I don't own a gun.
The only gun in my household is a 20 guage 5 shot automatic shotgun that my grandfather used to hunt with. It sits on the same gun rack mounted to our livingroom wall that my grandfather sat it on 15 years ago. It has a gun lock on it and collects dust nicely. Do I know how to use guns? Yes. I am military trained in 15 different firearms ranging from assault shotguns to sidearms to assault rifles. Thw only time I was ever afraid I would have to use one of those guns (and I stress the word afraid) was when my ship pulled into port in Koper Slovenia after the conflict in Bosnia.
I agree with all the folks that against gun control based on the education of people that buy and own them. I agree with the fact that all guns in the United States should be monitored. I believe that All gun users should be liscensed for any type of gun they own.
I also believe that any person in Europe, America, Oz, ect is capable of murder. I have been to Europe and know the people there are not all sweetness and light. I have known many people from Oz and know that they are not all perfect human beings. I have lived as a U.S. citizen for 26 years, and I KNOW we are far from perfect. No human being is perfect or unflawed regardless of their national history, race, culture, religion, sexual preference, ect. The governments of the world will keep doing as they see fit to run their respective countries and the common man has little to say about what they do in the end.
Lets bomb the hell outta Afghanistan! Noone but the American and British governments made that decision, with the blessings of NATO to have a good time.
Gun control is a joke and a dream that petty liberals love to rant about. Gun owners with 15 guns in their home need to get a life. American bigots need to get a little extra-American culture. And I need to go to bed so I can go to college tomorrow and continue making myself better than I was last week.
Kallinar (Menace of Yogi Bear) stands here.
Gun control after Sept. 11th
Cherzra: You realize that you sound just as arrogant and ignorant as the post you are criticizing don't you? You claim you only hear stereotypes like that coming from Americans, yet that in and of itself is a base stereotype. You then go on to espouse Europes greatness, why? Because they have existed longer? Simply existing for 2000 years does not make you better than everyone else. What have you done with your 2000 years? Aside from make war upon each other, start slavery, and cause two world wars? America may not be perfect, and most of us don't claim to be. Neither do we claim we are better than everyone else just because we exist.
Yes, the comment European countries were stagnant was wrong. In a list of the GDP's* of the top 11 countries America was last. I think Germany may have been first. I don't think France was on the list at all however. And, of course, that has nothing to do with anything. Americans are not better than Europeans, neither are Europeans better than Americans. We all have pride in our country, however. And if you take issue with that Cherzra, look in a mirror.
*I _think_ it was GDP... but it was definately some kind of economic statistic.
Sarvis
(I haven't even read all the posts yet... just wanted to reply to Cherzra... will ge tto everything else next.)
PPS. Actually, I had a better post typed out before, but then accidentally hit the escape key. Apparently Internet Explorer takes that as my desire to completely eradicate everything I had typed without the ability to get it back.
I think the first post was worded better too... *sigh*
Yes, the comment European countries were stagnant was wrong. In a list of the GDP's* of the top 11 countries America was last. I think Germany may have been first. I don't think France was on the list at all however. And, of course, that has nothing to do with anything. Americans are not better than Europeans, neither are Europeans better than Americans. We all have pride in our country, however. And if you take issue with that Cherzra, look in a mirror.
*I _think_ it was GDP... but it was definately some kind of economic statistic.
Sarvis
(I haven't even read all the posts yet... just wanted to reply to Cherzra... will ge tto everything else next.)
PPS. Actually, I had a better post typed out before, but then accidentally hit the escape key. Apparently Internet Explorer takes that as my desire to completely eradicate everything I had typed without the ability to get it back.
I think the first post was worded better too... *sigh*-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
I've never owned a gun, but my mother did. I saw that very sane woman get angry enough to pull it out one night. She was furious, she was in a rage, and if she hadn't managed to pull her act together my stepfather, or me, or my sister, might not have lived past that night. I can't possibly compare her to every other sane person out there, I know. She had never committed a violent act in her life. Her life was not threatened, nor was she in danger at the moment that she pulled it out, she had simply been pushed to her emotional limit. I always saw her as a strong woman, not prone to fits of "rage for the sake of rage" as our culture seems to be today.
Now don't everybody go calling my mom a headcase. She might very well have been, but then again, we might all be. We all have our different limits and thresholds, it's part of what makes us human. I've seen some times where I know I've been very close to my limit, and I know that if there were a handgun within my reach, I might be the biggest, baddest bulldog in the women's wing right now. To say that it's something I've considered doesn't mean that it would happen in reality, it just means I choose to not put myself in that situation.
I've never owned a gun, because I always understood that my children were children. I can teach them to stay out of the road, I can teach them to brush their teeth, I can teach them all the do's and don'ts all children should learn, but I cannot restrain the very nature of the child who is curious, adventurous, and drawn to those things all adults wish their children would never be drawn to. The number of children who are in gun related accidents in the home is staggering. As a parent I had to analyze my situation to decide whether or not I wanted a firearm in my home. Where would I keep it? How would I secure it? If I took my children to a firing range and taught them how to use it responsibly would it reduce the risk to them? When I thought of some of the scrapes I got into as a child, I decided against owning one... I always knew better than to do the things I did when I was a kid. There is no way I could secure a gun in my home so that my children could not get to it without completely reducing, if not negating entirely, its effectiveness against any potential intruders.
I've always found the argument that bad people who want guns will be able to find guns no matter what to be inane and ludicrous. Where do you people think they come from? They're stolen from you, that's where. I have never been an NRA fan. The propaganda they spew is unbelievable at times.
The idea that major drug suppliers would pack handguns into their kilo's of coke is laughable. Compare the value of a handgun for its weight to the value of the same weight of pure cocaine. Now compare the values of a handgun and pure grade cocaine in volume. How many buyers will 10 cubic feet of guns reach? How many buyers will 10 cubic feet of cocaine reach? Talk about cutting into a profit ratio. Sure, we'd have to deal with illegally imported guns, but they'd be ungodly expensive and extremely difficult for your average hood to acquire. No more guns in pawnshops, no more guns in Wal-Mart, no more guns easily available to the common criminal. To think that Joe Schmoe could waltz out and pick up an "assault weapon" at the local assassin's guild is silly. The trafficing of weapons would become a highly lucrative and dangerous trade. They wouldn't be available for every thug who dreams of convenience store robberies as a career, and they certainly wouldn't be available for the kids in a high school, or for their teachers. They could be smuggled in a few at a time, or by the truckload... a truckload of guns from Mexico? A truckload of guns wouldn't arm a neighborhood, let alone all the crackheads in any large city. The trucks would have to come over the border at a phenomenal rate to keep all the criminals as armed as the NRA likes to indicate they might be.
PLEASE NOTE: Just because I'm no fan of the NRA does not mean I don't believe in the second amendment, or in my government's ability to interpret that same constitutional amendment with the temperance of the people of The United States weighing upon their decisions.
The Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We sit in this country, for the most part safe and secure against the horrors that rock many other areas in the world. We who have so much are incapable of believing in the value of that which we hold. If our own government turned against us then the incident at Waco would be nothing. Every known quasi-militant faction would be eradicated in short order. All "gun collectors" would make very short stands against the firepower which would be levied against them. It's the dream of a delusional mind which thinks that their collection of armaments will ever make a difference in a situation such as that. The only reason we ever hear about such factions that make their stands and hold out for any length of time is because those factions have never had to worry about the actual might of the country's armed forces being levied against them. A totalitarian goverment would have no restraint at simply leaving a series of craters where the compound once stood. It is not the individual's armaments which keep our government at bay, it is our very government which keeps itself at bay, a government fueled by the people it serves, a people who maintain strict demands and restraints on its government.
I don't believe in the restriction of personal freedoms and rights. The right to keep and bear arms is part of our Constitution, so therefore I fully agree that my right to limit your ability to own a handgun stops at your right to own one. However, the argument as to type of weapon this right refers to has already been argued in the courts, and I think it's unreasonable to assume you have the right to keep and bear arms other than those might be deemed reasonably sufficient for the protection of your household. Automatic weapons are out, semi-automatic weapons are out, weapons of mass destruction are out, explosives are out, gasses are out, bio-hazardous materials are out. Come on people, you don't have to get rabid over this issue, you have mental issues if you really feel people should be able to keep things like that in their homes.
If you keep a weapon in your home, please make sure it's secured in such a way that your child can't get to it... I'd be sorry to hear of the loss of your child to an incident like that, but not as sorry as I would be if your child shot my child.
People have to take tests and be licensed to drive. I fully believe that they should have to go through the same rigamarole in order to own a gun. Your right to own a weapon stops at the point where it becomes unsafe to others around you. If you do not know how to wield your weapon responsibly, then nobody around you is safe.
Violent offenders should never be able to purchase guns from legitimate businesses, just as those with multiple DUI's, or histories of vehicular manslaughter should not be able to walk out and pick up a driver's license without some form of background check. Nothing's going to keep a drunk from getting behind the wheel, with or without a driver's license, but to turn a blind eye to the problem is just as wrong as being the perpetrator.
Any statistic can be used to skew an argument, and any information can be used to make a statistic. Don't trust statistics unless you know everything there is to know about the information they were drawn from and how that information relates to the whole. I don't like guns, but I'll step on the other side of the fence and argue for the right to keep and bear arms. I'd love to see one of these people with the stale "You'll take away my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" stickers be able to view the other side. I know I'm stereotyping, but it seems that those who argue their rights to keep any weapon they please have a hard time seeing any other viewpoint but their own on this subject. To argue that other nations who have strict gun control offer less to this world than the United States does is display of ignorance. I'm not saying a lack of education, I'm saying a narrow perspective on the world and a seeming inability to step out of the box you have chosen to define yourselves. Indeed, Switzerland and Sweden have never given anything to the world picture, have they? Hope everybody recognizes the ton-weight of sarcasm attached to that statement.
Now don't everybody go calling my mom a headcase. She might very well have been, but then again, we might all be. We all have our different limits and thresholds, it's part of what makes us human. I've seen some times where I know I've been very close to my limit, and I know that if there were a handgun within my reach, I might be the biggest, baddest bulldog in the women's wing right now. To say that it's something I've considered doesn't mean that it would happen in reality, it just means I choose to not put myself in that situation.
I've never owned a gun, because I always understood that my children were children. I can teach them to stay out of the road, I can teach them to brush their teeth, I can teach them all the do's and don'ts all children should learn, but I cannot restrain the very nature of the child who is curious, adventurous, and drawn to those things all adults wish their children would never be drawn to. The number of children who are in gun related accidents in the home is staggering. As a parent I had to analyze my situation to decide whether or not I wanted a firearm in my home. Where would I keep it? How would I secure it? If I took my children to a firing range and taught them how to use it responsibly would it reduce the risk to them? When I thought of some of the scrapes I got into as a child, I decided against owning one... I always knew better than to do the things I did when I was a kid. There is no way I could secure a gun in my home so that my children could not get to it without completely reducing, if not negating entirely, its effectiveness against any potential intruders.
I've always found the argument that bad people who want guns will be able to find guns no matter what to be inane and ludicrous. Where do you people think they come from? They're stolen from you, that's where. I have never been an NRA fan. The propaganda they spew is unbelievable at times.
The idea that major drug suppliers would pack handguns into their kilo's of coke is laughable. Compare the value of a handgun for its weight to the value of the same weight of pure cocaine. Now compare the values of a handgun and pure grade cocaine in volume. How many buyers will 10 cubic feet of guns reach? How many buyers will 10 cubic feet of cocaine reach? Talk about cutting into a profit ratio. Sure, we'd have to deal with illegally imported guns, but they'd be ungodly expensive and extremely difficult for your average hood to acquire. No more guns in pawnshops, no more guns in Wal-Mart, no more guns easily available to the common criminal. To think that Joe Schmoe could waltz out and pick up an "assault weapon" at the local assassin's guild is silly. The trafficing of weapons would become a highly lucrative and dangerous trade. They wouldn't be available for every thug who dreams of convenience store robberies as a career, and they certainly wouldn't be available for the kids in a high school, or for their teachers. They could be smuggled in a few at a time, or by the truckload... a truckload of guns from Mexico? A truckload of guns wouldn't arm a neighborhood, let alone all the crackheads in any large city. The trucks would have to come over the border at a phenomenal rate to keep all the criminals as armed as the NRA likes to indicate they might be.
PLEASE NOTE: Just because I'm no fan of the NRA does not mean I don't believe in the second amendment, or in my government's ability to interpret that same constitutional amendment with the temperance of the people of The United States weighing upon their decisions.
The Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We sit in this country, for the most part safe and secure against the horrors that rock many other areas in the world. We who have so much are incapable of believing in the value of that which we hold. If our own government turned against us then the incident at Waco would be nothing. Every known quasi-militant faction would be eradicated in short order. All "gun collectors" would make very short stands against the firepower which would be levied against them. It's the dream of a delusional mind which thinks that their collection of armaments will ever make a difference in a situation such as that. The only reason we ever hear about such factions that make their stands and hold out for any length of time is because those factions have never had to worry about the actual might of the country's armed forces being levied against them. A totalitarian goverment would have no restraint at simply leaving a series of craters where the compound once stood. It is not the individual's armaments which keep our government at bay, it is our very government which keeps itself at bay, a government fueled by the people it serves, a people who maintain strict demands and restraints on its government.
I don't believe in the restriction of personal freedoms and rights. The right to keep and bear arms is part of our Constitution, so therefore I fully agree that my right to limit your ability to own a handgun stops at your right to own one. However, the argument as to type of weapon this right refers to has already been argued in the courts, and I think it's unreasonable to assume you have the right to keep and bear arms other than those might be deemed reasonably sufficient for the protection of your household. Automatic weapons are out, semi-automatic weapons are out, weapons of mass destruction are out, explosives are out, gasses are out, bio-hazardous materials are out. Come on people, you don't have to get rabid over this issue, you have mental issues if you really feel people should be able to keep things like that in their homes.
If you keep a weapon in your home, please make sure it's secured in such a way that your child can't get to it... I'd be sorry to hear of the loss of your child to an incident like that, but not as sorry as I would be if your child shot my child.
People have to take tests and be licensed to drive. I fully believe that they should have to go through the same rigamarole in order to own a gun. Your right to own a weapon stops at the point where it becomes unsafe to others around you. If you do not know how to wield your weapon responsibly, then nobody around you is safe.
Violent offenders should never be able to purchase guns from legitimate businesses, just as those with multiple DUI's, or histories of vehicular manslaughter should not be able to walk out and pick up a driver's license without some form of background check. Nothing's going to keep a drunk from getting behind the wheel, with or without a driver's license, but to turn a blind eye to the problem is just as wrong as being the perpetrator.
Any statistic can be used to skew an argument, and any information can be used to make a statistic. Don't trust statistics unless you know everything there is to know about the information they were drawn from and how that information relates to the whole. I don't like guns, but I'll step on the other side of the fence and argue for the right to keep and bear arms. I'd love to see one of these people with the stale "You'll take away my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" stickers be able to view the other side. I know I'm stereotyping, but it seems that those who argue their rights to keep any weapon they please have a hard time seeing any other viewpoint but their own on this subject. To argue that other nations who have strict gun control offer less to this world than the United States does is display of ignorance. I'm not saying a lack of education, I'm saying a narrow perspective on the world and a seeming inability to step out of the box you have chosen to define yourselves. Indeed, Switzerland and Sweden have never given anything to the world picture, have they? Hope everybody recognizes the ton-weight of sarcasm attached to that statement.
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
Fishing poles, Ssarra! 
Someone took me out to fish a couple of years ago and I loved it. Relaxing in the outdoors, away from the noise and bustle of the city, I wish I had been introduced to it earlier in life. I still don't get out to do it much, but I love warm, relaxing days with a book on the shore or boat when I can find someone to spend the time out there with me.
Hugs!
Shayla
Someone took me out to fish a couple of years ago and I loved it. Relaxing in the outdoors, away from the noise and bustle of the city, I wish I had been introduced to it earlier in life. I still don't get out to do it much, but I love warm, relaxing days with a book on the shore or boat when I can find someone to spend the time out there with me.
Hugs!
Shayla
Every country/continent has it's problems. So what. The US has problems with crime, Australia has problems with healthcare, Europe doesn't seem to know what the hell's going on, Africa has problems with poverty and starvation, South America has problems with drugs and cutting down rain forests, and lord knows look at the problems in the mid-east. Everyone has problems, everyone at some point thinks they're better than everyone else.
Guns - It's like any other life threatening thing. Ban it, and it becomes hot property on the "black market". Make it legal and easy to get, and everyones got one. You could argue that "people more willingly shoot at someone who doesn't have a gun and can't defend themselves" (anti-ban) or you could say "people won't shoot others cuz guns are illegal and they can't get them" (pro-ban). Both have problems. The problem isn't guns, the problem is people. I see a great solution. Ever heard of Hammurabi? Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. You shoot me, someone shoot you. Then the only people you have to worry about are those who have nothing to live for.
Guns - It's like any other life threatening thing. Ban it, and it becomes hot property on the "black market". Make it legal and easy to get, and everyones got one. You could argue that "people more willingly shoot at someone who doesn't have a gun and can't defend themselves" (anti-ban) or you could say "people won't shoot others cuz guns are illegal and they can't get them" (pro-ban). Both have problems. The problem isn't guns, the problem is people. I see a great solution. Ever heard of Hammurabi? Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. You shoot me, someone shoot you. Then the only people you have to worry about are those who have nothing to live for.
A few quotes that have some significance on this subject.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."
- George Mason
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
- George Washington
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
- Mahatma Ghandi
"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Parker, Chief Prosecutor for the United States of America at the Nuremberg Trials
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
-Thomas Jefferson
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
- George Washington
"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."
- Thomas Jefferson
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
- George Mason
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!"
- Thomas Jefferson
"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
- Dresden James
"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
- Thomas Jefferson
"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed--unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms."
- James Madison
And this last one is especially for Ragorn and people like him.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...."
- Benjamin Franklin
And to whomever said that American citizens wouldn't last against the weapons of the U.S. Military....might want to read up on the Viet Cong and Afghan rebels.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."
- George Mason
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
- George Washington
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
- Mahatma Ghandi
"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Parker, Chief Prosecutor for the United States of America at the Nuremberg Trials
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
-Thomas Jefferson
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
- George Washington
"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."
- Thomas Jefferson
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
- George Mason
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!"
- Thomas Jefferson
"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
- Dresden James
"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
- Thomas Jefferson
"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed--unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms."
- James Madison
And this last one is especially for Ragorn and people like him.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...."
- Benjamin Franklin
And to whomever said that American citizens wouldn't last against the weapons of the U.S. Military....might want to read up on the Viet Cong and Afghan rebels.
Sarvis, go read my post again. Seeing as how you misinterpreted it the first time, it just might be beyond your grasp though. Preachings like Corth's post pop up with disgusting regularity, and they are always completely uncalled for and with the sole, malicious intent to prove some kind of 'superiority'. But I realize my defending of my continent is pathetic, since in your eyes too we should obviously humbly agree with Corth and his cohorts.
Corth, you are a total and complete idiot. Just reading your arrogant, haughty post makes me want to throw up. Yes, you are god. All other countries are second-rate filth. We should all grovel down before you and ask for forgiveness for being lesser beings. I beg you to please show us the right way. Europe has brought the world nothing but evil, please let us bask in your enlightenment.
Cherzra
Corth, you are a total and complete idiot. Just reading your arrogant, haughty post makes me want to throw up. Yes, you are god. All other countries are second-rate filth. We should all grovel down before you and ask for forgiveness for being lesser beings. I beg you to please show us the right way. Europe has brought the world nothing but evil, please let us bask in your enlightenment.
Cherzra
Cherzra:
I've been to England, France, Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and probably a few countries in between. Each one had unique and important cultures and traditions, and I wish I could have spent more time there.
What is unique and important about America's tradition is its emphasis, from the start, on the liberties of the individual. The philosopy of Adam Smith and John Locke were very influential to those that wrote the United States Constitution. Your right, America doesn't have 2000 years of history, but look what it has accomplished, in light of its traditions, in little more than 200.
Yes, my previous post was arrogant and provocative, and purposely so. Its very fashionable in Europe these days to mock America. Fashionable, even when American innovations and technology have done much to improve the quality of life of the average European.
Europeans that have the attitude of Imp, saying things along the lines of "Wow, people like you who are in favor of owning guns, actually exist..." etc, are themselves arrogant because they cannot accept that a culture and tradition different then their's exists, and might even be legitimate. However, once again, look what America has accomplished in 200 years with such traditions.
Corth
I've been to England, France, Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and probably a few countries in between. Each one had unique and important cultures and traditions, and I wish I could have spent more time there.
What is unique and important about America's tradition is its emphasis, from the start, on the liberties of the individual. The philosopy of Adam Smith and John Locke were very influential to those that wrote the United States Constitution. Your right, America doesn't have 2000 years of history, but look what it has accomplished, in light of its traditions, in little more than 200.
Yes, my previous post was arrogant and provocative, and purposely so. Its very fashionable in Europe these days to mock America. Fashionable, even when American innovations and technology have done much to improve the quality of life of the average European.
Europeans that have the attitude of Imp, saying things along the lines of "Wow, people like you who are in favor of owning guns, actually exist..." etc, are themselves arrogant because they cannot accept that a culture and tradition different then their's exists, and might even be legitimate. However, once again, look what America has accomplished in 200 years with such traditions.
Corth
Cherzra: I read your post 3 times. The first time in normal reading, the second time in order to form a reply to it and the third time while I was writing the second reply after the first one got lost. Go and re-read my post... I said Corth was wrong. I _agreed_ with you. But you still come off sounding arrogant when you claim Europe is so great just because it has been around for 2000 years. Dignity does not come with age, it comes with acting dignified. Something it seems all the whole world has forgotten...
Sarvis
Sarvis
Figured I'd actually chime in with a true opinion here. I didn't read all the other posts but this is what I've talked to people about in my own time.
1.)Hunting:those of you who say go get a bow or whatever obviously are either diehard bowhunters or have never hunter in your life. The way you hunt a bow hunt _sucks_, you sit in a friggin tree and wait for the animal to come near basically. You CAN go out and actively hunt them but due to the short range and low animal population you're pretty much gauranteed to not get crap.
Anyone who wants to bitch about hunting being immoral or barbaric can honestly go to hell. Go research how the animals live and die for any other meat you eat...fish are the only meat produced in mas quantaties that we harvest from their natural habitat.
2.)Asssault Rifles:
Maybe its stupid to say, but if you have never shot one then you have no idea how fun it is. Granted these weapons end up often in the wrong hands (crimial or civil) and have more potential for harm then other weapons. I believe personally that to own an automatic (semi or full as the conversion to the latter takes 5 minutes) should require a liscence obtained through a class and a thourough background check.
3.)Guns vs Crime
All of you europeans who go off about our crime rates quite honestly have no basis for judgement. In this country harder restrictions on guns have increased drastically in the last twenty years. But this only makes it harder for someone trying to LEGALLY procure a gun. Black market arms sales are a huge bussiness, even on a small scale. Gun control laws as they are implemented generally hurt the general non-criminal public rather then the ones who are using these weapons to do harm.
As long as there is a demand for weapons among criminals there will always be a supply. and astronomic prices wont stop them from buying because they are deemed as a nessecary item.
4.)Guns = Freedom
I don't see guns as a symbol of our freedom, i DO see the right to bear arms as such. I was born and raised that if you let the American flag touch the ground you are obligated to burn it ceremoniously, that patriotism is a sacred thing and I believe in it vehemently. Having multiple vittnam-vets as mentors for a long time, they helped me to understand what the ideas behind freedom and patriotism is.
The right to do something is freedom. We have the freedom of speech and expression (however limited you think this is it is not), we have the freedom to own our own land and create our own businesses in our capitolist society, and we have the FREEDOM to bear arms if we choose.
This admendment was placed in the Constitution early in our country because the British soldiers had been coming in and forcibly making residents let them stay there. The people had no way to defend themselves. The sense that you can defend your territory is at the very core of what it means to be American. Go back and ask any American what they thought should happen to whomever destroyed the WTC on the day it happened and I think that you'll hear even the liberals calling for blood.
Each freedom impinged upon or taken away is another blow to our country. Guns may cause many problems, but the people who wield them injustly cause greater problems. Those of you who choose not to bear arms...that is your right, you freely chose to make that decision because of our laws. That choice is what is important.
With liberty and Justice for all...
1.)Hunting:those of you who say go get a bow or whatever obviously are either diehard bowhunters or have never hunter in your life. The way you hunt a bow hunt _sucks_, you sit in a friggin tree and wait for the animal to come near basically. You CAN go out and actively hunt them but due to the short range and low animal population you're pretty much gauranteed to not get crap.
Anyone who wants to bitch about hunting being immoral or barbaric can honestly go to hell. Go research how the animals live and die for any other meat you eat...fish are the only meat produced in mas quantaties that we harvest from their natural habitat.
2.)Asssault Rifles:
Maybe its stupid to say, but if you have never shot one then you have no idea how fun it is. Granted these weapons end up often in the wrong hands (crimial or civil) and have more potential for harm then other weapons. I believe personally that to own an automatic (semi or full as the conversion to the latter takes 5 minutes) should require a liscence obtained through a class and a thourough background check.
3.)Guns vs Crime
All of you europeans who go off about our crime rates quite honestly have no basis for judgement. In this country harder restrictions on guns have increased drastically in the last twenty years. But this only makes it harder for someone trying to LEGALLY procure a gun. Black market arms sales are a huge bussiness, even on a small scale. Gun control laws as they are implemented generally hurt the general non-criminal public rather then the ones who are using these weapons to do harm.
As long as there is a demand for weapons among criminals there will always be a supply. and astronomic prices wont stop them from buying because they are deemed as a nessecary item.
4.)Guns = Freedom
I don't see guns as a symbol of our freedom, i DO see the right to bear arms as such. I was born and raised that if you let the American flag touch the ground you are obligated to burn it ceremoniously, that patriotism is a sacred thing and I believe in it vehemently. Having multiple vittnam-vets as mentors for a long time, they helped me to understand what the ideas behind freedom and patriotism is.
The right to do something is freedom. We have the freedom of speech and expression (however limited you think this is it is not), we have the freedom to own our own land and create our own businesses in our capitolist society, and we have the FREEDOM to bear arms if we choose.
This admendment was placed in the Constitution early in our country because the British soldiers had been coming in and forcibly making residents let them stay there. The people had no way to defend themselves. The sense that you can defend your territory is at the very core of what it means to be American. Go back and ask any American what they thought should happen to whomever destroyed the WTC on the day it happened and I think that you'll hear even the liberals calling for blood.
Each freedom impinged upon or taken away is another blow to our country. Guns may cause many problems, but the people who wield them injustly cause greater problems. Those of you who choose not to bear arms...that is your right, you freely chose to make that decision because of our laws. That choice is what is important.
With liberty and Justice for all...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
I'm more in agreement with you now Rags. Before it was sounding like you wanted all guns banned completely. Although, banning them from anyone who has needed mind altering drugs would be about the same in the next couple generations, with just about every kid being put on Ritalin or Prozac.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I speak honestly when I say it's my life's goal to end that crap. When I graduate, my degree will be in Child and Developmental Psychology, and I know better than to believe that putting kids on Paxil will make them anything but moody kids on Paxil.
And by the way, I don't respond to people who make new accounts to hide behind anonymity in order to spew out a bunch of out-of-context quotes by famous people.
- Ragorn
[This message has been edited by Ragorn (edited 11-05-2001).]
I'm more in agreement with you now Rags. Before it was sounding like you wanted all guns banned completely. Although, banning them from anyone who has needed mind altering drugs would be about the same in the next couple generations, with just about every kid being put on Ritalin or Prozac.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I speak honestly when I say it's my life's goal to end that crap. When I graduate, my degree will be in Child and Developmental Psychology, and I know better than to believe that putting kids on Paxil will make them anything but moody kids on Paxil.
And by the way, I don't respond to people who make new accounts to hide behind anonymity in order to spew out a bunch of out-of-context quotes by famous people.
- Ragorn
[This message has been edited by Ragorn (edited 11-05-2001).]
i could post a huge long winded thing here... but it's easier to just state my opinion... emphasis on MY OPINION.. grin... i believe in the right to own a gun.. i have owned guns altho i don't now.. but i do own some neat swords and oriental weapons... i also believe in the right to resctrict ownership from certain individuals... some limited gun control... i agree with some of what the NRA says.. the other half makes me want to vomit... i believe that criminals will find a way to get guns.. so it should to be important to educate the people who aren't criminals and punish more harshly the criminals who use guns... i still can not see why any person needs an automatic weapon of any sort in their house... and i believe the USA is the best country in the world.. i live here and i'm biased... if i lived in europe i'd think europe was the best.. that goes for any place one might have grown up... i don't see that as arrogant... maybe it is... shrug.. and last but not least... i happen to agree.. from working in children's services.. that too many kids are put on medications that are not needed.. the bandaid effective.. cover the wound but don't treat it... however as a kid i had a nervous breakdown.. was quite an interesting one.. smirk.. but had i not been put on medication i wouldn't be here today... and on that note.. time for me to hit the pharmacy for my meds so i can be here tomorrow and hopefully level... oh and read more rants on the bbs
ya'll try not to fight and take care
Cerly
ya'll try not to fight and take care
Cerly
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
And by the way, I don't respond to people who make new accounts to hide behind anonymity in order to spew out a bunch of out-of-context quotes by famous people.
- Ragorn
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who's hiding? I don't play here much anymore....so why would you care to know who I am? And this was the first time I cared to respond since most of the stuff on the board is mindless dribble.
And exactly which ones are out of context? I know that's what YOU would like to think, but let's see some PROOF and not just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
And by the way, I don't respond to people who make new accounts to hide behind anonymity in order to spew out a bunch of out-of-context quotes by famous people.
- Ragorn
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who's hiding? I don't play here much anymore....so why would you care to know who I am? And this was the first time I cared to respond since most of the stuff on the board is mindless dribble.
And exactly which ones are out of context? I know that's what YOU would like to think, but let's see some PROOF and not just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
-
Djaarrukan
- Sojourner
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Corth:
[B]Ragorn:
How about all those situations where some loony student walks into their school and starts shooting up the lunch room. I really wish that one of the teachers in the Columbine cafeteria had a concealed weapon.
What a bizarre thing to wish for. Why not wish it didn't happen. Or wish that the 'loony student' didn't have a gun to begin with. Wishing that a teacher had a gun to kill the loony after the loony has justified being killed by killing other students is insane. I would rather wish to have no one die and no one have to kill anyone.
So much of the pro gun lobby is about a strong individual being able to take care of himself and his property. Which is great if you are strong. And can afford a gun, or property, for that matter. And know how to use it while under attack (which is a big difference from having taken a fire arms safety course and hitting a target at a range). What this argument amounts to is that the strong will survive. Take care of you and yours, and don't worry about your neighbours.
Isn't it odd that this selfish, desperate, type of thinking is shared between criminals and gun owners.
America proved what a great society it is by coming together after September 11th, in taking care of widows and wounded. Not by rushing out on a gun buying binge.
Didn't mean to offend anybody. Just wanted to get my thoughts down.
Dj
[B]Ragorn:
How about all those situations where some loony student walks into their school and starts shooting up the lunch room. I really wish that one of the teachers in the Columbine cafeteria had a concealed weapon.
What a bizarre thing to wish for. Why not wish it didn't happen. Or wish that the 'loony student' didn't have a gun to begin with. Wishing that a teacher had a gun to kill the loony after the loony has justified being killed by killing other students is insane. I would rather wish to have no one die and no one have to kill anyone.
So much of the pro gun lobby is about a strong individual being able to take care of himself and his property. Which is great if you are strong. And can afford a gun, or property, for that matter. And know how to use it while under attack (which is a big difference from having taken a fire arms safety course and hitting a target at a range). What this argument amounts to is that the strong will survive. Take care of you and yours, and don't worry about your neighbours.
Isn't it odd that this selfish, desperate, type of thinking is shared between criminals and gun owners.
America proved what a great society it is by coming together after September 11th, in taking care of widows and wounded. Not by rushing out on a gun buying binge.
Didn't mean to offend anybody. Just wanted to get my thoughts down.
Dj
The simple fact is it DID happen. Wishing it to not happen is not wanting to look at it. That's what's wrong with our country.
It did happen. Because families are not educating their children. Because parents are shirking responsibility. Because our government doesn't want to realize it messed up so long ago.
The fact is guns exist. So wanting laws on gun restrictions is ludicrous because the 'bad' guys already have them. Taking them away from honest citizens makes it all the easier for them to function. Laws will NOT stop those people from obtaining them.
Bleh, I'm done with this topic. I fail to see why strangling each other over something that has such varying opinions is constructive. And posting so many times in a topic, when I've already stated my views, is just silly.
It did happen. Because families are not educating their children. Because parents are shirking responsibility. Because our government doesn't want to realize it messed up so long ago.
The fact is guns exist. So wanting laws on gun restrictions is ludicrous because the 'bad' guys already have them. Taking them away from honest citizens makes it all the easier for them to function. Laws will NOT stop those people from obtaining them.
Bleh, I'm done with this topic. I fail to see why strangling each other over something that has such varying opinions is constructive. And posting so many times in a topic, when I've already stated my views, is just silly.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Freedom1:
<B> And exactly which ones are out of context? I know that's what YOU would like to think, but let's see some PROOF and not just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Everything you posted was out of context. That's what out of context means, taking a snippet that someone else said in the course of a longer diatribe and posting it on its own for impact. I don't need to respond to Ben Franklin's attitude on guns in the 18th century when his country was occupied by hostile foreign troops. If you have an opinion you'd like to state, feel free to do so. If not, just lurk the thread and don't try to provoke me with rhetoric from three centuries ago.
- Ragorn
<B> And exactly which ones are out of context? I know that's what YOU would like to think, but let's see some PROOF and not just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Everything you posted was out of context. That's what out of context means, taking a snippet that someone else said in the course of a longer diatribe and posting it on its own for impact. I don't need to respond to Ben Franklin's attitude on guns in the 18th century when his country was occupied by hostile foreign troops. If you have an opinion you'd like to state, feel free to do so. If not, just lurk the thread and don't try to provoke me with rhetoric from three centuries ago.
- Ragorn
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Malacar:
It did happen. Because families are not educating their children. Because parents are shirking responsibility. Because our government doesn't want to realize it messed up so long ago.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So when education and parental responsibility break down, we should respond by arming ourselves.
...
Yes, let's put the guns in the hands of the people who are educated the least.
- Ragorn
It did happen. Because families are not educating their children. Because parents are shirking responsibility. Because our government doesn't want to realize it messed up so long ago.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So when education and parental responsibility break down, we should respond by arming ourselves.
...
Yes, let's put the guns in the hands of the people who are educated the least.
- Ragorn
-
Djaarrukan
- Sojourner
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Malacar:
[B]The simple fact is it DID happen. Wishing it to not happen is not wanting to look at it. That's what's wrong with our country.
It did happen. Because families are not educating their children. Because parents are shirking responsibility. Because our government doesn't want to realize it messed up so long ago.
I agree that wishing is pointless. However, I was using the particular wish to have a teacher pull out a gun as an example of a type of thinking that is ultimately destructive.
The fact is guns exist. So wanting laws on gun restrictions is ludicrous because the 'bad' guys already have them. Taking them away from honest citizens makes it all the easier for them to function. Laws will NOT stop those people from obtaining them.
There has been some Europe/US flames going back and forth... and I would really like to avoid that here. Didn't bring up Canada to start any kind of holier than thou thingy. But, I live in Canada, and there are very severe (compared to the US) restrictions on gun ownership. People still have hunting rifles, but they have to be registered. You can get handguns, but it is a process. It is much easier to go 30 minutes across the border and smuggle back an AK47 than to buy one in Canada. But not many people seem to do it. Canada has about 30 million people. We have basically the same culture. Drive the same cars, watch the same TV, eat the same food. But there were about 20 gun related homicides last year. That's Saturday night in Detroit. Our murder capital is Regina... last year Regina had 3.5 murders per 100k people.
My point is that Canada has gun restrictions. Most arguments have been based on the idea that gun laws mean that law abiding citizens don't get guns, and then criminals do. Ok. If that were true, where is all the carnage in Canada? Because criminals can get guns if they want them, and the VAST majority of Canadians in urban centres do not own guns. Gun controls laws DO work.
It will take a long time in the US, because there are just so many guns. So lets call it 100 years for the current guns to get too old, break down, and have no ammunition readily available. But things will be improving over that time, and eventually things will be at a manageable level.
One more thing... the USA loses 30k people a year to murder. The US lost 58k soldiers total in Viet Nam. And every year, you lose over half of that amount at home. Most countries would consider those numbers to mean some kind of civil war. Most non-Americans I have talked to about this are boggled how this is tolerated. How is it that you are so used to this? How do you leave your house? NOT rhetorical questions - I would be terrified.
Dj
[This message has been edited by Djaarrukan (edited 11-05-2001).]
[B]The simple fact is it DID happen. Wishing it to not happen is not wanting to look at it. That's what's wrong with our country.
It did happen. Because families are not educating their children. Because parents are shirking responsibility. Because our government doesn't want to realize it messed up so long ago.
I agree that wishing is pointless. However, I was using the particular wish to have a teacher pull out a gun as an example of a type of thinking that is ultimately destructive.
The fact is guns exist. So wanting laws on gun restrictions is ludicrous because the 'bad' guys already have them. Taking them away from honest citizens makes it all the easier for them to function. Laws will NOT stop those people from obtaining them.
There has been some Europe/US flames going back and forth... and I would really like to avoid that here. Didn't bring up Canada to start any kind of holier than thou thingy. But, I live in Canada, and there are very severe (compared to the US) restrictions on gun ownership. People still have hunting rifles, but they have to be registered. You can get handguns, but it is a process. It is much easier to go 30 minutes across the border and smuggle back an AK47 than to buy one in Canada. But not many people seem to do it. Canada has about 30 million people. We have basically the same culture. Drive the same cars, watch the same TV, eat the same food. But there were about 20 gun related homicides last year. That's Saturday night in Detroit. Our murder capital is Regina... last year Regina had 3.5 murders per 100k people.
My point is that Canada has gun restrictions. Most arguments have been based on the idea that gun laws mean that law abiding citizens don't get guns, and then criminals do. Ok. If that were true, where is all the carnage in Canada? Because criminals can get guns if they want them, and the VAST majority of Canadians in urban centres do not own guns. Gun controls laws DO work.
It will take a long time in the US, because there are just so many guns. So lets call it 100 years for the current guns to get too old, break down, and have no ammunition readily available. But things will be improving over that time, and eventually things will be at a manageable level.
One more thing... the USA loses 30k people a year to murder. The US lost 58k soldiers total in Viet Nam. And every year, you lose over half of that amount at home. Most countries would consider those numbers to mean some kind of civil war. Most non-Americans I have talked to about this are boggled how this is tolerated. How is it that you are so used to this? How do you leave your house? NOT rhetorical questions - I would be terrified.
Dj
[This message has been edited by Djaarrukan (edited 11-05-2001).]
i have had firearms safety training, i believe this should be a requirement for anyone wishing to buy a hunting license.
i believe you should take a hand gun safety course and should need to produce a hand gun license in order to purchase hand guns.
i do not believe each and every gun should be registered, nor the average sportsman, shooting enthusiast or collector should be registered gun owners.
i do not believe i should be restricted as to what type of fire arms i can and cannot own provided i have thus far demonstrated good sound judgement with relation to said firearms.
i believe that people convicted of crimes involving firearms should no longer be permitted to own or posses a gun.
i believe crimes involving firearms should be zero tolerance with sever punishment.
i know guns are dangerous and need to be treated always as though it were loaded, exercising great care and awareness.
i do not believe in having a loaded gun in the house.
i believe in the ideas and judgement of our fore fathers and would invite you carefully read and think about each of the quotes posted by Freedom1
[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 11-05-2001).]
i believe you should take a hand gun safety course and should need to produce a hand gun license in order to purchase hand guns.
i do not believe each and every gun should be registered, nor the average sportsman, shooting enthusiast or collector should be registered gun owners.
i do not believe i should be restricted as to what type of fire arms i can and cannot own provided i have thus far demonstrated good sound judgement with relation to said firearms.
i believe that people convicted of crimes involving firearms should no longer be permitted to own or posses a gun.
i believe crimes involving firearms should be zero tolerance with sever punishment.
i know guns are dangerous and need to be treated always as though it were loaded, exercising great care and awareness.
i do not believe in having a loaded gun in the house.
i believe in the ideas and judgement of our fore fathers and would invite you carefully read and think about each of the quotes posted by Freedom1
[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 11-05-2001).]
Actually, AFAIC, I AM willing to put myself and my family before anybody else, and definitely before any arbitrary governmental body. I believe that the laws made to protect a group should never infringe on the basic rights of the citizens. Heck, I complain enough about taxes and social security.... I'm not about to let my right to overthrow my gov't be taken away.
People I love HAVE been killed by guns. However, I think that people are foolish if they believe that violent acts will not be committed if guns aren't available. If I wanted to threaten a convenience-store clerk, a knife will do just as well. Walk up to the counter, slash them across the chest, and demand the money in the register. Or, if you're worried about having more distance, use a metal pole or something. You could even make a theme out of your disguise and use something from your chosen period/locale, like a blow-gun for instance.
And you know.... When people want to kill large groups...guns really aren't effective. It's a lot easier to build home-made bombs or the like. Ask practically any intelligent 15-year-old and they'll tell you a way to make easy napalm. Our society is pretty peaceful - the individuals that commit violent acts are pretty few and far between, and those acts would, IMHO, occur with or without guns.
Without a gun, though.... I don't know how many of you have been in a knife-fight, but you WILL be cut. It's difficult to defend yourself without training. And mace? Don't be ridiculous. What idiot will get close enough to be affected by mace unless you're already incapacitated?
As the saying goes: "Gun Control: The belief that a woman found tied up, raped, and strangled to death with her pantyhose is morally superior to one explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."
Nare
People I love HAVE been killed by guns. However, I think that people are foolish if they believe that violent acts will not be committed if guns aren't available. If I wanted to threaten a convenience-store clerk, a knife will do just as well. Walk up to the counter, slash them across the chest, and demand the money in the register. Or, if you're worried about having more distance, use a metal pole or something. You could even make a theme out of your disguise and use something from your chosen period/locale, like a blow-gun for instance.
And you know.... When people want to kill large groups...guns really aren't effective. It's a lot easier to build home-made bombs or the like. Ask practically any intelligent 15-year-old and they'll tell you a way to make easy napalm. Our society is pretty peaceful - the individuals that commit violent acts are pretty few and far between, and those acts would, IMHO, occur with or without guns.
Without a gun, though.... I don't know how many of you have been in a knife-fight, but you WILL be cut. It's difficult to defend yourself without training. And mace? Don't be ridiculous. What idiot will get close enough to be affected by mace unless you're already incapacitated?
As the saying goes: "Gun Control: The belief that a woman found tied up, raped, and strangled to death with her pantyhose is morally superior to one explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."
Nare
-
Djaarrukan
- Sojourner
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nare:
[
People I love HAVE been killed by guns. However, I think that people are foolish if they believe that violent acts will not be committed if guns aren't available. If I wanted to threaten a convenience-store clerk, a knife will do just as well. Walk up to the counter, slash them across the chest, and demand the money in the register.
Ok. A thought experiment. Try to think like like you are the victim, not the perpetrator. You can be either
a) slashed in the chest, or
b) shot in the chest
Pick one.
Or, if you're worried about having more distance, use a metal pole or something. You could even make a theme out of your disguise and use something from your chosen period/locale, like a blow-gun for instance.
But somebody is going to have to _work_ to KILL me with a pole. They might hurt me with it, but they can KILL me without even trying to with a gun.
No, gun control laws will not stop Ted Bundy, or the UnaBomber. But they would stop accidental deaths. They would stop someone who is momentarily enraged from exerting 2 pounds of pressure on a trigger. Do you think someone with road rage is going to go home and mix laundry powder and gasoline and try to find the guy who cut him off? There is a reason why people don't die from metal poles and homemade napalm... it takes dedication, planning, and effort. Most people only want to kill someone in that instant they pull the trigger. If they had an extra minute to think about it, they wouldn't. Hence the idea behind mandatory waiting periods for gun purchasing. It is so EASY to kill someone with a gun. Gun control laws will not stop violent crimes, but they will reduce homicides. Isn't it worth not owning a gun to have thousands of people less having to die in meaningless altercations?
Dj
[
People I love HAVE been killed by guns. However, I think that people are foolish if they believe that violent acts will not be committed if guns aren't available. If I wanted to threaten a convenience-store clerk, a knife will do just as well. Walk up to the counter, slash them across the chest, and demand the money in the register.
Ok. A thought experiment. Try to think like like you are the victim, not the perpetrator. You can be either
a) slashed in the chest, or
b) shot in the chest
Pick one.
Or, if you're worried about having more distance, use a metal pole or something. You could even make a theme out of your disguise and use something from your chosen period/locale, like a blow-gun for instance.
But somebody is going to have to _work_ to KILL me with a pole. They might hurt me with it, but they can KILL me without even trying to with a gun.
No, gun control laws will not stop Ted Bundy, or the UnaBomber. But they would stop accidental deaths. They would stop someone who is momentarily enraged from exerting 2 pounds of pressure on a trigger. Do you think someone with road rage is going to go home and mix laundry powder and gasoline and try to find the guy who cut him off? There is a reason why people don't die from metal poles and homemade napalm... it takes dedication, planning, and effort. Most people only want to kill someone in that instant they pull the trigger. If they had an extra minute to think about it, they wouldn't. Hence the idea behind mandatory waiting periods for gun purchasing. It is so EASY to kill someone with a gun. Gun control laws will not stop violent crimes, but they will reduce homicides. Isn't it worth not owning a gun to have thousands of people less having to die in meaningless altercations?
Dj
i believe that while gun control may help with some problems it will create a whole set of new ones.
alot of you are simply content to pass the buck onto guns while failing to recognize the real problems. someone dies because of a gun it is not the guns fault, the gun manufacture ammunition company or their distributors. lets look at the real issue, why did this happen. to say because of the gun is a cop out.
i believe to require a firearms certification for all retail guns purchases is a good idea, to license each and every firearm in the country is simply not reasonable.
alot of you are simply content to pass the buck onto guns while failing to recognize the real problems. someone dies because of a gun it is not the guns fault, the gun manufacture ammunition company or their distributors. lets look at the real issue, why did this happen. to say because of the gun is a cop out.
i believe to require a firearms certification for all retail guns purchases is a good idea, to license each and every firearm in the country is simply not reasonable.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Djaarrukan:
<B>Most people only want to kill someone in that instant they pull the trigger. If they had an extra minute to think about it, they wouldn't.
Dj</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
See, I disagree with this statement. Most violent crimes are, at least to some extent, planned ahead of time. Besides, if you have some psycho moron who pulls a gun because he's cut off in traffic, there are a lot bigger issues at hand than whether or not the guy has a gun in his glove compartment. Heck, he might have had it in a shoulder holster, instead (being a policeman, for instance). To me, that suggests truly deep psychological or societal issues that banning guns will only worsen.
Why just put the bandaid of gun control over the situation? Both violent crimes that are pre-planned and violent crimes that are simply spontaneous acts have a cause. Banning guns is the same sort of knee-jerk response as banning alcohol because men were spending their wages on booze rather than bringing it home to their wives and children, or banning books because the censors don't appreciate the contents. The sentiment is still there, the problem is still there.
Besides, how can you justify taking away my right to protect myself because somebody else can't keep a lid on their temper?
Nare
<B>Most people only want to kill someone in that instant they pull the trigger. If they had an extra minute to think about it, they wouldn't.
Dj</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
See, I disagree with this statement. Most violent crimes are, at least to some extent, planned ahead of time. Besides, if you have some psycho moron who pulls a gun because he's cut off in traffic, there are a lot bigger issues at hand than whether or not the guy has a gun in his glove compartment. Heck, he might have had it in a shoulder holster, instead (being a policeman, for instance). To me, that suggests truly deep psychological or societal issues that banning guns will only worsen.
Why just put the bandaid of gun control over the situation? Both violent crimes that are pre-planned and violent crimes that are simply spontaneous acts have a cause. Banning guns is the same sort of knee-jerk response as banning alcohol because men were spending their wages on booze rather than bringing it home to their wives and children, or banning books because the censors don't appreciate the contents. The sentiment is still there, the problem is still there.
Besides, how can you justify taking away my right to protect myself because somebody else can't keep a lid on their temper?
Nare
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
Let's look at Columbine for a minute. The two kids who did the shooting also made bombs. A LOT of bombs. In fact, they had set several at an intersection far away from the school in order to cause a distraction to allow them to kill more people at school before the police showed up. And, of course, they set a lot of bombs in the school itself. Had they been a bit smarter, there would have been a lot more deaths at Columbine. Then we'd see people trying to shut down the internet, and call for more censorship on the internet rather than proposing a ban on all guns. The internet, you see, is where they learned how to make their bombs. It is also where one can learn how to make several biological and chemical weapons. We can ban handguns, and maybe, just maybe, that will keep them out of the hands of psychos. But then those psychos will just start building bombs in their basements, brewing anthrax in their garage... planning more effective ways to murder people en masse. In the end what will have been solved? Guns will be gone, but people will still try to kill each other. A guy with road rage won't be able to pull a handgun out of his glove compartment, but he can still run the other guy off the road and into a telephone pole.
Don't speak to me about gun control. Speak to me about how to prevent people from become so disgusted with their lives that they cease to care about themselves or anyone else. Speak to me about how we can create a society in which guns can exist, but there is no need for them.
Sarvis
[This message has been edited by Sarvis (edited 11-05-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Sarvis (edited 11-05-2001).]
Don't speak to me about gun control. Speak to me about how to prevent people from become so disgusted with their lives that they cease to care about themselves or anyone else. Speak to me about how we can create a society in which guns can exist, but there is no need for them.
Sarvis
[This message has been edited by Sarvis (edited 11-05-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Sarvis (edited 11-05-2001).]
Don't speak to me about gun control. Speak to me about how to prevent people from
become so disgusted with their lives that they cease to care about themselves or
anyone else. Speak to me about how we can create a society in which guns can exist,
but there is no need for them.
Sarvis
here here
gun control is exactly what our forefathers foresaw, it is exactly why they were so careful to word our constitution and bill of rights so clearly. as ive said in just about every post ive made here. guns are not the problem, they are the scapegoat. im sorry but this is on issue i am adamant about.
become so disgusted with their lives that they cease to care about themselves or
anyone else. Speak to me about how we can create a society in which guns can exist,
but there is no need for them.
Sarvis
here here
gun control is exactly what our forefathers foresaw, it is exactly why they were so careful to word our constitution and bill of rights so clearly. as ive said in just about every post ive made here. guns are not the problem, they are the scapegoat. im sorry but this is on issue i am adamant about.
Just as a note, the most lethal weapon in the world is a piece of wire strung between your hands.
Also as a note most people cannot hit a evading target at 7 feet with a handgun.
Just something to consider.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
[This message has been edited by Elseenas (edited 11-06-2001).]
Also as a note most people cannot hit a evading target at 7 feet with a handgun.
Just something to consider.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
[This message has been edited by Elseenas (edited 11-06-2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ShaylaRose:
<B>
Someone did a silly quote about which woman stands on higher moral ground, the dead raped one or the living gun toting one. Silly because most rapes don't happen where you would have the opportunity to reach into your purse, take off the safety, aim, and fire. Any argument to the contrary is BS. Still, why would I want a gun in such a situation? Because I might get the opportunity to kill the bastard at some point as I am not very confident our laws will satisfactorily bring him to justice (heck, half the time, the woman is vilified in rapes).
*snip*
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, most rapes probably DON'T happen where somebody would be able to grab a gun and fire...usually because the victim knows the rapist and would feel uncomfortable killing them. However, when citizens can carry guns violent crimes (especially rape) often decrease in number. Reasons:
1. A potential rapist is actually less likely to go after a target who might have a gun.
2. An individual trained in the use of a gun will most likely be less afraid of a gun-wielder and will more likely be able to disarm a gun from an attacker.
3. Women carrying guns have reported feeling more confident about themselves, and, even in situations where attacked and not been able to pull the gun, have been better able to defend themselves simply because they knew they had it on them and that put them on slightly more even ground
4. Anybody hearing an individual's screams, etc., WILL be able to pull and fire their gun. Many rapes and other assaults have been prevented because of onlookers that were wielding guns.
5. You can pistol-whip somebody a lot better than you can mace them, and it will hurt a lot more.
Also, as far as not having faith goes.... I have quite a bit of faith in our judicial system, actually. I believe that if somebody rapes me, investigators will probably find the perpetrator; of course, that's assuming they find my body soon enough to get a viable semen sample. MOST rapes are done by an individual the victim knows, and those victims usually live. However, in rapes committed by strangers, a vast minority of the victims actually escape with their lives. I probably wouldn't particularly care if my assailant was 'brought to justice' after I was dead, simply because I would be dead and would probably have other things on my mind at the moment (like not having a body, etc...).
And finally.... The United States legal system, as well as most other countries, protects individuals who killed somebody in their own defense. If you have credible evidence that you were acting in self-defense, the potential victim can kill their attacker; every police officer I've ever known would rather respond to a case of self-defense than respond to a case of rape/homicide. Ask any police officer, ambulance worker, local mortician, and they'll tell you that rapes are horrible business and the way that most rape victims die is no damn fun at all. People can do some pretty sick shit.
If you think women are still vilified in rape.... Well, I don't know where you're from so I can't say. I've lived in some very rural areas, urban areas, liberal areas, and conservative areas, and I don't think that I've met anybody under the age of 80 that still believes a woman is guilty if she's raped. You wanna talk about sick thinking? THAT'S sick thinking.
Nare
<B>
Someone did a silly quote about which woman stands on higher moral ground, the dead raped one or the living gun toting one. Silly because most rapes don't happen where you would have the opportunity to reach into your purse, take off the safety, aim, and fire. Any argument to the contrary is BS. Still, why would I want a gun in such a situation? Because I might get the opportunity to kill the bastard at some point as I am not very confident our laws will satisfactorily bring him to justice (heck, half the time, the woman is vilified in rapes).
*snip*
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, most rapes probably DON'T happen where somebody would be able to grab a gun and fire...usually because the victim knows the rapist and would feel uncomfortable killing them. However, when citizens can carry guns violent crimes (especially rape) often decrease in number. Reasons:
1. A potential rapist is actually less likely to go after a target who might have a gun.
2. An individual trained in the use of a gun will most likely be less afraid of a gun-wielder and will more likely be able to disarm a gun from an attacker.
3. Women carrying guns have reported feeling more confident about themselves, and, even in situations where attacked and not been able to pull the gun, have been better able to defend themselves simply because they knew they had it on them and that put them on slightly more even ground
4. Anybody hearing an individual's screams, etc., WILL be able to pull and fire their gun. Many rapes and other assaults have been prevented because of onlookers that were wielding guns.
5. You can pistol-whip somebody a lot better than you can mace them, and it will hurt a lot more.
Also, as far as not having faith goes.... I have quite a bit of faith in our judicial system, actually. I believe that if somebody rapes me, investigators will probably find the perpetrator; of course, that's assuming they find my body soon enough to get a viable semen sample. MOST rapes are done by an individual the victim knows, and those victims usually live. However, in rapes committed by strangers, a vast minority of the victims actually escape with their lives. I probably wouldn't particularly care if my assailant was 'brought to justice' after I was dead, simply because I would be dead and would probably have other things on my mind at the moment (like not having a body, etc...).
And finally.... The United States legal system, as well as most other countries, protects individuals who killed somebody in their own defense. If you have credible evidence that you were acting in self-defense, the potential victim can kill their attacker; every police officer I've ever known would rather respond to a case of self-defense than respond to a case of rape/homicide. Ask any police officer, ambulance worker, local mortician, and they'll tell you that rapes are horrible business and the way that most rape victims die is no damn fun at all. People can do some pretty sick shit.
If you think women are still vilified in rape.... Well, I don't know where you're from so I can't say. I've lived in some very rural areas, urban areas, liberal areas, and conservative areas, and I don't think that I've met anybody under the age of 80 that still believes a woman is guilty if she's raped. You wanna talk about sick thinking? THAT'S sick thinking.
Nare
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ShaylaRose:
Nare, you have valid points there, but I wonder at your naivety (and gender - sorry). Women still don't report and are put under the onus to prove beyond a reasonable doubt most rapes even today. I find it hard to imagine any woman scoffing at the fear and emotional perils of both rape AND reporting it. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For one thing-- I know Nare pretty well; I'll at least attest to the fact that she's not just another gun-crazy male posting as someone else to make a point. Women can like guns, too. And as far as the rest of that goes... That may have been the case forty years ago, but since then, things have rapidly changed. Where are you from? Even in my home of Mississippi, it's gotten to the point that rape cases are automatically awarded in favor of the woman. Hell, it's beginning to become a fad to get back at someone by faking a rape, just because you don't even need evidence anymore.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I use wisdom and avoid dangerous situations as much as I can. Now, the question is, would I feel so safe if some jealous woman who simply tried to slap me for dancing with her boyfriend pulled out a gun instead? Yeah, well, maybe I will prove to be the fastest trigger west of the Mississippi! Then again, maybe I don't want to have to find out. 
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have yet to see the ready availability of knives embroil our great nation in a never-ending knife fight that can flare up at the slightest provocation. As stated before-- the gun is not the problem here. If she's the kind of person to do that, she can just as easily backstab me (for a damage bonus, no less!) as cap me. I see no correlation between gun ownership and violence. What I do see is a link between violent tendencies and violence. Guns are not those stupid intelligent swords. They do not slowly begin to turn you into a maniac. That's caused by plenty of other things. The only reason people have such a knee-jerk reaction with guns is because they're (relatively) compact ranged weapons. People like to feel like they can run from someone who's attacking them, and the fact that guns can still hit if they're out of arm's reach (assuming the guy can actually shoot-- your average street punk has the accuracy of a blind man with a severe twitching problem) makes them uncomfortable. Guess what? The people we're talking about now, the casual associates at the bar and the potential victims of rape in an alley, are unlikely to be able to outrun a guy with a knife, either. The gun isn't the issue.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I love this country but I will say that if it became this nation of gun toting, life taking, street justice you ask for, I would gather what friends and family that I could and go someplace else.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who's asking for that? Gun-toting: yes. Life-taking: only if it's a deer or someone who intends to kill you first. Street justice, though? I haven't seen anyone go quite that far yet. When people are talking about shooting other people, it's in the context of keeping said other people from killing them in the first place. That's not street justice. Street justice is when I found out somebody capped my boy and I gotta go cap his ass back. I'm not getting those vibes off anyone's posts.
Two different categories:
1.) The capabilities of a gun in the hands of an individual.
2.) The individual's worldview, mental health, and awareness of self and others.
Getting them confused just makes the waters muddy.
-Nida
Nare, you have valid points there, but I wonder at your naivety (and gender - sorry). Women still don't report and are put under the onus to prove beyond a reasonable doubt most rapes even today. I find it hard to imagine any woman scoffing at the fear and emotional perils of both rape AND reporting it. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For one thing-- I know Nare pretty well; I'll at least attest to the fact that she's not just another gun-crazy male posting as someone else to make a point. Women can like guns, too.
And as far as the rest of that goes... That may have been the case forty years ago, but since then, things have rapidly changed. Where are you from? Even in my home of Mississippi, it's gotten to the point that rape cases are automatically awarded in favor of the woman. Hell, it's beginning to become a fad to get back at someone by faking a rape, just because you don't even need evidence anymore.<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I use wisdom and avoid dangerous situations as much as I can. Now, the question is, would I feel so safe if some jealous woman who simply tried to slap me for dancing with her boyfriend pulled out a gun instead? Yeah, well, maybe I will prove to be the fastest trigger west of the Mississippi!
Then again, maybe I don't want to have to find out. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have yet to see the ready availability of knives embroil our great nation in a never-ending knife fight that can flare up at the slightest provocation. As stated before-- the gun is not the problem here. If she's the kind of person to do that, she can just as easily backstab me (for a damage bonus, no less!) as cap me. I see no correlation between gun ownership and violence. What I do see is a link between violent tendencies and violence. Guns are not those stupid intelligent swords. They do not slowly begin to turn you into a maniac. That's caused by plenty of other things. The only reason people have such a knee-jerk reaction with guns is because they're (relatively) compact ranged weapons. People like to feel like they can run from someone who's attacking them, and the fact that guns can still hit if they're out of arm's reach (assuming the guy can actually shoot-- your average street punk has the accuracy of a blind man with a severe twitching problem) makes them uncomfortable. Guess what? The people we're talking about now, the casual associates at the bar and the potential victims of rape in an alley, are unlikely to be able to outrun a guy with a knife, either. The gun isn't the issue.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I love this country but I will say that if it became this nation of gun toting, life taking, street justice you ask for, I would gather what friends and family that I could and go someplace else.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who's asking for that? Gun-toting: yes. Life-taking: only if it's a deer or someone who intends to kill you first. Street justice, though? I haven't seen anyone go quite that far yet. When people are talking about shooting other people, it's in the context of keeping said other people from killing them in the first place. That's not street justice. Street justice is when I found out somebody capped my boy and I gotta go cap his ass back. I'm not getting those vibes off anyone's posts.
Two different categories:
1.) The capabilities of a gun in the hands of an individual.
2.) The individual's worldview, mental health, and awareness of self and others.
Getting them confused just makes the waters muddy.
-Nida
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Why should some poor slob who is addicted to heroin be subjected to black market prices in order to obtain what they physically need to stay healthy. </font>
I know what you mean, Corth, but any heroin addict who pursues heroin is still sick, not healthy. More heroin will prevent withdrawal, a feature of all addictions, but what the addict needs is carefully supervised treatment to wean them off of the drug. Until they do that they are either high, in withdrawal, or dead.
If any drug should be illegal, it is nicotine. This drug not only kills you, it kills those around you too, like a gun. (As he tries to weave this post back into the thread.) But it does so in a slow, painful, and merciless way. The annual mortality, morbidity, and health costs from cigarette smoking are greater than those of all drugs, including alcohol, combined.
During a recent trip to Europe though, I realized that the US has been remarkably succesful in discouraging smoking without much new legislation, which I find intriguing. Large lawsuits against tobacco companies revealed the evil behind their product and led to regulations toward the use of cigarrettes but didn't ban them. By forcing smokers to smoke in 'smoking huts' and forbidding smoking in most restaraunts and bars, smokers became ostracized socially. Smoking became socially unacceptable and people's perspective changed. Much of the smoking public gradually quit using cigarettes. Those who didn't will kill just themselves and the other people in the 'smoking huts' who use cigarettes since they are all corralled together now. Who knows, maybe if there is a gene that codes for predisposition toward nicotine addiction, it will autoextinguish itself eventually.
Now if we could just achieve the same effect with those who use guns irresponsibly. That would be the ultimate 'gun control', no?
Jhorr:
In many European countries, Heroin is available by prescription. I'm not familiar with the specifics of these programs, but I imagine that people are required to undergo some sort of professional supervision in order to qualify. It seems like a much more rational response than to force these people to get their fix on the street.. where the quality of the drug is suspect and theres a great likelihood that they will end up with the AIDS virus on top of their addiction.
As for smoking, I think the most important issue is whether second hand smoke is actually dangerous at all. It has become idiomatic to say that second hand smoke kills. However in recent years this proposition has undergone renewed debate. A major study, for instance, by the World Health Organization, concluded that second hand smoke has no harmful effects on non-smokers. On the other hand, many of the studies that conclude second hand smoke is harmful, were commissioned by anti-smoking lobbying groups.
Assuming second hand smoke is in fact dangerous, then I agree with most smoking restrictions that relate to where someone can smoke. However, One government response that I cannot agree with is the draconian taxes that have been created under the pretext of government trying to recoup its health care costs. I don't see government taxing McDonalds because the food there causes heart disease. Its simply an opportunistic attempt to raise revenue on the backs of a class of people, who as you say, are ostricized.
If second hand smoke is not physically harmful to non-smokers, I would not agree with any regulation limiting smoking. The only thing that the anti-smoking lobby could bring up is that being around a smoker is unpleasant. Well, there are many things that are unpleasant that people have to deal with, and under those circumstances, I don't see what the the comfort of the non-smoker should take precedence over the comfort of the smoker.
If smoking only harms the smoker, then government has no reason whatsoever to get involved except to limit the age at which a person can obtain the product. With heroin, government has a strong interest in regulating it because people that use the drug are likely to commit crimes and risk spreading an epedemic. If smoking only harms the user, then government should not become involved simply to play nanny.
Corth
In many European countries, Heroin is available by prescription. I'm not familiar with the specifics of these programs, but I imagine that people are required to undergo some sort of professional supervision in order to qualify. It seems like a much more rational response than to force these people to get their fix on the street.. where the quality of the drug is suspect and theres a great likelihood that they will end up with the AIDS virus on top of their addiction.
As for smoking, I think the most important issue is whether second hand smoke is actually dangerous at all. It has become idiomatic to say that second hand smoke kills. However in recent years this proposition has undergone renewed debate. A major study, for instance, by the World Health Organization, concluded that second hand smoke has no harmful effects on non-smokers. On the other hand, many of the studies that conclude second hand smoke is harmful, were commissioned by anti-smoking lobbying groups.
Assuming second hand smoke is in fact dangerous, then I agree with most smoking restrictions that relate to where someone can smoke. However, One government response that I cannot agree with is the draconian taxes that have been created under the pretext of government trying to recoup its health care costs. I don't see government taxing McDonalds because the food there causes heart disease. Its simply an opportunistic attempt to raise revenue on the backs of a class of people, who as you say, are ostricized.
If second hand smoke is not physically harmful to non-smokers, I would not agree with any regulation limiting smoking. The only thing that the anti-smoking lobby could bring up is that being around a smoker is unpleasant. Well, there are many things that are unpleasant that people have to deal with, and under those circumstances, I don't see what the the comfort of the non-smoker should take precedence over the comfort of the smoker.
If smoking only harms the smoker, then government has no reason whatsoever to get involved except to limit the age at which a person can obtain the product. With heroin, government has a strong interest in regulating it because people that use the drug are likely to commit crimes and risk spreading an epedemic. If smoking only harms the user, then government should not become involved simply to play nanny.
Corth
When I was in 6th grade me and my mom moved back to my grandfathers house so she could help take care of him and go to college. There were several teenage girls who used to hang out and his house to smoke and drink because one of their fathers was a friend of my grandpas. They helped out a little around the house and such, and watched me when she had to go to classes or work or wahtever.
The problem was that they, and my grandpa, smoked constantly. The house was bathed in a perpetual smoke fog during the daytime, and I was breathing in a lot of it as I played cards with everyone or even just sat in the living room watching tv. After a couple years of this I started having a little trouble breathing, culminating in me nearly collapsing while playing floor hockey in gym class. I had developed asthma in the time I was living at my grandpas house. So yes, I would say that second hand smoke is harmful.
Sarvis
The problem was that they, and my grandpa, smoked constantly. The house was bathed in a perpetual smoke fog during the daytime, and I was breathing in a lot of it as I played cards with everyone or even just sat in the living room watching tv. After a couple years of this I started having a little trouble breathing, culminating in me nearly collapsing while playing floor hockey in gym class. I had developed asthma in the time I was living at my grandpas house. So yes, I would say that second hand smoke is harmful.
Sarvis
I carry a knife. Until they make it illegal to do so, I will always carry a knife. I am trained to use that knife, to handle it safely, and to warn or kill with it as needed.
The knife I prefer is a Spyderco Delica
I have drawn that knife on only a handful of occasions--mainly when walking through a dangerous area--and never had to put it to use. At the same time, I am one of the very few people I know who actually does carry a knife.
What makes everyone think that guns are any different?
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Heinlein
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
[This message has been edited by Elseenas (edited 11-06-2001).]
The knife I prefer is a Spyderco Delica
I have drawn that knife on only a handful of occasions--mainly when walking through a dangerous area--and never had to put it to use. At the same time, I am one of the very few people I know who actually does carry a knife.
What makes everyone think that guns are any different?
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Heinlein
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
[This message has been edited by Elseenas (edited 11-06-2001).]
-
Ilshadrial
- Sojourner
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Atlanta
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>
*snip*
As for smoking, I think the most important issue is whether second hand smoke is actually dangerous at all. It has become idiomatic to say that second hand smoke kills. However in recent years this proposition has undergone renewed debate. A major study, for instance, by the World Health Organization, concluded that second hand smoke has no harmful effects on non-smokers. On the other hand, many of the studies that conclude second hand smoke is harmful, were commissioned by anti-smoking lobbying groups.
*snip*
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In highschool I had a very dear friend. Her mother had never smoked a cig in her life. She died with a case of severe emphysema and stage 5 lung cancer. Why? Her father, mother, brother, and (over the course of her life) 2 husbands smoked.
In my own life, the people who live below me smoke. I have asthma. I thought it had actually cleared up, it had been years since I had any kind of attack.... then they moved in. Now I am short of breath and find myself wheezing with alarming frequency.
I worry about it. There is obviously a connection... thank heavens we are moving in 2 weeks
As for gun control:
We have a gun in our home. It is not loaded, and I *dont* forsee whipping it out incase of an intruder coming into our home, but you can bet if I actually had the time to retrieve and load it to shoot that jerk in the neck I wouldnt hesitate.
I am 100% for having more strict rules set up for gun ownership. Taking safety classes should be a *must* for ANYONE who purchases a gun. I believe that owning a gun is not *just* a right, it is a privilege and with any privilege comes a responsibility. Specifically talking about the privilege/responsability of gun ownership is obviously a touchy subject. If you can simplify what having a privilege means it would, I think, shed new light on the subject. Remeber when your mother or father doled out "privileges" after you had performed a required task? Maybe it was something like; if you cleaned your room, you were able to have friends over. Well it is the same type of rule with guns! You take the correct series of actions, you get the chance to own a gun.
Properly edjucated gun owners tend to properly edjucate thier children about guns. A gun in the hands of some crime-committing fool is a scary thought for me. A gun in the hands of a properly trained victim is a hugely liberating thought. Who here could stomach the thought of helplessly standing by to watch a loved one be victimized because you did not know how to defend yourself with that gun you bought? How useless would you feel if you *did* own a gun but *knew* you couldnt use it effectively? There would be nothing worse than watching your son/daughter/husband/wife (whatever) grappling on the ground with his/her assailant, you pointing a gun but afraid to shoot for fear of killing the one you love?
Horrifing.
If you do not want to own a gun, fine. If you DO want to own a gun, for HEAVENS sake, edjucate yourself. Do not trust your aim to the same fate that put you in a victims position in the first place.
I know I for one would never aim a gun at something I did not intend to maim. They are not toys and should not be taken lightly.
Nitania
p.s. Dont hate me because I own a gun. Hate me because I believe in being privileged.
(edited for spelling)
[This message has been edited by Nitania (edited 11-06-2001).]
<B>
*snip*
As for smoking, I think the most important issue is whether second hand smoke is actually dangerous at all. It has become idiomatic to say that second hand smoke kills. However in recent years this proposition has undergone renewed debate. A major study, for instance, by the World Health Organization, concluded that second hand smoke has no harmful effects on non-smokers. On the other hand, many of the studies that conclude second hand smoke is harmful, were commissioned by anti-smoking lobbying groups.
*snip*
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In highschool I had a very dear friend. Her mother had never smoked a cig in her life. She died with a case of severe emphysema and stage 5 lung cancer. Why? Her father, mother, brother, and (over the course of her life) 2 husbands smoked.
In my own life, the people who live below me smoke. I have asthma. I thought it had actually cleared up, it had been years since I had any kind of attack.... then they moved in. Now I am short of breath and find myself wheezing with alarming frequency.
I worry about it. There is obviously a connection... thank heavens we are moving in 2 weeks
As for gun control:
We have a gun in our home. It is not loaded, and I *dont* forsee whipping it out incase of an intruder coming into our home, but you can bet if I actually had the time to retrieve and load it to shoot that jerk in the neck I wouldnt hesitate.
I am 100% for having more strict rules set up for gun ownership. Taking safety classes should be a *must* for ANYONE who purchases a gun. I believe that owning a gun is not *just* a right, it is a privilege and with any privilege comes a responsibility. Specifically talking about the privilege/responsability of gun ownership is obviously a touchy subject. If you can simplify what having a privilege means it would, I think, shed new light on the subject. Remeber when your mother or father doled out "privileges" after you had performed a required task? Maybe it was something like; if you cleaned your room, you were able to have friends over. Well it is the same type of rule with guns! You take the correct series of actions, you get the chance to own a gun.
Properly edjucated gun owners tend to properly edjucate thier children about guns. A gun in the hands of some crime-committing fool is a scary thought for me. A gun in the hands of a properly trained victim is a hugely liberating thought. Who here could stomach the thought of helplessly standing by to watch a loved one be victimized because you did not know how to defend yourself with that gun you bought? How useless would you feel if you *did* own a gun but *knew* you couldnt use it effectively? There would be nothing worse than watching your son/daughter/husband/wife (whatever) grappling on the ground with his/her assailant, you pointing a gun but afraid to shoot for fear of killing the one you love?
Horrifing.
If you do not want to own a gun, fine. If you DO want to own a gun, for HEAVENS sake, edjucate yourself. Do not trust your aim to the same fate that put you in a victims position in the first place.
I know I for one would never aim a gun at something I did not intend to maim. They are not toys and should not be taken lightly.
Nitania
p.s. Dont hate me because I own a gun. Hate me because I believe in being privileged.
(edited for spelling)
[This message has been edited by Nitania (edited 11-06-2001).]
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
Ahh... but look at the other side of the coin Shayla. Would you be willing to mug someone if you _knew_ they had a gun? Would a guy force advances upon you if he _knew_ you could pull a gun on him at any second? Road rage was brought up... but how many people would cut off a guy if they knew they would get shot at for it? I'm betting not many would.
Sarvis
Sarvis
-
Ilshadrial
- Sojourner
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Atlanta
- Contact:
Ugh, one of these threads. The type of arguments that tend to be brought up during gun control debates are definately one of the big causes for my cynicism. I haven't gone over this thread in as much depth as I normally would since I'm pretty much familiar with all the arguments used so I'm just going to bring up something in conjunction with Sarvis's post, which saved me a lot of work and time I'd rather be using to play Civ 3.
Simply put, most criminals or would be criminals are cowards. They attempt to prey on the defenseless or people they perceive as defenseless. In most cases when a crime in progress is stopped by some form of self defense, it's done before a blow is landed. The criminal simply runs away when presented with a threat in the form of a firearm, knife, stungun (although many know that these are totally useless and ineffectual so this is the worst example), etc. They're just in for the money or making themselves feel dominant and superior. They're not looking for confrontation, they just want you to do what they say. They don't like the thought of dying anymore than the rest of us.
And before I do my best to stay out of this thread cause I know it's going to just evolve into a ton of idiocy and ad homanum attacks, I'll just toss up this link that sums up most of the arguments I would make if I had the patience to anymore.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/gunfacts.pdf
Oh, and this sums things up on a more rhetorical level http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
Simply put, most criminals or would be criminals are cowards. They attempt to prey on the defenseless or people they perceive as defenseless. In most cases when a crime in progress is stopped by some form of self defense, it's done before a blow is landed. The criminal simply runs away when presented with a threat in the form of a firearm, knife, stungun (although many know that these are totally useless and ineffectual so this is the worst example), etc. They're just in for the money or making themselves feel dominant and superior. They're not looking for confrontation, they just want you to do what they say. They don't like the thought of dying anymore than the rest of us.
And before I do my best to stay out of this thread cause I know it's going to just evolve into a ton of idiocy and ad homanum attacks, I'll just toss up this link that sums up most of the arguments I would make if I had the patience to anymore.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/gunfacts.pdf
Oh, and this sums things up on a more rhetorical level http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
Sorry about the long post, everybody. I'll try to be better in the future.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ShaylaRose:
<B>
It is rather amazing how views differ so much across the country. Two southern women (?) claim that rape is completely handled with efficiency and judiciously while myself (New England gal) and my friends here out west are flabbergasted that both of you cannot see any potential conflict and emotional stress in reporting rape cases nor how a trial where you have to defend yourself against accusations that you were not date raped but a willing participant could happen. Amazing.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well...Nid's from Mississippi...but if you're referring to me in your "Southern women" comment, I'm actually originally from Upstate New York and I'm now living near Boston. So.... Just to make that clear.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Sorry, but it is really hard to understand how two woman (?) can talk about rape and seeking justice with such nonchalance and emotional distance. Maybe your lives have been much more cloistered than my own, though (perhaps for the better).
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First off, this is not emotional distance. I see it as pragmatism. Goddammit, if somebody's going to attack me or somebody else I'm going to kill him/her/it/them.
Secondly, what does my gender have anything to do with it?
Thirdly, I will admit to having attended an all-girl's boarding school in my youth; we may have joked that it was a 'cloister,' but I think I was probably a lot more exposed to peoples' stories of rape trauma and sexual assault than most 15-year-olds were. There - that's to assure you that I'm qualified to participate a discussion about rape, etc. I also believe that having experienced or help somebody through the experience of sexual assault makes you no more or less equipped to deal with this type of discussion.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Okay, let me go back and once more stress the original point of this thread so you can see my reluctance in accepting it. The theme here is whether or not all Americans should carry with them a .357. ALL. Think about that. Every single person of reasonable age (13? 16?) or older carrying with them a deadly firearm that is loaded and ready to use.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That completely is not that point. The point is whether or not they should have a RIGHT to.
But...otherwise, yeah? So, what?
Aside from that, there is a difference between POSSESSING a firearm, and CARRYING a firearm. HUGE difference. There's also a big difference in people carrying around semi-automatic weapons and carrying around a concealable handgun.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Now, take a deep breath and think about that please. If every single person has a gun, the odds of "street justice" and vigilantism being the norm are so much more likely. He tried to mug me, so I shot him. He tried to force his advances on me, so I shot him.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The courts don't work that way. You have to have credible evidence that your life was in danger. This isn't "he groped me in the bar" or "we were alone and he asked me for directions." I'm talking about situations where somebody has threatened you verbally, physically, or with a weapon. And you know what? If somebody tried to mug me and I thought it was just some crack-addict who needed a fix, he could have my damn wallet; it's a pain to cancel credit cards, but that's not that big of a deal. I've done it before. However, if I think there's any possible chance that he's going to shoot me or hurt me in any way.... Yes, I would shoot him, or try to bite his nose off, or permanently bust his knee-cap. I might not INTEND to kill him...but I've been trained enough to not be stupid, and I realize that in a confrontation giving up any chance of getting your ass out of there and into safety is just what I've been trained not to be - stupid.
I don't know...personally, I think the term "gun control" is a misnomer. Controlling guns isn't really the issue here, is it? I think guns are pretty well under control, at least in most places. License for concealables, not being able to buy a gun and ammo at the same time...these are the rules where I grew up, and I think they work just fine.
What people seem to want, though, isn't gun "control." It's a prohibition. Those don't work, and I could cite numerous examples through history (not just US history, and not just modern history, either) of why prohibitions don't work. And secondly, disarming a populace DOES lead to a more dictatorial government...even if that gov't can't fall into nice, specific terms. Again, I could cite numerous historical examples from countless time periods throughout the world. Just because our government is more complicated now, and just because our communications systems are more advanced, and just because our populace is rather over-educated, don't think that it can't happen here.
Nare
Gun-owning 'Liberal' Historian
[This message has been edited by Nare (edited 11-06-2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ShaylaRose:
<B>
It is rather amazing how views differ so much across the country. Two southern women (?) claim that rape is completely handled with efficiency and judiciously while myself (New England gal) and my friends here out west are flabbergasted that both of you cannot see any potential conflict and emotional stress in reporting rape cases nor how a trial where you have to defend yourself against accusations that you were not date raped but a willing participant could happen. Amazing.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well...Nid's from Mississippi...but if you're referring to me in your "Southern women" comment, I'm actually originally from Upstate New York and I'm now living near Boston. So.... Just to make that clear.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Sorry, but it is really hard to understand how two woman (?) can talk about rape and seeking justice with such nonchalance and emotional distance. Maybe your lives have been much more cloistered than my own, though (perhaps for the better).
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First off, this is not emotional distance. I see it as pragmatism. Goddammit, if somebody's going to attack me or somebody else I'm going to kill him/her/it/them.
Secondly, what does my gender have anything to do with it?
Thirdly, I will admit to having attended an all-girl's boarding school in my youth; we may have joked that it was a 'cloister,' but I think I was probably a lot more exposed to peoples' stories of rape trauma and sexual assault than most 15-year-olds were. There - that's to assure you that I'm qualified to participate a discussion about rape, etc. I also believe that having experienced or help somebody through the experience of sexual assault makes you no more or less equipped to deal with this type of discussion.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Okay, let me go back and once more stress the original point of this thread so you can see my reluctance in accepting it. The theme here is whether or not all Americans should carry with them a .357. ALL. Think about that. Every single person of reasonable age (13? 16?) or older carrying with them a deadly firearm that is loaded and ready to use.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That completely is not that point. The point is whether or not they should have a RIGHT to.
But...otherwise, yeah? So, what?
Aside from that, there is a difference between POSSESSING a firearm, and CARRYING a firearm. HUGE difference. There's also a big difference in people carrying around semi-automatic weapons and carrying around a concealable handgun.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Now, take a deep breath and think about that please. If every single person has a gun, the odds of "street justice" and vigilantism being the norm are so much more likely. He tried to mug me, so I shot him. He tried to force his advances on me, so I shot him.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The courts don't work that way. You have to have credible evidence that your life was in danger. This isn't "he groped me in the bar" or "we were alone and he asked me for directions." I'm talking about situations where somebody has threatened you verbally, physically, or with a weapon. And you know what? If somebody tried to mug me and I thought it was just some crack-addict who needed a fix, he could have my damn wallet; it's a pain to cancel credit cards, but that's not that big of a deal. I've done it before. However, if I think there's any possible chance that he's going to shoot me or hurt me in any way.... Yes, I would shoot him, or try to bite his nose off, or permanently bust his knee-cap. I might not INTEND to kill him...but I've been trained enough to not be stupid, and I realize that in a confrontation giving up any chance of getting your ass out of there and into safety is just what I've been trained not to be - stupid.
I don't know...personally, I think the term "gun control" is a misnomer. Controlling guns isn't really the issue here, is it? I think guns are pretty well under control, at least in most places. License for concealables, not being able to buy a gun and ammo at the same time...these are the rules where I grew up, and I think they work just fine.
What people seem to want, though, isn't gun "control." It's a prohibition. Those don't work, and I could cite numerous examples through history (not just US history, and not just modern history, either) of why prohibitions don't work. And secondly, disarming a populace DOES lead to a more dictatorial government...even if that gov't can't fall into nice, specific terms. Again, I could cite numerous historical examples from countless time periods throughout the world. Just because our government is more complicated now, and just because our communications systems are more advanced, and just because our populace is rather over-educated, don't think that it can't happen here.
Nare
Gun-owning 'Liberal' Historian
[This message has been edited by Nare (edited 11-06-2001).]
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ShaylaRose:
I think your tale about girl's school very nice as well as the story about helping victims. If true, very noble. Still a little perplexing, though, that you think rape causes no emotional trauma beyond the act itself that might make a woman hesitant or fearful of putting both her mind and life style on trial.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay-- so as far as the rest of it goes (i.e. your previous responses being in reference specifically to everyone owning a gun and not gun ownership in general), perhaps Nare and I misread that. Well, at least I did. Gomen nasai. ^_^
But I don't see anywhere in Nare's post about rape not causing any emotional trauma beyond the event. Trust me-- I can understand someone not wanting to put something as emotionally denigrating as their rape out for public view. I know many, many people keep quiet about it. But many, many more are starting to come out about it. Over the last twenty years, at least as far as I've seen, society has become far more understanding and comforting towards rape victims. In most places that I personally have lived in/heard statistics from, the trend for reporting rape (and delivering justice to rapists) has skyrocketed. The American people as a whole no longer believe that "it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't started it" or "if she dresses like that, she's asking for it". Granted, there are plenty of idiotic individuals who still spout that bullshit because that's what their daddies told them after a nice, relaxing session of wife-beating and a beer or ten. But it's no longer the norm. Neither Nare nor myself are saying anything about cold, detached justice in the mind of the victim. All we're talking about it the chance for the victim to not be the victim in the first place.
And would you please indulge me and refrain from adding "(?)" after any references to our gender? Just because we don't fit your perceptions of exactly how a woman should feel on the subject doesn't make us any less feminine.
Now, to clarify, at least for my previous posts: I, like so many other people who have responded to this thread, believe that education in the respect and use of a firearm definitely needs to go hand in hand with the responsibility of owning one. I just haven't been on top of my game in actually stating that fact. ^_^ Don't want to come across as some nut that wants to, say, distrubute AKs like candy on Halloween.
-Nida
PS: And thanks, Treladian, for that post. The links are quite helpful.
(edited for PS)
[This message has been edited by Nida (edited 11-06-2001).]
I think your tale about girl's school very nice as well as the story about helping victims. If true, very noble. Still a little perplexing, though, that you think rape causes no emotional trauma beyond the act itself that might make a woman hesitant or fearful of putting both her mind and life style on trial.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay-- so as far as the rest of it goes (i.e. your previous responses being in reference specifically to everyone owning a gun and not gun ownership in general), perhaps Nare and I misread that. Well, at least I did. Gomen nasai. ^_^
But I don't see anywhere in Nare's post about rape not causing any emotional trauma beyond the event. Trust me-- I can understand someone not wanting to put something as emotionally denigrating as their rape out for public view. I know many, many people keep quiet about it. But many, many more are starting to come out about it. Over the last twenty years, at least as far as I've seen, society has become far more understanding and comforting towards rape victims. In most places that I personally have lived in/heard statistics from, the trend for reporting rape (and delivering justice to rapists) has skyrocketed. The American people as a whole no longer believe that "it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't started it" or "if she dresses like that, she's asking for it". Granted, there are plenty of idiotic individuals who still spout that bullshit because that's what their daddies told them after a nice, relaxing session of wife-beating and a beer or ten. But it's no longer the norm. Neither Nare nor myself are saying anything about cold, detached justice in the mind of the victim. All we're talking about it the chance for the victim to not be the victim in the first place.
And would you please indulge me and refrain from adding "(?)" after any references to our gender?
Just because we don't fit your perceptions of exactly how a woman should feel on the subject doesn't make us any less feminine.Now, to clarify, at least for my previous posts: I, like so many other people who have responded to this thread, believe that education in the respect and use of a firearm definitely needs to go hand in hand with the responsibility of owning one. I just haven't been on top of my game in actually stating that fact. ^_^ Don't want to come across as some nut that wants to, say, distrubute AKs like candy on Halloween.
-Nida
PS: And thanks, Treladian, for that post. The links are quite helpful.
(edited for PS)
[This message has been edited by Nida (edited 11-06-2001).]
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests