posted
Omega calling someone else "rediculously sheltered"?!? Oh, the delicious irony of that.
As to the arguments about cars as compared with guns, the logic does not hold. Driving is seen as a privilege, which is not a right. Therefore, the state of California can make all drivers wear seat belts, make motercycle drivers wear helmets, and take someon's car away after being convicted of drunk driving.
What the argument in here is about the absolute right to own, possess, and use firearms.
Oh, and since I live in the birthplace of road rage, dear old Los Angeles, let me just say that most of what I have seen that would classify as such, we see drivers using a firearm to shoot at the other moterist.
posted
No, I'm just slightly sheltered, not so much as to know absolutely nothing about human nature.
And the reason California can pass laws dictating what you have to do to drive there is that you're driving on public property. A four-year-old could legally drive around a private parking lot. That's a big difference from a law saying you can't have a gun on private property.
------------------ You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
posted
I'm just going to point out a few rather gaping logical flaws here, and then go back to watching.
Frank and First of Two: You're both making undefended analogies. We're not talking about cars, or oranges, or even lunatics, but guns specifically. Such analogies as you have both been drawing can be, at times, useful, but you've provided absolutely no evidence linking your analogies to the issue at hand.
Omega: Your argument seems to be "Guns shouldn't be banned because only law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns." Please explain to me then why all laws should not be banned, because only law-abiding citizens obey them.
BlueElectron: Your argument seems to be that guns are causing a great deal of otherwise avoidable death. In order to convince me, you need to present some sort of evidence that those deaths occured either solely because of access to a gun, or that access to a gun was the deciding factor in said death.
------------------ "You are stupid and evil and do not know you are stupid and evil." -- Gene Ray, Cubic
posted
Sol: You've pretty much summed up what I've been trying to say here....
Let's stick to the topic .... If a kid kills another kid; if a guy takes a gun and starts shooting innocent people because of a twisted agenda or claims that he's been wronged by his company and everyone in it should die .... IT'S A FREAKIN' PROBLEM AND THE MEDIA SHOULD COVER IT
As it is ... people say there isn't a problem .. The arguement here is that it's not a problem cuz more people get killed in auto accident ... BIG FLIPPIN' DEAL !! SOMEONE GOT SHOT BY SOMEONE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD HIS HANDS ON A GUN !!! When that person, child or psycho, got their hands on that gun ... it was with an intend to kill, injure, scare ... And it's a problem .. the media is covering it cuz it IS a problem and something needs to be done about it.
ask yourself this ... When Joe Blow gets up for work in the morning, gets in his car, loose control, hit a pedestrian, and kills that person ... was that his intent??? NO!
But, that 6 year boy, took the gun to school ... what was his intent with that gun ... OH ... he didn't want to kill anyone .... NOOOOOOOOO ... He just wanted to scare someone .... but if he had a fake gun .. or a super-soaker ... to scare that girl... would the girl be alive today .. yes ... and why is she not alive today ... BECAUSE A 6 YEAR OLD BOY GOT HIS HANDS ON A REAL GUN ... HOW DID HE GET HIS HAND ON THAT GUN???? THAT'S THE PROBLEM He got his hands on a real gun ...
Let's not belittle the death of this innocent girl by saying her death is just another death like those in automobile accidents ... She was shot!!! For nothing ...
------------------ -There can be only Nine !! ..mmm.. maybe 10 !!
- Alshrim Dax The Other Dax:
[This message has been edited by Alshrim Dax (edited March 08, 2000).]
posted
I completely agree with Alshrim. It should not be possible for a six-year old to get his/her hands on gun.
Protection: BULL-SHIT!! Protect against what? Do you expect an armed psycho shootin' at you every day??? I live in Holland, guns are illegal here and I feel safe nevertheless.
------------------ "Si vis pacem, para bellum." (If you want peace, prepare for war) - Vegetius Prakesh's Star Trek Site
posted
I agree with Ultra Magnus. Poeple for and against guns are like religious zealots. You can't changed their mind 'cause they just won't listen to the other, they're convinced they're the only ones who are right and will never compromise.
It's almost instinct. I never liked guns, and never will. Those who grew up with a gun in their house will always be for them and will never back down. Those of you who want statistics to prove to them that guns ARE dangerous, I'm sure you'd never accept it even with all the proofs in the world. Just like I'll never accept that guns are a necessity.
This question is never ever gonna be resolved. You can never know all the facts and you can't change society to see if it would work better otherwise. We're trapped in a sorry world folks.
When I look at debates like this one, and think of all the crimes and problems of our world, I'm always reminded of how much I hate humans. Sometimes, I just wish there would be a huge meteor, a big earthquake or another doomsday thingy to wipe us of the Earth. We're a plague as a race, and I have no more faith in humans than I have in guns. Enough said.
------------------ -If you took that broomstick out of your tail-pipe once in a while, you might have some FUN for a change! *Rattrap - Beast Wars*
-Let the Fates land where they may! *Megatron - Beast Machines*
[This message has been edited by TerraZ (edited March 08, 2000).]
posted
Sol: Well, everything you say is hogwash, too! Seriously, why don't you like the analogies? It shows what the anti-gun statements seem like to us.
Alshrim: Actually, maybe the problem we should be addressing is why a 6-year-old felt the need to kill someone.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
posted
"Your argument seems to be "Guns shouldn't be banned because only law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns." Please explain to me then why all laws should not be banned, because only law-abiding citizens obey them."
Theft, for example, by definition harms someone. Yes, only criminals will now commit theft, but it serves no conceivable useful purpose for a law abiding citizin should do so, and thus should be outlawed. Owning a gun in itself HARMS NO ONE, serves an extremely useful purpose as demonstrated, and thus should not be outlawed. Your analogy is flawed.
But the analogy of cars is legetimate, to some degree. You have a legitimate reason to own a car, even though you can kill people, both on purpose and accidently. In fact, you can do it with more impunity, since a bullet can be traced to a specific kind of gun, but running over someone with a car leaves no such evidence, except possibly tire tracks, which are far harder to trace.
"BECAUSE A 6 YEAR OLD BOY GOT HIS HANDS ON A REAL GUN ... HOW DID HE GET HIS HAND ON THAT GUN????"
Well, someone in the house he was living in stole it, then left it somewhere where he could get to it, that's how. No gun law would have prevented him from getting the gun. It's already illegal to steal a gun, or anything else for that matter. The "owner" of the gun chose to ignore the laws.
"It should not be possible for a six-year old to get his/her hands on gun."
Do you have any suggestion as to how to prevent it? The gun was illegally obtained. Existing laws didn't prevent the six-year-old from getting the gun. What makes you think tougher ones would?
"Protection: BULL-SHIT!! Protect against what?"
Well, how 'bout people like the "thugs" in First's example of his brother? How 'bout the possibility of the government trying to take your freedoms? Do you just not believe that these things happen? And Jay says I'M sheltered.
"I live in Holland, guns are illegal here and I feel safe nevertheless."
If I'm not mistaken, there was a shooting in one of your schools a few months back. Apparently, even in a country as small as yours, outlawing guns can't eliminate crime with guns. Just think what would happen if we tried it in a country THIS size, and with 250 million guns already in circulation. It simply wouldn't work!
------------------ You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
posted
Holland is especially safe if you happen to be an invading country.
You know, I'm willing to listen to rasoned arguments from the other side, but so far all I've heard is badly-researched rhetoric by people who are far too emotional for their own good. You can have heart attacks that way.
As a favorite joke recalls: There was a fundie minister whose wife looked over his sermons, making annotations where she felt he needed help. At a particular point, she wrote "weak argument. Shout loud."
IN OTHER WORDS, YOUR ARGUMENT IS NOT BOLSTERED BY TYPING HALF OF IT IN CAPS! INSTEAD, IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A CRAZY PERSON! CALM THE HELL DOWN!!!
UM: as I gather it from the Almanac and other sources:
Total Homicides by firearms, all ages, all races: 14,037, or .00005% of the US population. Does not include the significantly smaller accident and suicide rates, nor shootings of criminals.
They don't have statistics for crimes prevented vs. total crimes involving firearms. It'll probably take me a while to come up with the figures on that one. But if we believe that one life saved is enough to ban them, why can't we believe that one million crimes prevented is enough to keep them?
What these people who get all their information from watching the news is: News has to SELL. BAD news sells better than good news, so that's mostly what you hear. They find a story, latch onto it, and pump, pump, PUMP it up. You only hear about tragedy because that's what SELLS. That's what they WANT you to hear, so that they can keep you glued to the TV, watching the commercials, buying the sponsor's products. You people really have no idea how easy it is to manipulate people by choosing what information to give and what to withhold.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
Orion Syndicate
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Member # 25
posted
Guns were originally enshrined in the constitution because the US did not have an army. Fine, but now you have one of the largest and strongest armies in the world. What possible use do guns serve other than making it easier for people to blow each others brains off.
The attitude down there is really screwed. People are dying every day from gun violence, and the attitude is "So what, people die every day". The point is that you can prevent six year olds being killed who have their whole lives to look forward to. Instead, their deaths are acceptable because gun ownership is a 'right'. Excellent, so that makes it worthwhile.
------------------ Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
posted
Have you read any of the arguments in the thread? It has been explained why gun ownership is necessary, and why gun laws wouldn't have prevented the 6-year-old's death.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
posted
An army is not a police force. Neither an army NOR a police force can defend you in your room at night, or if you happen to live in a place where unsavory types also live. An army cannot defend you from the actions of an unjust government (the REAL reason gun ownership was enshrined, although I can imagine why YOUR government might not want you knowing that...)
Of course, you were probably never physicially attacked by someone intent on doing you serious physical harm and/or making off with your valued possessions. (Like the saying goes, a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.)
THAT brings me to another question. You anti-gunners, you 'we should all just be nice and peaceful' folks. Tell me, what would YOU do if you were suddenly confronted by a shiv-weilding crackhead who'd decided to divest you of your wallet, and perhaps a couple pints of vital bodily fluid, just to make sure you don't report him?
What would YOU have done in my brother's place? Fight? Three-on-one? Run, and probably get caught? Fumble with the keys to the false security of your car while they approached? Try to reason it out with people who probably would have dropped out of elementary school if they could?
Praying doesn't work in these kinds of conditions, kiddies.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
Gotta agree with Frank, here. I'm beginning to wonder if some of you are even reading what the rest of us are saying. Of course, that'd mean you wouldn't be reading this, either, so...
------------------ You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
