Gun control debate thread

[denoir 0]

It gets me how you can bash a coutry for allowing the choice in one matter (guns) while not allowing the choice in another matter (drugs, gay marriage, ect). It's akin to the ever circular argument - "Our set of morals is bettter than yours".

The big difference is that guns can be used to infringe other people's rights to live. If you have a society that doesn't have too much of a violence problem - then sure, guns are no problem. If you on the other hand have a violence problem and you know that the right to have guns will be abused on a large scale then you have to rethink your model. Because it's no longer a question of individual rights, but a general problem of the society. Now, it's your country and you are of course free to do as you wish with it - I'm just giving you the advice that solving the underlying social problems is a better way to reduce the violence than handing out guns to everybody and saying "protect yourself".

It's not a question of morals at all - just a question of practical arrangement. I'm not assigning any intrinsic value to ownership of guns - I'm just putting it in context with your social situation.

Quote[/b] ]That's rediculous. "Creationism" (or whaterever they call it) is not taught in ANY public school in the United States. It hasn't been for quite awhile. Private schools can do what they please, but government funded schools teach scientific theories on the begginings, not faith based theories.

And what abut the pledge of allegiance? AFIK you've only begun recently to re-evaluate it. What about the ever popular "God bless America?", "One nation under God" etc etc

Quote[/b] ]

Frankly, I am glad I live in what you call a "conservative" country.  We may not be as socially "advanced" as you, but we still have many of the values that brought us here, while Europe seems to have had its values drained.  And I think that's a shame, because it is from Europe that values and progress first managed to cooexist.  Now its just progress, and that is a sad state for any people.

It's those "values" that made us kill each other for centuries. Now, Christian morality and core values may have had a purpose a long time ago, but not today. It's just blocking progress.

A quick note on the euthanasia - it's not murder - it's assisted suicide. It's done because a very sick person wants to die, not because others want to kill him. It's a question of choice. Do you have the right to take your own life? If not, why should the government decide if you have the right to take your life? It's the ultimate in individual freedom: the ownership of your own life.

[m21man 0]

I know people who've been in potentially lethal situations and simply used their gun as a tool to intimidate and drive off potential attackers, rather than firing.

Quote[/b] ]second, just becuase i have a gun doesn't mean that i can defend.

It gives you the ability to defend yourself. Or would you prefer it that I whacked off a muggers leg with a katana?

Quote[/b] ]read carefully. given two choices. world has more than two choices.

If you are in a potentially lethal solution, (I'll use a "home invasion" as an example), those are your only feasible choices. You could call the police, but now you have to:

A. Wait for the police, in the meantime it is likely that you will be assaulted/murdered.

B. Employ the "Snivel like a Hippie" technique. It might work, but the invader will probably attack you and/or your family.

Quote[/b] ]did he say guns?

He didn't talk about any weapon in particular, he was just talking about the right to defend yourself. Guns are simply the most easy way to defend yourself, though a chainsaw or baseball bat will work in close quarters.

[Major Fubar 0]

That sounds a lot like discrimination, but frankly I do not want to be in the presence of many drunkards, much less weed addicts.

Sounds like someone has been watching "Reefer Madness!"...

I've been around drunks and stoners, and I would take stoners any time - drunks are much more likely to start a fight...

Anyway, back ontopic...

[denoir 0]

If you are in a potentially lethal solution, (I'll use a "home invasion" as an example), those are your only feasible choices. You could call the police, but now you have to:

A. Wait for the police, in the meantime it is likely that you will be assaulted/murdered.

B. Employ the "Snivel like a Hippie" technique. It might work, but the invader will probably attack you and/or your family.

This I find interesting, becuase it's not in any way similar to what we have here.

First of all, the concept of "home invasion" is basically non-existent. Sure we have burglars, but they do their work when you're on vacation or at work - not when you are at home.

Second, regular criminals almost never hurt people. If you get robbed directly, sure they might point a gun at you or threaten you with a knife, but they'll never hurt you. It's not in their interest - they just want your stuff, so why risk a long prison sentence by hurting your victim?

Third - they get caught. In the rare instances where people have been threatened with physical violence, the criminals generally get caught.

Sure we have a couple of murders in Sweden every year, but they are crimes of passion, psychotic episodes and in some limited extent showdowns between criminals. We don't have criminals killing regular people. Hence regular people don't need guns for self defence and are less likely to be hysterical and overreact. So because we don't have a gun problem, we can have fairly liberal gun laws. Sweden is one of the more gun-dense countries in the world and it works fine since we don't use them to kill each other.

You can look at a similar example much closer to you: Canada. They have just as many guns/capita as you do. But it's not a problem since they're not using them to whack each other. Guns are a problem not by nature but within a social context.

[toadlife 3]

And what abut the pledge of allegiance? AFIK you've only begun recently to re-evaluate it. What about the ever popular "God bless America?", "One nation under God" etc etc

You speak as if people are forced to recite the pledge of allegiance. No one - not even children in school are required to say the pledge of allegiance. It's voluntary thing. Now one athiest with an agenda is challenging it in court - which I assume is only reason you are hearing anything about it.

Personally, I am indifferent about the pledge having 'under god' in it.

What's wrong with the song "God Bless America", a song that Americans choose to sing?

[Major Fubar 0]

Can anyone show me some stats on numbers of home invasions, and how many are foiled by a gun?

[toadlife 3]

Here is a *biased* source - but feel free to check the numerous references listed at the bottom of the page.

http://www.berettausa.com/communities/home_prot/family.htm

[Major Fubar 0]

Thanks.

That's the problem though - every source you seem to find on the web is biased - either pro-gun or anti-gun...

[toadlife 3]

Damn right. I found another site which says exactly the opposite.

http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/Guns_in_Home.pdf

The Beretta article repeatedly points out that not everyone should own a gun and owning a gun is a serious personal descision that should not be taken lightly.

The Johns Hopkins university article bascially says: 'Guns are Baaaad. M'kay?'

[denoir 0]

What's wrong with the song "God Bless America", a song that Americans choose to sing?

If it's done by official government it rings badly with the separation of church and state which is one of the basic corner stones of a modern democracy.  

I don't know. America is a big contradiction to me. On one hand you've accomplished many great things (like for instance put a man on the moon) and on the other hand you often collectivly appear like a bunch of medieval barbarians. I suppose it's because the sheer size of the country and the impossibility of making a proper generalization. The face you put on outwards has to somehow represent the whole country and since you have such diversity that image is actually not very representative of anything. A speech given by the US president is very similiar to Soviet-style dogmatic propaganda. And that leaves a bad after-taste. Then you talk to some Americans that are perfectly normal intelligent people. But then you talk to some faithful FOXNews viewers and you get disgusted again.

I suppose that there are some cultural and social differences too. I mean a party like your Republican party is just about as likable in our domain as Saddam Hussein's party is. Not many people in Europe can comperhend that you can have such a selfish backwards party. I'm not the one to assign absolute values to things, but I would make an exception for the Republican party and call them "evil". By general European point of view they represent everything bad about man kind: greed, selfishness, war monging etc etc

So there are some considerable cultural differences. One would not think that it's possible with today's global communications.

And this I suppose applies to the gun debate as well. For me it is inconcievable that you see an arms race between criminals and civilians as a permanent solution. But hey - it's your country. It's possible that I don't understand the cultural context of the situation and that I'm wrong in trying to apply my European value system to your society.

The good part about being a liberal with only relative values is that I can accept just about anything   So I'm not judging your culture and society - I'm just trying to understand it a bit better and I'm putting it into context of my culture.

[Frisbee 0]

Euthanasia : This should be allowed,if I have cancer,and know I'll die,I'd take the chance to end my life when the pain is unbearable,rather than endure maybe months of pain (painkillers or not,what's the use of living if you're spaced out anyway?) and have my family see me suffer through it.

Drugs? I don't see the problem,Holland had weed legalised for god knows how long,and now it's legal over here as well,i haven't seen more people use it because of that in my surroundings.I'd much rather deal with stoners than drunks,as major fubar said,people who just grin are less threatening to me than staggering drunks looking for a fight.

Same sex marriage : why not call something that gives the people the same rights and benefits the same name,because it's not right according to the bible?

Religious references in state affairs : seperation of church and state,can't go round calling people religious fundementalists when your own country is, in a non trivial amount influenced by religious 'conservatives'. (school books being edited to some degree,eg covering up the embarassing parts on classic pieces of art like the david)

Finally,gun control,I really don't see why you'd need a gun to defend yourself,there's a low chance of actually a) ever needing to defend yourself and b) a low chance of,when the situation arises,being able to defend yourself effectively.

Burglars are not out to get you,they're out for your stuff.

If they don't need to hurt you,they won't (the proverbial homicidal maniac excluded,but there's no asylum for homicidal maniacs anywhere near me,so they're exceptions)

Self defence,not necessary imho,sports however,should be allowed,with extensive limits,probably even leaving it at the range,or limits on the cartridge capacity and the action for hunting rifles,for the very few who can(should) even get a hunting liscence.

Apologies for the (largely offtopic) slab of text here.  

[toadlife 3]

I don't know. America is a big contradiction to me.

Hehe. Watch the southpark episode about the Iraq war (It was their 100th episode I believe). What the founding fathers say in that episode just about sums up what the U.S. is about.

Edit: Southpark provides some of the best social commentary on the United States you can find.

[canukausiuka 1]

Quote[/b] ]

Frankly, I am glad I live in what you call a "conservative" country.  We may not be as socially "advanced" as you, but we still have many of the values that brought us here, while Europe seems to have had its values drained.  And I think that's a shame, because it is from Europe that values and progress first managed to cooexist.  Now its just progress, and that is a sad state for any people.

It's those "values" that made us kill each other for centuries. Now, Christian morality and core values may have had a purpose a long time ago, but not today. It's just blocking progress.

That is exactly what I was talking about when I said it was sad. You have convinced yourself that the values of Christianity are harmful to your society, and as such have discarded many of them. Those values did not cause anyone to kill. Poor interpretations combined with seperate motives led people to kill. Sure, some were misled into killing in the name of those values, but people have been misled into any number of activities for any number of reasons.

The progress you speak of may have benefits to your society, but Christian morality is not preventing social development or benefits. It just guides it. And unfortunately, that guiding force has been disregarded by many, because it no longer fit their way of seeing the world. The same Christian values that guided us before are still valid. Maybe they don't seem to work in a world governed by Realpolitik, but those who practice them can lead a much more filling life.

[drewb99 0]

Not many people in Europe can comperhend that you can have such a selfish backwards party. I'm not the one to assign absolute values to things, but I would make an exception for the Republican party and call them "evil". By general European point of view they represent everything bad about man kind: greed, selfishness, war monging etc etc

Well, we've got more than our fair share of selfish, backwards people

[denoir 0]

I don't know. America is a big contradiction to me.

Hehe. Watch the southpark episode about the Iraq war (It was their 100th episode I believe). What the founding fathers say in that episode just about sums up what the U.S. is about.

Edit: Southpark provides some of the best social commentary on the United States you can find.

I'll make sure to ASAP watch that episode. Funny by the way you should mention South Park. I usually post this link in the gun-debate threads. Select the video called "A brief history of America" - it's by the creators of South Park  

[Blink Dog 0]

You can look at a similar example much closer to you: Canada. They have just as many guns/capita as you do. But it's not a problem since they're not using them to whack each other. Guns are a problem not by nature but within a social context.

Yes and our government considers all gun owners in this coutry to be criminals or anarchists. Just like nazi Germany or other crack pot dictatorships. My main arguement for being against gun control is for the common citizen to be able to defend their rights against a totalitarian government more so than self defence. But blowing away crack heads who want your stuff is good too. But unfortunately Canada is going the EU commie route.

[Airwolf 50]

Gun Control in California, an essay by me for my college english class:

A horrible tragedy occurred on January 17th, 1989, when 24 year old Patrick Purdy began shooting into a crowd of schoolchildren playing at recess in Stockton, California. In six minutes he fired 106 bullets, killing five people and wounding many others. His rampage continued for several minutes until Purdy shot himself in the head with a pistol as police officers were arriving on the scene. The reaction from the news and media organizations was tense and misleading. Instead of focusing on the killer, a misguided youth who in his few years had already been arrested thirty times for assault, armed burglary, and illegal possession of weapons – the media concentrated on the weapon. Nearly every media organization reported the weapon used was a “Soviet AK-47 assault rifle†capable of “extremely rapid and concentrated fire.†There was a reaction among the American public, especially in California, for tighter restrictions on “assault rifles.â€

But Patrick Purdy did not have an assault rifle. He used an “AK-47 lookalike†which merely resembled in appearance a Kalashnikov military weapon and was in fact no different from any non-military semi-automatic hunting rifle. He did not “spray the playground with automatic fire†but fired a mere 106 rounds, in 6 minutes: under 18 bullets per minute. Anyone with a lever-action “cowboy style†rifle could have matched, or surpassed Purdy’s rate of fire. Fully-automatic weapons, such as Purdy was portrayed as using, have been illegal in the United States since 1935.

Instead of investigating why all of Purdy’s felony convictions were judged as misdemeanors, thus keeping this long-time criminal on the streets instead of behind bars, the California legislature banned all “lookalike†firearms. Instead of examining the criminal records and looking for more “Patrick Purdy’s†waiting to happen, California made tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons by making all unregistered semi-automatic rifles illegal.

Is this supposed to make us feel safer in school and on the street? Because of his criminal record, Purdy was breaking the law owning a rifle and a pistol. No amount of “assault weapons†registration and restrictions would have kept those weapons out of his hands. Banning assault rifles is not the answer to stop gun related crime. The American people have a right to own firearms and assault rifles. We should have full access to these weapons. New, tighter gun laws and registrations are implemented every day, depriving law-abiding Americans of their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. Why, then, after all these laws, after all these infringements of rights for the “better good,†after billions of dollars spent on enforcement, does “assault weapons†crime never decrease? It’s time we focus on the criminal and bring him to justice, and not his tools.

The true assault weapon, the machine gun, has been banned since 1935. Al Capone and the gangsters of the era could not keep their hands off Thompson sub machine guns and Browning automatic rifles. So the police force had a very tough time enforcing the criminal ways of Capone and his cronies. It was different in the 30s and 40s, weapons of that design could be banned, and it would stay that way quite some time, but the organized crime wave of the modern world, terrorism, and the back market changed things. All contribute to the uselessness of banning semi automatic, fully automatic military rifles, or machine pistols such as the UZI or Tec-9. It is so easy to get an “assault weapon†illegally if you really want to. An AK-47 sells in South Africa for six dollars and they are just as cheap, if not cheaper, in other third world countries. Today, the words “assault weapon†gets a certain reaction from people, and a large majority of Americans favor “more restrictions†on “assault weapon ownership†even though it’s virtually impossible to legally own a true assault weapon today.

Most American people think “assault weapons†are bad, despite the Constitution, despite the statistics on assault weapons crime, despite, it would seem, common sense. Because of this, the Brady organization has used secret modifications to their bills such as “semi automatic assault weapons†and “assault pistols†to bring a whole new range of firearms under the “assault weapons†category. For example, “assault weapons†laws cite certain characteristics which make a gun an “assault weapon†such as the 1896 model Mauser pistol, over 100 years old but still banned as an “assault pistol†because the magazine is not in the pistol grip. The last recorded murder with an 1896 Mauser pistol was in 1957, and they were banned in California in 1994, and for what reason? Certainly not to stop crime, they are a number of decades to late for that.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/ states “Assault weapons were used: To kill 5 children and wound 29 others in a Stockton, CA schoolyard in 1989. The AK-47 held 75 - that's right, 75 - bullets. To kill 8 people and 6 others at a San Francisco law firm in 1993. Two TEC-9's with 50-round magazines were used in the massacre.†The Tec-9 used was already banned, therefore was an illegally owned weapon. The Brady organization fails to mention this in their statement.

And Patrick Purdy should have been behind bars! He was not legally allowed to own firearms after so many criminal convictions! Yet to “prevent tragedies like Purdy from happening again†the look-alike Ak-47 was banned. Even if look-alike guns were banned before the shooting, it wouldn’t have stopped this sick man from committing his wicked act, because he owned the gun illegally to begin with! Incidentally, he fired 106 rounds in 6 minutes. Long before assault weapons were even envisioned British troops with bolt-action rifles were trained, and expected, to fire 100 aimed rounds in 5 minutes. Perhaps it was better that Purdy had a semi-automatic rifle and was firing from the hip in the general direction of his victims if he had a single-shot bolt action and aimed every round, the slaughter might have even been worse!

The brady organization also states that “Although it took four years and enormous public support to overcome the National Rifle Association's implacable opposition, the 1994 crime bill specifically banned the future manufacture and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons with no hunting or sporting purpose.â€

â€The crime bill also banned the future manufacture and import of large-capacity ammunition magazines holding more than 10 bullets.†Wow, ten bullets, that’s an improvement, so now instead of taking away the guns that supposedly kill people, they take away the bullets. Next they will probably be taking away the hand used to pull the trigger. Brett Gibbons writes on this online forum at http://www.mohaa.com

“Let us examine the average violent criminal. Many of them come from minority families. Almost all of them are poor. The majority are involved in the illegal drug trade (estimates vary from 30 to 60% of all gun murders involve drugs and gangs). They carry guns, most of them are well-made automatics, not "Saturday Night Specials." The vast, vast majority of the guns they have are acquired illegally, i.e. they bought them illicitly, stole them, brought them across a border, anyhow they are breaking the law possessing them.

And they commit murder. Solution: ban the gun used in the crime!

There is a hit-and-run and an innocent person dies. Solution: ban the car used in the hit-and-run!

A hacker breaks into a government network and steals secret files. Solution: ban the computer!

A vandal spray-paints graffiti on a building. Solution: ban spray paint!

A very good quote by Mr. Gibbons demonstrates that banning something is not the answer, no one will ever ban the car because it is a means for transportation, people will not ban computers or destroy the internet because they are a means of information and communication, but they will ban guns because, um, well, although used many times moreover for lawful purposes and the defense of ones home, they're occasionally misused by criminals and therefore are evil! So what's left for a lawmaker to do? Try to identify types of guns that are often associated with criminal activity and ban them. How very brilliant! This is like saying "Volvos are in a lot more accidents than other cars. Therefore let's ban Volvos." No on assault rifles people say? Why not no on Volvos?

There is more to owning a gun rather than going out and hunting for deer. I do not hunt, and am against sport hunting, the shooting of animals for the fun of it does not appeal to me. Many people ask me then why do I want assault weapons to be legalized? Well its simple, the assault weapon does not have to kill things, guns do not have to kill things. I have never used a gun to kill anything in my life, not a squirrel, a deer, or a bird. I target shoot with my guns. Millions of Americans go shooting practically every weekend at targets and blow things apart, have a fun time, and nobody ever gets hurt.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Leader of the Nazi Party, Adolph Hitler

In Switzerland, every able bodied male citizen is sent to the army for a year or two of basic training, they are then sent home with a military assault rifle and a hand gun, and surprisingly, the crime in Switzerland is one of the lowest in the world. Let’s speculate for a moment. Imagine yourself living in Switzerland, you are asleep at night, your European semi automatic rifle in the closet, and an intruder barges in, you wake up due to the noise and reach for your gun, proceed out your bedroom door and fire on the intruder, killing or disabling him. Your family’s life has been saved, and a ruthless criminal has been brought to justice.

The Brady campaign mentions how assault weapons crime dropped dramatically in 1995, immediately after the 1994 ban. However, they forget to tell you that all crime with all guns dropped in 1995, and while typical crime with and without firearms has dropped since then up until 2002, assault weapons crime has gone up by 6%! All the banning, confiscations, legislation, registration, the higher taxes, the millions of dollars allocated to enforcement, and the media barrage still hasn’t managed lower “assault weapons†crime from the 1994 levels, and as already mentioned, “assault weapons crime†by their own definition has gone up instead.

On reflection, www.kc3.com has some good points to make in this list of 40 reasons why guns should be banned.†8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.â€

Please reflect on this as well, Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev states that

â€We dare not invade America, it would be a battle on every streetcorner, through every poor mans farmhouse, in every residential place, they all have guns.†-- Nikita Khrushchev, 1961

And the Brady organization asks, needs an AK-47 to go duck hunting?†And I ask them, “What part of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed do you NOT understand?â€

[denoir 0]

I don't know. America is a big contradiction to me.

Hehe. Watch the southpark episode about the Iraq war (It was their 100th episode I believe). What the founding fathers say in that episode just about sums up what the U.S. is about.

Edit: Southpark provides some of the best social commentary on the United States you can find.

Gwahahaha     Yepp, they're good.  

Quote[/b] ]

Benjamin Franklin:  "I believe that if we are to form a new country, we cannot be a country that appears war-hungry and violent to the rest of the world.  However, we also cannot be a country that appears weak and unwilling to fight, to the rest of the world.  So, what if we form a country that appears to want both."

Thomas Jefferson:  "Yes, yes of course, we go to war and protest going to war at the same time...."

Benjamin Franklin:  "And that means that as a nation, we could go to war with whomever we wished, but at the same time act like we didn't want to.  If we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless."

John Adams:  "It's like having your cake and eating it too."

Anonymous Hick Redneck Founding Father:  "Think of it:  an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another."

John Hancock:  "And we will call that country the United States of America."

[Harnu 0]

What's wrong with the song "God Bless America", a song that Americans choose to sing?

If it's done by official government it rings badly with the separation of church and state which is one of the basic corner stones of a modern democracy.  

I don't know. America is a big contradiction to me. <snip>

Good 'ol cultural diversity.  Sometimes it sucks, but it's what made America what is itoday.  A big double standard  

Today in US History we were covering the Bill of Rights, well, we got to amendment two.  The right to bear arms, then myself and a few others got into a tanget of debating gun control.  It was intresting to say the least, but the parties involved we're less that viable

Myself (Call me what you will), a pot smoker* who usually has very good points, but it's too bad that they usually wont work, another pot smoker* who has a very expressive mind to say the least.  It was the three of us vs. a loudmouth girl.  It was quite fun.

Us pro-owning guns said that outlawing guns is like outlawing drugs, if you want to get some, you're going to get them.  And when the only people that get them obtain them illegally, then it goes to I think the NRA saying: "When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".

The one anti-owning guns said that there would be less shootings if you take the majority of guns out of the hands of people.  Perhaps allowing only one, if any, weapons to an individual.

Then we say that one gun can kill as many people as if you own many.

And it goes back to her saying then just to outlaw them completely.

And it goes in a non-progressive circle after that.

My feelings, personally, on the issue, is if I want a gun, I damn well better be able to get one.  But, I would definately understand if certain guns should not be sold.  Such as you don't want every Joe Shmoe with an .50 caliber M2 Browning Machine gun on their garage.

In order to own all weapons, you should have to go through a weapons handling and storing seminar.  And some way take a test to prove you know how to use, and how to store them properly.  I.E. You should not store a loaded weapon.

Other weapons should only be available to certain people, different permits things to determine that.  I'm not the expert on the subject so I would leave that to the people who would know what they are doing.

Those are my thoughts on the subject for today, if any of this was un-readable or not understandable, I've got the flu so bugger off  

*When I say pot smoker, I mean they are a less hardcore version of the steriotype.  But they are much like it.

[denoir 0]

Let?s speculate for a moment. Imagine yourself living in Switzerland, you are asleep at night, your European semi automatic rifle in the closet, and an intruder barges in, you wake up due to the noise and reach for your gun, proceed out your bedroom door and fire on the intruder, killing or disabling him. Your family?s life has been saved, and a ruthless criminal has been brought to justice.

The only one brought to justice will be you as it's illegal to use your service rifle for anything else but military use. It's not that they have low crime rates because they have a lot of guns, but it's that they can have a lot of guns because they have a low crime rate. The phenomenon of intruders coming to your home to kill you doesn't exist, so the Swiss never come into the situation where they would use their service rifle to "defend their home".

And they don't keep it in the closed but in a time-delayed gun safe. If they're not, they're breaking the law.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]second, just becuase i have a gun doesn't mean that i can defend.

It gives you the ability to defend yourself. Or would you prefer it that I whacked off a muggers leg with a katana?

i have no problem with you cutting your intruder's limbs off. make sure you get the other important parts such as necks and stomach too.

Quote[/b] ]I know people who've been in potentially lethal situations and simply used their gun as a tool to intimidate and drive off potential attackers, rather than firing.

same can be said with katana, baseball bat and in Tonya Harding's case, a hub cab.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]read carefully. given two choices. world has more than two choices.

If you are in a potentially lethal solution, (I'll use a "home invasion" as an example), those are your only feasible choices. You could call the police, but now you have to:

A. Wait for the police, in the meantime it is likely that you will be assaulted/murdered.

B. Employ the "Snivel like a Hippie" technique. It might work, but the invader will probably attack you and/or your family.

let me guess, the robbers break in to kill people, right?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]did he say guns?

He didn't talk about any weapon in particular, he was just talking about the right to defend yourself. Guns are simply the most easy way to defend yourself, though a chainsaw or baseball bat will work in close quarters.

as i said, guns are not the only solution. and as you said, he was saying about the right to defend myself, not about method. i guess i can carry some anthrax spores, and some nice Gatlings?

[ralphwiggum 6]

The Beretta article repeatedly points out that not everyone should own a gun and owning a gun is a serious personal descision that should not be taken lightly.

indeed. especially with a crap like Beretta you need to be extra careful

the posts of Grizzlie is the point we should aim at. those who are capable of demonstarting that they can resonably handle firearms in safe manner should be allowed to own one.

problem with pro2A side is that they want uniform access to guns. i've been around shooting range often and long enough to see some people who are clearly not reasonable in their safety standards and procedures, but pro2A people say that is their right.

on the other hand, the state of california thinks i am sane enough to own guns. i'll let you guys be the judge on how reckless/safe that is.

[Guest]

Just a little stat for you all. 80% of all guns used in crimes in the US were purchased for home protection. Bottom line = You cannot shoot someone if you don't have a gun. Simple really, I would have thought.

[Powerslide 0]

It's not about gun "control", it's all about education, education and education!! Also to address the social issues that lead to crime and desperate acts of violence. I will relate to you a story of my "education".

My father was a policeman in Canada when I was a kid. He also was an avid hunter, therefore there were guns around our house, albeit he was quite responsible with his guns. One day he was called to investigate an incident where a kid shot his little brother by accident in the head with a high power hunting rifle. I was maybe 4 years old but I recall him bringing the crime scene photos home. He showed these to me and he said "look son, this is what happens when you play with guns". Those images are etched in my mind until this day, 29 years later. We never ever touched or played with his guns. When I was 16 I got a hunting rifle on my birthday. I was further educated in the basics of handling firearms. #1 never point a gun at anyone, whether you "think" it's loaded or not. #2 never trust a safety. #3 A firearm is never unloaded or assumed not to be. Anyway I'm rambling here. We now have forced gun registration in Canada which gives the power of the police to enter your home without a warrant, like the Gestapo. There is likely 3 million criminals in this country right now, guys with unregistered guns. Nothing has been done to prevent crime, criminals will always get guns and will never register them. Now the next generation coming up, what I like to call the "counter-strike" generation has become uneducated and desensitized by the media and other things and have no education or positive influence about firearms. My 2 cents.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]I was maybe 4 years old but I recall him bringing the crime scene photos home. He showed these to me and he said "look son, this is what happens when you play with guns". Those images are etched in my mind until this day

Some people are of the opinion that kids shouldnt be shown such articles ... might be harmful for them.