You’re actually using a fictional TV show as a citation in a debate?
That’s taking acecdotal evidence to a new low.
Kindly back this last statement up with some real life examples or statistics. Those would be the ones that didn’t happen on the shiny box in your living room. Then come back here with those examples, and we can discuss them.
:dubious: Do you have a particular obsession with the 182 or something? A C172 is cheaper and adequate for the needs of many pilots. Unless I was planning on towing something like a glider, or doing heavy cargo hauling (not on a professional level, mind you, for profit, more like hauling groceries in Alaska) I’d stick with the C172.
Also, while age can be a factor, these aren’t cars. The best Cessna I’ve flown was a 1963 model, and if that one particular airplane ever came up for sale I’d buy it. Although the 2004 models are very snazzy and have that “new airplane” smell, I really don’t seem them as enough of an improvement to justify the $185,000 asking price. As time went on the models became heavier and heavier, which degraded speed, payload capability, and performance. The 1963 model C172 I flew, for instance, had only basic VFR instrumentation, with a panel mount GPS added recently, but wasn’t loaded down with multiple radio stacks, Loran, etc. all of which add weight. It also had manual flaps, which I prefer over electric. With the lighter weight, it had a better climb performance and could actually carry four adults and full fuel without going over gross. Newer isn’t always better.
Although I love the C150, I’d be reluctant to buy one because most have suffered decades of abuse as trainers. If I could find one that hadn’t been used as a trainer I’d consider it, but those cost more than $20k
And what, pray tell, is “cheap”? Airplanes last decades when well maintained, unlike cars. Which is why there are so many planes built in the 60’s and 70’s still flying today. You don’t trade 'em in like you do a car - you buy one and keep it for a long, long time. Looked at over the long haul this isn’t so outrageous.
I didn’t say it was a casual purchase - I DID say it was within reach. If someone can drop $40k on an new SUV every 5 years (or even more frequently) they can afford to buy an airplane if they want to do so. It might, however, mean keeping that SUV 10 years instead of five so they have the money to make the airplane payments. Which is why you see a lot of 10, 15, and 20 year old cars parked next to hangars at your local airport.
The real reason people don’t do their own flying and don’t buy their own airplanes is that they aren’t motivated to do so. They spend their money on other things they want more. Like a new car. A bigger house. Or perhaps a nice gun collection and some quality days at the range or out deer hunting. Which is one of the great things about this country - you don’t have to do what every else does, you do get to make real choices about how you spend your time. At least for now.
Why should laws be absolutely uniform across a continent-spanning country?
Different states have different environments and different needs. What works in an urban inner city may not be practical in the backwoods of Alaska and vice-versa. There ARE people living in wilderness and rural areas who have legitimate need for guns, why should they be prevented from owning them merely because they are a minority?
OK, every time you start making sense, you say something that makes my ears smoke. “Allowed” to be stolen? If you allow someone to take something that’s called “borrowing” or “a gift”. If it’s stolen, by definition it’s not allowed.
And I have a severe problem with you advocating that we lock up a crime victim.
You have a VERY strange sense of right and wrong…
No, it’s not. My husband is disabled. He can’t run. He can’t do karate kicks. This is not an academic issue in my household.
As the baby-boomers age, more and more of them will become disabled. This problem will only grow as time goes on.
Correct. Which is why I support the option of gun ownership for responsible citizens. For some people it IS their best choice.
Perhaps that is justifiable in some cases. I am at least willing to consider the possibility. Although a motorized wheelchair can cause some heavy damage in and of itself.
Then again, such completely debilitated people frequently require the constant presence of a caretaker. Perhaps we should give bodyguard training and handguns to those folks. I don’t know. It’s an interesting problem to discuss.
But many of us here are NOT convinced that you have made your case. Our system was founded by people who valued individual rights extremely highly. I agree with them. You have to have a VERY high standard of evidence providing overwhelming proof that the benefit of your restriction would far, far outweigh the damage done by restricting individual choice and liberty.
IF the banning and confiscation of guns would eliminate murder I might agree with you - but it won’t. Plenty of murders occur without the use of guns, and would continue to do so. As has been pointed out, MOST of the guns in this country will NEVER be associated with a crime at all.
Which is why the issue of cars was brought up in the first place - banning cars would, arguably, save 40,000 lives a year. However, some of those people would still die of other causes - train accidents, getting kicked by a horse, falling off a bicycle, whatever. The ban would ALSO severely impair the mobility of most citizens. Thus, our society has decided that the benefits of banning them do NOT outweigh the detriments and thus those 40,000 deaths are somehow acceptable casualities.
Likewise, there is a large contingent of people in this country who derieve some sort of utility from guns (outside of the criminal class) and repeating “But… but… 11,000 people a year DIE from guns” is not going to convince them otherwise. For one thing, a lot of those “gun nuts” don’t live in areas with a lot of gun crime - so they are very unlikely to be a victim of it. In fact, guns are most hazardous to young black males living in large urban centers - if you’re white, female, and living in Wyoming the odds of you being shot are extremely small even if you’re surronded by guns.
So, you see, by my reckoning it’s not the guns that are the source of the problem. There are plenty of places where guns are plentiful were there is NOT gun crime. So something else + guns is what the problem is, and if you could discover what the “something else” is, it might be more effective to elminate that. Frankly, I think a high density of impoverished people jammed into a small space is the biggest contributer to crime - high densities of poor people were associated with crime long before guns were invented. And population density is key, here - because when poor folks are spread out they tend to be law-abiding, even when they own guns. Nor is it a dense population alone - wealthy folks can live next to and one top of each other without going berserk. So to my mind it’s the combination of dense population, poverty, and guns that generates the crime and carnage, not any one of the three alone.
But if you left the dense urban population of poor folks in place, and took away their guns, you’d still have a crime generator and they’d just switch to other weapons. Sure, fewer people might die, but you’d have just as much violent crime, and probably more people left maimed. While that might be a marginal improvement, I’d prefer to turn off the crime generator rather then just treat the sypmtoms.
Yet, despite the fact we have roughly as many guns as cars, cars kill 4 times as many people. Is the death rate from firearms really that high? Sure, absolute numbers they are - but you’re talking out of a population of 300,000,000. More people die of flu in a year than firearms.
I don’t mind reducing the number of firearms deaths and injuries, it’s a worthy goal, but your method is like reducing drunk driving deaths by banning the automobile.
Unlikely. I speak from experience. Sure, you may be able to knock a big guy down long enough to run away, but you’ll probably run away with some injuries - IF you can do it at all.
This whole “using the other guy’s strength against him” is very nice theory but practice is MUCH more difficult than you might suppose.
And, really, there is nothing preventing your Bad Guy from having studied martial arts, too. If he has, his bigger size and stength WILL be an advantage.
It’s easier to aim and fire a gun when injured than to effectively use martial arts when injurned. Life is not a Hollywood movie.
Right… police in London just have to deal with terrorists building bombs and refining ricin inside the city limits…
There are more weapons than guns. If you take away the guns, the criminals will use other weapons. Which is better - a pipe bomb or a handgun?
You just said, in that same sentence, that no one has figure out have to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Even if you ban guns the criminals will still have them. This is something the City of Chicago - where all handgun ownership had been illegal from the 1980’s - still hasn’t figure out. Why are there 2 or 3 shootings a week in Chicago where no one is supposed to have any handguns at all, and maybe 2 or 3 in an entire year where I live, out in the suburbs, despite Indiana having some of the most liberal concealed carry laws in the nation? Banning guns does NOT stop crime. The experiment has been done in multiple locations in this country, it doesn’t work. They only thing that happens is that law-abiding citizens are victimized by gun-toting thugs. How is THAT “the good of society?”
Well, at least you have SOME sense… and no, that wasn’t “reading without comprehension”, that was a genuine question.
Not a fire-extinguisher, but Chicago has had thrown rocks used in drive-by crime. And people have died in drive-by “rockings”. Maybe we should ban rocks? Bricks, too - let’s ban those. Of course, that means having to knock down a lot of buildings to keep bricks out of the hands of people but it’s a small price to pay for the good of society!
The problem, as I see it, is CRIME. You’re attempting to treat a symptom - gun injuries and death - rather than the source of the problem.
And just for the record - put me down as another person who is flabbergasted you used a TV show as a cite in a debate about gun control! News flash: NYPD is FICTION
What’s the matter Moto, bored with Bearchat?
Umm, you might want to scan back and see the reference that one of your cohorts used about Wally Cox and Xena <lol>.
Why are so many people reading comprehension challenged here? Is that a symptom of being a gun proponent? Does owning a gun, kill brain cells? Or is it lost brain cells that make you want to own a gun?
I was not using a fictional TV show as a cite. I was using an example of what can go wrong when using a gun in an apartment setting that HAS occurred in real life. A quick Google search turned up a few examples (below). I’m confident that a deeper search would turn up many more incidents. If you think something is incorrect, then prove it wrong, rather than immediately spewing a BS post. Don’t depend on me to do your research for you.
Man Arrested After Firing Weapon Through Apartment Wall
“Off-duty cop accidentally shoots neighbor through apartment wall,”
This thread is not for your personal discussion on airplanes or whatever. Go create another thread or exchange emails instead of such blatant hijacking here.
I’m going to have to stop replying to your posts if you keep on taking things out of context.
How many times do I have to REPEAT the same theme for you? Because there isn’t any practical way to stop criminals and such from misusing guns to kill and injure innocent victims, then the best solution, IMO, to drastically reducing this problem is to take guns away from everyone. What is not clear about this statement? Will it inconvenience some law-abiding people? Surely. But that’s the price that has to paid.
You own a potentially deadly weapon. Someone steals it. Yes, you ALLOWED it to happen and must be held accountable. You did not have absolute control of your deadly weapon. Too many people these days refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. Yes, the criminal was wrong to steal the weapon. But it is your responsibility to ensure that doesn’t happen.
I understand what you are saying, but again, as per your prior statement about sneaking up on someone and whacking them in the back of the head, this is doubly easy to do to someone who is disabled. So actually, disabled people possessing weapons would me more of an exposure.
You and others are entitled to your own views. We disagree on the solution(s) I have proposed and it appears that “never the twain shall meet”. While it is wonderful to look at a gun as an inanimate instrument where people pull the trigger, in the short-term, it is impossible to change human nature and out built-in violent streak. So again, the most expedient and only viable solution is to remove guns from society.
Well, you’re not trying to kill someone if you have to use martial arts training. Disabling or surprising them long enough to get away is all that you are trying to do. And if you get injured doing so, we’ll at least you got away. Surely, you learned this in your studies?
Believe me, if I hit you upside your head with a baseball bat or something, you WILL NOT be reaching for your gun.
Again, REPEATING what has gone before, if the penalties are strong enough, then criminals will not use guns. All the experiments have failed because the penalties haven’t been strong enough.
Another attempt to introduce off-subject analogies. I don’t care about ROCKS. Go drive an armored car if you’re worried about this! This thread is about banning guns because they cause too many deaths and injuries when used in an offensive manner AND it is too easy for someone to use guns offensively. Sure, the overall problem is crime. Do you have a solution for stopping crime in general? Suggest you start a thread on this subject if you do. Though I think you’ll wind up concluding that the ONLY solution will be severe sentences, including frequent use of the death penalty.
Flabbergasted? Perhaps if you took the time to put a little (actually a lot) more thought into your replies, you wouldn’t look foolish like Mr. Moto, whose reply to that I made earlier also applies to you.
Except for some of the absolute shortest blades that could be called a sword are going to be nearly worthless in any typical residential setting. Almost anything that requires physical force also requires room to use it.
Any gun? Can I use my Taurus PT22, after all its just a .22. Am I allowed +P loads in my Glock since I’m in a brick house. If you need to defend yourself, you will only get one chance if any. You go for the one thing that is most likely to work under the greatest variety of circumstances.
No I wouldn’t… I would not follow the new law and I would not turn in my weapons.
So I ask again… how will my guns be taken away from me?
By iamme99: “Again, REPEATING what has gone before, if the penalties are strong enough, then criminals will not use guns. All the experiments have failed because the penalties haven’t been strong enough.”
I can’t agree with this. Penalties are currently pretty tough for armed robbery, yet hardly a day goes by in any medium to large city when one or more armed robberies doesn’t take place. Do you suggest the death penalty for gun possession?
I think the fact that a citizen might have a gun is more of a deterrent to crime than legal penalties. If the robbers can be fairly confident that their target is not armed, they will proceed with glee beyond measure.
Shoot. I had a perfect rebuttal all ready to go. Broomstick, I disagree with you about airplanes, but every thing else has been pretty much spot on…
Actually, he does! See pages one and two. The death penalty for possession of property is being seriously advocated.
On your second point…the UK is currently showing a tremendous upswing in what are called “hot” burglaries, ie ones that take place while the victims are home. Police directly attribute this to the knowledge that the British people no longer have guns in the home.
Iamme99, once again you almost made sense, but then threw it all away. Instead of looking at the roots of violence, and attempting to solve that, which by the way would reduce all types of interpersonal violence, you want to blame the victims and trash everybody’s personal rights in an attempt to treat what even you consider a symptom. Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage. Reread Broomstick’s last post…she is making more sense than you have obviously seen in awhile. 
The part that I bolded IMO is the crux of this whole argument. If you accept the truth of that statement, then gun control, the Patriot Act, the WWII Japanese internment camps, the banning of books, and any other stripping of someone’s rights are perfectly acceptable and appropriate in the right contexts. That sentence can even justify the institution of slavery as long as it’s for the “common good.”
Fortunately the basis of our Constitution rests on the concept that individual rights are supreme over the interests of the “public”. You are going to have to convince me why that’s wrong before I can seriously consider your execution-of-gun-owners idea.
I’m just struck by the juxtaposition of these sentiments. If the correct solution to private (even non violent) ownership of guns is public hanging, why is there something distastful about applying that solution to violent crimes which have actually occured? Anyone else think it is because our friend has an irrational fear of guns?
Well, then I guess you would be categorized as a criminal and the authorities would have to take the matter into their hands <shrug>. And btw, whether you agree or not is immaterial to me, so no need to go further on this line.
One, I don’t think the penalties are tough enough. Two, in general, the courts don’t mete out maximum sentences for first or second offenders. Three, no death penalty for possession. However, using the weapon might very well be another story.
This old argument has been around forever. It’s a slippery slope. If the criminal gets bigger and badder armament, then the law-abiding citizen wants access to the same armament. It becomes a never ending escalation. As I have said previously, the value of a weapon is only when it is in your hands and you are prepared to use it. As has been said by Broomstick, if someone surprises you, comes up behind you and shoots you or whacks you on the head with a big stick, your weapon is useless. In fact, after surprising you and taking you down, the criminal might well steal your weapon.
I’ve learned in this world that what makes sense to one person does not necessarily make sense to another. Too many people lack the education or intellectual skills to step back and honestly evaluate emotional issues such as this one. I’m seeing a lot of that here. While some of my statements may have not been as crisp as I would like, due to the excessive use of hyperbole, spurious examples and taking sentences and even individual words out of context, I have been forced to respond to a lot of unfocused thinking that has popped up here. This severely diluted what I wanted to communicate.
I agree that it would be wonderful to solve all crime in one fell swoop. However, taking human nature, history and reality into consideration, the likelihood of that occurring anytime soon is about the same as the proverbial snowball in hell. Calling for a solution to crime is unrealistic, essentially meaningless and appears only to be an attempt at distraction. We have to segment problems and try to deal with them one at a time within the bounds of the reality that we live in.
As I said to Broomstick, if you have some solutions in mind for eliminating all crime from society, then by all means, go start a thread on it. I’m confident a lot of people would be interested.
People have fertile imaginations. You can take any proposal and extrapolate to many extraneous exceptions and examples. This thread has nothing to do with internment camps, banning books, or slavery and I take issue with your attempt to introduce clearly spurious examples such as these into the thread.
The issue we are talking about here is guns. Specifically, would banning guns benefit society by reducing and eventually eliminating many, if not all, murders, injuries and accidents caused by too easy access to guns without undue imposition on individuals. I stand by my contention that what is good for society, in general, trumps what is good for the individual.
The Constitution has been called a “living document”, meaning that it is subject to modification. For instance, GWB and his right-wing constituents don’t see any constitutional issues with calling for the Constitution to be modified to ban gay marriage, ban abortion, outlaw flag burning, balance the budget, etc. In the same vein, I don’t see any problem with eliminating the 2nd amendment. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I believe banning gun ownership would be a positive for society with little or no downside of any significance.
No, I don’t see any slippery slope here. If a thug thinks I might have A GUN, he’s likely to seek easier pickings. I don’t need a bigger gun. Just a gun.
I don’t think me and thee are going to work out our differences on this issue.
Peace, Bro or Sis, as the case may be.
I deleted a whole screed on rights not being additive, but decided that that would lead us down a whole 'nother path.
The problem is that you propose a thesis, and then offer no evidence to support it other than your own imagination. You blithely dismiss challenges to your thesis without counter-argument, and ignore counter-evidence. Your initial contention is, in addition, a non sequitur. You consistently confuse correlation with causality. If #guns is directly related to gun accidents and murders, then an increase in guns freely carried in society should show a proportional increase. It doesn’t. Checkthis thread thread for a number of very interesting statistics, by both sides of the argument.
Debates need evidence. So far, you haven’t utilized the evidence available to you. You will still be wrong, mind you, but you will make a much better showing if you back up your thesis with some facts, not just conjectures.
Besides, you know we are never going to agree on this. But if your purpose was to try to convince the casual reader, then you need to do a better job of it. 
Ack! I hate it when I screw up the coding!! Anyway, do a search for “concealed-carry.”