Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


GUN DEBATE
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2008, 01:19 PM Local time: Jun 26, 2008, 01:19 PM #1 of 125
GUN DEBATE

BOOOYA DC GUN BAN LIFTED BANG BANG

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns - Yahoo! News
Spoiler:
WASHINGTON - Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

Scalia's opinion dealt almost exclusively with self-defense in the home, acknowledging only briefly in his lengthy historical analysis that early Americans also valued gun rights because of hunting.

The brevity of Scalia's treatment of gun ownership for hunting and sports-shooting is explained by the case before the court. The Washington law at issue, like many gun control laws around the country, concerns heavily populated areas, not hunting grounds.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Chicago mayor Richard Daley said he didn't know how the high court ruling would affect the city, but said that the ruling was "a very frightening decision." He predicted an end to Chicago's handgun ban would spark new violence and force the city to raise taxes to pay for new police.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court.

"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Thursday's decision was embraced by the president, said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "This has been the administration's long-held view," Perino said. "The president is also pleased that the court concluded that the D.C. firearm laws violate that right."

White House reaction was restrained. "We're pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.


supreme SCOTUS 2nd Amendment armed populace don't you know guns are dangerous!?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Last edited by Bradylama; Jun 26, 2008 at 02:10 PM.
The unmovable stubborn
(Feeling Inspired)


Member 1512

Level 62.24

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2008, 01:21 PM 1 #2 of 125
Nehmi it's against the rules to have a dupe account to troll with

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2008, 01:23 PM Local time: Jun 26, 2008, 01:23 PM #3 of 125
Nehmi it's against the rules to have a dupe account to troll with
But I didn't even say anything about how activist judges undermine are freedoms.

Most amazing jew boots
The unmovable stubborn
(Feeling Inspired)


Member 1512

Level 62.24

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2008, 01:29 PM 2 #4 of 125
No, that's what Nehmi would do because he is negativist and paranoid

You are clearly Bizarro Nehmi, since you posted a massive article that will go unread about what you think is GOOD news that is TRUE before you babbled out something incomprehensible and overenthused.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Radez
Holy Chocobo


Member 2915

Level 31.81

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2008, 09:50 PM #5 of 125
Won't it be interesting to study the homicide rate in D.C. over the next few years now? Granted there's all sorts of considerations, but it'll still be interesting! I mean people on one side say it'll definitely go down, and people on the other say it'll definitely go up. I'd love to see who was the more accurate predictor.

I was speaking idiomatically.
The unmovable stubborn
(Feeling Inspired)


Member 1512

Level 62.24

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2008, 09:56 PM #6 of 125
The problem is that the pro-gun ethos views gun crime as not a reason to eliminate guns but a reason to add even more guns because otherwise how will you shoot all the gun-havers

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Radez
Holy Chocobo


Member 2915

Level 31.81

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2008, 10:02 PM #7 of 125
But it's self defense Pang, that means the gun-crime perpetrators die, and the number of deaths goes up, but the number of criminal deaths goes down!

Then D.C. can finally throw that block party it always wanted but could never have because its buddies were too afraid to visit. =(

FELIPE NO
The unmovable stubborn
(Feeling Inspired)


Member 1512

Level 62.24

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2008, 10:09 PM #8 of 125
Ah, but they don't mostly

because as criminals

they can reasonably be assumed to be better at murderin' than non-criminals are

this is my assessment of matters after several viewings of High Noon

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
LZ
What I'm out for is a good time. All the rest is propaganda.


Member 71

Level 19.91

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2008, 10:21 PM #9 of 125
The problem is that the pro-gun ethos views gun crime as not a reason to eliminate guns but a reason to add even more guns because otherwise how will you shoot all the gun-havers
yea you're right, those damn cops should get off their fat lazy ASSES and find and destroy every single gun in dc right fucking now! self-defense is for stupid dumb faggot pussy bitches

Most amazing jew boots
The unmovable stubborn
(Feeling Inspired)


Member 1512

Level 62.24

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2008, 10:30 PM 3 #10 of 125
I should warn you before you get too indignant: you are arguing with a drunk cartoon who is deliberately engaging in farce

also I am pretty sure turtle power is more than adequate to assure that criminals are not cut any slack

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Zephyrin
OOOHHHHhhhhhh YEEEEAAAAHHHHhhhh~!!!1


Member 933

Level 36.14

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2008, 11:02 PM Local time: Jun 26, 2008, 09:02 PM #11 of 125
There's always the people kill people argument, which is what I like to stand by.

The problem isn't who has a gun and who doesn't, because the gun ban won't keep the baddies from having guns.
The nation as a whole is angry, discontent, and bitter. Not to mention full of ignorant, uneducated fucks from a million different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Everybody here has at least one person they'd like to shoot.

So basically, too many assholes will translate to too many criminals, which would translate to too many illegally owned firearms, which leads to more criminal deaths.

A ban on guns would probably stop those silly national newsbreaks such school shootings, and that nasty factory shooting from this week, but it probably wouldn't slow down the real demographic of criminals.

Don't take away people's guns. Find a way to make people happier and less full of piss, salt, and vinegar.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 01:27 AM Local time: Jun 27, 2008, 01:27 AM #12 of 125
Gun debates are one of the few issues where both sides fear the same thing.

I also think it's interesting that the places in the country where people really could use a handgun for self-defense have (had) bans.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
A4: IN THE DUNGEONS OF THE SLAVE LORDS
6C. Kobold's Kitchen


Member 773

Level 21.70

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 02:03 AM Local time: Jun 27, 2008, 02:03 AM #13 of 125
Gun debates are one of the few issues where both sides fear the same thing.

The capacity of everyone around them to be a potentially dangerous violent douchebag?

I was speaking idiomatically.
Lady, I was gonna cut you some slack, cause you're a major mythological figure but now you've just gone nuts!
Musharraf
So Call Me Maybe


Member 20

Level 52.53

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 05:19 AM Local time: Jun 27, 2008, 11:19 AM #14 of 125
I heard the number of crimes was significantly (like 500% or so) lower after Washington decided to ban firearms in the middle of the 70s. While I agree that you should be allowed to own a weapon in order to defend yourself, I am not sure whether that is necessary in areas where the crime rate is significantly low.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Fluffykitten McGrundlepuss
Motherfucking Chocobo


Member 589

Level 64.55

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 05:54 AM Local time: Jun 27, 2008, 11:54 AM #15 of 125
The arguement that criminals will have guns whether they're banned or not is a retarded one. Yes, hardcore criminals will have guns whether or not they're banned but hardcore criminals don't commit petty housebreaks and burglary, they stick to more profitable stuff like smuggling and bank robberies and generally in those lines of criminality you tend to come up against armed guards or the Navy, who generally have much bigger guns than you.

If guns are illegal than your average burglar isn't going to have one. Sure, if you disturb them you might still get a kicking but you'll probably survive that. If he's packing heat and you come down waving a shooter around, the chances of someone ending up dead are exponentially higher. Also, I'd love to see some statistic on just how often someone breaks into someone else's house while they're in in America. Do you guys have fucking shit burgalrs or what? The one thing English housebreakers avoid all else is going into a house when somebody's at home. How many crimes have actually ever been averted because a homeowner had a gun? I'd suggest that the figure is pretty damn close to zero. Also, if someone is in your house with a gun, isn't getting out your own gun just gonna make them more likely to shoot you? Correct me if I'm wrong but most criminals would rather face a burglary conviction than a murder charge, they're breaking in to your house to steal shit, not kill people. Do you guys not have insurance over there? Are your possesions really so important that you want to risk a shoot out in your own home to defend them?

The whole "self-defense" thing is basically bullshit and I think that deep down you all know it. Americans want to own guns out of some machismo, penis substitute need. I AM MAN, I HAVE BIG GUN TO SHOOT BAD GUYZ IN MY HOUSE. It's the same sort of thing that drives blokes to have fights outside kebab shops after the pub over here, only people rarely get killed in friendly punch-ups. That gun and knife crime is on the rise over here is merely a symptom of kids these days being a bunch of pussies who don't know how to fight properly and the chances of getting shot by someone breaking into your house are still basically nil in this country.

FELIPE NO
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hope™


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 06:23 AM Local time: Jun 27, 2008, 06:23 AM #16 of 125
Quote:
How many crimes have actually ever been averted because a homeowner had a gun? I'd suggest that the figure is pretty damn close to zero.
Based on what exactly?

It's a loaded argument - you know it's purely anecdotal and there's no reliable way to compile statistics on it, so you have every bit as much chance of being dead wrong as you are of right.

You can sit here and offer your asinine arguments of Americans merely wanting guns out of some kind of vanity, but I reject that argument out of hand. The most fundamental of individual rights is the right to property - not only to just own it, but to be able to defend it, even with deadly force if the need arises. You don't have to agree with it - hell, I don't want you to, but don't you dare sit there and try to say that I'm a pussy because I value the right to defend myself and my property with a firearm.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Fluffykitten McGrundlepuss
Motherfucking Chocobo


Member 589

Level 64.55

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 06:59 AM Local time: Jun 27, 2008, 12:59 PM 4 #17 of 125
Based on what exactly?

It's a loaded argument - you know it's purely anecdotal and there's no reliable way to compile statistics on it, so you have every bit as much chance of being dead wrong as you are of right.

You can sit here and offer your asinine arguments of Americans merely wanting guns out of some kind of vanity, but I reject that argument out of hand. The most fundamental of individual rights is the right to property - not only to just own it, but to be able to defend it, even with deadly force if the need arises. You don't have to agree with it - hell, I don't want you to, but don't you dare sit there and try to say that I'm a pussy because I value the right to defend myself and my property with a firearm.
I'm not calling you a pussy for it, I'm calling you an idiot for it. If you get burgled and the person is retarded enough to do it while you're at home and they happen to have brought a gun with them, if you do as they say, you'll lose a bunch of stuff and at worst, get a smack in the face. After a short period of having no stuff, the insurance company pay out and you get brand new stuff, normally better than you had in the first place given that only fucking idiots insure their stuff for what it's actually worth.

If instead you pull out your own gun, there's a distinct possibility that either you or the guy might end up firing. Let's face it, if someone's desperate enough for money to rob a house when someone's home they're possibly desperate enough to actually use the gun they're carrying. Now if you're lucky, nobody gets shot and the dude gets away with whatever he grabbed before you disturbed him. There's a possiblity you'll hit him meaning you have a dead dude in your house and blood all over your stuff, do insurance companies pay out for damage done to furniture by you blowing someone's brains out all over it? I honestly don't know, that kinda thing doesn't happen here. If you're really unlucky though either he shoots you first or he misses and hits a member of your family, the cops get called, he panics, takes a hostage, the whole thing escalates and everyone ends up dead.

I know that's an extreme situation but surely it just makes more sense to run the very slim risk of confronting someone in your home and losing all your stuff which you can easily replace and keep your health in the process against the same risk of meeting someone in your house only with an added risk of you or your family ending up dead in the process?

For me that's a no-brainer. I honestly don't believe that anyone I found in my house would be there to hurt people, they just want to steal stuff and I think that introducing your own gun into the situation is going to increase the risk of someone getting hurt, not decrease it.

Sure, protect your stuff but at the end of the day, it's only stuff and you can get that back really, really easily. I just can't imagine a situation where having a gun at home is in anyway helpful or a good idea for self defence purposes.

Most amazing jew boots
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hope™


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 07:06 AM Local time: Jun 27, 2008, 07:06 AM #18 of 125
Whether or not you think it's stupid or not is not the issue -- the issue is whether or not I should have the right to own that firearm to protect my shit. You don't think I should have that right and as a result, you know exactly what you can go do.

Quote:
I just can't imagine a situation where having a gun at home is in anyway helpful or a good idea for self defence purposes.
And maybe it's your lack of imagination here that hinders you in understanding a basic concept. If a criminal knows that he might run up on someone with a firearm when he goes into their house, it acts as an added deterrent. It allows me a way to effectively deal with an intruder - bullets can hit an attacker at range as opposed to having to get into melee with a bat or knife.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Last edited by Night Phoenix; Jun 27, 2008 at 07:12 AM.
Fluffykitten McGrundlepuss
Motherfucking Chocobo


Member 589

Level 64.55

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 07:18 AM Local time: Jun 27, 2008, 01:18 PM #19 of 125
That's true. The right to remain stupid is one that Americans hold dear.

I figured that as the case had been decided by the courts, the amount of input GFF members could offer as to the constitutional right to own a gun would be pretty limited and this would be a hell of a short thread without some people discussing the wider issues of gun ownership. Do you not worry though that legislation in your country is so tightly bound by the often vague wording of a twohundred year old document with no room for the application of common sense? I mean, I know it's your right to own a gun but what would it take for people to start accepting that maybe in the context of modern society, had the constitution been written now they probably wouldn't have put that bit in and as such, clinging to that as the sole arguement against banning firearms is pretty dumb?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
LZ
What I'm out for is a good time. All the rest is propaganda.


Member 71

Level 19.91

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 09:42 AM #20 of 125
Let me say that I don't own a gun. I've never used one and I don't ever plan on owning one. They simply aren't needed where I live.

But it should be up to the homeowner to decide if the risk of confronting an intruder with a gun is worth it. You assume quite a lot in your one hypothetical situation:

1. We can all have insurance on all of our shit!
2. We can all afford a burglary!
3. You will probably get shot at if you pull out a gun!

Unfortunately there are places where 1 & 2 is just wrong. There are some areas where people really are struggling and they can't afford insurance and they need everything they can get. Letting a burglar rob their shit would be devastating. And it's typically in those areas where burglars are willing to use weapons to get what they want. You're pretty much saying that these people don't really need the choice to protect their property and themselves because it's really dangerous! who gives a fuck if they live in a shithole and they own next to nothing and burglars will have the upper hand

I don't even know how you reached the conclusion that pulling a gun out will make an intruder more likely to shoot at you. The common idea is that pulling a gun out will make someone shit themselves and leave because they don't want to die. Have they run psychological tests or something? Are there stats that show that most people will respond violently to a gun? If not then well that's just something you made up, and not really more valid than the philosophy of guns as a deterrent.

Guns for lawful purposes should be allowed, because the truth is that they are of practical use to some people. The question of whether the Constitution is outdated doesn't apply here, because people still feel a need to defend themselves. (But I am usually on the side of activist judges - the Constitution does need to be adapted to modern times in some cases.)

I do agree however with meeting certain requirements before being able to own a gun, so it's not like I'm a complete gun nut or anything

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Last edited by LZ; Jun 27, 2008 at 09:45 AM.
Paco
????


Member 175

Level 58.82

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 10:02 AM Local time: Jun 27, 2008, 08:02 AM #21 of 125
How many crimes have actually ever been averted because a homeowner had a gun?
Well... I prevented a burglary with a handgun at my home many many years ago. However, it should be noted my hand-cannon wasn't legal.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Fluffykitten McGrundlepuss
Motherfucking Chocobo


Member 589

Level 64.55

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 10:46 AM Local time: Jun 27, 2008, 04:46 PM #22 of 125
I don't even know how you reached the conclusion that pulling a gun out will make an intruder more likely to shoot at you. The common idea is that pulling a gun out will make someone shit themselves and leave because they don't want to die. Have they run psychological tests or something? Are there stats that show that most people will respond violently to a gun? If not then well that's just something you made up, and not really more valid than the philosophy of guns as a deterrent.
My point there was that to burgle someone's house while they're at home suggests a certain level of desperation in the first place. If the burglar doesn't have a gun themselves, they're going to run away when they realise you're there. Unless you're tiny and timid, a gun isn't really going to help your cause any. If they have got a gun and you pull yours, do you really think that someone who has broken in to your house, knowing that you're in there is going to walk away just because you pulled a gun? I'd suggest that they're far more likely to call your bluff or just shoot you.

Unless I'm very wrong and violent house breaking is far more common in the US than it is here (Which it may well be, I admit that), I just don't see the situation where you're in your house at the same time as a burglar and your very presemce isn't enough to scare them off happening so often you need a lethal weapon to protect yourself. I'm simply stating that in my opinion, people getting all pissy because they can't keep guns at home are misguided as in my opinion I can't ever see a time when it'd be beneficial. It is my opinion that from a practical point of view, a gun is not a useful or cost effective way of protecting your property and that maintaining a constitutional right to own weapons that can kill people very easily with little or no skill or personal involvement on the basis of needing them to protect your property is silly as the social costs outweigh the individual benefits. I might not be able to kill someone who's sneaking around my house stealing my stuff without getting within arms reach, sure, but kids round here don't have to go through metal detectors on their way into school and the schools don't need early warning systems to let everyone know when a crazed gunman is on a shooting spree because when kids here get all emo and pissed off with life, their parents don't have a load of guns lying around the house.

How ya doing, buddy?
Meth
I'm not entirely joking.


Member 565

Level 26.04

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 11:09 AM Local time: Jun 27, 2008, 10:09 AM #23 of 125
If guns are illegal than your average burglar isn't going to have one.
How do you figure? And what exactly is your "average burglar?"

I understand that most of you kids outside the US live in near utopia since your gov'ts have disarmed you. But here, many of us can't fully rely on our law enforcement agencies to protect us from harm. So if citizens want to keep weapons in their homes as a "worst case scenario" safety precaution...why not? It be like not owning a fire extinguisher on the principle that you'll probably never need one. Regardless of personal preference, it should remain a personal preference.

FELIPE NO
Fluffykitten McGrundlepuss
Motherfucking Chocobo


Member 589

Level 64.55

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 11:22 AM Local time: Jun 27, 2008, 05:22 PM #24 of 125
I'm willing to be proved wrong but I'm fairly sure the instances of people getting killed by fire extinguishers going off accidentally or kids using their parent's fire extinguishers to massacre their school mates are pretty few and far between. What I'm suggesting is that the risks of someone getting unintentionally killed by a gun you keep loaded in your bedside cabinet outweigh the benefits of keeping a loaded firearm in your bedside cabinet in case some crazed maniac bursts into your house at such a time as you happen to be upstairs in reach of your gun.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Wall Feces
Holy Cow! What Happened!


Member 493

Level 46.34

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2008, 11:28 AM #25 of 125
It be like not owning a fire extinguisher on the principle that you'll probably never need one. Regardless of personal preference, it should remain a personal preference.
Are you kidding? When do you ever NEED a gun? Are there honestly situations outside of being engaged in a full-out war where a gun is a necessary item?

Fire extinguishers won't accidentally paint the walls of your house with brains if in the wrong hands. Guns create more problems than they solve. It's your choice to have one, I will agree to that, but it's also your choice to put undue anxiety on you and your family if you have a curious little 4-year-old. I think the worst case of someone in your family being accidentally hurt by a gun is far worse than some nutjob breaking into your house.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > GUN DEBATE

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.