Until and unless, the majority of police in the United States get rid of their handguns, and start carrying swords instead, the suggestion of carrying a sword will continue to be an idiotic idea.
No, not at all. As indicated in past links I’ve provided, guns are often stolen from law-abiding citizens and homes where guns exist have a higher incidence of suicide, higher incidence of children getting injured playing with a gun and guns in homes are used during simple arguments or during marital discord. Second, until the guns can be removed from the criminal element, then their use in an offensive manner will be even more exacerbated. Therefore, for the greater good of society, guns must be removed from everyone.
Unlike some here, I am able to make modificatiosn to my positions when necessary.
Where you come up with these off-the-wall examples? A fire extingusher is not an offensive item and can not be used as such, unlike a gun.
Then why not use one of these instead?
I didn’t know that we were having a popularity contest. Given the limited participation here by a handful of hardcore gun lovers against me & my OP, I wouldn’t expect for any of the members of this group to switch sides.
Same here. Doesn’t matter to me if any of you agree or not. I’m just happy to give you guys enough rope to hang yourselves in the eyes of others. And you’re leading the charge with so many foolish examples used to try and justify your position. <shrug>
Just proves my point that the penalties are not high enough.
I’m not trying to solve all the world’s problems with one sweep. Let’s start with civilians and then deal with making the military stockpiles more secure. It still comes back to sufficiently severe penalties to discourage possession of a gun.
According to this LINK:
*Firearms injuries were the second leading cause of injury deaths, killing 28,663 people in 2000, the most recent year for which data was available. About 58 percent of the deaths were suicides. Gun accidents claimed about 775 lives that year. *
How much is the life of one person accidentally killed worth? Perhaps that person was the next Einstein?
I agree that “wishing” guns away is not a solution. That is why I call for a strong law to provide for the removal of guns from the hands of private citizens. This is not fantasy. As I said previously, people used ot smoke in offices, elevators, restaurants, etc. Some cities now even require smokers to continue moving when they smoke, rather than standing in one place in front of a building. We have made great progress in restricting/eliminating smoking. It hasn’t been easy. Similarly, it will not be easy to remove guns from the USA. But there are/will be initial small victories that will build over time into larger victories.
I don’t see what the police carrying guns has to do with stopping private citizens from carrying guns? And what exactly is the problem with using a sword as a self-defense tool anyway? Is it that you think it might be too hard to do? That it might require more practice and training than simply picking up a gun, pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger? Are you saying that you wouldn’t want to invest the time and effort in learning other means of self-defense?
Simply not true. One of the skills you learn in a good martial arts school, besides doing everything you can to first avoid a confrontation, is how to defend yourself against a variety of weapons, including knives and guns. Often, the fact that the person with the gun does not know you have training can work as a good element of surprise in your favor, if you keep your wits about you. Unless you are working against a contract killer, most criminals with guns aren’t out to shoot you. They just want to steal from you. Therefore, you will likely have opportunities to remove the weapon from their hands. And a gun is only of value if it is in your hand.
The accidental death figures from guns go against your statement that there are “very, very few problems”.
There are many ways to protect yourself without a gun. It just seems to me that too many of gun owners are lazy and want to take the easy way to address your paranoia about everyone being out to get you. If you study and practice with guns, you learn only to shoot someone or something. OTHO, if you study martial arts, you learn a lot more about life that can be very valuable AND can also serve as a means of self-defense, should you ever need to draw on your training and experience.
[QUOTE=iamme99]
One of the skills you learn in a good martial arts school, besides doing everything you can to first avoid a confrontation, is how to defend yourself against a variety of weapons, including knives and guns.
[QUOTE]
Karate a bullet sometime. See where it gets you.
Your ignorance is showing again. Training in any discipline adds many layers to one’s life. This is not exclusive to the martial arts. It seems to me that your continued harping on this means two things. You are afraid of guns, because you can’t karate a bullet, and you want everybody disarmed, so you can be the bully as a trained martial artist. Why should we trust you? You just want to kill people.
Yes, I know that is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the OP.
oops. Screwed up the coding on that one, didn’t I? 
Ha, ha! Please keep posting. Your posts make me laugh.
Your attempt at making an intelligent statement about karate and bullets shows you’ve been watching way too much TV. 
AS I SAID, in any situation not involving a contracted killer (who would either sneak up on the victim or stand at least 10 feet away from them, not ask any questions and immediately shoot to kill), someone with martial arts experience (not necessarily karate), would stand a reasonably good chance of defending themselves, through the elements of surprise and distraction. OTOH, a gun owner who didn’t have his gun in hand, would be at a severe disadvantage. Or are you thinking you are going to have a wild west, see how quick I can draw contest?
Anyway, if there weren’t any guns in the hands of private citizens, then we wouldn’t need to contend with this discussion anyway.
I value my life a lot more than I value Joe Q. Scumbag’s life, and since Joe Q. Scumbag is carrying a stolen nine-millimeter, I’d kind of like to carry something with a little bit more bang than a pocketknife.
And do you really beleive it’s annoying to have the right to protect yourself?
Guns don’t kill people. Abortion clinics kill people.
Under your plan, how would my guns be taken away from me?
Actually, I have taken martial arts. But if I become physcially disabled and I’m in a wheelchair knowing judo throws isn’t going to help me much, will it?
I’ve been in two knife fights (unfortunately, the other guy had a knife and I didn’t - but I still won. That martial arts training, at least in part)
So yes, I am WELL aware there are other options. In fact, my ability to defend myself with some of those other means has a lot to do with why I don’t particularly feel a need to own a gun myself right now. On the other hand, ANY weapon or tool or technique has limitations, which is why I like to keep my options open.
But you also have to take into acount that some of your other options are already banned in some areas. There are cities where you can NOT own or use mace or a stun gun legally, where the length of a knife you can carry is limited to a three or two inch blade, much less a sword.
Part of my leeriness at banning guns is this trend to disarm everyone completely - even when they have legtimate reasons to carry a tool. As an example, at work I have a boxcutter. There are numerous buildings in downtown Chicago where such a tool would be confiscated if security found it on me, and certainly in the jumpy days just after 9/11 it could also result in arrest - nevermind that opening boxes IS a part of my job. I have a legitimate need to have one in my possesion at work, and in fact, it was supplied by my employer.
I believe absolutely in the right of self-defense. The second ammendment gives us the right to bear arms, which is generally held to be guns but really applies to a weapon of any sort. I don’t trust the “authorities” to be there to protect me because in the past they have not been. Therefore, I must be allowed to protect myself. While I’m young and healthy fists and feet are an option - but I won’t be young forever. Which is why I want my options open.
No, I can not use my crossbow for hunting. At all. Crossbow hunting is categorically forbidden in Indiana (unless you have lost the use of one arm, making a convential bow impossible to use).
Added to that - bows, slingshots, sharp pointy sticks, and rocks take considerable strength and skill to use well. You’re far more likely to have a badly wounded animal escape, to live debilitated and crippled, suffering for days or weeks before succumbing to infection, starvation, or other predators with weapons other than guns. With a gun it is easier to drop an animal quickly. I mean, if you’re going to kill something do it clean, don’t make the animal suffer more than necessary.
A hunting gun is a tool, no more, no less. Is it dangerous? Sure. So are chainsaws. Considering banning those, too?
Actually, I find flying actual airplanes to be my favorite means of improving my visual-spatial skills, but that’s just me.
Anyhow - provided the target shooter is acting in a responsible manner, why should I deny them their chosen hobby? After all - there’s a considerable cost to society in people who injure themselves playing tennis or baseball, or who become obese because they’re sitting playing video games rather than excercising.
If no one is getting hurt (and target shooters do NOT target other people!) why should you be concerned?
Well, for starters, there are about 40 families in my area that eat only game meat - they hunt every piece of meat that lands on their tables. They’ve been doing this since they moved into the area in the 1800’s. Why should I force them to stop?
In fact, this lifestyle choice does require them to utilize the bow as well as the gun season. But that’s to comply with the law. These folks probably wouldn’t be adverse to bow hunting all year round but they can do so legally only a few weeks a year. So… they have bows, they have a couple variety of guns… maintaining their lifestyle AND complying with the law forces them to use guns for part of their hunting.
I, personally, see no harm in this lifestyle - in fact, it cuts down on the numbers of deer in this area, which are pestilential in numbers and cause numerous traffic accidents. Also keeps other forms of wildlife under control because, to be blunt, we’ve eliminated the other predators in the ecosystem. Bunnies are cute until they eat entire subdivisons of greenery and start turning up dead from starvation on your porch.
These people aren’t criminals. And frankly, I see no reason to force them to change to YOUR idea of a conventional lifestyle any more than it would be right for them to force you to hunt for your dinner.
But you weren’t talking about exceptions - you were talking about elminating ALL guns.
And how about for the disabled who CAN’T physically protect themselves any other way? Or will the state provide bodyguards for them?
Excuse me. I think confiscating private property IS a hardship.
Will you at least considering compensating the gun owners for the worth of their weapons? Or should they just shut up and be happy to endure this sort of tax?
I know some families with gun collections passed down for several generations - losing that part of their history and heritage wouldn’t be a hardship?
If we were a society run with logic, we’d realize that responsible people can own guns without becoming psychos.
Yes, there are some people who should never own guns. But a law-abiding citizen in fact has MORE right to own a gun than a car in this country… at least according to the Bill of Rights.
I’m not opposed to gun regulation - they are potentially dangerous tools. Perhaps there is a better way to regulate them than we are currently, but I just don’t buy the argument that guns are inherently evil and ownership is somehow indicative of criminality.
You have no clue about the options you are advocating. Swords, and bows? Ever try to swing a sword in a typical apartment with enough force to do damage? Most bows are similarly unusable in typical dwellings. In addition they do require more training to use effectively, in many cases years of training just in ways to use them without injuring yourself. Since all this additional training is needed I guess we can just make it part of the physical eduction curriculum in junior high and high school. What other parts of our education and growth shall we sacrifice so we can learn to properly defend ourselves.
Um, uh, dude
Its “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight”
So… you want to take away an effective means of self-defense, so people are left only with INeffective means of defending themselves?
This is logical?
Huh. Well, I guess you don’t realize that cute lil’ ol’ buck deer is quite capable of attacking and injuring a human being, do you? I mean, MOST critters are willing to defend themselves (even if you aren’t).
And if killing little animals was so damn easy how come a lot of my hunter friends come back empty-handed, even with modern, efficient weaponry?
There’s a lot more skill involved here than you are, apparently, aware of. Perhpas you should educate yourself a bit more before speaking out.
Actually, no, you didn’t “make your case” - that’s why folks are here disagreeing with you. You made a fine opening statement, yes, but in Great Debates you should expect some opposition to your stance. If you just wanted to express an opinion with no desire to do the dirty work of backing up your assertions or facing opposition you should have posted in the opinion forum.
Hey, that does sound great… would that make us neighbors?
It does happen in Kansas. There are private and small public airstrips all over that state. In fact, they’re all over all states. It IS happening, you’re just not aware of it, just as folks in Kansas aren’t aware of the mass transit system in New York on a daily basis.
Yes. I understand that a good, used C172 can be obtained for 30,000-50,000 a year - cheaper than a new Hummer or many SUVs. It costs about $1,500-3,000 a year to maintain what with oil, parts, required inspections (major repairs, of course, will cost more). My flight insurance is actually LESS expensive than my car insurance - can you believe it? Avgas is arguably much better for an airplane engine, but a C172 can be legally modified to run on autogas. The Europeans have developed a small diesel for use in aircraft that, in a year or two, may become easily available here - it runs on either diesel or jet fuel, and gets better gas mileage than older avgas engines.
In other words, a small plane IS within the reach of the middle class - if they want one. If more people owned them the economies of scale would make them cheaper.
As for transportation when you arrive - well, I could make the bicycle argument here, too - it’s not at all unusual for folding bikes to be in the baggage area on a long flight. But most airports have “courtesy cars” available for short trips. There are taxis. Shuttle busses. Heaven forbid, there’s even walking. There are lots of options beyond personal car ownership.
Are you sure there’s no airport closer than 50 miles? Because MOST airports are not the big airline hubs, they’re small affairs easily missed unless you happen to pass by them.
Maybe you do. My point was that cars are not as necessary as most people think they are. There are alternatives, and they don’t always involve taking the bus.
If the police were “handling” the situation there wouldn’t be a riot
I got it! I got it!
Let’s ban gun ownership BY MEN.
I mean, it’s mostly mean who commit crimes with guns, commit suicide with guns, etc. right?
So we let the women own guns and the men can’t. The small, weak people have self-protection, and the big evil doers will be back to fists and knives and brass knuckles.
(where’s the tinfoil hat smilie…?)
Speaking as a someone who has actually USED unarmed techniques in actual self defense instead of merely “studying” it for “many years”… I’ll take a good weapon over my own brute force any day.
Sorry to rain on your parade but being big DOES give your opponent an advantage.
“use the other person’s strength against them” - ha! This isn’t some nice, controlled sparring match or tournament where folks don’t really want to hurt each other.
If you get attacked in real life you will have NO warning, the person will NOT care if he hurts you (he may even WANT to hurt you!), and your attacker will likely wait until you are at a disadvantage (beyond size and surprise) before moving on you.
One good whack to the back of the head and your ability to fight will be greatly dimished,.
Ah… blissful ignorance.
Actually, in the UK the standard beat cop for the longest time did NOT carry a gun - for all I know, they still don’t (maybe a UK doper can fill us in on that). So the argument that cops are “supposed to be carrying weapons” doesn’t work in all places, apparently.
And really, if we actually DID get rid of private gun ownership in this country - why have the cops carry guns? After all, we got rid of “all” the guns, right…?
It’s entertaining.
Yeah. I saw that after I posted it. I thought it might slip through.
Lets start some new ones.
Never wear your sword in a disco.