Printable View
Well this arguement can go on all day, with both sides presenting facts. After all scientific studies show that when you start a topic with the phrase scientific studies show, people are 74% more likely to agree with you.
Also 47.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
It really isn't one of those arguments that can go on all day.
Societies with very little access to guns - have less gun crime.
You can debate of the ethics or reasoning for wanting guns but the great politician, Eddie Izzard made the point most succinctly...
"Britian no guns, low gun crime...
...USA guns, high gun crime
Britian no guns, low gun crime...
...USA guns, high gun crime"
or something similar.
seanchai
Well, to be realistic, we're never gonna ban guns in this country anyway...it's a moot point. But I do not like or support the NRA. As for your remark on penalties for meth labs versus drunk driving, I'm a wee bit skeptical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdeere562
edit: but I will readily admit to having lived near, or traveled through places that I thought about carrying a gun. But I was always worried that I would just end up shooting myself in the foot, or even worse, the family jewels...
not sure how a thread on hate based discrimination against same sex adoptive parents got so off target, but I'll take a shot at it. if you disagree with my opinion, please don't go ballistic on me :)
I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I would never own one myself, but thats a matter of choice. I am, however, opposed to the NRA and their absolutist stance on any and all regulation of guns. Since the the first three words of the second amendment are "a well regulated", its hard for me to accept that gun ownership and use shouldn't be subject to regulation. Guns are the only consumer products that are lethal when used as intended, and are the only ones not governed by the Consumer Product Safety Comission. Every other product has to comply with some safety guidelines. If cars have to have doorlocks, I don't see a problem with requiring guns to have triggerlocks. If cars have to have license plates and VINs stamped into virtually every part on them, I don't see a problem with requiring guns and ammunition to be registered and traceable. We restrict sales and resales of cigarettes and alcohol and prescription drugs. So I also don't see a problem with limits on how many guns or how much ammunition a person can own, or sell.
Everyone always says guns don't kill people. People kill people. But they do so with guns. The cost of the freedom to bear arms should be absolute accountability on the part of the people who chose to exercise that right. The other well worn homily is that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. But outlaws already do, and they get most of them by stealing them from lawful owners or buying them from people who buy them legally with the intent to sell them illegally. People should have to be accountable for their actions with their guns. Not just using them, but storing them and reselling them. When we outlaw the ways outlaws get guns, only outlaws won't have guns.
FK
"If cars have to have doorlocks, I don't see a problem with requiring guns to have triggerlocks"
It makes the gun to slow to engage in a life or death situation.....The newest generation of guns already have enough built in safety features to prevent the gun going off accidentally.
Personally, my gun only has a little safety flip switch and is single action. Speed is PARAMOUNT when engaging in gun combat.
"I don't see a problem with requiring guns and ammunition to be registered and traceable"
All handguns are already registered. Its impossible to trace ammunition because of deformation and ballistic damage to the round.....I use frangible rounds....How you gonna trace it?
"Everyone always says guns don't kill people. People kill people. But they do so with guns. The cost of the freedom to bear arms should be absolute accountability on the part of the people who chose to exercise that right"
People will always kill people....they were just killing them in different ways before the invention of guns.....Its just as easy to kill someone with sword as it is from a gun.....a gun just lets you do it from farther away. When we have personal plasma weapons thats what people will be using to kill each other in the future.
" When we outlaw the ways outlaws get guns, only outlaws won't have guns."
Umm....Outlaws dont care what YOU outlaw you know.....What you really mean is that only those that are wealthy or well connected will have guns then, and well have ourselves a nice little police state. Sorry FK, but that last statement was just dumb. A certain class of people will ALWAYS find a way to end-run the system.
"
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were living in the old west, where you had to have your six shooter strapped to your side, ready for the quick draw and hip shot. if your neighborhood is THAT bad, I'd suggest U-haul instead of an Uzzi. I'm guessing you have never had to fire your gun in anger. And probably never will. There are very few, if any instances where the few seconds it would take to deal with a trigger lock mean the difference between life and death, and many many more life and death tragedies that would be averted by one. Again, for every other consumer product there are some basic safety requirements. I'm sure there are instances where the time involved in dealing with child proof caps on medications might be a matter of life and death, but every drug sold has to have them.
A safety may prevent a gun from going off accidently, but it does nothing to stop it from going off negligently or carelessly. How many kids have to get shot by other kids at our schools before we do something to stop it from happening rather than punishing people afterwards?
As far as traceable ammunition goes, the technology exists. Its the 21st century, after all. The right to bear arms shouldn't include the right to use untraceable ammo, or copkiller bullets or any of the other extremes the NRA has expounded. I don't get to cover my license plate, skip my seatbelt, tint my windows, or use a radar jammer in my car, but I can't really complain that my right to travel is being unreasonably infringed. Gunowners don't really have a legitimate complaint here either
You either missed my last points, or chose to misconstrue them The NRA and politicians they support have refused to accept any limits on the number of guns anyone can own, or buy in a limited period. For self defense, I don't think you need more than one gun. If you want to have a pair of six shooters, I guess thats your choice but its more style than necessity . I don't even have a problem with people with gun collections. But people who buy 10-15-20 guns every week or month, as straw men for people who have no right to own guns should be stopped. . The same thing holds true for safely and securely storing guns. The NRA is opposed to requiring gun safes or other means of keeping guns from being stolen or misused. If I leave my keys in the car, and its stolen and involved in an accident, or if I don't lock my fence and a neighborhood child drowns in my pool, I'm responsible, so I don't think its unreasonble to impose those kinds of requirements and responsibilities on gunowners.
I'm talking limits, not elimination. There is nothing dumb about that. I may shoot my mouth off, but never with blanks :)
FK
Well I have been trying to avoid the political topics but I like this one.
I do own a few guns. Mostly for hunting ( I have a large plot of land, 1700 acres,that my family has been hunting on for years) and I have one hand gun.
I believe there is a middle ground here.
I do not believe that a citizen needs to have high powered automatic guns for protection or hunting. The NRA is wrong in their stance on this. We have a reasonable right to bear arms. I do understand that they are afraid that if they give in on this, then the next go around a few more types of guns will be unlawful.. and so forth.. But still thre are weapons that citizens should never have in their possession. Also I believe that certain ammunition should not be available for sale to the public... Like the Talons and other armor piercing rounds.
I keep all my hunting guns locked up in a safe so those are not an issue. I do keep my glock in my bedroom but it is in a safe in my night stand and the lock is by fingerprint ID. That is the only way it can be opened. the unlocking is Immediate, and very fast. This is a very expensive options but safety is a major concern.
FK you say seconds dont matter, but I beg to differ they do. If you have someone in your house, and you are asleep, and in panic mode, you do not want to be messing with trying to get a lock open.
I never carry a gun in public even though I do have a license to do so, but I have to say, if I was venturing to a part of town that is rough and I feel my safety was in question.. I would carry it.
I live in a very prominent neighborhood, and there were a string of violent rapes and abductions.. and I can assure you that if someone came into my house.. and was after my daughter....or son...I would not hesitate to defend them to the fullest and put one in their chest. You dont have to live in a bad neighborhood for bad things to happen... Crime finds us all.
Since this thread morphed into guns and gun control, here's something current...
U.S. House: Sex Offenders Need Their Guns
Josh Sugarmann 03/07/2006
How absolute is the House majority's fealty to the gun lobby? Strong enough that House leaders are now working to derail efforts to stop sex offenders from possessing guns.
Last fall, the House of Representatives passed the "The Children's Safety Act of 2005" ( H.R. 3132). The legislation, designed to strengthen federal registration requirements for sex offenders, included a provision that would prohibit gun possession by individuals convicted of misdemeanor sex offenses against minors (those convicted of felony sex offenses are already banned from owning guns under a general rule prohibiting felons from possessing firearms).
This provision -- modeled on the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, a federal law passed in 1996 prohibiting gun possession by persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses--was added to the sex offender registry bill as an amendment by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and passed on a voice vote. Apparently, going on the record in support of the principle that the "right" to keep and bear arms extends to those convicted of misdemeanor sex crimes against children makes even the "pro-gun House" trumpeted in 1999 by then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) a little bit squeamish.
Many states require sex offenders with misdemeanor convictions to register for their crimes. For example, New York requires registration by sex offenders convicted of misdemeanor crimes including sexual abuse in the third degree, forcible touching, and sexual misconduct. Illinois requires registration by sex offenders convicted of misdemeanor crimes of indecent solicitation of a child, sexual exploitation of a child, criminal sexual abuse, and any attempt to commit any of these offenses. Utah requires registration as a sex offender by persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of lewdness involving a child or enticing a minor over the Internet.
But in this business-as-usual House, H.R. 3132 has morphed into H.R. 4472 and is scheduled to be considered under suspension of the rules -- meaning there will be no real debate and no opportunity for amendments -- this Wednesday, March 8th. Not only has the Nadler provision disappeared, but an amendment to create a federal anti-hate crime law that extends to crimes where victims are targeted because of their sexual orientation has also been removed. That amendment was offered by Representative John Conyers (D-MI) and passed 223-199, despite opposition from the Republican sponsor of H.R. 3132.
The Second Amendment "rights" of those who sexually violate children or gun control? The choice is simple for the U.S. House: Sex offenders by a mile.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-s...r_b_16938.html
It looks like shrubya isn't doing enough to keep the jesus freaks happy....
:lol:
US evangelicals warn Republicans
By Jamie Coomarasamy
BBC News, Washington
Prominent leaders from the Christian right have warned Republicans they must do more to advance conservative values ahead of the US mid-term elections.
Their message to Congress, controlled by Republicans, is "must do better".
Support from about a quarter of Americans who describe themselves as evangelicals was a factor in President George W Bush's two election victories.
The Republicans will need to keep them onboard if they are to retain control of Congress in November.
BALANCE OF POWER -House
435 seats - all to be contested in mid-terms
Republicans hold 231 seats; Democrats 201; one independent; two seats vacant
Democrats need to win net 15 seats to win control of House
At a news conference in Washington, some of America's most influential conservative leaders said the current perception among evangelical Christians was that the Republican majority was not doing enough for them.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said that apart from confirming two conservative judges to the Supreme Court, "core values voters" did not feel that Congress was advancing their interests.
BALANCE OF POWER- Senate
100 seats - 33 to be contested in mid-terms
Republicans hold 55 seats; Democrats 44; one independent
Democrats need to win net six seats to win control of Senate
The leaders appear to be reflecting a growing sense of frustration among the Christian right, over what they see as a lack of legislative progress on issues such as banning same-sex marriages.
And while this was not quite a call to arms, it will cause concern in Republican circles in the run-up to the mid-terms.
Exit polls suggested that more than three-quarters of white evangelical Christians voted for President Bush in 2004.
But according to a recent opinion poll, the number of them who want Republicans to retain their Congressional majority is not much above 50%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4815912.stm
Rep. Debra Maggart, R-Hendersonville, said she believes homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children. because they may molest the children they adopt.
"We also have seen evidence that homosexual couples prey on young males and have, in some instances, adopted them in order to have unfretted (sic)access to subject them to a life of molestation and sexual abuse,"
http://pageoneq.com/rssfeedstuff/index.php?id=6657
talk about unfettered hatred and prejudice
FK