2 different issues. If we feel that your gun ownership can be a threat to others, then we can and should call for reform. The chances that you will ever face a situation where using a gun will result in a more favorable outcome than not using one is slim to none (and closer to none), which makes me think you are a little paranoid.
I have no problem with reform. I think there needs to be reform in who can get a weapon, but don't take away my gun with a blanket policy. And if I NEVER face a situation like you described, my prayers will have been answered favorably, but if there is a chance, I would rather be prepared than later say "Hmph...what were the chances of THAT happening?"
I understand why you think this way, but you also have to consider the chance that using your firearm could lead to a worse outcome.
And I'm sure any ER Dr. could tell you about the danger of guns too. I don't know if you are arguing that guns are safer than knives. Both are deadly. My point is that in a close situation I would prefer using a knife to a gun.
Interesting statistics. I have some doubts about them but don't have stats of my own to back up those doubts. Judging by how this debate is going I'm sure somebody else will supply counter stats. Honestly I'm nots sure how much I trust stats either way in this debate. There seems to be a lot of contradiction.
I agree SC. Stats can be manipulated, and I have seen time when stats are made up from out of the blue...right New Yorker?
I stand partly corrected then on the availability of weapons to the Bosnians. That said though even if the Bosnians had access to light arms or were allowed to carry weapons that we Americans are allowed, hunting rifles, handguns, shotguns and etc.. would that make a difference against the Serbs armed with heavy weapons, air support and fully automatic side arms? Looking at Iraq almost everyone owned an assault rifle yet Saddam was still ruled brutally and when the Coalition invaded we conqured the country in 3 weeks. True the insurgents are making things very painful for us, partly because they are being supplied with more lethal weaponry from outside, but that hasn't prevented the coalition from killing tens of thousands of Iraqis.
I see, shooting with the clear reprisal of getting shot and having their entire family shot and made an example of versus facing the unknown of getting into a train for relocation as far as they knew.
I see, so you are saying gun owners will help criminals go after people without guns. Doesn't that make the gun-owners associates to a crime?
Umm...Panzers were all over after Germany forcibly invaded most of continental Europe. Let me break it down for you: people are at home. People rounded up by men with guns/tanks. People taken to concentration camps in trains. If you think a few people with handguns would have achieved anything, you are really dillusional. Also, Germany attacked Russia long after they had rounded up most of the Jews from Europe.
Just to reiterate my position, partly because I'm getting lost myself in this debate. I said at the beginning of this thread I'm hesitant to use this incident to argue for more or less gun control and through all this debate I don't see anything telling me we need more or less guns. There are good arguments either way but they do tend to cancel each other out. Here's my basic quandries. I believe guns are very dangerous and making more guns available would make it more likely they get into hands of those irresponsible. Even in the hands of people who don't intend to commit harm given how dangerous guns are their is a risk of them not being able to handle them properly and becoming a threat to themselves, others or losing them to people who will use them to commit harm. OTOH though I recognize that the police can't be everywhere, determined criminals will still get hold of guns and in terms of basic freedom people should be allowed to have powerful means to defend themselves. On the 2nd Ammendment I believe it is antiquated given the nature of mechanized warfare. OTOH though the 2nd Ammendment is still part of the Constitution and should be respected as much as any other part. So after 36 pages of threads my own opinion is still that people have a right to own guns but it needs to be done so responsibility and restrictions are needed. What those restrictions are is pretty much the status quo.
I provided a link to the stats that show concealed weapons restrictions resulted in a less crime that those that didn't. You didn't respond - so I guess that you choose to ignore the facts and keep espousing your own brand of logic to justify your ownership of guns.
Was that the one where you said Houston was the murder capital? Sorry, like I said stats can be manipulated when they are not being made up out of the blue. The fact is I don't need to justify my gun ownership and right to carry. Sucks for you, doesn't it? BTW, did you know bread is dangerous. You should really pay attention to #12. Let's start banning bread!!! Research on bread indicates that: 1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users. 2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests. 3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations. 4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread. 5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month! 6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis. 7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days. 8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts. 9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person. 10. Newborn babies can choke on bread. 11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute. 12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In light of these frightening statistics, it has been proposed that the following bread restrictions be made: 1. No sale of bread to minors. 2. A nationwide "Just Say No To Toast" campaign, complete celebrity TV spots and bumper stickers. 3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread. 4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage. 5. The establishment of "Bread-free" zones around schools.
I had to look this up, but as far as I can tell, the massacres were caried out in large part by infomal paramilitaries which were organized and armed by the Serbs to act as their proxy. I'm not even sure exactly to what degree even the Serbs regular military had air support and available tanks. As far as whether or not it would have helped to have arms, I don't know the answer for sure. I think up to a point it would have helped. If there were few, lightly armed people rounding up others for a massacre it could have prevented it, but if they had air support and tanks like you postulated, I can't see that it would have substantially helped. For a more local perspecitve on how guns can help the oppressed there is a documentary called Negroes with Guns: Rob Williams and Black Power that I would like to see that supposedly makes a decent case for the power of firearms as a tool of the oppressed in a particular phase of the Civil Rights process in America. I don't think it is exactly an NRA polemic. The southern white sheriffs who were the ones with guns were also the ones doing the lynching. I can appreciate well reasoned arguments for gun control. I do understand and I used to share the basic belief that reducing guns will reduce violence, but I don't think that it stands up to scrutiny. Reducing murder rates is a good goal. I am, however, fundimentally unable to reconcile myself with control arguments that are based in fear and hysteria, or a bad personal experience with a gun.
Not at all. Remember gun restriction works in New York. There should be no guns. What are you worried about? A criminal that is not following the law...unfathomable...
the chances that you will die in a terrorist attack are slim to none, but look at all the new laws since 9/11 - all the hassle at airports. try getting robbed in your own house and having some punk pointing a gun to your head and than tell me you arent paranoid. i wish i had been armed - i would have shot those bastards in the back as they were leaving my house after robbing me. gun ownership would have saved me thousands and i would have done society a favor by taking out people willing to commit armed robbery. the government has proven time and time again that you cannot expect them to protect you.
i agree with you - ive seen stats from "trustworthy" sites that directly contradict each other on the issue - doesnt make it easy for us, does it?
