32 people killed every single day

Originally posted by calihan123
well. thats fine. i never said people should have their rights taken away from them.

i just dont see the point of having a gun, and i AM very logical. But it doesnt make a lot of sense to me.

If someone were to break into my home, id rather get a glass vase and break it over his head and then kick him in the face, instead of having a gun and simply killing him.

i wouldnt want to be responsible for another person's death.. no matter what they were trying to do.

i respect everyone else's opionions but for once i would like them to respect mine and see where i might be coming from.

Actually, by asking that guns be banned because YOU don't see why they are needed, you are asking to take people's rights away.

it them with a vase? Is your name Tom? Do you have a mouse named jerry around that messes with you? Real life seldom works like tv.

By the way, gun beats vase anytime.

And remember, gun control is the beliefe that aq 110 pound woman should have to fistfight a 220 pound rapist.

[edit on 11/6/2008 by Finn1916]

reply to post by dooper


Well contrary to what you are saying, i have experienced very scary situations before. dont need to go into detail on it, but i definitely have been very afraid before.

and i still do not feel the need to have a gun

reply to post by calihan123

and i still do not feel the need to have a gun

Then by all means, do not buy a gun. All I ask is that you do not try to keep me from having one. I promise, I will not shoot you unless you try to harm me or mine first.

There, now wasn't that simple?

TheRedneck

reply to post by calihan123


Well then by all means we certainly respect your right to not own a gun. But what exactly are you trying to convince everyone of? That we need to try and prevent death and murder? Do you think if we were to remove guns people wouldnt find another way to kill? I would rather live in a world were I am equal to the criminals than one where I am not.

Originally posted by calihan123
reply to post by dooper

 

Well contrary to what you are saying, i have experienced very scary situations before. dont need to go into detail on it, but i definitely have been very afraid before.

and i still do not feel the need to have a gun

Well thats your choice. But why are you so content on telling everyone else what is good for them? How do you know other people don't need guns, just because you assume you don't?

Guns saves lives.

Heres a little snippet for ya:

In the small town of Winnemucca Nevada a man bent on performing a mass shooting at a bar was stopped by an armed CCW permit holder who happened to be in the right place at the right time. The alleged mass murderer had already killed two victims & had injured two others with gunshot wounds, but after reloading to resume his shooting spree he was shot & killed by an armed CCW permit holder who was also at the bar. The alleged mass murderer & his two dead victims were already dead by the time Police arrived on the scene once again proving that when seconds count, only the immediate responders are already on the scene, while first responders (Police) are only minutes away. This is further proof that gun free zones are a travesty that must be ended.

Story

There would have been alot more deaths in this situation, if this brave man did not have a CCW permit.

What would you say to the people who were next in line to be offed by this psycho?






[edit on 6-11-2008 by schism85]

reply to post by calihan123


Could you please respond to at least one of my posts. I did do a little reasearch for information to support my views and the realities of gun control in relation to crime. Could you at least acknowlege you read them.

You seem to be only responding to people who are either attacking you or to people that only supply opinions to contradict your ideas and feelings about firearms and why we have firearms, which you can easily supply another opinion to respond with to justify your own views, all the while learning nothing.

Originally posted by calihan123
bottom line there just shouldnt be guns unless used for police officers or hunters.

Please check your statistics on a state-by-state, or even a county-by-county basis.

The highest areas of gun violence are some of the places with the strongest anti-gun laws.

Do you really think that if there is a nation wide ban on guns all the criminals will come turn their guns in? They haven't in cities like Washington DC or NYC where there are very strict gun laws in place?

What leads you to believe the criminals will turn in their guns?

All my guns combined have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car!

Originally posted by Alexander_Supertramp

Originally posted by calihan123
also , all of you say that, but what if one day you were shot? what if one day you have a child, and they are shot and killed?

then how might you feel? that yourself having a gun is going to change anything? no. not having guns at all would change things.

Personally, my belief on gun tolerance does not derive from my 'feelings.' It is a constitutional right and one that should, rationally and logically, never be taken away. Besides, the American Revolution was fought with the colonists' guns. In the event that we should ever have to violently overthrow the government guns are absolutely necessary.

Do you seriously believe that the American people would be able to overthrow the US Government? Seriously? With guns and whatever?

I ask, because I've heard of this before, and honestly.. It just would never happen.

Ever.

The ability of violent opposition against your own government, has LONG since been a thing of the past. Money is the power, and those who have it, are the kings. You cannot fight the nature of the beast.

You cannot even protest in a peaceful manner against it, without the police arresting you en masse. You certainly cannot go against the grain.

China has a lot to learn from the US. They thought overt abuse of power would control and intimidate the populace. They didn't realize the world would see it as oppression.

But the US kept it all covert. The world see's you now and see a pillar of democracy. The control, the oppression, it's all hidden under ideology and rhetoric. But step out of line, and they don't need tanks...

Banning guns will mean that only criminals will have them. That is a very scary prospect. I do not believe that people should or shouldn't have guns, but I believe that you should definitely have a right to one. I myself do not own a gun and I feel just as safe as can be, despite my paranoid tendencies.

I'm from California, but I lived in Texas for a year. What surprised me was how prevalent gun ownership was. I worked at a tech company and our head of engineering at the time was an avid shooter. He was raised around firearms and is very responsible with them. I bring this up because in California, this guy might be looked at as a target/potential victim. He is not physically imposing and had some of the stereotypes associated with engineers; ie. tech geeks. In Texas, however, he is not looked at that way. He can more or less stroll through any neighborhood and feel relatively safe. This is because guns are legal and in Texas it seems to be more ingrained into the culture (no, I am not saying that all Texans are gun-toting cowboys and I apologize if this statement is a little presumptive, as I'm sure it is). You never know who could be packing, and the criminals know this as well.

In a perfect world, guns would only be trusted to the police/military. This world, however, is far from perfect.

reply to post by TheRedneck


What happens if you get a mental illness, find your lover cheating, or get made redundant and hit the bottle? Your logic, as fine as it is, is based solely upon the assumption that you are always going to be 100% in control of your faculties, until you either die or cease having a gun.

The problem is not responsible gun owners, it's irresponsible gun owners and responsible gun owners who are no longer responsible.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

What happens if you get a mental illness, find your lover cheating, or get made redundant and hit the bottle? Your logic, as fine as it is, is based solely upon the assumption that you are always going to be 100% in control of your faculties, until you either die or cease having a gun.

The problem is not responsible gun owners, it's irresponsible gun owners and responsible gun owners who are no longer responsible.

Just because someone gets a mental illness, or is drinking, or if their wife is cheating on them, doesn't mean that they will start shooting. And if someone who experiences the examples above, if they really wanted to kill, they would, and wouldn't need a gun to do it.

If someone was no longer incontrol of their faculties as you put it, and have a gun and wanted to kill, then we can only hope that the others that do have control, are packing.








[edit on 6-11-2008 by schism85]

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

What happens if you get a mental illness, find your lover cheating, or get made redundant and hit the bottle? Your logic, as fine as it is, is based solely upon the assumption that you are always going to be 100% in control of your faculties, until you either die or cease having a gun.

The problem is not responsible gun owners, it's irresponsible gun owners and responsible gun owners who are no longer responsible.

You argument can just as easily work for cars as well as guns. How many innocent people are killed every day by drivers who are drunk, mentally or physically impaired, or just plain acting like an idiot? A lot more than by guns, I would be willing to wager.

If a person loses control of their faculties, as you suggest, what should he/she not have access to? Cars? Knives? Drugs? Carpentry tools? Chemicals? Incendiary devices? Vicious animals? Any of these things can maim or kill in the wrong hands. Should we outlaw them all? Nothing with a sharp edge....ever?

reply to post by schism85


No, but it means they potentially no longer have the mental faculty to be a responsible person.

Also it's far easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife - it's also a lot less personal, quicker, and one has to think a lot less about it. Before they even realise what they've done, *boom*, body bag. There is no 'cooling off' period when you have a gun and want to kill someone 20 yards in front of you.

p.s. its not like banning guns will eliminate all knowledge of how to create guns.

I have family members that can (and have) create 50 caliber rifles out of parts from home depot. In fact, they can be disassembled and reassembled using 2 different allen wrenches.

Just another way to illustrate that banning does nothing, other than removes the regulation of gun sales.

reply to post by dave420

What happens if you get a mental illness, find your lover cheating, or get made redundant and hit the bottle? Your logic, as fine as it is, is based solely upon the assumption that you are always going to be 100% in control of your faculties, until you either die or cease having a gun.

Well, according to some people I already have a mental illness ( ), and I have been made redundant and lost not just a job, but a career and a private business. Along with everything else I had except my land and my family (which I almost lost as well). I did not go shooting up the neighborhood.

There are situations where someone with, say, Alzheimer's disease could not be trusted reasonably with a firearm. But someone in that position would hopefully have their firearms removed by a family member. That is a hard situation to analyze, but in the end I would not want to give up my right to own a weapon for self-defense/hunting purposes just on the possibility that some old codger would go out of his mind and start shooting the place up. I would fall on the side of at least if I had a gun as well, maybe I could take him down (injure, not kill in that situation; if someone is known to be delirious, it would be appropriate to forgo the old 'shoot to stop at any cost' option IMO) before he could do major harm. After all, if someone is in a mad rage, there are plenty of other weapons available.

I don't have the actual statistics in front of me, but I would hazard to say that this particular situation is far from being the norm. I would respond by saying 'what would you do if the Russians invaded?' I would consider both situations to be highly improbable events.

As for domestic violence, that is a crime of passion. I do not have an answer for that situation, as much as I would like to have one. All I can say is, the intent to kill is more deadly than the device used to kill.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Pyros


One must weigh the benefit with the detriment. Cars are fantastically useful when used correctly. Guns, if they were all used correctly, would never be needed for defense against an armed assailant. The mere presence of guns requires everyone to be armed.

I know what you are saying, but guns cause the problem guns fix. That, to me, makes the answer dangerously obvious. However, if you read my first post, we are past that point. Now all we can do is damage limitation, hence my preference for frequent mental checks and the ability for irresponsible gun owners to lose their firearms.

reply to post by scientist


I think you should make a thread on that... being able to construct your own gun could be useful info in these increasingly strange times.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by dave420

What happens if you get a mental illness, find your lover cheating, or get made redundant and hit the bottle? Your logic, as fine as it is, is based solely upon the assumption that you are always going to be 100% in control of your faculties, until you either die or cease having a gun.

As for domestic violence, that is a crime of passion. I do not have an answer for that situation, as much as I would like to have one. All I can say is, the intent to kill is more deadly than the device used to kill.

TheRedneck

I just wanted to add that when I think of crimes of passion, and I think of legal experts, (lawyers, forensic anyalists, forensic profilers, detectives), most of the time a crime of passion is when the person commiting the act uses what is reffered to as over kill. Like the bashing of the head multiple times, or 100 stab wounds or what have you.

When someone is in the 'heat of the moment', the last thing they do is go to their drawer, or gun rack, get their gun, come back to the room and start shooting. They pick up whats around them, (or nothing at all) and go at the person.

Is it possible that a person in the 'heat of the moment' will run for the gun, wherever it is, and start shooting? Yes. But instances of these types of crimes show me, that a person gets a little more 'intimate' shall we say, when it comes to crimes of passion. Like strangling, or bashing of the head ect. It is usually when the murder is planned, that a gun is used. From my own personally perspective on crimes of that nature.





[edit on 6-11-2008 by schism85]

Originally posted by calihan123
A car can drive you.
A knife can cut your food.
A gun is only used to kill. Why DO YOU HAVE ONE
End of my discussion.

I personally keep/carry guns in case I need to kill someone (in defense of myself or my family). That is the only reason I keep them.

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by calihan123
A car can drive you.
A knife can cut your food.
A gun is only used to kill. Why DO YOU HAVE ONE
End of my discussion.

I personally keep/carry guns in case I need to kill someone (in defense of myself or my family). That is the only reason I keep them.

Yeah..... sure
JK