Fascinating read. Enjoyed it. Thank you Marc.
Gun Control
-
not at all, and i dont see where your aguements coming from.
what i said is just because gun control laws become stricter doesnt mean that they will stay out of the hands of the bad guys. Just like drugs are supposedly a controlled substance, yet we have dozens of durggies in my school alone.
understand me now?
but perhaps fewer bad guys will have access to guns. As will fewer careless people who leave them around for children to kill themselves and each other with. And fewer people who tend to be quite careful but tend to get robbed . . . .
The drug argument is flawed - and not for just the reason that F_alk stated. True, people will find ways to smuggle drugs into the country, and into the hands of users. Drugs are not guns tho’. Control for the 2 work differently. -
not at all, and i dont see where your aguements coming from….
understand me now?I understand you, i think. And if i understand you correctly, then just do the follwoing.
Why gun control if even drug control doesn’t work … (that is your argument)
Now think one step ahead…if drug control doesn’t work, why waste ressources on that???
that would follow that argument, and is the reason why i called it flawed. -
actually I would rather have a guy with a tommy the A Shotgun… a shot gun does nt have to be aimed to kill it’s victim(s)… more likely with an “s” on the end of that word… a thompson must be aimed… I’ve held a tomy and it is more bulky and harder to aim with then a shot gun… with a tommy you probably have time to take cover… with a Shotgun, no… I know a .308 hunting Rifle is dangerous just as a .22 or any other gun is… that isn’t the point… the point is should they be grabbed from everybody’s hand, from irresponsilble people’s hand or should they be free…
-
and i say, they should be taken from irresponsible people…. thus nearly everyone :)
-
@F_alk:
and i say, they should be taken from irresponsible people…. thus nearly everyone :)
People are not that irresponsible!
-
@F_alk:
if drug control doesn’t work, why waste ressources on that???
that would follow that argument, and is the reason why i called it flawed.Did i say that? did i even imply that? NO
CC, i dont see how control of the two is different.
Guns would be just as easy to smuggle in as anything else, drugs, people, you name it.
Yes perhaps fewer bad guys would have guns, but the good guys would be getting screwed over and having our rights taken away from us. People who leave their guns lying around and a kid kills themselves? Charge the parents with manslaughter for being so careless. You may as well leave nitroglycerin hanging around. Guns are bangerous in the hands of those who dont know how to use them or those who dont respect them. Nearly any tool is; hammers, saws, drills. Because thats what a firearm is: a tool.Any adolecent who fools around with a gun and kills himself or a friend, grew up not respecting the gun. Parents actually need to get off their asses and make sure their kids understand the responsibility involved when firearms are present. Growing up in a hunting family, i have always respected the rifles and shotguns my father owns. I have never been tempted to go and look at them, or to show them off to my friends.
-
agreed Darigaaz… I don’t think anyone would argue… Both my Grandfather and My Uncle hunts and I always think of gun safety now when we go to a range and would do even away from one…
-
Why thank you GG, its great to get some support on the subject. :)
-
I’ll argue it . . . .
CC, i dont see how control of the two is different.
Guns would be just as easy to smuggle in as anything else, drugs, people, you name it.
so??? At least smuggling involves relatively smaller numbers of weapons. Plus there is a chance of these being prevented from making it to the public. This in my mind would reduce the proliferation of guns far greater than simply selling them at the local K-Mart. Also greater weapons control ould be applied at the other end. Tighten up weapons offenses related sentances, increased confiscation of unaccounted for firearms, etc. Just because the drug war isn’t working perfectly, doesn’t mean that it isn’t working.
Yes perhaps fewer bad guys would have guns, but the good guys would be getting screwed over and having our rights taken away from us.
ahhh yes. The right to own killing devices? Give me a break. All that the proliferation of guns does is enhance fear and paranoia. I’m thinking that a society with fewer guns would have a lot less fear, particularly if the owning of a gun results in marginalization. Or is this another “gov’t vs. us” thing that characterizes some of you guys so well?
People who leave their guns lying around and a kid kills themselves? Charge the parents with manslaughter for being so careless. You may as well leave nitroglycerin hanging around. Guns are bangerous in the hands of those who dont know how to use them or those who dont respect them. Nearly any tool is; hammers, saws, drills. Because thats what a firearm is: a tool.
yeah it’s a tool. A killing people tool. Except it does it sooo much more effectively and from much greater distance than the hammer, saw, drill tool that you mention.
As for your first two sentances - what planet are you from? Since when is more slaughtered people and more people in jails preferable to a society with fewer slaughtering devices? Your priorities in this regard are completely whacked.Any adolecent who fools around with a gun and kills himself or a friend, grew up not respecting the gun.
he also had access to a gun that killed his (adolescent) friend. The years of life lost in this regard are astounding. The “gee, that’s too bad, if only he had learned gun control” attitude is ridiculous when it would be much easier to restrict firearms from these adolescents.
Parents actually need to get off their asses and make sure their kids understand the responsibility involved when firearms are present.
well, i agree with this. Parents in our societies today have to get off of their asses in general. But as this shows an increasing chance of not happening, then we as a society have to protect these children.
Growing up in a hunting family, i have always respected the rifles and shotguns my father owns. I have never been tempted to go and look at them, or to show them off to my friends.
i don’t really have a problem with this, but i am all about keeping all killing machines outside of the city.
-
@cystic:
I’ll argue it . . . .
This in my mind would reduce the proliferation of guns far greater than simply selling them at the local K-Mart.
Who buys guns at K-mart, they rip you off and their arms are usually of a poor quality.
Just because the drug war isn’t working perfectly, doesn’t mean that it isn’t working.
Its not working at all. Its like killing a mosquito only to have ten thousand others swarm you.
ahhh yes. The right to own killing devices?
“The Right To Bear Arms”
All that the proliferation of guns does is enhance fear and paranoia.
Without this sounding like a personal attack, these really sound like symptoms your exhibiting. You seem Very sure that firearms are evil tools of satanic death delivering. :)
Or is this another “gov’t vs. us” thing that characterizes some of you guys so well?
Please, you do not know me, so i would greatly appreciate it if you didn’t classify my beliefs as making me something out of “Deliverance”
yeah it’s a tool. A killing people tool. Except it does it sooo much more effectively and from much greater distance than the hammer, saw, drill tool that you mention.
Another Killing tool? the car. Parents shouldnt leave the keys in the car and door open so their seven year old can go for a joyride. its not safe. They shouldnt let kids play on the highway either.
As for your first two sentances - what planet are you from?
Earth
Since when is more slaughtered people and more people in jails preferable to a society with fewer slaughtering devices? Your priorities in this regard are completely whacked.
Its called responsibility. Parents are responsible for feeding, clothing, and sheltering their children. If they fail at this they are charged for criminal neglect or whatever (cant think of the actual crimes name)
P.S. saying my opinions are ‘whacked’ seems on par with saying to me ‘your an idiot’, it has no impact at all on this conversation other than being rude.he also had access to a gun that killed his (adolescent) friend. The years of life lost in this regard are astounding. The “gee, that’s too bad, if only he had learned gun control” attitude is ridiculous when it would be much easier to restrict firearms from these adolescents.
Well i have access to my parents car and liquor cabinet. doesnt mean im driving down the road drunk and hollering “Hoo-Rah!” I have access to two sticks, that doesnt mean i go around lighting my neighbors houses on fire.
i don’t really have a problem with this, but i am all about keeping all killing machines outside of the city.
Another point to keep in mind: with over 200 million firearms in the country, who do you think are going to be the only ones who dont hand them in when uncle sam comes calling?
As the saying goes, when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.
Check this Statistic: twice as many inner city children are killed by knives than firearms. What should we outlaw butter knives?
Bartely Fox Act institutes a one year manditory prison sentence for anyone carrying an unliscenced firearm. With all the gang-bangers in the city of boston arrested, many of them have existing unlescenced firearm violations. If so, why are they on the streets? We need no more controling laws, we just need to enforce the ones already out there.
-
well put Darigaaz :D
-
Why thank you good sir. :D :D
-
one point CC… the right to keep and bear killing machines? have you ever thought that the car you drive can kill someone? a gun is no different it’s just perticularly meant to kill or disable….
-
…or procure food.
GG, Have you ever had deer heart?
-
no but I have had Venison… how does it taste :) ?
-
hold the phone, does K-mart even sell guns? The one by me does not. does it in other places? Thats ridiculous, imo.
People have the right to bear arms. They should have the PRIVILEGE to bear arms. that is, a right that comes with responsibility. rather than simply declaring citizens have the right to bear arms, as though it were a basic right on par with freedom of religion and speech (in the examples i am semi-playing the devils advocate, but its irrelevent), because it is not. its not a right, its a privilege. as long as you own and operate your gun responsibly and safely you may own it. this would include
- proper storage (i.e. unloaded)
- proper safety training in the use of the gun for you and anyone else who lives there
- proper use of gun (i.e. no holding up banks, etc)
if people follow these (and perhaps other) guidelines, i personally see no reason to prohibit them from owning a gun. like darrigaaz said, any child who shows off his dad’s gun to a friend, and winds up killing that friend did not learn proper gun safety, nor did the parents. you dont leave a loaded gun lying around, and even if it was unloaded and the child loaded it, you dont leave a child thats going to do that. you educate your damn kid about the gun, so he doesnt do that.
the owner of the gun should be charged with manslaughter in that case if it occurred.
adolescents of course, should not be allowed to own a gun, and perhaps not even operate one (i could go either way on this one). you should be an adult, with the proper education on the matter, and no criminal record, or history of mental illness.
back to kmart….
kmart should not be allowed to sell guns.
aside from just seeming so basically wrong, it sends the wrong message, it makes them seem as if any other item. which they are not. they are instruments of death. this is not an item to be taken so lightly as to sell it in kmart. it should be sold in gun-specific stores, by properly liscensed dealers, to properly liscensed consumers, and every gun in the place should be in police records, with barrel groove prints (whatever you call those) and perhaps even tracers (again, i could go either way on this)the problem is not that people have guns, its that they have the wrong attitude. too many people with guns dont respect what it is, and should not own a gun, and too many people who dont own guns also do not respect what it is, and demonize it to the point of ludicracy.
-
The Right to bear Arms was established so that if the USA was invaded, it would have a overly capable Guerrilla defense force…
-
quite frankly, i dont care. it should not be a RIGHT, but instead a PRIVILEGE.
-
@F_alk:
…However, this will be like the prohibition: people WILL find a way. As an American, i know from experience that we are a hard bunch to lick (i hate that expression). They’re trying to control drugs, arent they? not going to well, if i say so myself.
I think this argument is flawed.
Drugs harm yourself, weapons harm others. Still you propose to keep weapons free, and pull the “failed” “drug control” as a reason for that. Wouldn’t that imply that you support free drugs for everyone then as well?
For me, it does, even though you probably don’t want that.You idiot. Drugs aren’t protected by the constitution, the right to bear arms is. :roll:
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
You idiot. Drugs aren’t protected by the constitution, the right to bear arms is. :roll:
You idiot. Not by mine. … anyone out there to dare calling me stereotyping when i get these great examples all the time?
@F_alk:
if drug control doesn’t work, why waste ressources on that???
that would follow that argument, and is the reason why i called it flawed.Did i say that? did i even imply that? NO
Read again …. i just mentioned the next step that your argument leads to. I never said you implied that or anything. And you yourself said that drug control didn’t work at all. (“Its not working at all. Its like killing a mosquito only to have ten thousand others swarm you.”)
On the other hand, you are so frightened that gun control would take away your prescious tool for killing. Why? If the one doesn’t work, why should the other? I don’t see why you are afraid of (and against) one, by the basis of a not-working other one. That makes no sense.“The Right To Bear Arms”
Then you don’t mind people owning tanks, jet fighters etc. ?
You seem Very sure that firearms are evil tools of satanic death delivering. :)
Leave out the evil and satanic and then you have it. I have never heard that guns have another purpose than delivering death. Maybe scaring, but only because of the threatening the first thing.
Another Killing tool? the car.
Whereas cars have a different purpose. They are actually designed for bringing you from one place to another. Guns are designed for killing (except for some sporting rifles).
And: to use a car you have to do a license.Another point to keep in mind: with over 200 million firearms in the country, who do you think are going to be the only ones who dont hand them in when uncle sam comes calling?
Surely none of his (CC’s) fellow citizens. Surely none of mine. And it is less than 200 million in the country. That would be more than 2 rifles per person (of any age).
sigh
it is not much work to change “the” to “my”.Check this Statistic: twice as many inner city children are killed by knives than firearms. What should we outlaw butter knives?
stupid comparison (to the “butter knife”), second, read what CC had posted earlier on the difference of wounds caused by knifes and guns.
Suggested Topics
