Man Dead in Duel in Kentucky over Iraq

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Winston
Will somebody please post and capitalize on the fact that a man is dead, over Iraq! I sense chegitz guevara's heart breaking here.

Didn't know he had a heart - he is after all a commie

The stupidity isn't that they start fighting about Iraq - even here we have people that could do it - the real stupidity is that those people was carrying guns. If you don't carry such things, then you can't use them !

@Patroklos, if they had used baseball bats, well, others may have had a chance to stop them before they killed each other and that without risking to be killed themselves.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Velociryx
*shrug*

I don't own a gun. Never really saw the need.

But I do reserve the right to own one, and IF I own one, I acknowledge that it won't do me much good if I can't get to it.

It is a freedom I find important, even if I do not actively participate by owning one of the things.

-=Vel=-

Why is it important ? The chance that you ever are going to need it is pretty close to zero, and if you really are in need for it, the chance that you can figure out to use it right is at the same size.

[Lancer]

Once again a commie attempts violence to try to silence a freedom loving conservative's freedom of speach, and gets his silly ass blown away for his trouble.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Patroklos
They would have just used baseball bats

and 50 year olds routinely carry those ???


Yes I'll acknowledge the blatantly obvious fact that people can be killed with things other than guns if you acknowledge the equally blatantly obvious fact that there are hundreds of people that would be alive today but for the ready availability of a gun.

[Flip McWho]

Sounds so very 1800s.

[Velociryx]

Master Flubber! Write this down...I think it may be the first time we ever disagreed!

There's no denying that what you say is true. The guy died at the hands of a gun. Take the gun out of the equation and he'd be alive. Likewise, as you pointed out, the same argument could be made for LOTS of other folks.

However....I contend that the death would be no less tragic if it had occured at a flea market...say...at a knife booth (couple of knife dealers), rather than a gun booth.

Who's to say they wouldn't have pulled out a couple of swept-hilt replica rapiers and had at it?

I hardly think that concerned passers by would have jumped in to save them from themselves in that case (and anybody who has watched a live steel duel would readily agree with that sentiment), and yet...the result would have been no less fatal, and no less unfortunate.

The problem I have is that the gun is not, and was not the core problem. Nor would it (the object used to cause harm) have been the core problem had it been a sword, a knife, a straight razor, or a number two pencil (all of those items selected purposefully, because I use them on a daily basis, btw).

Just because a person CAN be harmed (or killed) with any of those objects is insufficient cause for their banning, IMO (or even tight control).

To take the argument along a tangential direction, it is POSSIBLE to engineer a car that will be 100% safe. That is to say, no fatalities would EVER occur from driving them.

Such a car would be made entirely of nerf material and have a top cruising speed comparable to bumper cars.

EVEN IF I DID NOT DRIVE, I would not support such legislation that mandated construction of autos in this manner, *even tho* it would be guaranteed to save lives.

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Lancer
Once again a commie attempts violence to try to silence a freedom loving conservative's freedom of speach, and gets his silly ass blown away for his trouble.

You get points for style.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Lancer
Once again a commie attempts violence to try to silence a freedom loving conservative's freedom of speach, and gets his silly ass blown away for his trouble.

The consie was french?!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Master Flubber! Write this down...I think it may be the first time we ever disagreed!

Well publicly that may be the case-- But color me shocked that an American is more pro-gun than the non-American

Originally posted by Velociryx


However....I contend that the death would be no less tragic if it had occured at a flea market...say...at a knife booth (couple of knife dealers), rather than a gun booth.

I agree fully -- senseless deaths are equally tragic regardless of weapon chosen. And many homocides are senseless in that 2 minutes after the person is dead, the person that killed them wishes they were not dead

Originally posted by Velociryx

Who's to say they wouldn't have pulled out a couple of swept-hilt replica rapiers and had at it?

I don't see where this disagrees with me at all. I readily concede that there are a number of things at hand by which people can kill each other.

Originally posted by Velociryx


I hardly think that concerned passers by would have jumped in to save them from themselves in that case (and anybody who has watched a live steel duel would readily agree with that sentiment), and yet...the result would have been no less fatal, and no less unfortunate.

Agreed again. BUT there is a much greater chance that parties could

-- inflict only minor injuries
-- have police intervene
-- come to their senses
-- inflict less than fatal wounds

A single trigger pull is often fatal-- it is easy to do and instantaneous. And the threat of a gun is such that merely holding it is threatening to others. There is no need to advance aggressively

Originally posted by Velociryx
Just because a person CAN be harmed (or killed) with any of those objects is insufficient cause for their banning, IMO (or even tight control).

So why not pull a Ted Striker and demand your own personal nuclear weapon. Or less drastic, why can't I buy a bazooka freely or a mortar??

Originally posted by Velociryx

To take the argument along a tangential direction, it is POSSIBLE to engineer a car that will be 100% safe. That is to say, no fatalities would EVER occur from driving them.

Such a car would be made entirely of nerf material and have a top cruising speed comparable to bumper cars.

EVEN IF I DID NOT DRIVE, I would not support such legislation that mandated construction of autos in this manner, *even tho* it would be guaranteed to save lives.

-=Vel=-

Nice tangent --

Originally posted by Vel
Master Flubber! Write this down...I think it may be the first time we ever disagreed!
-

Actually while I had fun responsing, I'm not sure that we did disagree .. My quotes were

Originally posted by flubber

and 50 year olds routinely carry those ???


Yes I'll acknowledge the blatantly obvious fact that people can be killed with things other than guns if you acknowledge the equally blatantly obvious fact that there are hundreds of people that would be alive today but for the ready availability of a gun.


and


I'm not saying that there is a gun control method that actually works . . . I was just making the observation -- one that can be made HUNDREDS of times in the US every year-- that a person would likely be still alive if a gun were not so readily available

Can you disagree with anything in either of those paragraphs? I think from your previous responses, you agree fully with both

[Agathon]

Of course guns are the problem.

[mrmitchell]

[MrFun]

Those who bring up the point about other weapons that could have used really need to compare the lethalness of guns compared to other weapons.

[SlowwHand]

Not condoning, just saying. Dueling has been the norm, historically. Not just in USA.
Japan made it illegal in 1889.
Throughout Europe from the Renaissance through to the 1800's (and up to the 1920's in Italy), the Duel was considered a reasonable, appropriate and acceptable (although often technically illegal and harshly punished if discovered) way for people of import to settle their differences.

Just trivia.

[Riesstiu IV]

You sir have offend my Southern heritage. I challenge you to a duel!

[Max Webster]

As long as Americans with guns stay within their border. I don't really have a problem with what they do with them.