Be sure to vote, I am curious where most atheists stand on this issue.

Views: 3088

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"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)

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.

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.

"...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.

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.

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.

Exactly, and isn't it humorous that most of the people who want to limit guns to prevent crime want to limit gun ownership. Most crimes are done with guns the criminals don't technically own. They are guns that were stolen and/or bought through illicit channels.

Assuming most guns are exceptionally valuable.

I'm willing to bet most Americans with guns have TV's that cost more.

I don't see someone breaking into a house with the intention of stealing a gun as being all that common.

Not necessarily common, but for the people who can't get them legally it's one of the only options they have.

Or they can just buy them illegally. I mean...it's not hard. Again, I use drugs as an example. Most people don't purchase pot legally, Guns are super easy to get. And like drugs, they can be as cheap or as expensive as one wants them to be.

Of course a source is necessary. If you expect us to accept something as true without supporting evidence, you might as well claim that an omniscient, omnipotent deity commanded that people own guns.

Claims of fact require evidence to support those claims.

How many people do you know, personally, have died from being shot? How many people do you know have been shot at, period? War doesn't count.

Guns and god are two totally different things. I'm not telling anyone to accept something as proof...just sometimes the obvious is good enough. I'm not screwing around with someone that has a gun....most people wouldn't. Assuming the opposite is about as absurd as assuming god exists (since we're going to compare apples to oranges).

RSS

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service