Query Of The Day
Would these two lives have ended if a gun wasn't in the house?
A 9-year-old Arcola, North Carolina, boy shot and killed his mother before taking his own life, according to the Warren County Sheriff's Department.
Tyler Jones apparently killed his mother, 38-year-old Glenda Pulley, shortly after midnight Saturday morning, the department said. He left a suicide note in which he apologized for her death...
"A family gun" was used in the shootings, Williams said, but it's unknown where and how the weapons was stored.
35 Comments:
I suppose that would be a nice slogan for the NRA types - "Guns, Keepin' it all in the family."
No doubt the reichwingers will point out to you that is bad owner behavior that got the gun into the kids hands. No lock and key for this one or the kid knew where they kept the key.
One of my favorite scenes in a movie is the Dead Poets Society where the young kid, frustrated with his father, uses daddy's gun to bust a nice hole in his temple. Very powerful. The smoke lingers, and the very real pain of gun ownership is palpable when accidents or intentional killings happen.
I think Ken at Common Sense had a good post about gun ownership and the second amendment a while back. Don't have the link, but you could surf on over there for more on the matter.
Just to clarify, we don't own a gun. No need. Trusting our neighbors is alot easier and less deadly.
Answer of the day: nope. Question thereby begged: Would the life of (pick woman or girl murdered by subhuman defective du jour) have ended if she had had a gun and known how to use it? Sounds like a wash at best..
~Supernatural Rabbit Scribe
"Trusting our neighbors is a lot easier and less deadly."
Indeed it is. Until it isn't, of course.
~Supernatural Rabbit Scribe
Scribe:
Say there was no accessible gun in the house. Don't you think the mom would have had a better chance surviving an attack by a 9 year old with a knife or a bat? Sure, the kid could get lucky and stab in JUUUUUST the right place for her to pass out and bleed to death, or crack her one in JUUUUUST the right spot on her head to go down, but I'd wager the odds of survival are better without a firearm.
Scribe suggests the potential attackee having a gun results in a clean wash...Wrong! That scenario boils down to nothing more than violence beggetting further violence (eh hem, sound familiar GWB & Co.?).
And there is never any justification for guns falling into the hands of children as far as I'm concerned. That's just fundamentally wrong.
You're right. Its the guns fault for existing, not the parents fault for giving a 9 year old access to a gun.
I have a problem with both the gun AND the parent. If parents didn't buy guns, then there would be less guns made and less guns that could be stolen and used in the streets.
There was clear stupidity on an adult's part here. I don't think guns should be as prevalent in our society, and I think a good first step is anyone with children should either not own guns at all or not keep them in the house.
Maybe a (re)visit of Bowling for Combine is in order....
MoxieGrrrl: To be sure, if there had been no gun in the house, Grandma and the nine-year-old would still be alive. And if there had been a gun in Ted Bundy's first victim's purse/ car/ home, all those women might still be alive. Since we can't predict who will use guns responsibly and who won't, what are we to do? And as far as the "fewer guns to be stolen and end up on the street" thing, that genie's out of the bottle, I'm afraid. Even if we stopped manufacturing guns entirely, there'd still be tens of millions of 'em on the street when we're old and grey (I think- does gunpowder go bad after awhile?)
SAR: C'mon, this is real life. Extrapolating from the war in Iraq is a false analogy. If you bought a gun and used it responsibly (kept your trap shut about it and locked it up when it was out of your sight) you would not increase the likelihood of something tragic happening to you or a loved one, you'd decrease it. As far as Bowling for Columbine, it just blows me away (no pun intended) that people view that as a pro-gun-control flick. Remember the part about how many more guns per capita Canada has, but how many fewer crimes? I thought Moore's point was that we don't need gun control so much as attitude control and a bit of idiot control.
Personally, I don't like guns and I don't own one, although I live in a working-class urban neighborhood with above-average crime rates. But I also don't have a mate or kids, and very frankly I ain't got that much to live for ;) . If I did have a family, I'd reconsider, I suppose. If we had it all to do over again, it would behoove us to pay a bit more attention to the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment. But we don't, and this is what it's come to. (shrug)
~Supernatural Rabbit Scribe
Scribe -
I agree, BFC is not about gun control, but rather it's about the special interest driven whore of an industry. More importantly, and I think on topic, it addresses the increasing problem of children having access to guns. Remember in BFC the 6 year-old boy who easily gets his uncle's gun and casually takes it to school and kills his classmate? I have a 6 year-old daughter (and a 3 year-old daughter), so you could say I have a particularly vested interest here.
I understand we all have the constitutional right to own a gun, but I personally don't see the need for citizens to own one for protection. Remember MM's case in BFC for how we are a nation living in fear? Movies & tv dictacting everytime the doorbell rings it will be someone coming to kill us, so we have house alarms. But are we keeping potential intruders out or ourselves in? It's all fear-driven. Having a gun for the sole purpose of protection is tantamount to living in fear as well.
My point is that the greatest contribution one can make towards decreasing a potential gun-related tragedy is to simply not own a gun, and for God's sake, especially if there are children under the same roof.
And, briefly, I think you could make the case re: Iraq - violence begetting further violence...the administration's stance being "you have weapons and you're terrorizing your citizens, so we're going to stop you with our weapons and now the Iraqi citizens are being terrorized at our hands. Maybe a stretch, but I wholeheartedly see this administration married to the notion and in support of violence begetting more violence.
Scribe - I'd argue your point about Ted Bundy. First of all, the man was brilliant, charming and good-looking. His MO was to gain his victims' trust and then attack while defenses were down. Even if one of his victims had a handgun, she would never have thought to use it until it was too late. Plus, there's the chance that in moments of panic, she would lose it and end up dying of a gunshot wound.
You ARE right about there always being guns on the street no matter what, but police also hold trade-ins where they pay cash for weapons and then destroy the weapons. Weapons confiscated from criminals are either locked away into evidence or destroyed.
Guns do not make us safer. It makes us more indifferent. It's a distance weapon - don't have to get up close and personal to do the damage. And it leads us to wanting bigger and more powerful guns than the next guy, which pulls us into a ridiculous cycle where no one can win.
I love firing guns - always have. I enjoy target shooting and feeling the difference between a .44 and a 10/22 rifle. But I would never have one in my home. I'm not going to sit here and pretend for a second that if someone broke into my house I would feel confident that I could get to my gun, unlock it from its case and trigger lock, load it and aim it before the bad guy came in and punched me in the head. The only other alternative is to leave a loaded weapon in my bedstand and hope that my 4 year old stops being curious and going through my drawer. I hope you've seen the Simpsons episode where Bart and Ralph are told not to go into the Forbidden Closet of Mystery so you know how well THAT works.
what I find amazing is that the same people who support the NRA and fight for gun control are the same people who whole heartedly supports the patriot act and the liberties that takes away from the average person. they are OK with the government being able to track what books you buy from book stores and what you take out from the library, that now they can arrest you without giving you any reason other than that you are a suspected terrorist, they can search your house without a warrant and can trace all your e-mail correspondents...but hey....DON'T YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT TOUCHING MY GUNS OR TELLING ME I CANT BUY AN AK-47 (a gun purely designed to kill humans...not deer.)
I think these people need to reevaluate what is important to them.
sooner or later if they buy enough guns...maybe they can have the patriot act used on them for being considered a threat.
wouldn't that be ironic?
Moxiegrrrl: I just pulled Bundy’s name out of a hat- I didn’t know any of that. In any event, even if a gun were highly unlikely to help, it sure couldn’t have hurt. I wonder how much it would cost to buy enough street guns to make a difference. There are literally hundreds of millions of ‘em, if I recall correctly. On the other hand, I can think of stupider things the government’s done with ten or twenty billion dollars. You say you’re familiar with guns: does gunpowder have a shelf life- in other words, if nobody but the cops and the army could buy ammo for five or ten years, would the street gangs of tomorrow have to make do with switchblades again?
“Guns do not make us safer. They make us more indifferent. It's a distance weapon - don't have to get up close and personal to do the damage. And it leads us to wanting bigger and more powerful guns than the next guy, which pulls us into a ridiculous cycle where no one can win.”
Not to be patronizing, but again: this is real life! If your home is being invaded or you’re running away from God-knows-who in a parking garage, all the philosophy is out the window. Maybe indifference, in the sense of “That stranger’s dragging my kid into a car, but it’s ok ‘cause I got sumpin’ for his ass,” is a good thing. So’s distance. As far as the “keeping up with the Joneses in the neighborhood arms race,” I still don’t buy the analogy. The difference between any gun and no gun is a lot more dramatic than the difference between a .38 and a .45.
As far as you’re not having a gun in your home: anyone who leaves an unlocked gun where a four-year-old can get at it should go to jail, whether or not there’s a tragedy. I think the scenario you describe is overkill, though. What’s wrong with just a trigger lock, with the key on your person at all times? Again: I myself don’t choose to own a gun to protect myself, but I’m unconvinced that others shouldn’t be able to do so (or should even be discouraged from doing so) on the basis of arguments presented thus far.
SAR: As far as kids go, yeah, it should be a felony to have an unlocked gun where a kid can get at it, whether or not she does. To a limited extent, I agree with the assessment of the NRA. In fact, here’s a question that Moore doesn’t ask: if the NRA is so great, how come cops hate it? I am so sure that the average police officer would be cheesed off about you having a gun in your home no matter what, and the “legalize cop-killer bullets” movement doesn’t enter into it… But again, I just don’t find the abstractions from burglar alarms and whatnot compelling. I can’t do anything about TV-driven paranoia, and I don’t see how not protecting myself from a home invader helps, at least where the rubber meets the road.
“The greatest contribution one can make towards decreasing a potential gun-related tragedy is to simply not own a gun…”
Well, here’s one gun-related tragedy to which that doesn’t apply: “Tragically, I’ve been stabbed to death and my kids have been kidnapped by subhuman animals because I didn’t have a gun.” I respect your decision to not own a gun- indeed, I have made the same decision. But I respect at least equally those who have come to the opposite conclusion. By the way:
”Having a gun for the sole purpose of protection is tantamount to living in fear as well.”
Are you saying that if I do buy a gun, I should knock over the odd liquor store from time to time? ;)
~Supernatural Rabbit Scribe
simple question...
when was the last time anyone who is reading these comment posts has ran away from God-knows-who in a parking garage?
also who here HAS had your home invaded?
just a question.
I am not saying it never happens...but I would submit it is the paranoia that drives you to get a gun....not the necessity.
and paranoia is NOT a reason to have a gun lying around....it is exactly the reason NOT to have a gun lying around.
"In any event, even if a gun were highly unlikely to help, it sure couldn’t have hurt."
I disagree with that. A person fumbling for a loaded weapon while hopped up on adrenaline COULD hurt their attacker, but there's just as good a chance that they'll shoot themselves in leg and give their attacker another weapon to use in future crimes.
Have you ever had someone grab you unexpectedly and not know what their intentions were? It happened to me once, in NYC. I was lucky enough to use a VERY basic defensive move from what I learned in karate class when I was 7 to get out of the guy's grip. Turned out the guy was just loaded and getting kinda grabby, but it still took me an alchoholic drink and about 45 minutes to come down from the adrenaline rush. Now, what if I had a gun on me and panicked? I could have been killed, this drunk dude who thought he was being funny could have been killed... What I learned from the experience was that having learned even basic defense skills helped me avoid what could have been a very bad situation.
So instead of carrying a gun around for protection, how about learning some self-defense? First of all, if the attacker has a weapon and the "victim" doesn't, they will automatically think they have the upper hand and would be caught totally off guard if their victim bitch-slapped them stupid and got away clean.
Plus, we haven't even gotten into the number of cases where a parent accidentally killed their kid thinking it was a burgler when they were just trying not to get caught being out too late.
"Not to be patronizing, but again: this is real life! If your home is being invaded or you’re running away from God-knows-who in a parking garage, all the philosophy is out the window...As far as you’re not having a gun in your home: anyone who leaves an unlocked gun where a four-year-old can get at it should go to jail, whether or not there’s a tragedy."
These two statements seem to contradict themselves - re: home invasion... how many times to attackers invade a home with a gun during broad daylight? While I do not have statistics at my fingertips, I would bet money most home invasions happen at night, where there is less chance of being seen or the homeowner being awake. Attacker could be in the bedroom before the homeowner is even awake... Any gun in the house has just become a useless piece of metal.
I don't know about you but I don't sleep with my keys, take a shower with my keys, do yardwork with my keys, exercise with my keys, cook dinner with my keys, do laundry with my keys, watch TV with my keys. Just saying to keep the key on you at all times is a wise thing to say, but children aren't retarded. There's also usually a spare key somewhere, just in case the original gets lost.
"As far as the “keeping up with the Joneses in the neighborhood arms race,” I still don’t buy the analogy. The difference between any gun and no gun is a lot more dramatic than the difference between a .38 and a .45."
You're right, there isn't much difference between a .38 and a .45, but there's a fuckload of difference between a six-shooter and a fully-automatic assault weapon (I mean, for crissakes, it's called an ASSAULT weapon).
What it comes down to is that accessability of guns allows people to hurt and kill other people - accidentally or intentionally - with greater ease and in greater numbers. If someone is that scared that they will be attacked at any moment, they should take martial arts classes and learn to kick ass like Sidney Bristow.
PS: dunno about the shelflife of gunpowder... I'm not THAT knowledgeable about guns.
Another PS: I'm loving this discussion :)
Scribe - would you agree that an accidental tragedy, including self inflicted, would be LESS likely if the would-be victim chose to use less truly life-threatening means such as pepper spray, mace, a pen knife, or even the good 'ole house keys in the eyes on their would-be attacker?
Here's another interesting fact we haven't touched on yet. Fingerprint recognition technology currently exists. This would allow only the gun's registered owner to "unlock" it via their fingerprints and not by anyone else's like, say, their children. But why isn't the administration allowing funding for this technology? two words....special interest. Well, that and the fact that they can't because they seem to have lost it somewhere in Iraq.
As for the liquor store, hey as long as your "buyin", grab me some Corona Light & Kendall Jackson Chardonnay! ;)
Strider, those are good questions. I can tell you thankfully that neither situation has happened to me.
As a police officer in the northeast precinct of Tampa Bay, FL I have witnessed at least 10,123 incidences where a person, legally possessing a firearm had thwarted a would-be assassin from killing them.
All human beings, regardless of age, should be required to take gun safety courses and be required to own at least one weapon and carry it on their person religiously.
A study by The New Hampshire Institute of Social Edification shows that violent crimes would decline by no more than 85% if everyone carried a weapon.
Perhaps the gun-control zealots are the criminals.
Wow BFife - that's the most random number I've ever seen. How many killers do you have running around there in Tampa Bay, and how many legal gun owners are there in Tampa Bay?
Also, a Google search of "New Hampshire Institute of Social Edification" turns up ZERO results, so I must cry bullshit on that statement. If you'd like to provide a link to this study, I'd be happy to check it out :)
I'd also like to know why you believe that perhaps the "gun-control zealots are the criminals"...
"In any event, even if a gun were highly unlikely to help, it sure couldn’t have hurt."
”I disagree with that. A person fumbling for a loaded weapon while hopped up on adrenaline COULD hurt their attacker, but there's just as good a chance that they'll shoot themselves in leg and give their attacker another weapon to use in future crimes.”
Well, that doesn’t apply to the example I chose (a woman who ended up dead.) Is it really a toss-up? I dunno, but my ample gut tells me that victims have more than a 50/50 shot at hitting their attacker rather than themselves. If there weren’t already a bazillion guns out there, the potential harm of losing one to an attacker would be significant. As it is- drop in the bucket.
It’s very charitable of you to note that an upside of your not having a gun is that the drunk is alive and unharmed, and of course you’re right. Frankly, though, I probably don’t weigh that as highly as you, and I wasn’t even scared out of my wits by him. I’m a wingnut: rule one is mind your own bee’s wax, and rule two is keep your grubby paws to yourself. Break the rules at your peril.
Yes, gun tragedies are really common, and yes, sometimes guns are no help anyway. It’s hard to calculate the costs and benefits, though. There are so many intangibles: would crime be higher if criminals were dead-certain they wouldn’t be met with deadly force? And how much cost is it fair to impose upon responsible gun owners on account of the negligent ones? What if we didn’t go whole-NRA-hog but imposed limited gun control, like my wacky idea of severely penalizing people who leave their guns accessible to kids, or my even wackier one of allowing concealed-carry in all 50 states… as long as you’re a woman? If we can derive the benefits of personal protection at a reasonable cost in terms of real, provable harm like murder-suicides committed by nine-year-olds, then as a right-winger I’m bound to say we should, and we should air on the side of permissiveness when it comes to defining what’s a “reasonable” cost.
With respect to the keys, nope, I don’t have ‘em with me all the time. But if I had kids and a pistol with a trigger lock under my pillow, I’d be a tad more mindful. Anyway, the odds of a child, especially a toddler, causing a tragedy by getting keys and unlocking a trigger guard are exponentially less than those of her causing a tragedy with a gun just sitting in a drawer. Nothing’s perfect.
"As far as the “keeping up with the Joneses in the neighborhood arms race,” I still don’t buy the analogy. The difference between any gun and no gun is a lot more dramatic than the difference between a .38 and a .45."
You're right, there isn't much difference between a .38 and a .45, but there's a fuckload of difference between a six-shooter and a fully-automatic assault weapon (I mean, for crissakes, it's called an ASSAULT weapon).
True, but not really what I was driving at. I’m not sure I see the necessity of keeping assault rifles legal in the first place. The only legitimate benefit they carry would come into play if your home was being invaded by a dozen bad guys, and they cost hordes of innocent lives per year. My point was that I don’t believe that people in general would no longer be satisfied with just owning a pistol and knowing that the attacker might have an Uzi or a bazooka or whatever. On the other hand, the difference between defending yourself with a gun, any gun, or with a set of car keys is the difference between night and day.
“What it comes down to is that accessibility of guns allows people to hurt and kill other people - accidentally or intentionally - with greater ease and in greater numbers.”
And it also comes down to the fact that accessibility of guns allows people to effectively defend themselves and their loved ones…
“I'm loving this discussion :)”
I’m enjoying it as well. It’s really indicative of the core differences between Right and Left. “Conservative” and “Liberal” aren’t very useful descriptors, in my opinion. Conservative is about preserving traditional values and practices. I’m so far to the right that voting for Alan Keyes was pretty much the high point of my existence, but there are any number of traditional values and practices, such as racism and colonialism, that are gravely evil and I’ll have no truck with ‘em. Liberalism is about progressivism. Well, back in the day, Fascism was as avant-garde and cutting-edge as it came, and I can’t see you lot as Fascists. But the Right is about liberty- freedom to and Left is about freedom from. It’s perfectly legitimate for you to work towards a country as free from gun tragedies and deliberate gun crime as you can make it. But that interferes with my freedom to defend myself as I see fit. In my opinion, keeping people free from bad stuff tends to centralize power. Leaving people free to do stuff- even bad stuff- disperses power. Insofar as people are largely bastards, any given one of ‘em should have as little power as possible. And if I get capped by a toddler? I get capped by a toddler.
~Supernatural Rabbit Scribe
BFife: Pudo Jedi mind trick...
~Supernatural Rabbit Scribe
Scribe - "But the Right is about liberty- freedom to and Left is about freedom from."
not to drag this away from gun control but where do you stand on the patriot act? one way or the other...right or left...this takes AWAY libeties and freedoms.
the same people who preach to keep their rights as gun owners are letting our liberties fly out the window.
(sorry to be repeditive but i have often wondered how you can support both)
ps.scribe i dont know if you do in fact support the patriot act...just wondering if you have an answer for me.
Sar : ”Scribe - would you agree that an accidental tragedy, including self inflicted, would be LESS likely if the would-be victim chose to use less truly life-threatening means such as pepper spray, mace, a pen knife, or even the good 'ole house keys in the eyes on their would-be attacker?”
Certainly. But acts of deliberate, legitimate self-defense would similarly be LESS likely to succeed if one employed house keys rather than a shotgun. Costs and benefits…
”… Fingerprint recognition technology… would allow only the gun's registered owner to "unlock" it via their fingerprints and not by anyone else's like, say, their children. But why isn't the administration allowing funding for this technology? Two words....special interest. Well, that and the fact that they can't because they seem to have lost it somewhere in Iraq.”
Lots of good ideas make it through R&D without gubmint funding, y’know. Trust in the marketplace- if they build it (and it works) funding will come. Especially for a high-tech gimcrack for the gun nuts. Those guys have no self-control…
~Supernatural Rabbit Scribe
Strider: I'm ashamed to say I don't know enough about the Patriot Act. What I do know all seems pretty jive, though. For example, they can even Censored by the Dept. of Homeland Security with common gardening tools Censored by the Dept. of Homeland Security your cat!
But seriously, count me in with the "nays."
~Supernatural Rabbit Scribe
Wow Moxie- If you read my post you would know that there are at least 10,123 killers who didn't get the chance to commit murder. That being said you can readily assume that Tampa Bay is relatively crime free.
If you knew anything about politics then you would easily recognize the NH Inst of Soc Ed as being one of the preeminent progressive think tanks most often quoted by Sen. Clinton and Al Franken. Maybe you are having troubles with your spelling.
Lastly, say, for instance, you were a criminal. If you knew everyone was packing heat you wouldn't attack them. So that would lead a rational person to conclude that criminals benefit the most by controlling guns.
What is your true agenda here..?
BFife:
In your frist message, you say: "I have witnessed at least 10,123 incidences where a person, legally possessing a firearm had thwarted a would-be assassin from killing them."
That reads to me that you have personally seen at least 10,123 people (or cases relating to people) who legally possess a firearm actually stop a live-in-the-flesh criminal from killing them. Don't get snippy with ME because YOU misworded your comment.
Again in your first message: "A study by The New Hampshire Institute of Social Edification shows that violent crimes would decline by no more than 85% if everyone carried a weapon." From your second message: "If you knew anything about politics then you would easily recognize the NH Inst of Soc Ed as being one of the preeminent progressive think tanks most often quoted by Sen. Clinton and Al Franken. Maybe you are having troubles with your spelling."
I googled the name "New Hampshire Institute of Social Edification" - copied and pasted it from YOUR comment - and it came back with nothing. Again, don't get snippy with ME because YOU sourced the wrong organization and then tried to tell me I mistyped it. I also noticed you still haven't linked the study...
Quoting your last comment: "Lastly, say, for instance, you were a criminal. If you knew everyone was packing heat you wouldn't attack them. So that would lead a rational person to conclude that criminals benefit the most by controlling guns."
If I was a criminal and I knew everyone was packing heat, then I'd just get myself a powerful rifle with a sweet sight on it and pick people off from a building top. If I wanted to take someone specific out, all I'd need to do is tail them for a few days and see where the best hiding spot is... OH LOOK, there's that 'keeping up with the Jones'' thing...
Quoting you again: "What is your true agenda here..?"
I thought it was rather obvious. My agenda is to yak about things that piss me the fuck off and occassionally engage in interesting conversations with people like Scribe.
Thanks for playing!
Hehehe, I said "frist".
Insert snarky comment there.
”As a police officer in the northeast precinct of Tampa Bay, FL I have witnessed at least 10,123 incidences where a person, legally possessing a firearm had thwarted a would-be assassin from killing them.”
Ironically, I’m the City Health and Human Services Director of Tampa. This week alone our emergency rooms have treated 925 persons accidentally shot by their spouses, parents, children, pets, or houseplants. 459 have died… and it’s only Wednesday! That puts the 10,123 incidences of your entire career in perspective. Thank heavens they were only incidences, not incidents!
”All human beings, regardless of age, should be required to take gun safety courses and be required to own at least one weapon and carry it on their person religiously.”
Whaddya mean, carry it “religiously?” I’m Catholic- should I get a special rosary with explosive beads or a razor blade concealed in a scapular? And what about Sikhs? All male Sikhs wear a sacred dagger all the time anyway- how come they don’t have to go out of their way, but I gotta some nun with a workshop like Q’s from the James Bond movies?
A study by The New Hampshire Institute of Social Edification shows that violent crimes would decline by no more than 85% if everyone carried a weapon.
Yes, but the same study goes on to indicate that that policy would result in health care costs rising a precipitous 10,950%, the human life span dropping to an average of eleven years (eleven years five weeks for females) and the planet spinning off of its gravitational axis and into the sun. Way to cherry-pick the facts, officer.
~Supernatural Rabbit Scribe
From Scribe: "This week alone our emergency rooms have treated 925 persons accidentally shot by their spouses, parents, children, pets, or houseplants. 459 have died… and it’s only Wednesday!"
MY GOD, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE HOUSEPLANTS???
SAVE THE HOUSEPLANTS!!!
(Regressing into slap-happiness.)
is it just me...or if everyone carried guns and you were going to commit a crime...wouldnt you be more apt to just blow the person away before they even had a chance to see you or know you were up to something? i mean...if everyone has a guna and you are going to rob a gas station...dont say "give me all your money." just kill the guy first and take all the money. seems logical to me...and i have only been thinking about this for the past min and a half.
i know someone may submit that...well others would be around with their guns...but that may not be so. you cant be with someone all the time.
plus crossfire would be a bitch.
(no joke) growing up we had a plant (that looked very shrub like) so we named it george bush. get it...ha ha ha
maybe we should have gotten a bunch of other plants and put them around it like secret service. then it would of had more protection.
Scribe -
Thanks for great banter today. And, of course, kudos to Moxie for getting it all going today -- thanks, Mox! : )
You must promise to return and engage in banter with us often. Finding an individual with opposing political views who's interested in hearing the other side and engage in intelligent banter is so refreshing.
It's been fun & hope to kick it around with you here again!
Strider - that's what I was thinking before, and forgot to make the point... if everyone has weapons, then why make threats? Criminals would just kill people off rather than taking the chance that they'd get a shot of their guns off. I'm envisioning a quick spiral into utter chaos where everyone walks around with bullet-proof armor and one hand on the grip, paranoid as all fuck.
And yes, this has been quite engaging, and congratulations everyone! You've made this the longest thread I've had on MoxieGrrrl.com :)
Thanks very kindly, Moxie & SAR. I've found it interesting as well. I'll be back.
~Supernatural Rabbit Scribe
Post a Comment
<< Home