Sicarius
Posts: 180
Joined: 2/26/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
|
1. I believe the public should not be allowed to carry guns licenced or not.
1. If the day comes that you rely on a gun owner to defend your life or the lives of your family, I believe you may adopt a very different view. Don't worry. Though you slander me now, I would still protect you if forced into that situation.
Thrush is not slander, well certainly not relating to your opinion on guns anyway. If i was defended by someone with a gun i would hope it would be the police and not a civilian. Would i feel differently if it happens? Maybe.Would it change my opinion on civilians carrying guns - no.
No, but I consider your insinuation that I require "special attention" to be somewhat incendiary ... very close to insulting my reading comprehension or perhaps even my intelligence. It is my opinion that you have not expressed your feelings as well as you could have ... I'm not saying that that's indicative of anything with respect to yourself beyond perhaps being a bit rushed in your replies, but I believe that the rising number of people replying to you and making very similar interpretations of your writing seems to indicate that I am not alone in my "misperception."
I would ask, however ... who would you rely upon if ever it was the police themselves from whom you required protection? One in your geographical location need merely look across the English Channel for examples of what I'm talking about.
I never said you needed special attention. You misread and added bits i had not said in my posts is all. Why would i need protection from the police? I rely on myself to look after myself. I wouldnt think 'oh someone carrying a gun will rescue me any minute now'.
Is it so unimaginable that you might, one day? I realize that in your nation's history there may not be as many examples (though there are a few), but it is certainly not uncommon in the scheme of history for a nation to turn upon its citizens. You seem to believe that the police have at least some ability to protect you, and as such I question what your condition would be if ever it was the police themselves from whom you required it.
1928 - The liberal Weimar Government (pre-Nazi Germany) enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. The law required persons to get a firearms acquisition permit before acquiring a firearm, to have an ammunition acquisition permit prior to purchasing ammunition, annual hunting permits, and place serial numbers on all handguns for tracking so the government would know where all of the firearms were.
1933 - The Nazi regime asends to power. Utilizing the information gathered on the location and ownership of firearms, they began conducting searches and seizures targeted against their political adversaries. Nazi authorities ban the importation of handguns. Firearms permits no longer granted to persons deemed "untrustworthy" by the state.
1935 - The Citizenship Law is decreed, denying Jews civil rights in Germany. In late 1935, law enforcement is commanded not to issue firearms permits to Jews.
1938 - The Nazi Weapons Law restricts gun ownership to "persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit." Jews are barred from all businesses involving firearms.
9-10 November 1938 - The Kristallnacht, or Night of Broken Glass begins. Jewish homes and shops are ransacked. Selectively-armed pro-Nazi civilians and stormtroopers destroy buildings owned by Jews. 30,000 Jewish men are taken to concentration camps. 1,668 synagogues are ransacked. 267 are set on fire.
11 November 1938 - The following day, Jews are banned from owning any weapons at all ... even knives or clubs.
2. The story of the young girl and woman is terrible and never should have happened but my only point to make in that was that had she have had a gun someone may still have been killed.
2. You're still not commenting on what your opinion is. The reason that you were confronted with this story is that the poster wanted to learn what your solution would be to this kind of violence. What do you believe should be done (could be done) to change things so that this woman and her child would not have been killed?
A better legal system which would have prevented this man from being able to commit the crimes he did. I have stated this over and over.
I'm not trying to be incendiary in stating this, but this does not seem to be a solution so much as a desire for someone else to come up with a solution. I am honestly not sure how else this situation could have been prevented, but I do believe that what almost all of the rest of us are saying is that if this woman had been able to buy a gun in order to protect herself and her child, the two of them may not have died. That, to me, sounds like a hypothetical solution to the problem ... and furthermore one that I believe is fairly easy to enable without burying the citizens of the United States in still more bureaucracy and red tape.
I agree totally and all i did was point out that there may still have been loss of life even if she had the gun. I did not say she should or shouldnt have the gun. So your solution is to be allowed to carry a gun, well ok but to me that is not a solution either. A little of stale mate in this one i think. I'm a brit hun and as such i think we have in the main slightly different views on carrying guns to the states.
All right. I'll let it go at that, for now. I believe that if she had had the gun, she might have saved herself and her child. Even enabling her to "possibly" have that outcome is better than leaving her no chance at all, in my opinion.
3. I do not believe the woman and child should have died and not the abusive ex-husband.
3. All right, we agree on that point. Thank you for clarifying.
4. I would certainly use self defence if anyone attacked me or my UM but i would never own a gun under any circumstances.
4. And I completely, thoroughly respect your decision not to. I commend it. I still do not understand why you feel that it entitles you to tell me what I should and should not be able to do in order to defend my family, though.
As i have said it is your decision to make and have in no way told you what you should or should not do. I have merely said if it was my decision i would not allow citizens to carry guns.
All right. I am very thankful, then, that the decision is not left up to you. Perhaps as a restatement of my initial retort, I do not understand why you would make that decision. You're entitled to it, but I have no idea why you feel that way. I would like to know, because only in open discourse and sharing ideas and opinions do we improve ourselves as people.
I feel that way because i hear and see too many stories about idiots carrying guns and using them inappropriately. I have a friend who was 'accidently' shot by a responsible licenced gun owner and i would have no inclination to put myself in the position of accidently shooting someone or getting shot. The police shot dead a man who ran away from them that they thought was a terrorist, turned out he wasn't, he was innocent, but you know what he's still dead. I don't have the answers or the solution but i do believe not allowing civilians to carry guns would lower gun crime and 'accidental' shootings. If you think my view is naive then so be it but it is my personal opinion and i am entitled to it.
Yes, you are certainly entitled to it. I do not believe I have ever seen irrefutable evidence linking the reduction of private firearms to lowering crime ... even gun-related crime ... to any significant degree.
|
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread