Guns, the other side

[leonid]

Mav,
I believe firearms are the exception.  And, yes, that is my opinion.  Fill another multiparagraph post, it won't change my opinion.

SOB,
The only thing I find frightening is that so many American males go against the grain of logic, a logic that the rest of the world appears to understand perfectly.  A sad case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

[J_A_B]

Why not ban knives, because they're a weapon designed originally to kill people (regardless of what they're used for now)?

A gun is no more dangerous than a knife, or a crossbow.  

My former neighbor had a crossbow.  He didn't bother to keep it locked up, and one day his kids got a hold of it.  One shot several bolts at the other before I stopped them.

Stupid people and criminals are the danger to society, not inanimate objects.  A baseball bat can be (and often is) a deadly weapon--or it is a sporting tool.

Guns are a scapegoat, nothing more.  Once guns get banned, the whiners will find something else to blame.  

Do tell--what do people in the UK blame for crime, since they have baned guns?


J_A_B

[mietla]

The only thing I find frightening is that so many American males go against the grain of logic, a logic that the rest of the world appears to understand perfectly
[/b]

And what logic would that be?

[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 09-18-2000).]

[Udie]

 

Originally posted by leonid:
Rip,

Firearms were a military technological breakthrough.  Pools weren't.  Firearms were invented to, first and foremost, kill things, mostly people (military technological breakthrough).  Pools were meant to swim in for recreation.

 Actualy to split hairs here, I would consider a moat a pool    Weren't they military "tools"?  

 Udie goes into ramble mode...

 I wonder if the anti-gun people are going to be willing to use guns to get rid of guns.  That's what it's going to take. Anytime there is a persived threat to the 2nd amendment gun sales go through the roof, can you explain this?  

 In school they teach about sex, and how to have safe sex.  They justify taking this duty/honor from the parents of the kids by saying "they'll just learn about it anyway on the streets, better for them to learn it here".   Hmmmmmmmm Where would you want somebody learning about a firearm?  In school? or on the street?

 Oh yeah,  I could kill somebody with a tooth pick, should we ban em?  

Udie

[Apache]

Just out of curiosity Leonid, do you know the estimated number of times a gun is used in self defense? Between 180,000 & 2.5 million times a year (numbers depend on who you listen to. Gun control proponents or opponents, respectively).

[Cobra]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
Ripsnort - that is a senseless comparison. Since when was a swimming pool designed to kill or maim?

LOL...give a Personal Injury Lawyer some time and he'll be able to give you the exact date!

Cobra

[Eagler]

I don't own  gun. I think you should be able to if you want. THe gun is not the problem, the person with it in his/her hand is. Ban alcohol before you ban guns :0 >75% of crimes are committed while intoxicated.

What I don't understand is why people outside our country try to tell us how to run it? I don't give a crap bout UK, Finland, wherever. And I don't care what they think of the greatest country in the world, flaws and all. MAybe they jealous  

[F4UDOA]

The real difference between a swimming pool and a gun is that a swimming pool is volentary. If your neighbor buy's a pool he can't make you swim in it. If your neighbor buy's a car he can't make you drive in it. If your neighbor buy's a roast beef he can't make you eat it(In response to the vegitarian question previously stated).
But if your neighbor buy's a gun you and your family are F*@#!! as soon as he/she gets drunk and decides to use it.

BTW, Charton Heston recently admitted to having an alcohol problem. Don't you feel safer now? I feel safe.

Later
F4UDOA

[Udie]

 

Originally posted by F4UDOA:
The real difference between a swimming pool and a gun is that a swimming pool is volentary. If your neighbor buy's a pool he can't make you swim in it. If your neighbor buy's a car he can't make you drive in it. If your neighbor buy's a roast beef he can't make you eat it(In response to the vegitarian question previously stated).
But if your neighbor buy's a gun you and your family are F*@#!! as soon as he/she gets drunk and decides to use it.

BTW, Charton Heston recently admitted to having an alcohol problem. Don't you feel safer now? I feel safe.

Later
F4UDOA

 What's to stop that neighbor from getting drunk, grabbing you, throwing you in the pool and drowning you by force? I'm not a very strong person physicaly, a gun would stop him from doing that to me  

 BTW,  Chuck Heston said he had a problem because he was drinking alot more due to the fact that he was going to a lot of social functions and speaches for the N.R.A.  I believe he went to an AA program and has since quit drinking.  Why not finish the story if your going to talk about it, instead of making it look like he's still drinking. Pretty honorable of him to admit to it if you ask me.

 Chuck Heston has to be the COOLEST actor that ever existed   When I grow up I want to look like he did in the movie Midway, standing on the bridge with those aviator shades on  

Udie

[Dowding]

LOL Cobra - scary thing is you're probably right!!!  

Ripsnort, the point I was trying to make was to compare the potential lethality of a swimming pool compared to a firearm, from the view point of an unsupervised child. Like yourself, I believe a child should never be left unsupervised with either.

The thing that has always disturbed me is how easily you can conceal a handgun; makes ideal for crime at any level.

Anyway, I don't think guns should be illegal - but they should only be kept in registered shooting clubs. That way their ownership and use can be more effectively controlled; you couldn't shoot under the influence for example. Surely no-one could be against that?

Eagler - if we can't take objective criticism (at least from the viewpoint of location) on a subject, then perhaps something they say strikes a chord. No-one is seriously trying to tell you how to run your country, just how it looks from the outside.

Instructing people in how to run their country has been an active policy of the US (and Britain) for many years, by the way.

Udie - you got to admit how easy it is to kill someone with a gun - the sad thing is a child could do it. The thing that has always disturbed me is how easily you can conceal a handgun; makes ideal for crime at any level.

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-18-2000).]

[mietla]

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with sports or hunting. It affirms an absolute and unconditional right to own and bear arms.

[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 09-18-2000).]

[Cobra]

 

Originally posted by F4UDOA:
But if your neighbor buy's a gun you and your family are F*@#!! as soon as he/she gets drunk and decides to use it.

 Later
F4UDOA

Same holds true if your neighbor gets drunk and decides to use his car, but too a even greater extent.

Growing up in the Midwest, my family and neighbors did own guns.  None of us were ever harmed by guns.  My Aunt and Cousin however were both critically injured and maimed for life by a drunk driver.

From my personal experience and perspective the Drunk Driver is the larger threat.  

Now, do you ban cars, alcohol or both?  Or just enforce the laws that are already on the books?

Cobra

[Udie]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
Udie - you got to admit how easy it is to kill someone with a gun - the sad thing is a child could do it. The thing that has always disturbed me is how easily you can conceal a handgun; makes ideal for crime at any level./B]

 How fragile is life?  I've heard of people being shot point blank in the head and have a full recovery.  Others have been shot in the leg and bled to death.  When it's your time it's your time, and there isn't anything that anybody on Earth can do about it.  If the person is willing to kill somebody with a gun they will be ABLE (there's a pun   ) to kill period.

 This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to a civil war.  Which realy worries me.  I'm sure there are poloticians in DC right now that would just love that to happen too   that way big brother could come in and make us behave he way he/it wants us too, since we were obviously so incapable of taking care of ourselves.

 The fact that the 2nd amendment is so high on the list goes to show how important a right it is.  It backs up the 1st amendment  

Udie

[miko2d]

 Maverick,
 It's dolts like you that give the gun-owners a bad name. I am as pro-gun as they come but I would not want you to have one, based on the stupidity of your post.
 In his post Leonid did not put a single word of his own, just the statistical data, so he did not attempt to force any opinion. Or did he hold you at a gun point making you read his post? How else could he force anyone
 Your post is the one telling him not to post certain things (ones you don't like) and you use teh 1st amendment to justify it...
 You have no right to tell anyone what they can or cannot post.

 Anti-gun guys:
 Yes, the guns were designed as weapons. All the history of humans is history of violence. Ancient and medieval pesants could not protect themselves and had to become surfs of some lord who could protect them. The lords fullfiled that obligation when they felt like it and to the extent of their abilities.

 You suggest that we should become serfs of some goverment bureaucrats and entrust our safety to the goverment? The goverment does not have a good record of preventing crimes.
 I can guarantee that a gun is with me when I need it, but nobody can guarantee that a cop will be there to protect me.

 Whatif the goverment itself is a bad guy? Would the British government have left colonies alone if they asked politely jnstead of starting a revolutionary war? I doubt it very much.

 I am sure that if the government was successfull in taking the guns out of hands of criminals, most citizens would not bother to obtain the guns and the problem would go away by itself.
 As it stands, prohibiting guns woudl take them away from lawfull citizens and leave only criminals armed.

 Suicides - that is not a society problem no matter what tool was used.

 miko

Upon reading my post in the morning I came to regret my choice of words.
 See my post below with an appology to Maveric.

[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 09-19-2000).]

[Dowding]

Miko2d - you are talking about a British government that existed 300 years ago. Britain and the world has moved on. We have given independance to many countries this century if there was enough support for it. Britain acted the way it did back then because that was the way things were done. This in no way justifies it, but goes some way to explain it.

I don't know the law in America or the everyday situation; is a criminal more severely punished for using a firearm against an unarmed person versus an armed one? Can the average american EXPECT to be shot at any time or assaulted using a firearm? Is it that bad over there? Cheers.

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-18-2000).]