RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school?

RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:01:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I never said it would stop criminals from entirely having access to guns. That's exactly what you said in this post. Allow me to refresh your memory: Casie: "if the government bans firearms it is NOT going to keep criminals from getting them it will NOT make violent crime go down in anyway." You: "Can you prove that? My opinion is that it will and nope i cant prove it thats why i said it is my opinion and did not make a statement like you have done." When you figure out what you really want to say and can abstain from trying to put words in my mouth, let me know. Until then, feel free to play your disengenuous denial games with yourself. ~stef Where does it say it will stop ALL criminals from getting their hands on guns? I think you need to stop trying to put words in my mouth. Also i note you still show no acceptance of all the wasted life lost by gun accidents.

Casie -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:04:26 AM)
Read this, it gives statistical fact of why firearms DO prevent crimes, and this is based on information from a anti gun campaign. This proves that gun control does not stop crime and the states that had more gun control had even more crime. http://glocktalk.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=7972628

Real0ne -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:05:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I have managed 33 years of self defence without ever owning a gun so i think i'll just go on not owning one thanks. Shooting someone is not the only means of defence and yes i know there are people out there who cannot be stopped from it. Over 1000 accidental gun deaths in the states that could have been prevented. Of course accidents happen but are they really so accidental when they could easily be prevented? How on earth can you compare a car accident, someone breaking their neck with gun accidents. Guns are made to kill, cars are not. So are all those bigg ole bombs the uk have been dropping all over. they are made to kill also just not you. Do you suggest that your gov ban them? They have wmd's and a gun is not.

Real0ne -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:07:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Casie Read this, it gives statistical fact of why firearms DO prevent crimes, and this is based on information from a anti gun campaign. This proves that gun control does not stop crime and the states that had more gun control had even more crime. http://glocktalk.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=7972628 which is exactly the situation they have in england!

Casie -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:10:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I never said it would stop criminals from entirely having access to guns. That's exactly what you said in this post. Allow me to refresh your memory: Casie: "if the government bans firearms it is NOT going to keep criminals from getting them it will NOT make violent crime go down in anyway." You: "Can you prove that? My opinion is that it will and nope i cant prove it thats why i said it is my opinion and did not make a statement like you have done." When you figure out what you really want to say and can abstain from trying to put words in my mouth, let me know. Until then, feel free to play your disengenuous denial games with yourself. ~stef Where does it say it will stop ALL criminals from getting their hands on guns? I think you need to stop trying to put words in my mouth. Also i note you still show no acceptance of all the wasted life lost by gun accidents. I personally never made the assumption that you thought it would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but if law abiding citizens are defenseless and criminals are still armed they will attack the unarmed citizens at a higher rate because they will have no fear of being met with any type of adequate resistance. Look at Washington D.C., nobody was allowed to even own a firearm and it is the absolute most dangerous place in the U.S., and became that way after firearms were taken from the people. Luckily the citizens of D.C. have been given back their right to defend themselves recently, which will help drop the rates of murder, burglary, and violent crime in general.

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:25:07 AM)
Did you know there has been 14 major massacres with guns. Seven of those happened in the states and they continue to happen. The other countries that had had more than one and none equal the states the massacres had decreased in violence and loss of life and yet the USA's only get worse. I thought we were talking about gun's here not 'violent crime'. But yes apparently we do, go figure. That is actually a different issue and yes something should be done about it. Considering this thread is specific in dealing with gun crime lets go back to that. Your attempts to move the argument round arent going to work. If you want to start a thread about violent crime in general i will of course participate. The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?) http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html Not entirely down to us having stricter gun laws as we have always had the lower murder rate, but i would bet its a factor.

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:26:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Casie Read this, it gives statistical fact of why firearms DO prevent crimes, and this is based on information from a anti gun campaign. This proves that gun control does not stop crime and the states that had more gun control had even more crime. http://glocktalk.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=7972628 As i said before i have no illusions about it stopping all crime. My concern is unnecessary loss of lives due to gun accidents etc.

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:28:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I have managed 33 years of self defence without ever owning a gun so i think i'll just go on not owning one thanks. Shooting someone is not the only means of defence and yes i know there are people out there who cannot be stopped from it. Over 1000 accidental gun deaths in the states that could have been prevented. Of course accidents happen but are they really so accidental when they could easily be prevented? How on earth can you compare a car accident, someone breaking their neck with gun accidents. Guns are made to kill, cars are not. So are all those bigg ole bombs the uk have been dropping all over. they are made to kill also just not you. Do you suggest that your gov ban them? They have wmd's and a gun is not. Now you're just being thrush. Its gone from a discussion about guns to vioent crime in general to bombs. Stick to the subject or start a new thread.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:28:49 AM)
quote: Missturbation Hmm and it never ceases to amaze me how many assumptions those in favour of guns make. Whilst what happened in both those schools is a tragedy i do not believe everyone should be carrying a gun just in case someone pulls one on them. There are far too many trigger happy gun carriers around with licences never mind just giving them to anyone. For me there is no happy medium just a solution. Do not allow members of the public to have guns. quote: [Quote]Jack45 When waiting periods became fashionable there were lives lost, women's lives. I recall several cases one in Wisconsin where a woman had a court order of protection against her ex-husband. One day she went to a gunstore and selected a self-defense firearm, the clerk told her that she could not take the firearm with her due to a waiting period of 5-days, so the gun stayed in the glass case. That very night her ex broke down her front door as she was on the phone with 911 dispatchers, the transcripts were horrifying, she and her daughter were butchered using a bayonet. If she had been able to bring her firearm home with her she may well have been alive today. Horrible story but if she had been allowed to take the gun home it is quite possible that there would still have been a life lost - his when she shot him. These were some of my favorites among your greatest hits. Just putting them up seems to make an auto rebuttal of sorts as it all amounts to unqualified emotional nonsense. It’s almost like reacting an Al Sharpton rant… your first instinct that of a conflict between outrage and incredulous laughter. Having said that I will address your PROVE a ban on guns will not stop gun crimes. EVERY FREE NATION that had done so already has not stopped gun crimes and in some cases has had an upsurge in such crimes. When WE ban guns what does that mean? That the people can’t have them but the police can. This year a MACHINE GUN and two assault rifles were stolen from police vehicles in TX alone. There are also TWO stories circulating this week about some 60-70 guns missing from police stations and an inside job is suspected. No problem… ban the guns from the cops too. Only now you have the criminals looking to sources abroad, like REAL Ak-47s, RPGs, and pistols from the Russians and Chinese, and if you think we can stop that, then ask yourself why we have crack in that shady neighborhood 15 min from your house and 82 (illegal) Mexicans milling about the parking lot at your local Lowes. We cannot prevent contraband from entering the country, so now you have disarmed the police force and only the criminals have access to the weapons. But just for your sake, I will give your feeble argument the magic blue pill where we all join hands and have a magic sing-a-long and the guns disappear and every country agrees to get rid of them. Now the only problem is that despite the fact the earth is without guns… the earth is not without the raw materials and knowledge of how to make new ones. All I need is access to a machine shop and I can crank out a wheelbarrow of Sten submachineguns from scratch in an afternoon. Now what are you going to do… have another magic sing-a-long? The ONLY way your solution would work (and it could) is if you not only ban guns, but you back that with sufficient government control (as in a true police state with no civil liberties, and summary executions for those who violate or don’t report). Do you find that preferable? All that those who argue this tired ban guns argument do is display their ignorance. What they are really trying to say (although they haven’t figured it out yet) is ban all weapons, since banning guns only (temporarily) displaces the violence and crime from guns to other weapons (until they re-establish new channels to get guns). And banning weapons is the nearsighted ignorant way of looking at the real problem: fucked up behavior. We can’t ban that either. But tell me this… which would be the better world… the one where we made breakthroughs in disarming the world leaving the same people behind with the same problems, or one where we made breakthroughs with these people’s mental/criminal issues and had the same amount of guns?

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:29:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Casie quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I never said it would stop criminals from entirely having access to guns. That's exactly what you said in this post. Allow me to refresh your memory: Casie: "if the government bans firearms it is NOT going to keep criminals from getting them it will NOT make violent crime go down in anyway." You: "Can you prove that? My opinion is that it will and nope i cant prove it thats why i said it is my opinion and did not make a statement like you have done." When you figure out what you really want to say and can abstain from trying to put words in my mouth, let me know. Until then, feel free to play your disengenuous denial games with yourself. ~stef Where does it say it will stop ALL criminals from getting their hands on guns? I think you need to stop trying to put words in my mouth. Also i note you still show no acceptance of all the wasted life lost by gun accidents. I personally never made the assumption that you thought it would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but if law abiding citizens are defenseless and criminals are still armed they will attack the unarmed citizens at a higher rate because they will have no fear of being met with any type of adequate resistance. Look at Washington D.C., nobody was allowed to even own a firearm and it is the absolute most dangerous place in the U.S., and became that way after firearms were taken from the people. Luckily the citizens of D.C. have been given back their right to defend themselves recently, which will help drop the rates of murder, burglary, and violent crime in general. Ok i'll go with that although i am still opposed to members of the public having guns. What about the accidental deaths that occur? Over a 1000 in two years i covered. Needless loss of life wouldnt you say?

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:35:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack quote: Missturbation Hmm and it never ceases to amaze me how many assumptions those in favour of guns make. Whilst what happened in both those schools is a tragedy i do not believe everyone should be carrying a gun just in case someone pulls one on them. There are far too many trigger happy gun carriers around with licences never mind just giving them to anyone. For me there is no happy medium just a solution. Do not allow members of the public to have guns. quote: [Quote]Jack45 When waiting periods became fashionable there were lives lost, women's lives. I recall several cases one in Wisconsin where a woman had a court order of protection against her ex-husband. One day she went to a gunstore and selected a self-defense firearm, the clerk told her that she could not take the firearm with her due to a waiting period of 5-days, so the gun stayed in the glass case. That very night her ex broke down her front door as she was on the phone with 911 dispatchers, the transcripts were horrifying, she and her daughter were butchered using a bayonet. If she had been able to bring her firearm home with her she may well have been alive today. Horrible story but if she had been allowed to take the gun home it is quite possible that there would still have been a life lost - his when she shot him. These were some of my favorites among your greatest hits. Just putting them up seems to make an auto rebuttal of sorts as it all amounts to unqualified emotional nonsense. It’s almost like reacting an Al Sharpton rant… your first instinct that of a conflict between outrage and incredulous laughter. Having said that I will address your PROVE a ban on guns will not stop gun crimes. EVERY FREE NATION that had done so already has not stopped gun crimes and in some cases has had an upsurge in such crimes. When WE ban guns what does that mean? That the people can’t have them but the police can. This year a MACHINE GUN and two assault rifles were stolen from police vehicles in TX alone. There are also TWO stories circulating this week about some 60-70 guns missing from police stations and an inside job is suspected. No problem… ban the guns from the cops too. Only now you have the criminals looking to sources abroad, like REAL Ak-47s, RPGs, and pistols from the Russians and Chinese, and if you think we can stop that, then ask yourself why we have crack in that shady neighborhood 15 min from your house and 82 (illegal) Mexicans milling about the parking lot at your local Lowes. We cannot prevent contraband from entering the country, so now you have disarmed the police force and only the criminals have access to the weapons. But just for your sake, I will give your feeble argument the magic blue pill where we all join hands and have a magic sing-a-long and the guns disappear and every country agrees to get rid of them. Now the only problem is that despite the fact the earth is without guns… the earth is not without the raw materials and knowledge of how to make new ones. All I need is access to a machine shop and I can crank out a wheelbarrow of Sten submachineguns from scratch in an afternoon. Now what are you going to do… have another magic sing-a-long? The ONLY way your solution would work (and it could) is if you not only ban guns, but you back that with sufficient government control (as in a true police state with no civil liberties, and summary executions for those who violate or don’t report). Do you find that preferable? Everybody who has this tired ban guns argument does is display their ignorance. What they are really trying to say (although they haven’t figured it out yet) is ban all weapons, since banning guns only (temporarily) displaces the violence and crime from guns to other weapons (until they re-establish new channels to get guns). And banning weapons is the nearsighted ignorant way of looking at the real problem: fucked up behavior. We can’t ban that either. But tell me this… which would be the better world… the one where we made breakthroughs in disarming the world leaving the same people behind with the same problems, or one where we made breakthroughs with these people’s mental/criminal issues and had the same amount of guns? Considering my unqualified emotional nonsense which only displays ignorance in your eyes i will say only this i am just as entitled to my opinion on guns as you are yours. I have never once tried to tell anyone they should not carry a gun or resorted to insults to get my point across. I have never said ban all weapons and nor do i believe that so please stop labelling people in your neat little boxes. I never said my opinion would work 100% but it is certainly better than the opinion of hes got a gun so i better have one. The right to carry a gun is yours just as my right to not is mine.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:39:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Ok i'll go with that although i am still opposed to members of the public having guns. What about the accidental deaths that occur? Over a 1000 in two years i covered. Needless loss of life wouldnt you say? We have played the statistics game in about 95 other threads. so the public loses 1,000 plus. We are willing to lose more than 1,000 for ONE year of driving. we are willing to lose more than 1,000 a year for drowning. 1,000 accidental deaths is a crap argument in the face how many people there are in this country and hpw many other hazards you aren't grandstanding about that have similar or worse numbers for accidents than guns. And you completely lose sight of the other side of the coin. How many Aggrevated assaults, Armed robberies, rapes, and murders have been committed? In one year we have had some 1.3 million. That is 1.3 million instances visited upon the public. In all 1.3 million cases there is a chance that a gun in the right hands at the right time could have twarted that crime, perhaps with no loss of life on either side.

Real0ne -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:39:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I have managed 33 years of self defence without ever owning a gun so i think i'll just go on not owning one thanks. Shooting someone is not the only means of defence and yes i know there are people out there who cannot be stopped from it. Over 1000 accidental gun deaths in the states that could have been prevented. Of course accidents happen but are they really so accidental when they could easily be prevented? How on earth can you compare a car accident, someone breaking their neck with gun accidents. Guns are made to kill, cars are not. So are all those bigg ole bombs the uk have been dropping all over. they are made to kill also just not you. Do you suggest that your gov ban them? They have wmd's and a gun is not. Now you're just being thrush. Its gone from a discussion about guns to vioent crime in general to bombs. Stick to the subject or start a new thread. . i dont think so.... you shifted it into things that are specifically made to kill things... so it seems to me that puts me right on topic and since banning guns yields more violent crimes that also is relevant it comes down to cant have things both ways at the same time you know?

Casie -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:42:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: Casie quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I never said it would stop criminals from entirely having access to guns. That's exactly what you said in this post. Allow me to refresh your memory: Casie: "if the government bans firearms it is NOT going to keep criminals from getting them it will NOT make violent crime go down in anyway." You: "Can you prove that? My opinion is that it will and nope i cant prove it thats why i said it is my opinion and did not make a statement like you have done." When you figure out what you really want to say and can abstain from trying to put words in my mouth, let me know. Until then, feel free to play your disengenuous denial games with yourself. ~stef Where does it say it will stop ALL criminals from getting their hands on guns? I think you need to stop trying to put words in my mouth. Also i note you still show no acceptance of all the wasted life lost by gun accidents. I personally never made the assumption that you thought it would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but if law abiding citizens are defenseless and criminals are still armed they will attack the unarmed citizens at a higher rate because they will have no fear of being met with any type of adequate resistance. Look at Washington D.C., nobody was allowed to even own a firearm and it is the absolute most dangerous place in the U.S., and became that way after firearms were taken from the people. Luckily the citizens of D.C. have been given back their right to defend themselves recently, which will help drop the rates of murder, burglary, and violent crime in general. Ok i'll go with that although i am still opposed to members of the public having guns. What about the accidental deaths that occur? Over a 1000 in two years i covered. Needless loss of life wouldnt you say? Yes those people shouldn't have died I'm not at all debating that. But if you take guns away MORE than a 1000 people are gonna die due to the rise in violent crime!!!

Pulpsmack -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:46:36 AM)
quote: missterbation Considering my unqualified emotional nonsense which only displays ignorance in your eyes i will say only this i am just as entitled to my opinion on guns as you are yours. I have never once tried to tell anyone they should not carry a gun or resorted to insults to get my point across. I have never said ban all weapons and nor do i believe that so please stop labelling people in your neat little boxes. I never said my opinion would work 100% but it is certainly better than the opinion of hes got a gun so i better have one. The right to carry a gun is yours just as my right to not is mine. Maybe we should revisit this whole First Amendment thing while we are at it. You responded to my post in 4 seconds. why don't you actually go back and READ it. There you will find YOUR OWN WORDS quoted that say THE EXACT OPPOSITE. What is insulting is wasting everybody's time who is trying to have a DISCUSSION by throwing out some unqualified opinion then taking issue with ANYTHING anybody else says. If I think that guns are bad and I hate them, then I should be able to post that and leave it at that. If somebody takes issue with that, then my only rebuttal is that's your viewpoint and this is simply the way I feel. You don't throw out this unsubstantiated nonsesense, yourself, try to dissect the point of others when they actually take the time to put some thought into their posts and actually articulate an argument, if you have nothing but your feelings to fall back on. AND YOU CERTAINLY DO NOT write inflammatory statements, stir up the hornets nest and then pretend you never said them because you are being taken to task over it. That is baiting or trolling, plain and simple.

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:53:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Ok i'll go with that although i am still opposed to members of the public having guns. What about the accidental deaths that occur? Over a 1000 in two years i covered. Needless loss of life wouldnt you say? We have played the statistics game in about 95 other threads. so the public loses 1,000 plus. We are willing to lose more than 1,000 for ONE year of driving. we are willing to lose more than 1,000 a year for drowning. 1,000 accidental deaths is a crap argument in the face how many people there are in this country and hpw many other hazards you aren't grandstanding about that have similar or worse numbers for accidents than guns. And you completely lose sight of the other side of the coin. How many Aggrevated assaults, Armed robberies, rapes, and murders have been committed? In one year we have had some 1.3 million. That is 1.3 million instances visited upon the public. In all 1.3 million cases there is a chance that a gun in the right hands at the right time could have twarted that crime, perhaps with no loss of life on either side. No i have not completely lost the sight of the other side of the coin. Your argument is flawed at best that 1000 lives dont matter. At least my opinion is aiming to stop loss of life, yours is just to put guns in peoples hands and hope for the best.

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:56:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack quote: missterbation Considering my unqualified emotional nonsense which only displays ignorance in your eyes i will say only this i am just as entitled to my opinion on guns as you are yours. I have never once tried to tell anyone they should not carry a gun or resorted to insults to get my point across. I have never said ban all weapons and nor do i believe that so please stop labelling people in your neat little boxes. I never said my opinion would work 100% but it is certainly better than the opinion of hes got a gun so i better have one. The right to carry a gun is yours just as my right to not is mine. Maybe we should revisit this whole First Amendment thing while we are at it. You responded to my post in 4 seconds. why don't you actually go back and READ it. There you will find YOUR OWN WORDS quoted that say THE EXACT OPPOSITE. What is insulting is wasting everybody's time who is trying to have a DISCUSSION by throwing out some unqualified opinion then taking issue with ANYTHING anybody else says. If I think that guns are bad and I hate them, then I should be able to post that and leave it at that. If somebody takes issue with that, then my only rebuttal is that's your viewpoint and this is simply the way I feel. You don't throw out this unsubstantiated nonsesense, yourself, try to dissect the point of others when they actually take the time to put some thought into their posts and actually articulate an argument, if you have nothing but your feelings to fall back on. AND YOU CERTAINLY DO NOT write inflammatory statements, stir up the hornets nest and then pretend you never said them because you are being taken to task over it. That is baiting or trolling, plain and simple. My belief that guns should be banned does not equate to me saying you shouldnt carry one. As the law stands you can (as i have said before) and therefore it is your choice to carry one or not (also as i have said before). As for reading your post, i did and to be honest i have no time for people who resort to insults just because i disagree.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:57:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation No i have not completely lost the sight of the other side of the coin. Your argument is flawed at best that 1000 lives dont matter. At least my opinion is aiming to stop loss of life, yours is just to put guns in peoples hands and hope for the best. Your argument is perfectly sound that 1,000 lives are precious and worth saving to the point of banning the offender, so long as you campaign for the ban of ALL such offenders: alcohol, motor vehicles, standing sources of water, etc. Otherwise your argument is meaningless and your motivations are exposed as hypocritcal.

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 11:57:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Casie quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: Casie quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I never said it would stop criminals from entirely having access to guns. That's exactly what you said in this post. Allow me to refresh your memory: Casie: "if the government bans firearms it is NOT going to keep criminals from getting them it will NOT make violent crime go down in anyway." You: "Can you prove that? My opinion is that it will and nope i cant prove it thats why i said it is my opinion and did not make a statement like you have done." When you figure out what you really want to say and can abstain from trying to put words in my mouth, let me know. Until then, feel free to play your disengenuous denial games with yourself. ~stef Where does it say it will stop ALL criminals from getting their hands on guns? I think you need to stop trying to put words in my mouth. Also i note you still show no acceptance of all the wasted life lost by gun accidents. I personally never made the assumption that you thought it would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but if law abiding citizens are defenseless and criminals are still armed they will attack the unarmed citizens at a higher rate because they will have no fear of being met with any type of adequate resistance. Look at Washington D.C., nobody was allowed to even own a firearm and it is the absolute most dangerous place in the U.S., and became that way after firearms were taken from the people. Luckily the citizens of D.C. have been given back their right to defend themselves recently, which will help drop the rates of murder, burglary, and violent crime in general. Ok i'll go with that although i am still opposed to members of the public having guns. What about the accidental deaths that occur? Over a 1000 in two years i covered. Needless loss of life wouldnt you say? Yes those people shouldn't have died I'm not at all debating that. But if you take guns away MORE than a 1000 people are gonna die due to the rise in violent crime!!! You may well be right, you may well be wrong. Im not saying there is any perfect solution, well there is but we dont live in a perfect world. I will say again though the argument of well they have guns so im going to have one does not help the issue at all.

missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (4/28/2007 12:03:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation No i have not completely lost the sight of the other side of the coin. Your argument is flawed at best that 1000 lives dont matter. At least my opinion is aiming to stop loss of life, yours is just to put guns in peoples hands and hope for the best. Your argument is perfectly sound that 1,000 lives are precious and worth saving to the point of banning the offender, so long as you campaign for the ban of ALL such offenders: alcohol, motor vehicles, standing sources of water, etc. Otherwise your argument is meaningless and your motivations are exposed as hypocritcal. [/quo Guns are created to kill, cars, alcohol, water is not. I am against crime caused by any of these of course but they were not created with the sole purpose of killing or injuring people. I am against irresponsible people handling guns and considering the amount of accidents a lot of people are incompetent when it comes to handling them. Yes cars get put in the wrong peoples hands and drink and drive and injure or kill. People kill people, not guns but to put a weapon made to kill in someones hands is just asking for trouble.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875