Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Neil C. Reinhardt on February 6, 2012 at 3:51am

As Founding Father and Non-Believer Thomas Jefferson said:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
� � � � � � � � � � � �

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neil C. Reinhardt on February 6, 2012 at 4:27am

"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."


I guess all those who so very wrongly believe the founders meant the arms were only for the "militia" do not understand the function a COMMA.

OR what the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." means.

HOW VERY SAD!

Anyone who has a clue knows:

A, Crimes take seconds to commit and it takes police at least minutes to get to you AFTER they have been informed they are needed.

B. In natural disasters, not only can the Police be OVER WHEMED by calls and not get to you for hours or days, they MAY NOT even be able to get to you.

C. In riots, like the ones we had in LA in around 1966 or 1967, the police and the National Guard were busy trying to not get shot and we had to protect ourselves.

D. Guns are used over a MILLION times a year to PREVENT crimes from happening. And many times the guns are not only never fired, they are not even pointed toward the bad guys.

On seperate occasions, both myself and a former girl friend have stopped crimes by showing the bad guys we
were armed. In her case, they left by climbing out of the window they had used to come into her home. In my case, they decided attempting to force me off the road and out of my car was not a good idea, so they sped away.

So all of you who don't like guns, don't own them!

Only do NOT tell me I can not have them as they only way anyone would get mine is after I am dead. And do not come crying to me for protection when one or more bad gusy are kicking your butt and/or raping your wife, or daughter or girl friend or your mother.

In fact, you should go read the ARMED CITIZEN and Get a Clue! (you can see it on the net)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 6, 2012 at 12:38pm

D. Guns are used over a MILLION times a year to PREVENT crimes from happening. And many times the guns are not only never fired, they are not even pointed toward the bad guys.

source?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sway austin on February 6, 2012 at 6:44pm

Is a source actually necessary to believe that? I wonder how many times a year criminals keep themselves in check SIMPLY because the officer confronting them has a gun....

Also, I'd be less likely to break into someone's house if I knew they had a gun. I think most would feel the same way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 6, 2012 at 7:39pm

Yes, a source is necessary.  Empirical claims should be supported with empirical evidence. If people are going to attach numbers to things, they should provide the source of those numbers or the basis for the projection.  I'd rather not take it on faith.

Also, I'd be less likely to break into someone's house if I knew they had a gun. I think most would feel the same way.

Most people wouldn't break into a person's house one way or the other, as far as I know.  It becomes a question of whether or not firearms ownership typically does or does not act as a deterrent to those that would perpetrate these crimes.  My answer at the moment is, I don't know.  I'm not sure how that could really be demonstrated satisfactorily apart from comparing available crime statistics across regions with differing firearms policies or possession rates, but it seems like there are too many complications for that to really be satisfying.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sway austin on February 11, 2012 at 6:07am

Just because most people have no interest in breaking into houses doesn't mean it's uncommon. Of course, some places are worse than others...but still. Having a gun around hurts absolutely nothing.

Again...guns are not responsible for hurting anyone. People are responsible for hurting people...whether it be by gun or other means.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 11, 2012 at 2:34pm

I never said breaking and entering was uncommon.  My point is, the way most people would feel is probably irrelevant as they lack motivation to commit the deed one way or the other.  What does it really mean to be deterred from something you weren't going to do anyway?  Very little.

The people I know who have been robbed, have been robbed while they weren't home.  Now not only is a gun ineffective in that scenario, but it's also at risk of theft itself, in which case, having the gun did cause harm; it put one more firearm in the hands of a criminal.

This is not to say that firearm possession never acts as a deterrent or helps stop home intruders.  It's just that it's not clear what the overall impact is on the balance.

Again...guns are not responsible for hurting anyone. People are responsible for hurting people...whether it be by gun or other means.

This is a pointless statement.  Who said that guns hurt people all on their own?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sway austin on February 12, 2012 at 6:38am

"...one more firearm in the hands of a criminal". Well, to this I say there are far more decent people with guns than criminals, and for this reason I feel safe.

Guns are cheap and easy to obtain...legal or illegal. This issue has always boggled my mind as to why it's even worth discussing, Makes about as much sense as the war on drugs.

And no one stated specifically that guns kill people on their own...however, this is how people tend to act.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 12, 2012 at 6:11pm

Presently, guns are cheap and easy to obtain illegally because they are plentifully produced legally.  The current issue is legally produced firearms.  

Even in Canada, where handgun possession is severely restricted, people don't start illegally producing firearms as they do cocaine, meth, heroin (etc.); they smuggle them in from the United States, where the laws are much more lax and handguns are legally produced and traded in considerable numbers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on February 12, 2012 at 6:45pm

And yet, a functional firearm isn't THAT difficult to produce in a home workshop. If guns became unavailable to the underworld, an underworld industry would develop, either making firearms or illegally bringing them in. (But hey, that import industry already exists, doesn't it?)

Evidence based on Canadians is apples vs oranges. If you consider two cities with very similar demographics, one in the US and one in Canada, the one in the US will have more gun crime. (I remember part of Bowling for Columbine making such a comparison.)

The difference has nothing to do with the availability of guns and everything to do with the difference between Canadians and Americans. Canadian gun violence isn't kept in check by restrictive legislation. It's just that Canadians are different from Americans, as any Canadian will be happy to tell you.

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 12, 2012 at 7:12pm

And yet, a functional firearm isn't THAT difficult to produce in a home workshop. If guns became unavailable to the underworld, an underworld industry would develop, either making firearms or illegally bringing them in. (But hey, that import industry already exists, doesn't it?)

The efficiency would decrease, the costs would increase, and the prevalence of illegal handguns would most likely drop over time.

Evidence based on Canadians is apples vs oranges. If you consider two cities with very similar demographics, one in the US and one in Canada, the one in the US will have more gun crime. (I remember part of Bowling for Columbine making such a comparison.)

I'm not comparing anything.  I'm citing an existing model.

Canadian gun violence isn't kept in check by restrictive legislation. It's just that Canadians are different from Americans, as any Canadian will be happy to tell you.

Canadian violence is possibly not kept in check by restrictive handgun legislation, but I'm very hard-pressed to agree that gun violence is not.

Also, Canadians are happy to say a lot of things that aren't true. I find this line of reasoning that Canadians are different from Americans too vague to give consideration.  Which Canadian differences are you talking about?  Lower wealth disparity?  Lower population densities in our major metros?  The way we use the word 'toque'.

Permalink Reply by Gabeline Stavis on February 10, 2012 at 8:55am

As one of the people who would not break into someone's house, I used to think it would be a good idea to let the neighborhood know we were armed (with a sign or decal), until it was pointed out to me that it might be more likely to make someone break in for the purpose of STEALING the gun instead of deterring them from breaking in at all.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• …
• 30
• Next ›
• Page