You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
Communist China wrote:If the arm you have the right to bear is a musket, fine. I understand that it's tough to accept now, and I think more restrictions should be placed on gun liscences. But attacking the 2nd amendment right now is not a way to get the country together, and lack of unity is our biggest problem. Has been since Jacksonian Democracy took root.
So then the internet, radio and television aren't protected forms of speech because they didn't exist at the time? The Musket was the most advanced firearm existent - it also served as the best form of defense. If the medium in which ideas are discussed has evolved and is still protected, why wouldn't that same standard apply to firearms?
Honestly how many of you are even familiar with firearms? And by familiar I mean understand how they operate, how held one and even fired one? For most people a gun is this foreign object that holds almost mythical status. If someone was teaching a class on Math, don't you think they should at least know a thing or two about the subject? If the media is this biased entity that feeds us lies or half truths, why would you all of a sudden by into their horror stories about firearms?
Big Bri. By taking responsibility for our actions we don't blame the system or others for our decisions. We don't let people out of jail because we feel they were dealt a bad hand. If you accept responsibility for yourself, you're not dependent on others to provide your security and protection. While Police are great at what they do, they always come after the crime, rarely during.
The background check system we have in place is great. I even agree to preventing those found mentally unstable to be added to the list. But why should a law abiding American with no criminal or mental history be prohibited from buying a firearm? Just because a firearm could be used to harm someone doesn't mean it will. Much more car accidents occur than gun violence, but we don't ban cars.
For those that advocate we outlaw firearms, simply look at what has happened to the property crime rates in both England and Austrailia after their gun grabs. Only when Bush instituted stiffer penalties and prosecution of gun offenders did crime come down.
Just because you're scared and don't understand something doesn't mean you should try to make it go away.
First off, yes, I've fired a gun. I've held more than one gun. I've had a gun pulled on me, so I'm very familiar with them.
As for taking responsibility for my actions, yes, I do. I chose to protect my family by educating them, alarming our house and making sure my kids know how to dial 911. Sorry, I'm not gonna take control of my home's security by having a gun around. I know, as I'm sure you do, that most of the time, when a homeowner tries to use a gun to defend themselves, they end up shot themselves. Or, their kids get their hands on it and kill themselves. The statistics back me up. You've heard them, we all have. So you say, "Lock your gun." Ok, how is my locked gun in my closet where my kids can't reach it gonna help when someone barges into my house. Answer? It won't.
I don't advocate outlawing all firearms. Assault rifles, there's no need for them. Don't try to sway my opinion on this. A gun that can fire hundreds of rounds in short order is simply not needed. Not for hunting, not for anything. There should be much more thorough background checks. Punishment for people with guns should be much stiffer; fines incredibly higher. You're right, punishment is a deterrant. But not enough apparently.
Your comparison of guns vs. cars is nonsensical. Cars weren't designed specifically to kill. Guns were.
As for your claim of crime going down. It's actually going up. But it has nothing to do with firearm availability. Crime always goes up when the economic state of the country declines. People are desperate for any way to get ahead, and they turn to robbing, assaulting, etc.
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
James, I appreciate your point, but you can run away from someone who has a knife. Try running away from a bullet. Not gonna happen. When is the last mass killing by a knife-wielding criminal anyhow?
A couple years ago, a psycho killed a shitload of school kids with a knife(I think it was in New Zealand, could be wrong). He killed more people with his knife than was killed in this mall massacre.
My point is this: If you want to kill someone bad enough, you will kill them. It doesn't matter what the weapon of choice is. If I were a psycho and wanted to kill some family, they're dead.
Also, you can run from someone with a gun. The further away you are, the less likely you'll be hit. Being a moving target increases your chances as well.
There are just too many examples of people being killed by so many other things besides guns for me to ever consider outlawing guns. I'll outlaw knives first because in many instances, more damage can be done with one.
I'm not trying to sound like an "internet tough guy", but if I walked into a room full of five people, I could most definitely kill them(or at least most of them) quickly with a knife. If I walked in with a gun, there's a bigger chance of survival for them. People run quickly at the sound of a gunshot. Your "prey" spreads out. Decimate the crowd with a frenzied knife attack, and most of them are already bleeding to death before their mind can comprehend the severity of the situation.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
Big Bri, your assertion that using a gun in defense in your home is likely going to get yourself injured. Dr John Lott showed that the mere brandishing of a firearm makes the attacker flee 99% of the time. The statistic you are incorrectly quoting is that an individual with a gun in the house is much more likely to experience an accident - well duh. Being responsible would mean teaching your children about the safety of firearms and securing it so young children couldn't gain access. The NRA offers the Eddie Eagle program that doesn't advocate guns, simply to notify an adult and not to touch it. Training like that should be offered in all schools and homes.
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
bigbri wrote:James, I appreciate your point, but you can run away from someone who has a knife. Try running away from a bullet. Not gonna happen. When is the last mass killing by a knife-wielding criminal anyhow?
A couple years ago, a psycho killed a shitload of school kids with a knife(I think it was in New Zealand, could be wrong). He killed more people with his knife than was killed in this mall massacre.
My point is this: If you want to kill someone bad enough, you will kill them. It doesn't matter what the weapon of choice is. If I were a psycho and wanted to kill some family, they're dead.
Also, you can run from someone with a gun. The further away you are, the less likely you'll be hit. Being a moving target increases your chances as well.
There are just too many examples of people being killed by so many other things besides guns for me to ever consider outlawing guns. I'll outlaw knives first because in many instances, more damage can be done with one.
I'm not trying to sound like an "internet tough guy", but if I walked into a room full of five people, I could most definitely kill them(or at least most of them) quickly with a knife. If I walked in with a gun, there's a bigger chance of survival for them. People run quickly at the sound of a gunshot. Your "prey" spreads out. Decimate the crowd with a frenzied knife attack, and most of them are already bleeding to death before their mind can comprehend the severity of the situation.
A couple years ago, you're right. That's about the most recent example. Mass gun killings happen every few weeks.
And, really, you think you can kill more quickly with a knife than a gun? I can't argue against that. You'd have to be pretty quick and strong, I guess. If I have a machine gun, I'd figure I could kill more a lot quicker.
As I said, I don't argue outlawing all guns.
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
Big Bri, your assertion that using a gun in defense in your home is likely going to get yourself injured. Dr John Lott showed that the mere brandishing of a firearm makes the attacker flee 99% of the time. The statistic you are incorrectly quoting is that an individual with a gun in the house is much more likely to experience an accident - well duh. Being responsible would mean teaching your children about the safety of firearms and securing it so young children couldn't gain access. The NRA offers the Eddie Eagle program that doesn't advocate guns, simply to notify an adult and not to touch it. Training like that should be offered in all schools and homes.
First, you're assuming the intruder in your house doesn't have a gun also. If he does, then he's shooting you or there's a shootout.
Like I said about securing a gun. How does that help if someone walks into my house and I don't have my gun nearby, but it's locked away in my closet?
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
Also, I'd like to say, it's nice to debate these things nicely. At the Buckethead forum I post at, these talks always end up with people calling each other names. The most recent was "dickless mother fucker." Or, someone deletes their account and never comes back. Saul also had to ban someone because he got so worked up.
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
Well, in most cases it is not a machine gun used. Its usually a handgun or in some cases a shotgun. Of course a knife wont kill more people than a machine gun emptied into a crowd, but those cases are even rarer than knife attacks.
Lets look at that chick who drowned her five kids. Had a gun been used, the kids old enough to walk would have ran. She drowned them, and even used force to drag a few of them into the bathroom. Had she used a gun, that oldest boy probably would have survived.
Look at OJ. he fucked up Nicole and that dude so bad that a gun being used would have been child's play. Had he shot Nicole, that dude would have run for the hills. Still might have been shot, but you get the point. A knife(or bat or any other instrument) being used in an attack changes the dynamics of the crime. It becomes more personal, and the desperation level is higher because more is at risk.
Re: The Right to Bear Arms
You have all heard it before, I'll say it again: Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
It may be cliche but it is still the truth.
Like has been said, it is a constitutional right so that the people can protect themselves against the government when the shit hits the fan. You may say that scenario is ludicrous today, but I've read enough history to know that the government, any government, will suppress it's population if able to.
Then again, we are experiencing an escalating phenomenon, so what to do? I can't say for sure, but what I do know is that banning something never works.
