In all likelihood, my gun will never shoot anyone. Same for the vast majority of legally owned guns.
Unless he plans to pull the trigger on somebody, he’s absolutely right. If he sells it it is no longer his gun.
Kennedy didn’t plan on having that accident, did he?
Cars don’t kill people, drunken politicians kill people.
That was no accident. That was one human wanting to harm another. Oswald could have killed Kennedy with a bomb or a knife or a falling anvil for that matter.
Wrong Kennedy
From the 5th floor. I would buy a ticket for that.
Compared to lining up a shot with a gun I think dropping 5 lbs of metal enfused C-4 on a slowly moving convertible would involve something complicated (like gravity). Oswald could have opened up a window directly over the motorcade and dropped it.
Right. :rolleyes:
All guns owned by criminals are not stolen from legal gun owners. Just like there is an illegal drug trade, there is an illegal gun trade.
Did he drive drunk? It wasn’t an accident, it was the law of averages catching up to him. You claim the same thing will happen to gun owners, the least you could do is admit that it is largely the same thing.
Why not just consult a Ouija board? It would get you the same result, and be cheaper to boot.
First off, we are not going to change the laws of physics, so any discussion of guns no longer working or magically disappearing is fairly pointless, IMHO.
Without guns, I think things become vastly easier for criminals, not harder. Today, a criminal always wonders in the back of his mind if the person he is accosting is armed or not. Banning guns erases this uncertainty in the criminal’s mind. Instead, I want criminals to wonder if a potential victim or innocent bystander is armed.
If I were a mugger, I would much rather mug somebody in downtown Washington, D.C., New York City, or Chicago than downtown Houston. The criminals know this, too.
Yes, so we should put limits on the 1st ammendment, not the 2nd.
One standard argument I never buy is: “I’ve never needed X, so no one should have any reason to have X”. I, being male, have and never will have an Abortion. But that’s not sufficient for me to claim that no woman should ever have one.
We tend to work from our own experience, but we often fail to understand that our experience is limited and that there are many circumstances and events out there that others experience that might be different from our own.
For example, as I have posted on this board many times, I have had a firearm in my hands five times to prevent someone from breaking into my house when they knew I was there. I’ve had a firearm in my hands to prevent myself from being robbed in an isolated wayside rest. Six times that I have defended my home and my person, in which I never fired my weapon or even pointed it at anyone.
Three times for professional reasons I’ve had a firearm in my hands to prevent myself or my partner from being robbed - when I worked as an Armed Courier. Never fired it or pointed it at anyone.
If all firearms are banned, do we make exceptions for people who work in dangerous jobs or live in areas where they may find themselves face to face with bears, mountain lions or poisonous snakes? Do we make exceptions for ranchers who might need to defend their livestock from wolves or other predators? Do we make exceptions for the wealthy and the elite?
One of the things I find really galling, and exceptionally dangerous, is the UN notion that allowing your citizens (read: subjects) access to firearms is a violation of their Human Rights. If anything, I believe the exact opposite. Denying your CITIZENS access to weapons of self-defense is a violation of their basic Human Rights and their dignity as Human beings.
Governments belong to the People, not the other way around.
Finally, if we looked at any other object and said “Oh my god, look at how many people are killed by this! We have to ban it!”, we’d instantly ban alcohol, tobacco and automobiles. While we may find some ground to say that we need automobiles, at least temporarily until we can find safer, non-individualized transportation to stop the horrific slaughter of our populace, there’s simply no way that we could justify the existence of Alcohol or Tobacco - on the same logical basis as people claim there is no justification for personal firearms due to the number of deaths they cause.
Funny, I was going to use this exact same situation as a reason not to ban them. If you ban guns you ensure that 99% of women can’t defend themselves against 99% of men. And, 99% of 75 year old men can’t defend themselves against 99% of 18-50 year old men. All of a sudden, crimes against the weaker in society sky-rocket!
Well spoken.
I’m a little confused by your experience here. If you defended your home and your person with a gun in your hand, and prevented yourself from being robbed, but never fired a weapon or even pointed it, what exactly did you do?
Also a good point. However, of the things on your list, firearms (at least some types) are the only thing that are built with the specific intention of killing people.
I’m not in favor of a blanket ban on guns, but I am interested in understanding your argument better. (I also think people should be licensed to have children, but that’s another thread ;))
On the flip side, I have heard about some townthat actually passed a law requiring all of its citizens to own a gun.
Now, IMHO this may be a bit like roaches, where if you get rid of them in your town they just move to another town. This may not work as a national policy, but it shows that there is a possibility that an exhaustively armed society might be safer than if only a fraction of citizens have guns.