![/QUOTE]Many times and all the better for it

[/QUOTE]:yh_youkid You guys!

But remember I said 'arguably'. Nagasaki & Hiroshima weren't military targets. I'd have to do more research to support the argument, though.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:12 pm

After Newtown: Guns in America : PBS

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:25 pm

Accountable;1420685 wrote: After Newtown: Guns in America : PBS

And right after this show is Frontline. An hour doc on Adam Lanza. The theory is that he wanted to kill more kids than that Norwegian nutcase, Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people (almost all young people) in Norway in 2011. Adam's hero/mentor---the one to beat.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:52 pm

Accountable;1420684 wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by the "right participation in a particular war" phrase. But yes, the numerous blatant violations of our Constitution.

Then we'd have to include Reagan for Iran-Contra and others.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:12 pm

Wandrin;1420695 wrote: Then we'd have to include Reagan for Iran-Contra and others.
You may be right. Lincoln and FDR in particular are lauded for the violations they committed.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:13 pm

Probably the best president we've had in generations, based on his adherence to the Constitution, would likely be GHW Bush.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:45 am

Accountable;1420612 wrote: So that includes GW Bush and President Obama? They're just "men of their times"?

Not "Just" "men of their times but tell me as a contemporary american do you view them as war criminals? What decisions did you make about supporting them or not, if you see them as criminals what have you done about it? What they do reflects the morality of the society around them. At the end of the day in a democracy they couldn't get away with unless they had broad support - at least that is the theory. So how will you explain it to your grandchildren (rhetorical question I don't actually expect or even want an answer).

posted by accountable

Probably the best president we've had in generations, based on his adherence to the Constitution, would likely be GHW Bush.

So fabricating evidence to justify invasion of a foreign country sits well with you does it?

ou guys!

But remember I said 'arguably'. Nagasaki & Hiroshima weren't military targets. I'd have to do more research to support the argument, though.

Civilians have always been targeted in war all we have done in modern times is industrialise it. The allies set out in ww2 to deliberately kill the workers in german factories it was terror bombing and no bones were made about it. In actual fact more people were killed in the fire-storms deliberately started by american bombers in tokyo and other of the mainly wooden cities of Japan. A technique they learned from the british who pioneered it on germany. Total war means total destruction , you fight until your enemy is rendered totally incapable of resistance and at your mercy. Ever read the bible? What do you think the jews were doing when they took the promised land by force, It's been going on from the start of history. There is no such thing as a just war there is just war. Like most of you I have distant and not so distant relatives who took part in what many see as war crimes, that is if you are talking about the ordinary people who flew lancasters in ww2, used flamethrowers on enemy troops or just rolled over infantrymen in their tanks. On a contemporary level I had relatives wandering around Afghanistan acquaintances who were on tanks in desert storm or on foot in the iraq war. I'd a-imagine most American know at least one person who fought in the recent war. If your leaders are war criminals what about those who follow their orders?

While you may argue LBJ, (what about Kennedy? )Lincoln, CW Bush Roosevelt, truman are all war criminals in one way or another the reality is they got away with it. So were/are their actions deliberately criminal or did they believe they were doing the right thing? Discuss. I just don't think there is a black and white answer to any of it and I mistrust those who think there is, or maybe just think the question is more complex than they think. Actually I think Truman did the right thing. How you kill the enemy doesn't matter just so long as you get them first

PS Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, and god's work as well. He lost, just imagine of he had won.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:07 am

gmc;1420782 wrote: So fabricating evidence to justify invasion of a foreign country sits well with you does it?
When did GHW Bush do that? The only country I recall us invading while he was president was Kuwait, and I've never heard anyone claim that evidence of Iraq invading Kuwait was fabricated. I think you mean GW Bush, the son.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:02 am

Accountable;1420784 wrote: When did GHW Bush do that? The only country I recall us invading while he was president was Kuwait, and I've never heard anyone claim that evidence of Iraq invading Kuwait was fabricated. I think you mean GW Bush, the son.

You're right I do.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:29 pm

The elder Bush invaded Panama in order to arrest Manuel Noriega - the guy, it's said, Bush himself permitted to import drugs into the US while he [Bush] ran the CIA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... _of_Panama

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:41 pm

Ahso!;1418365 wrote: 14402046

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:17 pm

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:26 pm

& the draft-dodging big mouth is on ......... why?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:10 pm

Gun people are so defensive. They can't have the conversation without becoming hysterical within the first 30 seconds. Then again, Ted Nugent is an easy target.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:18 pm

Don't blame anyone who evaded Vietnam except the 'chicken hawks' of which there were & are too many. If Ted wasn't then he sure is now. BTW, Ahso, how do you think your thread turned out? Also, missed you & glad you are back.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:26 pm

Hi AB.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:09 pm

Ahso!;1420889 wrote: Gun people are so defensive.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:00 pm

Ahso!;1420854 wrote: 20462199

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:41 pm

Who the heck is this guy?

Oh, he is the one leading President Obama's anti-private gun ownership campaign.

That is the Vice President, giving bad advice just so wrong on so many levels. Not to mention if anybody other than the wife of the Vice President were caught doing such a thing will find themselves in in a legal world of hurt.

I ain't no lawyer, but I strongly suggest you never ever threaten people with a shotgun without proper cause.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:24 pm

Ahso!;1420889 wrote: Gun people are so defensive. They can't have the conversation without becoming hysterical within the first 30 seconds. Then again, Ted Nugent is an easy target.

Should be glad we are not offensive.

Only ones acting hysterical are those in a panic to take guns away from peace loving law abiding citizens.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:32 pm

tude dog;1421556 wrote: you never ever threaten people with a shotgun without proper cause.

I thought the point he was making was that a shotgun was just as effective for home defense as a 100-round-clip AR-15 assault rifle. He was trying to point out that we can ban assault weapons without compromising safety.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:29 pm

Saint_;1421603 wrote: I thought the point he was making was that a shotgun was just as effective for home defense as a 100-round-clip AR-15 assault rifle. He was trying to point out that we can ban assault weapons without compromising safety.

What is best for home defense is a much discussed/argued topic. If somebody feels comfortable depending on a double barrel shot gun, bless them, not my first choice.

One thing in which everybody can agree on is warning shots are a big, just plain big no no. Never, not once have I heard of a warning shot(s) which turned out good for the shooter. Normally ends up things like arrest, jail, lawyer fees, fines and cool stuff like that.

You see my problem? Here we have a lawmaker, doesn't know the law. Zero idea what to do should you suspect a prowler around your home.

My wife knows guns, and that best to keep doors locked and call 911.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:40 pm

We can't ban "assault" weapons without compromising our Constitution.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:46 pm

Accountable;1421608 wrote: We can't ban "assault" weapons without compromising our Constitution.

I don't see anything that specifies what types of "arms" are required for the "well regulated militia". Actually, I haven't heard anything about the militia in the discussions by politicians.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:12 am

Wandrin;1421609 wrote: I don't see anything that specifies what types of "arms" are required Exactly, and where there is no requirement, there is no restriction.

Wandrin;1421609 wrote: for the "well regulated militia". Actually, I haven't heard anything about the militia in the discussions by politicians.
You've made a common mistake, I suspect on purpose. The phrase about a well-regulated militia is explanatory, it isn't a caveat. The Constitution acknowledges and guarantees the People's right to keep and bear arms, not the militia.

Of course, if you feel the phrasing is confusing, we can always submit a clarifying amendment for a vote.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:59 am

Accountable;1421614 wrote: Exactly, and where there is no requirement, there is no restriction.

You've made a common mistake, I suspect on purpose. The phrase about a well-regulated militia is explanatory, it isn't a caveat. The Constitution acknowledges and guarantees the People's right to keep and bear arms, not the militia.

Of course, if you feel the phrasing is confusing, we can always submit a clarifying amendment for a vote.

You obviously understand the intent of the words better than I do. To me, the sentence reads as if the right to bear arms is guaranteed in order to arm the "well regulated militia", which is "necessary to the security of a free state."

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:34 am

Ahso!;1421284 wrote: 21992281

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:55 am

Wandrin;1421622 wrote: You obviously understand the intent of the words better than I do. To me, the sentence reads as if the right to bear arms is guaranteed in order to arm the "well regulated militia", which is "necessary to the security of a free state."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

(a) The Amendmentâ€™s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but

does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative

clause. The operative clauseâ€™s text and history demonstrate that it

connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms

-----

1. Operative Clause.

a. â€œRight of the People.â€ The first salient feature of

the operative clause is that it codifies a â€œright of the peoï¿½*

ple.â€ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights

use the phrase â€œright of the peopleâ€ two other times, in the

First Amendmentâ€™s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in

the Fourth Amendmentâ€™s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The

Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (â€œThe

enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall

not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by

the peopleâ€). All three of these instances unambiguously

refer to individual rights, not â€œcollectiveâ€ rights, or rights

that may be exercised only through participation in some

corporate body.

(emphasis not mine)

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:12 pm

Ahso!;1421625 wrote: 2281

Did you count this?

Elderly man kills intruder in Oak Cliff home

Police say the homeowner saw Deyfon Pipkins, 33, trying to climb into the window and fired his weapon at least once at the intruder.

myFOX NNEWS

The gene pool just got a little bit cleaner.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:39 pm

Ahso!;1421625 wrote: 22812282

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:46 pm

Ahso!;1421629 wrote: 2282

SEE VIDEO OF THE WILD CHICAGO MALL BRAWL THAT LED TO 19 ARRESTS: â€˜ANYTHING THEY FOUNDâ€¦THEY STARTED THROWINGâ€™

What is that saying?

"An armed society is a polite society."

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:07 pm

tude, only 2 objections:

1. "Should be glad we (legal gun owners) are not offensive."

No, you should be glad because we still have police & even army. Sounds threatening, knock it off.

2. "The gene pool just got a little bit cleaner."

Makes you sound like a racist dog. You don't know enough, unless you are a geneticist specializing in DNA to make that claim. A bum like that could still have great kids & a nice guy like you can have bums.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:14 pm

AnneBoleyn;1421646 wrote: tude, only 2 objections:

1. "Should be glad we (legal gun owners) are not offensive."

No, you should be glad because we still have police & even army. Sounds threatening, knock it off.

Post #266, Ahso! said "Gun people are so defensive. They can't have the conversation without becoming hysterical within the first 30 seconds. Then again, Ted Nugent is an easy target."

So I played off that. I not only did not mean any threat, but can't see where there is one.

AnneBoleyn;1421646 wrote: 2. "The gene pool just got a little bit cleaner."

Makes you sound like a racist dog. You don't know enough, unless you are a geneticist specializing in DNA to make that claim. A bum like that could still have great kids & a nice guy like you can have bums.

That was a comment not to be taken literally, as far as genetics, DNA, race, etc.

More like, no loss.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:32 pm

:yh_bigsmi

Just making sure

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:53 am

tude dog;1421627 wrote: Did you count this?

myFOX NNEWS

The gene pool just got a little bit cleaner.
"He could have used a warning," Lakesha Thompson, Pipkins' sister-in-law, said. "He could have let him know that he did have a gun on his property and he would use it in self-defense."

Pipkins had a lengthy criminal record. He served time in prison and was convicted of theft, possession of a Controlled Substance and criminal trespassing.

....

Read more: Elderly man kills intruder in Oak Cliff home - Dallas News | myFOXdfw.com

Really? He's the bad guy because he didn't give this creep the time to try and disarm him? I'm sorry, that creep deserved nothing more than he got.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:04 am

I am kinda sick of all the gun "debate" going on.

both side are so full of hyperbole, it's hard to get a reasoned word from the lot.

I own guns. I have always owned guns, and will always own guns.

I don't think the gummint will ever "take our guns away"

But, after seeing the buying frenzies after this thing heated up, the idea of so many idiots out there with high powered guns and high capacity mags almost scares me more than the idea of the gummint taking our guns away.

The real problem is, IMHO, that probably 60% of gun owners have 0 training in handling or storing firearms.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:10 am

AnneBoleyn;1421646 wrote:

You don't know enough, unless you are a geneticist specializing in DNA to make that claim. A bum like that could still have great kids & a nice guy like you can have bums.

Agreed. I have to be careful when working with children to realize that I don't know what they will become when they grow up. (Even Churchill was a bit of a delinquent when he was young!)

"if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. Oh God! To hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust." - Charles Dickens

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:30 am

AnneBoleyn;1421646 wrote: tude, only 2 objections:

1. "Should be glad we (legal gun owners) are not offensive."

No, you should be glad because we still have police & even army. Sounds threatening, knock it off.

2. "The gene pool just got a little bit cleaner."

Makes you sound like a racist dog. You don't know enough, unless you are a geneticist specializing in DNA to make that claim. A bum like that could still have great kids & a nice guy like you can have bums.

I didn't see that statement as racist at all. Then again, I don't remember the race of the intruder or the elderly man who shot him being in the article I read.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:49 am

mea culpa. I was half serious/half joking in my comments to td. However, gene pools getting cleaner make absolutely no sense no matter who says it about whom. We're all a bunch of mongrels & we're all capable of anything. If anyone doubts that just look around.

ps, intruder was black, don't know about the elderly guy.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:08 pm

LarsMac;1421682 wrote: I am kinda sick of all the gun "debate" going on.

both side are so full of hyperbole, it's hard to get a reasoned word from the lot.

I own guns. I have always owned guns, and will always own guns.

I don't think the gummint will ever "take our guns away"

But, after seeing the buying frenzies after this thing heated up, the idea of so many idiots out there with high powered guns and high capacity mags almost scares me more than the idea of the gummint taking our guns away.

The real problem is, IMHO, that probably 60% of gun owners have 0 training in handling or storing firearms.

That is the first problem, the second is that there is no effective control over who has a gun.

For all Acc says that any control is unconstitutional, allowing the mentally unbalanced and those with a history of violence and the criminal use of guns to obtain a gun so easily is madness.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:22 pm

I'd go even further and just say this:

Iâ€™m not much of a hunter. I guess I just canâ€™t get around looking into another mammalâ€™s eyes and then killing it.

But donâ€™t get me wrong. I can be as violent as the next man. My last fight fifteen years ago (with my best friend, over a girl, of course) left our white-carpeted apartment splattered with blood and both of us with stitches. Iâ€™m a fisherman and I have no problem bashing a fishâ€™s head on a rock and frying him up with cornmeal over a campfire. I grew up in the wilderness of Montana and was an avid backpacker in my youth, so I also understand the love of living off the land so I think I might even understand why some people like guns and hunting.

I used to own guns. I had a Marlin Model 60 (.22 with a 16 shot barrel feed), a Ruger 10/22, and a 9mm Luger. I mostly liked to go out and hunt beer cans with my friends. Like all teens, I loved the feeling of power firing a gun gave me.

Then came a day when I was 17 years old. The age well-known for stupidity and irresponsible behavior. My friends and I had been drinking all day. That was our first mistake. In those days the drinking age in New Mexico was old enough to see over the dashboard, operate the pedals, know the name of a beer at the drive up window and have cash that was green.

Like all western children, we had taken hunterâ€™s safety when we were 12 and had pretty much grown up with a gun in our hands. Of course, when you are seventeen, twelve is a million years ago. So we all got our .22s and headed out to Chokecherry canyon, a desolate badlands-type landscape. We strolled along, drinking and talking, but not seeing anything worth shooting other than some old, rusted out and abandoned cars. So we decided to split up.

That was our second mistake. The third mistake was to circle in opposite directions.

As my best friend and I trudged to the top of a steep hill, our heads popped over the crest. At that second, a bullet zinged off the top of the hill, throwing dirt on our faces and whizzing right past my ear close enough to ruffle my hair. We hit the dirt, then crawled to the brink and looked over. We were surprised to see our other friends in a ravine on the other side, laughing and hollering.

Embarrassed and frightened, my friend and I stood up and yelled to them, â€œYou almost killed us, you idiots!â€ (Actually, we used much more colorful language.) This was replied to by a torrent of catcalls and dispersions concerning the character and quality of our family line, with hints as towards the lack of courage in our ancestors.

Being a teenager, naturally my friend and I were jealous of honor and quick in quarrel. We yelled back, â€œOh yeah? Letâ€™s see how you like it!â€ We raised our rifles and waited for a second while our friends scrambled behind a rather large boulder with a steep dirt hill behind it. Once they were safely under cover, we opened fire with both guns, stitching the dirt all around the boulder while our friends screamed in fear.

After we stopped, barrels smoking, we laughed hilariously as they crawled out from behind the boulder cursing us loudly. They yelled, â€œYou idiots! We shot at you on accident, but you shot at us on purpose.â€ We took that as our cue to return the insinuations as to their DNA and family tree.

After that, things began to get really crazy. We were shooting and running everywhere. Naturally, we were just shooting to frighten and calls of â€œIf you kill me, my mother will kill you!â€ were tossed back and forth. I remember at one point, I was hiding behind a tree that was four sizes too small to hide me, while I listened to bullets hitting the other side with sharp â€œWhack Whackâ€ noises.

As I peered around the tree, I saw my friend running from cover to another, better position. So I took aim at his heels and gave him the â€œDance, stranger!â€ treatment. Unfortunately, at that point one of the bullets ricocheted off a rock and ran up his forearm, not breaking the skin, but leaving a arrow-straight burn trail.

We decided that weâ€™d had enough fun for that afternoon, but the day wasnâ€™t over.

Late that night we had still been drinking, since that was our hobby in high school in the seventies. We were driving out in the hills looking for a keg since they went on pretty much continually all weekend long. We saw a truck coming the other direction, loaded with guys our age, so we flagged them down to ask if they had any info.

I not quite sure who started what after that. I have a feeling that it was my best friend who was known for a big mouth and a quick temper. But at any rate, within minutes the seven of them and the five of us were engaged in a full blown, knock-down, drag-out street brawl. I was up against a guy my size, but he no stomach for it by the look on his face. A couple of quick punches to the nose and a kick to the stomach sent him packing.

I turned around to see how my friends were fairing. In the dim light, it was hard to tell who was who, but I recognized my best friendâ€™s brother, a hulking Navajo kid, stalking after another quickly retreating kid twenty yards down the road. He seemed oblivious to another kid on his back pummeling his head and shoulders.

I glanced to my right and saw my best friend had taken a hit. He was on the ground, in a fetal position and didnâ€™t seem to be breathing. As I watched, the kid who was fighting him drew back his foot and gave my friend a brutal, vicious kick to the face. My friendâ€™s head snapped back to a terrifying, unnatural angle. He lay motionless. I was convinced that his neck had been broken.

In my intoxicated state, a thought swam into my mind, insistent. â€œThey killed my friend. Now I have to kill them.â€ I felt very calm. This was one of the two times in my life where I thought I was a little insane. I walked over to the car, opened the trunk and pulled out the Marlin. I turned and walked straight to the guy who had killed my friend and drew up the rifle to eye-level. At three yards, with a semi-automatic, there was no way I could miss.

Terrified, He threw up his arms a screamed, â€œDonâ€™t shoot, man!â€ I felt my finger tightening on the trigger. At the last second, I heard a small voice in my head, â€œDonâ€™t kill him.â€ Call it sanity, conscience, God, or just sobriety, I pulled off a little to the left and fired. At the sound of the shot, everyone stopped fighting. The boy stood there for a second, watching me looking down the barrel at him, then took off running for his truck followed closely by his friends.

As they desperately tried to start the truck, I walked around the truck blasting headlights, tailgate, mirrors, everything except the tires. (I guess I wanted them to leave.) Finally they drove off at a pretty incredible rate and I dropped the gun to my side.

I turned, sick at heart, not wanting to see my best friend lying in the dirt. â€œWhat would I tell his mother?â€ I thought. Imagine my shock and amazement as my friend got up, rubbing his neck and dusting himself off! I heard him say, â€œSheesh! I thought you were going to kill those guys!â€

So I had almost gunned down seven men in cold bloodâ€¦for nothing.

The next day, I decided that I was not responsible enough or intelligent enough to own a weapon. I wanted nothing to do with guns again. It seemed to me that situations like that could all too easily be repeated in the future.

So a friend of mine who was kind of stupid told me he would buy all the guns from me. He came over that day with the cash, because, shaken as I was, right now wasnâ€™t soon enough to get rid of them. I debated selling them to him, because he was known to be a complete idiot. But what the Hell, if he did something stupid, that wasnâ€™t my fault, was it? (So I thought in those days.)

(continued next post)

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:22 pm

(continued)

I gave him the Ruger first, but I took out the clip before I gave it to him. He played with the rifle for a while. Then he said, â€œGive me the clip.â€ I replied, â€œNo.â€ Naturally he asked, â€œWhy not?â€ I told him, â€œBecause youâ€™ll do something stupid with it.â€ I was kind of blunt and tactless in those days. Of course, I was actually the one being stupid for considering selling it to him in the first place, but teenagers donâ€™t think that way. He kept begging and pleading, though, and I finally gave in telling him, â€œThis clip is loaded, you can look at it, but donâ€™t put it in the gun.â€

So fast that, to this day, I still can hardly believe it, he rammed the clip into the gun, pulled back the bolt and released it. Since his finger was on the trigger, the gun went off immediately. Luckily, the Good Lord watches over fools and children. The gun was pointed at the ground. Unfortunately, the bullet ricocheted off the hardwood floor and passed through the wall into the next apartment. The family wasnâ€™t home, but Iâ€™m pretty sure that their cat lost one of his nine lives.

So whatâ€™s my point? Itâ€™s this: gun safety has come a long way. We have trigger locks, gun safes, and ammo cases. But how can you design a gun that is â€œstupidity-proof?â€

Like alcohol, you can pass all the laws you want, but anyone who wants a gun will get their hands on one if they are available. Anyone: criminals, citizens, and children.

You can say that everyone should have training, but I had it and I completely forgot it in the passion of the moment. Worse yet, there will always be intense, emotional situations in peopleâ€™s lives. Guns have a terrible tendency to make those temporary situations worse.

Iâ€™m writing this blog today, not because I wanted to expand on the gun thread, but because I got the word that yesterday that my favorite cousin tried to commit suicide.

He is in the hospital with a shattered jaw. Amazingly, the bullet went out his mouth. His face is disfigured, but he didnâ€™t lose any teeth and I know that the doctors can work miracles with plastic surgery these days. He has been diagnosed as manic-depressive, so now he will get help and medication and perhaps lead a normal life. He wanted to kill himself because of terrible financial problems, something I can relate to intimately.

There was once a time when I felt the same way. I had lost everything, was homeless, alone, and just out of jail. What saved me was my faith, (I believe suicides go to Hell) and the fact that I didnâ€™t have a gun that night. The next day I felt better. You will argue that my cousin could still have found a way to kill himself without a gun, but he didnâ€™t. He used a gun.

Guns always seem to be everyoneâ€™s favorite instant solution to a temporary problem.

I havenâ€™t owned a gun since that day. My wife doesnâ€™t like them and I have granddaughters now, so I wonâ€™t be buying a gun anytime soon. Iâ€™ve lived an adventurous and dangerous life and gotten along fine without them. Iâ€™ve faced down vicious gangsters and crazed, delusional Vietnam veterans. Iâ€™ve had live rounds put in my mailbox from the local gangs as a message for throwing their soldiers out of school. Iâ€™ve had bullets whistle by my head when I was out cutting firewood. Iâ€™ve had strangers shoot at me from across lakes.

But Iâ€™ve been fine, Iâ€™ve never needed a gun, and it looks like I never will. Itâ€™s a personal choice, and I wonâ€™t deny others their right to own a gun, but I just canâ€™t buy that a gun is a â€œnecessityâ€ of life.

That just hasnâ€™t been my experience.

It just seems to me that guns cause more problems for people than they solve.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:34 pm

(Saint waits patiently to be flamed...)

Oh....I should point out that this is a repost of a post I wrote a couple of years ago. My cousin has recovered, pretty much, and is still alive to this day.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:48 pm

I believe that is the longest post on any forum I have ever read.

Thank you.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:40 pm

Saint_;1421723 wrote: (Saint waits patiently to be flamed...)

Oh....I should point out that this is a repost of a post I wrote a couple of years ago. My cousin has recovered, pretty much, and is still alive to this day.

Glad for your cousin, really.

You have an interesting story. If you and I were contemporaries, going to the same schools, doesn't look like we would have been buddies. Wasn't till I was in the Army I found fondness for alcohol. Make no mistake, my love of drink cost me a lot. No problems with the law or firearms, just wasted way to much time, and brain cells.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:43 pm

Bruv;1421729 wrote: I believe that is the longest post on any forum I have ever read.

Thank you.

lol. Sorry for wasting part of your life! =^..^=

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:16 pm

Seems I am being unfairly being accused of being into some kind of eugenics for my comment about a perp being shot and killed being a "small cleansing of the gene pool."

Read more: Elderly man kills intruder in Oak Cliff home - Dallas News | myFOXdfw.com

First of all, I had no idea, and still don't know of his race, religion etc. of the protected class's.

Don't care.

Considering his actions which led him into a lethal situation, obviously choose a very dangerous occupation.

Not exactly an innocent

Pipkins had a lengthy criminal record. He served time in prison and was convicted of theft, possession of a Controlled Substance and criminal trespassing.

Read more: Elderly man kills intruder in Oak Cliff home - Dallas News | myFOXdfw.com

I have no idea if he produced children, but I really doubt he would have been a father to any.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:17 pm

Saint_;1421723 wrote: (Saint waits patiently to be flamed...)

Oh....I should point out that this is a repost of a post I wrote a couple of years ago. My cousin has recovered, pretty much, and is still alive to this day.

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

You don't have to worry about guns, after all, you have secret passages

and stuff!