Guns, Guns Guns

[PhillyMatt]

[quote name='Church Punk' date='Nov 16 2005, 08:57 AM']I guess you have good points on that. But if guns were taken out of the picture period there would be less deaths as a result of crime. Think about it if some comes at you with a club or a knife, you have a much better chance of defending your self than if they shoot your from 15 m away.

I just feel that if you have that power available you may be tempted to shoot first and ask questions later in a spur of a moment, when things are uncomfortable, instead of logically thinking your situation through.

With great power comes great responsiblity.
And what did Jesus tell him about using his sword????

"He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword"
[right][snapback]791266[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's cool, but if you are issued a permit to carry, it's a huge responsibility. You have to know all the implications that could occur if you decide to use your gun in the defense of yourself or another life....it starts by not putting yourself in those types of situations. So people that have guns legally tend to be way more cautious and try to stay away from dangerous situations.

[PadreSantiago]

ok I think I can really make a difference in this thread. Let us all bask in the knowledge of my favorite prophet....homer simpson


"A gun isn't a weapon; it's a tool. Like a harpoon, or a hammer or a ... an alligator. You just need more education on this subject."

"Lisa, if I didn't have this gun, the king of England could walk right in here and start pushing you around. "

and lastly a jewish perspective in the form of krusty the clown:

"Hey yutz. Guns aren't toys - - they're for family protection, hunting dangerous and delicious animals, and keeping the king of England out your face. "

[heavenseeker]

Yes, only ones used to hunt though.

I think it would be better if they would have to rent the hunting guns but that would cause a hassle so I will stick to my vote of only guns used for hunting.

[Socrates]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1001450' date='Jun 9 2006, 03:25 PM']
Yes, only ones used to hunt though.

I think it would be better if they would have to rent the hunting guns but that would cause a hassle so I will stick to my vote of only guns used for hunting.
[/quote]
When the First Amendment was drafted, hunting wasn't the issue - it was about [b]arms[/b] - weapons for defense. People being allowed to hunt was never an issue.

Almost three years and 214 posts, let's keep it rolling! :

[heavenseeker]

i know what the first amendment called for but that was before we had an army or poliece forces. now days we have those things and the need for people to have a gun for protection have passed. now days the only reason a civilian would need a gun for is to hunt. that is why i voted the way i did.

[Mercy me]

Keep guns from felons would be about my only requirement.

[misereremi]

I can't say for places where guns are already legal, but I vote for NO guns at all here because we don't need another tool on the streets. We deal with enough problems with knives and bare fists as it is. We deal with heroin addicts threatening people with infected needles, all sorts of madness. I've seen too many people get stabbed, or beaten to a pulp over flared tempers or misunderstandings, may they rest in peace. People who weren't violent by nature gave in to paranoia, revenge, etc. And all of the people who have to witness these things are scarred by them.

I guess I'm biased because I've seen gun violence as a kid in LA, and to see that the same things are now happening a lot more here makes me worry about my children. Even our police force that had relied on batons, is still coming to grips with how/when to use the guns they've been given, and they are under incredible pressure.

I can fully understand that people -and I include myself-are scared and want to defend their homes and families, but I don't think legalising guns for civilian use is the solution.

[Socrates]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1001705' date='Jun 9 2006, 06:15 PM']
i know what the first amendment called for but that was before we had an army or poliece forces. now days we have those things and the need for people to have a gun for protection have passed. now days the only reason a civilian would need a gun for is to hunt. that is why i voted the way i did.
[/quote]
". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Pretty plainly stated, and obviously the framers though this important enough to make amendment to the constitution. And the country did have an army and police then.

Tyranny prefers an unarmed citizenry.

And the need for guns for protection has certainly not passed!
Guns continue to be quite useful for defending against violent attackers. A person being violently attacked by a would-be murderer does not have time to call the cops! (Think about it!)

[quote name='misereremi' post='1002255' date='Jun 10 2006, 03:11 AM']
I can't say for places where guns are already legal, but I vote for NO guns at all here because we don't need another tool on the streets. We deal with enough problems with knives and bare fists as it is. We deal with heroin addicts threatening people with infected needles, all sorts of madness. I've seen too many people get stabbed, or beaten to a pulp over flared tempers or misunderstandings, may they rest in peace. People who weren't violent by nature gave in to paranoia, revenge, etc. And all of the people who have to witness these things are scarred by them.

I guess I'm biased because I've seen gun violence as a kid in LA, and to see that the same things are now happening a lot more here makes me worry about my children. Even our police force that had relied on batons, is still coming to grips with how/when to use the guns they've been given, and they are under incredible pressure.

I can fully understand that people -and I include myself-are scared and want to defend their homes and families, but I don't think legalising guns for civilian use is the solution.
[/quote]
This post actually makes the case that the violence in our society is the problem of the culture, not of gun-ownership. Guns have always been legal in this country, but back in my parents' day, there was much less violent crime. In areas where gun ownership is traditionally high, people are taught from an early age to respect guns as a dangerous tool, and to never use them casually.

The problem today is the gang culture, and the culture of death, in which human life is not respected, and a pop culture which regards killing people as "cool."
And areas where many people own guns, there is often less violent crime. Criminals are usually less reluctant to attack someone they know is unarmed.
Outlaw guns, and only criminals will carry guns.

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1002744' date='Jun 10 2006, 08:10 PM']
". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Pretty plainly stated, and obviously the framers though this important enough to make amendment to the constitution. And the country did have an army and police then.

Tyranny prefers an unarmed citizenry.

And the need for guns for protection has certainly not passed!
Guns continue to be quite useful for defending against violent attackers. A person being violently attacked by a would-be murderer does not have time to call the cops! (Think about it!)
[/quote]

it was important at the time yes but now days it is not. the army of the time was made of these otherwise civilians which had little to no training.

as far as the need for guns as defence from attackers goes. Most attacks and violent acts are made by a civilian with a gun, so if guns are regulated to hunting and made so you have to be registered as a owner then your reasoning for needing guns for defence is defeated.

[Guest servi_madonna_eucharistia_09]

i agree that we as people and protectors should be allowed to have them, but only to practice with them at firing ranges or soe such place or to only be allowed to use them for complete defense of one's self and one's family. also, they should be limited to smaller guns

[heavenseeker]

the problem with limiting them to small guns is that those can be conceled easier and some one could sneak a small gun into a public area way to easy

[Winchester]

heavenseeker,

Cops don't stop crime. They come to draw the chalk outline after the fact. Haven't you heard of home invasions?

[heavenseeker]

fyi it is imposable to stop crime

[chris]

I'm an adovcate for Pacifism, being one myself. But, I would not take away the rights of those who could protect their home from invaders. If killing ever solved anything I would own a gun, but I can't see it happening.

Other than that I'm not too much a game hunter fan either. If you kill it, eat it. If not, then don't kill it there isnt a reason to. But, I wouldn't go as far to that all guns should be removed from households. That's robbing people of their freedoms.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Convert4888

[Paladin D]

Simple fact: If you ban guns, the criminals will still find a way to get a hold of them. Only difference is, the civilians will not have that same protection.