05-20-2002, 02:10 PM | #61 |
Red Dragon
Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Long Beach, CA. USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,589
|
I also voted no, and I am also one of those who does not own a gun, but I strongly believe in the rights of *RESPONSIBLE* citizens to own firearms for their personal protection, especially in their home, providing it is legal where you reside. I have also stared down the muzzle of a firearm on several occasions and it is not a pleasant experience. The problem here in the United States at least is that firearms are so prevelent be it purchased legally or illegally, and that if you disarm the law abiding citizens, only the military, police and criminals will have firearms. And criminals *WILL* always be able to find a way to aquire them. Since burglars here know that so many citizens own a firearm/firearms they are much more cautious about burglarizing homes and businesses because they know they may meet an armed response. If you take citizens firearms away from them, the criminals *WILL* risk becoming much more brazen in their efforts and robberies will increase.
I am very happy to see this discussion has remained so respectful this time around, as the last time it became rather heated. It would be nice if no one needed to own firearms for self defense, but this is not an ideal world and never will be. And I would certainly hope that no matter what our feelings on gun control are, that we would rather come home and find our spouse/family/children safe and alive and a would be burglar/rapist/murderer shot dead on our living room floor, than to come home and find our spouse/family/children brutally raped and or murdered because they had no way to defend themselves against a criminal with a gun. An attack dog/baseball bat/pipe/knife/sword/ectecta, will not save them from a potential gun wielding killer. [ 05-20-2002, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: The.Relic ] |
05-20-2002, 02:26 PM | #62 | ||
40th Level Warrior
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
05-20-2002, 03:13 PM | #63 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
05-20-2002, 03:16 PM | #64 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Actually I believe unarmed robberies/burglaries are more common than the armed kind, but all crimes against individuals KNOWN to be armed are lower. Jeff Foxworthy a US Comedian from the south put it best in one of his acts...When he described how his "redneck friends" house looks, and where you knew a gun lived (and if you want to know what kind of gun, just break into my house). Wish I could find the transcript of that so I could post it [img]smile.gif[/img] [ 05-20-2002, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ] |
|
05-20-2002, 04:31 PM | #65 | |
Drizzt Do'Urden
Join Date: May 8, 2002
Location: chocolate land
Age: 49
Posts: 696
|
Quote:
and it's not about untrained people getting a gun and maybe using it. it's about criminals HAVING a gun, and you don't. thats all i'm trying to say.[/QUOTE]The point is that owning an SMG is overkill. It is legal in certain states of the US to own it. Again, i don't have anything against responsible people owning a pistol or rifle but an SMG IS overkill. It's all about untrained, and even worse, unbalanced people owning a gun. That's why so many people get shot over, well, nothing, if you think about it. If the criminal has a gun and you don't, i agree that, to put it mildly, you are at a disadvantage. But it's rather easy for untrained and unstable people to get one legally. The threat doesn't lie solely with the criminals. If you allow such a free selling of guns, overpowered guns to people who aren't carefull enough with them or are not totally balanced, you're going to get 'accidents'. Why do you need a very powerfull gun to protect yourself when a normal pistol will do ? This is my point. Again i do not have anything against trained and balanced people owning a gun but why does it have to be a powerfull one ?
__________________
JR<br /><br /><br /><br />It\'s me. The guy with the cloak big enough for a fire giant and the long nose.<br />Owner of the most visited woodshed in Ironworks\' history. |
|
05-20-2002, 04:37 PM | #66 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
and it's not about untrained people getting a gun and maybe using it. it's about criminals HAVING a gun, and you don't. thats all i'm trying to say.[/QUOTE]The point is that owning an SMG is overkill. It is legal in certain states of the US to own it. Again, i don't have anything against responsible people owning a pistol or rifle but an SMG IS overkill. It's all about untrained, and even worse, unbalanced people owning a gun. That's why so many people get shot over, well, nothing, if you think about it. If the criminal has a gun and you don't, i agree that, to put it mildly, you are at a disadvantage. But it's rather easy for untrained and unstable people to get one legally. The threat doesn't lie solely with the criminals. If you allow such a free selling of guns, overpowered guns to people who aren't carefull enough with them or are not totally balanced, you're going to get 'accidents'. Why do you need a very powerfull gun to protect yourself when a normal pistol will do ? This is my point. Again i do not have anything against trained and balanced people owning a gun but why does it have to be a powerfull one ?[/QUOTE]Contrary to media hysteria, not very many people get shot in the USA with Submachineguns, Machineguns or assault rifles. You are way way way more likely to be killed in a car wrek.....And I can assure you, if you are killed by a bullet...you do not give a damn wether it was from a hand gun, a rifle or a machine gun. With over 400 MILLION firearms leglally owned in the USA the percentage of all firearms used to commit crimes is miniscule. Guns are not the problem. Actually considering that there are roughly 300 million people in the USA, the percentage of anyone getting shot for any reason is quite low too. Someone else pointed out that only 67% of the murders are due to firearms...so almost half are due to other means. [ 05-20-2002, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ] |
|
05-20-2002, 04:56 PM | #67 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
In 1976 the murder rate per 100,000 in the U.S. was 9.1, but in England and Wales 1.1. Also in 1981 62.4 % of mureders in the U.S.A were committed with guns. It seems the less guns you have, the less murders you get. |
|
05-20-2002, 05:03 PM | #68 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Therefore if you banned all guns, logically the murder rate could decline by about 67%, just compare murder rates with firearms per 100,000 for England & America, The proof of the pudding is in the eating. |
|
05-20-2002, 05:55 PM | #69 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
In 1976 the murder rate per 100,000 in the U.S. was 9.1, but in England and Wales 1.1. Also in 1981 62.4 % of mureders in the U.S.A were committed with guns. It seems the less guns you have, the less murders you get.[/QB][/QUOTE]And the less personal freedom you have...funny that. And Im still trying to figure out how you are going to make the criminals turn over all their illegal firearms after you disarm the populace? [ 05-20-2002, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ] |
|
05-20-2002, 06:05 PM | #70 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Therefore if you banned all guns, logically the murder rate could decline by about 67%, just compare murder rates with firearms per 100,000 for England & America, The proof of the pudding is in the eating.[/QB][/QUOTE]No, you would not cut the murder rate by 67% you would force the murderers to find some other and possibly more violent way to kill their victims. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
kotor guns | Rokc Cadarn | Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) | 6 | 09-01-2004 08:18 AM |
About modern guns | Bozos of Bones | General Discussion | 11 | 08-29-2003 11:10 AM |
Do ya like guns??? | Larry_OHF | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 126 | 02-12-2003 09:21 AM |
Guns ??? | Bad Mr. Frosty | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 6 | 05-29-2002 06:25 AM |
Guns 2 | Ar-Cunin | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 5 | 05-27-2002 10:49 PM |