On Sep 17, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 15, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
By "sport," do you mean "hunting?" Because a gun used for hunting is used for killing.

In defending your personal safety, you have to be aware that at some point or another you will kill someone. Obviously, this would be in self defense, but it would still result in killing.

Now, in this thread, people have been ridiculed for suggesting that guns be banned for one person's death.

My question, imagine you have 100 legitimate verifiable cases of someone using a gun for proper self defense, death resulting. What is a legitimate ratio before you begin to wonder about allowing anyone to have a gun? If 1 innocent person dies vs 100 legitimate deaths, is that OK? 2? 5? 10? I'm just asking.

I don't think many people are in favor of anyone owning a gun.

On Sep 17, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 17, 2014, acesover wrote:
Rhodes said:

I don't see why you're having a problem with my question.

100 + X shooting incidents involving people who legally own handguns or rifles. 100 of those shootings are clearly good shoots, the person doing the shooting was in fact in danger of his or his family's life. X number of shootings are NOT "good" shoots, the shooter was not protecting his life or property (even if he THOUGHT he was) and someone died who shouldn't have.

My question is, how large does "X" have to be before you consider that not everybody is qualified to own a gun and use it responsibly?

-------------------------------------------------

The fly in the ointment here is in your statement that reads "(even if he THOUGHT he was)". If in truth that is the case it is a good shooting. Thought in this case is used as a synonym for believe.

Secondly I never said EVERYBODY is qualified to own a handgun. Qualified and "has a right to" are two completely different issues. Also not everyone has a right to won a handgun such as convicted felons etc. The issue here is here who decided who is qualified and what are the qualifications? Also we have to define the words everybody and anybody. You use the term "everybody is qualified" and as I said before I never said that. Also as far as I know there are no qualifications in order to own a hand gun but there are regulations.

No. I don't agree. If you were wrong in your reasoning as to the need to use a gun, then the shoot is bad.

If you THOUGHT the suspect had a gun, but it turned out to be a wallet or a camera, you still shot an unarmed person.

(And before anyone brings this up, NO I don't think you have to be shot at first in order to shoot someone. But if you're going to take someone's life in your hands, you'd better be pretty d@mn certain of your case!)

In my opinion, someone who isn't qualified to use a gun doesn't have a right to one.

On Sep 17, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
Your question was in two parts; "You don't have a problem with the innocent being incarcerated" and "How many innocent being incarcerated with 100 guilty is OK?"

Since I DO have a problem with innocent being incarcerated, 0/100 would be OK with me.

I am aware however that we are fallible and there will be people in prison who shouldn't be.

Hopefully, there will be others who are willing to fight to get those people out.

And hopefully those people will get out. They do have that option. Those people who were executed don't.

On Sep 17, 2014, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 17, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:

In my opinion, someone who isn't qualified to use a gun doesn't have a right to one.

While you may not agree that is your right, I disagree with you. What made the person believe the person had a gun or weapon in the first place? Did he threaten you or your daughter in a semi dark room and say he said he was going to cut her throat and had a butter knife, or even a plastic toy knife in his hand? Did he have a plastic gun that looked real and say he would shoot her? Well let me tell you. You would have shot him because you THOUGHT he had a weapon that would kill your daughter. Good or bad shooting? You tell me. Thought, really believed...you or your daughter are going to lose their life if you don't prevent it RIGHT NOW. Think about it.

Tell me how you decide whether someone is "qualified" to own a gun. Just curious as you feel that way which I do not disagree. I think we have common ground but the word qualify is not on that ground. Are you in a position to say who is qualified and who isn't? What criteria would you use knowing what you know about firearms? Do they have to be a good shot, do they have to know how to take the weapon apart and clean and maintain it? Just what qualifies a person? I will tell you none of those things matter. It is the person and their character that matters along with their mind set. Qualify and regulate are two different terms completely in my mind. Ninety nine percent of the population does not have a firearm with the intent to kill or rob or harm someone. That in of it self helps to qualify them to own a fire arm. However there is more. They must be of a certain age, they must be mentally competent, they cannot be a convicted felon or a convicted drug user there are more reasons but I am not going to try and make a complete list of reasons. They are regulations not being qualified. Qualified is to abstract as it refers to ones ability and some have better ability and hand eye coordination than others which is why pro athletes make so much money. But to deny anyone from owning a firearm that is a mentally sound law abiding citizen is not right just because you say so, because of the miniscule amount of people who use them in a harmful way. Why take away protection from the ninety percent? Is it because of the criminal one percent? Would you rather only criminals have firearms?

I know I am leaving myself wide open here. I can feel incoming.

On Sep 17, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 17, 2014, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 17, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:

In my opinion, someone who isn't qualified to use a gun doesn't have a right to one.

While you may not agree that is your right, I disagree with you. What made the person believe the person had a gun or weapon in the first place? Did he threaten you or your daughter in a semi dark room and say he said he was going to cut her throat and had a butter knife, or even a plastic toy knife in his hand? Did he have a plastic gun that looked real and say he would shoot her? Well let me tell you. You would have shot him because you THOUGHT he had a weapon that would kill your daughter. Good or bad shooting? You tell me. Thought, really believed...you or your daughter are going to lose their life if you don't prevent it RIGHT NOW. Think about it.

Tell me how you decide whether someone is "qualified" to own a gun. Just curious as you feel that way which I do not disagree. I think we have common ground but the word qualify is not on that ground. Are you in a position to say who is qualified and who isn't? What criteria would you use knowing what you know about firearms? Do they have to be a good shot, do they have to know how to take the weapon apart and clean and maintain it? Just what qualifies a person? I will tell you none of those things matter. It is the person and their character that matters along with their mind set. Qualify and regulate are two different terms completely in my mind. Ninety nine percent of the population does not have a firearm with the intent to kill or rob or harm someone. That in of it self helps to qualify them to own a fire arm. However there is more. They must be of a certain age, they must be mentally competent, they cannot be a convicted felon or a convicted drug user there are more reasons but I am not going to try and make a complete list of reasons. They are regulations not being qualified. Qualified is to abstract as it refers to ones ability and some have better ability and hand eye coordination than others which is why pro athletes make so much money. But to deny anyone from owning a firearm that is a mentally sound law abiding citizen is not right just because you say so, because of the miniscule amount of people who use them in a harmful way. Why take away protection from the ninety percent? Is it because of the criminal one percent? Would you rather only criminals have firearms?

I know I am leaving myself wide open here. I can feel incoming.

Sigh, the drunken lady didn't threaten anyone, she just pounded on the wrong door.

There was another case where a man knocked on a door to ask for help and the owner shot THROUGH the door!

The Japanese kid scared people. Jumping out and screaming so he could take a picture of the terrified faces, he just picked the wrong country to do it in.

If you verified a weapon and it turned out to be fake, you're still good. If you shot someone who didn't say or do anything threatening, just pulled out his wallet. Or even worse, did nothing at all but one of the arresting officers "tripped and fell" and the others all jumped to a conclusion that they had to fire.

Granted you have to make a split second decision... and you'd better be right or you killed an unarmed person.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to own a gun has to show that they can handle the responsibility of it. A lot of people do, a lot of people don't seem to, and some never get tested.

On Sep 17, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
You verified that there was a weapon. Short of letting the guy shoot first (which I've already said I don't believe you need) if you shoot the guy and it turns out it was a fake weapon, it's still good. You may have some very bad moments (a cop from the TV series "Hill Street Blues" comes to mind) but it wasn't irresponsible.

I don't know HOW I'd test them. That's why I'm not in politics or campaining (sp) for gun control.

But I still think there are people out there who aren't qualified to own the guns they do and I hope to God they are never tested.

I notice you never did answer the question;

100 shoots for which there is no question as to validity / "x" shoots that were clearly bad decisions causing the death of an innocent.

Some people on this thread have said guns should be banned for ONE death.

How high would "x" have to be before you re-considered restricting the free ownership of guns?

(Be aware there are people who think ANY regulation of guns... is against the 2nd Amendment)

On Sep 17, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Not quite as many who want to ban all godsend.

On Sep 19, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
Http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Scr......Code=CPB

On Sep 1, 2014, TonyB2009 wrote:
The USA has problems like nine year olds killing instructors with Uzis, and Sandy Hook massacres every year, because you do not have the interest or the balls to tackle the underlying problem, your gun culture.

On Sep 19, 2014, landmark wrote:
fear, fear, fear, fear, cower, buy, buy, fear, fear, cower, fear, fear, buy, fear, fear fear.
Thanks, message received.

On Sep 19, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 1, 2014, TonyB2009 wrote:
The USA has problems like nine year olds killing instructors with Uzis, and Sandy Hook massacres every year, because you do not have the interest or the balls to tackle the underlying problem, your gun culture.

Quote:

On Sep 19, 2014, landmark wrote:
fear, fear, fear, fear, cower, buy, buy, fear, fear, cower, fear, fear, buy, fear, fear fear.
Thanks, message received.

On Sep 19, 2014, Kabbalah wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 19, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
Http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Scr......Code=CPB

???