mreye Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Not exactly sure what is meant by a defensive gun use? Like against a break-in or car theft? Yes. Or a mugging. This doesn't mean they shoot the "perp", but only "brandish" the weapon to get the "edge." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 (edited) "Claim?"??? Ever read the Constitution? :headshake Well perhaps Ididn't use appropriate wording but I think it's a very dated and oldfashioned right. Edited September 7, 2004 by KipWellsFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 "Claim?"??? Ever read the Constitution? :headshake I am not an originalist when it comes to the constitution, I rather doubt the founding fathers could forsee atomic weapons and F15s flying overhead and thinking Jeb needs a 12 gauge to protect out country. A well regulated militia, in their day, would have been effective, today it would not be. And it is the militia members I worry the most about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 (edited) So you would ban all firearms including rifles and shotguns used for hunting and recreation? It doesn't seem fair to me to take away firearms from millions and millions of law abiding, honest, tax paying Americans because some people use them in commission of a crime. I know it's a nice hot button issue with the Dems. I am not a gun owner but I know many and they are sane responsible citizens. The majority of gun owners enjoy shooting, whether it is target or hunting. Well my opinion is simple; banning public use of guns would save lives and I don't think home defense, hunting, or recreation are good enough reasons for them to be allowed. Edited September 7, 2004 by KipWellsFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Well my opinion is simple; banning public use of guns would save lives and I don't think defense, hunting, or recreation are good enough reasons for them to be allowed. banning tobacco, liquor, and having people drive 40 MPH, would save the environment, save money, and save lives. Do you have any idea what percentage of violent crimes involve the use of guns vs. not? Look that up at any objective source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pale Hose Jon Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 "Claim?"??? Ever read the Constitution? :headshake People evolve, and so should the constitition. "I freely admit the right of a nation to change its political principles and constitution at will." --Thomas Jefferson Can you not see that GUNS = VIOLENCE, could it be any more clear than in the statistics i provided earlier. To all the gun owners out there-- Why do you need a gun? Does the right to have a gun make you feel like you are more of a man? Would you commit suicide if you could no longer hunt, so insted you fished? Is this issue so important that you would be willing to fight over it? GUNS = Violence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 (edited) People evolve, and so should the constitition. "I freely admit the right of a nation to change its political principles and constitution at will." --Thomas Jefferson Can you not see that GUNS = VIOLENCE, could it be any more clear than in the statistics i provided earlier. To all the gun owners out there-- Why do you need a gun? Does the right to have a gun make you feel like you are more of a man? Would you commit suicide if you could no longer hunt, so insted you fished? Is this issue so important that you would be willing to fight over it? GUNS = Violence Would you also take away liquor and tobacco for the same reasons? Perhaps force a 40 mph national speed limit? Target shooting is fun. Did you happen to watch any of the olympic shooting? Hunting and fishing are totally different. You cannot even compare the two. I fished tournaments for years and probably have met hundreds of fisherman and know only a few that also were avid hunters. Again, why punish the law abiding citizens because of the actions of a tiny minority? I am all for safety locks, manditory training, against fully automatic weapons, etc. I cannot see outlawing a 20 gauge single action skeet shotgun. Can you not see that guns do not equal violence? Can you not see that tens of millions of citizens do not commit crimes with their firearms? Well less that 1% of all forearms are ever used in a crime? You clearly do not understand the sportsman with your "feel like more of a man" with a gun. That is just plain ignorant. Edited September 7, 2004 by Texsox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 banning tobacco, liquor, and having people drive 40 MPH, would save the environment, save money, and save lives. Do you have any idea what percentage of violent crimes involve the use of guns vs. not? Look that up at any objective source. Good points about tabacco, liquor and speed limits. I'd have a hard time imagining a world without liquor, but it does cause many deaths. I'm also proud to say that in my city cigarettes are almost completely banned. You cannot smoke cigarettes in any indoor public place, not even a bar. And I certainly wouldn'tbe surprised if they become like any other illegal drug. Speed limits don't need to be lowered, that shouldn't be a priority. It should be getting more fuel efficient cars on the road, and more alternate sources of travel. http://www.americansforfuelefficientcars.org/ads/default.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 banning public use of guns would save lives I don't think defense...good enough reasons for them to be allowed. Well one thing's for sure. Defending lives does not save lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Good points about tabacco, liquor and speed limits. I'd have a hard time imagining a world without liquor, but it does cause many deaths. I'm also proud to say that in my city cigarettes are almost completely banned. You cannot smoke cigarettes in any indoor public place, not even a bar. And I certainly wouldn'tbe surprised if they become like any other illegal drug. Speed limits don't need to be lowered, that shouldn't be a priority. It should be getting more fuel efficient cars on the road, and more alternate sources of travel. http://www.americansforfuelefficientcars.org/ads/default.htm Above 40 mph traffic accident deaths rise tremendously. Cars and the human body fail above 40. We could save thousands and thousands of lives with a 40 mph speed limit. And we wouldn't ave to take cars away from anyone. Also raising the age to 21 for a driver's license would eliminate the #1 cause of death for teenagers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Above 40 mph traffic accident deaths rise tremendously. Cars and the human body fail above 40. We could save thousands and thousands of lives with a 40 mph speed limit. And we wouldn't ave to take cars away from anyone. Also raising the age to 21 for a driver's license would eliminate the #1 cause of death for teenagers. Good points, there are many things wrong in the transportation area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pale Hose Jon Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Would you also take away liquor and tobacco for the same reasons? Perhaps force a 40 mph national speed limit? Target shooting is fun. Did you happen to watch any of the olympic shooting? Hunting and fishing are totally different. You cannot even compare the two. I fished tournaments for years and probably have met hundreds of fisherman and know only a few that also were avid hunters. Again, why punish the law abiding citizens because of the actions of a tiny minority? I am all for safety locks, manditory training, against fully automatic weapons, etc. I cannot see outlawing a 20 gauge single action skeet shotgun. Can you not see that guns do not equal violence? Can you not see that tens of millions of citizens do not commit crimes with their firearms? Well less that 1% of all forearms are ever used in a crime? You clearly do not understand the sportsman with your "feel like more of a man" with a gun. That is just plain ignorant. To address you national speed limit concern: The german autobahn has proven that you must make speed laws based on the road to which they are to be applied. I agree that target shooting is fun, but perhaps we could use bullets designed specifically for those guns, i know little of balistics, but if clay or rubber could be used, i'm am fine with their use. We are not punishing anyone, we are simply removing the use of guns. No one would be worse off if we were to remove all guns. If we were to use the japan statistic and double it to match that of the population of the united states. 80 deaths in a no gun society to 11,000 in a gun society. We could save 11,000 lives annualy by removing the ability to own a firearm. So here is the question 11,000 lives saved or the right to own a gun? I have answered that question and i am interested in what others think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 To address you national speed limit concern: The german autobahn has proven that you must make speed laws based on the road to which they are to be applied. I agree that target shooting is fun, but perhaps we could use bullets designed specifically for those guns, i know little of balistics, but if clay or rubber could be used, i'm am fine with their use. We are not punishing anyone, we are simply removing the use of guns. No one would be worse off if we were to remove all guns. If we were to use the japan statistic and double it to match that of the population of the united states. 80 deaths in a no gun society to 11,000 in a gun society. We could save 11,000 lives annualy by removing the ability to own a firearm. So here is the question 11,000 lives saved or the right to own a gun? I have answered that question and i am interested in what others think You are making an error in logic, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; that is, that simply because something follows an event it is caused by that event. Japan also had lower rates of other violent crimes, those that do not use a gun, yet they have similar laws regarding knives, bats, broom handles, etc. How do you explain that difference? Just to be clear. Are you proposing that if we banned guns, we would have the same crime stats as Japan? That differences in out traditions, our societial values have no influence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pale Hose Jon Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 You are making an error in logic, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; that is, that simply because something follows an event it is caused by that event. Japan also had lower rates of other violent crimes, those that do not use a gun, yet they have similar laws regarding knives, bats, broom handles, etc. How do you explain that difference? Just to be clear. Are you proposing that if we banned guns, we would have the same crime stats as Japan? That differences in out traditions, our societial values have no influence? Basically what i am saying is that if we were to outlaw guns, i would expect the # of deaths from guns to be cut in half by 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 We are not punishing anyone, we are simply removing the use of guns. Isn't confiscation of property and removal one's ability to defend oneself a punishment? No one would be worse off if we were to remove all guns. Gun industry, hunters, law-abiding gun owners. If we were to use the japan statistic and double it to match that of the population of the united states. 80 deaths in a no gun society to 11,000 in a gun society. You can't just pull a statistic out of your ass like that. Japan is the not the US. You would need to show that Japan had a large distribution of guns and gun crime and then a gun ban significantly reduced that crime. We could save 11,000 lives annualy by removing the ability to own a firearm. Not likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Basically what i am saying is that if we were to outlaw guns, i would expect the # of deaths from guns to be cut in half by 2014 With no corresponding increase in deaths by stabbings, stranglation, or the dozens of other ways husbands kill wives, drug dealers kill customers, psychos kill whores? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Australia banned guns. Look what happened within a year afterward: OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2% Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6% Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT) In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pale Hose Jon Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 With no corresponding increase in deaths by stabbings, stranglation, or the dozens of other ways husbands kill wives, drug dealers kill customers, psychos kill whores? i think that it takes less thought to kill a man when you are using a gun. Yes i'm sure that their would be an increase in these other crimes, but that increase would still be lower in total than the numbers of crimes before the ban. Here's the problem i have been having with the pro gun argument. Why do we need guns? Yes you can use guns for totally legal purposes, but i think the negative aspect of guns outweighs the positive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Basically what i am saying is that if we were to outlaw guns, i would expect the # of deaths from guns to be cut in half by 2014 Guns are not the only way to kill people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Guns are not the only way to kill people. Says the lady with the killer looks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Says the lady with the killer looks :headshake :puke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 As King of the Hill said: "Guns don't kill people. The government does." If legislators worried more about how to educate people regarding gun safety and that going to a gun to solve a problem when pissed is not the best decision than they did about banning more 'domesticated' weapons like handguns and shotguns, then I believe that gun violence would go way down. [keeping assault rifles and machine guns out of the public's hands is smart. As Wesley Clark stated: "If you want an assault rifle, join the military. We have a lot of them."] It's more the ideology that people go to guns to solve problems that needs to be addressed rather than simply removing guns. Prohibition of alcohol did not work, the war on drugs did not work and simply removing guns because they are a threat when used improperly (improper in this sense being not law abiding) will follow the same trend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 As King of the Hill said: "Guns don't kill people. The government does." If legislators worried more about how to educate people regarding gun safety and that going to a gun to solve a problem when pissed is not the best decision than they did about banning more 'domesticated' weapons like handguns and shotguns, then I believe that gun violence would go way down. [keeping assault rifles and machine guns out of the public's hands is smart. As Wesley Clark stated: "If you want an assault rifle, join the military. We have a lot of them."] It's more the ideology that people go to guns to solve problems that needs to be addressed rather than simply removing guns. Prohibition of alcohol did not work, the war on drugs did not work and simply removing guns because they are a threat when used improperly (improper in this sense being not law abiding) will follow the same trend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Stop the presses! MrEye and I actually agree on something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Australia banned guns. Look what happened within a year afterward: OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2% Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6% Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT) In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300% Wow that's interesting do you have a link for that, I'd like to read about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.