Uneducated Voters

[Deathcrow]

Yes, but if no one in that neighborhood had a gun he wouldn't have been killed by a gunshot. He should of called the police and had them handle the situation.

What's your response to the second link?

Again, very sad. What would you say if he was killed by a police officer, a knife, some other weapon. In the case of the second link which is an absolutely horrible story. Very unfortunate for the family. What if the father had grabbed a knife out of the kitchen and when she jumped out he stabbed her in the neck. Same outcome, different weapon.

This is in regards to the first link.
If he had to get close enough to his son to stab him in the neck, he would of seen it was his son.

In regards to the second link.
It takes much longer to pull a knife out of your knife holster, raise your arm, and stab. He would of seen it was his daughter.

I find the red carpet to be spam central. I would rather not post there. I don't think I'm the most welcoming person

BTW: Thanks for referring all these new members to the forum

In regards what you said about the first link. How so? He was wearing a ski mask and his identity wasn't found out until it was removed. And why would he grab a knife from a kitchen and put it in a knife holster? He would have it out just like the gun if he thought there was an intruder. He didn't have a gun in it's holster when opening the closet did he? lol. Think a little harder before you respond, Adam.

And thanks man, I am trying my best to get these forums more active.

 

[Adam]

Again, very sad. What would you say if he was killed by a police officer, a knife, some other weapon. In the case of the second link which is an absolutely horrible story. Very unfortunate for the family. What if the father had grabbed a knife out of the kitchen and when she jumped out he stabbed her in the neck. Same outcome, different weapon.

This is in regards to the first link.
If he had to get close enough to his son to stab him in the neck, he would of seen it was his son.

In regards to the second link.
It takes much longer to pull a knife out of your knife holster, raise your arm, and stab. He would of seen it was his daughter.

I find the red carpet to be spam central. I would rather not post there. I don't think I'm the most welcoming person

BTW: Thanks for referring all these new members to the forum

In regards what you said about the first link. How so? He was wearing a ski mask and his identity wasn't found out until it was removed. And why would he grab a knife from a kitchen and put it in a knife holster? He would have it out just like the gun if he thought there was an intruder. He didn't have a gun in it's holster when opening the closet did he? lol. Think a little harder before you respond, Adam.

And thanks man, I am trying my best to get these forums more active.

(I never read the article on the second link. My dad told me about the story a while ago and I just Googled it and then posted the link) We can not go into speculating. We can only go into what happened. He did not take a knife from the kitchen then stab his daughter. He had a gun and he shot her.

 

[Deathcrow]

This is in regards to the first link.
If he had to get close enough to his son to stab him in the neck, he would of seen it was his son.

In regards to the second link.
It takes much longer to pull a knife out of your knife holster, raise your arm, and stab. He would of seen it was his daughter.

I find the red carpet to be spam central. I would rather not post there. I don't think I'm the most welcoming person

BTW: Thanks for referring all these new members to the forum

In regards what you said about the first link. How so? He was wearing a ski mask and his identity wasn't found out until it was removed. And why would he grab a knife from a kitchen and put it in a knife holster? He would have it out just like the gun if he thought there was an intruder. He didn't have a gun in it's holster when opening the closet did he? lol. Think a little harder before you respond, Adam.

And thanks man, I am trying my best to get these forums more active.

(I never read the article on the second link. My dad told me about the story a while ago and I just Googled it and then posted the link) We can not go into speculating. We can only go into what happened. He did not take a knife from the kitchen then stab his daughter. He had a gun and he shot her.

You are speculating when you say that she wouldn't of died if there was no gun. Explain this logic of no speculating for me but you can?

 

[Adam]

In regards what you said about the first link. How so? He was wearing a ski mask and his identity wasn't found out until it was removed. And why would he grab a knife from a kitchen and put it in a knife holster? He would have it out just like the gun if he thought there was an intruder. He didn't have a gun in it's holster when opening the closet did he? lol. Think a little harder before you respond, Adam.

And thanks man, I am trying my best to get these forums more active.

(I never read the article on the second link. My dad told me about the story a while ago and I just Googled it and then posted the link) We can not go into speculating. We can only go into what happened. He did not take a knife from the kitchen then stab his daughter. He had a gun and he shot her.

You are speculating when you say that she wouldn't of died if there was no gun. Explain this logic of no speculating for me but you can?

She would not of died by a gunshot from her father the second she jumped out of the closet. That is all I can guarantee.

 

[Deathcrow]

(I never read the article on the second link. My dad told me about the story a while ago and I just Googled it and then posted the link) We can not go into speculating. We can only go into what happened. He did not take a knife from the kitchen then stab his daughter. He had a gun and he shot her.

You are speculating when you say that she wouldn't of died if there was no gun. Explain this logic of no speculating for me but you can?

She would not of died by a gunshot from her father the second she jumped out of the closet. That is all I can guarantee.

But you can't guarantee that she would still be alive. And that is my point.

Edit: I don't understand this conversation we are having. First you make it so we only talk facts. Then you make it so there is speculation. Then you go back to facts. It is like whatever I say, you do opposite.

 

[Adam]

You are speculating when you say that she wouldn't of died if there was no gun. Explain this logic of no speculating for me but you can?

She would not of died by a gunshot from her father the second she jumped out of the closet. That is all I can guarantee.

But you can't guarantee that she would still be alive. And that is my point.

And that is completely irrelevant. We can guarantee she wouldn't of died from a gun shot in that situation.

 

[Deathcrow]

She would not of died by a gunshot from her father the second she jumped out of the closet. That is all I can guarantee.

But you can't guarantee that she would still be alive. And that is my point.

And that is completely irrelevant. We can guarantee she wouldn't of died from a gun shot in that situation.

That isn't irrelevant at all. I thought you were only against guns because they cause untimely death. I am explaining to you guns aren't the only reason people get killed. I thought that was what this whole conversation was about. Do you care more about the way a person is killed over the person's life? I really do not understand this conversation now.

 

[Adam]

But you can't guarantee that she would still be alive. And that is my point.

And that is completely irrelevant. We can guarantee she wouldn't of died from a gun shot in that situation.

That isn't irrelevant at all. I thought you were only against guns because they cause untimely death. I am explaining to you guns aren't the only reason people get killed. I thought that was what this whole conversation was about. Do you care more about the way a person is killed over the person's life? I really do not understand this conversation now.

I could die right now from a heart attack. The chances of that girl dying from a heart attack is much lower than from a gun. If we remove the gun from the situation yes, she could die from a heart attack. It is completely irrelevant because chances are, she wouldn't of died.

 

[Deathcrow]

And that is completely irrelevant. We can guarantee she wouldn't of died from a gun shot in that situation.

That isn't irrelevant at all. I thought you were only against guns because they cause untimely death. I am explaining to you guns aren't the only reason people get killed. I thought that was what this whole conversation was about. Do you care more about the way a person is killed over the person's life? I really do not understand this conversation now.

I could die right now from a heart attack. The chances of that girl dying from a heart attack is much lower than from a gun. If we remove the gun from the situation yes, she could die from a heart attack. It is completely irrelevant because chances are, she wouldn't of died.

Okay, now remove the gun from the equation. She could of died from another weapon. If you don't have a gun and you think there is an intruder in your house, the chances are you are going to grab some other tool that can be used as a weapon such as a knife. You are causing this conversation to go in circles because of your logic. Again like I have said before, you only allow this conversation to take the path you want it to. With this last post you go back to "well she wouldn't of died without him having a gun" which is speculation again instead of fact. She probably still would of been injured at the very least, which is just being realistic. Come on Adam, I know you are a smart kid. Why are you making me go through this?

 

[Adam]

That isn't irrelevant at all. I thought you were only against guns because they cause untimely death. I am explaining to you guns aren't the only reason people get killed. I thought that was what this whole conversation was about. Do you care more about the way a person is killed over the person's life? I really do not understand this conversation now.

I could die right now from a heart attack. The chances of that girl dying from a heart attack is much lower than from a gun. If we remove the gun from the situation yes, she could die from a heart attack. It is completely irrelevant because chances are, she wouldn't of died.

Okay, now remove the gun from the equation. She could of died from another weapon. If you don't have a gun and you think there is an intruder in your house, the chances are you are going to grab some other tool that can be used as a weapon such as a knife. You are causing this conversation to go in circles because of your logic. Again like I have said before, you only allow this conversation to take the path you want it to. With this last post you go back to "well she wouldn't of died without him having a gun" which is speculation again instead of fact. She probably still would of been injured at the very least, which is just being realistic. Come on Adam, I know you are a smart kid. Why are you making me go through this?

Okay, lets remove the gun from the equation and change it to a knife. He stabs her through the chest with his knife. A knife moving @ xspeed compared to a bullet moving @ 1200fps. The bullet is bound to do more damage causing death. The knife, while still possibly deadly, will give her fighting chance at the hospital.

 

[Deathcrow]

I could die right now from a heart attack. The chances of that girl dying from a heart attack is much lower than from a gun. If we remove the gun from the situation yes, she could die from a heart attack. It is completely irrelevant because chances are, she wouldn't of died.

Okay, now remove the gun from the equation. She could of died from another weapon. If you don't have a gun and you think there is an intruder in your house, the chances are you are going to grab some other tool that can be used as a weapon such as a knife. You are causing this conversation to go in circles because of your logic. Again like I have said before, you only allow this conversation to take the path you want it to. With this last post you go back to "well she wouldn't of died without him having a gun" which is speculation again instead of fact. She probably still would of been injured at the very least, which is just being realistic. Come on Adam, I know you are a smart kid. Why are you making me go through this?

Okay, lets remove the gun from the equation and change it to a knife. He stabs her through the chest with his knife. A knife moving @ xspeed compared to a bullet moving @ 1200fps. The bullet is bound to do more damage causing death. The knife, while still possibly deadly, will give her fighting chance at the hospital.

Now this is a reply that was actually worth the post. Much better than some of your other ones that brought us back to where we were in the first place. That is a very valid statement. But still not enough to warrant anti-gun laws. Because then we have to think how many deaths will occur because of criminals having a gun and law-abiding citizens not having a gun to defend themselves against the criminal with a gun. Now we have to ask ourselves: Would this number be greater than these unfortunate accidental deaths caused by guns or lower?

Edit:

If you can remove guns from scenarios, then I can most certainly add them.
http://news.yahoo.com/6-teens-arrested-taped-beating-pa-woman-211911720.html
If this woman had a gun, you can almost guarantee that would of been enough of a deterrent to keep these thugs away from her, without her even to have shot anyone.

You could say something like this for any crime that has occurred where the victim did not have access to a gun to protect themselves.

 

[Adam]

It would be lower. People especially criminals(Such as thieves) are extremely lazy. The reason a thief steals is because it's faster and easier money than working a legitimate job. A person who is a thief and is lazy is much less likely to step through all the hoops to get a gun. If no one has a gun then there will be no gun related deaths.



By the way, in both of those articles I linked, none of them had any prior convictions: meaning they were law abiding citizens. Yet they still managed to kill their children.

 

[Deathcrow]

It would be lower. People especially criminals(Such as thieves) are extremely lazy. The reason a thief steals is because it's faster and easier money than working a legitimate job. A person who is a thief and is lazy is much less likely to step through all the hoops to get a gun. If no one has a gun then there will be no gun related deaths.



By the way, in both of those articles I linked, none of them had any prior convictions: meaning they were law abiding citizens. Yet they still managed to kill their children.

I realize they were good people, they didn't kill them on purpose. The one with the boy was really mostly the kids fault. The one with the girl was just a horrible accident.

And as for it being lower, I don't think so. Also, read what I mentioned above where I edited my post. Let me know your thoughts on that.

 

[Adam]

It would be lower. People especially criminals(Such as thieves) are extremely lazy. The reason a thief steals is because it's faster and easier money than working a legitimate job. A person who is a thief and is lazy is much less likely to step through all the hoops to get a gun. If no one has a gun then there will be no gun related deaths.



By the way, in both of those articles I linked, none of them had any prior convictions: meaning they were law abiding citizens. Yet they still managed to kill their children.

I realize they were good people, they didn't kill them on purpose. The one with the boy was really mostly the kids fault. The one with the girl was just a horrible accident.

And as for it being lower, I don't think so. Also, read what I mentioned above where I edited my post. Let me know your thoughts on that.

It was not the boys fault that his father was trigger happy. It was not his fault that his dad owned a gun. It was not his fault that his dad did not ask first shoot later. His dad choose to shoot first, ask questions later. The son did absolutely nothing wrong.

 

[Deathcrow]

It would be lower. People especially criminals(Such as thieves) are extremely lazy. The reason a thief steals is because it's faster and easier money than working a legitimate job. A person who is a thief and is lazy is much less likely to step through all the hoops to get a gun. If no one has a gun then there will be no gun related deaths.



By the way, in both of those articles I linked, none of them had any prior convictions: meaning they were law abiding citizens. Yet they still managed to kill their children.

I realize they were good people, they didn't kill them on purpose. The one with the boy was really mostly the kids fault. The one with the girl was just a horrible accident.

And as for it being lower, I don't think so. Also, read what I mentioned above where I edited my post. Let me know your thoughts on that.

It was not the boys fault that his father was trigger happy. It was not his fault that his dad owned a gun. It was not his fault that his dad did not ask first shoot later. His dad choose to shoot first, ask questions later. The son did absolutely nothing wrong.

You ignored one of my questions. Please go back up, read it, and answer it.

Also, did you not read the article? The son was in all black, a ski mask, and had broken into the house already at 1:00 AM when he should of been in bed. The dad confronted the person on the front lawn. That implies there could of been talking. The person lunged forward with a weapon in his hand and that is when the father pulled the trigger. How can you say the kid did nothing wrong?

 

[Adam]

Okay, now remove the gun from the equation. She could of died from another weapon. If you don't have a gun and you think there is an intruder in your house, the chances are you are going to grab some other tool that can be used as a weapon such as a knife. You are causing this conversation to go in circles because of your logic. Again like I have said before, you only allow this conversation to take the path you want it to. With this last post you go back to "well she wouldn't of died without him having a gun" which is speculation again instead of fact. She probably still would of been injured at the very least, which is just being realistic. Come on Adam, I know you are a smart kid. Why are you making me go through this?

Okay, lets remove the gun from the equation and change it to a knife. He stabs her through the chest with his knife. A knife moving @ xspeed compared to a bullet moving @ 1200fps. The bullet is bound to do more damage causing death. The knife, while still possibly deadly, will give her fighting chance at the hospital.

Now this is a reply that was actually worth the post. Much better than some of your other ones that brought us back to where we were in the first place. That is a very valid statement. But still not enough to warrant anti-gun laws. Because then we have to think how many deaths will occur because of criminals having a gun and law-abiding citizens not having a gun to defend themselves against the criminal with a gun. Now we have to ask ourselves: Would this number be greater than these unfortunate accidental deaths caused by guns or lower?

Edit:

If you can remove guns from scenarios, then I can most certainly add them.
http://news.yahoo.com/6-teens-arrested-taped-beating-pa-woman-211911720.html
If this woman had a gun, you can almost guarantee that would of been enough of a deterrent to keep these thugs away from her, without her even to have shot anyone.

You could say something like this for any crime that has occurred where the victim did not have access to a gun to protect themselves.

Lets say this women had a gun(which she did not). She now has a form of protection. She you can make up a scenario, I can as well. Both teens who beat her were on Cocaine, Meth, LSD, Marijuana, Vicodin, bath salts, and were drunk. Their mental capacities are completely and totally fucked. They see the gun and think nothing of it as their brain is fucked. The move on and attack the women. The women shoots them but they feel no pain(They will not feel pain as their brain has no capacity to take those signals from their nerves and convert it into a sense of pain). They keep on beating her. One of them accidentally touches the gun, picks it up, and shoots her to death. She is now dead.

That was scenario number one.

Scenario number 2: The two teens both have guns. They shoot her in the face from the street. She is now dead and had no chance to defend herself with her gun and she is already dead.


Scenario 3(What actually happened): The women was beaten but suffered only minor bruising and scratches.



Now on to your last post. Being confronted does not mean you have a conversation. What weapon was the son holding? Was it a Twinkie he just bought from the near by grocery store? Was the Twinkie threatening to the father? There is no proof the son broke into the womens house.

 

[Deathcrow]

Okay, lets remove the gun from the equation and change it to a knife. He stabs her through the chest with his knife. A knife moving @ xspeed compared to a bullet moving @ 1200fps. The bullet is bound to do more damage causing death. The knife, while still possibly deadly, will give her fighting chance at the hospital.

Now this is a reply that was actually worth the post. Much better than some of your other ones that brought us back to where we were in the first place. That is a very valid statement. But still not enough to warrant anti-gun laws. Because then we have to think how many deaths will occur because of criminals having a gun and law-abiding citizens not having a gun to defend themselves against the criminal with a gun. Now we have to ask ourselves: Would this number be greater than these unfortunate accidental deaths caused by guns or lower?

Edit:

If you can remove guns from scenarios, then I can most certainly add them.
http://news.yahoo.com/6-teens-arrested-taped-beating-pa-woman-211911720.html
If this woman had a gun, you can almost guarantee that would of been enough of a deterrent to keep these thugs away from her, without her even to have shot anyone.

You could say something like this for any crime that has occurred where the victim did not have access to a gun to protect themselves.

Lets say this women had a gun(which she did not). She now has a form of protection. She you can make up a scenario, I can as well. Both teens who beat her were on Cocaine, Meth, LSD, Marijuana, Vicodin, bath salts, and were drunk. Their mental capacities are completely and totally fucked. They see the gun and think nothing of it as their brain is fucked. The move on and attack the women. The women shoots them but they feel no pain(They will not feel pain as their brain has no capacity to take those signals from their nerves and convert it into a sense of pain). They keep on beating her. One of them accidentally touches the gun, picks it up, and shoots her to death. She is now dead.

That was scenario number one.


Scenario number 2: The two teens both have guns. They shoot her in the face from the street. She is now dead and had no chance to defend herself with her gun and she is already dead.


Scenario 3(What actually happened): The women was beaten but suffered only minor bruising and scratches.

Regarding Scenario 2, they would of have to obtained that gun illegally which could of still happened if guns were banned.

Regarding Scenario 1, that would be highly unlikely and not as realistic as some of the other things we have said. But, just because they can't feel pain doesn't mean they won't go down from a gun shot and are invincible.

And as for what I said here:

"Also, did you not read the article? The son was in all black, a ski mask, and had broken into the house already at 1:00 AM when he should of been in bed. The dad confronted the person on the front lawn. That implies there could of been talking. The person lunged forward with a weapon in his hand and that is when the father pulled the trigger. How can you say the kid did nothing wrong?"

 

[Adam]

Now this is a reply that was actually worth the post. Much better than some of your other ones that brought us back to where we were in the first place. That is a very valid statement. But still not enough to warrant anti-gun laws. Because then we have to think how many deaths will occur because of criminals having a gun and law-abiding citizens not having a gun to defend themselves against the criminal with a gun. Now we have to ask ourselves: Would this number be greater than these unfortunate accidental deaths caused by guns or lower?

Edit:

If you can remove guns from scenarios, then I can most certainly add them.
http://news.yahoo.com/6-teens-arrested-taped-beating-pa-woman-211911720.html
If this woman had a gun, you can almost guarantee that would of been enough of a deterrent to keep these thugs away from her, without her even to have shot anyone.

You could say something like this for any crime that has occurred where the victim did not have access to a gun to protect themselves.

Lets say this women had a gun(which she did not). She now has a form of protection. She you can make up a scenario, I can as well. Both teens who beat her were on Cocaine, Meth, LSD, Marijuana, Vicodin, bath salts, and were drunk. Their mental capacities are completely and totally fucked. They see the gun and think nothing of it as their brain is fucked. The move on and attack the women. The women shoots them but they feel no pain(They will not feel pain as their brain has no capacity to take those signals from their nerves and convert it into a sense of pain). They keep on beating her. One of them accidentally touches the gun, picks it up, and shoots her to death. She is now dead.

That was scenario number one.

Scenario number 2: The two teens both have guns. They shoot her in the face from the street. She is now dead and had no chance to defend herself with her gun and she is already dead.


Scenario 3(What actually happened): The women was beaten but suffered only minor bruising and scratches.

And as for what I said here:

"Also, did you not read the article? The son was in all black, a ski mask, and had broken into the house already at 1:00 AM when he should of been in bed. The dad confronted the person on the front lawn. That implies there could of been talking. The person lunged forward with a weapon in his hand and that is when the father pulled the trigger. How can you say the kid did nothing wrong?"

Just replied to it.



As for what I said here: "Lets say this women had a gun(which she did not). She now has a form of protection. She you can make up a scenario, I can as well. Both teens who beat her were on Cocaine, Meth, LSD, Marijuana, Vicodin, bath salts, and were drunk. Their mental capacities are completely and totally fucked. They see the gun and think nothing of it as their brain is fucked. The move on and attack the women. The women shoots them but they feel no pain(They will not feel pain as their brain has no capacity to take those signals from their nerves and convert it into a sense of pain). They keep on beating her. One of them accidentally touches the gun, picks it up, and shoots her to death. She is now dead.

That was scenario number one.

Scenario number 2: The two teens both have guns. They shoot her in the face from the street. She is now dead and had no chance to defend herself with her gun and she is already dead.


Scenario 3(What actually happened): The women was beaten but suffered only minor bruising and scratches."

 

[Deathcrow]

I edited my post with a response to some of your scenarios.

As for what you said here:

"Now on to your last post. Being confronted does not mean you have a conversation. What weapon was the son holding? Was it a Twinkie he just bought from the near by grocery store? Was the Twinkie threatening to the father? There is no proof the son broke into the womens house."

I said it was possible there was a conversation, not that there had to of been. Why would he have a ski mask on and be in all black at 1 in the morning lunging a twinkie at his dad after breaking into a woman's house? And why do you think he didn't break into the house? That was the whole reason why the woman called him.

Directly from the article:
"Around 1 a.m. Thursday, a woman heard an intruder break into her home at the end of a quiet neighborhood street. She called her brother, Jeffrey Giuliano, who lives next door on Meeting House Hill Circle. He came over with protection for his sister - a handgun."

So again, if you say this kid did nothing wrong then you definition of wrong is very odd.

 

[Adam]

I edited my post with a response to some of your scenarios.

Where is your reply to my post?

---

Now this is a reply that was actually worth the post. Much better than some of your other ones that brought us back to where we were in the first place. That is a very valid statement. But still not enough to warrant anti-gun laws. Because then we have to think how many deaths will occur because of criminals having a gun and law-abiding citizens not having a gun to defend themselves against the criminal with a gun. Now we have to ask ourselves: Would this number be greater than these unfortunate accidental deaths caused by guns or lower?

Edit:

If you can remove guns from scenarios, then I can most certainly add them.
http://news.yahoo.com/6-teens-arrested-taped-beating-pa-woman-211911720.html
If this woman had a gun, you can almost guarantee that would of been enough of a deterrent to keep these thugs away from her, without her even to have shot anyone.

You could say something like this for any crime that has occurred where the victim did not have access to a gun to protect themselves.

Lets say this women had a gun(which she did not). She now has a form of protection. She you can make up a scenario, I can as well. Both teens who beat her were on Cocaine, Meth, LSD, Marijuana, Vicodin, bath salts, and were drunk. Their mental capacities are completely and totally fucked. They see the gun and think nothing of it as their brain is fucked. The move on and attack the women. The women shoots them but they feel no pain(They will not feel pain as their brain has no capacity to take those signals from their nerves and convert it into a sense of pain). They keep on beating her. One of them accidentally touches the gun, picks it up, and shoots her to death. She is now dead.

That was scenario number one.


Scenario number 2: The two teens both have guns. They shoot her in the face from the street. She is now dead and had no chance to defend herself with her gun and she is already dead.


Scenario 3(What actually happened): The women was beaten but suffered only minor bruising and scratches.

Regarding Scenario 2, they would of have to obtained that gun illegally which could of still happened if guns were banned.

Regarding Scenario 1, that would be highly unlikely and not as realistic as some of the other things we have said. But, just because they can't feel pain doesn't mean they won't go down from a gun shot and are invincible.

And as for what I said here:

"Also, did you not read the article? The son was in all black, a ski mask, and had broken into the house already at 1:00 AM when he should of been in bed. The dad confronted the person on the front lawn. That implies there could of been talking. The person lunged forward with a weapon in his hand and that is when the father pulled the trigger. How can you say the kid did nothing wrong?"

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/26/2818832/naked-man-shot-killed-on-macarthur.html

He was shot multiple times by a cop and did not go down.