Is it better to carry a gun or not?

[MILAMBER]

Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by MILAMBER: ... I ask you, where is the difference between shooting bows and shooting rifles? Is archery a noble sport and shooting not? Both were initially created with the sole purpose of killing, yet exceptions are made in one instance and not the other. Why is that? I submit that shooting guns is no different then shooting a bow and arrow. Both can be dangerous in the hands of those lacking maturity and training.

There's nothing wrong with shooting as a sport. But walking around with a gun is different. And there is a difference between walking around with a gun and with a bow. You can see the bow, and you can't see the gun...

I would be terrified to go out on the street if I knew that people have guns with them... I would feel less safe then than I do now when I know that it's harder to get a gun. I'm in Sweden btw. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]There are two different ways to carry a firearm on you. You can carry, which means in plain site, or you can carry concealed which means you can hide the weapon on your person. The ONLY people who can get concealed weapons permits either work for the government, or work as say a bodyguard in the pivate sector. Conceales weapons permits are VERY difficult to obtain. Also, the only place in the U.S that you can carry any type of weapon on you in public is Texas, a nd when you do, it has to be in plain site.

So, while you could see somebody carrying a bow, you could likewise see somebody carrying a gun, unless they worked for the government.

[MILAMBER]

Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by Neb: The problem with locking up or hiding a gun in such a way that a child cannot possibly get to it is that if someone then breaks into your home it'll probably be too difficult to get to it for you to be able to find it before the burglar has found you. People with children should simply not be allowed to own guns.

I don't understand that either... They have guns to protect their homes. But if they have children the gun should be safely locked, so it would be impossible to get to it quickly enough. So what's the point of having a gun then? [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]NOBODY GETS THIS!!! SHOOTING IS A SPORT! PEOPLE DO IT FOR FUN. THE REASON A PERSON WITH KIDS WOULD OWN A GUN IS TO GO SHOOTING WITH HIS FRIENDS ON WEEKENDS. NOT ONLY TO DEFEND HIS HOUSE. NOT ONLY TO KILL PEOPLE. TO GO SHOOTING FOR FUN.

[Neb]

Originally posted by MILAMBER: quote: Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by Neb: The problem with locking up or hiding a gun in such a way that a child cannot possibly get to it is that if someone then breaks into your home it'll probably be too difficult to get to it for you to be able to find it before the burglar has found you. People with children should simply not be allowed to own guns.

I don't understand that either... They have guns to protect their homes. But if they have children the gun should be safely locked, so it would be impossible to get to it quickly enough. So what's the point of having a gun then? [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]NOBODY GETS THIS!!! SHOOTING IS A SPORT! PEOPLE DO IT FOR FUN. THE REASON A PERSON WITH KIDS WOULD OWN A GUN IS TO GO SHOOTING WITH HIS FRIENDS ON WEEKENDS. NOT ONLY TO DEFEND HIS HOUSE. NOT ONLY TO KILL PEOPLE. TO GO SHOOTING FOR FUN.[/QUOTE]MILAMBER! Several people on this thread have talked about having guns for SELF DEFENSE! Some want them for shooting as well, but the majority of the discussion has been about guns for SELF DEFENSE!

[MILAMBER]

Originally posted by Alexander: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Another thought. Should a bad turn occur in our government, does the army take orders from you and your neighbors? The occurance is unlikely, I agree. But who should be there to stop it if they render the populus impotent by disarmament and the removing of the constitutional rights? Bad regimes ALWAYS start with actions of this sort. The first thing Hitler did was collect up all the guns!

Sir Kenyth, that is the biggest myth that the gun lovers like to tell. Hitler never confiscated everyone's weapons, and I would like to see you back up your claim.

Second, if the government does decide to suddenly take over, with help from the military, what good is your pea-shooter or shotgun going to do against helicopters, tanks, cruise missiles, etc.? Not a bit of good.[/QUOTE]I don't know anything about this, but I'm sure that Hitler didn't let the Jews into the death camps bearing firearms. That being the case, then Hitler DID at one point take away firearms from a large part of the populace.

We wouldn't stand a chance against the government now. The advances in technology over the last hundred years have changed things to the point where that part of the second ammendment is honestly laughable. There is no way civillians could stand up against the military. But still, while we no longer need the 2nd amendment, I'd like to see what happens to any politicians career who tries to take it away from us though! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[MILAMBER]

Originally posted by Neb: quote: Originally posted by MILAMBER: quote: Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by Neb: The problem with locking up or hiding a gun in such a way that a child cannot possibly get to it is that if someone then breaks into your home it'll probably be too difficult to get to it for you to be able to find it before the burglar has found you. People with children should simply not be allowed to own guns.

I don't understand that either... They have guns to protect their homes. But if they have children the gun should be safely locked, so it would be impossible to get to it quickly enough. So what's the point of having a gun then? [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]NOBODY GETS THIS!!! SHOOTING IS A SPORT! PEOPLE DO IT FOR FUN. THE REASON A PERSON WITH KIDS WOULD OWN A GUN IS TO GO SHOOTING WITH HIS FRIENDS ON WEEKENDS. NOT ONLY TO DEFEND HIS HOUSE. NOT ONLY TO KILL PEOPLE. TO GO SHOOTING FOR FUN.[/QUOTE]MILAMBER! Several people on this thread have talked about having guns for SELF DEFENSE! Some want them for shooting as well, but the majority of the discussion has been about guns for SELF DEFENSE![/QUOTE]You guys were saying that people with kids shouldn't be allowed to own weapons. Period. That is a blanket statement. I'm saying regardless of self-defense, people with kids couuld have a safely locked up weapon that they could use to go shooting on weekends. This would not endanger their children whatsoever.

[Neb]

Actually owning a gun can endanger the owner too, what if someone breaks into their house and gets their hands on the gun? They might use it against the owner of the house if he/she interrupts them.

[MILAMBER]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: quote: Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by MILAMBER: ... I ask you, where is the difference between shooting bows and shooting rifles? Is archery a noble sport and shooting not? Both were initially created with the sole purpose of killing, yet exceptions are made in one instance and not the other. Why is that? I submit that shooting guns is no different then shooting a bow and arrow. Both can be dangerous in the hands of those lacking maturity and training.

There's nothing wrong with shooting as a sport. But walking around with a gun is different. And there is a difference between walking around with a gun and with a bow. You can see the bow, and you can't see the gun...
[/QUOTE]I don't see a kid with a bow killing 18 students, but thats just me.[/QUOTE]This is limited to the hypothetical plane. Kids have killed other kids with knives and baseball bats before. Should nobody be allowed to own a knife? Should baseball be banned?

[MILAMBER]

Originally posted by Neb: Actually owning a gun can endanger the owner too, what if someone breaks into their house and gets their hands on the gun? They might use it against the owner of the house if he/she interrupts them.

If the attacker didn't have a gun, how would you be in danger in the first place? If your gun was locked away safely, how would the burgular know about it? IF the burgular did find a locked gun, how would he use it?

This line of reasoning doesn't hold water to my way of thinking.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by MILAMBER: quote: Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by MILAMBER: ... I ask you, where is the difference between shooting bows and shooting rifles? Is archery a noble sport and shooting not? Both were initially created with the sole purpose of killing, yet exceptions are made in one instance and not the other. Why is that? I submit that shooting guns is no different then shooting a bow and arrow. Both can be dangerous in the hands of those lacking maturity and training.

There's nothing wrong with shooting as a sport. But walking around with a gun is different. And there is a difference between walking around with a gun and with a bow. You can see the bow, and you can't see the gun...

I would be terrified to go out on the street if I knew that people have guns with them... I would feel less safe then than I do now when I know that it's harder to get a gun. I'm in Sweden btw. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]There are two different ways to carry a firearm on you. You can carry, which means in plain site, or you can carry concealed which means you can hide the weapon on your person. The ONLY people who can get concealed weapons permits either work for the government, or work as say a bodyguard in the pivate sector. Conceales weapons permits are VERY difficult to obtain. Also, the only place in the U.S that you can carry any type of weapon on you in public is Texas, a nd when you do, it has to be in plain site.

So, while you could see somebody carrying a bow, you could likewise see somebody carrying a gun, unless they worked for the government.[/QUOTE]While your intent is accurate, the details are not 100%.

Vermont is the only state in the country that allows concealed carry without permit.

Somewhere around a third of the country allows concealed carrying of a handgun with the proper permit (if required)

There has been no documentable increase in firearms related violence in states which passed concealed carry laws.

If there is a statistical deduction to be made regarding gun control, it would be that states and countries where gun ownership is allowed have LOWER rates of homicide than those with strict gun control laws than their gun control neighbors. In europe for instance, Switzerland requires firearm ownership of it's citizens, and has a homicide rate that's HALF that of handgun banning Luxembourg.
In the US in 2000, states that had Right-to-Carry laws had lower violent crime rates on average, compared to the rest of the country. Their total violent crime rate was 21.9% lower, murder was 28.4% lower, robbery was 37.7% lower, and aggravated assault was 16.5% lower. (admittedly this data was compiled by a pro-gun forum... but it was extracted from the fbi crimes database. I would be interested to see conflicting data from a pro-control source)

Israel allows it's citizens to carry firearms (if they've received training) and actually will provide a citizen with a firearm at their request (which it does millions of times a year), It has one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

I think the idea that disarming the public will make the country safer is simply not supported by ANY data... domestic or foreign. I believe representing gun owners as trigger happy hicks does a disservice to the pro-gun control community, becuse it's an obvious ploy to artificially dismiss the valid arguments of that community... without having to actually respond to their arguments. That sort of tactic appears evasive to me... so of course I wonder why a group who feels so strongly has to evade simple debate points.

I respect the right of anyone to choose not to own firearms (as I have chosen not to own a handgun). But I simply can't support the idea of taking a right away from someone simply because you THINK it will somehow improve society. Beyond that, I see people continuing to blindly push this concept, with not a shred of evidence to support their position... and significant evidence to the contrary. If I've ever seen a more head in the sand, hands over the ears screaming "I can't hear you" group of people I sincerely can't think of where.

Now if you'll excuse me, me 'n pa r gonna head out to da woodshed and shute us some possum... from thirdy paces fer shure.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Thoran: Israel allows it's citizens to carry firearms (if they've received training) and actually will provide a citizen with a firearm at their request (which it does millions of times a year), It has one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

Do not forget what country you're talking about. They're pretty much threatened too much by the surrounding countries to think of hurting each other much I should say, that might be a factor. As well as being the reason for them allowing gun ownership. Likewise, the Swiss might also simply be a less violent group of people.