AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Positions on Guns in America
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Positions on Guns in America - Page 3

Poll Results: How do you feel about guns in the US? (click all that apply)

Poll expired: May 12, 2007 This is a multiple choice poll
  • 19% (38)
    It is too easy to buy a gun in the US.
  • 3% (6)
    The proper systems are in place to control guns.
  • 6% (12)
    Gun control laws already go too far.
  • 7% (15)
    Guns save lives.
  • 14% (28)
    Guns are dangerous and should be strictly controlled.
  • 10% (21)
    Guns are a menace and should be banned.
  • 4% (9)
    The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct (assuming it allows possession).
  • 13% (26)
    The 2nd Amendment is out of touch with modern America (assuming the same)
  • 3% (7)
    College student should have the right to protect themselves with guns
  • 17% (34)
    College campuses are no place for weapons
196 Total Votes  
post #81 of 367
4/23/07 at 8:52am
I already did (read the other thread).

I can defend myself without a gun thank you very much.

That's probably why I'm not scared like you.

Oh wait, let me get this straight....

Somebody put a gun to your wifes head and you thought the best thing to do was pull your own?
http://MyCatnipFactory.com
Reply
http://MyCatnipFactory.com
Reply
post #82 of 367
4/23/07 at 8:54am


Nice wikipedia animation.

BTW, as I've stated previously, I don't own a gun, I have never owned a gun, and I don't have any intentions of ever owning a gun.

And if you look at that animation, see Vermont? NO gun laws there, green from the get go! Homicide rate? Somewhere in the mid-40's (ranked highest to lowest) for the 50 states + DC!

And Vermont was the state I was born and raised up in, spent my first ~30 years there, in fact.

Quote:
Research into the effects of concealed carry laws on crime

There have been many studies published in academic journals regarding the effects of various concealed carry laws on crime rate. Academics have also taken the debate outside of journals, writing books, blogs, and having debates on the subject.

The effect of various concealed carry laws are the subject of past and present research. In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, controversial pro-gun scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data has shown some statistically significant effects of concealed carry laws. One major conclusion was that locations which enacted more permissive concealed carry laws had a decrease in violent crime, but an increase in property crime.

Don Kates summarizes the consensus reached by criminological research into gun control thus: "Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm."

Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry. In Florida, which first introduced "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses,[1] which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals (since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed.) Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars. In 1991, the Luby's massacre prompted Texas lawmakers to pass a concealed carry law.

Concealed Carry in the United States

So, in closing, you anti-gun nutZ are losing ground in that regard also.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #83 of 367
4/23/07 at 8:59am
Thread Starter 
I feel for you, Jub, but I still do not believe that your average gun-toter has the skill (that you obviously had in that situation) to successfully relieve the crisis without compounding it. Your scenario would lead me to beleive that your efforts should be on reforming the prison and legal systems so that the said individual would not have been released if he were still a threat to society.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #84 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

So, in closing, you anti-gun nutZ are losing ground in that regard also.

What is an anti-gun nut?

I don't think my arguments are illogical, based on lies, or grounded in baseless fears.

That's why we call them nuts.
http://MyCatnipFactory.com
Reply
http://MyCatnipFactory.com
Reply
post #85 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Don't like dissent? Too bad, the Second Amendment assures the First. All of them, actually. ...

No, it doesn't.

I am almost completely indifferent on the topic. No kidding. Just like Berlin ... excuse me ... US/Mexico wall ... or abortions. I personally have absolutely NO stake in the subject. However, almost everything the religious nuts of this country are saying makes NO sense what so ever in civilized society.

And we have a LOT of religious nuts.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #86 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsLan^ View Post

What is an anti-gun nut?

I don't think my arguments are illogical, based on lies, or grounded in baseless fears.

That's why we call them nuts.

Sorry, but on all three counts, you have already PROVED that you all ARE anti-gun nutZ!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #87 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsLan^ View Post

I already did (read the other thread).

I can defend myself without a gun thank you very much.

That's probably why I'm not scared like you.

Oh wait, let me get this straight....

Somebody put a gun to your wifes head and you thought the best thing to do was pull your own?

You don't live in my world. You may know enough Judo to get by where you are and with what you do. MY world is often governed by the ability to use deadly force. You've made a choice that I respect- the choice to no be armed. You don't respect my right to make my own self-defense decisions.

As an instructor in personal defense with a firearm, I know when to draw my gun. And she's alive, as are the rest of us that were there that day. You do not understand the experience and you are not worth my time to share it with play by play.

Please post a sign on your car, home, and business that advertises that you have no gun and will not permit guns anywhere near you. Tell the world. Then try to enforce that policy when an armed criminal willing to do you harm arrives. Use that "self defense" or even begging to increase your chances of survival.

I personally think all of you that want to take guns from others should have to advertise to the criminal element that you do not have a gun for self defense. See if criminals prefer unarmed people...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #88 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:17am
Thread Starter 
Houston, we have a problem...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #89 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I feel for you, Jub, but I still do not believe that your average gun-toter has the skill (that you obviously had in that situation) to successfully relieve the crisis without compounding it. Your scenario would lead me to beleive that your efforts should be on reforming the prison and legal systems so that the said individual would not have been released if he were still a threat to society.

Oh, rest assured that I wanted answers as to why a repeat offender like went after me was out on the street. And in possession of a stolen gun. All within 2 blocks of a police station.

I have said time and again, I do not believe that everyone should have a gun. There are some that I refuse to train because I make the call that they are more liability than not. The key is not to abridge the right, rather to raise the standards for the CHLs, in my opinion. I do not advocate everyone carrying guns... nothing could be further from the truth. People that choose to exercise the right should be trained, retrained, and examined often to make sure that they ARE an asset rather than a liability.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #90 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

MY world is often governed by the ability to use deadly force.

The anti-gun movement is trying to change your world so that it's not governed by the ability to use deadly force.

Are you against this?
http://MyCatnipFactory.com
Reply
http://MyCatnipFactory.com
Reply
post #91 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:24am
... tell you what, I'll save you the hassle of making up the sign and all that. Let's see a real case study... Hmmmm... no guns with law abiding people.... probably at least a whole city like that.... Hmmmmm...

WASHINGTON DC.

Consistently in the top murder rates in the country.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #92 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsLan^ View Post

The anti-gun movement is trying to change your world so that it's not governed by the ability to use deadly force.

Are you against this?

Like I have said before, when you get the guns from the criminals first, I'll talk. I'm not sure you will have a lot of luck talking them out of their guns, though. Or even finding them or their guns. I'd be just fine if they could all disappear together at one time, level the playing field to a much nicer world. But that is not reality. The anti-gun folks dismiss reality at least as often as you claim us RKBA people do.

The gun that was used against me was smuggled from Mexico, where it was stolen from a police station.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #93 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Waaaaa? My family would be dead without my gun, and I would too...



You are not Dirty Harry.

Quote:
If you honestly believe that I have no right to defend my family against attack,

You don't. Relevant executive branches of the government such as the police and the military have an oligopoly on that.

Quote:
You don't live in the real world

Apparently, your "real world" is a motion picture shot in a military camp.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post



You are not Dirty Harry.



You don't. Relevant executive branches of the government such as the police and the military have an oligopoly on that.



Apparently, your "real world" is a motion picture shot in a military camp.

I just love your 100% TOTAL BS!

So, by your statement above; You don't believe in self preservation?

Simple question, suggests a simple answer, e. g. YES or NO will do, TYVM!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #95 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

So, by your statement above; You don't believe in self preservation?

Simple question, suggests a simple answer (e. g. YES or NO will do, TYVM!

Your question is flawed and therefore does not deserve any answer whatsoever.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post



You are not Dirty Harry.
You don't. Relevant executive branches of the government such as the police and the military have an oligopoly on that.
Apparently, your "real world" is a motion picture shot in a military camp.

And the lack of intelligence in this anti-gun reply, ladies and gentlemen, is what keeps 4 million NRA members signing up year after year... who can blame us?

I have an inherent right to self defense.
The police have no legal obligation to help me OR you.
My 'real world' is reality from behind a counter holding mega-dollars in gemstones.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #97 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

Your question is flawed and therefore does not deserve any answer whatsoever.

How so? Oh person of MANY words!

And your NOT answering the question does suggest what YOUR answer would be! Won't even defend your verbal position!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #98 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:46am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

You are not Dirty Harry.

Excellent find.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #99 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

Your question is flawed and therefore does not deserve any answer whatsoever.

Flawed? How so? Do you believe in a right to self-preservation or not? Does a person have a right to resist the will of another who is acting unlawfully?

Silly sot...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #100 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

You don't. Relevant executive branches of the government such as the police and the military have an oligopoly on that.

I don't know where you live or your laws (Germany?), but as a factual matter, in the US it absolutely is a right to defend yourself against attack. Obviously there are limitations - in general, you can use self-defense commensurate with the threat, i.e., it is illegal to kill someone if they threaten to slap you or steal your ipod. But the government does not have an oligopoly on defending you in the US, and, honestly, I can't believe it differs all that much in other countries.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:54am
dailykos... now THERE's an authority on guns.

You guys need to get informed about what is involved in CHL training before making assumptions that you understand it all.
When uniformed officers are on the scene, you are to disarm immediately so as to avoid such issues.

Let me get this right... NO GUN= no chance. HAVING A GUN= chance of making it worse, or surviving.

Seems like a wash to me.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #102 of 367
4/23/07 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

Your question is flawed and therefore does not deserve any answer whatsoever.

Well, I'd say you are losing major ground in that argument against self-defense. The Castle Doctrine is sweeping the nation, restoring our right to be secure in our homes and businesses.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #103 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

The police have no legal obligation to help me OR you.

Er, yes, they do. It's their job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Flawed? How so? Do you believe in a right to self-preservation or not?

Because there is no such thing as "believing" in self-preservation. You have it. By nature. It's one of homo sapiens sapiens's few instincts. Therefore, you can't believe or disbelieve in it, since it's already provably true. It has, however, nothing to do with buying weaponry.

Quote:
Does a person have a right to resist the will of another who is acting unlawfully?

Yes. Does using a gun equate "resistance"? No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I don't know where you live or your laws (Germany?), but as a factual matter, in the US it absolutely is a right to defend yourself against attack.

I don't recall arguing about laws, but about how laws should be. If all we do here is argue is the status quo, we might as well just read political literature and stop debating. Heck, let's stop having legislators; why change the laws if they're already correct? I'm sure conservatives would like that.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:06am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

dailykos... now THERE's an authority on guns.

You guys need to get informed about what is involved in CHL training before making assumptions that you understand it all.
When uniformed officers are on the scene, you are to disarm immediately so as to avoid such issues.

Let me get this right... NO GUN= no chance. HAVING A GUN= chance of making it worse, or surviving.

Seems like a wash to me.

So I take it that you don't travel by air very often?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #105 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Well, I'd say you are losing major ground in that argument. The Castle Doctrine is sweeping the nation, restoring our right to be secure in our homes and businesses.

U R a LUNATIC my friend.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #106 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

Er, yes, they do. It's their job.

You would think so, but please get the facts. The courts have held that they do NOT. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services.


Quote:
Because there is no such thing as "believing" in self-preservation. You have it. By nature. It's one of homo sapiens sapiens's few instincts. Therefore, you can't believe or disbelieve in it, since it's already provably true. It has, however, nothing to do with buying weaponry.

So, you claim I have not had my right to defense almost nullified when I get my fist and the criminal has the gun? Give me a break. Nice back-peddle, too.


Quote:
Yes. Does using a gun equate "resistance"? No.

I think the person I sent back to prison equated my gun with "resistance."
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #107 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:09am
Thread Starter 
Jub, on another thread, you said you were and evangelical Protestant.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...al#post1072209

Somewhere in the Bible, forgive me if I am not that up on specifics, it says something along the lines of "God says don't kill (recently written as "murder").

I was just wondering what your positions on abortion and capital punishment were, and would like to know if they match your belief in carrying weapons.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010108/gross

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #108 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

Er, yes, they do. It's their job.



Because there is no such thing as "believing" in self-preservation. You have it. By nature. It's one of homo sapiens sapiens's few instincts. Therefore, you can't believe or disbelieve in it, since it's already provably true. It has, however, nothing to do with buying weaponry.



Yes. Does using a gun equate "resistance"? No.



I don't recall arguing about laws, but about how laws should be. If all we do here is argue is the status quo, we might as well just read political literature and stop debating. Heck, let's stop having legislators; why change the laws if they're already correct? I'm sure conservatives would like that.

So people who commit suicide, believe in self preservation?

People with criminal intent, who have a total disregard for their own lives and the lives of others, believe in self preservation?

You have a brain, use it!!

And who is talking status quo? Please refer to the animated GIF at the top of this page, things ARE changing, and, in your mind at least, things are changing in the wrong direction!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #109 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

So I take it that you don't travel by air very often?

Nope.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #110 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

I don't recall arguing about laws, but about how laws should be. If all we do here is argue is the status quo, we might as well just read political literature and stop debating. Heck, let's stop having legislators; why change the laws if they're already correct? I'm sure conservatives would like that.

I responded because it sounded like you stated it as fact rather than as what you wanted to change:

Jubelum: "If you honestly believe that I have no right to defend my family against attack,"

Chucker: "You don't. Relevant executive branches of the government such as the police and the military have an oligopoly on that."

If you're just saying that you don't want people to have that right, and you think the current laws should change to outlaw all self-defense, that's different. Insane, but different.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Jub, on another thread, you said you were and evangelical Protestant.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...al#post1072209

Somewhere in the Bible, forgive me if I am not that up on specifics, it says something along the lines of "God says don't kill (recently written as "murder").

I was just wondering what your positions on abortion and capital punishment were, and would like to know if they match your belief in carrying weapons.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010108/gross

I believe in saving the innocent in my personal conduct. I believe in the state punishing the guilty. I'm lukewarm on CP as a policy.

(*edited for clarity)
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #112 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:13am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Nope.

Though I used a question mark, it wasn't really a question. You are extremely predictable.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #113 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

So people who commit suicide, believe in self preservation?

The part about where I said you can't believe in it was too hard to grasp, I take it?

In any case, someone who committed suicide suffered a mental disorder that outweighed the self-preservation instinct, which, yes, still existed by the time of suicide.
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I responded because it sounded like you stated it as fact rather than as what you wanted to change:

Jubelum: "If you honestly believe that I have no right to defend my family against attack,"

Chucker: "You don't. Relevant executive branches of the government such as the police and the military have an oligopoly on that."

If you're just saying that you don't want people to have that right, and you think the current laws should change to outlaw all self-defense, that's different. Insane, but different.

Insane? That depends on how you draw the line between defense and vengeance, I suppose.
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

The part about where I said you can't believe in it was too hard to grasp, I take it?

In any case, someone who committed suicide suffered a mental disorder that outweighed the self-preservation instinct, which, yes, still existed by the time of suicide.

Ah, and how EXACTLY are you going to PROVE that?

Methinks, that you should change your name to Jesus, so that you can ask the dead yourself!

You've got a brain, use it!

The part of your very own statement proves my position, they didn't believe life was worth living!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #116 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

Insane? That depends on how you draw the line between defense and vengeance, I suppose.

I just don't see how you can say that people can't defend themselves. You weren't very specific, so I don't know what you really mean by that: If someone is raping your daughter, could you do anything other than call the police? Could you, for example, push him away, or would that be assault and battery? How far can you take this "no self-defense" idea of yours?
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

... tell you what, I'll save you the hassle of making up the sign and all that. Let's see a real case study... Hmmmm... no guns with law abiding people.... probably at least a whole city like that.... Hmmmmm...

WASHINGTON DC.

Consistently in the top murder rates in the country.

Crime in Washington D.C. is a complicated problem that cannot be attributed simply to its strict gun laws. According to Wikipedia, crime is high in specific neighborhoods where drugs and gangs are also a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Like I have said before, when you get the guns from the criminals first, I'll talk. I'm not sure you will have a lot of luck talking them out of their guns, though. Or even finding them or their guns. I'd be just fine if they could all disappear together at one time, level the playing field to a much nicer world. But that is not reality. The anti-gun folks dismiss reality at least as often as you claim us RKBA people do.

The gun that was used against me was smuggled from Mexico, where it was stolen from a police station.

I would suggest a national buy back with fair compensation and amnesty to get the most guns off the streets as quickly as possible. Following that, I would make removing the remaining guns a top priority of our law enforcement agencies.

As far as reality is concerned, I have not said that there couldn't or shouldn't be exceptions. In fact, I suggested the opposite. Due to the nature and locality of your business, you may have a legitimate need for a defensive firearm and I would not be concerned if people in your position continued to be armed.

The crux of the problem is with the right to bear arms. To avoid infringing citizens rights, concessions have been made with regard to training requirements (I don't think there are any) and the regulation of gun sales, particularly the resale of firearms.
http://MyCatnipFactory.com
Reply
http://MyCatnipFactory.com
Reply
post #118 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Ah, and how EXACTLY are you going to PROVE that?

I don't have to. It's common knowledge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I just don't see how you can say that people can't defend themselves.

Of course they can defend themselves, within limits. I should have clarified that.

Quote:
You weren't very specific, so I don't know what you really mean by that: If someone is raping your daughter, could you do anything other than call the police? Could you, for example, push him away, or would that be assault and battery? How far can you take this "no self-defense" idea of yours?

Surely you can push him away, but you might wanna put an effort into not hurting him.
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

I don't have to. It's common knowledge.



Of course they can defend themselves, within limits. I should have clarified that.



Surely you can push him away, but you might wanna put an effort into not hurting him.

Quote from Chucker; "I don't have to, because I don't have to, because ... so there! ROTFLMAO!

A quote is in order from Albert Einstein himself: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

[CENTER][/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #120 of 367
4/23/07 at 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Quote from Chucker; "I don't have to, because I don't have to, because ... so there! ROTFLMAO!

A quote is in order from Albert Einstein himself: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

[CENTER][/CENTER]

I love this forum. Lots of comedy.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Positions on Guns in America