Jump to content
MrMookMook

Should you be able to bear Arms?

123 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Advertisement

"Guns kill people like pencils misspell words"

 

Wait until the crazies start copycatting the Joker's "magic trick" and posting the videos on YouTube or some {censored}. Are the "Anti's" gonna ban pencils? Then pens? Then any sharp instrument that could conceivably be used to impale someone?

 

The way things are going, the answer seems to be "quite possibly."

 

Non-gun-owner here, but I believe in RTKBA :huh:

 

Maxitosh: A gun is an inanimate object, it has neither the sentience nor the physical motor skills and/or attributes to either kill someone, or feel something about the death of said person. A gun is merely a catalyst by which the primal urge of violence is manifested. Thus, your characterization of guns as "killers" is inaccurate and naive.

 

As for your many examples, you state that ~"it wouldn't have happened if there were no guns"~ ..Does your statement preclude the fact that the murders in question (crimes of passion) could not possibly have been carried out with a knife/sword/letter opener/pencil/shard of glass? A crazed and betrayed lover could easily hack up his cheating wife and the rest of his family with a kitchen knife or other implement while they slept. It would just take longer. Violent crime has existed much longer than guns, and would continue to exists if guns were completely erased. People would simply find another catalyst to bring their violence into reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Guns kill people like pencils misspell words"

Yep, and they both have one thing in common - ignorance :D

 

A gun is an inanimate object

So is a nuclear bomb. Seems "inanimate objects" have the ability to take life quite well. Thus, your characterization of guns as "harmless" is inaccurate and naive :censored2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So nice of you to prove yourself ignorant by quoting two small lines out of my paragraphs and offering sarcastic responses, while totally ignoring everything else that was said. Inanimate objects only take life when wielded by a sentient intelligence. Indisputable fact: When a life is taken with a device, there was always a human involvement at some point in it's past. A human pulled the trigger on the gun. A human set the timer on a bomb. A human plunged the knife into the body of another human. The key word here, if you haven't noticed, is "HUMAN"

 

Human beings are the source of all harm and trauma in the world as it pertains to social interaction. Guns, knives, bombs, swords, bats are just the tools of the trade.

 

You are simply one of those people that wants everyone to be completely absolved of the consequences of their choices by foisting responsibility off upon the tools they employ.

 

Grow some personal responsibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Human beings are the source of all harm and trauma in the world as it pertains to social interaction. Guns, knives, bombs, swords, bats are just the tools of the trade.

 

Look, I'm all for owning guns, however, statements like this are a bit far reaching, implying a carelessness that does no service to us that own them.

 

Guns are certainly more dangerous than a sword, just as a sword can be more dangerous than a steak knife, etc.

 

Anyone that owns a gun must treat it with respect. A Gun is much more likely to accidentally kill someone than is a sword or a bat. Yes there is still a human involved in the accident, but in this case there was no malice intended by the human, and the absence of the the gun would have spared the life.

 

The scary part of gun ownership is realizing all the others that own them lacking the proper respect for the device they hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, I'm all for owning guns, however, statements like this are a bit far reaching, implying a carelessness that does no service to us that own them.

 

Guns are certainly more dangerous than a sword, just as a sword can be more dangerous than a steak knife, etc.

 

Anyone that owns a gun must treat it with respect. A Gun is much more likely to accidentally kill someone than is a sword or a bat. Yes there is still a human involved in the accident, but in this case there was no malice intended by the human, and the absence of the the gun would have spared the life.

 

The scary part of gun ownership is realizing all the others that own them lacking the proper respect for the device they hold.

 

I agree with everything you say here. I'm simply arguing the point that many people do not treat a gun like the dangerous tool that it is. Speaking honestly, this is why I do not own a gun. I lack the training and foundation of knowledge to possess one safely. It is outside my area of interest

 

As far as my implication of carelessness, I do believe that some exists. If a father with a gun sat his children down and explained what a gun is carefully, in language a child could understand, then I'm willing to bet that there would be fewer child + gun accidents. It's all about education, and while the majority of legal gun owners do have that education, the dangerous nature of guns means that the percentage of people without that education are not very likely to survive a gun related accident.

 

And as far as I'm aware, one of the first rules of gun ownership is ~"Don't point it at someone unless you are ready to take a life"~ If people followed that rule alone, we would be spared many many 'accidents'. At some point, we must stop blaming the device and make people take responsibility for their actions.

 

Of course, this argument only speaks about legal gun owners and the responsibilities implicit in their possession of a gun. In the case of illegal gun possession, none of the points you brought up apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Don't point it at someone unless you are ready to take a life"~ If people followed that rule alone, we would be spared many many 'accidents'. At some point, we must stop blaming the device and make people take responsibility for their actions.

 

Sounds like you don't have kids.

 

Children are extraordinary resourceful, and, unless you have stupid child, they are very good at pushing every limit you set as a parent. If you have guns and children in the same house, no matter how well you lock those guns up, and no matter how much you educate your children on gun safety, you can be certain that at some point a child will make every attempt to gain access to those guns and show them off to their friends. This is an unchangeable fact of life. Yes I have guns, yes I have kids, and no, I don't keep my guns in the house.

 

Now, should the gun be to blame if an accident occurs, or should it be the adult that didn't act as responsible as they should? Sure, of course it should be the adult. But now what about the adult that says "from my cold dead hands!", inciting other adults to go out and purchase guns, without first and foremost instilling a sense of respect for the weapon? Yes, there is individual responsibility -- but you cannot ignore social responsibility, and the influence it can have on individuals. It is not socially responsible to downplay the inherent danger of gun ownership. People having guns, legal or otherwise, are much more of a danger to themselves and others than people having baseball bats, swords, knives, slingshots, etc. For anyone to imply otherwise is irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not socially responsible to downplay the inherent danger of gun ownership. People having guns, legal or otherwise, are much more of a danger to themselves and others than people having baseball bats, swords, knives, slingshots, etc. For anyone to imply otherwise is irresponsible.

I find it interesting that the people I've heard the most from about firearm responsibility are: the Boy Scout leaders, NRA members, and Armed Service personnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NRA members

 

"NRA members" is broad group. I've spoken with many that extrude firearm safety from every pore, and others that I would just as soon see as a victim of their own incompetence.

 

Also, when meeting those that are diligent about gun safety, try to take note of how many of them gained the diligence from close calls in the past. It may surprise you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The facts show that this line of "reasoning" simply is NOT true. Pure rhetoric :thumbsup_anim:

 

FACTS ...FACTS ... what facts and from who ?

 

I say this is a SWEET idea who's time has come. :hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Little Gun Control History Lesson 

 

 

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

---------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

----------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

 

Australia-wide,homicides are up 3.2 percent

 

Australia-wide,assaults are up 8.6 percent

 

Australia-wide,armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

 

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

 

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

 

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

 

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

 

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

 

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

 

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

 

With Guns...........We Are "Citizens".

Without Them........We Are "Subjects".

 

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

 

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

 

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More like a lesson in nonsensical propaganda. LOL :D

You can do a better rebuttal than that. In fact, you've spewed about as much propaganda as anybody. You want to help us understand this serious issue, point out the flaws in his reasoning or his factual errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can do a better rebuttal than that.

Nope, when it's nothing more than nonsensical propaganda, then that's all that needs to be said.

 

If you are truly interested in understanding this threads issue, then I suggest you try googling with an open mind. Borg like x86rev use nothing more than weak, transparent fear tactics :hysterical: This topic has been covered ad nauseum and all you ever hear from those who kiss NRA butt is the same rhetoric. All I can tell you is that if you have an open mind and don't think with your emotions, then you'll learn what's right and will just as quickly reject the same old gibberish spouted by those breast fed by the NRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I hope so. I would hate it if someone was to come and chop off my arms. That would suck...

 

 

 

 

:hysterical:Sorry, I have seen the title of this thread for so long and couldn't resist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can do a better rebuttal than that. In fact, you've spewed about as much propaganda as anybody. You want to help us understand this serious issue, point out the flaws in his reasoning or his factual errors.

 

 

Its very obvious ...He cant.

 

Sometimes the truth is quite scary ;)

 

and we do know one thing, history does repeat itself !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“As long as there are guns, the individual that wants a gun for a crime is going to have one and going to get it.”

-Ronald Reagan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“As long as there are guns, the individual that wants a gun for a crime is going to have one and going to get it.”

-Ronald Reagan

 

 

I didn't agree with Regan on much, but on this he got it right. The cats out of the bag. There is no way to remove all guns from any society.

 

Too bad he wasn't able to apply the same logic to his "war on drugs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too bad he wasn't able to apply the same logic to his "war on drugs".

 

I think that was probably more Nancy rather than Ron, but I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree somewhat with the problems with the War on Drugs, I don't think it can be used as an analogy for Gun Control, as the whole "If drugs are illegal only criminals will have drugs" line isn't nearly as compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree somewhat with the problems with the War on Drugs, I don't think it can be used as an analogy for Gun Control, as the whole "If drugs are illegal only criminals will have drugs" line isn't nearly as compelling.

 

I don't think he meant it as an analogy, just stating he wished Reagan had been a little more realistic when it came to the war on drugs, more realistic like he sounded in the quote I put up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think he meant it as an analogy, just stating he wished Reagan had been a little more realistic when it came to the war on drugs, more realistic like he sounded in the quote I put up.

I see. In that case, okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what you have to look at:

 

Criminals love these so-called "gun free zones" because they think they're a joke. If you put up signs of gun-free zones, that's waving a red flag to them, letting them know they can hold a gun up to you and you have nothing to defend yourself with. It makes committing crimes a walk in the park. Columbine happened in a Gun-Free zone. I mean, c'mon, don't you think it's stupid to let people know that, especially if you live a rough area with a high crime rate?

 

It's your Constitutional right to bear arms. Since we live in a free country, you don't have to own a handgun, but it's not going to hurt if you do. The only reason people are afraid of guns is because of what they see on the news, which is completely biased because they use it as an item of fear. To scare you so that you think the only things guns are for are crimes. But, you can't ban handguns because it's a direct violation of your constitutional rights.

 

And even though DC lifted their 30-year ban on handgun ownership, the first person to buy one was turned down because they had a criminal past. Put it this way: IF YOU BREAK THE LAW, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS! NO CRIMINALS SHOULD HAVE ANY RIGHTS ONCE PROVEN GUILTY BECAUSE THEY'VE VIOLATED A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED LAW.

 

 

That's my outlook on the whole ordeal. If you don't like guns, don't buy 'em, but don't make proud gun owners suffer all because you don't like them. You can't force your ideas on someone else. That's communism. And communism sucks. {censored} communism. It's not working anywhere now, it wasn't working anywhere then, and it's never going to work because there will always be someone that wants to be above others, someone who wants more. That's why commie countries are always {censored}ed up. Because they've never gone through what their plan was. It's nothing more than a mere pipe dream, much like Scientology.

 

 

And really, who gives a {censored} about drugs? They're bad for you anyway. I don't care what your poison is, none of it is good for the human body and it's not-so-natural like most claim. Many want to legalize marijuana for it's "medicinal" purposes. The government doesn't want to legalize it because they know if they did, people would abuse it, just like alcohol. I don't think any of them care about it's so-called medicinal purposes. They just want to get high like everybody else and have the ability to get a job.

 

 

 

If you're really going to ban handguns, you should really ban cars, too, because more people get killed by cars and in car accidents than guns do. Ban alcohol, cocaine, crack, heroin, etc. because more people have drug-related deaths than by guns. The funny thing is that DC had a ban on gun ownership, but DC is one of the highest crime-rate cities in the US. You can "ban" them, but people will always find another way to get what is not readily available. They did so in DC. Humans are even dying everyday because of what we're put here for. We are born to die. From the moment of conception, people start their journeys to death. I guess you can ban old age, too.

 

 

So please, think twice before banning handgun ownership. There are worse things in the world that can kill you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Announcements

×