icegirl Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 (edited) Um, I'm quite fond of the fact that I can carry my semi-automatic automatic pistol around with me where-ever I want. Such as schools and you place of employment? have you been to an inner city school lately? The teachers and the parents are the ones _without_ guns but no, according to WA law, no carrying while at school or dropping your kids off on school grounds. Place of employment, well, the UW frowns upon it, and we just had a bit of a to do at HMC about a doc packing to work, but yes, people in my place of employment do carry... They don't make us walk through the metal detector. Have you ever walked around up there by the projects on your way to work after being called in at 3am? what do you want to know... Edited June 1, 2004 by icegirl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 If you ask me a dog or a group of dogs are more dangerous than a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoboy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Hmm, so a guy is "rushing at you with three rabid dogs"... you choose to shoot the guy??? The only person around who might have some control of the dogs??? WTF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Hmm, so a guy is "rushing at you with three rabid dogs"... you choose to shoot the guy??? The only person around who might have some control of the dogs??? WTF? I wasn't there. I don't know. Maybe the dogs ran after the first shot, but he kept coming. Beats me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 Yes, ban guns in government-managed wilderness. We should ban cars to save people from being victims of road rage. We should ban knives to save people from stabbings. We should ban fists to save people from beatings. Cars are a necessary evil, but necessary transportation. Personally, I'd rather see public transit take over the freeways, but that's just my fantasy. I think most knives are against the law in many cities. Survival rates of fist-fights vs. gun-fights... So what is the function of a gun? To injure or kill other living things. No, we do not have the right to injure and kill anyone. But yes, self-defense, if proven, does make it justifiable. But where do you draw the line between just fear, and actual self-defense? Fear is not a legal reason to commit murder. Had the guy actually been physically attacked, I'd say yeah, self-defense. But what proof is there that he had to kill someone to save himself? None. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoboy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Smart dogs... But then wouldn't the threat be a little reduced and the need to shoot the guy three more times be possibly elimanted??? Ahh, armchair 1/4-backing, love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swaterfall Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 have you been to an inner city school lately? The teachers are the ones _without_ guns Cool, let's equip all students and teachers with guns, we could even have shooting classes for kids. It'll be great and everyone will be _safe_. Place of employment, well, the UW frowns upon it, and we just had a bit of a to do at HMC about a doc packing to work, but yes, people in my place of employment do carry... They don't make us walk through the metal detector. Have you ever walked around up there by the projects on your way to work after being called in at 3am? I've never. But I really, really try to avoid living/ working in cities of over pop. 100,000. I think that it's pretty _gnarly_ that you feel the need to pack heat when you live your daily life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icegirl Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 (edited) it's not a need, it's a right. AND, I DID have firearm safety classes in school. Edited June 1, 2004 by icegirl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I think most knives are against the law in many cities. Yeah? What do you cut your steak with? Survival rates of fist-fights vs. gun-fights... So it's survivability that determines whether or not something is illegal? What about baseball bats, then? Those are pretty deadly, and serve no purpose. Perhaps we should ban them. So what is the function of a gun? To injure or kill other living things. No, we do not have the right to injure and kill anyone. But yes, self-defense, if proven, does make it justifiable. But where do you draw the line between just fear, and actual self-defense? Fear is not a legal reason to commit murder. Had the guy actually been physically attacked, I'd say yeah, self-defense. But what proof is there that he had to kill someone to save himself? None. Intent. Someone rushing at you with balled fists and three dogs is obviously intent. He should instead endure a mauling because killing is bad? Not in my world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I think that it's pretty _gnarly_ that you feel the need to pack heat when you live your daily life. Well spoken. Running away from the city is a good solution for some. Others choose to face the realities of our society. At least she doesn't have to carry a SAW to work and wear Type 4 body armor like I do at my place of employment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I've heard it said that it is easier to get a license to carry a gun than it is to carry a Taser. Is that true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 The right to carry a gun (not that I completely agree that it is a "right") does not mean you have to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icegirl Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 and, back to the question, when was the last time you walked around at 3am on capitol hill with angry gang bangers cruising the streets in front of your place of employment 'cause their buddy just got whacked. There are accounts that they've actually made it down to the operating room before, dead set on killing the doc who saved or was going to save the life of the dude who killed their "brother"... Hmmm... pleasant place to work nightshift. BUT, somebody has to do it, cause between the gang shootings, it's the drunk fucks driving home from pub clubs or whatnot getting in wrecks that need your asses saved. SO, say all you want that "I could go work somewhere I felt more safe" but that would be a cop-out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 After a little research I've learned that 1) Stun guns aren't all that expensive, 2) Some are pretty small, and 3) Only a few states restrict them and Washington is not on the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Then ban the carrying of guns by ordinary citizens into any government-managed wilderness. Huh... That might work for you Seattleites, but somepeeople have jobs requiring them to have guns in the wilderness... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Can I get than job too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Oh... by the way... I carried my piece into forest lands today. Cought some really nice cutties and didn't really feel like lugging them back to the trailhead in a cougar infested area... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 Intent. Someone rushing at you with balled fists and three dogs is obviously intent. He should instead endure a mauling because killing is bad? Not in my world. I keep saying that there is no proof of this but you keep bringing it up. So fine, hypothetically, if the owner did indeed continue to charge at a man after seeing him fire a gun into the ground, then he was asking to be shot. OK? Are you happy now? I'm just saying that there is no way of knowing if this is what actually went down. I have a hard time believing it myself but yes that is irrelevant. But I don't think the shooter's explanation alone is an acceptable escape from legal responsibility for the death that resulted from his gun use. As for the owner, whatever he was guilty of, he didn't deserve to be shot three times in the chest. The real problem as I see it now is this is just going to make people more gun-crazy. The precedent is you don't even have to be harmed or have any hard evidence of being threatened, if you're just scared that someone is going to hurt you, you kill them, problem solved, you're off the hook. I'm sorry that is some f'd up stone age sh*t. Anyway I'm not surprised at all that it went down in Arizona. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 Then ban the carrying of guns by ordinary citizens into any government-managed wilderness. Huh... That might work for you Seattleites, but somepeeople have jobs requiring them to have guns in the wilderness... Yeah I have no problem with that, if it's your job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 hey ashw... sure... you can't prove that is what happened... but you cant prove the converse either. the beauty of this great nation of ours is that we can't hang people for not being able to prove they didn't do something... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Then ban the carrying of guns by ordinary citizens into any government-managed wilderness. Huh... That might work for you Seattleites, but somepeeople have jobs requiring them to have guns in the wilderness... Yeah I have no problem with that, if it's your job. Look at that! You've got justin's seal of approval. That must make it ok! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 but do you approve of my carrying today? huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 hey ashw... sure... you can't prove that is what happened... but you cant prove the converse either. the beauty of this great nation of ours is that we can't hang people for not being able to prove they didn't do something... I know, the guy is off the hook unless there is some law we don't know about. I've been talking about ways to avoid having this happen in the future though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 You could start with keeping your dogs on a leash and not rushing people with loaded guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 but do you approve of my carrying today? huh? No way man you can take cougar with your bare hands can't you? Well if you're gonna go out and kill stuff in the woods, sometimes the woods kill you back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.