Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Stray__Cat
Joined: 7/12/2006
Msg: 232
for the gun control peoplePage 11 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Time to tax assault rifles.
It is legal.
and constitutional.

I recommend 1,000,000 per rifle.
:-)
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 233
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 11:14:33 AM
"each one of those reasons to own an assualt rifle is valid"

Hahahaha! Not really, those are desires, what you want to do with them, not reasons!

"The law does reflect the majorities desire, and our rights as Americans"

No, the law was written 236 years ago. It has not been updated or modified since then, to reflect the change in firing rate, or the state of our growing population.

"where does it stop?"

Stop acting like this only affects you, and think. Most people don't want to impede those who want their right to own a gun. They want to feel safe, be safe where most people should be safe, schools, malls, and any place where people gather. You can own all the guns you want, you just don't need to able to fire 100 bullets a minute.

"Take away 30 roud clips and there will be none in our country"

Obviously wrong. They will be in the hands of law enforcement and the military, where they belong. Not in the hands of civilians, or criminals, or the mentally ill.

"If we were forced to defend against foreign invasion"

Oh I see, you're going to hold off the communist chinese horde!! lol We are spending hundreds of billions on the military. "They" are supposed to "defend against foreign invasion"! Beyond which, we have radar, missiles, subs, aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons for that... As I said earlier, if you took these weapons off the street, you'd still have 299 million guns to defend against "the invasion"...

"This is "progress", just like the auto and cellphone and pc"

Yes, but even with progress, we change and modify the laws that govern those things. You have had changing speed limits, stop signs, registrations, insurance for cars. Even given that, autos,cellphones, pc's don't kill people, guns were designed to kill people!

"Why is mental health not a bigger issue here?"

Agreed, why isn't it? Why did you guys support romney, who wants to trim spending on all social spending. Many mental health programs would have been cut had he been elected. Funny 2 months ago, you conservatives, were all about cutting spending on social programs, the dept of education...NOW you want to spend an additional $5-6 BILLION on arming people in schools.

You guys talk about 'responsible gun ownership', well the mother of the shooter was supposedly a 'responsible gun owner'...she took her mentally ill son, and boosted his confidence by taking him and teaching him about shooting these weapons...in hindsight, not so responsible.

Not all people who own guns are bad. At the same time, not all are good.

"The gun didn't do it"

The "gun", gave him the ability to inflict maximum harm. The problem is always the same one. You guys want to make a specious argument, like the rope didn't lynch the guy, the people did. But unlike the rope, the knife, the wrench or even the car...they wern't designed to kill people, they can used for that, but not their intended purpose. Even with a car going 60 miles an hour, you have a chance to jump out of the way. Not so with a bullet!

As for another posters contention about violent video games. They have them in other countries, and they don't have the number of mass killings we have. So another deflective argument, that the brainstormers at the NRA, is debunked...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 234
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 11:14:59 AM
The study discusses per capita murder overall, not just gun deaths.

One additional note on how they "stacked the deck"... The homicide numbers they used ALL came from the mid-'90's, the period during which their Eastern Europe comparators were experienceing their greatest levels of social/cultural/political disruption, the peak of their most chaotic state...
 outlaw4200
Joined: 12/15/2012
Msg: 235
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 12:35:13 PM
um, lily, we are a democratic republic... ok, the romans were a democracy, meaning mob rule, kind of like bowing to a queen. the feds may trump the states, but the states still make their own laws regardless...
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 236
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 1:35:15 PM

The courts have ruled over and over that measures like taxation, allocation of public finances, neighborhood zoning laws,etc. can't be used as a front to take away the spirit of rights found in the constitution.


Actually, the NFA (National Firearms Act) already allows for the taxation of certian types of firearms.
 billingsmason
Joined: 2/3/2012
Msg: 237
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 2:27:55 PM
yes individual states decide on the particulars of gun law. thank god, or allah or whomever you'd like.
the reason for that is things are different in different states.
compare southern alaska to southern florida, or MT to NY.....

military weapons are a different make and duty capability. if someone uses a gun day in and day out, it is much better to have one that is built to survive, easy to use, easy to disassemble, clean, and one that will stay accurate.
home owner models do not compare to military spec machines.

any nut job can buy a shotgun shell, a pair of pliers and a hammer.

to someone that sees all guns as bad- there will be no use to owning any gun. thankfully they will make allowances for us that enjoy having them. I see a big comeback on blunderbuss' and boom sticks.

with the same argument- why do they make cars go faster than the speed limit? 75 is the highest allowed by law, so why do all car manufacturers make their cars go above that?

yes our laws aren't made by the latest internet poll. think if we followed the latest fad- how many amendments would our constitution have?

ov- I am getting more and more conservative as I get older. when you say things about who I support in the political realm- it shows you have no idea what you're talking about. last post was a bit more thought out tho- keep trying

mung- sure the study is not 100% on topic, but I have no idea what even constitutes a great way to look at this subject without adding bias to it. Harvard was a more reputable source than many of the other sites I saw. many gave conflicting numbers within their own research. this one stood out because they looked at homicide rates in countries that didn't have access to firearms: ie choking, beating, stabbing ect....
and they addressed a valid point: if more guns equals more deaths....


a gun is a tool.
not everyone sees them as such.
I'm not trying to tell others how to see the world or live their lives.
Nor do I want anyone telling me how to live or what to believe.
 tallshyman
Joined: 1/1/2008
Msg: 238
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 2:33:08 PM
I will buy a gun before I can not buy one anymore
 onecoolM8
Joined: 12/1/2012
Msg: 239
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 2:45:20 PM
Unfortunately American history has been littered with examples of massacres , mind you not involving young children as Newtown, and because of this latest tragedy you are now seeing a country now divided.

There is no reason to believe that a country born from a revolution and a second amendment right to bare arms that this is going to change, its going to take a act of bipartisanship that's not been seen before to change this.

My opinion is Congress should out law rapid fire technology ( forgive I'm not a gun owner ) so If I get the term wrong forgive me.

You're not going to change the constitution which allows their citizen to bare arms, mind you when the forefathers wrote the constitution they didn't have guns that can fire 25 rounds per second.

The N.R.A didn't exactly do themselves a favor by their news conference blaming everyone ,I think the only thing missing was they didn't blame Adam and Even and King George ,I found it laughable that they said they urge Washington to put two armed guards in each school, well the Violence policy center refuted that statement by pointing out there were armed guards at Columbine and we know what happened there.

What was most disturbing was they said the President of the United States is protected by armed guards, why shouldn't our children be protected by armed guard, first thing that is a unfair comparison and is Non sequitur.

I have no respect for the N.R.A, I understand that in the American Constitution you have the right the bare arms, I get it but why guns that shoots out multi bullets per second, that I dont get.
 Holly63
Joined: 2/4/2011
Msg: 240
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 2:50:05 PM
All I want to add is that I hope the US seriously does consider adopting our Australian gun laws.

I do understand, however, it would be a massive operation considering yours and our population difference but definately worth while.

Our gun amnesty came into place in Oct 1996 where owners were directed to surrender their firearms. They were either confisctaed or bought by the Govt. The only civillains who can now legally own a firearm are farmers (for the sake of feral animal control), hunting/shooting clubs and collectors for ornamental purposes.

Civillian owners had 12 months to surrender them, no questions asked. It came about after a lone gunman shot and killed 32 people in a cafe and its vicinity in a popular tourist spot. The gunman is allegedly in prison for the rest of his natural life.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 241
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 3:11:13 PM
@438 "but I do believe they are helping drive sales"

That's a sad tale. Some guy who sits playing video games most of his time, goes and buys assualt weapons. Most of those guys are not what you call "outside active"...so what, does the guns sit and collect dust? I guess the answer then is, in other countries, you CAN'T run right down to the store after 20 hours of "call of duty" and say "hey mister, give me the all inclusive set, with the grenade launcher" now can you? Poor deprived video game players in other countries, they don't understand what they're missing...no Newton's for them!

"I am getting more and more conservative as I get older. when you say things about who I support in the political realm-it shows you have no idea what you're talking about"

Well since the democratic party and it's platform would hardly be considered conservative. It does lead one to assume you would support the party that most alligns with your viewpoint. I'm fairly sure there are more republicans in the NRA than democrats. Now if you lean conservative, that usually means ou support them, ergo my opinion or conclusion on which party would garner your vote...

"the reason for that is things are different in different states compare southern alaska to southern florida or MT to NY..."

You can do that, and there is a difference. Though most gun owners or buyers, will not see it that way. They want the same blow em up shit the alaskans get!

"military weapons are a different make and duty capability. if someone uses a gun day in and day out"

Hmmm, well my question would be who uses a gun day in and day out? I can see law enforcement, or the military...but the average joe? What makes him use "a gun day in and day out"? Running off wild herds of moose in southern alaska, before being trampled? No I hear they tend to travel alone or in small groups...or the bears? gee, that makes me think of that ETrade commercial where the baby says "you know what the odds of winning are, the same as getting attacked by a polar bear and a regular bear in the same day"...

So what non-law enforcement or military job, causes a person to use a high capacity magazine in an assualt rilfe with a 100 round a minute firing capability day in and day out?

You know, on another thread, and even this one I think. There is a poster who keeps asking for a solution from the left...now what strikes me as funny about that is this. We have listed a number of ideas..BUT, we aren't the ones who want guns...shouldn't those who WANT them, be coming up with all the ideas, to keep their blessed guns?

"Nor do I want anyone telling me how to live or what to believe"

Then solve the problem, without arming teachers, janitors an principals...perhaps a tax on gun owners to pay that $5-6 billion to provide guards in schools...I mean one poster on the other thread said he doesn't want to use HIS money to pay for someone ELSE'S mental health...so why should we get soaked so you guys can have guns?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 242
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 3:23:13 PM


But please, do tell us why you think Switzerland is an anomaly...


…Because to spite a gun ownership rate of 45.7 (second highest in he sample) it had the 4th lowest overall homicide rate at 0.7. (Since the firearm death rates include suicides, lawful homicide, gun accidents, etc, it ought to be excluded from the analysis, as it is a natural assumption easily shown that higher firearm ownership would naturally correlate to more firearm deaths. Notwithstanding that, the Swiss firearm death rate is only 50% higher than the mean firearm death rate for the sample (2.1), while having a gun ownership rate of almost double the mean.)

Iceland looks like a bigger anomaly, but owing to the extremely small population, huge variances from the norm could be expected and any major differences in that regard should be disqualified on that basis. That said, Iceland (at an uncritical glance) looks to be the best of the bunch, with the lowest overall homicide rate in the sample, and with a gun ownership rate well above the mean. It may well be worth our while to look at Icelandic society as well.

I'd like to analyze the data you presented and whatever relevant additional data that may be available from that source. From where did you obtain it and can you give me the URL?



Why is it that people who don't really understand statistics think that objecting to one number invalidates the entire connection (or, if it fits, why do people who do understand statistics think they can pull this obfuscation and get away with it)...?


I have no idea. Who was doing that?
 billingsmason
Joined: 2/3/2012
Msg: 243
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 4:20:29 PM
country folks use guns on a very regular basis.
almost every state has country.
you might be surprised at how many people own a pistol with some holster wear.
if you've never been in the situation to need a gun, then your frame of reference is going to point you in the direction of not needing one. if you have been in a spot or two when a firearm made the difference, or would have..... then you might be a little less cynical as to the value of having one that is reliable and bombproof.

even some city folks use guns. business owners, delivery drivers, single mothers, ect.

most guns you buy now days are semi automatic. they can fire rounds as fast as you pull the trigger.
my first gun at 10 y.o. held 17 rounds and was semi auto.
they sell at wally world for about 125$
500 rounds cost about 10$

the reason we have this stance on guns..... imagine trying to take away every rancher, cowboy, farmer, back woods, rural, inter city, business owner, delivery driver, clerk, hotel auditor, nite drop person, homeowner, .... even the paranoid and militant, people who live on the borders, people who are prepared to defend what's theirs, people who are not putting up with shootings in public.... ect... imagine trying to take away their guns.

if you know nothing about the industry- you cannot make a judgement about what should be industry standard.
with very little know how, a person can modify weapons to fully automatic, and extend clips to great capacity.
better it be regulated and held to standards.

mental health issues are expensive on the public. you should be spared this expense because you don't have kids in school or want to own guns, fine. valid point. again- it was not the gun that is responsible. it is the man that made the decision to shoot up a bunch of kids.

I am not into the political diatribe. this issue is not a forum to bash the political party that opposes your views.
make assumptions if that eases your mind.

my gun rights do not feel threatened. why should I come up ideas to keeps what's already mine?

my idea to keep this from happening? personal accountability. step in and up to situations that are within your control and make a difference. let the teachers carry guns.

you'd have to be a mind reader to know if some nutter is going to snap and blow up a building or shoot up a school. maybe the government could start offering some classes or something.....
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 244
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 6:52:27 PM

Notwithstanding that, the Swiss firearm death rate is only 50% higher than the mean firearm death rate for the sample (2.1), while having a gun ownership rate of almost double the mean.)

Unfortunately, this is a flawed analysis... Percentage differences from the mean are essentially irrelevant... what counts is the number of standard deviations from the mean... All of Switzerlands rates fall within approximately one standard deviation of the mean, as do ALL of the other European countries... It is also important to note two other issues not being considered here... One, Switzerland's 10 year average is 0.92, well within the normative range... Two, Switzerland's homicide rate began to drop from the 1.1 range to the 0.7 range the year after they tightened their gun control laws by banning the storage of ammo for reservist rifles... Seems it was a successful application of gun control...

That said, Iceland (at an uncritical glance) looks to be the best of the bunch, with the lowest overall homicide rate in the sample, and with a gun ownership rate well above the mean.

Here to you are making the same error... You are right that only a few extra deaths can make a large difference in their rates, however their 10 year average is 0.66 homicides, well within the normative range...

Even if all that were not true, your argument is flawed in that it expects a close to 1:1 correspondence between the within-countries rates... While such correspondances may be found in some comparisons, the expectation that it must be so is both practically and theoretically flawed, that is why normative ranges exist... most events deviate from the mean to one degree or another, that is why standard deviations exist and why they are important and percentage differences from the mean are essentially irrelevant...

I know it SOUNDS powerful and convincing and all to talk about things like "almost double the rate", "50% higher", etc but such talk means little to nothing in terms of real world differences in such comparisons...

I'd like to analyze the data you presented and whatever relevant additional data that may be available from that source. From where did you obtain it and can you give me the URL?

Sure, no problem...

ownership data
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf

homicide data
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

gun death data
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/
http://www.oas.org/dsp/alertamerica/Report/Alertamerica2012.pdf
http://data.euro.who.int/dmdb/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2005/06/28/gun-deaths050628.html (Canada only)
http://www.surgeons.org/media/348297/pos_2011-08-26_gun_control_v3.pdf (New Zealand only)


Why is it that people who don't really understand statistics think that objecting to one number invalidates the entire connection (or, if it fits, why do people who do understand statistics think they can pull this obfuscation and get away with it)...?

I have no idea. Who was doing that?

It appeared as though you were in pointing out the outlier of Switzerland... Perhaps I was wrong in thinking you were prepared to throw out the entire analysis over the one outlier... but given that the results are significant whether the Swiss data (or Icelandic data) is included or not it certainly seemed that way... If it wasn't then I don't see what your actual point was since the one exception does not "disprove the rule" in this case...

I would suggest that you take the numbers and graph them in excel... The relationship becomes glaringly obvious... Including the "floor effect" for homicide rates that I mentioned...
 hplazerjet
Joined: 11/1/2012
Msg: 245
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 7:58:44 PM
Billings,
Great post.
Tons of common sense.
You correctly point out that the anti-gun folks have had no experience with guns
and have managed to avoid danger.

I just thought of a great story as an example. Old friend of mine owns a lot of rental properties, some in not such
good areas. When I went to visit him, we went to do a repair on one of the buildings. I got a bad vibe and told him that he should be carrying a gun. He shrugged and said it wasn't necessary.
That was three years ago.
Recently, on rent day he went to collect the money. As soon as he was ready to leave, two gunman appeared and
demanded the money. He gave them the money and went to get into his truck, and they started shooting and
shot up the truck, shot out both the front and back windows, and just about every panel on the truck. Miraculously,
my buddy wasn't hit.
Guess what?
He immediately got a concealed permit and a .38 revolver.
 outlaw4200
Joined: 12/15/2012
Msg: 246
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 9:03:56 PM
thank you forum controler, i was a meenee before but have since come to my senses, but this is a very touchy subject that should not be moderated or controlled, this is real world, when we start controlling opinions whats next? i enjoy this site personally, but if it gets regulated to much i will bring my donations elsewhere. is that what you want?


If you actually read the advisory, no one is putting a stop to your opinion AS LONG as you do not insult others or troll the thread. If that's what you want to do, you'll find yourself without privileges and we could care less where you take you donations or lack there of in your case. This is not a public site, it's a private site where you have been granted the privilege of posting - hope that's clear. This is an advisory and non debatable - stick to the thread topic, in case you hadn't read the posted rules - a requirement of your membership here.

 Holly63
Joined: 2/4/2011
Msg: 247
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 10:21:05 PM

this is a very touchy subject that should not be moderated or controlled, this is real world, when we start controlling opinions whats next?


A touchy subject HAS to be moderated and controlled. No one is trying to control opinions. Opinions are personal.

A debate allows each side, so to speak, to give their argument in a way for people who have opposing views to discuss controversial issues ( such as this) without insulting or personal bias.

Debates rarely end in agreement so someone, at some stage has to stop the otherwise never ending arguments which will just go round and round in circles and perhaps get more and more heated. Whats the point of that?

Moderate away I say and bottom line is....in my opinion, get rid of guns altogether for civillians except those I mentioned in my previous post.
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 248
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 10:49:39 PM
Fear is a powerful motivator.
Some people are afraid of guns.
Others are afraid of people who do bad things.
If Americans want to get rid of all guns, just amend the Constitution.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 249
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 12:08:56 AM
People should be aware that they've already dumped the first part of the second amendment while they were napping and left themselves wide open for tyranny when they let the government dump the Posse Comitatus Act that protected them from the army. It was the first part of the second amendment that justified the second part in the interest of preventing tyranny by providing a credible deterrent to ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

How is not being able to equip the people with useful military-grade arms not a failure in the duty of the American people to protect themselves from potential domestic enemies like a government or its standing army?

The NRA is right to point out that most legislated or proposed gun restrictions are infringing on every reasonable human being's right to possess the armaments they choose to defend themselves, but they don't go far enough, because they don't point out that the true intent behind the right to bear arms is to defend the nation from standing armies and oppressive government, which in itself dictates that reasonable citizens should be able to purchase the best military grade arms they can afford, not just handguns and hunting rifles, but machine guns, grenade launchers, cannons, tanks, the whole bit.

I would agree that in general, moderation is a good thing, but when the freedom of a nation's people is at stake, I'd say that extremism in the cause of patriotism is no vice (and I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would agree with me, most especially at this juncture of American history where freedom and tyranny hang in the balance).
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 250
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 1:00:28 AM


Switzerland's homicide rate began to drop from the 1.1 range to the 0.7 range the year after they tightened their gun control laws by banning the storage of ammo for reservist rifles... Seems it was a successful application of gun control...


…and a failure to their militia…I'm really sorry to hear that.



Unfortunately, this is a flawed analysis..


I wasn't making a statistical analysis, only suggesting that an apparent anomaly bore further investigation. That it falls within a statistical norm is irrelevant when it is not yet calculated whether or not it does, and a simple percentage can serve as an indicator to suggest deeper study with perhaps other sample groups than those provided. (hence my request for the URL)



Here to you are making the same error..


I wasn't making an error because I wasn't making a statistical analysis. I was merely commenting on the apparent anomaly without making any determinations as to whether the data adequately fit the statistical norms.



Sure, no problem...


Thanks.





Who was doing that?

It appeared as though you were…Perhaps I was wrong in thinking you were prepared to throw out the entire analysis over the one outlier..

No biggie. I didn't look at your presentation too closely, as I plan to do a bit of a study of my own on changes over time in gun crime and criminal homicide with respect to the extent of gun ownership, and legislation affecting the variables.



I would suggest that you take the numbers and graph them in excel..


Sorry, but I despise Microsoft and currently use LibreOffice (I recommend it highly…It has its flaws, but it's pretty good in light of the alternatives)



…the "floor effect" for homicide rates that I mentioned..


...is interesting…I'll look into that....Thanks again.
 billingsmason
Joined: 2/3/2012
Msg: 251
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 1:03:27 AM
actually, dukky said this much better than anyone else here.
and in a calm even manner, without insulting anyone. props.

they take a little, then a little more, and so on.....

all enemies- foreign and domestic
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 252
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 5:07:18 AM

It's been 236 years.


Has it been that long? We really must get together more often.



America is not going to become a military dictatorship;


I know…It already is.



the government is not a threat to you and your family.


Actually, it is, and I don't even live in the US. Thanks to the NDAA I can be hit by a killer-drone anywhere in the world anytime that Fuhrer of yours decides I'm an "extremist."



The whole idea of needing guns to protect yourself from the govenment is as outdated as the Bible condoning the murder of people who are homosexual.


True. What is really needed is SAMs to protect the citizen from killer drone strikes ordered by your president. At least the Bible demands a trial before killing a homosexual, your president doesn't even allow you one anymore. I guess he isn't "old fashioned" in the biblical sense. Is that why you like him?



The claim that you need to arm yourselves against government tyranny is pure, pure paranoia.


…or killer drone phobia.

Were the founding fathers paranoid? What do you suppose they'd say if they saw what America has become in 236 years?



Another nonsense NRA argument that sways no one but those who are already believers, i.e., preaching to the choir.


It is my argument, not the NRA's, and I "preach" the law to everyone in the vain hope that some of you will recognize it.



How about coming up with something that is reasonable, rational, thoughtful, and based in reality instead of fantasy?


OK…When they throw you your bale of straw, ask Massa if you can borrow the wire cutters for a minute to cut the baling wire. I'm sure if you've passed the safety course and have an up-to-date wire-cutter licence, he'll let you use them and trust you to give them back. (Don't forget to say "Thank you.")
 onecoolM8
Joined: 12/1/2012
Msg: 253
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:26:13 AM
Owning a gun isn't the problem, most citizens are law abiding responsible individuals, owning a semi automatic gun is the problem and unnecessary , someone needs to explain to me why guns like that are allowed in society? Those guns belong in Law Enforcement and the Military .
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 254
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 11:24:38 AM
the Founding Fathers were men of commerce who wanted to avoid the mercantile system and control their ability to make money. Until then America was a colony who's only purpose was to sell raw material at low cost then pay a higher price to purchase the finished product from England, who had just defended America from French attacks in a world war and wanted to get its money back from paying all the military costs.

Were they worried about England coming back to invade? Well, the War of 1812 proved them correct if they did or didn't. Nature beat the English as much as any colonial militia did (there were laws back then to prosecute those who made fun of the militia during monthly drills, giving you an idea of how well the militia performed. Remember, Valley Forge was as much about desertion by that militia--the "summer soldiers" versus the "winter soldiers" Thomas Paine propagandized about--than waging war on "enemy"troops American Tories supported with housing and warm meals while Washington's militia starved across the river).

to the OP's point: a knifeman stabbed 10 people with something used in a kitchen. a gunman killed 27 with a military weapon not used for hunting or other civilian needs. If I have to choose between 10 victims and 27...gee...I'd take the 10. Anyone prefer the 27?
 Debyduz_
Joined: 5/4/2012
Msg: 255
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 11:30:07 AM
Very few guns have killed people with out help of a human.

Still the right to bear arms was made in another time.

There has to be a way to balance protection with societies safety.

My children and I have a right to live.
 BlokeInSydney
Joined: 5/7/2012
Msg: 256
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 3:28:24 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brilliantly put Procol.

An educated and informed electorate makes a difference.

When we hear over here about yet another mass-shooting in the US we scratch our heads and wonder why their love of guns is almost pathological. Gun control worked for us and many other countries, but then we don't have the gun culture that exists in the US, nobody does. Do we feel safe walking down the street knowing our fellow citizens don't have guns? Of course we do.

I suspect many of the posters crapping-on about 2nd Amendment rights and personal protection, if they really examined their true motivations for owning a gun, would come to the conclusion it's really that they get off when they fire it. Simple as that, they get off when they shoot. I have American friends with guns and they told me they loved going out back and firing bullets at things, and it's even better when they hunt.







CLOSED


Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED