|
|
|
|
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/9/2008 7:30:06 PM | No matter where in the world you are, crazy, mentally ill people snap. Your point against gun control based upon this article from Japan, has no merrit, and no relation to your point what so ever.
Take a look at the ratio of gun deaths in the United States. Facts are facts and you can't make a good argument, regardless of your point.
Global Gun Epidemic
The US gun death rates are far higher than other industrialized countries, and among the highest recorded in the world. 2005 statistics indicate that the US had 10,100 gun homicides compared to 222 in Canada. While Canada and the US have comparable rates of homicides without guns (1.79 vs. 1.35 per 100 000), the US firearm homicide rate is 5 times Canada's (3.8 vs. 0.69 per 100 000) and the US handgun homicide rate is 7 times Canada's (2.83 vs. 0.39 per 100 000). The US also has 5.8 times the rates per 100,000 of robberies committed with firearms even though rates of robberies without guns are comparable. While some American states have regulations comparable to other industrialized countries, guns flow freely across state borders. The USA's 220 millions guns account for almost 1/3 of all the guns in the world. American guns don’t just kill Americans - they fuel the illegal gun trade and
gun violence world-wide. At least half of the illegal handguns recovered in Canada and 80% of crime guns in Mexico originate from the US. We have seen clear benefits from stronger gun control in Canada - the rate of firearm deaths is the lowest in 30 years, homicides with rifles and shotguns and the rate of women murdered with guns have plummeted. Certainly Canada's gun law is not perfect but we should address the gaps
in the system, not dismantle it. That is why police organizations - the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Professional Police Association - along with every major public health, safety and domestic violence organization in Canada support the licensing of all gun owners and the registration of all guns. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/9/2008 7:39:26 PM |
and i'm not right because i have a loaded weapon in my house. the only reason i'm right is because you can't seem to convey a mature thought.
You're absolutely right. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/9/2008 7:40:35 PM | Thanks but I don't live in Canada and last I read, the 2nd Amendment is still around.
And it's obvious to me that in Canada and Mexico, gun control doesn't work because criminals are still getting the guns. They don't register their firearms. Registering or taking them from law-abiding citizens is no guarantee that guns will not find their way into the hands of criminals. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/9/2008 7:45:55 PM |
your father was in drug enforcement for 20 years and never pulled his gun out, huh....
Actually, I was too late to edit...I really should have said, he never fired his gun. But, being on Drug Squad was very different back then in his time, than it is now.
i guess we just grew up in different environments.
Yes, you are very correct. Different countries, to be exact. My father was Drug Squad in Toronto for 20 years. And, again, a very different time, we're talking a generation ago compared to your friend.
as for the question of whether i would be willing to beat somebody up as opposed to shooting them? if i had to, yes. but it's kind of hard to beat somebody up who has a gun, or any sort of weapon, especially when you're caught off guard....
I wasn't actually talking about someone attacking you who had a gun in their hand, I was asking, if you (not you, specifically, just "you" generally) had a guy come up on the street and do anything from making a nuisance of himself, to being a legitimate threat, was all... like I said, in the old days, two guys would fisticuff it out, was all. Nowadays, wtf, if I give someone the finger on the highway because they're driving like a moron, I have to worry about them shooting me?? An exaggerated example to be sure, but valid nonetheless I figure, considering some of the senseless shootings I listen to the newscasters reporting every morning at 6am.
I do think it very much boils down to coming from different environments, or rather, cities or countries, as you said. Gun control laws are very different in Canada...I believe they are still quite vague overall, but from what I understood, one had to keep their firearm locked up in a cabinet, X amount of feet away from another cabinet that held their ammunition for said gun, also securely under lock and key. So, it wouldn't really do you much good during a break-in in the middle of the night, is what I meant.
the "i'm not going back to jail" mentality in the back of their head, how far exactly are they willing to go to not get caught?
I don't imagine this is really a "solution" in any way, but, just to toss it out there. Perhaps IF the repercussions were more severe, not as many people would be willing to either threaten or kill someone else with a gun? Or actually, with a weapon at all?? | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/9/2008 8:33:02 PM | | the states in the US that have the death penalty don't see any less crime, so i don't know how severe you want the repercussions to be. i think that's about as severe as it gets. there's work camps in texas, as well as death chambers, and it really doesn't prevent violence at all. poverty, discrimination, and abuse will always breed violence. until we fix the social problems in the country, it will continue. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/9/2008 8:34:41 PM | m409998m1
Your correct mentally ill people snap but my point is still made mentally ill people cannot legally purchase firearms.
The facts you brought up bring up interesting points however it doesnt show how many of those guns on both sides were legally owned. It doesnt show what the source material was to compile those stats and it also doesnt show how they were compiled. Also what are you qouting whats the source?
We are already required to liscense our firearms and register them. In california we are also required to go through a firearm safety course.
But guess what CRIMINALS DONT HAVE TO the weapons are readily availeble on the black market.
So if guns in this country are already registered. Whats your point? | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/9/2008 8:56:36 PM |
poverty, discrimination, and abuse will always breed violence.
Ahh...but that is just a bandaid excuse. Is owning a gun easier if you're poorer or come from a worse upbringing? If you counter that by saying poverty breeds violence, gun or no gun, then again I say...aren't there other solutions to any problems someone might encounter?
until we fix the social problems in the country, it will continue.
And, no offence, but I see that as a bandaid quick-fix, and a further excuse. I've been poor in my life, and I've had to struggle...never once did I pick up a gun hoping that would solve my financial problems though. And, there are thousands (or more probably, millions) of other people that have been in more dire financial straits, that also never thought a gun would solve the problem. In fact, I'd fancy that probably what, 99.3953539674% of the world's population, has probably never shot someone before? Or even held a gun?
If you want to use the argument that "guns don't make people dangerous, people make people dangerous", then let's give most of the human race a little more credit then, eh? | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/9/2008 11:26:59 PM | That is why police organizations - the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Professional Police Association - along with every major public health, safety and domestic violence organization in Canada support the licensing of all gun owners and the registration of all guns.
Is that truely why? I think it is because they want to control the population. These same organizations were instumental in bringing in gun control yet didn't have any idea what the result would be and actually still don't. All these statistica could just as easily be from other policies enacted around the same time such as zero tolerance for spousal abuse etc. From what i've been told Switzerland has almost no violent gun crime or breakins and they attribute that to all men having to be involved in the military and having guns at home. To me if you are going to get government to decide where i keep my rifles and what room i can keep my amunition in that is no different than you invading my home and holding me captive. My property in my home i should keep as i see fit. nobody knows my home better than me and nobody has the right to control my movements inside my home.
As far as who can gain access to guns and ammunition and fireworks etc that i have always been for. I think each gun should be test fired at the factory and the bullets saved for forensics then the authorities will be able to know exactly (to within a certain percentage, like dna) wich gun fired a bullet and follow that gun's registry. Problem is it is not the legal guns that are going to be used in most crimes and almost anyone can build their own for a few dollars. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 12:18:47 AM |
BTW, hunters, farmers, and hobby shooters at the ranges need guns
Wrong. Hunters, farmers, and hobby shooters WANT guns. They don't NEED them. That's a big difference. That would be like be saying that alcoholics NEED alcohol. Or that sex addicts NEED sex.
guns are not only used offensively to inflict harm on humans.
I never said they were. I simply said that their PRIMARY function is to destroy and/or inflict pain. I never said it had to only be humans.
- background checks don't mean 'squat' really. For example, just because I haven't killed anyone yet doesn't mean I never would ...
I beg to differ. There are many ex cons walking around with guns these days. A thorough background check can easily help prevent this. I had an uncle (by marriage) whom I found out had guns that his wife (my aunt) bought him. He is an ex con. Let's just say that after a couple of phone calls, he no longer has those guns. Now how many others are out there with them?
- Mostly, the people who follow the rules are not the ones to worry about.
Exactly. I'm not worries about the people who are not fallowing the rules. I am worried about the ones who are NOT fallowing them. And the only way to make me feel more safe is to target these individuals. And how do we do that? Not by selling guns at gun shows with absolutely no background checks, that's for damn sure.
- Too much regulations will only wind up with good law-abiding citizens being defenceless, leaving cops and criminals the only ones with guns.
Dude, that's like saying that if we lower the speed limit "too much" we would all be walking. What gun owners seem to have a hard time understanding is that limitations and laws are set into place to promote the safe practice of something. Just as traffic laws and regulations aren't established to prevent people from driving (except for offenders who do not need to be driving), proper gun control laws and regulations would not prevent people from owning and/or using firearms (except for offenders who should not own them).
No one said we need "too much" gun control. None of my suggestion would leave law abiding citizens defenseless. They are simply measures to prevent the criminals from getting them.
While there HAVE been some ridiculous suggestions in the past concerning gun control laws, it's not the ridiculous suggestions that we need to worry about being passed. We need to worry about the truly helpful suggestions that can prevent criminals from getting the guns.
Living in the south, I constantly hear gun owners talking about how their guns are used for protection. But I say that the best form of protection is a well established method of PREVENTION. This can be said for almost everything from home security, to homeland security. From the common cold to lung cancer.
Let me ask you this: If you are concerned that your daughter may get mugged at night, what would be more effective?
A. Teach her to only park in well lit, populated parking areas with security cameras.
B. Always be alert and aware of her surroundings and to immediately seek shelter or help at the first sign that something is wrong.
C. Basic hand to hand self defense training that will teach her to target vulnerable spots on her attacker such as eyes or the groin.
D. In case of trouble to yell "Fire" instead of "Help" since it's much more effective in getting people's attention.
E. Give her a gun.
Personally I would choose A through D before I would choose E. Why? Because the gun is the only one of these 5 things that can be turned against her if it fails. Most people would agree that it's better to walk away with a stolen purse than to not walk away at all. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 1:07:18 AM | | I think one of the most interesting aspects of this whole argument hasn't been touched on yet, and that is the way that guns have been glammorized by T.V. and movies. How many movies have been made about gunslingers that essentially glammorize the 'bad guy', and make the good guy look like an idiot? Shooting and killing your arch rival was portrayed as a good thing. Then along came the 'gang' movies where there really wasn't a 'good' guy, but instead one gang is portrayed as more likeable than the other, but they still shoot and kill people. Look at these rappers who portray a 'bad boy' image and make millions from it. Gun use and ownership is as much a social issue as it is anything else. Guns are portrayed as sexy, therefore those who own guns are as well. The James Bond franshise wouldn't be anywhere near as successful if the main character was a computer geek. An interesting comparison would be ciggarettes. Think back to all the TV shows and movies from the 70s where the main character smoked. It was portrayed as cool and sexy. Now, smoking has become quite taboo, and now when you turn on the TV you don't see half the characters walking around with a ciggarette hanging out of their mouth. I wonder what would happen if there was a change in the way guns were portrayed? | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 2:52:53 AM | sweetness-one, i don't see how fixing the social problems that have brought us to the point of having gun battles in the streets appears as a bandaid fix. if anything, gun regulation is the bandaid fix, and the "real" fix would be to fix the necessity for teenagers and criminals to have guns in the first place. you may not feel as though there are socioeconomical problems that lead people to violence and crime, but that's an argument for another day. my point is mainly that putting restrictions on the already law abiding citizens doesn't keep the illegal unregistered guns out of the hands of criminals. and banning guns altogether really only benefits the criminals.
and about glorifying guns... i don't know about that. that's some hippie propaganda, just like the smoking thing in movies and tv shows. are you for the guns being replaced by walkie talkies in e.t.? how far does that stretch.. bad guys won't have guns anymore? or you don't want movies about bad guys being made in the first place. or good guys, who use guns.. you want them to all do martial arts or something? or use sticks? it's a nice idea, to take the guns out of pop culture, but as long as its entertaining to the people, i don't think the government has the right to take it away. if a rap artist wants to mention his glock, or if a studio wants to make a movie about a bank robbery, thats their own personal choice, and i don't think that there should be any government intervention to prevent that from happening. people look at everything ass backwards. yes, there are guns in movies. yes they are glorified. but there are people buying these movies. nobody is forcing them to, so there is an obvious demand on studios to make movies and tv shows with guns. rap artists sell albums that are full of violence.. and they are SELLING it, which means that people are BUYING it. the bigger issue is changing that mentality, changing the fixation people have on violence. but how do you fix that exactly.. does the government step in and say hey, you can't say glock on your own cd? does it go to the studio and say hey.. you gotta replace those guns with rubber mallets? seriously, it's not the movie or cd's fault, its the demand on the market that is at fault. of course, if we listen to sweetness, there are no social problems that are causing this trend, and there are no economical problems that are breeding violence. its just a bandaid fix to look at the bigger picture...?
people have a tendency to blame. there's a lot of problems in this country right now, and if you can't see it, then you're just blind. there's a lot going on that nobody seems to consider. instead of blaming the television and movie industry on the "glorification", maybe you should look at the media as a representation for what the public wants. and then assess why the public wants that, and why they can relate to it. gas is hitting 5 bucks a gallon, minimum wage in ny state is 7.15/hour, and this entire country is in debt. property taxes are skyrocketing, and everybody who can't afford their homes are moving into cheaper, poorer neighborhoods, where crime is much more intense. we're being force fed a materialistic urge that is overwhelming, yet we can't afford the gas it takes to drive to the stores to buy whatever we're being told to buy... and at the end of the day, the stress, violence, a general discontentment for civilization is rising... and people just want more laws? less violence in movies? i don't get how people can be so close minded, to the point where they'll blame just about anything to have some sort of scapegoat. all i know is, its not the media. the media is the last thing we have to worry about. its everything else. its lack of education, poverty, and everything else that lessens somebody's chances of being a productive individual in this country. if you think that it's a bandaid fix to work on these things, then you're just another part of the problem. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 3:44:55 AM | There's always going to be gun control in the U.S. Even gun owners know it this has to be so because our laws specifically spell out punishments merited on the weapons used during the act of a crime and how that intent is defined. So we all accept that there is a form of gun control that is legitimate in that respect.
I don't think that many gun owners mind background checks either. If you are truly concerned about making it a bit tougher for just any Schmoe getting a gun, this is a tolerable procedure and only takes minutes. Here in Texas, I can get a gun in about 15 minutes after walking into a store. If you don't like the laws in your State, either try to change them or move. Ask the people who run a gun store and they'll tell you that yes, even ex-felons will occasionally try to purchase a gun through them. So the laws do work in that extent.
As a gun owner, I also believe that bi-annual gun range certification should be implemented for all handgun owners and semi-auto rifles. If you're too lazy to do this, then you really don't appreciate the responsibility that comes with gun ownership. If we have to take a driving test and pass written exams for driving a car, I think that it should also be required for a gun. We already have that for CHL holders here in Texas, but it's not really that bad to think it could be applied to everyone. IMO, the testing makes you a better gun owner. To strengthen these lessons over time can only do good. Practically all the police officers I've heard agree on this.
Let's face it. I can go down tomorrow and plunk down $150+ tax and walk out with a .32 H&R hammerless revolver that is capable of ending someone's life. I like living in a country where I have that right to own a gun, but I give great pause as to the ease by which anyone can do the same regardless of their capabilities or their intent. Besides if you really want home protection, a shotgun is always easy to buy and far more scarier to any intruder. Anyone who is willing to fire a hollow point FMJ .45 bullet through their house with loved ones nearby is clearly not taking gun responsibility seriously. (And yes, I understand that no one has made the claim here, but it begs to be said).
To those who complain about bans. It's hot air really. Besides, fully automatic rifles are not something that should populate the streets, nowadays. Besides, some guy walked into a pawn shop a few miles from here and bought a $1300 AR M15-A4. A few days earlier, some woman pawned a MAC-10 that was later sold. I saw an UZI for sale for $1200 and a TEC 9 for about $900. This country will always have guns and it's not a bleeding heart that will ever take it away. If anything, it's your government that will. And it will be done by those who sacrifice our liberty for tyranny that has disguised itself as political fervor and uses your fear as a tool by which to enslave you. You know, those same c0cksuckers who are in power now. You think you're free? Sh!t man, you're just delusional.
BTW, keep up with current events. I can buy high capacity magazines for my gun nowadays. The Brady Bill wasn't renewed a few years ago. Those high capacity clips are all over the place like they were before. They just cost less.
And to those who never lived in Mexico for a significant amount of time: STFU about it. Sure, drug cartels run that country. Big deal. Wanna know who runs ours'? Far worse, far worse.
And this whole argument is a bit mute when the OP believes that Carlos Mencia is a genius. Don't you mean Ned? Thought you didn't like thieves dude?
He sells himself as being Mexican, but the reality is his real name is Ned Holness, and he’s actually half German and half Honduran.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoQjzJWUvgk | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 4:54:10 AM |
Funny thing,though, you never hear about this on the evening news because a non-crime isn't news
I will say that if a gun is ever used for self defense, then a law has been broken. Even if nothing more than simple assult.
No, the reason that you don't hear about many successfuly being used for self defense is because it pales in comparison to all of the non successful attempts.
Firearms are used (depending on who's doing the counting) between 1.5 million and 2.5 million times PER YEAR in self defense and, in most cases, without ever firing a shot.
This is a very believeable statistic since every time a police officer pulls his sidearm, a report is made whether he uses it or not. I would venture to say that the majority of these 1.5 to 2.5 million occasions were performed by these police officers and that would be why there are actually numbers on this. Most of the rest of these are probably convenient store clerks, which I think should all have guns as protection given that they are carrying and using them legally. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 5:06:23 AM |
Thanks but I don't live in Canada and last I read, the 2nd Amendment is still around.
I'm glad you brought up the second amendment, which reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This was written in a time when the citizens of a state were the militia. And I would like to point out that even back then they understood that it should be "WELL REGULATED". This is a Strong argument for the establishment and enforcement of a good gun control program, which we are lacking.
And it's obvious to me that in Canada and Mexico, gun control doesn't work because criminals are still getting the guns.
There are some criminals who will always find a way to get guns. But that doesn't mean we should try to make it hard for them. Right now it is extremely easy for a criminal or even a minor to purchase a gun. Just look at the kids of the Columbine shooting. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 10:33:32 AM | When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
I carry a gun because a policeman is too heavy, and hard to conceal. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 10:36:55 AM | "and about glorifying guns... i don't know about that. that's some hippie propaganda, just like the smoking thing in movies and tv shows. are you for the guns being replaced by walkie talkies in e.t.? how far does that stretch.. bad guys won't have guns anymore? or you don't want movies about bad guys being made in the first place. or good guys, who use guns.. you want them to all do martial arts or something? or use sticks? it's a nice idea, to take the guns out of pop culture, but as long as its entertaining to the people, i don't think the government has the right to take it away.
Hippie propaganda???? Open your eyes and pay attention, American film has always glorified the bad guy and guns. Just one example would be the movie Butch Cassidy and the SunDance Kid, one of my favourites, by the way. In truth these guys were killers and robbers, but they were definitely portrayed as the good guys. This is not hippie propaganda, it's American culture, and you can't tell me it doesn't influence peoples views. Why is it that America has such a high incidence of gun violence compared to other similar countries such as Canada or Great Brittain ? The attitude towards guns is a social/cultural creation, and the only way it will change is by changing the social/cultural attitudes. The gun lobbyists are running around telling everyone they need a gun for protection, but they fail to mention that most police officers will tell you that a large dog is more effective as protection in your home. But, fear is a greater motivator. The fact that movies that glorify bad guys are popular only proves my point that the problem is cultural. If you think the media is the last thing we have to worry about then you have a lot to learn. The media has a LOT of influence. The media tells us what going on in the world, what's popular, who's popular, why you need certain items instead of others. I made the comparison to smoking because it is a similar situation. You used to open a magazine and see glamorous models advertising smoking as good for you. Now you don't, and smoking has become taboo, and people have dramatically changed their minds about smoking. Social pressure can bring about change, but society has to be willing to change. If people were to stop buying albums by artists that advocate violence then maybe those artists would sing about something else. Money talks, and the media plays its part by glammorizing these guys, but people play their part by falling for it all. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 11:36:16 AM | Wowsad makes an excellent point, that alot of violence in the USA comes from social problems such as poverty and the despair that results.
I do favor the right of people to enjoy hunting and target shooting--after all I am from Smith & Wesson country. But I also favor reasonable rules and regulations to make sure that some whack job doesn't have access to guns and also to ensure the safe return of a gun to its rightful owner if it is stolen. The rules are there for a reason, to ensure public safety. They are not there to confiscate guns from legitimate owners who use them for hunting or target shooting.
Hardcandylick, as a gun owner, provides a valuable perspective on gun regulations. Nicely said! Training for gun owners is an excellent idea. Smith & Wesson continuously offers training for people who buy their guns. Many police and military personnel come to Springfield for their range training.
| |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 1:01:50 PM | Here is another reason not to take away guns from law abiding citizens
http://www.local6.com/news/15982985/detail.html | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 1:49:41 PM | Wow,
lots of different opinions: just a few of my own, in response to RSwindol's A-E, I would agree, however in this day and age where a woman can get abducted at Wal-Mart in broad daylight, in view of a surveillance camera, put in the trunk of her car taken elsewhere and repeatedly raped ( happened in FL), and again in VA in front of a convenience store, I disagree after the proper training I would rather my properly licensed daughter have a firearm as harsh words are ineffective most times, nor would she point a weapon at anyone she wasn’t about to kill as I taught her to shoot to kill, (dead people don’t sue or come hunting for you when released from jail). Also an old cliché; if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns- I truly believe that. If you don’t then you may consider all the readily accessible drugs, or the people being sold into captivity that the authorities can not stop. If they can not stop these crimes do you really think they can control who owns a weapon (gun) effectively?
Just my 0.02 cents | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 2:53:04 PM | I don't have strident views on this, other than the REGULATION of guns doesn't seem any more inhibiting of freedom than other regulations a crowded society needs to at least keep a lid on chaos, from vehicle safety to professions to what you're allowed to build where.
The self-defence concept of guns is a bit of a wash, too, in my opinion. The only way a gun would be of use to me is if I carried it around in my hand with the safety off. I can't even get my phone out of my purse half the time to catch a call, much less digging around for a pistol in the heat of a surprise attack.
Finally, I still haven't seen a follow-up in the Japan case that outlines how many of the victims were killed by the initial attack with the car vs. stabbings. Frankly, a maniac with a baseball bat could likely have killed a few people who were already down after being hit by the car. A maniac with an automatic weapon could have climbed out and mowed down dozens or scores of victims. That's the difference, as I see it. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 4:11:31 PM | Hardcandylick Have I lived in mexico nope. Do I want to Nope. Do I have access to threat analisys based on the actions of the drug cartels YES. Am I aware of what is happening there in different parts of mexico such as laredo which has had 3 police chiefs executed by cartels is less then 2 years, yes. Do I have knowledge of the fact that in 1997 the entire Baja california police force was disbanded due to rampant corruption and the head of that force charged with being paid off by the cartels? yes. Do I have knowledge of entire villages wiped out and buried in mass graves by the cartels seeking a state judical police informant? yes. And lets not get started on the kidnapping cartels that thrive on the borders. Do a search and you will find all this information in mexicos own newpapers, you will have to read spanish but they are there.
And what does carlos mencia have to do about anything thats been posted? He is an entertainer plain and simple. If you think that madonna, prince, cher, jack palance, or any of the other HUNDREDS of actors, actresses, and other entertainers who change there names are using thier real names then your deluded. plus if you have ever caught a show or even watched one he never calls himself mexican I would love to see the bit where he says he is mexican.
Again how does my liking carlos mencia invalidate a post made on gun control. Thats like saying that because a DR likes watching saturday night live that he shouldnt practice surgery. Thats idiotic. grow up mate | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 5:39:24 PM | Wowsad makes an excellent point, that alot of violence in the USA comes from social problems such as poverty and the despair that results.
This is true. Violence does stem from social issues. Guns are not the cause of violence. But in any skirmish, whether it be a bar room brawl or a "he stole my girl" a55 kicking, the presence of a gun can easily turn what should be a non fatal act of violence into a fatal one.
Most of the time when people are using a gun in any situation other than recreational use, they are not going to be thinking rationally. Their judgment will be impaired by the abnormal amount of adrenaline introduced into the blood stream as a result of their escalating emotional state which caused the gun to be drawn. This is exactly the wrong time in which a person should have a gun. It is at this very moment when people do things that they will later regret.
Guns alone are not bad. But guns mixed with people's poor intentions and lack of proper judgment can be very bad. This is why it is important to be careful who we arm. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 5:45:56 PM | RSwindol says "I will say that if a gun is ever used for self defense,then a law has been broken."
Defending yourself,or your family, from an intruder in your own home is breaking the law? On what planet?
In this state we have a castle law that gives everyone the right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary and available when confronted by an intruder on your own property. We can also use a weapon as a deterrent in public if there is reason to believe that our lives(or someone elses) is in jeopardy. Interestingly enough,our state constitution also give us the right(or maybe I should say "permission") to come to the aid of a law enforcement official that is engaged in combat or who's life is in jeopardy.
The stats on how many times guns are used in self defense was for citizens,not police officers. There are about 850,000 sworn officers in the U.S. That would mean every officer in the country would have to use his firearm about three times per year. Some cops never use their weapon in their entire career. Which would mean that some cops are using theirs way too much,don't you think? Women alone use firearms to prevent sexual attacks about 200,000 times per year. Think about that the next time you're telling your daughter to yell "FIRE!" as someone is trying to throw her into a van. Although the rest of your tips are good advice. I have done some personal security consulting, but it was years ago.
And, why should store clerks be allowed to carry but not you or me? You may not feel as though your life is worth saving, but I'm not done with mine. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 6:42:28 PM | And it's obvious to me that in Canada and Mexico, gun control doesn't work because criminals are still getting the guns.
Whoa. Hold. If in the USA guns were controlled or banned, the Canadians and the Mexicans could get it from nowhere else. It's hardly likely that a hardened-looking criminal from the Watts or from Chicago would travel to Switzerland, and learn enough German or French to buy a gun in the only other country where citizens have the right to bear arms.
In fact, it's easy to say that Canadian or Mexican criminals can get the guns from the US. It's not that easy. Canadian border crossign searches for drugs and guns, with more sophisticated techniques than any layment could imagine. I have no statistic on this, because they're not published, but maybe one out of 100 intended or attempted gun smuggling is successful. It's just like importing dope: Some think it's easy, but every drug runner has been to jail, and contrary to popular belief, many have given up running drugs, because life in jail is not nice. Many people have given up running guns, and even manier than that never started because they foresaw the difficulties with the border guards.
So if Canadian criminals could get their guns in the US, as easily as the US criminals, then the crime rate involving guns would be the same. The Canadians enjoy a lifestyle and earning potential similar to those of US denizens. And then what could possibly stop them from getting as many as they wanted? Well, the border crossing. They have much fewer guns circulating in criminal circles in Canada than in America. And lo, the murder rate is lower. Is that a coincidence? I hardly think so.
In conclusion, if there are fewer guns, there are fewer gun related crimes.
Coincidentally, if there are fewer guns, there is fewer murders. (Because it's harder and more work to kill someone with bare hands, with a knife, with hand-to-hand combat, than with a gun.)
Coincidentally, if there are fewer guns, there is less crime. (Because the lack of guns also deprives people of the incredible feeling of empowerment that gun ownership can give, such as keeping a loaded gun in your desk and itching to use it one day, perhaps on foreigners or aliens who say immature things.) | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 6/10/2008 6:57:44 PM |
wtf, if you give someone the finger on the highway because she's driving like a moron
This was never a problem when a female co-worker used to drive us four guys to work inna carpool. We voted her to drive, because we liked that she drove like a moron; and she was willing to pay the gas. On Tuesdays I was in the co-pilot seat.
We were working in furniture sales, and I got the best sales on Tuesdays. Provided I greeted the male customers with a handshake as they walked into the store. Oh, and yes, I had to stay away from washing my hands on Tuesdays. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 15
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
|
Home
login 
