And many times it has been prevented because a gun has been available. I see your point. See mine? I don't want to argue it here. I only pointed out that guns aren't dangerous with out a person intent on making them so.
Of course not. Come on now Major. To equate responsible gun ownership with owning nukes, poisons, chemical weapons and bombs is crazy. Life is inherently dangerous because of crazy people. I think I should have the right to bear arms and provide for the protection of myself and family. The founders of our country did also. My guns are not a danger to myself, my family, you or my neighbors.
That's true mostly when law enforcement officials have guns and the bad guys do not. I agree with that, but that is why I would do everything to make sure that stupid people do not easily have access to guns.
And stupid people have killed other people while driving drunk. If you had read my earlier posts you would realize that "taking my strap out side and busting a cap" is some thing I find very unaccepable because it is dangerous and gives responsible gun owners a bad name. you choose to lump all guns owners into a violent irresponsible mass of crazies which is not the case.
95% of the time the police arrive on the scene to take notes about what happened. I'm not willing to accept that if my family's life was in danger it would be one of the 5% when they got there in time to prevent the crime. I'll provide for my own safety thanks. As for the second part of you statement you should support the NRA if that is how you feel. They are the only organization that promotes gun awareness, gun safety, and responsiible gun ownership for sport and personal protection.
I didn't lump anyone with anything. I already said I made an obviously non-serious statement. I don't have any beef about guns or gun owners, If i had a major problem with them then I couldn't even live in my own home.
Of course not. Come on now Major. To equate responsible gun ownership with owning nukes, poisons, chemical weapons and bombs is crazy. I'm not equating anything - I'm simply using your exact logic. If your argument is that guns don't kill people, people do - because it requires a person to do the deed, then why is it wrong to say that: Chemical weapons don't kill people, people do. Or Bombs don't kill people, people do. If those statements don't hold, then your original statement doesn't make any sense. You can make the argument for legal gun ownership, but this isn't it - this is an easy catchphrase used to defend run rights that doesn't hold up to any real analysis.
No offense. None taken. No harm, no foul. It is a subject I feel strongly about. Back to a question I posed about DWI on NYE??? Anyone have any ideas about the # of accidents alcohol related?
Sure those statements hold true... and the truth is "people kill people" Owning a gun for personal protection or sport is completly different than owning a bomb or chemical weapons for what ever reason. I'm not sure how you are getting from one to the other of how you think they are even remotely related?
I don't know. But I do know that the bad guys (probably the same idiots shooting them into the air last night) have them so considering the part of town I choose to live in I'll exercise my rights to provide for my family's protection.
I would say that is very understandable from your personal standpoint and I might be inclined to do the same if I was in that situation. I just think that, from a policy standpoint (and this might be unrealistic now), it would just be better if guns were just not so widely available, just because the idiots are often the first to get and use them.
I agree that it is better if guns are not as easily available to idiots and criminals. Responsible, law abiding citizens who keep them for sport and/or protection often get a bad rap because of the idiots and criminals. The gun owners I know hate these indviduals as much as everyone else. Their actions put us at risk of losing a a very fundamental right. Good night and thanks for an openminded discussion on the subject. I hope by in the morning one of our members has been able to find some #'s on the DWI related accidents on NYE question because it made me very curious.
I did a quick search before heading to bed and I found this at madd.org WASHINGTON, D.C._ December 3, 2003 - Last year during the Thanksgiving to New Year's holiday season, 2,464 people died in alcohol-related crashes or crashes in which safety belts were not used._ I couldn't find any stats for just NYE but wow that is a large # of deaths in just a few months.
Wow, a rock and a feather dropped from the same distance would hit the ground simultaneously if you're on the Moon. That Grandpa's one crazy b*stard. Thanks DC
If you factor out solar breezes and other things that would prevent the feather from ever hitting the ground
there's only one answer... people fire guns in the air, in the city limits, because they are stupid. period.
sadly, New Years and 4th of July are my two most despised holidays, because of gunfire and where I live. BTW, did anyone on this board get their property, house or car damaged by bullets this year?
if charges are not brought upon this individual, it will send a message to this community that it is OK to do this... the real tragedy and sad part is that these people think it's OK to do this. the city, local law enforcement, a philanthopist or someone should start an ad campaign about a month before the new year and a month before the 4th of July that includes Public Service Announcements in both languages that advertise that it is illegal to fire guns in the city limits...
