Woman sues US prison over son's 86-minute execution

[Loke 0]

I think what you're saying here is...

that the man shot in 1984 was a victim of his own choice...

i believe it's certainly safe to say he wasn't carrying, given the outcome of the event and the laws of the city and state at the time, as those laws made it nearly impossible to carry and follow the law due to the complexities of such. i was offering that as a possible reason why he didn't have such, and how said laws could have been a contributing factor in the death of a law abiding citizen at the hands of an armed druggie looking for his next score.

it's a given that the police can't protect the populace. so if the criminals have guns and have shown a willingness to use them, why shouldn't the law abiding citizens be able to arm themselves to prevent being a statistic? yet some state and city laws are downright idiotic as they prevent the law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

while i don't agree that everyone should have a firearm, as shown by the vt event, and that obviously background checks should be made, why are we preventing the average citizens from protecting themselves?

But that the laws of the state at the time prevented him from being able to make the choice you believe he should have made.

Is my interpretation of your thoughts correct?

Can you please reconcile these two opposing positions for me?

Edited July 6, 2007 by Loke

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think what you're saying here is...

that the man shot in 1984 was a victim of his own choice...

i believe it's certainly safe to say he wasn't carrying, given the outcome of the event and the laws of the city and state at the time, as those laws made it nearly impossible to carry and follow the law due to the complexities of such. i was offering that as a possible reason why he didn't have such, and how said laws could have been a contributing factor in the death of a law abiding citizen at the hands of an armed druggie looking for his next score.

it's a given that the police can't protect the populace. so if the criminals have guns and have shown a willingness to use them, why shouldn't the law abiding citizens be able to arm themselves to prevent being a statistic? yet some state and city laws are downright idiotic as they prevent the law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

while i don't agree that everyone should have a firearm, as shown by the vt event, and that obviously background checks should be made, why are we preventing the average citizens from protecting themselves?

But that the laws of the state at the time prevented him from being able to make the choice you believe he should have made.

Is my interpretation of your thoughts correct?

Can you please reconcile these two opposing positions for me?

I agree that the argument about gun control is rather misplaced here. Too many "what if's" to make anything other than a political determination on "Should haves"

[Rings 10]

The fact remains that by agreeing with murder, you are condoning murder and therefore no better than a murderer...

What is your point here? Life is a choice so choose to own a gun so you can kill someone or else you are going to be killed because you are a victim? So you agree with murder and therefore are still not better than a murderer. You are thinking like a murderer no? If you think someone should die, then you are thinking in the same fashion as a murderer.

If you think that owning a gun is something important, then that is your problem, but not all people want to subject their lives to violence and weapons and you do not know this man and so sitting here telling everyone that he wanted to own a gun is absurd and making you look stupid

If you think guns are good and great, good for you.

If you think you know this victims thoughts regarding owning a gun, then you are a antonishing mind reader of the dead and you should be making millions of dollars in your gift of reading the minds of dead people.

If you are a millionaire because you can read the mind of a dead man, then why are you on the internet instead of in a hot tub or something?

You are ignorantly determining the thoughts, opinions and feelings of a dead man and stearing away from topic for use in your own personal reflection that guns are somehow okay in life and should be owned by eyeryone who does not intend on becoming a victim.

The quote in red was not directed at you in any way. This was a statement in conjunction with the entire thread and I did not specifically say it to you.

The Quote in blue was a question as to what your post meant because you provided a statement that reflected that if you did not own a gun, then your only other option is to be a victim. You provided the information that my post was based on. You gave me the information that made the statement that there were only two options in the world to people.. own a gun or not. It is not condescending to think that it was a narrow minded post and a ignorant comment on your behalf to state this as if it is the only choices in life and as you have graciously posted it. It is a fact to that there are obviously more choices in life than this. So rather than being condescending as you feel, I am simply just stating what all people know... there are more choices in life and that is a fact and not some sort of knowledge that I just created in my head.

The quote in green was mean of me and I do not apologize for it. I am rarely mean. You turned this entire discussion into topic of guns and how rights were taken from people regarding the use of guns when you could have started another topic on that matter separately. If I am wrong in saying what I said, then i apologize to the other members and the Admins of VJ only.

The quote in orange... I don't take that back either.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Rings