Ammo for the gun lobby

[Pongo]

its the man

My personal belief is we would be better off with fewer guns. But as people have repeatedly pointed out. People will use what they can get. And it can be just as horrible

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: Pongo ]

[LePaul]

I live up here in the boonies of Maine, just a few blocks away from horror writer Stephen King (great place to trick-or-treat!).  Gun ownership here is high, since we are a fishing/hunting outdoorsy bunch up here.  With all these guns, we have the lowest rates of crime with firearms.  Its more a matter of people understanding how to use and live with them, in my opinion.

On the satellite a few weeks ago, there was this thing where a guy attacked a lady with a brick, nearly killing her.  Should we ban bricks?  What about cars?  Lotsa people get hit by those.  And the list goes on and on.

Dunno, lots of people dream of a wonderful world without guns and point countless reasons why we dont need them.  And I point out that a Saturn will get them to work and back much cheaper than that big, polluting SUV they are driving  

Live and let live, I say.  Don't go fussing about what you neighbor has or what you feel they should or shouldnt have.  Everyones morals are vastly different.  We arent MAKING people buy, own or use guns, but they want to MAKE us give ours up.  Just bad manners if ya asked me    

[Pongo]

I dissagree
   

[fd ski]

Well Pongo, if every 5 year old was armed with the M60 as i pointed out at the numberous occasions, we wouldn't have those problems, would we ?

Yes, i do remember the comments about the excessive weight of M60 being issued to children, and currently NRA is looking into possibility of replacing it with much more portable one shot LAW rocket, although, some expert shooting training will be required for all kids at age of 4.

 

[Nifty]

It all boils down to this.  Do you want to punish (or mandate) to the majority to punish (or control) the minority?  The majority of people who own guns have no intention of using them to murder.  I work in a rural county for the most part, and the majority of the population here owns a fire arm.  Intentional uses of the fire arms on people are extremely rare.  Now according to some, reducing firearms and even outlawing them would reduce crime.   Ok, let's say that's true.  So to reduce crime you're going to punish everyone who responsibly uses firearms???  I strongly disagree with that action.  The means do no justify the ends is a cliche we've all heard.  In a similar vein, the means are not the cause, nor initiation of the end.  What that means is it is not the weapon that kills (whether it be gun, knife, or brick) but the person.  Punish the individual responsible, but even more important find the reasons of crime and work to prevent it from happening at the source.  Attack the problem at both ends.  Punish those who commit crimes, but at the same time work to improve society so that people won't feel crime is necessary.  Don't punish those who are responsible for the actions of a few who aren't.  People die from being hit by a drunk driver.  Should you outlaw alcohol and cars for those who use both responsibly?   We've had 4 people drown at the beach here this past week. Should we outlaw swimming year round because of it?  No, we should inform people that dangerous conditions exist, and you shouldn't go swimming in the Gulf right now, especially in unguarded areas.

Anyways, off to lunch.  Chat at ya'll later!

[miko2d]

Teachers should be armed. They are entrusted with our children for a significant part of the day.

 There is no way to ensure a maniac does not repeat something like that. In fact we can be sure it will happen sonner or later and not once.
 Not posting a guard over children is just hoping that that maniac will kill somebody-else's child, not yours.
 I am willing to take such risk with my car when I park it, not with a child.

 miko

[Nifty]

Originally posted by miko2d:
Teachers should be armed. They are entrusted with our children for a significant part of the day.

 There is no way to ensure a maniac does not repeat something like that. In fact we can be sure it will happen sonner or later and not once.
 Not posting a guard over children is just hoping that that maniac will kill somebody-else's child, not yours.
 I am willing to take such risk with my car when I park it, not with a child.

 miko

Home school your children in that case.    Actually, our schools here have "resource officers" which are active duty police officres.  It's not a recent development either, my high school had one when I was attending 10 years ago.

[mietla]

Originally posted by Pongo:

My personal belief is we would be better off with fewer guns.

The constitutional rights are not a subject of opinion polls.

[buhdman]

Banning guns is no more the answer than banning bricks.  I'm a simplie-minded kind of guy.  I take responsibility for my own life and I respect the right of other people to live in this world and pursue their happiness.  I own guns and I use them responsibly.  Would I want someone to take away my guns?  Absolutely not.  Do I want somebody trying to tell me how to live my life?  Or think?  Absolutely not.

It seems this world has turned into a contest to see who can blame the most other people for their own problems.  Finger-pointing and name-calling and demonization are the norms, in this society.  Making fun of someone who is different or making them into the "enemy" comes just as natural to most of us as falling off a log.  But I think it is highly symptomatic of what is wrong with the world today.  And it's something that I have committed my life to changing -- in myself, at least.  (Of course I'm always going to cal a chute-shooter a bastard!   )

With that said, here's Buhdman's simple-minded way to make the world a better place:

- Take responsibility for your own life (i.e., Quit trying to blame others for problems you've created.  You're the only one who can change things for yourself.  If you wait for others to do it, you'll be very disappointed in the outcome).

- Respect other people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (sound familiar) (i.e., don't stick your nose in where it doesn't belong.  Live and let live.  You'll have enough problems just trying to run your own life, let alone taking on the responsibility for all those others!).

- Teach your children to do these things.  This is where the real change will come.  Teach them so they can teach their children. Do it for your progeny.

- Be an example.

Will it change the world immediately? No.  We'll still have deal with idiots like the one who killed those children in Japan and many other's to follow.  But it will make a difference eventually.  Maybe you can't change the world, but you can change yourself.  And if you want the world to be a better place in which to live, what better place to start!

Jeezus what a f**king optimist I am   !

Buhdman, out

[Toad]

It isn't the inanimate object. It's the animate person.

Would Japan be safe without 6" kitchen knives?

Would Abel have been safer without rocks?

A person that wants to do evil will.

[Thud]

Originally posted by mietla:


The constitutional rights are not a subject of opinion polls.

OK, granted, but that doesn't imply that people shouldn't give up that 'right' for a greater good and let society benefit from their action.

[Toad]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.


"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington


"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188


"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient... The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

-- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I agree with these guys.
 

[mietla]

Originally posted by Thud:


OK, granted, but that doesn't imply that people shouldn't give up that 'right' for a greater good and let society benefit from their action.

Sure, you can choose to exercise your right or not, but so can I. This simply means that you do not have to own a gun.

But you can't decide for me.

[Thud]

Correct, of course nobody can decide for another to exercise their rights or not. What worries me though is that so much people choose to exercise that right their forefathers were given in entirely different circumstances.
I think that with the present situation regarding firearms (i.e. so much people having them without needing them) it might be necessary to reconsider that basic right now that's obvious that only few people are sensible enough to not own firearms. To be specific: I don't advocate changing the constitution (duh) but significantly raising the criteria for letting people exercise that right might be an answer. After all, nowadays people essentially don't need guns like they once did, right?

[Pongo]

I posted this thread because I read the news story and it was almost word for word one of the arguments that people on this board have posted as an argument against gun control as a way to curb the massacures that have been happening regularly now at schools in the US.
"If you take away all the guns they will bring knives" or something to that effect.
My argument at the time was that it is hard to imagine some one commiting mass murder with a knife...
well some jap read that post and decided to prove me wrong I guess.
The event does not sway my opinion. Of which I would be constitutionialy entitled too even if I was an american citizen..But maybe it will sway someone. It is however a convienent example for the gun lobby.