0

Spoons don't make people fat. Swimming suits don't drown people. And guns don't kill people. It's a tool, just like a hammer or tractor or garbage disposal. You don't misuse those tools, and most people don't misuse firearms.

And my only question for you is this... If most people don't misuse firearms then why have them in the first place as there appears to be no valid use for firearms in today's society.

Keep in mind that by firearms I refer primarily to those not being used for 'sport' (aka hunting or firing range or marksmanship). If the average person who owns a gun and totes it around on their hip would never misuse it... and the average person who owns a gun and totes it around on their hip is fairly unlikely (as is an unarmed person) to be mugged tomorrow, or run into an invading army, or have their government turn on them... then what, specifically is a 'valid use' of having the gun on their hip such that it's use would constitute a need to carry it in the first place?

You speak of there not being a 'Wild West' mentality involved but let's be honest, the ready presence of a gun at close hand increases the likelihood of firearms related violence (self defence or otherwise) merely due to it's proximity. Granted, there are only a small subset of states within the USA that are to the extreme that you would generally see average citizens walking down the street with a gun in plain view (read: Texas and the likes). Most other states, as you said, you wouldn't really know from looking at a person that they owned a gun in the first place.

Again, as I stated in my original reply a while back, I'm not saying ban firearms... That's a useless gesture in any event as bans only tend towards increasing interest in the thing being banned. What I am saying, however, is that I don't particularly see the point in average citizens who's employment does not require the use of a firearm having them available to them and on-hand.

0

> As a legal gun owner, I have the right to defend myself and let's face it - the fire arm is an equalizer.

It's that attitude that scares the poo out of me and makes me not want to go to the USA. Is it that dangerous everywhere that nearly everybody should have a firearm?

The logic of owning one is slightly lost on me. If you keep one at home, locked away safely, unloaded - how are you going to defend yourself with it when an assailant drags you out of bed? I assume most crimes at homes happen at night. Wait! Perhaps you keep your specials under the pillow, half-cocked?

If you are confronted by an armed mugger/robber/whatever, would trying to draw your gun make it more or less likely that you get a nice new red tattoo in your forehead? I would imagine that drawing your gun from a position of holding your hands up would be a slow process.

0

Not everyone in US owns guns -- I don't. It really depends on where you live whether you would need a gun or not. I live in a nice little rule town where there is no crime -- the town cop doesn't have a whole lot to do. But drive 30 miles away from here and there is St Louis Missouri, a city of over a million people and very high crime rate. Drive-by shootings and murders is just a daily normal occurence in that town due mostly to drug wars and gangs. This is not to say that St Louis is all a war zone -- some parts are pretty good.

In a perfect world you are right that we would not need guns except for hunting food. But we don't live in a perfect world.

0

@AD
I appreciate that. The point I'm trying to make is - does owning (and possibly carrying) a gun prevent you from being a target for: "Drive-by shootings and murders ...[due to]...drug wars and gangs" I'm getting the mentality, but not the logic - not trying to be obtuse.

-1

H.B. You should be a "Toyota" bcoz you're so right. If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns. If people are REALLY serious about stopping crime, how about everyone losing their thumbs and index fingers. They are used to fire guns, press the button that fire the missile, trigger the bomb release that drops the A Bomb (ad infinitum). Ridiculous thought I know....but that's what makes the gun work.

0

I'm sorry but I'm sooo frikkin tired of that bumper sticker ". If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns" of course if you made owning a gun illegal all people who owned a gun would be breaking the law, thats retarded its like saying if you said that breathing made you smell you must believe every one living smells. its a really bad assertion as your defining the terms of your argument then using them as justification to say your right. >_< ahhhhh

in short the use of the word outlaw is here a type of equivocation you use the term outlaw to imply 'bad guy' when really you should just mean 'person not complying with the law'.

pheww I'm sorry but i'v put up with that line once too many times and i had enough, personally i can't wait for forcefield technology then lets see gun hick's justify owning a weapon.

one thing tho if you'r all arguing (by all i mean gun supporters) that having a gun (and let me be specific here, in your home or on your person as a pose to say at a secured facility like a gun club) is to protect you form criminals (does this mean you have no faith in you police force?) and invading nations (what are immigration and the homeland defence busy with?) or to stop the government screwing you (you and maybe 5 guns of medium size against the us forces in their own backyard??) then do you really believe a colt 45 (or something) will help the situation?

0

Popin : In my country owning a gun is a privilege and a gun owner must follow rigid guidelines. I don't like guns but they are a necessary evil. The police are not there to protect the individual; they are there for the protection of society. Protection of the individual except in certain circumstances falls to bodyguards, self or SPU's. (Special Protection Unit.)
My definition of "outlaw" is a person who acts outside the law. Just because you are sick of reading bumper stickers doesn't make them any less true or relevant. Given the choice, if I lived in a society where any body can get a gun (including those who would do me or those I love harm) I prefer access to one myself, legally and if trouble arises and it is justified I can remember another NRA bumper sticker. "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six".

Edited by Ghostrider939: n/a

0

my annoyance of the bumper sticker is in fact because although it is 'true' its not truly a justification for the legalization of guns, as explained above using that in an argument is as good as dodging the question.

fyi the police are there to protect individuals society is made up of individuals and thus via your own statement the police force is (in theory at the very least) there to stop you getting killed, If you feel paranoid enough about the level of threat to yourself/ your family that you want what is more or less the modern version of a really big stick so that everyone knows that messing with you might incur wrath of said stick then thats your problem.

I am sorry if I'm offending you but i just don't see realistically how a gun will help the situation once used do you really think you would feel nothing from killing another human being?? or that if your attacked at home late at night your going to be able to get to and use the gun before anyone is threatened (/meaning they become a potential fatality)? Do Americans really treasure their home's, land, money/possessions enough to risk increasing the likelyhood a gunman will open fire? Is it not better to leave it to the police and if that robber does come to you'r home let him have the goods there replaceable a kid isn't.

0

@popin no police are not there for your individual protection,only public safety, this is based on a Supreme Court ruling. This ruling resulted from a law suit brought against a police department for not protecting an individual person. time line-your back door is kicked in you wake up realize whats happening grab phone call 911=1 1/2 min. intruder hears call in progress comes to room beats,stabs,shoots you and your loved one, takes what items can find quickly and leaves=5min. Police arrive 8min. after receiving call and start homicide investigation. To recap by law the individual is responsible for personal safety,Police are responsible for public safety only. and no you don't offend me,but your ill informed and naive stance does. Later---

Edited by Biker920: n/a

0

>>fyi the police are there to protect individuals
No they are not. The police are not your personal bodyguard. There are not enough police to be everywhere and protect everyone. It is your responsibility, and yours alone, to protect yourself and your family.


In America I have the right to use deadly force against any uninvited intruder. Robbers generally do not attempt to rob homes where they know someone is at home, but it does happen and many of them are shot dead. When that does happen the robber had better be inside the home. If he is not then the shooter may be convicted of murder, unless there are other circumstances that can show the murder was justified.

>>Is it not better to leave it to the police
No because its not the police's job to protect every person and every home. If you wait for police the robbers will be long gone with either the goods or your life.

Edited by Ancient Dragon: n/a

0
Police are responsible for public safety only. and no you don't offend me,but your ill informed and naive stance does. Later---

Police in different countries may be responsible for different things. However, I think that's a red herring. As pointed out, the police won't get to you in time. If a gunman puts a gun to your head, The Flash won't push you out of the way as the gun is discharged. Likewise, your own gun, tucked safely in its shoulder holster won't save your life. Bang. You're dead.

Why do people put their faith in a gun as opposed to a Kevlar jacket?

I'm still amazed that the solution to the problem seems to be arm everybody, don't tackle the problem - 'cuz there ain't no problem bub, "It's ma goh-dammed given right to bae fia ahms". Single brain-celled tooled-up good ole boys on one bank and geeks with guns on another. You couldn't write it.

I can't stick this rubbish any longer, you guys deserve what you get, because you wanted it that way.

Edited by diafol: n/a

0

If a gunman puts a gun to your head, The Flash won't push you out of the way as the gun is discharged. Likewise, your own gun, tucked safely in its shoulder holster won't save your life. Bang. You're dead.

Yep, you probably are in that situation, but normally things don't go from 0 to 60 in 0.5 seconds like that. There's some sort of altercation and someone calmly, slowly opens their jacket and the bad guy decides to go somewhere else. That's the hope at least. The mugger or bully or whoever decides that it just ain't worth it and either decides to take up stamp collecting or at least bother the next guy who doesn't have a gun. In the home, you would come out holding your gun, but not firing, but again hopefully they just leave.

That of course requires a calm, controlled good guy and a calm, controlled bad guy who are both smart enough to think about the situation and decide that it just ain't worth it to let it escalate.

On the other hand, for the folks who aren't so calm (on either side), you have hotheads who get in a brawl and probably if this was Wales, there would be no gun to grab, so there'd be a busted nose or two over which soccer team had the better looking cheerleaders or something equally drunk and stupid, whereas in the U.S., two drunk pissed-off young punks can equal a fatality. That's the downside. It takes a smarter man than me to figure out a solution to this.

0

Concur. As for Wales - soccer's for cheerleaders. Now start talking who should be wearing the no.10 shirt for the national rugby team and you'd be bang on.

0

@biker dragon all i can say in responce to that is thank god im not an american. well its not all i can say I'd like to point out even the american police (from the sounds of your court case) are obliged to protect individuals (/groups, when the need arises) in public places. i in no way suggested that they'd be there in your house just in case (coz thats plain stupid), also i don't want to sound harsh but what did the guy pick up the phone while the robber was in the house, would you call the fire brigade before exiting a burning building? If it was possible he should have got his family/self out then called the cops, i mean come on this is what i was talking about before waving a threat in a panicky guys face (be it a gun or some cops) is just plain dangerous

I'm splurging again and getting far to angry I fail to see how you can't see the connection between there being more and easier ways to bring guns into a country and the gun related crime rate going up. I don't really have a problem with what other people choose to do if its not going to massively effect me (such as keeping a gun in a club) but as i see it all the current security checks in the world aren't going to stop or even predict someone deciding they've had enough and everyone must die/ they feel like mugging/robbing someone for easy cash. Personally i don't care if you say 'it doesn't happen' or 'its a rare occurrence' the fact that the possibility lies there day in and day out doesn't sit right with me. but i don't really think im going to change anyones mind nor that anyone will change mine so i'l not be replying here its just going in circles and getting heated (and your side all have guns lol)

again i apologies if i'v offend anyone I'm not trying to cause an argument i just feel passionately about killing people for any reason (and by that im not totally against it i just think it carries a very heavy price that shouldn't be taken lightly).

chou

0

quote by popin-again i apologies if i'v offend anyone I'm not trying to cause an argument i just feel passionately about killing people for any reason (and by that im not totally against it i just think it carries a very heavy price that shouldn't be taken lightly).
one question,have you ever taken a life by any means? no? I didn't think so. Yes I have,not an enjoyable experience but necessary at the time. your passion has no reference in real life. A fire arm is a tool of protection, to protect my self and any one in my sight from antisocial people that includes you if it comes down to it. I served in US Armed Forces at a place called Vietnam and worked as a certified armed security guard on low rent housing projects late night shift in some rough sections of town. Just remember just because people carry Guns that doesn't mean they are looking for some one to shoot and one of them just might save your butt one day. Later---

0

> we have met the enemy and he is us-POGO

Apt

Or

ygUDuh by e.e.cummings

Sums it up

Edited by diafol: n/a

0

Here is an interesting thread about the topic of individual rights to own and keep weapons in the USA. The original intent was to give evey American citizen the right to have weapons so that he can defent himself, his family, his home, and his country against foreign invaders (like England) or other people who intend to do harm. And that today is still the main reason. Americans are paranoid about any one or any nation enslaving them.

Sorry AD but that quote appears nowhere in Washington's papers or speeches - here is the closest quote

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
---George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

I voted against the blanket ban because I ENJOY shooting but I am old fashioned enough to prefer a single action Black Hawk .357 mag and a lever-action .3030 carbine.

In the arguments for gun ownership, no one looks to Mogadishu or Mexico as examples the good that can come from unlimited gun ownership and Canada and the UK are good examples of the other end of the scale.

0

>In the arguments for gun ownership, no one looks to Mogadishu or Mexico as examples the good that can come from unlimited gun ownership and Canada and the UK are good examples of the other end of the scale.

Sorry to butt in again, but I suspect that Mogadishu and Mexico are so lawless that unlimited gun ownership is almost sensible. From this argument, this must also be true of the USA, where its society has such low regard for human life that guns becomes a necessity. This is what scares me about the USA and Americans in general. I wouldn't visit Mogadishu, and I'd be very nervous about visiting either Mexico or the USA. I'd probably end up being as paranoid as the inhabitants - perhaps more so, not having the time to acclimatise.

0

If you're afraid of the USA and Americans in general, then you've apparently never been here. Believe it or not, you can walk down the street, and people don't shoot you! Not even the police! Why are you so afraid of people?

0

USA has millions and millions of visiters each year to see such places as Disney Land, Disney World, etc. Almost none of those visiters (tourists) have any problems at all, unless they are looking for problems. I doubt you will see a single person walking down a city street carrying a gun. We aren't the wild west you see in the movies.

Mexico is a different story because of the war the drug lords are having with their government. Its especially dangerous along the Mexican/American border.

0
If you're afraid of the USA and Americans in general, then you've apparently never been here. Believe it or not, you can walk down the street, and people don't shoot you! Not even the police! Why are you so afraid of people?

Yes, I have been there. If people don't shoot you, you obviously don't need the guns. I'm not afraid of people, I even like Americans, when they're in my country, not totting their arms.

2

I'm part of the philosophy that it's better to own a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it.

0

I don't have much patience with the people who insist that there's something not stupid about talking about a total ban on guns in the US, but I get even more sick of the macho posturing from the other side. My feeling is that both extremist positions are basically inane, formulated by people whose main interest is in keeping their favorite organization running or being a political player and getting people riled up for or against whatever it is they're really interested in.

The reality check: You're not going to ban guns, and handguns are basically highly portable, highly resellable gifts to thieves. A burglar is going to look for your NRA sticker, and when they see it, they'll make sure they get your weapon when they knock over your house while you're away on vacation, and a mugger is going to make the first move from close enough in that they can mess you up pretty thoroughly, twice, before you unbutton your jacket to get at your holster. Oh, look, you just gave the guy a bonus - he thought he was just getting a wallet.

1

quote-a mugger is going to make the first move from close enough in that they can mess you up pretty thoroughly, twice, before you unbutton your jacket to get at your holster. Oh, look, you just gave the guy a bonus - he thought he was just getting a wallet.

this person obviously has no clue on concealed carry or self protection, to 75 percent of the posters may I suggest sitting down with an authoritative book on concealed carry & self defense before posting their favorite myths. Also all the NRA members I know have gun safes that are attached to the building structure. Oh by the way only inexperienced weapons owners leave them unsecured, my bedside gun box is blind bolted with in reach of my bed for my wife and I and opens with a finger print reader set to both mine and my wife's finger prints. Later---

Votes + Comments
Now this is what I'm talking about!
0

> my bedside gun box is blind bolted with in reach of my bed for my wife and I and opens with a finger print reader set to both mine and my wife's finger prints.

I'm speechless - almost.

I'm waiting for the next installment that carries on...

"..the laser-sight is automatically adjusted to our retinal optima via skin DNA reader on the photon pulse block..."

Are you Mr and Mrs Smith?

0

@Biker - yeah, that'll be the macho posturing I was talking about.

Allowing, though, that you're about the deadliest superhero with watchful eyes to put a hawk's to shame, bear in mind that most people are not that, and if they try to be like you, you're going to have a lot of dead and injured non-muggers (false positives) and a lot of well-armed muggers (false negatives).

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.