I don't think everyone should carry a gun....just those who want to........Taking away legal guns is such an easy solution.....just take away all those legal guns and poof....utopia.....Legal guns are not the problem....This garbage about a gun in the home being used by the homeowner against his own family are a myth, and diproven, as are the fairy tales about the gun being taken away and use d against you...The vast majority of guns in the home are heirlooms, that have never been used for anything but taget shooting. In my county, there have been cases of guns used in domestic disturbances, by Women shooting their husbands or boyfriends after being abused for years, to which I say.....HooRah.....
Guns and the Citizen
- Thread starter BiggieE
- Start date
You've bought the NRA lie hook, line and sinker. (And people say that the government are liars! They've got nothing on the one-issue bozos like the NRA). But don't believe me. Do your own research. Study not only the numbers, but the secondary and tertiary sources.BiggieE said:
The women may or may not be justified in their use of violence (assuming, of course, that their claims are actually true, and if they are then the fellas had it coming) but that's not up for them to decide. It's a legal/court issue. Vigilanti-ism is not, IMHO, a sign of an enlightened society. That's called anarchy.BiggieE said:
Guess where the NRA gets their info from?....The US Justice Dept....happygrump said:
Guess what else...if you beat your wife or girlfriend for years, and she caps you in your sleep, it's not vigilantism, it's justice, in my book....
So you have no problem with some gangster drug dealer having a gun because they want one?BiggieE said:
Under your reasoning, anyone who wants a gun should be able to get one, therefore you need a gun to protect yourself from criminals with guns. Makes (no) sense to me.
soooo... the fact that majority of guns are used for target shooting is justification for carrying it on your person for your own protection?BiggieE said:
What a ridiculous thing to say.
Also, I find it hard to see how a nation can be better WITH guns than WITHOUT.
No guns <> utopia
No guns = One less thing to worry about (for us non insecure-tough-guy-wannabes).
Again with the ridiculous things to say.BiggieE said:
Don't like guns myself but...
This is one issue where I have no problem with the American mentality.
If gun control people could guarantee to me that nobody else - I mean nobody -in the country will ever have a gun for even one hour, then I would believe in strict gun control. But they can't guarantee that, and could not possibly compensate a victim for a gun that slipped through the cracks.
Plus, most of the liberal types who are so anti-gun would oppose aggressive, random inspections and searches to consistently ensure nobody has a gun. Recall the outrage over that search of school lockers last year.
People used to walk around with swords, daggers & bludgeons so sharp and heavy they could behead a man with one flick. Well, they didn't all slice and stab themselves out of existance or we wouldn't be here.
I believe if everybody had one, they would rarely be used. Although I must admit the US isn't the best example for proving the theory...
This is one issue where I have no problem with the American mentality.
If gun control people could guarantee to me that nobody else - I mean nobody -in the country will ever have a gun for even one hour, then I would believe in strict gun control. But they can't guarantee that, and could not possibly compensate a victim for a gun that slipped through the cracks.
Plus, most of the liberal types who are so anti-gun would oppose aggressive, random inspections and searches to consistently ensure nobody has a gun. Recall the outrage over that search of school lockers last year.
People used to walk around with swords, daggers & bludgeons so sharp and heavy they could behead a man with one flick. Well, they didn't all slice and stab themselves out of existance or we wouldn't be here.
I believe if everybody had one, they would rarely be used. Although I must admit the US isn't the best example for proving the theory...
Yes I do. HIS gun is likely STOLEN, not purchased from a legitiate, licensed, dealer. HE has most likely committed crimes before, and should be locked in prison, not out roaming the streets with those of us who have demonstrated that we can live within the laws of society. The reason this person is'nt in prison is because he was likely paroled from prison. 9 out of 10 parolees commit a violent crime within 6 months of their release. Any you are going to tell the family of his next victim that it's the guns fault?..They'll likely laugh at you just before they beat you to a pulp with their bare hands.....what's next?...Hand Control?....strange1 said:
Y
yychobbyist
And then there's this. Damned lucky he wasn't walking towards the camera man.
http://daemlich.net/5088
http://daemlich.net/5088
Y
yychobbyist
Isn't that what gun control is about? Less guns being bought and produced means there are less guns can get stolen, which means it's a lot more difficult for criminals to get their hands on a piece. The problem is the availability of guns. You have a problem with your prison system (as well as the social reason people end up there) too but that the topic for another thread.BiggieE said:
What ever happened in the lawsuits against gun manufacturers? I'm guessing they settled out of court (for huge $$$).
Y
yychobbyist
and, amazingly enough, that's what you Americans have a lot of because of your gun culture - cold dead hands.
Gun Control is all about removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. How do you disarm someone who does'nt follow laws?...Lock them away. I know it sounds too easy and simple, but I think it could go along way towards helping the problem. Why is putting criminals in prison such a difficult concept for some people?....I wonder.....strange1 said:
ps....Most of the lawsuits against the Gun Maufacturers have been droped.....dismissed by judges who actually read the law....
Y
yychobbyist
That's a load of crap. Gun control is about limiting who can own guns, the conditions which they must follow to legally use them and the conditions under which ownership is possible.BiggieE said:
Have you ever tried to legally purchase a pistol, defined by law as any firearm with a barell length of less than 16 inches, in the State of New York. It takes over 10 months for the State to process all the paperwork to grant such a permit. I have had several people I know tell me the reason they don't buy a pistol is because of how restrictive the process is, and it's worse in NYC, of course we all know what a crime free utopia that the Big Apple has become since 1968. If it's not about removing guns from law abiding citizens, they why do they keep imposing more restrictions on us? Why not restrict the criminal use of a gun? But they just keep letting these people walk out of prison, under the guise of "compassion", to stalk, kill and maim even more innocents?....But of course all parolees are such fine, upstanding citizens...are'nt they?.....yychobbyist said:
Y
yychobbyist
Strangely enough I haven't tried to buy a handgun in New York. I've never bought a handgun in Calgary either because there's no frigging reason for anyone to own one in my opinion.BiggieE said:
If the process prevents people from buying a handgun then that's great. What's wrong with that. I'm adamant you don't have a constitutional right to own one (yeah yeah I know you'll argue differently but that's my view)
The criminal use of guns is restricted - use one criminally and you end up a criminal because you're in jail.
And strangely enough, no, not all parolees walk out of jail and commit crimes again. Some do become fine citizens. Others never do. It's life.
If they had a licensing program, where you could take a class, then a test to show your proficency with a firearm, just like for your drivers license, and then you were given unrestricted access to the gun of your choice, I might go for it. But the Anti- gun crowd has never proposed this, infact it has only been proposed by the NRA, SCOPE, and numerouse other pro- gun groups. If it were about limiting access, this plan should be acceptable to them. But no.....all they talk about is removing guns from our culture. Look at the "buy-back" programs. Most of the guns they buy back are either antiques, or completly non- functional.yychobbyist said:
yyc....Is your western utopia accepting nw citizens?...and can I bring my guns?....I promise I won't let them hurt you.....
Guns, like many things, are not for everyone. People who wish to own them, legaly will and do fulfill all the requirements to do so. And as many or most know the majority of legal owners follow the laws reguarding them. For those who choose not to own a gun, this too is their right. Should be supported. But just as their right to not own a gun need be respected, so must the right for their neighbor to own one.
Y
yychobbyist
Y
yychobbyist
Well, here in Canada you have to have a valid license to acquire a firearm and to get that license you need to take, and pass, a firearm safety course. I can't vouch for why your country sees the need to do things differently from us, but they apparently do.BiggieE said:If they had a licensing program, where you could take a class, then a test to show your proficency with a firearm, just like for your drivers license, and then you were given unrestricted access to the gun of your choice, I might go for it. But the Anti- gun crowd has never proposed this, infact it has only been proposed by the NRA, SCOPE, and numerouse other pro- gun groups. If it were about limiting access, this plan should be acceptable to them. But no.....all they talk about is removing guns from our culture. Look at the "buy-back" programs. Most of the guns they buy back are either antiques, or completly non- functional.
yyc....Is your western utopia accepting nw citizens?...and can I bring my guns?....I promise I won't let them hurt you.....
Now, as to this western Utopia stuff? What the hell are you smoking?
