Gun control

UHF

Gotta do better than that...   :)

Tae Kwon Do wrote: WGP guy wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: WGP guy wrote: Badsmitty wrote: Why have guns?  To rise up when your gubment takes away rights?  Oh wait, we already have the Patriot Act, mandatory random drug testing in the workplace and are holding "terrorists" without any legal representation.  At least clay pigeons are being kept in check. Well, guns are fun to shoot.  I don't really know what you were implying there if anything, but I don't hunt, I just find joy in going to the shooting range and shooting targets.  Its just fun. Ok. Crack is fun to smoke. Why isnt it ok? Because...its bad for you?  I don't know.  Most people that have guns don't use them in ways that harm others.  Crack harms you.  So you can't really compare that.  Crack is always going to harm you, guns used in the right way won't hurt anyone. They both have the potential to kill you. Even if it isnt on purpose, a bullet in the head is bad for your health. What about pot? Pot dosent always harm people, should we make that OK?

That is the most pointless argument. If we outlaw everything that could hurt you if misused, then forks, lawn mowers, paintball markers, books, spoons, sticks, rocks, paper, metal objects, cars, letter openers, glass, computers, hands, feet, food, beer, gasoline, doors, shoes, shoe laces, magic markers, coins, trees, fences, crayons, firecrackers, and everything else I forgot would need to be outlawed to keep us safe.

BTW, I think both Zesty and Clark Kent have valid points. Hunting, sport shooting, target competitions, all of these are situations in which firearms are needed. Also, a gun usually provides a great deterrent and helps prevent crimes. I think that firearms are a useful tool. No amount of laws will prevent gun crime. Just take a look at Australia. They have really benefitted from banning firearms. I do think that laws are necessary though. There is no reason for anyone to have a fully automatic weapon in their personal collection. Laws should be strictly enforced with NO leeway. 

Edited by whoknowswho

I keep a 12guage shotgun leaning against the wall by the bed where I sleep.

The magazine tube holds 8 rounds with one in the chamber, but I just keep the magazine full.

If I hear something that wakens me, and it sounds like anything out of the ordinary, I reach over, rack my shotgun, and stay silent.

If I hear some more commotion, I may go out to check what's up, but most likely I'm gonna sit and listen.

Basically, I live about 5 miles out of town, and your suggestion of using a phone in place of a gun truly made me laugh!

You are speaking with a closed mind...you sound like some neighborhood watch man that feels his whole block is safe because you look out your window every hour.

If the prior scenario comes down to an intruder entering my house, armed, looking to take my property or life, I personally don't want to rely on the speedy service of my local law enforcement!

If you want to, that's fine. But I would prefer to rely on my Winchester Defender and 8 shots of double-ott rather than some donut-dunking pig that doesn't give a crap about anything but going home to HIS family at the end of the night.

Let's say your wife and children are upstairs sleeping. What are you going to do when someone breaks into your house, wielding a machete, and is high on PCP? Call the cops? Reason with him? Accept your "fate" (and decide your family's fate at the same time)? Keep in mind, stabbing him likely won't faze him, he's so out of it.

:)

Darur wrote: Right, but until the slogan's point has been dissproven it still applies, true?

Nope.  These slogans haven't met their prima facie case.  They are nonsense until somebody provides some evidence of legitimacy.

Example:  "If you can read this, you aren't the President"

Does that make you feel like you have to now prove that Bush can read?  Of course not - it's a stupid slogan.

Same thing goes for most everything the NRA is responsible for.

 

WGP guy wrote: Why would you enter a potentially hostile situation without being sure you would be able to help?  Thats putting 2 more lives on the line.  The people around didn't seem to take notice, so I assumed it was a boyfriend.  This guy looked about 40, but we were at least 200 feet away.

There are oh so many things wrong with this.

You appear to believe that a gun is the only difference between helping and not helping.  Both parts of that are problematic.

You can help with a cell phone.  You can help by yelling loudly.  You can help by noting the plate number.  If you need to satisfy your machismo, you can help by rasslin' the guy to the ground.  You can help by following in your car, or in a cab (and you get to yell "follow that car!").  And so on, depending on the particulars of the situation.

If you had a gun, would you go charging in?  Sounds like the situation was quite ambiguous, and you were far away.  Do you plan on taking pot shots at 200 feet with a pistol, into a potential hostage situation with bystanders?  Do you plan on shooting before you fully understand the situtation?  Do you plan on running across the street with gun drawn in public (which might get you shot by another vigilante, in a cruel twist of fate)?  Would you try to confront the guy, now having found your courage, and try to outdraw him, old West style, if he has a shootin' iron too?  What exactly do you expect to accomplish with your gun in this scenario?

Here's what this sounds like to me:  Father sees questionable situation, and doesn't have the gumption to do anything about it.  Not wanting to appear weak in front of his kid, daddy pulls off a lame line about "son, I wouda helpt her, but I don't got my gun."

Fact is, most of the best ways to "help" in this situation have absolutely nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with brains, eyes, quick decisions, and perhaps a cell phone.

Some people like to augment their testicles with firearms.  While they are certainly welcome to do so, that doesn't mean that guns are as important as some people think they are.

 

TheUnknown. wrote: "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" -Adolph Hitler, 1935.

Another random slogan...

Some people spend too much time on the NRA website, and not enough time thinking originally.

Now all we need is somebody to say "Guns don't kill people.  People kill people."

 

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
-Adolph Hitler, 1935.

Clark Kent wrote: Lightningbolt wrote: Criminals don't follow laws. Gah!  Enough with the slogans!!  This is a horrible "argument", and always has been! By this theory, we shouldn't bother with laws against murder, since murderers won't obey them anyway. ^If you are willing to commit a murder, do you think you are willing or trying to follow the law which makes murders illegal?  If you are going to commit a crime, obviously you aren't going to obey the law against it therefor you are commiting a crime, and a criminal.  Criminals don't abide by the laws in which they are breaking. By this theory, we shouldn't bother with any laws at all, because some people won't obey them.  Dumb dumb dumb dumb. ^No.  Laws should be kept as they are, but not everyone will obey them.  Just like everything else, "everyone is not on board" with it I suppose. Besides, beyond being dumb, this "argument" is obviously false, and completely irrelevant to boot, since many gun control laws work indirectly anyway.