Guns don't kill?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Budski, I think that the difference between your mindset and the mindset of myself and the general populace in the United States is that you may trust the powers that be a bit more than many here do. I have got to be honest, I don't trust the government at all, whether it falls under Republican or Democrat leadership matters little to me. I don't trust them, period.

For someone to try and take my gun away, which is honestly the only thing that I believe defends the populace, they will have to do it over spilt blodd. I am not making any threats or anything else, I am just stating a fact. I think that if it weren't for an armed populace here in the United States, we would have been a police state years ago.




posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Budski, I think that the difference between your mindset and the mindset of myself and the general populace in the United States is that you may trust the powers that be a bit more than many here do. I have got to be honest, I don't trust the government at all, whether it falls under Republican or Democrat leadership matters little to me. I don't trust them, period.

For someone to try and take my gun away, which is honestly the only thing that I believe defends the populace, they will have to do it over spilt blodd. I am not making any threats or anything else, I am just stating a fact. I think that if it weren't for an armed populace here in the United States, we would have been a police state years ago.


Fair point, however, this raises a whole new set of historical questions, which I would rather discuss in a different arena.
But in this country we only trust the government to lie, cheat and deceive the populace in a multitude of ways.
Perhaps a better conception of "realpolitik" may be a better way of saying it....



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Is it not reasonable to assume that the drafters of the document could have no conception of the world NOW, and that it is time that the document was re-visited, with a view to bringing it up to date as happens with many constitutional documents?


Where we have to be very careful is when the 'bringing up to date' restricts personal freedoms.

For example, recently here in the US a law was passed that eliminates the right of Habeas Corpus for a selected group of prisoners. Recognition of this right is over 800 years old, and is one of the most basic of human rights. And it has been severely weakened.

And the US Attorney general, in his defense of this weakening, said something to the effect that the term Habeas Corpus is not found in the US Constitution. And he is right. But the Constitution does say:



nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Source

which is exactly what Habeas Corpus is all about - due process.

This is one example of why we have to be very very careful when we review Constitutional principles with the potential consequence of limiting freedom.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
People will find some way to kill, if that's what they are determined to do. They will find a way.

Take away the guns, and there will still be bombs, knives, arson, automobiles, poisons, bare hands......etc. ( they are now saying the shooter had exhibited violent behavior by setting fires and stalking women. If that is true, a gun was not his first choice........and he should have had a record that would have kept a gun, at least a legally purchased one, out of his hands.)

I recall an article that I read several years ago......the rock was featured as the most dangerous weapon in history. It has killed more people throughout history than guns have.......



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by budski
Is it not reasonable to assume that the drafters of the document could have no conception of the world NOW, and that it is time that the document was re-visited, with a view to bringing it up to date as happens with many constitutional documents?


Where we have to be very careful is when the 'bringing up to date' restricts personal freedoms.

For example, recently here in the US a law was passed that eliminates the right of Habeas Corpus for a selected group of prisoners. Recognition of this right is over 800 years old, and is one of the most basic of human rights. And it has been severely weakened.

And the US Attorney general, in his defense of this weakening, said something to the effect that the term Habeas Corpus is not found in the US Constitution. And he is right. But the Constitution does say:



nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Source

which is exactly what Habeas Corpus is all about - due process.

This is one example of why we have to be very very careful when we review Constitutional principles with the potential consequence of limiting freedom.


Agreed,
this does not change the point of what I was saying though....

An interesting sidenote, is that the 1998 Human Rights Act (European) has actually caused crime in this country to increase, relative to population growth. A topic for another discussion I know, but interesting nonetheless



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
budski, I'm not going to continue trying to convince you of something you don't want to believe.
You believe what you want. No hard feelings. I did, however want to say the following.


Originally posted by budski
Benevolent Heretic,

I have done the research,


As I read over my response, I realize that part sounded trite. I didn't mean it that way. Sorry.



but what you continue to do is to cherrypick parts of an argument that be refuted easily -


I also didn't intend to cherry pick. I thought I was answering you pretty thoroughly.

I hope you can find the answers to your questions.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I can continue to say guns don't kill people do but that doesn't really address the question. Guns are in fact tools and like all tools have an intended use and like many tools are subject to be mis-used as we are all aware; tragically so.
However, to understand why gun ownership is such a hot topic here in the US you need to understand and accept our heritage; it wasn't so long ago in the history of the world that we were in the middle of the westward expansion where guns were an absolute necessity both for obtaining food and for defense. My grandparents came west in wagon trains, my grandmother survived on dandelion greens when hunting was bad; my grandfather was a Sheriff during the 20's. We Americans are only a few generations out from settling our country. This is my family heritage; every generation has fought in wars for this country indeed starting with the Revolutionary War. Also, please remember that this country was in fact invaded during WW2 in Alaska where the Japanese were very firmly entrenched; we don't forget that.

It has also been pointed out that our personnal firearms are as much for protection against the government as intruders. Governments must realize that the citizens have the ability and will to protect our freedoms. When I rely totally on some one else to protect my rights I'm in danger of losing them; at least IMHO.

It has also been stated that had a student been armed this "person" would have been stopped sooner; well maybe. I have to think that young students may not have had the will or the training to use firearms. It takes training, knowlege and the will to fire.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Let me tell you why "guns don't kill." I can lay a gun on a coffee table, a loaded one mind you, and it can lay there for years and never harm anyone. Then one day, some knuckle head comes along and picks it up and blam!! Now, do you blame the gun or the one in possession of it? I personally blame the one in possession, not the gun.


SPEAKER!!!

Oh Why, Oh Why did you not post this earlier....

I read the OP and was so frightened of this Glock I have had on my table for a year; I just knew it was going to kill me, I destroyed it!!!!

HOW could I have known??!!??


On a serious side,

Speaker you are 100% correct and the lack of common sense in the anti-gun advocates is astounding.

I mean come on!!!

"If we make guns illegal, there wont be any more crime and we can all skip through the daisies"

I bet if we make guns illegal, the criminals wont dare get one... Wait a minute..... They are criminals.. HMMMMMM... So they obviously don't care about the law, what is going to make them care about this one?

Absolutely Amazing

Semper



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Do you people know how many guns would come across the southern border if there was complete disarmament of the US citizen?

It has always been a very stupid idea to disarm the citizens of any nation.

As one of my favorite Sic/fi writers wrote" Were ever arms are not allowed, that is were you will need one."

Roper



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
IGive me an example of a foreign power that is ready to invade america anytime soon.


Give me one that is not. Oh, thats right, you cant do that anymore than we can say who is ready.

But I can try. On 9/11 SOMEONE hijacked several planes and used then to attack Americans on American soil. Had the passengers been armed the box cutters would have been slightly less effective. In fact, had the passengers been armed the entire plan would have never left the cave (or base) it was conceived in.



Give me an example where it has been shown that gun control does not work (at least to a large degree.


UK. As soon as guns were banned, crime rates skyrocketed.

Florida, where it was once illegal to conceal carry. As soon as the conceal carry laws were eased up, the violent crime rates plummeted and have continued to drop. One convict even went on camera saying that he was afraid to mug people now that his victim could be armed and would be sticking to tourists from now on, since they cant have guns on the plane and are therefore safer targets.


Give me an example where it is necessary to own a semi-auto type weapon


Not that one needs a reason, but bear hunting comes to mind. Oh, and long range target shooting. Oh, lets not forget collectors of military riffles. Oh yeah, and people who want to look cool holding an AK



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis




"If we make guns illegal, there wont be any more crime and we can all skip through the daisies"

I bet if we make guns illegal, the criminals wont dare get one... Wait a minute..... They are criminals.. HMMMMMM... So they obviously don't care about the law, what is going to make them care about this one?

Absolutely Amazing

Semper


Well,yeah. And like I ask people who want to abolish guns, where does it end. I mean, should we ban pointy sticks? Knives? Pieces of metal? Baseball bats? Should we cut off our hands so we can't strangle as well?



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   

"Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."
- Aristotle

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular tro."
- Noah Webster

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

More Quotes by influential people about gun control: Here

Enough said.




[edit on 17-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   
budski, Just wanted to make one more point. It's easy to become convinced by media. And that's what's happened in most cases where people are so anti-gun.

The media tells you about the 32 who were killed with guns, but you don't hear about the 320 who were saved because someone had a gun. These numbers aren't accurate because I'm not going to do the research now. I've done it already and am convinced. But if you only hear one side of the story and you believe that's all there is to the story, then they got you. They fooled you.

But if you decide to truly deny ignorance and try to prove yourself wrong by investigating BOTH sides of the issue, instead of just trying to support your opinion, you may be surprised at what you come up with.

Forgive me if that sounds harsh. I don't mean it to be.
I honestly have no interest in you supporting the 2nd Amendment or becoming a firearms enthusiast. But I do believe in denying ignorance.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


But if you decide to truly deny ignorance and try to prove yourself wrong by investigating BOTH sides of the issue, instead of just trying to support your opinion, you may be surprised at what you come up with.



BH, to be fair we are all guilty of propping up our own opinions. I know for a fact I am. So...



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Firstly, let me say that I am saddened and appalled by what occurred yesterday.

However, the fact remains, that if guns were not so freely available, then this sort of crime would happen less frequently.
To say that guns don't kill people, people kill people is a fallacy.
To say that a gun is a tool, same as a hammer or a knife, is a fallacy.
A hammer or a knife, is not made for the express purpose of firing a high velocity projectile at another living thing. Yes, you can kill a person with a hammer or knife, but can you kill over 30 in a crowded area? I think not.
U.S. gun enthusiasts will bleat about the right to bear arms etc written in the constitution, but I believe that this is out-moded, and that people have guns because they WANT them - and they want them because they believe in an obsolete expression of freedom - oh, and to shoot things.

Here in the U.K. after the massacres at Hungerford and Dunblane, tough new laws were brought in - these mass shooting crimes have not happened since.

I uphold an individuals right to protect himself, but not at the expense of society as a whole, where it has become a kind of arms race.

www.neahin.org...

www.ojp.usdoj.gov...

Some figures show a decrease in violent and gun crime, however I would argue that this has more to do with zero tolerance policies than anything else.

The fact remains that if guns are so freely available, then there will always be crimes of this nature.

The rise of gun crime in Britain is drug-related and has more to do with the Labour party being unable to settle on proper policing methods and political correctness gone mad. Yes we see gang related shootings and stabbings, but it has been many years since we witnessed this kind of massacre - and that has to do with military type weapons not being available generally.


take this into consideration because the topic is a double edged sword.

say ok we ban gun and there no guns to buy. one day you and your family are asleep in your home and suddenly you hear a window break. you find that some lunatic has broken into your house with an illegal gun and then begins to kill your loved ones infront of you. there is nothing you can do now but watch as this unfolds.

now imagine if guns were not illegal and you had bought one for self protection, as soon as you heard the window break what would you be looking for the flash light or your gun.

honestly with all the lunatics running around the world is not as safe as we would like to think and the police are not a big help. i dotn support guns but i'm not aginst them just like knives you have to be carefull with them.

guns were invented for hunting initially and then begun being used to kill people just like knives and arrows and swords. as far as i know those last 3 are not illegal and i dont think many people are using them as weapons most of the time.

so the problem is not guns its people if someone wants to kill you or has a grudge and wants to take it out on people if not a gun he might use a car and just start running people over and then what u gona do make cars illegal.

i think we should have gun enforcement like driving test where people are forced to take training classes and gun ownership should be mandatory, anybadguy who was planning to break into your house might think twice if this was the case.

[edit on 4/17/2007 by razor1000]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
BH, to be fair we are all guilty of propping up our own opinions. I know for a fact I am. So...


So... what? So... shut up? What comes after your "So..."?

I know we all prop up our own opinions. I do, too. I'm suggesting the best way to be a critical thinker (or Conspiracy Theorist) is to look at the whole picture. I'm encouraging research to deny ignorance. And I said:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Forgive me if that sounds harsh. I don't mean it to be.


So...



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
A total gun ban would ensure every person would soon be a prison in their own country. My gun has been in a gun safe for going on 7 years and has yet to hop out and start shooting folks up. Those who want guns banned or under stiffer law are the same who wish for the government to to take up parental duties and raise their kids for them.



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Razor,
guns were originally developed as a weapon of war, in order to kill others more efficiently, early guns did not have the accuracy necessary for hunting - hence the use of volley fire during the evolution of gun warfare, to claim otherwise is to deny history.

BH,
I accept that you did not mean to sound harsh, however I remain convinced that guns are wrong, and that gun ownership is wrong. Maybe this is because I am a pacifist and against ALL forms of violence. Yes I know it is necessary sometimes, but that does not alter my core belief.

Can someone explain why banning guns in the UK has made crime "skyrocket"? it's certainly not because of the gun ban - all this did was stop massacres (I say all, but this has been the single best thing to come out of it). The rise in crime in the UK has to do with social and political issues and has nothing to do with gun control.

I am also aware of historical factors in the US regarding guns and the use of them, however, I firmly believe that THIS PART of the 2nd amendment is out-dated, and is used as an excuse for gun ownership - I'll need to find the stats that I linked earlier.

The fact is that due to the wide availability of guns, a huge number of people lose their life every year in the US. I know people will say that gun control doesn't work, but how can you know until it's been tried?

www.ichv.org... - found it


[edit on 18-4-2007 by budski]



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 04:50 AM
link   

I know people will say that gun control doesn't work, but how can you know until it's been tried?


It has been tried...... And Failed.....

Washington DC
New York
Detroit

The Cities with the most strict Gun Control in America.....

The Cities with the highest violent Crime in the nation.....

Miami used to be on that list, until FL instituted a Concealed Carry Law...

Note: Using DC, the "claim" is that guns are coming from VA that are causing these massive stats. The one problem with that is if it were true, VA would also have massive crime. They don't because they have instituted concealed carry as well.

Semper



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Your right! Guns don't kill... bullets do.

Perhaps if bullets were so readily available... ?





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join