gun-control logic applied in auto-reverse
- Thread starter dnewton3
- Start date
- Status
I did make that argument TV...quite simply, I thought...
There are many places in this country where a car is NOT a necessity. I gave a good example. There are many places where a car IS a necessity. You gave an example.
But, I maintain that the necessity for a gun transcends mere geography. It is necessary to exercise your right to self defense. A right enumerated in most state constitutions, though not in MA, as well as in the U.S. Constitution.
A firearm is the only reasonable means by which you can exercise that right. And firearms are specifically discussed in the various constitutions as a result.
That makes guns a necessity.
There are many places in this country where a car is NOT a necessity. I gave a good example. There are many places where a car IS a necessity. You gave an example.
But, I maintain that the necessity for a gun transcends mere geography. It is necessary to exercise your right to self defense. A right enumerated in most state constitutions, though not in MA, as well as in the U.S. Constitution.
A firearm is the only reasonable means by which you can exercise that right. And firearms are specifically discussed in the various constitutions as a result.
That makes guns a necessity.
Last edited:
If a gun is a necessity where you live, MOVE.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Millions make it through life without ever owning or firing a gun. Water and food are necessities.
Water, food, shelter, security. In that order.
Cable TV? Cell phone? Even cars. Not necessities.
But millions have been murdered because they were defenseless. In every conceivable neighborhood or place.
They would disagree about the necessity of the means to defend yourself.
This isn't about "I need a gun because I live in a combat zone".
It's about having a right. And having the means by which you exercise that right.
You don't have to own a gun if you choose not to. That's your choice. But if I choose to take responsibility for my own security, then an infringement in the exercise of that right is simply wrong...morally, legally wrong...
Ask the Aussies how they feel the loss of their right...while violent crime continues to increase in their country...
Millions make it through life without ever owning or firing a gun. Water and food are necessities.
Water, food, shelter, security. In that order.
Cable TV? Cell phone? Even cars. Not necessities.
But millions have been murdered because they were defenseless. In every conceivable neighborhood or place.
They would disagree about the necessity of the means to defend yourself.
This isn't about "I need a gun because I live in a combat zone".
It's about having a right. And having the means by which you exercise that right.
You don't have to own a gun if you choose not to. That's your choice. But if I choose to take responsibility for my own security, then an infringement in the exercise of that right is simply wrong...morally, legally wrong...
Ask the Aussies how they feel the loss of their right...while violent crime continues to increase in their country...
Last edited:
No, a gun is not a "necessity", but the right to have one should not be taken lightly. True, there are other ways to defend yourself. In some cases, manty of these ways are ineffective or impossible. The 110 lb woman(or man) who is confronted by a 225 lb criminal..an elderly person lacking physical strength to fight or run..there are many more such situations. Criminals will not obey any gun laws, so restricting ownership does nothing but infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. I am all for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, but it is unrealistic to think that more laws will accomplish that.
Take the absolute away. Which is more necessary in the 21st century? People need to get to work by an economical means. People need to grocery shop. People need an emergency transportation. People need to be able to evacuate. There are inner city areas where public transportation is so dense that you don't need a car. Most of the country is not that way.
People do not need to hunt to survive in the 21st century. The chances the in the millions to one that a gun will ever be a life saver. But we all need to have one strapped on in case that millions to one scenario happens. The way I'm going to deal with it is if someone sticks a gun in my face I'm going to give them what they want and ask if they want fries with that. Trying to draw and shoot and stop before they can put a hole in you too is a very rare proposition. They already have the drop on you.
We have Clint Eastwood types that envision themselves in some heroric shootout that will never happen. I'm not against having guns. But I am realistic about their potential reward vs risk. More end up shooting their own family members than stopping any real crime.
People do not need to hunt to survive in the 21st century. The chances the in the millions to one that a gun will ever be a life saver. But we all need to have one strapped on in case that millions to one scenario happens. The way I'm going to deal with it is if someone sticks a gun in my face I'm going to give them what they want and ask if they want fries with that. Trying to draw and shoot and stop before they can put a hole in you too is a very rare proposition. They already have the drop on you.
We have Clint Eastwood types that envision themselves in some heroric shootout that will never happen. I'm not against having guns. But I am realistic about their potential reward vs risk. More end up shooting their own family members than stopping any real crime.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Take the absolute away. Which is more necessary in the 21st century? People need to get to work by an economical means. People need to grocery shop. People need an emergency transportation. People need to be able to evacuate. There are inner city areas where public transportation is so dense that you don't need a car. Most of the country is not that way.
People do not need to hunt to survive in the 21st century. The chances the in the millions to one that a gun will ever be a life saver. But we all need to have one strapped on in case that millions to one scenario happens. The way I'm going to deal with it is if someone sticks a gun in my face I'm going to give them what they want and ask if they want fries with that. Trying to draw and shoot and stop before they can put a hole in you too is a very rare proposition. They already have the drop on you.
We have Clint Eastwood types that envision themselves in some heroric shootout that will never happen. I'm not against having guns. But I am realistic about their potential reward vs risk. More end up shooting their own family members than stopping any real crime.
Take the absolute away. Which is more necessary in the 21st century? People need to get to work by an economical means. People need to grocery shop. People need an emergency transportation. People need to be able to evacuate. There are inner city areas where public transportation is so dense that you don't need a car. Most of the country is not that way.
People do not need to hunt to survive in the 21st century. The chances the in the millions to one that a gun will ever be a life saver. But we all need to have one strapped on in case that millions to one scenario happens. The way I'm going to deal with it is if someone sticks a gun in my face I'm going to give them what they want and ask if they want fries with that. Trying to draw and shoot and stop before they can put a hole in you too is a very rare proposition. They already have the drop on you.
We have Clint Eastwood types that envision themselves in some heroric shootout that will never happen. I'm not against having guns. But I am realistic about their potential reward vs risk. More end up shooting their own family members than stopping any real crime.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
People do not need to hunt to survive in the 21st century.
Who said anything about hunting? The 2nd amendment has about as much to do with hunting as ceramic tiles have to do with growing corn on Mars. If you want to talk about hunting, perhaps you should start your own thread, about hunting.
People do not need to hunt to survive in the 21st century.
Who said anything about hunting? The 2nd amendment has about as much to do with hunting as ceramic tiles have to do with growing corn on Mars. If you want to talk about hunting, perhaps you should start your own thread, about hunting.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Again, my point to this thread is that a man killed his entire family with a car. No one peeps a word about more and stricter licensing of the person or weapon, or holding the OEMs fiscally liable.
But when someone shoots another group using an assault rifle, woe unto those who own them, because the outcry from some is deafening.
What I ask, in a rhetorical sense, is WHY this dichotomy of attitude? Clearly I have proven by now that the mode of death (weapon chosen) has no bearing on the severity of death (dead = dead regardless of the method). For those who believe more control over firearms is necessary, where is you proof that it matters?
It's simple ... it's that way because guns make killing easy. If _______ were purposely used to kill people as much as guns are, then there would be a big outcry about banning or regulating _______.
Fill in the blanks with "cars", "boats", "knives", "chairs", "sticks", "rocks", etc, etc, etc.
That's how humans think. They focus on the object that is being used to do bad things (even though a human is controlling that thing to do harm with), and somehow try to control or take away that object. They think it's easier to control the object than to control the human (especially criminals) ... which is probably true since humans may do whatever they want, be it good or bad, and regardless of laws if they happen to slip into a criminal mindset.
Again, my point to this thread is that a man killed his entire family with a car. No one peeps a word about more and stricter licensing of the person or weapon, or holding the OEMs fiscally liable.
But when someone shoots another group using an assault rifle, woe unto those who own them, because the outcry from some is deafening.
What I ask, in a rhetorical sense, is WHY this dichotomy of attitude? Clearly I have proven by now that the mode of death (weapon chosen) has no bearing on the severity of death (dead = dead regardless of the method). For those who believe more control over firearms is necessary, where is you proof that it matters?
It's simple ... it's that way because guns make killing easy. If _______ were purposely used to kill people as much as guns are, then there would be a big outcry about banning or regulating _______.
Fill in the blanks with "cars", "boats", "knives", "chairs", "sticks", "rocks", etc, etc, etc.
That's how humans think. They focus on the object that is being used to do bad things (even though a human is controlling that thing to do harm with), and somehow try to control or take away that object. They think it's easier to control the object than to control the human (especially criminals) ... which is probably true since humans may do whatever they want, be it good or bad, and regardless of laws if they happen to slip into a criminal mindset.
Originally Posted By: surfstar
If a gun is a necessity where you live, MOVE.
+1. What kind of [censored] holes do people live in and put up with to get to that point.
At least move yourself and guns to a more hospitable place.....
If a gun is a necessity where you live, MOVE.
+1. What kind of [censored] holes do people live in and put up with to get to that point.
At least move yourself and guns to a more hospitable place.....
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: surfstar
If a gun is a necessity where you live, MOVE.
+1. What kind of [censored] holes do people live in and put up with to get to that point.
At least move yourself and guns to a more hospitable place.....
Your argument lacks any factual basis. Try again.
This guy lived in a 1.5 million dollar home. On a street surrounded by other million dollar plus homes. He couldn't have moved to a more safe spot in America if he tried. And yet evil still found him. And raped his wife and daughters and he listened to them burn to death as he was tied up. Do you think that he owns guns now? I would bet $1000 on that answer. The police were outside his house, and did nothing. And they failed that man terribly and did nothing to stop the crimes/rapes/murders from occurring. 911 is an abject failure lots of the time. I know. I used to answer 911 calls, so I have seen how the system can fail people. The BEST way to defend your home/loved ones is a firearm. PERIOD!! The police are there to take a picture of your dead body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders
Originally Posted By: surfstar
If a gun is a necessity where you live, MOVE.
+1. What kind of [censored] holes do people live in and put up with to get to that point.
At least move yourself and guns to a more hospitable place.....
Your argument lacks any factual basis. Try again.
This guy lived in a 1.5 million dollar home. On a street surrounded by other million dollar plus homes. He couldn't have moved to a more safe spot in America if he tried. And yet evil still found him. And raped his wife and daughters and he listened to them burn to death as he was tied up. Do you think that he owns guns now? I would bet $1000 on that answer. The police were outside his house, and did nothing. And they failed that man terribly and did nothing to stop the crimes/rapes/murders from occurring. 911 is an abject failure lots of the time. I know. I used to answer 911 calls, so I have seen how the system can fail people. The BEST way to defend your home/loved ones is a firearm. PERIOD!! The police are there to take a picture of your dead body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
More end up shooting their own family members than stopping any real crime.
I've heard this "fact" thrown around by many, many people. Not a single one has been able to credibly substantiate it. Would you care to be the first?
More end up shooting their own family members than stopping any real crime.
I've heard this "fact" thrown around by many, many people. Not a single one has been able to credibly substantiate it. Would you care to be the first?
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of you STILL don't get it ...
The RSP policy is in effect. I'm not talking party politics.
I'm talking about the general one-sided nature of mental positioning for ANY topic as displayed by some folks. The story I linked showed that a person hades-bent on killing was able to do so, despite the regulation and licensing in that industry. The man used his vehicle to kill his family. This happens many times a day all around our nation. Murder happens in every corner of the world. Some use guns; some don't. When there is a will, there is a way. A gun is a tool, just like a multitude of other tools. They will either be used properly or not.
I am not stating that regulation is bad; I think some amount of regulation is a good thing. But over-regulation is bad; it has not shown to be effective. And, when it comes to firearms, more regulation has no effect on the legal folks; the illegal use of firearms is not effected by laws. Making more laws has not stopped murder since the dawn of man. Laws don't stop evil; they only give us a way to deal with evil after it happens.
- It is against the law to shoot another person with a gun, but some do it
- It is against the law to stab another with a knife, but some do it
- It is against the law to stab someone with a screwdriver, but some do it
- It is against the law to strangle someone with bailing wire, but some do it
- It is against the law to bash another person's brains in with a cinder block, but some do it
- It is against the law to cook a child to death in a microwave oven, but some do it
- It is against the law to cook a child to death in a convection oven, but some do it
- It is against the law to run a daughter with a car in an "honor" killing, but some do it
- It is against the law to hand someone by a noose, but some do it
- It is against the law to set someone ablaze with lighter fluid, but some do it
- It is against the law to poison someone with chemicals, but some do it
- It is against the law to .... , but some do it
Knowing the MO and tools used to kill a person is very important in terms of getting a conviction in a trial; that matters. But the thought that you can eliminate or even alter death rates by removing one tool from a HUGE tool box is absurd.
The US actually has a VERY low murder rate, contrasted to other countries which don't enjoy the "rights" we have. Here is a view of firearm related deaths by country by population percentage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The US is WAY down on the list; guns are not a big problem in the US on a per-capita basis.
However, if you look at the World view of Homicide, the Americas are #1. That's not "America" as in the USA, but the "Americas" as the North, Central and South continental areas. Americas are the leading location of deaths, but those countries which have high gun-control areas also have the most deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The reality is that Mexico and most of South America, along with the bulk of the African continent, have FAR higher "per capita" murder rates, despite the removal of guns. Or to be more specific, taking away guns from some while others still have them.
This isn't about politics. Or at least the way I define politics. Being very careful to respect our RSP rules here on BITOG, this is about a mentality that transcends party lines and mantra.
If you could remove ALL guns from the planet, two things are quite certain:
1) the gun related deaths would go to zero
2) the "x" related deaths would go up
The father in this storyline that I tagged at the beginning probably had access to guns; who doesn't in AZ? But he chose to kill his family with a car. If he had killed them with an asualt rifle, the media would have been blaming the weapon. Here they don't. Did the intent of the weapon really change the outcome here? Not that any sane person can see.
Guns are a very efficient means of killing folks. But so are a whole host of other items.
When Harris and Klebold shot up Columbine, do you recall that they also had/used many pipe bombs? They had 99 (ninety-nine) IEDs available and ready and used some that day! Did you hear anyone call for the elimination of pipe at hardware stores? Or to have Lowes and Home Depot legally responsible for selling the pipe? Did anyone protest for the need to have a license to buy pipe at Menards? Or to keep it under lock-and-key in the home?
For every gun death you can show me, I can show you another that is just as disgusting and terminal using some other method. So why the bias against guns? Why no bias against our lackadaisical attitude towards mental health care or revolving door justice?
The entire topic reeks with hypocrisy; it permeates every conversation people have about it. Tools don't kill people; people kill people. Tools are not evil. Some people are, though. And until we recognize this, we won't successfully deal with it.
Or to boil it down to a more simple level:
Quit blaming things and start blaming people.
You're stuck on this idea that people in favor of more controls / more regulation don't get the idea that people are responsible for killing other people. If that what this thread is about, well, it could have been said in one or two sentences.
Maybe you hadn't noticed, but the items that are more effective at killing people and have fewer alternative uses are more regulated. Nuclear weapons, hard drugs, explosive materials (rather than pipes) come to mind.
While someone with determination will find another way, that is not the same as saying that everyone has enough determination and skill to succeed using more difficult methods that pose more danger to themselves.
Some people feel that firearms have a place on the scale of danger after microwave ovens and before nuclear weapons. You seem to feel firearms and microwave ovens occupy the same spot.
In another thread, there is a guy who swerved his vehicle to hit a motorcyclist and then said he didn't care that he almost killed him. Nobody is saying cars should be banned. He should be banned from driving.
And equally, nobody is saying firearms should be banned. But it's scary to think that man can legally own a firearm while not being able to drive because he attempted to kill someone.
Exactly.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of you STILL don't get it ...
The RSP policy is in effect. I'm not talking party politics.
I'm talking about the general one-sided nature of mental positioning for ANY topic as displayed by some folks. The story I linked showed that a person hades-bent on killing was able to do so, despite the regulation and licensing in that industry. The man used his vehicle to kill his family. This happens many times a day all around our nation. Murder happens in every corner of the world. Some use guns; some don't. When there is a will, there is a way. A gun is a tool, just like a multitude of other tools. They will either be used properly or not.
I am not stating that regulation is bad; I think some amount of regulation is a good thing. But over-regulation is bad; it has not shown to be effective. And, when it comes to firearms, more regulation has no effect on the legal folks; the illegal use of firearms is not effected by laws. Making more laws has not stopped murder since the dawn of man. Laws don't stop evil; they only give us a way to deal with evil after it happens.
- It is against the law to shoot another person with a gun, but some do it
- It is against the law to stab another with a knife, but some do it
- It is against the law to stab someone with a screwdriver, but some do it
- It is against the law to strangle someone with bailing wire, but some do it
- It is against the law to bash another person's brains in with a cinder block, but some do it
- It is against the law to cook a child to death in a microwave oven, but some do it
- It is against the law to cook a child to death in a convection oven, but some do it
- It is against the law to run a daughter with a car in an "honor" killing, but some do it
- It is against the law to hand someone by a noose, but some do it
- It is against the law to set someone ablaze with lighter fluid, but some do it
- It is against the law to poison someone with chemicals, but some do it
- It is against the law to .... , but some do it
Knowing the MO and tools used to kill a person is very important in terms of getting a conviction in a trial; that matters. But the thought that you can eliminate or even alter death rates by removing one tool from a HUGE tool box is absurd.
The US actually has a VERY low murder rate, contrasted to other countries which don't enjoy the "rights" we have. Here is a view of firearm related deaths by country by population percentage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The US is WAY down on the list; guns are not a big problem in the US on a per-capita basis.
However, if you look at the World view of Homicide, the Americas are #1. That's not "America" as in the USA, but the "Americas" as the North, Central and South continental areas. Americas are the leading location of deaths, but those countries which have high gun-control areas also have the most deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The reality is that Mexico and most of South America, along with the bulk of the African continent, have FAR higher "per capita" murder rates, despite the removal of guns. Or to be more specific, taking away guns from some while others still have them.
This isn't about politics. Or at least the way I define politics. Being very careful to respect our RSP rules here on BITOG, this is about a mentality that transcends party lines and mantra.
If you could remove ALL guns from the planet, two things are quite certain:
1) the gun related deaths would go to zero
2) the "x" related deaths would go up
The father in this storyline that I tagged at the beginning probably had access to guns; who doesn't in AZ? But he chose to kill his family with a car. If he had killed them with an asualt rifle, the media would have been blaming the weapon. Here they don't. Did the intent of the weapon really change the outcome here? Not that any sane person can see.
Guns are a very efficient means of killing folks. But so are a whole host of other items.
When Harris and Klebold shot up Columbine, do you recall that they also had/used many pipe bombs? They had 99 (ninety-nine) IEDs available and ready and used some that day! Did you hear anyone call for the elimination of pipe at hardware stores? Or to have Lowes and Home Depot legally responsible for selling the pipe? Did anyone protest for the need to have a license to buy pipe at Menards? Or to keep it under lock-and-key in the home?
For every gun death you can show me, I can show you another that is just as disgusting and terminal using some other method. So why the bias against guns? Why no bias against our lackadaisical attitude towards mental health care or revolving door justice?
The entire topic reeks with hypocrisy; it permeates every conversation people have about it. Tools don't kill people; people kill people. Tools are not evil. Some people are, though. And until we recognize this, we won't successfully deal with it.
Or to boil it down to a more simple level:
Quit blaming things and start blaming people.
You're stuck on this idea that people in favor of more controls / more regulation don't get the idea that people are responsible for killing other people. If that what this thread is about, well, it could have been said in one or two sentences.
Maybe you hadn't noticed, but the items that are more effective at killing people and have fewer alternative uses are more regulated. Nuclear weapons, hard drugs, explosive materials (rather than pipes) come to mind.
While someone with determination will find another way, that is not the same as saying that everyone has enough determination and skill to succeed using more difficult methods that pose more danger to themselves.
Some people feel that firearms have a place on the scale of danger after microwave ovens and before nuclear weapons. You seem to feel firearms and microwave ovens occupy the same spot.
In another thread, there is a guy who swerved his vehicle to hit a motorcyclist and then said he didn't care that he almost killed him. Nobody is saying cars should be banned. He should be banned from driving.
And equally, nobody is saying firearms should be banned. But it's scary to think that man can legally own a firearm while not being able to drive because he attempted to kill someone.
Exactly.
Originally Posted By: pottymouth
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
More end up shooting their own family members than stopping any real crime.
I've heard this "fact" thrown around by many, many people. Not a single one has been able to credibly substantiate it. Would you care to be the first?
Same old regurgitated song and dance, that if there is a firearm in your house, you are more likely to be shot with that firearm. Same logic that those that own a pool are 100 times more likely to drown in their pool than a person that doesnt own a pool. Or that you are 100 times more likely to die in a car crash if you own a car than a person that doesn't own a car or ride in a car.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
More end up shooting their own family members than stopping any real crime.
I've heard this "fact" thrown around by many, many people. Not a single one has been able to credibly substantiate it. Would you care to be the first?
Same old regurgitated song and dance, that if there is a firearm in your house, you are more likely to be shot with that firearm. Same logic that those that own a pool are 100 times more likely to drown in their pool than a person that doesnt own a pool. Or that you are 100 times more likely to die in a car crash if you own a car than a person that doesn't own a car or ride in a car.
For or against guns this is funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
Australian comedian Jim Jeffries on the subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
Australian comedian Jim Jeffries on the subject
How about you educate your kids about what guns are at a early age, like as soon as they can communicate. Why is always protect the children, how about educate your children to protect themselves. How American is that.
Originally Posted By: surfstar
For or against guns this is funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
Australian comedian Jim Jeffries on the subject
Jim is hilarious! I'm surprised how well that routine went across with a US audience though...
For or against guns this is funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
Australian comedian Jim Jeffries on the subject
Jim is hilarious! I'm surprised how well that routine went across with a US audience though...
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Fill in the blanks with "cars", "boats", "knives", "chairs", "sticks", "rocks", etc, etc, etc.
I live in a fairly violent city, and knives are the weapon of choice here. The media and amateur criminologists, of course, are at a loss. It's easy to suggest restricting or banning firearms, but here, they're in the very uncomfortable situation where that simply doesn't work. The knife is the weapon of choice, and it's usually not some giant hunting knife or machete that would be an easy target. It's your run of the mill kitchen knife.
So, their very limited outlook gets exposed. When it's a gun crime, the gun laws are to blame, according to the talking heads. When it's a knife crime, which is by far the norm here, all that results is a bunch of navel gazing.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Turtlevette's statement has no basis in reality...although idiots and poor gun owners have been responsible for family accidents...to say that more people shoot family members than prevent crime is simply false.
Whether he's right or wrong isn't exactly relevant. It's a diversion. More wives are killed by their husbands than strangers and more children are kidnapped by their parents than by strangers. Of course, the number one killer of youth is accidents, but that's another diversion.
Apparently, being in a family is a dangerous thing. Kick your wives and children out for their own good.
Thank God I live alone; I'm safe!
Fill in the blanks with "cars", "boats", "knives", "chairs", "sticks", "rocks", etc, etc, etc.
I live in a fairly violent city, and knives are the weapon of choice here. The media and amateur criminologists, of course, are at a loss. It's easy to suggest restricting or banning firearms, but here, they're in the very uncomfortable situation where that simply doesn't work. The knife is the weapon of choice, and it's usually not some giant hunting knife or machete that would be an easy target. It's your run of the mill kitchen knife.
So, their very limited outlook gets exposed. When it's a gun crime, the gun laws are to blame, according to the talking heads. When it's a knife crime, which is by far the norm here, all that results is a bunch of navel gazing.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Turtlevette's statement has no basis in reality...although idiots and poor gun owners have been responsible for family accidents...to say that more people shoot family members than prevent crime is simply false.
Whether he's right or wrong isn't exactly relevant. It's a diversion. More wives are killed by their husbands than strangers and more children are kidnapped by their parents than by strangers. Of course, the number one killer of youth is accidents, but that's another diversion.
Apparently, being in a family is a dangerous thing. Kick your wives and children out for their own good.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
