Originally posted by chaswrayI have several high powered bolt action rifles passed down to me from my father and grandfather. I guess you could say that's a sentimental reason to own a gun. For my father and grandfather on the farm they were tools as an earlier poster alluded to.
I think a scenario could be developed in which someone owns a bong for ''sentimental reasons'' (they were tools for dad and granddad back in college or something). Is there some difference between these two, or are neither or both legitimate reasons to own the respective items (guns are legal, drug paraphenalia not)?
Now notice I haven't mentioned assault rifles or glock pistols or 15 round sig-sauer semi automatic pistols or riot shotguns. I have no use for those.
Why do your sentimental reasons not apply to these weapons? Couldn't some else's experience include assault rifles in a way that prompts certain emotions for that person?
They are the weapons of choice for drug crazed idiots who are ruining America's cities.
Let's be similarly objective and tolerant now (😉) and talk about how the weapons you mentioned owning are weapons of choice for drunken yahoos who are ruining the countryside. That's obviously very oversimplified and ridiculous, and so is your statement.
My guns don't kill people, and weren't designed to kill people as an earlier poster classified all guns.
A gun is a machine with no values or psychological implications designed only to change the potential chemical energy of an explosive to kinetic energy to be transferred between a piece of metal and something else. The are few provisions made for what one is shooting at; anything designed to kill all but the smallest animals is vastly more effective for killing people than any other weapon we've designed for that purpose. In other words, while I don't think you'd kill people, you are much better equipped to kill people (technologically) than a non-gun owner.
Just to play devils advocate for a moment, let us consider:
If a few people aboard the hijacked aircraft on Sept. 11 had firearms on their person.
Ok, indulge me a little more, I going to go a little further even:
If there ever were to be a revolution like scenario being played out, would you still be happy that the government has a record of every single firearm you own?
I know a lot of people may disagree with me upon this (i.e. the debate regarding the 2nd amendment, etc.), but I can assure you that should such a scenario come to pass in your lifetime, you would not be such a supporter of the gun control when Mr. Policeman comes to your door to seize your firearms, being that he has a nice little list of every single one you own. Gun control may be a considerable way to reduce gun related crime, but it is also a sure fire way to pull the teeth of any type revolt.
Personally, I dislike guns. If my father didn't look down on guns, he might still be alive today. I own a firearm. I take it out to the range once or twice a year to keep in touch with the feel for it. Other than that, it sits and collects dust. I'm no gun enthusiast, but I appreciate my right to own a firearm and I intend to use that right. I empower myself as a citizen by doing so. This, atleast, is what I believe.
Originally posted by OmnislashOK, you're playing devil's advocate so I'll go lightly.
Just to play devils advocate for a moment, let us consider:
If a few people aboard the hijacked aircraft on Sept. 11 had firearms on their person.
Ok, indulge me a little more, I going to go a little further even:
If there ever ...[text shortened]... f as a citizen by doing so. This, atleast, is what I believe.
If a few people on the 9/11 aircraft had guns then maybe they would have been able to stand up to the terrorists. I guarentee that if guns were generally allowed then the terrorists would have had them too. I also guarentee you that one hell of a lot more planes would be hijacked and brought down. Also concider that if guns were allowed on planes then the drunk who gets 'air rage' could instead of punching a steward(ess) could shoot him/her, along with a hole in the side of the plane.
If you are talking about having 'sky martials' who are armed on planes then this is a different issue. Although immensly more sensible than allowing Joe Public to have guns on a plane there is argument that any gun on a plane in a security risk, bigger than the risk of being hijacked.
Your second point is very strange. Are you advocating violent revolution? You appear to be saying that gun control is a bad thing because it'll stop you participating in a violent uprising. So for which cause would such an uprising be justified? What if I told you my cause was to get those evil Jews/Christians/Athiests out of the Whitehouse - am I allowed to hold guns & start a bloody revolution?
Originally posted by belgianfreakOkay, as far as the airplane goes, I agree. I hold no pretense that your average Joe being armed is not the solution, but a proper person (skymarshals being a good example) could be.
OK, you're playing devil's advocate so I'll go lightly.
If a few people on the 9/11 aircraft had guns then maybe they would have been able to stand up to the terrorists. I guarentee that if guns were generally allowed then the terrorists would have had them too. I also guarentee you that one hell of a lot more planes would be hijacked and brought ...[text shortened]... ristians/Athiests out of the Whitehouse - am I allowed to hold guns & start a bloody revolution?
Now as for a violent uprising, to some degree, yes. It is my personal opinion that it is not only the right of every citizen in the US, but more their obligation to sustain our right to bear arms. I think it is important to point out that this country exists because of a bloody revolution. While I certainly do not wish to propogate any wild conspiracy theories it is not only a possibility, but on a long enough of a time line an eventuality, that those in power shall try to undermine the rights of the people. Likewise, while I do not believe any red blooded American would fire upon his own people, that is what I believe of our state today and history shows that tomorrow could be very different. The point behind this is that our right to bears arms is important. It is the insurance clause of our freedom. The only way to gaurantee the peoples freedom is for them to remain capable of defending themselves against a corrupt government. While today I might say that my government is good the winds of change may bring about a far different and foul odor. While I cannot blame my fellow citizens for being willing to give up rights to be "safer", I myself am unwilling to compromise in this matter. I am willing to suffer today to unsure the tomorrow of our sons and daughters.
I am willing to suffer today to unsure the tomorrow of our sons and daughters.name a country that hasn't had a bloody revolution in it's history. Most of us aren't proud that it came to that and hope that it won't be necessary to return there. Saying people should be allowed to prepare for it by having the necessary weapons handy just makes it more likely that it will happen again. Doing it at the expense of peoples safety today makes it even worse.
Remember that it's your sons & daughters who will be 100 (more?) times more likely to be shot in the US than in the UK. That makes people afraid, and living in fear is IMHO a worse enemy than the potential corrupt government of the future. You could try not electing bad government, but I guess that's not possible anywhere.
nb. I'm not rubbing it in, but that was a funny typo
Now notice I haven't mentioned assault rifles or glock pistols or 15 round sig-sauer semi automatic pistols or riot shotguns. I have no use for those.Obviously young man, we come from different eras and areas. Yoy prove my post in your first sentence...guns ARE legal. Drug paraphenalia is NOT.
Why do your sentimental reasons not apply to these weapons? Couldn't some else's experience include assault rifles in a way that prompts certain emotions for that person?
[b] They are the weapons of choice for drug crazed idiots wh ...[text shortened]... e countryside. That's obviously very oversimplified and ridiculous, and so is your statement.
[
Yes guns are designed to kill, but to kill a person is illegal. Stop making life a bowl of cherries for the criminal. If they are found guilty of murder, beyond a shadow of a doubt, then carry out the sentence. Stop wasting my tax dollars.
I didn't say my sentimental reasons didn't apply to assault weapons etc. I said there are legitimate reasons to own those weapons.
I will stand by my statement about drug crazed idiots. The drug culture is ruining this country. Either make it legal or make it tougher when it is illegal. Again stop wasting my tax dollars.
Let me ask you this RC, if there were no guns, they were never invented, would there be no murder?
Again we come from different eras. Back in the 60's, when I was your age, I probably saw things differently then now. But a lot has happened in my life since then. Am I a grumpy old man? Probably. But my beliefs are my beliefs. Tougher laws are needed for the criminals.
And one more thing RC. Please do not say that a statement of mine is ridiculous. I may not be as educated as you, but I have a right to my opinions and to state them without ridicule. I wouldn't dream of saying that something you posted was ridiculous.And I stand by that statement as one who has lived in the Miami - Fort Lauderdale area for 35 years before moving back to the country. Drugs ARE ruining this country! More so than guns I might add, although unfortunately the two go hand in hand.
And to all other posters I have never once stated that guns can't kill, simple that it is my belief that banning them will not solve the problem and that there are legitimate reasons for ownership and usage of guns.
Regards, Charlie
PS. BTW RC, reread my post, I didn't say drunken yahoo's, I said drug crazed idiots. And I said they are ruining the country not the country side. Litterers do a good job of ruining the countryside. But that's another topic and I don't want to get off topic as you accuse me of doing in another thread
😉😉
Originally posted by belgianfreakFirst and foremost.........that was an unusually funny typo. 😀
name a country that hasn't had a bloody revolution in it's history. Most of us aren't proud that it came to that and hope that it won't be necessary to return there. Saying people should be allowed to prepare for it by having the necessary weapons handy just makes it more likely that it will happen again. Doing it at the expense of peoples safety to ...[text shortened]... I guess that's not possible anywhere.
nb. I'm not rubbing it in, but that was a funny typo
You are welcome to your opinion my friend, but I maintain that gun control is just another method of treating the symptom and ignoring the disease. I do not fear my fellow man, but rather I fear those decision that he will make out of fear.
From the BBC News 2002
Last year in London, there were 156 shootings within the black community, an increase of 96% on the previous year. The total included 19 murders.
So far this year, there have been 65 firearms incidents, up more than 60% on the same period last year. Eight people have died.
Scotland Yard set up Operation Trident to try to halt the rise in these "black on black" shootings.
At the head of a team of 230 police officers, Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Sellers has seen the emergence of a gun culture in some sections of the black community.
"The people we come across seem to carry firearms fairly routinely; a gun is almost a piece of jewellery now," he says.
And England has strict gun control laws? What's the problem then?
Originally posted by chaswrayhey, no one said it was perfect, and London is by far the worst area for gun crime.
From the BBC News 2002
Last year in London, there were 156 shootings within the black community, an increase of 96% on the previous year. The total included 19 murders.
So far this year, there have been 65 firearms incidents, up more than 60% on the same period last year. Eight people have died.
Scotland Yard set up Operation Trident to try to ha ...[text shortened]... ellery now," he says.
And England has strict gun control laws? What's the problem then?
But I think you've answered yourself. 156 incidents of a gun being fired & 19 murders in a year - how does that compare to the US (taking differences of population into account)? How does it compare to the worst parts of the US?
Now this is being reported as major news, and it is nearly double from the previous year. How does it compare to the US in it's worst area in it's worst year?
And there is a task force of 230 people to combat the problem, almost 2 for every incident. That shows that we recognise we have a problem and are acting to combat it.
The comment on guns being "jewellery" is interesting. I think it is linked to what I said earlier about people carrying guns for show, not intending to use them. But because they have it then there is the possibility that they will use it if cornered and scared/surprised.
nb. Please don't take my comparason of the US & the UK as trying to say the UK is in all ways better; it's just that these are the examples of relatively similar cultures with vastly different gun laws.
Originally posted by eyeqpcre:tony martin,i agree that if someone threatens you you have a right,neigh DUTY to protect yourself with the minimum force necessary to vanquish that threat.i say duty as i personally believe that threats are perpetrated by insecure people/persons who intimidate you in order to parasitically boost their self esteem by diminishing yours,and if you do nothing you not only disrepect yourself but encourage the person(s)to escalate their threats upon others as they feel rewarded by not being challenged an so you feed the monster as it were.but as for mr martin being a victim,yes of burglary,he should still have gone to prison as he shot the intruders as they were fleeing which constitutes no personal threat as they were interested in leaving with their ill gotten gains,not sufficient i propose to shoot someone .
I don't think it works here in England, there has been cases of the "victim" getting convicted, like that farmer guy Todd Martin (no he's a tennis player) Mr Martin who shot an intruder when a bunch of thugs broke into his home.
-Robbo
Originally posted by belgianfreakI am sure that we are much higher. It does prove my point...tougher sentencing of the criminal is needed. Unfortunately tougher gun laws aren't working, if they did I'd be all for them.
[b]
But I think you've answered yourself. 156 incidents of a gun being fired & 19 murders in a year - how does that compare to the US (taking differences of population into account)? How does it compare to the worst parts of the US?
Originally posted by flexmoreIt depends how liberal you are with your interpretation of 'arms'.
what about the right to bear chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in every home?
then we could truly defend ourselves against all contingencies!
Or, as the (crazy) guy in Bowling for Columbine said: "Those items should be controlled'. 😲
Originally posted by chaswrayyou seem to contradict yourelf a little here. You agree that the US is much higher in cases of gun related crimes/shootings etc, but then you say that tougher gun control doesn't work...
I am sure that we are much higher. It does prove my point...tougher sentencing of the criminal is needed. Unfortunately tougher gun laws aren't working, if they did I'd be all for them.
What do you mean by 'work'? If you mean that tougher gun controls don't 'work' because they don't prevent 100% of gun crime then you are right. If however you define 'work' as 'significantly reducing the number of gun incidents' then I would say that the tougher gun control laws in the UK have worked.
Ok, let's suppose that every criminal has a gun, and someone comes up to you in the street with the intention of robbing you. If you don't have any weapons, it's pretty likely they'll get your wallet, whereas if you have a gun, there's a good chance they'll leave you alone or run away. HOWEVER, they are much more likely to shoot you, because they don't want you to shoot them first (they'd have no reason to shoot you if you weren't armed). If someone comes up to you with the intention of murdering you, then I agree you chances of survival are improved by having a gun, but then most premeditated murders are committed by immediate family members, in which case you'd have little chance unless you were paranoid about your own family.
So overall, I can see that guns can protect property, but they are unlikely to save your life unless someone intends to kill you beforehand.
As for the corrupt government thing: If the government is in a secure position and they want to do nasty things to you, I'm afraid you haven't got a chance, no matter how heavily-armed you are, in any kind of gunfight; there would be just too many police/soldiers. If the people rise up and overhrow the government, the safest policy would be to stay indoors, preferably in an out-of-the-way place, until the whole thing has happened. If there's a major rebellion which doesn't topple the government, ie a civil war, then again it would be safest to go somewhere quiet or attempt to flee the country; compared to the issue of survival, it wouldn't really matter if you were in 'safe' government territory or rebel territory. If you didn't have a gun, you probably wouldn't be seen as a combatant, so you'd be unlikely to have people shooting at you anyway.
You might say "there isn't going to be a popular uprising if ordinary people don't have guns," but this isn't how it works. In a technologically advanced country an armed insurrection has almost no chance of beating the country's army unless the rebels persuade a significant proportion of the army to defect, in which case it'll be mainly the soldiers' firepower that will be the deciding factor, as soldiers will always be far better equipped and trained than ordinary citizens (you might have a pistol, but can you afford a tank?). On the other hand, a popular uprising in the form of unarmed or poorly armed rioters in the streets has a chance of working, provided enough soldiers refuse to obey orders to fire upon the protesters.