ForumGarden

Nomad;524461 wrote: What would then ?

If an intruder means to harm your child how will you protect her ?

You do have a plan right ?

And isnt being able to protect yourself in the best interest of your child/family ?
Nothing would convince me.

I can't foresee everything that is to happen in my life or hers.

I choose to trust in life and deal what happens one day at a time.

Novelty;524477 wrote: It's a dark place to be when you only feel safe with a gun,


yeah, what he said.

koan;524490 wrote: Nothing would convince me.



I can't foresee everything that is to happen in my life or hers.

I choose to trust in life and deal what happens one day at a time.







yeah, what he said.




Thats fine for your life but your daughters safety is your charge. She depends on you to keep her safe. What say you ?

Nomad;524502 wrote: Thats fine for your life but your daughters safety is your charge. She depends on you to keep her safe. What say you ?


To the best of my knowledge I keep her safer if I don't allow guns in the house. The chances of a psychopath breaking in and holding a gun to our heads is far lower than the chances of her shooting herself with it some day.

Nomad;524257 wrote: I took most of these conversations as implying the right to protect yourself and your family in the home from an intruder. Thats where I would assume most of us would find ourselves brandishing a weapon. If an intruder appears in your bedroom in the dark of night theres no question the homeowner would have the moral and legal right to use deadly force. I cant imagine a scenario in which an investigating officer would make an issue of where the intruder was shot on his person.

Another question might be how willing was the intruder to sacrifice his life for his wants ?


Nomad, I just want to ask you about your use of the term "brandish".

It means something maybe different to me than it does to you... I would

never "brandish".



I ask you here instead of pm 'cause pm's aren't working and also, others

might have the same question?



Thanks.

Diuretic;524513 wrote: Actually millions of people go to bed at night, wake up and get on with their day and no-one breaks into their house during the night. Now and again it happens of course but it's surprising how often it doesn't happen.


I'm astounded every morning when I wake up alive.

The average Briton is 176 times more likely to be murdered than to win the lottery with a single ticket. But there is good news: 99.88% of people are not murdered.

Research: Claire Newell

spot;524331 wrote:

Originally Posted by BabyRider

Thanks spot!

It makes a person wonder how a man with the kind of psychological problems they speak of ever gets a gun in his possession.



He was a farmer, BR. They're guaranteed to have both in England.


*Ahem*!!! Did Mr. Martin actually hold the gun in question legally, or illegally?

Bill Sikes;524809 wrote: *Ahem*!!! Did Mr. Martin actually hold the gun in question legally, or illegally?
His shotgun license was revoked in 1994 - five years before the shooting incident.

pantsonfire321@aol.com;524459 wrote: Hey where did LC go.The reason why Kenny dies continuously is that she's written by Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Explanations for her reappearances vary.

If, God forbid, there's a dairy product out there called Kenny, I apologize in advance.

spot;524834 wrote: His shotgun license was revoked in 1994 - five years before the shooting incident.


He held that gun illegally. I cannot remember whether at that time it was a

"prohibited weapon" - a Winchester 1300 Defender, IIRC - but it certainly

is now.

Interesting that his -licence- was revoked. I wonder why.

Bill Sikes;524961 wrote: He held that gun illegally. I cannot remember whether at that time it was a

"prohibited weapon" - a Winchester 1300 Defender, IIRC - but it certainly

is now.

Interesting that his -licence- was revoked. I wonder why.


Jurors were not told that Tony Martin had a history of misbehaviour with guns dating back more than 20 years.

Neither did they know that police found a sawn-off shotgun hidden in Martin's garage.

Martin pleaded not guilty to possessing the shortened gun and ammunition at a crown court hearing earlier this year.

In 1976, Martin shot a pigeon with a First World War revolver after a row at his house.

In 1987, Martin used a shotgun to smash windows at his brother's house.

His brother subsequently moved abroad.

Jurors were told how Martin had fired a shot at a car six years ago - an incident which led to his shotgun certificate being revoked.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/718129.stm

Novelty;524477 wrote: It's a dark place to be when you only feel safe with a gun,
Now here we go....it's comments like this that give guns and owners of guns some of the outrageously bad press we get.

Who the hell ever said the only place I feel safe is with my guns? And where do people get off making these grandiose sweeping assumptions??

valerie;524591 wrote: Nomad, I just want to ask you about your use of the term "brandish".

It means something maybe different to me than it does to you... I would

never "brandish".



I ask you here instead of pm 'cause pm's aren't working and also, others

might have the same question?



Thanks.
Thank you for this Val. It's another media BS tactic, just like using the term motorcycle "gang" as opposed to motorcycle "club".

Or how about "so-and-so was killed BY A GUN." No, they weren't they were killed by a PERSON.

BabyRider;525065 wrote: Thank you for this Val. It's another media BS tactic, just like using the term motorcycle "gang" as opposed to motorcycle "club".

Or how about "so-and-so was killed BY A GUN." No, they weren't they were killed by a PERSON.


You just had a rant about how words are inoffensive in another thread about racism.

Now that rant works against you I don't see how you can reverse it without compromising your position in either one thread or the other.

koan;525086 wrote: You just had a rant about how words are inoffensive in another thread about racism.

Now that rant works against you I don't see how you can reverse it without compromising your position in either one thread or the other.
Ditto on my other response to you in mentioned thread.

BabyRider;525087 wrote: Ditto on my other response to you in mentioned thread.


Torchwood has some amnesia pills you might want to get your hands on... if you expect people to forget what you write immediately afterwards.

I hate coming into a thread of interest 27 pages later. I should have taken notes as I read this baby Now lets see if I can remember anything:

We own several weapons and the thought of having to use one on someone sends shivers down my spine. The only time I would is if I felt my family or myself were in danger or anything that causes them injury or harm. The law in Missouri doesn't see it that way. The only time I could use my weapons justifiably would be if I were "in fear of my life". Thats it! I don't think I would feel horrible or guilty if I had to use one in the above mentioned cases but rather I had to do whatever it took to keep my kiddos safe. In the back of my mind, I would always think "holy ****, I shot someone" but would feel it was justifiable ONLY in those circumstances.

With that being said, I don't run around in real life or on forums and spout BS about guns, using them or threatening people with them. I feel doing that is yet another way gun owners look stupid and irrational. Those people, in my opinion, have no business owning guns as they are probably more apt to use them in situations where they shouldn't be. (especially threatening on internet forums.....thats really stupid:rolleyes:) Some may say "oh I was only joking, haha". Personally, I take weapons seriously, as any owner should and don't use them as the center of a joke.

I also saw in this thread how the law interpretted things differently for different people and their experiences with weapons. I truly think this is the result of the experience of the lawyer they hired and the amount of money they had on hand to pay him/her.

As for kids in the house (and this might fire some people up) but my kids will know all about guns as they grow up. I think one thing that really makes kids curious is to point to a lockbox and say "GUNS, BAD BAD, STAY AWAY". It's just like booze or drugs or .....anything thats treated as taboo really. If they are curious about something, they will take any opportunity to explore. I'm not saying my kids will be packing a Glock in their backpacks, but they will have an opportunity to explore their curiosity about weapons with my husband and I and not with the neighborhood kids.

I'm forgetting something I'm sure.

And Koan, I'll remove my weapons for a couple of hours, just for you, if you make it to "Missoura" someday.

thanks, devist8

I decided it would be fine as long as the guns are not in the room where relaxed conversation is supposed to take place and I was sure that any children in the house couldn't access them. :-6

We're set then.

Sexy avatar btw

koan;523276 wrote: 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.


Gosh, that sure does suck doesnt it? I hate when people do that.

Novelty;525342 wrote: I thought it was people shooting people that gives guns a bad name,


Uh, BINGO!!! All you do when you talk about "killing machines" and make assumptions is exacerbate the bad press about bad gun owners as a WHOLE. There are plenty of people who don't belong owning guns, just like there are plenty of people who don't belong owning pets, people who shouldn't drive, people who beat their kids, etc, and the the list goes on. Why don't you try for a clue and go read some of what I've written to another member who wants to own a gun in my thread?



Novelty wrote: nothing grandiose in the assumption that you live in a place where you only feel safe with a gun, you would feel vulnerable without them, this is a dark state of mind and a bad society...
And it IS a grandiose assumption when you claim to know one single thing about me and my life and my "fears." I don't live in fear, and I leave my house every day unarmed. Next time you want to assume something about a person, I suggest you know something about that person before you make leaping judgements. You could be here for 5 years and you'd never know a thing about me.

Well, I know something about you, BR! I read your comments carefully and I know you certainly did NOT seriously "threaten" anyone here. Your comments fit with an agenda, that's all, and I admire you for (forgive me here, please) sticking to your guns.

Here Here!

Lulu2;526233 wrote: Well, I know something about you, BR! I read your comments carefully and I know you certainly did NOT seriously "threaten" anyone here. Your comments fit with an agenda, that's all, and I admire you for (forgive me here, please) sticking to your guns.
Thanks for that, Lu. People seem to think, "Biker and guns....she's a whacko." I have absolutely zero reason to threaten anyone. If I can't actually get to them and carry through, there's no point. If I could get to them, I wouldn't threaten then, either. I'd do what I was there to do and not bother talking about it.

That's great, Lu, including the play on words!!

OK...good night, DENSE! Have a g'dday!

Diuretic;526447 wrote: [QUOTE=Lulu2;526233][QUOTE=BabyRider;526240]Thanks for that, Lu. People seem to think, "Biker and guns....she's a whacko." I have absolutely zero reason to threaten anyone. If I can't actually get to them and carry through, there's no point. If I could get to them, I wouldn't threaten then, either. I'd do what I was there to do and not bother talking about it.Well, I know something about you, BR! I read your comments carefully and I know you certainly did NOT seriously "threaten" anyone here.[/QUOTE]That was my immediate impression too Lulu, thanks for putting it into words. I must say I didn't mention it before because I was a bit confused about the fuss. Call me dense :wah:[/QUOTE]OK, let's put this thread to bed perhaps. I, also, have no belief that BR has any intention of using her guns on anyone. However, there's an unfortunate combination of two aspects to what she says sometimes on FG as far as guns go. She says quite a lot about how good she is with them and how many of them she has, which is all a bit distasteful but there you go, some sections of society admire that sort of talk. People may or may not seem to think "Biker and guns....she's a whacko" but I certainly haven't found myself thinking anything of the sort.

The other aspect, which in combination with the first is what's so troubling, is that BR appears genuinely not to recognize what constitutes a threat of violence when said on a forum. Even Lulu has to qualify her words with "seriously" when saying BR "certainly did NOT threaten anyone here", since without the "seriously" it's plain not true. In the post Lulu was quoting, BR does it again and, to my mind, worse than anywhere earlier. Is it just that "seriously" has to be reached before it becomes offensive?

BR's post says "I have absolutely zero reason to threaten anyone.[on an Internet forum, because] If I can't actually get to them and carry through, there's no point. If I could get to them, I wouldn't threaten then, either. I'd do what I was there to do and not bother talking about it."

"If I could get to them [...] I'd do what I was there to do and not bother talking about it [instead of just use threatening words]" unarguably constitutes an online threat whether anyone takes it seriously or not. If everyone concerned could back away from their prejudices regarding who has to be defended and who has to be attacked round here for a few moments we might be able to sort this out. We're not discussing whether it's meant to scare or to impress, we're discussing whether it's acceptable language.

Just to keep the thread on topic after last night's efforts at disruption, while it's great fun watching the pack call each other in when they scent blood it's neither dignified nor helpful. Nor, in this case, necessary.

spot;526670 wrote:

Just to keep the thread on topic after last night's efforts at disruption, while it's great fun watching the pack call each other in when they scent blood it's neither dignified nor helpful. Nor, in this case, necessary.


Dont you think this might be a bit of a delusion? I hear quite often. It sounds like paranoia.

Novelty;526803 wrote: I must admit, i would like to see proof of any gun threatening remarks..


How do you interpret "If I could get to them, I wouldn't threaten then, either. I'd do what I was there to do and not bother talking about it", Novelty?

The fuss is that it has always been evident here in the garden that there are those of us who greatly affected by words. After reading everything, this example comes to mind. If I threatened someone publicly and they turned up injured, Id be hard pressed to explain my words to a judge. No matter who came forth to explain that my language was not to be taken seriously, it would do me no good. I think there is this saying that people tatoo on themselves nowdays. It is NO FEAR. I take that to mean, I will say and do what I want, when I want to who I want, and I will not give explanations or excuses. Not everyone speaks with the same abandon. And so, as always recognizing that there are many different dialects spoken here... its probably better and easier for regions to only react to their own translations of words used. The best topics here lately are the ones that remain unemmotional. Its difficult to ignore implications that offend, but useless to relentlessly try to explain. Those who advocate the use of guns will always be a society seperate from those who abhor them. That has been made very clear here and everywhere else, over and over again.

Novelty;526863 wrote: Forgive me if i'm wrong but the implication of shooting people was abound the FG saloon, or did i just misunderstand Koan?


You wouldn't be the first :wah:

weeder,

your line: "It is NO FEAR. I take that to mean, I will say and do what I want, when I want to who I want, and I will not give explanations or excuses." describes exactly the attitude that was under question. That is a legitimate attitude. I'm having trouble with the additional bit about "and I shall not be held accountable for what I say and do and want." One can not demand the right of self expression then seek to deny it for somebody else. My assumption on starting this thread is that the person who exercises the right to say whatever they feel like will also extend that right to me.

Novelty;526896 wrote: It seems if you disagree around here it suggests you are being aggressive or inconsiderate, then the supporters come in and give comfort to the bitch point of view, freedom of expression is constantly misinterpreted...


You are exactly correct. With the excetion of expessiion being misinterputed.

Sometimes it seems like we all dont speak English. Life is much simpler surrounded by people who say what they mean..and mean what they say. Even if the concepts presented are unpleasant to hear.

Diuretic;526936 wrote: Dunno about that. Personally I like disagreeing. It'd be a lame old garden if we were nodding and umming and ahhing in agreement.


Hmm... yes, I agree with that.

weeder;526944 wrote: Sometimes it seems like we all dont speak English.


Often, it seems to me, people don't read posts properly, and go pop! becaise

of that - not that there nessesarily illitriate.

Clancy;526973 wrote: ....now you've replaced him with, pedantic, Sgt, Burger King.That's Regimental Sergeant Major to you, Clancy.

Good to see you post, though.

Novelty;526896 wrote: It seems if you disagree around here it suggests you are being aggressive or inconsiderate, then the supporters come in and give comfort to the bitch point of view, freedom of expression is constantly misinterpreted...


I'm surprised you only just noticed .