Smith amp Wesson Posted April 9, 2003 Author Posted April 9, 2003 Why do folks with talent got to be flamin liberals ????
Kamidake Posted April 13, 2003 Posted April 13, 2003 I'm in the U.S. so I can't answer the original question, but what I CAN say is that I was once married to a man who "didn't want guns in the house," so when he decided to beat hell out of me there was very little I could do to stop him. I finally escaped and called the police, who threatened to arrest ME for causing a disturbance. (This was in the late '70's; supposedly it's better now. One hopes so.) I think everyone should take responsibility for his (her) safety, arm himself, and learn how to use the weapon responsibly. I did and I feel much safer now. On the broader issue of arms control--well, we all know what happened to the samurai when they agreed to give up their swords!
ZR440 Posted April 14, 2003 Posted April 14, 2003 And also what happened to Austraila when they gave up their guns. It's happy hour somewhere in the world.
Michael Posted April 16, 2003 Posted April 16, 2003 Well I live in Canberra but i'm not to certain about all the gun laws and when people actually had to give them up. I am fairly sure however, that i've seen every gun related violent crime reported on the news. This is basically because of the lack of them. I feel a lot safer having these restrictions. The reasons for this are: 1. If I see someone that I feel is a threat to me I know they have to be able to be within about 1 metre to hurt m, which gives plently of time to Run! 2. Most gun related incidents that I hear about are (biker) gang related and I don't mess with gangs 3. Most of these gang incidents and virtually every other gun related incident involves a hunting rifle (need protection on the farm from those kangaroos and drop bears ) which are fairly hard to conceal when walking around town. One other thing about guns. People say guns don't kill people, people do. I agree with this completely however, guns make it easier. I'm not to informed much (if at all) on this subject but if a kid at school gets pushed over the limit they to go home steal dads gun and come back the next day and blow away some school yard bullies. Now i'm sure you are all saying right now I have trigger locks etc etc but it only takes one gun not properly locked away for a couple of people to die. But with or without gun controls there are always going to be a few crazy people out there that any amount of controls won't stop. The only two that I can remember was one shooting at a melbourne university (don't think anyone was killed(but i could be wrong)) and port arthur massecare where the shooter had a rifle and was Completely Insane (quite a few people died). Anyway thats my 2 cents. Remember though these views are based almost entirely on the media not factual information. Therefore they could be easily incorrect. PS If you want to do some hunting come to australia and offer to kill some kangaroos for a farmer cos theres plently to go around and if you do come, be careful under gumtrees cos those little grey bears will drop down and attack unsuspecting prey .
BigGuy Posted April 17, 2003 Posted April 17, 2003 Here are some more numbers for you. Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000. Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups): 1,500. Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188 Number of physicians in the US: 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171 Statistically, medical doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. "FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one Medical Doctor." Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban medical doctors before this gets out of hand. As a Public Health Measure, I have withheld the statistics on Lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical aid. Also I think Mechanical Pencils should be ok if you take a training course and have a permit. BigGuy
WhiteBelt Posted April 20, 2003 Posted April 20, 2003 I live in Canada. We probably have a similar average crime rate, and guns can be bought illegaly (about 3 bus stops west of my home for example). As far as I see it, the whole gun control argument (both ways) is about personal safety. Some people want guns to protect themselves, while some people want to protect themselves from the guns. Neither way is really effective, but they are different solutions to the same problem. Don't worry about the guns, worry about the criminals, and the irresponsible. By the way, I would not have any guns in my home, unless I lived in the area with the highest crime rate and lived in fear constantly. But then I wouldn't be able to raise a family, something I look forward to.
Kamidake Posted April 20, 2003 Posted April 20, 2003 I wouldn't have a home WITHOUT guns, see my above message as to why. (Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!) All you have to do is learn to store and handle them safely. I now view weapons in the same category as insurance policies. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Is anybody else annoyed by celebrities who peer out from behind their gun-packing bodyguards to issue pronouncements to the effect that the rest of us ought to be disarmed? Jerks.
glingglo Posted April 24, 2003 Posted April 24, 2003 the second amendment was primarily meant to ensure that the people of this country could have an armed militia separate from the government-sponsored military, in order to ensure that the government could never get TOO much power over its citizens. this is the amendment, for those who aren't familiar with the wording: "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. " i don't see anything in here that says EVERYONE who wants to have a gun should be allowed to. there's plenty of room for effective, constitutional gun control laws. guns were designed for a single purpose - to kill. not for target practice, not to scare people, but to KILL. period. that's what they do. they're the most efficient way to kill - people, animals, whatever. all these other examples about doctors and fertilizer and cars and other things that kill more people than guns - the logic is faulty. those things have other purposes, other reasons to exist. guns don't. if guns could also perform life-saving surgeries, keep my garden healthy or get me to work and back everyday, then your metaphors might work better. i hate lousy metaphors. and ALL statistics can be skewed for use by either side. liberals throw numbers at conservatives that support their cause, then conservatives throw numbers at the liberals. whatever. numbers are meaningless without proper context, but most people forget that. the thing is, this country has a BIG problem with crime. and we're not going to solve it by adding more guns to the mix. there are other countries out there with MUCH higher standards of living than the US - less crime, better health care, higher literacy rates, better employment benefits (the average amount of vacation time for US workers is frighteningly low compared to other industrialized nations), cleaner air - you name it. we'd be wise to look to them for examples.
ZR440 Posted April 24, 2003 Posted April 24, 2003 Yes, there are plenty of laws on guns. Government needs to enforce them, not make more. Banning them will not prevent crime. It will only encourage more because criminals will know the average citizen can't defend themselves. You are right. Guns were made to kill. But many people use them to put food on the table. Venison is very tasty. People often forget that gun violence is often associated with drugs. How about we do a better job enforcing drug laws and maybe gun violence will decrease? It's happy hour somewhere in the world.
Recommended Posts