As Spoofe already pointed out, these are already the case. Be happy.
I have personally been both shot at, and hit. My first cousin was shot to death last spring. My best friend’s cousin was shot to death in 1991, and my Uncle died the same year of an aggravated bullet injury he received in Viet Nam. Those things do not make me hate guns. I truly have nothing but sympathy for your loss, but the fact is that your loved one did not die because of “gun violence”. S/He died because of one of two things: [ul]
[li]If it was accidental, s/he died because of carelessness and/or negligence.[/li][li]If it was malicious, s/he died because of VIOLENCE, not “gun violence”.[/li][/ul]
My cousin had beaten somebody with a baseball bat the previous day for purposely running over his (my cousin’s) dog. The victim of the BAT VIOLENCE returned the next day and gunned him down in his front yard.
He was not killed by a gun, any more than his dog was killed by a truck. They were both killed by a piece of shit, waste of oxygen person. The fact that this waste of life wielded both a truck and a gun does not change the fact that he did the killing.
Yes, as a matter of fact. The difference between you and politicians & majority of voters is this: You recognize that you have an issue that prevents you from seeing the issue clearly and objectively. The other group I mentioned chooses to exploit those emotions and that irrationality, using them to scare the Congress and the public into enacting legislation based on irrational feelings.
[quote]
**IMHO,
No problem. I’m sorry to hear about whoever it was that you lost. I also hope I’ve made some sense to you.
Oh, I see. We’re playing games with semantics now, instead of using our brains? Good tactic. Watch:
At the time Jesus said that, the sword was the pinnacle, the state of the art, the finest weapon that could be had by a soldier of the finest and most powerful military machine the world had ever seen: The Roman Army.
Since I seem to recall that you are not much of a bilical literalist, I feel free to interpret that reasonably, and say that it is analogous to my going out and purchasing my choice of an M-16a2, an H&K G36E, or a Browning Automatic Rifle, which are the finest weaponry that can be had by a modern soldier of the finest and most powerful military machine the world has ever seen: The United States Armed Forces.
And as for turning the other cheek:
To retaliate after being slapped on the cheek is not self-defense. It is vengeance. And vengeance belongs to God and to the State, as the agent of God’s justice.
Also, if somebody commits a violent act against me or one of my loved ones, then I am fulfilling the second half of the golden rule for that person: They do unto me as they wish to be done unto them. Since they commit violence against me, they obviously wish violence to be carried out against them. Who am I to do otherwise?
Jesus was making two points here: Correcting the mistaken belief that “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was how to deal with personal vengeance. It was not. That was a matter of law, stating that the punishment should be appropriate to the crime. The difference between getting even and gaining justice should be fairly clear. We still have the concept now.
A slap on the right cheek is a slap with the left hand. A slap with the left hand is a slap of insult, not of aggression. Jesus says here that responding to insults is contraindicated. You offer your left cheek – challenging the slapper to strike you with his right hand, as an equal rather than as a child or a slave – instead of responding in kind. We are not hurt by insults, we are not to stoop to that level, not to seek to get even, not to cast pearls before swine.
My views on this subject are far from firm. I used to think that guns should at least have such-and-such restrictions on them. Then I found out that such-and-such restriction was already on them. This repeated a couple of times, with various such-and-such’es.
The more I learn about the subject, the more I think that things are pretty decent the way they are. Sure, it would be great if nobody had any guns at all, or any weapons at all, or any malice at all. Perhaps, someday in the Utopian future, such a thing will happen. For now, we have to deal with reality.
My current viewpoint runs thus: In order for any freedom to be taken away, there must be a darned good reason to remove that freedom. Currently, there is no reason compelling enough to restrict guns more than they already are. Perhaps some of the existing laws should be more strictly enforced; however, I’m not knowledgable enough about the subject to say that with certainty.
On the contrary, BlackKnight, in my opinion, given the knowledge you have and using common sense, you have come to the only logical conclusion:
Guns are already controlled enough (well, more than enough, but that’s a whole other debate). The only reasonable solution is to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Hand out the penalties that are carried by violations of those laws. And abuse of gun rights will stop.
Wow. Such ignorance. Okay, let’s start with some facts. The founders got it wrong with voting; it was a narrowly applied right that devolved to white property owning men. Religion, speech, and the press, too. Warren Berger is the one you want to thank for your right to order dirty books through the mail, not Patrick Henry. (see, for example, alien and sedition acts, or you can check Mencken to see how “freedom of speech” is a modern concept.)
In real life, the constitution is a living document, which means the clauses are read and interpreted as the courts see fit. Good thing, too, or we wouldn’t have freedom of speech as we now know it. You’re doing the same thing now; you want the second amendment read more broadly than the text implies.
Mine comes from at least a cursorary and broad reading of the relevant writings, and application of reasoning to the relevant scientific research.
It doesn’t mean she’s incorrect, either.
unless you’re talking about, say, your right to swing your fist and where it ends, or distribute child pornography, or falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theater, etc.
So that would be an example of a time when it was good to recognize someone elses rights. On the other hand, we refused to recognize Germany’s right to, say, Poland and Russia, and that would be good.
Rights exist conditionally, and in a very specific way, quite differently from how you may say “Rocks and Trees exist.” I might also point out that “existence” isn’t really anything, since you can’t demonstrate that a given object exists except that it possess a certain set of qualities. You’ll have to check out Kant’s criticism of Anslem to get up to speed on that.
Women didn’t have the right to vote until it was granted by a constitutional amendment. Are you saying they really did? I don’t think so…
It sure does if the conclusions are premised upon the false knowledge, so that’s all that need be said if your argument is “Jefferson said it, I believe it.” Jefferson was about as moral as Clinton; he lied about sex and forced himself on women. Would Joe Cool be up there saying “well, Bill Clinton said…”
Falsely, and without any qualification to do so.
Lott and Kleck just make things up. Anyway, if you’re several times more likely to commit suicide than to defend yourself with your gun, that argues you ought not to have a gun around. No, none of you have examined the research, sorry.
quote:
No, a “well-regulated militia” is "necessary to the security of a free state. A well regulated militia is an at least semi-regular military body, subject to state discipline, drill and regulation, as an honest reading of Hamilton’s writings would indicate.
[quote} Untrue. Greatly untrue. In fact, that’s a malicious lie. Hamilton’s writings indicate that he believed that the citizenry composed the militia. [/quote]
Do not come to my house with your weak shit. I mean, what does the constitution say about the relationship between the militia and the government?
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
Sounds like the milita is a semi-regular military body under state control to me…organized, armed, and disciplined?
Here’s Hamilton:
"“if a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.”
Federalist 29, 1788 (he’s talking about Congress)
You’ll also want to check the uniform militia act of 1792, which says that all able bodied white men between the ages of 18 and 46 are members of the militia, which again is a semi-regular body, over which the state and federal government exercise a good deal of control
[quote]
I suggest you look up the word “militia” in your dictionary. Read the WHOLE definition, please. And keep in mind the meaning hasn’t changed in the past 200 years.
[/quote}
I suggest you read the constitution, and the words of contemporary statesmen, and the informed opinions of legal or historical scholars, and think about them long and hard, and then you come back to tell the class what the Crimson done taught you.
I repeat; if Uncle Beer holds the opinions or has made the statements attributed to him in this thread, he is not worth listening to.
quote:
Fallacious arguing from a gun loon, and who is surprised?
Oh, I see. We’re wrong because some ignorant boob says we are. That makes perfect sense.
quote:
Nope, but permits, registration, and background checks required of every sale, and strict and mandatory penalties aimed at those who break the rules the above imply will increase the cost of illegal guns, which will reduce crime substantially. Also, the fewer guns that are around in general, the less homocide
Duggan, 2000. Kellerman, 1993
quote:
Robert Heinlein was a low budget pulp hack, slicking up school boy ideas with rocket ships for pale friendless virgins.
Starship Troopers, Friday, I Will Fear No Evil, Number of the Beast, Stranger in a Strange Land, Farnham’s Freehold, etc. Meanwhile, you need to explain why South Central LA isn’t a more polite society.
quote:
I will give up all of my other rights, all of my other privileges, live in as bad a society as you can imagine, all to avoid giving up my gun.
So, what are you flapping your yap about?
The only one I can think of would be an out and out ban on rifles and shotguns.
Since you are a man of a certain age, you are in the militia. And what do we know about the Militia? Well, that…Congress is given the power to organize, regulate, discipline, and govern it, huh? I mean, there’s really no good way for you to weasel away from that, huh?
Have you reported for drill in your militia? Call the state capital, see what they tell you about it.
Oh, I think I’m dead spot on…let’s see who is living in a false reality, though…
Oh, I thought so…Kellerman’s homocide study doesn’t include suicides at all. Wow. So, the vaunted Uncle Beer can’t tell which study he’s talking about, and yet, I’m the ignorant one for pointing that out. http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-kellermann.htm
"Summary
Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts."
Hah! Oh, I laugh at the puny gun loons. For shame, Dennison, being taken in by such transparent tactics. I expected a little more from a CSICOP type.
Hah! A hit! A palpable hit! Arrgh! I didn’t think you could rebut or even just reply to anything I wrote, and it turns out I was right. At least that other guy tried, even if he failed.
Well, if this isn’t the silliest thing I’ve heard in a while. I’ll have to remember that, the next time I decide to smack somebody on the cheek. Good thing I’m left handed, eh?
Wow. Look at those ironclad debate tactics. You’re a genius.
I’ll simply respond to the less-ignorant points of your post…
You seemed to ignore the fact that I said that they missed Civil Rights, which was a factor of the common knowledge that existed in the 1700s. They believed that white, property-owning men should run things, a notion that was taken from ancient Rome and Greece. You ever read The Republic? (Hint: It’s a “book”) Just because one part of their ideals were wrong does not make them all wrong.
Oh, I see. You assume that since a single person didn’t come up with an idea, it must be invalid? Who’s to say whether or not Warren Berger would have ever accomplished anything if Patrick Henry hadn’t?
Don’t you mean to say “Mine comes from the whisperings of my colon in my ear”?
I don’t get the point of this. Are you saying that people should have the right to violate someone else’s rights?
No, they exist. Does the word “inalienable” mean anything to you? Just because a person’s rights may become violated, it doesn’t mean they stop existing.
Let’s try this experiment: Hold your hand in front of your face. Now close your eyes. Did you hand stop existing?
Just because something isn’t being actively practiced, or isn’t being acknowledged by an individual or a society as a whole, it doesn’t mean it’s stopped existing.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. But their right wasn’t recognized by society, and as such, was violated. And, fortunately, this problem (a result of the common ignorance of the 1700s) was corrected. How? By a new amendment.
Cite, please, preferably a cite that says where Jefferson committed perjury and was impeached. Also, I’d like to see an admission from Jefferson himself that he committed the indecencies that you described. Finally, I’d like to see a cite the mentions how Jefferson didn’t contribute heavily to the creation of our countries’ government.
Cite, please. In Lott’s book, he carefully details how he came about his information and how he gathered statistics. Debunk that, please.
You bet your ass, sonny. Anyway, it sure looks like bragging rights are mine so far, so you’ll excuse me if I crow a little loudly. It’s hard not to when you’re so so good, and they are so so dumb.
You said they got it right on voting, and some other things, which indicated you don’t have your constitutional history down. The correct reply for you here is “whoops, sorry, Crimson, now I know” and then I go “and knowing’s half the battle!”
Did they have the alien and sedition acts in the days of the founders? Postal regulations? broad public censorship? Yep. So, the founders didn’t get that one right, huh?
Once again…“Gosh, Crimson, you were right…”
Who was the little boy running on at the mouth about “iron-clad debate”? Why, I think that was you. So, it’s obvious you can’t reply, you can just call names, huh? No wonder you need a gun.
No, I’m saying that people don’t agree about what rights you have, so what you think of as a violation is simply a refusal to recognize.
Really? how much do they weigh? Do they give off electromagnetic radiation? Are they subject to gravity? Weak or strong nuclear forces? Do they? Do they? come on, answer.
If the truths were self evident, then he wouldn’t have to write about them, huh? since political power flows down the barrel of a gun, it sounds to me like people with guns can alienate all of your rights they like, and when all is said and done it’s just who has the most guns. So, no appeals to magic, sorry. That’s the first premise gone, natural rights. You go tell nature all about your rights, see how far you get.
Except if that thing only existed by mutual consent between individuals, which is most of what we call society.
Women really had the right to vote before the mumble-th amendment? Where? In America? Where were women voting in America before the mumble-th amendment?
quote:
Jefferson was about as moral as Clinton; he lied about sex and forced himself on women.
Cite, please,
Well, let’s see. Jefferson had sex with his slave, Sally Hemmings, who probably couldn’t offer consent, what with being a slave, and all. Pretty dodgy, I’d say. Eugene Foster presents pretty good DNA evidence that Jefferson was the father of at least some of Hemmings children, you can go get that from Nature, which is a big deal science magazine, and Jefferson lies about being the father of those children:
Here’s Jefferson lying about that to then-secretary of the Navy, Robert Smith:
“You will perceive that I plead guilty to one of their charges, that when young and single I offered love to a handsome lady. I acknowledge its incorrectness. It is the only one founded in truth among all their allegations against me.” --Thomas Jefferson to Robert Smith, July 1, 1805. (DM 1:448) "
Clinton didn’t commit perjury, of course, and after all, I said that Clinton and Jefferson had in common that they forced themselves on women and lied about it, which I have ably proved.
Well, he just admits to doing the deed with Sally, and surprisingly Sally had children with Jefferson DNA. You do the math, Liebniz.
Where was Tom when the constitution was being drafted?
"Lott writes If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.'' In fact, Kleck's survey [14] indicates that 24% fired the weapon and the NCVS indicates that 40% fired the weapon [24]. Five other surveys give numbers between 34% and 67% [13]. In the second edition Lott changes national surveys’’ to ``a national survey that I conducted’’. While that makes his statement technically correct, it is still highly misleading, since it does not mention the seven surveys that contradict Lott’s own, unpublished one. "
In other words, he made up his study. What else did he make up, the cur?
"Lott claims that the National Crime Victimization Survey does not weight regions by population and relies too heavily on urban data. Lott offers no evidence for this claim and apparently would have us believe that the NCVS has been conducted incompetently for over 25 years and no-one has noticed and made the trivial fix to the problem. He also falsely claims that a law-enforcement agency asks the NCVS questions. In fact, the NCVS is conducted by the Census Bureau, which is not a law-enforcement agency. "
There’s a lot more, Lott mischaracterizing Kellerman, Lott making things up about Aspirin, Lott using contradictory estimates at the same time to give himself a favorable result, but I think I’ve used up my fair use privileges for the day.
So…
No such thing as natural rights. If they exist, prove it. How much do they weigh? If they aren’t the sort of thing you can weigh, they are a made-up social construction.
The constitution and contemporary writing make it pretty clear: Gun Ownership is tied to militia duty, which is probably why there’s never been a gun restriction overturned on a second amendment basis.
Good science suggests guns do not make you safe. Kellerman doesn’t engage in the kind of book-cooking and mischaracterization Lott does, and Duggan’s paper blows Lott out of the water.
I win, you lose. Bye, now! But, hey, you and Joe Cool all call me whatever names you can think of, it makes me happy. It shows me how right I am.
Maybe you should demand a recount? Oh, I know, demand that I be censored! That’s what the NRA does…
In Lott’s book, he carefully details how he came about his information and how he gathered statistics. Debunk that, please.
I personally believe that handguns should no longer be sold. Not banned, I want to make this distinction right away, I do not want guns to be forcibly banned there’s no need to go and round up guns from the populace and tear firearms out of the hands of law abiding gun owners. I think they should just no longer be sold. Within a few years the proliferation of handguns will be far less than it was previously. Here’s why.
When a criminal is arrested and is found to have a firearm on his person the gun is confiscated from him. When he is released do you think they give him back his clothes, his wristwatch…and his guns??? Well we don’t. Guns are confiscated from criminals all the time at an astounding rate yet this is not having any major effect on the number of guns that are out there on the streets because all the convicts have to do is go out and buy another one and that’s it, they’ve got their gun again and they’re ready to go.
If we stop selling guns then the criminals won’t be able to get their guns anymore. The criminal element of society will become disarmed very quickly as their guns are confiscated and they aren’t able to replenish them. The law abiding gun owner won’t need to hand in his precious beretta or glock 19, however eventually these guns will become old, broken and useless. The law abiding gun owners of this world shouldn’t have to fear the immediate loss of their handguns if guns are banned in this manner because the criminals will lose their guns far quicker than law abiding gun owners would.
Now, before you accuse me of being naive I’d just like you to think about what I’ve said for a second. You might think that a criminal, if he cannot buyt a gun from a shop would buy one somewhere else, from the black market for example, and the cycle would start all over again.
I disagree, here’s why:
a) Firstly, most people have an image in their heads of people being able to buy guns from any lowlife hood with the means to get his hands on one. “If guns are banned” they say “people will be able to get more guns this way and nothing would be solved” Let me ask you this, where would the suppliers get their guns from? They wouldn’t be able to get them because they won’t be sold anymore. Their supply lines would be cut off and as such the lowlife hoods who deal guns cheaply would not be able to sell them anymore and the recently disarmed criminal would not be able to buy them either.
b) Then there is the more serious black market which comes under the heading of more organised crime. At the moment it would be relatively easy for a criminal with the right connections to get a gun from this source. However at the moment it is relatively easy to smuggle handguns into the country, what I mean is it’s easier to get a handgun into the country than a kilo of heroin for example. If we did stop selling handguns then it would be much harder to bring handguns into the country because, if they were illegalised then there would be more people watching out for them. At the moment more energy is devoted to the trackdown of class A drugs than the illegal handgun trade. If guns were illegalised this would change and more energy would be expended into stamping out the illegal gun trade. This would offset the rise in demand for handguns after their sale becomes prohibited.
Also it would logically be more difficult to get a handgun on the black market if we stopped selling guns because the price of guns would sky rocket as they became a rarer and rarer commodity. Most ordinary criminals simply wouldn’t be able to afford it. Also the threat of prosecution for buying an illegal handgun would most likely be enough to dissuade some of the more petty criminals from buying guns again.
That’s why I feel that, if we as a nation stopped selling guns, the streets would actually be rid of them. I just wanted to start off my argument with that to explain my position to those who feel that gun restrictions would have no effect, I am very sure they will.
Anyway, now I’ve covered that, I’d like to explain why I am in favour of gun control.
=========================================
I have had debates with my friends about this issue before and whilst a couple agree with me there are several who don’t. The oft used phrase in our discussions is “Guns don’t Kill people, People kill people” (well actually it’s bullet woulds if you’re gonna be pedantic but anyway…)
I’ve also heard phrases like “Guns are simply inanimate objects” and this is true and undeniably so but what is the curx of this particular debate?
A gun is a simple piece of technology. What is technology? Well, technology at its most fundamental level is something which makes X task, whatever that task may be easier. The wheel is a piece of technology, it made transportation of materials easier, and quicker too. The printing press was a technological advancement which made the publication of books easier. Now where does this take us when applied to handguns? What task do handguns make easier? Simple.
Killing people.
Of course it is physically possible to kill someone without a handgun as handguns are really only advances on weapons like crossbows and suchlike but the simple fact is Guns are a piece of technology which makes killing easy
Now if you really want to kill someone you can;
Beat them to death with your bare hands.
It’s easier on average, however, to beat them to death with a brick.
You could stab someone to death with a knife.
It’s much easier to point and squeeze.
If you’re REALLY pissed it’s even easier still to just walk into a crowded area with a semi automatic and just let loose.
Now I believe that our rights as citizens are of paramount importance but I also believe that my rights end when they begin to interfere with the rights of others. I have the right to life and liberty and that includes the right not to be shot dead by some previously law abiding asshole who just happens to be having a shitty day the day I accidently scratch his car or bump into him as I’m walking down the street.
Guns DO make killing people easier. They make it extremely simple. It’s far easier to kill someone with a gun in the heat of anger than it is with a knife. And as for those who claim that a 1 shot killing is a myth then the obviously haven’t heard of Dum dum rounds.
An oft used phrase by gun control advocates is “Guns make people into Gods” and I agree with this completely. Do you want to be a god? Because you are when you walk around with a gun. You have it in your power to choose whether or not someone, anyone lives or dies What about the day you cannot foresee, ten years hence, when in a split second of rage you make the wrong choice?
Pretty big responsibility huh? I can think of many people (and I would count myself among them) who are not up to this responsibility. In fact I can’t think of anyone I’ve ever met who hasn’t lost their temper, who hasn’t been in a fight, who hasn’t shouted at someone else at least once in their life. I wouldn’t trust them with the god-like powe which they have the ability to posess. Come to think of it I wouldn’t trust anyone with it.
Let me give you a hypothetical situation
Joe Blow comes home one day, opens the door and calls for his wife. There’s no answer. He decides to go upstairs and as he goes into his bedroom he sees Mrs Blow in bed with the Milkman. Now Joe’s mad, he’s really furious, in fact he’s SICK with RAGE. He sees red for an instant, takes out his gun (which he obtained legally along with a license to carry it) and shoots the milkman dead. Now Joe see what he’s done. He’s shocked, distraught and remorseful. In fact JOE’S the one who calls the ambulance, because he’s so sorry for what he’s done. It makes no difference. His defence attourney pleads Temporary Insanity but the Judge don’t buy it. Joe Blow, sentenced to 25 years inside. The Milkman, dead.
Now this sort of scenario is not uncommon. It happens all over the country, it will happen again all over the country, that’s a fact. Now let’s replay the scene, but this time lets take the guns out of the scenario.
Joe Blow comes home one day, opens the door and calls for his wife. There’s no answer. He decides to go upstairs and as he goes into his bedroom he sees Mrs Blow in bed with the Milkman. Now Joe’s mad, he’s really furious, in fact he’s SICK with RAGE. He sees red for an instant, and he goes for the milkman, grabs him by the scruff of the neck and kicks his ass out the front door. No fatalities, the milkman got a beating and a broken nose but, bruises discounted, that’s about it.
I ask you, which scenario is more palatable?
Guns are the one thing you buy hoping you never have to use them. Well what happens ten, fifteen, twenty years down the line when, like Joe Blow, you use it in the wrong circumstances. Don’t tell me that will never happen because there is no way of knowing when you’ll lose your temper and make a wrong decision. You can’t predict the future and most importantly you can’t predict what others will do in the future. You might be on the receiving end one day, all because guns make it easy to kill.
So now, you know why I feel like I do about guns.
Before this post gets so long it overloads the page I’d just quickly like to stop here and address a point Joe Cool made a little while ago, he said:
Now the simple fact here is that in the time of Jesus handguns nor any kind of equivalent had been invented. If you had the power to point your finger and shoot someone dead in the days of the writers of the Gospels you would have been considered a truly terrible sorcerer and executed. Now you think such powers are your * right *?
In my opinion it’s a right that should never have been made available. The founding fathers made a mistake, people. It shouldn’t have been their right and it’s shouldn’t be ours now, we are not Gods and we shouldn’t have the chance to play God. Bite the bullet people, it’s not your right to play God, it never should have been.
Voice
You’ve never had to fight for anything,I mean fight, have you?
Words come easy but when you’re swinging to keep from getting the shit kicked out of you you’ll understand a little better.
What did you win? You have certainly convinced me that you are as fanatical as any of the “gun loons” you keep bringing up. If that was your goal, then I guess you do win.
You seem to contradict yourself with your own arguments. On the one hand you keep saying that the founders meant the 2nd amendment to only apply to those in a militia (with your own definition of milita of course). On the other hand you’re saying that the founders were wrong about so many things. Which one is it?
Also:
Even if statistics can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, there will still be individual circumstances where they will keep you safer.
It seems to me there are people out there (like you) who just hate guns and don’t care if others enjoy them. There are many dangerous practices that have no redeeming qualities whatsoever, but no one has any trouble allowing people to partake in these activities (drinking alcohol, smoking, bungee jumping, skydiving, auto racing, air shows, and on and on). Everyone understands that people enjoy these activities and therefore they should not be banned even if there is a risk of injury or death, whether it be to the one engaging in the activity or to passersby or spectators.
The right to own a gun on the other hand is protected by the Constitution and has some benefits associated with it. Yet because of what seems to me to be an unrational fear and hatred of guns, people want to ban them.
PeeQueue
*Disclaimer: The 2nd amendment is pretty clear to me in that it grants us, as individuals the right to bear arms. There are other societies where guns are more prevalent than here in the US and which have much less crime. I didn’t want to argue these points right now because I figured I’d pick a new angle.
Sorry, what I meant to type was “According to my understanding, in the Semitic cultures in that time, use of the left hand socially and publicly was shunned and considered gauche. Sort of akin to farting in polite company. A slap with the left hand was a rebuke for slaves and animals, an insult, a statement that you are the recipient’s social better.”
And thanks to John John, oops, I mean the Crimson Hipster Dufuz, yet another thread devolves into a pointless “he said, she said” debacle that’s nearly devoid of logic.
Sorry folks, I’m gonna sit this one out. I learned long ago not to even try to make a cogent argument with this guy. It’s just a total waste of time. Nothing you say will remain untwisted. I apologize to those of you that wished to honestly debate this issue again. It’s always one of my favorite topics and I had looked forward to participating.
I refuse to drink light beer, so the answer to this is obvious, “Tastes Great.”
See ya, John John. Declare your hollow victory now and have a mediocre day. Schmuck.
The former was used to clarify wording and debunk the Second Amendment argument made by the pro-gun side, using their premise that the Bill of Rights is an accepted and absolute grounds from which to argue. The latter was an attack on very acceptance of that premise.
I see where you are coming from in that I have a friend who says he views guns like fireworks. They’re fun to play with under safe and controlled cirucumstances, as our shooting up an old washing maching in his yard (in the countryside, up on a hill in a heavily wooded area). However, you surely aren’t serious in making a comparison to the sports and other activities you mentioned! While some of these may have killed innocent bystanders, it is impossible and quite ridiculous to imply these activities are ever used as instruments.
There are also societies where guns are absent and which have much less crime. I understand that your statement is an argument in defense rather than a lone assertion, but Dufuz has made several specific cites on specific gun-related crime figures. The generalization of other societies, then, doesn’t hold much.
In my personal experience, I’ve known very responsible gun owners and people who have used their guns successfully for their own security. But I’ve also known some severe gun wackos. My step-dad was a reserve cop, who had several 9mm pistols, a riot shotgun, several assault rifles converted to automatic, and cases of armor-piercing bullets. And that was just when I stopped having contact 7 years ago. He also had a hunting rifle and a shotgun before the automatics, so I wonder if that means hunting rifles and shotguns are gateway firearms to weapons of greater destruction?
Specifically, he (and his peers, the better financed of whom had significantly larger arsenals, often buried in back yards) was stocking up for the “great nigger uprising.” The bullets were to “pierce the nigger in his ride.” Needless to say, he had developed a few personal problems. He used to take me to gun shows and encouraged me to buy my own SKS assault rifle, which was very cheap at the time. (It was scary how easy it was to go in to those gun shows and get whatever you wanted.) Now, I don’t claim that this guy and his buddies are at all representative of gun owners, I’m just saying that these people are out there and pose a potential “threat to my rights.”
Supplying citizens with weapons is one thing, but developing and marketing bullets that can pierce kevlar, for example, is outrageous. The legality of guns doesn’t concern me as much as the relatively unfettered business of the firearm industry. I’m surprised this aspect of the gun debate hasn’t popped up in this thread yet.
I never said that, go back and prove otherwise. It’s really annoying and a shoddy debating tactic to put words in others mouths. My comment mainly was directed at post like this one by PQ
I await your retraction.
Now as I recall **Uncle Beer ** you asked for a cite. I can’t find it at the moment so I’ll retract it until I can find it.
Voice, Here’s a scenario: two thieves are breaking into your home, where you, your wife and your children lay sleeping. You are awakened by the noise, discover you have intruders, and call 911, with your cell phone of course.
But meanwhile the thieves have made their way to your children’s room. Oh damn! If only you could have bought a gun! Well, you grab a baseball bat and… uh oh, there’s TWO of them! And they have knives! You might get one of them but… best thing to do is cowar in the corner and pray they just take your valuables, harm no one, and never realize that you called for help.
And it is this scenario that has challenged me to take a gun safety course, learn how to fire, and purchase a Colt 45. No one will break into my home, where my family sleeps, and win.
And I challenge any of you who fear guns and the freedom you have to own one to do likewise. Take a gun safety course, learn all about and fire the weapon. If you haven’t already, put yourself in the scenario mentioned above.
Voice, you might be comfortable “not playing God” (a phrase I find rather silly) but many of us believe our right to defend our own lives and property, and the lives of those in our trust and care (our families) is not only an inalienable right, but a God-given obligation. The bad guy certainly has no right to take your life, or the lives of those in your care, and if he tries, it is your duty to stop him. If you chose not to, or are unable to because you couldn’t buy a gun, then may God help you.
Wrath I’d like to know how likey is your scenario, versus the already known risk of having a hand gun in your household? Do you also take other precautions, to prevent yourself form being struck by lightning, eaten by a bear, drowning?
Why do you insist on the argument that people who believe in gun control fear guns?
So, what I gather from gun debate is that gun control advocates have fears of what can happen with a continued open gun market; gun sopporters think the instances feared by their opponents can be absorbed by society.
