Getting hacked to death by a machete must really suck…
People must always be able and willing to defend themselves or they increase the risk of finding themselves in this position:
Machetes Hurt
**Butchering of a people is caught on camera **
By Lucy Hannan in Nairobi
28 January 2000
A five-year-old boy stares at the camera in a state of mute shock minutes after being hacked with a machete on his neck – the wound is so deep that the bone is sticking out.
An old man sits forlornly waiting for medical treatment, a barbed spearhead embedded deep in his scalp.
… [Rest deleted by David B as it was a copyrighted article.]
In the meantime, as the released video evidence gruesomely shows, thousands are being displaced, maimed and massacred.
[Note: This message has been edited by David B]
interesting…we invented weapons to make hunting easier, but quickly learned how to manipulate that power to give us advantage against those who had none(or worse weapons)among ourselves.
bj0rn - owning a weapon is like committing suicide, you are not supposed to…
Guns are useless. Obviously, the original purpose of the right to bear arms was to protect the citizenry from being under the thumb of the government with its federal army. Today’s army will not be kept at bay by mere guns.
Everyone should have a small arsenal of tactical nukes in their garage.
(next time Dept of Motor Vehicles gives me a hassle about renewing my license: FOOM! Skreeeeeeeeeee! g-dunge!)
I’ve changed my mind about guns. I’ve decided everyone over the age of 12 should be required to have a gun, and carry it at all times. Currently, the only people that carry guns around are crazy assholes (like Charleton Heston). Under my system, the percentage of people carrying guns around who are crazy assholes would be very low.
Hey Cooper…Welcome to enlightened side of the debate.
Don’t worry, it is fairly easy to defend your position over here. We have all the facts and figures on our side. They seem to win over emotional tirades most of the time.
Just look at Vermont, basically any law abiding citizen can carry a pistol around. They have one of the lowest crime rates in the WORLD. Now compare that to all our cities that we have made “gun free” zones.
If you don’t like Vermont, than use ANY ONE of the states that has passed “Shall Issue” laws for concelaed carry laws. Every one has seen a benefit.
RTFirefly…
The right not to be shot with guns is the same thing as:
The right not to get hit by a car.
The right not to stub your toe.
The right not to get robbed.
The right not to be insulted by anyone.
Good idea, with one flaw. (tongue mostly in cheek here)
You’re assuming that since some gun owners are crazy assholes, all crazy assholes must be gun owners. In that assumption, your conclusion is correct.
However, I content that the number of crazy assholes currently without guns is much higher than you think. If the carzy asshole percentage of the general population is as high as the crazy asshole percentage in the gun owner population, there’s no net change.
Weeeeelllll, that might not be a fair comparison. I’d hazard a guess that most cities which have declared themselves to be “gun-free zones” did so because crime was already a problem there, and they figured (incorrectly, IMHO) that outlawing the guns would reduce the crime rate.
The only way to make a really fair comparison would be to take two identical cities (say, Minneapolis and St. Paul, for example), and make one of them outlaw guns while making the other allow concealed-carry, and keep all other city ordinances the same. Then track the crime rate in the two cities over the next 20 years. Obviously, such an experiment is impractical, because city councils are hardly willing to pass ordinances just for the sake of testing a hypothesis.
Here’s my two cents on the gun-control-vs-crime issue: It seems that for every study showing a decreased crime rate in places where concealed-carry has been allowed, there’s a study showing an increased crime rate in places where concealed-carry has been allowed. And for every study showing a decreased crime rate in areas where all guns have been outlawed, there’s a study showing an increased crime rate in areas where all guns have been outlawed. And vice-versa. I contend that anti-gun laws have no significant effect on the crime rate one way or the other. This doesn’t mean I believe guns should be outlawed – I don’t – but it does mean that I believe crime-control is unrelated to gun-control, and that neither should be an issue when talking about the other.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
If the Jews of eastern Europe had owned firearms, would the Holocaust have happened? Seems like the Nazis might have been a little more hesitant about kicking down doors if they weren’t sure what might be on the other side.
[disclaimer]I am not a gun nut. Heck, I don’t even own one. I am just playing Devil’s advocate here.[/disclaimer]
“Every time you think you weaken the nation!” --M. Howard
