100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: This is why I hate guns. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
that's it right there - people with malicious intent kill people YES, but seeing as this thread *started* with a child killing another child accidentally, that is *without malicious intent*, I would have guessed that you'd have understood my point. When it comes to guns, it's much easier for people *without malicious intent* to kill others *accidentally*.  while they maybe manufactured/produced for a specific use - things (sh!t) can always happen - accidents are just that unexpected actions/events. I for one use a butter knife as a screwdriver when in haste  there will always be a what if - I say what if we were all careful, educated and accepted the fact that when in possession of a weapon or firearm we are liable for things/events/accidents that occur - more would be responsible. Does this mean banning guns - No Does this mean banning guns? Why not? I have yet to hear one practical reason for having guns that isn't immediately and easily debatable. In fact, I've seen on several occasions supposedly pro-gun arguments that actually support my argument, for example, the one raiderfan_32 made "against" my "decreasing guns in homes" argument. You say we should be liable for whatever might happen with our guns. I don't doubt it for a second, though, that many gun owners who have had their kid accidentally killed by a gun don't feel at least a little guilt for having that gun. Granted, there will be those who only feel guilty about not locking things up tighter, but you've got to admit that there will be plenty who also regret having the gun at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
notquite00
on
Mon 02/02/09 10:22 AM
|
|
You live in a fantasy land... Weren't you offering a hypothetical situation? I don't think it's fantasy at all to think that if the US introduced an anti-gun law, it'd be practical to ban the sale of *new* guns and ammo effective a year or so after the law is passed. Even if people stockpile ammunition, it's more than safe to say that people would in a decade, run out. I have been kind enough to try to back up my statements with explanations. It'd be nice if you'd do the same, instead of just trying to make me feel bad through the Interweb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that's it right there - people with malicious intent kill people YES, but seeing as this thread *started* with a child killing another child accidentally, that is *without malicious intent*, I would have guessed that you'd have understood my point. When it comes to guns, it's much easier for people *without malicious intent* to kill others *accidentally*. while they maybe manufactured/produced for a specific use - things (sh!t) can always happen - accidents are just that unexpected actions/events. I for one use a butter knife as a screwdriver when in haste there will always be a what if - I say what if we were all careful, educated and accepted the fact that when in possession of a weapon or firearm we are liable for things/events/accidents that occur - more would be responsible. Does this mean banning guns - No Does this mean banning guns? Why not? I have yet to hear one practical reason for having guns that isn't immediately and easily debatable. In fact, I've seen on several occasions supposedly pro-gun arguments that actually support my argument, for example, the one raiderfan_32 made "against" my "decreasing guns in homes" argument. You say we should be liable for whatever might happen with our guns. I don't doubt it for a second, though, that many gun owners who have had their kid accidentally killed by a gun don't feel at least a little guilt for having that gun. Granted, there will be those who only feel guilty about not locking things up tighter, but you've got to admit that there will be plenty who also regret having the gun at all. Okay, I'll play your speculation scenario game. Someone walks into your home and shoots your mother and father. You're in another room. What do you do? Wait until they come shoot you? HOPE you can overtake them? If you would watch that Youtube link I posted it will clear things up nice and pretty like for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totally understand YOUR right to that point of view.
Hope you never face some of the situations others have. I would be dead, if I hadn't had a gun. Guy told the Highway Patrolman, he was going to kill me. Never shot anyone,YET. If he had taken 1 more step, I would have. When YOUR life is on the line, or a member of your family; your views might change. Just my OPINION. Carry's as much weight as yours. Lead a horse to water, can't make it drink. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accidents happen....how do you lessen the incidents of accidents?
Education Electricity kills many people? Ban it? Like several people posting on these boards I grew up around guns. First rule as another poster mentioned. Guns are dangerous tools. Second...always assume a gun is loaded. There are other rules too but those are typically the first rules many of us who grew up in households with guns learned. A child who is able to get access to a gun and ammunition and who has not been properly educated is highly dangerous to themselves and others. Is it a reason to ban guns? No The facts about gun violence are might surprise some anti gun people. NPR did an excellent piece about guns some time ago. Yes I can see the eyes roll since many think NPR is completely anti-gun. That is not the case however. I wish I could find the book and author who was featured but a quick look hasn't brought it up. The author pointed out that legal gun owners are not the problem and he supported his points well. It was one of the most reasonable pro-gun presentations I have ever heard and avoided all that pry it from my cold dead hand hysteria that gives legal gun owners such a bad name. People who legally own guns are dramatically less likely to use a gun to commit an act of violence including self defense. (I don't consider self defense committing violence but I know some do) The numbers change abit with suicide in males but even people committing suicide don't always use a gun even when they legally own one. Women for instance are much more likely to take an overdose. Not surprisingly southern rural people are much more likely to legally own guns but also less likely to be involved in a gun crime. Urban northern populations are much more likely to illegally own guns and are dramatically more likely to be involved in gun crime as either a victim or perpetrator. Legal gun owners are not the problem here. I completely support a waiting period, a background check, a requirement that guns be stored and secured and even legislation that makes gun owners responsible legally if say a kid is able to get a gun and hurts themselves or others with it perhaps even a registry but beyond that I do not support further restrictions placed on the legal owners of guns. What is needed is a very different approach. Education, seizure of illegally owned guns (waiting for the howl here), mandatory sentences and truth in sentencing for anyone who commits a crime with a gun (sorry about your luck Plexico), a change in how gun violence is viewed (there is nothing or should be nothing glamorous about thugs) and gun safety programs for children might all be good places to start. I think it's funny that many on the left want kids to get sex education in school but they would have kittens if anyone were to suggest their kids have a gun safety class too. To me, they are or could potentially be equally important to a child's safety. I think the NRA in many ways does a disservice to legal gun owners but that's another post...and I am rambling here. I would highly recommend a class for your kid in gun safety. Here in Michigan we have hunter safety classes. Those classes don't just cover gun safety but it's a good introduction to guns for a kid. At any rate parents who are concerned about guns ought to talk frankly with their kids about them. Don't own a gun? Have that talk anyway. One of their friends parents might. Closing your eyes to teen sex, guns, drugs, sexism, violence or any other thing won't make it magically go away. You cannot child proof the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You live in a fantasy land... Weren't you offering a hypothetical situation? I don't think it's fantasy at all to think that if the US introduced an anti-gun law, it'd be practical to ban the sale of *new* guns and ammo effective a year or so after the law is passed. Even if people stockpile ammunition, it's more than safe to say that people would in a decade, run out. I have been kind enough to try to back up my statements with explanations. It'd be nice if you'd do the same, instead of just trying to make me feel bad through the Interweb. Wrong. There are plenty of capable blacksmiths and machinists out there who can and do forge their own firearms and ammunition. So you're saying take the guns away from the good people and just hope the bad people with the guns don't come to YOUR house. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, you take Americas guns away, you don't think some terrorist organization will take the opportunity to overthrow us?
If only the world were such a wonderful place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does this mean banning guns? Why not? I have yet to hear one practical reason for having guns that isn't immediately and easily debatable. You have heard many reasons and opinions but as you don't agree you keep searching (great attribute), here's mine response: I have the right to bear arms and chose to. Short, sweet and straight to the point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You live in a fantasy land... Weren't you offering a hypothetical situation? I don't think it's fantasy at all to think that if the US introduced an anti-gun law, it'd be practical to ban the sale of *new* guns and ammo effective a year or so after the law is passed. Even if people stockpile ammunition, it's more than safe to say that people would in a decade, run out. I have been kind enough to try to back up my statements with explanations. It'd be nice if you'd do the same, instead of just trying to make me feel bad through the Interweb. So you're saying that you'd be ok with another decade of guns "finding their way into children's hands" while people slowly run out of ammo?? self defeating arguement.. it's not about "the children" at that point. It's about taking peoples' guns away. Guns don't "find their way" into peoples' hands. irresponsible gun owners allow their guns to fall into the wrong hands. You don't punish the gun, you throw the sorry SOB who allowed his gun out of his own sight in prison and throw away the key. Aside from all that... gun bans are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Read the Heller Decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
notquite00
on
Mon 02/02/09 10:33 AM
|
|
Please watch and listen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EdiTK4PRJM I wish I could. My comp doesn't support plug-ins at the moment... Of course, no one is saying ban everything that causes accidents. What's more, it's difficult to unintentionally stab someone with scissors and kill them, I'd say, especially considering the fact that they make children scissors with rounded edges these days. Also, these days they're trying to make poisonous substances have a child-proof cap. What's more, scissors and bleach are useful in almost every household...I say this because most households probably have a pair of scissors and a bottle of bleach. However, how is it that most households do not need a gun? I'd say yes, because most households do not have a gun. Lastly, I'd like to note that in the statistics shown by ReddBeans earlier, accidental injury or death from poison was noted to occur less than injury or death due to firearms, if the order is to be taken to show frequency. Seeing as more homes have bleach than guns, and that death by bleach is only *one* form of poisoning, it looks like death by bleach is *much* less common than death by guns. The quote is: Unintentional home injury deaths to children are caused primarily by fire and burns, suffocation, drowning, firearms, falls, choking and poisoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Mon 02/02/09 10:35 AM
|
|
alcohol is bad for you. ban that too
salt is a killer. ban that too motorcycles kill more people than guns. ban em lets just give our lives to the government since we appear to be unable to live our lives the way people think we ought to. We obviously cant take care of ourselves and need to let the government do it for us |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a treehugger and I get it. I don't see why it's so hard to accept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that's it right there - people with malicious intent kill people YES, but seeing as this thread *started* with a child killing another child accidentally, that is *without malicious intent*, I would have guessed that you'd have understood my point. When it comes to guns, it's much easier for people *without malicious intent* to kill others *accidentally*. while they maybe manufactured/produced for a specific use - things (sh!t) can always happen - accidents are just that unexpected actions/events. I for one use a butter knife as a screwdriver when in haste there will always be a what if - I say what if we were all careful, educated and accepted the fact that when in possession of a weapon or firearm we are liable for things/events/accidents that occur - more would be responsible. Does this mean banning guns - No Does this mean banning guns? Why not? I have yet to hear one practical reason for having guns that isn't immediately and easily debatable. In fact, I've seen on several occasions supposedly pro-gun arguments that actually support my argument, for example, the one raiderfan_32 made "against" my "decreasing guns in homes" argument. You say we should be liable for whatever might happen with our guns. I don't doubt it for a second, though, that many gun owners who have had their kid accidentally killed by a gun don't feel at least a little guilt for having that gun. Granted, there will be those who only feel guilty about not locking things up tighter, but you've got to admit that there will be plenty who also regret having the gun at all. Okay, I'll play your speculation scenario game. Someone walks into your home and shoots your mother and father. You're in another room. What do you do? Wait until they come shoot you? HOPE you can overtake them? If you would watch that Youtube link I posted it will clear things up nice and pretty like for you. Okay, I'll play too. Someone comes in and randomly shoots my mom and dad. I grab the wooden sword that's in my room and hide to the left of my doorway. The guy comes after me: as soon as he enters (supposedly his hands are in front of him, so gun first), I swing for his gun, hit, then plow the guy over. First thing: I push my fingers into his eyes, knee him in the crotch. I get up, kick him in the head, then call the police. If I had a gun in my house, this is how I'd do it: I'd do the same exact thing, except when he enters, I use the gun to shoot his hand, then shoot him in the head. That's if the gun is in my room or something. Now, let's say I'm in the living room and this happens while my parents are in the kitchen. Well, probably I wouldn't have a gun, and I wouldn't have a wooden sword. I'd still head for a doorway and try to tackle the guy... And if I tried to get into a long range gunfight with the guy, well, then who knows who'd win. Lastly, the probability of a psychopath just entering and shooting is much less than someone entering when everyone's asleep, stealing some ****, then leaving. In that case, let the guy steal the **** and leave - safer for everyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of my EX wife, always had to have the last word.
This poor old horse, has been rode to death so many times.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TheRebelSun
on
Mon 02/02/09 10:47 AM
|
|
that's it right there - people with malicious intent kill people YES, but seeing as this thread *started* with a child killing another child accidentally, that is *without malicious intent*, I would have guessed that you'd have understood my point. When it comes to guns, it's much easier for people *without malicious intent* to kill others *accidentally*. while they maybe manufactured/produced for a specific use - things (sh!t) can always happen - accidents are just that unexpected actions/events. I for one use a butter knife as a screwdriver when in haste there will always be a what if - I say what if we were all careful, educated and accepted the fact that when in possession of a weapon or firearm we are liable for things/events/accidents that occur - more would be responsible. Does this mean banning guns - No Does this mean banning guns? Why not? I have yet to hear one practical reason for having guns that isn't immediately and easily debatable. In fact, I've seen on several occasions supposedly pro-gun arguments that actually support my argument, for example, the one raiderfan_32 made "against" my "decreasing guns in homes" argument. You say we should be liable for whatever might happen with our guns. I don't doubt it for a second, though, that many gun owners who have had their kid accidentally killed by a gun don't feel at least a little guilt for having that gun. Granted, there will be those who only feel guilty about not locking things up tighter, but you've got to admit that there will be plenty who also regret having the gun at all. Okay, I'll play your speculation scenario game. Someone walks into your home and shoots your mother and father. You're in another room. What do you do? Wait until they come shoot you? HOPE you can overtake them? If you would watch that Youtube link I posted it will clear things up nice and pretty like for you. Okay, I'll play too. Someone comes in and randomly shoots my mom and dad. I grab the wooden sword that's in my room and hide to the left of my doorway. The guy comes after me: as soon as he enters (supposedly his hands are in front of him, so gun first), I swing for his gun, hit, then plow the guy over. First thing: I push my fingers into his eyes, knee him in the crotch. I get up, kick him in the head, then call the police. If I had a gun in my house, this is how I'd do it: I'd do the same exact thing, except when he enters, I use the gun to shoot his hand, then shoot him in the head. That's if the gun is in my room or something. Now, let's say I'm in the living room and this happens while my parents are in the kitchen. Well, probably I wouldn't have a gun, and I wouldn't have a wooden sword. I'd still head for a doorway and try to tackle the guy... And if I tried to get into a long range gunfight with the guy, well, then who knows who'd win. Lastly, the probability of a psychopath just entering and shooting is much less than someone entering when everyone's asleep, stealing some ****, then leaving. In that case, let the guy steal the **** and leave - safer for everyone. Okay, you shoot him in the hand to disarm him (okay Rambo) and then you shoot him in the head to kill him. Mistake. You disarmed him when you shot him in the hand. Now you took self-defense a step further and committed manslaughter when you followed through with a shot to the head. You might get away with it considering the circumstances, you might not. 1 shot to the chest. It's nice to THINK you could defend yourself against someone with a gun, without having one yourself. But it's just not realistic. Sorry. Believe me, I wish guns had never been invented. I sure as hell wish the atomic bomb had never been invented. But they were, and they are very real. Those who don't have guns will be made to submit to those who don't. It's as simple as that, and there will never be an end to it so long as humankind exists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accidents happen....how do you lessen the incidents of accidents? Education Electricity kills many people? Ban it? Like several people posting on these boards I grew up around guns. First rule as another poster mentioned. Guns are dangerous tools. Second...always assume a gun is loaded. There are other rules too but those are typically the first rules many of us who grew up in households with guns learned. A child who is able to get access to a gun and ammunition and who has not been properly educated is highly dangerous to themselves and others. Is it a reason to ban guns? No The facts about gun violence are might surprise some anti gun people. NPR did an excellent piece about guns some time ago. Yes I can see the eyes roll since many think NPR is completely anti-gun. That is not the case however. I wish I could find the book and author who was featured but a quick look hasn't brought it up. The author pointed out that legal gun owners are not the problem and he supported his points well. It was one of the most reasonable pro-gun presentations I have ever heard and avoided all that pry it from my cold dead hand hysteria that gives legal gun owners such a bad name. People who legally own guns are dramatically less likely to use a gun to commit an act of violence including self defense. (I don't consider self defense committing violence but I know some do) The numbers change abit with suicide in males but even people committing suicide don't always use a gun even when they legally own one. Women for instance are much more likely to take an overdose. Not surprisingly southern rural people are much more likely to legally own guns but also less likely to be involved in a gun crime. Urban northern populations are much more likely to illegally own guns and are dramatically more likely to be involved in gun crime as either a victim or perpetrator. Legal gun owners are not the problem here. I completely support a waiting period, a background check, a requirement that guns be stored and secured and even legislation that makes gun owners responsible legally if say a kid is able to get a gun and hurts themselves or others with it perhaps even a registry but beyond that I do not support further restrictions placed on the legal owners of guns. What is needed is a very different approach. Education, seizure of illegally owned guns (waiting for the howl here), mandatory sentences and truth in sentencing for anyone who commits a crime with a gun (sorry about your luck Plexico), a change in how gun violence is viewed (there is nothing or should be nothing glamorous about thugs) and gun safety programs for children might all be good places to start. I think it's funny that many on the left want kids to get sex education in school but they would have kittens if anyone were to suggest their kids have a gun safety class too. To me, they are or could potentially be equally important to a child's safety. I think the NRA in many ways does a disservice to legal gun owners but that's another post...and I am rambling here. I would highly recommend a class for your kid in gun safety. Here in Michigan we have hunter safety classes. Those classes don't just cover gun safety but it's a good introduction to guns for a kid. At any rate parents who are concerned about guns ought to talk frankly with their kids about them. Don't own a gun? Have that talk anyway. One of their friends parents might. Closing your eyes to teen sex, guns, drugs, sexism, violence or any other thing won't make it magically go away. You cannot child proof the world. Yes, ban it if we can do with out it, which we can with guns. Education takes a **** load of money, where as legislation to prohibit the sale of new guns, effective in a few years, takes far less money and gives businesses time to sell-out and change their inventories. I find it surprising that you're comparing sex ed to gun ed. Sex is much more prevalent than guns by large factor, and guns have a much smaller impact on lives and society than sex. Guns are machines used primarily for killing, whether that entails hunting or defense, even if casual use just involves a shooting range, and for this reason, for many, guns are something extremely scary and unattractive. I don't find it surprising at all that some parents feel uncomfortable with gun ed when they support sex ed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that's it right there - people with malicious intent kill people YES, but seeing as this thread *started* with a child killing another child accidentally, that is *without malicious intent*, I would have guessed that you'd have understood my point. When it comes to guns, it's much easier for people *without malicious intent* to kill others *accidentally*. while they maybe manufactured/produced for a specific use - things (sh!t) can always happen - accidents are just that unexpected actions/events. I for one use a butter knife as a screwdriver when in haste there will always be a what if - I say what if we were all careful, educated and accepted the fact that when in possession of a weapon or firearm we are liable for things/events/accidents that occur - more would be responsible. Does this mean banning guns - No Does this mean banning guns? Why not? I have yet to hear one practical reason for having guns that isn't immediately and easily debatable. In fact, I've seen on several occasions supposedly pro-gun arguments that actually support my argument, for example, the one raiderfan_32 made "against" my "decreasing guns in homes" argument. You say we should be liable for whatever might happen with our guns. I don't doubt it for a second, though, that many gun owners who have had their kid accidentally killed by a gun don't feel at least a little guilt for having that gun. Granted, there will be those who only feel guilty about not locking things up tighter, but you've got to admit that there will be plenty who also regret having the gun at all. Okay, I'll play your speculation scenario game. Someone walks into your home and shoots your mother and father. You're in another room. What do you do? Wait until they come shoot you? HOPE you can overtake them? If you would watch that Youtube link I posted it will clear things up nice and pretty like for you. Okay, I'll play too. Someone comes in and randomly shoots my mom and dad. I grab the wooden sword that's in my room and hide to the left of my doorway. The guy comes after me: as soon as he enters (supposedly his hands are in front of him, so gun first), I swing for his gun, hit, then plow the guy over. First thing: I push my fingers into his eyes, knee him in the crotch. I get up, kick him in the head, then call the police. If I had a gun in my house, this is how I'd do it: I'd do the same exact thing, except when he enters, I use the gun to shoot his hand, then shoot him in the head. That's if the gun is in my room or something. Now, let's say I'm in the living room and this happens while my parents are in the kitchen. Well, probably I wouldn't have a gun, and I wouldn't have a wooden sword. I'd still head for a doorway and try to tackle the guy... And if I tried to get into a long range gunfight with the guy, well, then who knows who'd win. Lastly, the probability of a psychopath just entering and shooting is much less than someone entering when everyone's asleep, stealing some ****, then leaving. In that case, let the guy steal the **** and leave - safer for everyone. you truely do live in a fantasy land.. you think you're going to out-ninja some dude with a shotgun who just capped your mom and dad? You've got to be dreaming.. You've never had a gun pointed at you in anger, have you? you must be some kind of charles bronson, chuck norris, B.A. Barrakus if you think you'll do anything but mess your breeches in that situation. that you live with your mom and dad is another issue in and of itself but I digress.. home invasions are on the rise all over the country and they don't just come in, steal some stuff and leave. they break in, hold captive the occupants, often killing them execution style. which is why there's always a loaded .45 within arms reach whenever I'm at home, the reason I have a concealed handgun license and the reason I carry most times I leave the house. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You live in a fantasy land... Weren't you offering a hypothetical situation? I don't think it's fantasy at all to think that if the US introduced an anti-gun law, it'd be practical to ban the sale of *new* guns and ammo effective a year or so after the law is passed. Even if people stockpile ammunition, it's more than safe to say that people would in a decade, run out. I have been kind enough to try to back up my statements with explanations. It'd be nice if you'd do the same, instead of just trying to make me feel bad through the Interweb. Wrong. There are plenty of capable blacksmiths and machinists out there who can and do forge their own firearms and ammunition. So you're saying take the guns away from the good people and just hope the bad people with the guns don't come to YOUR house. Sure, there are plenty of people who can make their own firearms. It'll just be illegal for them to sell those guns. I still don't see your point. I can make all the heroine I want behind doors and no one would know, lol. I can even sell it on the black market. If gun use eventually drops because of this hypothetical legislation, then, of course, shooting ranges will slowly lose customers. The blacksmiths will have to have their own shooting ranges in the backyard, but some neighbors may even feel unsafe enough to call the police. Seeing as I don't have a gun now, and neither does the bulk of America, I don't see why you guys are so paranoid down in the south? Is crime and violence really such a problem down there that you feel like you need to have a gun on your person always? I mean, I live in New York, so I suppose my neighborhood ain't daisies either, but it's no war zone. Seriously, do some martial arts and I have a wooden sword near by bed. Between hiding behind a doorway in wait and that wooden sword, I feel okay "hoping the bad people with the guns" don't come to my house. Plus, most of the bad guys who break and enter probably don't think I'm home or think I'm asleep, plus they're probably hard up for cash to get their drug fix, so they're probably not armed. Yeah, so seriously, if most of America feels reasonably safe, what makes your hometown such a war zone? Oh, and let me add that cities generally tend to have more crime, yet the people in the cities also tend to choose not to buy guns, at least more so than in other areas in America. So again, we feel safe enough, so why don't you? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TheRebelSun
on
Mon 02/02/09 11:10 AM
|
|
You live in a fantasy land... Weren't you offering a hypothetical situation? I don't think it's fantasy at all to think that if the US introduced an anti-gun law, it'd be practical to ban the sale of *new* guns and ammo effective a year or so after the law is passed. Even if people stockpile ammunition, it's more than safe to say that people would in a decade, run out. I have been kind enough to try to back up my statements with explanations. It'd be nice if you'd do the same, instead of just trying to make me feel bad through the Interweb. Wrong. There are plenty of capable blacksmiths and machinists out there who can and do forge their own firearms and ammunition. So you're saying take the guns away from the good people and just hope the bad people with the guns don't come to YOUR house. Sure, there are plenty of people who can make their own firearms. It'll just be illegal for them to sell those guns. I still don't see your point. I can make all the heroine I want behind doors and no one would know, lol. I can even sell it on the black market. If gun use eventually drops because of this hypothetical legislation, then, of course, shooting ranges will slowly lose customers. The blacksmiths will have to have their own shooting ranges in the backyard, but some neighbors may even feel unsafe enough to call the police. Seeing as I don't have a gun now, and neither does the bulk of America, I don't see why you guys are so paranoid down in the south? Is crime and violence really such a problem down there that you feel like you need to have a gun on your person always? I mean, I live in New York, so I suppose my neighborhood ain't daisies either, but it's no war zone. Seriously, do some martial arts and I have a wooden sword near by bed. Between hiding behind a doorway in wait and that wooden sword, I feel okay "hoping the bad people with the guns" don't come to my house. Plus, most of the bad guys who break and enter probably don't think I'm home or think I'm asleep, plus they're probably hard up for cash to get their drug fix, so they're probably not armed. Yeah, so seriously, if most of America feels reasonably safe, what makes your hometown such a war zone? Oh, and let me add that cities generally tend to have more crime, yet the people in the cities also tend to choose not to buy guns, at least more so than in other areas in America. So again, we feel safe enough, so why don't you? Probably this, hopefully that. All speculation. Okay, so if it's illegal for them to sell those guns, they won't be distributing those guns right? Just like other illegal things, like crack and meth. Those are illegal and the people who manufacture them clearly don't sell them or use them. Oh man, this gets more and more hopeless. If anything comes of this debate, I guess no one can accuse you of not having a vivid imagination. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you truely do live in a fantasy land.. you think you're going to out-ninja some dude with a shotgun who just capped your mom and dad? You've got to be dreaming.. You've never had a gun pointed at you in anger, have you? you must be some kind of charles bronson, chuck norris, B.A. Barrakus if you think you'll do anything but mess your breeches in that situation. that you live with your mom and dad is another issue in and of itself but I digress.. home invasions are on the rise all over the country and they don't just come in, steal some stuff and leave. they break in, hold captive the occupants, often killing them execution style. which is why there's always a loaded .45 within arms reach whenever I'm at home, the reason I have a concealed handgun license and the reason I carry most times I leave the house. First off, in real life, I don't live with my mom and dad - I'm away from home at college. The situation posed was that a guy walks in and shoots my mom and dad...so of course, I'm playing along. Why do you keep taking cheap shots at me? lols O_o Second, the fact that I used to do Kendo and have a wooden sword sitting in my room back at my parents' place is nothing to make fun of someone for... Also, you say I'd mess my pants. Well, I know you as well as you know me, so I can easily say you'd mess your pants too. *shrug* And maybe I would mess my pants. Hopefully, though, I'd get my **** together (no pun intended) and try to defend myself. Third, again, the question was, what would I do in that situation. That's what I'd do. What would you recommend if you think it'd take to long to remove the screen from a window and make an escape? Or if you think you'd just be shot in the back? I bet you'd grab the closest weapon you'd find too, hide behind a door, and hope the guy got within striking range. Now, I don't know if that would work or not, but honestly, according to the hypothetical situation, I'm going to die if I do nothing, so I might as well try, right? Insulting someone over the Internet doesn't exactly strengthen your argument at all...so, I don't know why you do it. Finally, maybe if break-in rates are increasing in the US, and that these criminals are very aggressive and violent, maybe it is a good idea to keep a gun on you. However, if someone was breaking in with a gun, they probably have their gun drawn and are expecting to do some shooting anyway. If that's the case, I'd still recommend that you try a sneakier approach, rather than running up shooting, 'cause they'll have their gun pointed forwards too. And if you're sneaking, you might very well be hiding behind a doorway, in which case my method would also have a chance of working, at least in my mind! lol ;-) Ah, I'd like to add that most gun owners *don't* walk around their house armed like you. Again, when we talk about whether guns are useful in the breaking and entering sort of situation, it may be better to have the average gun owner in mind, not the...always-at-the-ready gun owner in mind. In other words, you're probably the exception to the rule. |
|
|
|
|
