Quote:
Except that it is common sense, at least intelectually that it would result in people getting hurt less often.
|
I don't see how it is "common sense". The presance of a firearm is not was causes people to get hurt. It's people who do stupid things with firearms, for example leaving a loaded pistol within reach of a small child...
Quote:
I might also add that "criminals" are usually kept in prisons and don't even have a chance to fire a gun in the first place.
|
Well, here in the real world, the police don't actually catch all the bad guys. And even when they do, the bad guys don't go off to jail forever, they get let out sooner or later...
Quote:
The shoot-first law in Florida is just creepy… real criminals now have a easy loop hole to jump through to get out of jail time, they can shoot a random person and say that he/she where attacking or threatening them.
|
Actually it's not a "shoot first" law, it's a "stand your ground" law.
Quote:
The Florida measure says any person "has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."
|
All that really means is that if you REASONABLY feel someone is about to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself. That doesn't sound so bad to me...
Quote:
I mean, are you nuts? Nearly everyone is a criminal of some kind. Police departments wouldn't be able to get their funding without the guarantee that most people will try to bypass the speed limit. All you're doing is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand regarding which forms of criminality are more icky than others.
|
Actually, I believe that the word "criminal" refers to people of commit felonys. I don't think of someone who gets a parking ticket as a "criminal"...
Quote:
Cars have an intended nondangerous purpose. And do strings, and knives, and red balloons, and cuckoo clocks. The only nondangerous functions of a gun are "sport shooting" (AKA killing things you probably don't intend to eat, you know, for kicks) and target shooting, which is hard to fathom as anything beyond a kind of frustrated practice for the "real thing". I mean, if you guys really think it's so hot to make holes in things, I have this awesome new invention to show you! It's called the electric drill, and—
|
I find this whole "cars have a nondangerous purpose" argument laughable. To those of you who are in favor of banning guns: why do you want them banned? I'm sure most of you would say "because they hurt/kill people", and that "fewer people would be hurt/killed if guns were banned". If your goal is to save lives by banning dangerous machines, then logically you MUST be in favor of banning cars. So why arn't you in favor of banning cars? You then use the "you can do things with them that don't involve anyone dying" argument. Again, guns are the same way, there are alot of things you can do with firearms that won't kill anyone. So please explain to me how they are different?
Quote:
How many kids shoot themselves or someone else by accident each year, using a firearm which is owned by their upstanding citizen parent?
|
Thats exactly why they should teach kids NOT to shoot themselves in schools.
Quote:
That's what I found to be so hilarious in "Bowling For Columbine", you Canadians being armed to the teeth as well but with far less gun related crime. It has to come down to an attitude problem on the (US) Amercians' part, doesen't it?
|
Why do people assume that the US is such a violent place? I don't believe that we are somehow more violent by nature than people from other nations. I'd still love to see those crime rate numbers... I could be wrong but I have a feeling that the numbers will back me up on this one...
Quote:
I get the feeling you care more about reducing criminal violence figures than actually bringing about a further degree of community safety.
|
You can't legislate saftey. Either people will be smart (and therefore safe) or they won't. Stupid people can find all sorts of ways to hurt themselves or others, with or without guns.
Quote:
Either that or you're merely pissed you mightn't be able to go quail hunting with an M60 because democracies have this niggly habit of legislating for majorities.
|
First off, the majority are gun owners (at least in the US).
Secondly, wouldn't you be pissed too if someone told you that you can't have something because you MIGHT do something bad with it? That would be like me saying that you shouldn't be allowed to own a computer, because you might use it pirate movies or music. Nevermind the fact that you've owned computers for X number of years and never done anything illegal with them. You MIGHT do something bad in the future, therefore you have no right to own a computer...
I've been shooting for nearly 20 years now. I've never once shot anyone or held up a bank or anything of the sort. Explain to me how taking away my firearms will make the world a safer place?
Quote:
I don't particularly care myself whether my neighbor owns a gun or not. As long as he doesn't point it at me.
|
My point exactly. As long as people are responsible with them, why should anyone care if they have guns?
Quote:
To be honest, I don't really see why you need fully automatic weapons for home defense. If you lay down that much firepower, inside of your home, or on your property, there isn't going to be much left assuming you're successful in stopping the intrusion.
|
I don't recall anyone sujesting the use of a full auto for home defense... thats just plain stupid, as you've pointed out...
Quote:
Dead Horse, how can there be required classes for all prospective and current gun owners if there is no structure with which to know who has, and does not have one? Without any kind of registry, there can be no way to enforce the course you suggest.
|
Again, all the more reason to have saftey classes in schools...
Quote:
From the eighteenth century. When one of the wonders of the modern world was a shitting mechanical duck. Times change. You don't write with a quill anymore. And you don't need a gun to defend your house from King George.
|
While technology has changed, human nature has not. I believe that the founders wisdom is just as valid today as it was 200 years ago...
Quote:
My "Times Change" argument is pointed DIRECTLY at the "national defense" argument. It's just stupid. NEWS FLASH: America is the world's greatest superpower and has the world's most powerful military. Individual citizens DO NOT need weapons for national defense.
|
Actually, I believe on of the reasons that the Japanese didn't invade hawaii or the west coast in WWII was because they knew that the citizens were well armed...
Quote:
As for home defense, well you don't need a gun to protect your home in a country where the government doesn't allow the meth-head who's breaking in to buy a gun.
|
What if that same meth-head has a knife or bat? And what if I'm a 75 year old granny? Are you saying that a gun wouldn't be a good thing to have in that situation?
Also, the Meth-head is already breaking the law. What makes you think he (or she?) would obey a gun law when they won't obey other laws?
Quote:
The Union which they were creating. Well it has been a long time now and anybody who isn't buying into a dozen conspiracies will tell you that there is no need to arm yourself against the federal government.
|
I think the goverment is more dangerous now than ever before. The current leadership seems determined to take away as many rights as possible in the name of "protecting" us from terrorists...
Quote:
This is a more complex issue than a show of force. In terms of numbers, we have the army beat. But we're not mobilized, and we're certainly not equipped and trained to try to fight anyone, even if it is on our own ground. Hell, a single tear gas shell into your home and you'd be ready to call it quits.
|
Not if you have a gas mask
Quote:
Guns are fine. I'm not trying to pry them from your soon to be cold dead fingers. But the argument that you need guns to protect yourself from big brother is ludicrous.
|
I think I said this before, but I'll say it again: I bet the Jews would have fared better in Nazi Germany had they been armed...
Quote:
Okay, are you comfortable with the idea of practicality? Who's going to feed clothe and supply these one million angry homeowners? Who will lead them? Who will ensure they don't break and scatter at the first sight of a column of U.S. trained troops with a tank at their head?
|
There are many examples of powerful, organized armys being defeated by untrained locals with guns. Two that come to mind very quickly are the amerian war for independance, and the veitnam war...
There's nowhere I can't reach.