Must have thought she was an intruder...

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by ZappBrannigan
http:///forum/post/3152331
There wouldnt be any "altercations" if there were no guns in the first place... You can outrun somebody with a knife. but somebody wants to kill you with a gun. its so easy, he doesnt even have to chase you. You all may think that owning your guns can help you feel safe if somebody else with a gun comes to get you. gun+no gun = youre dead... gun + gun = youre safe and the bad guys dead....but what about no gun + no gun = no incident.
in china owning guns is illegal, and nobody has them. even the police on the street dont cary guns, there is no need for them here. and though china is one of the poorer countries, i feel alot safer going out at night here than i did when i lived in LA.
LOL, What if the guy with the knife is faster than you?
Even assuming your premise of no guns = complete safety the genie is already out of the bottle and we can't go back. To try to take the guns now would simply leave honest citizens helpless in the face of a well armed criminal population

 

[mantisman51]

All I know is that in England and Australia, gun crime has shot up dramatically since the gun bans. Dan Rather even reported this on his news show-hardly a right winger I think. Easy victims encourage criminals. But beyond that, the English and Australian government has said there is no right to self defense either. So, I can't help but conclude the anti-gun crowd here wants the same thing. Easy victims.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3152368
You really want to try and say without the gun there wouldn't be cars? If you are trying to make yourself look intelligent and somewhat credible, that's a pretty dumb argument to make.
No, I am saying with out the capitalistic mentallity of the USA we wouldn't have many of the inventions we have today. Is it any coincidence that after the capitalistic mindset was put forth technology began to advance at a rapid pace? Incidentally, the capitalistic society would not be here were it not for guns in the hands of the common citizen. I know this is hard to grasp, but please keep up here.
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3152368
And the Obama and hope reference... how very mature! Maybe after recess and a nap you can come to the adult forum and have a legitimate discussion.
How is this immature, unless you are ashamed of voting for "hope"? As I stated, with a gun in my house house I have options during a break in, you on the other hand are left with hope? If this offends you and is some sort of slight on your intelligence, this si not my fault but yours.
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3152368
You don't want to have to shoot a robber? Why not spend the $25 a month you use for beer and ammo and get yourself a nice security system.
Shows how ignorant you are. That one hour response time for the average security system just gives great warm and fuzzy feelings all over.

By the way I have one....the gun would be for the determined "crazy" criminal. You know, the guy looking to ---- my wife while I am at work and such. A last resort if he got passed my great danes. 25 dollars a month for the security is more expensive than the gun license and initial cost of a gun.
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3152368
And about the "mentally unstable" individual you speak of. Yes, I am willing to bet that there is a certain percentage of people in that position who would look elsewhere if he didn't have a gun. But I am also willing to bet that there is a good percentage who wouldn't...
The rational person would stop....thus not being a crime of passion but revenge and thus open for legal action. The mentally unstable/ crimes of passion.....don't account for weaponry as they don't care...which defeats your argument. However I will give you the benefit of the doubt. List site or sources to back up your claim...or either way it is just opinion from both of us and can not be backed up. Therefore the point can not be used in true debate as it can not be verified.
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3152368
And funny how no one has mentioned the suicide topic yet. What about this article which clearly shows that where there are more guns, there are more suicides.
Now why do you suppose that is? By your flawed logic, if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would find a way even without a gun. Yet by the numbers, the states with the highest gun ownership are twice as likely to have a gun related suicide than those of the lowest gun ownerships by state.
I love this study....which you obviously need to read a bit more thoroughly..the key thing you missed in the entire story is this, Those that use a firearm are more successful. Guns not in the home do not reduce the number of attempts, just the number of successes....It just means guns make it easier, but the lack of a gun does not deter them.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by ZappBrannigan
http:///forum/post/3152343
chinas lack of freedoms aside, i was just making an example of a society with no guns. if youd rather you can take belgium instead. they also are gun free.

True but neither party has ever had private gun ownership either to my knowledge. It is like the candy store. If you never had candy you would never desire it or crave it. But if you have had it, you like it, you want it, even if it has risky health effects on you...

 

[coral keeper]

If your against self defense, your retarded and need serious help....

 

[coral keeper]

Also, when someone breaks in and tries to kill, ----, KILL HIM! If you shoot him and injure him, he will sue you even if he tried to kill or ---- you, he will sue you for shooting/injuring him. So, you should kill him instead of injuring him.

 

[zappbrannigan]

yes I do agree, though a society without any guns would be much safer, the US is already so gun infested, that removing them all would be very hard. especially with criminals and some posters on here who are obviously fanatic. with more guns than family members, or who refer to firearms as a "piece".

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3152368
Now why do you suppose that is? By your flawed logic, if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would find a way even without a gun. Yet by the numbers, the states with the highest gun ownership are twice as likely to have a gun related suicide than those of the lowest gun ownerships by state.
Care to explain?
Is it possible that the reason you feel the way you do is because you are not carefully looking at the statistics you are using to form those opinions?
Read your statistics carefully...
First of all, you seem to be interpreting from this statistic that the high number of suicides in this country is due to guns, but the US is something like number 43 out of 100 countries profiled for sucide rates, with 11 suicides per 100,000 per year. There are 42 other countries with higher rates, most of which ban guns (including as another poster says "super safe" China).
Read your statistics carefully. Countries with guns have twice as many gun related suicides. However, do they have a higher rate of suicides overall? No. With the US falling right in the middle (43 out of about 100), that puts us right in the "average."
Now, here is something else interesting, since you bring it up...
According to the NRA, about half of all American households have guns. In the US, about half of all suicides are committed with a firearm.
What is my point? My point is that if half the homes have guns, and half the suicides are with guns, that is becomes clear that if you don't have access to a gun, you simply commit suicide some other way. People wanting to be violent, who do not have a gun, find another way to be violent... interesting....
This is the problem with the anti-gun crowd, folks. They have too much trouble separating the machine from the operator. To them, guns are the reason there is violence, not the person actually committing the violence. If you take the guns away from people they will simply "give up" instead of finding another way to be violent. I mean... comon... think about that argument logically and it doesn't make any sense.

 

[zappbrannigan]

This is the problem with the anti-gun crowd, folks. They have too much trouble separating the machine from the operator. To them, guns are the reason there is violence, not the person actually committing the violence. If you take the guns away from people they will simply "give up" instead of finding another way to be violent. I mean... comon... think about that argument logically and it doesn't make any sense.
a gun is an extremely lethal killing device, nothing even comes close to the killing ability of a gun, any "other way to be violent" will be much much less affective at harming and killing.
there are bad people, that has been established. but does the benefit of letting good people have guns outweigh the harm of bad people having them too....
for one there is no benefit to good people having a gun, it will cause harm because that is all it is designed to do. if bad people dont have guns there is no need for good people to have them. the second amendment was written hundreds of years ago in a very different society from our own.. in their time a gun was a very awkward a meter long device that could only fire 1 shot every 30 seconds. not a semi automatic pistol that can fit in a pocket and fire 13 leathal shots in 5 seconds. easily snuck into a classroom or bank.

 

[scsinet]

Gun capabilities at the time versus now make no difference. Guns were more awkward and could fire less rapidly, but the guns the enemy had were the same way. As weapons technology improves, it improves on both sides.
for one there is no benefit to good people having a gun, it will cause harm because that is all it is designed to do.
There is obviously no point to argue with you now that you've made this statement. Yeah, you're right, guns are designed to kill people, and that's all they can do. They cannot be used for target shooting, hunting, or any other perfectly safe, responsible activites. Killing only. That's it.

How exactly do you propose, by the way, to stop "bad people" from getting guns?

 

[zappbrannigan]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/3152472
There is obviously no point to argue with you now that you've made this statement. Yeah, you're right, guns are designed to kill people, and that's all they can do. They cannot be used for target shooting, hunting, or any other perfectly safe, responsible activites. Killing only. That's it.

How exactly do you propose, by the way, to stop "bad people" from getting guns?
target shooting and hunting... and what else? 2 activites, i think it isnt worth the danger to society..
you can stop bad people from getting guns by eliminating them completely. stopping selling them, close down gun stores collect all the firearms. notify citizens they need to turn in their firearms by a certain date, and properly compensate them. of course alowances can be made for antiques and such. making sure guns arent coming at the borders. after 5 to 10 years gun crimes will start going down, to almost nothing.. Belgium underwent this very procedure successfuly and i know it well because my family on my dads side lives in belgium and my grandpa had to turn over a number of guns.

 

[scsinet]

Stop them from coming in over the borders? We can't stop ANYTHING from crossing the borders illegally.
Let's march the government from door to door, searching homes and seizing what they don't want us to have. So as long as we are changing the 2nd amendment, we'll also change the 4th. We'll need to change the 5th as well... Heck, let's just dump the whole bill of rights so we can all be "safer."
The bottom line is that this country was founded on the very principle that we were tired of governments like the one you are trying to promote. One of the core reasons for the 2nd amendment was to put a "check and balance" in the hands of citizens to prevent the very government they were founding from becoming what you want it to become.
BTW... are guns less dangerous because they are antique? Oh... got. You see a point to that, so it should be allowed. What you don't see a point to should be banned and confiscated by force.
We disagree. Fair enough. You're never going to convince me, and I'm never going to convince you.

 

[mantisman51]

Handguns are made for killin. They ain't no good for nothin else. And if you like to drink your whiskey, you might even a shoot yourself....

 

[mantisman51]

Mohandas K. Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983.
Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.
There are your good reasons for the private ownership of guns. I will reiterate: If an American male is so afraid of their own Constitutional rights, they need testosterone injections.

 

[mantisman51]

And my favorite:
Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)

 

[whitebird]

Originally Posted by ZappBrannigan
http:///forum/post/3152521
target shooting and hunting... and what else? 2 activites, i think it isnt worth the danger to society..
you can stop bad people from getting guns by eliminating them completely. stopping selling them, close down gun stores collect all the firearms. notify citizens they need to turn in their firearms by a certain date, and properly compensate them. of course alowances can be made for antiques and such. making sure guns arent coming at the borders. after 5 to 10 years gun crimes will start going down, to almost nothing.. Belgium underwent this very procedure successfuly and i know it well because my family on my dads side lives in belgium and my grandpa had to turn over a number of guns.
A quote from Adolf Hitler, 1935
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime
and the list goes on

 

[zappbrannigan]

i believe that society has changed since those times. obama certainly isnt any hitler or mao zedong. i just think there is no need. but i guess judging the government is a person to person thing.

 

[renogaw]

Originally Posted by ZappBrannigan
http:///forum/post/3152798
i believe that society has changed since those times. obama certainly isnt any hitler or mao zedong. i just think there is no need. but i guess judging the government is a person to person thing.

 

[reefraff]

You're gonna get cards and letters for that one

While I agree that they share a lot of similarities on their road to power I don't think it really helps to draw the comparison, it just allows the left to label you as a kook.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by ZappBrannigan
http:///forum/post/3152798
i believe that society has changed since those times. obama certainly isnt any hitler or mao zedong. i just think there is no need. but i guess judging the government is a person to person thing.
While obama may not be, that does not guarantee future leaders are not.....take the guns way from the people and it makes it easier to enact martial law and create a police state...like China has. once that happens it is easier to erode other freedoms from the people.