yayer

[quote name='Lynn E. Hanover' date='Jul 30 2005, 06:30 AM']Senater Kennedy's limo has killed more people than my entire gun collection.


[/quote]





I learned just yesterday from a research study that in a house with a car, a pool, and a gun (of any kind) a child is 100x more likely to die in the pool than by the bullet, and even more likely to die in the car.



Yet people are still so caught up on gun-control that they leave their kids unattended at poolside, or fail to remind them to buckle-up and then drive safely themselves. So maybe guns are still to blame somehow













Yak

Turbomark7

Kennedy's real estate has been the scene of rape (sex crime) and debauchery; he has that over on my gun "collection/accumulation" . The Kennedys' mindset lends to being good elitist Canadian, european, communist, or muslim citizens (being above the law of the peasantry).

inanimate_object

OK put it this way - a country full of guns (US) and a country full of baseball bats (Ireland) - which is going to be a safer place to live? And the 2nd amendment seems way out of date to me, If someone wanted to invade a country a load of guns aren't going to make a difference, same applies for government overthrowings, and what are the chances of either happening? And that's an excuse to allow people to treat guns like toys.



Mark

Turbomark7

What did you just say? How old are you?

yayer

My argument is maybe guns and baseball bats are not the issue. The statistics show that prison sentences, and punisments have a MUCH greater affect on violent crime than any form of gun-control. In fact, gun-control often times has proven itself to be a negative influence. As stated before, in a place where criminals know that their victims are likely to be unarmed (and less likely to deter their offender), the crime is easier on the criminal and more likely to occur. In a place where REGISTERED guns are more common, crime is quite... low. Like I said, I don't think the instruments of crime are the issue, we need to address the criminals themselves if we want our legislature to be effective. To take guns off the street is impractical (the guns are already out there, they're not temporary. the ak that was out there 10-20 years ago is still out there today and just as deadly today), to restrict ammo is more practical (one thing that is expended, is the ammo), to reduce the likelihood of would-be criminals becoming so is the smartest method of deterrence if you ask me.



Severe punishments for anyone caught with an unregistered weapon, sound good. However, to punish the man(or woman) who is anything but a criminal for serving his interest of defending himself and his family, I think is shameful and stupid.

yayer

[quote name='Turbomark7' date='Jul 30 2005, 08:20 AM']The Kennedys' mindset lends to being ... european, communist, or muslim citizens (being above the law of the peasantry).


[/quote]





Ok what's wrong with being european, communist, or muslim? I don't think that's our issue with the Kennedys or any other liberal extremist.

Turbomark7

Ummm, Kennedy Camelot embodies european-style social elitism. The U.S. Constitution is constructed to prevent social elitism (a form of tyranny) that brutalized the Irish and yet is so endearing to the Kennedy political bosses.

inanimate_object

Like I said, I haven't a problem with people having guns and I can appreciate the gun abuse problem you have over there, just when someone comes up with an excuse or a statistic that they think that somehow makes guns look safe is just plain ignorant. I think the frame of mind some people have concerning guns needs changing, possibly because guns seem to be a part of everyday life and people are complacent towards them. I don't see any reason why ordinary people should be allowed carry a gun in public, etc., maybe if laws like this were changed it would go towards addressing this issue, a few people might get upset but how could it do any more harm than good?



Mark

SilverSeven

[quote name='inanimate_object' date='Jul 30 2005, 10:21 AM']somehow makes guns look safe is just plain ignorant.


[/quote]

Hey, here's a concept. Guns are safe. Try this, get a gun, set it on a table and wait to see how long it takes for the gun to get up, walk outside and start shooting innocent bystanders. This could take a while. I'll be here, let me know when something happens.



[quote name='inanimate_object' date='Jul 30 2005, 10:21 AM']maybe if laws like this were changed it would go towards addressing this issue,


[/quote]

Maybe people like you will start to realize that more gun legislation isn't going to solve the problem. At that point we can begin to address the real issue. Criminals.



[quote name='inanimate_object' date='Jul 30 2005, 10:21 AM']how could it do any more harm than good?


[/quote]

It seems to me that refusing privileges or rights (depending on your viewpoint) to everyone because of the actions of a very small minority of the population is harmful. Banning an inanimate object (the gun, not you ) because of what a very low percentage of those people might choose to do with it kind of goes against the whole freedom thing we like so much. Smells more like living in fear, if you ask me.



Plus you havn't explained how exactly you think that laws are going to restrict law-breakers. If you plan to break a law using a gun, then there's no reason that you won't break a law or twelve to get a gun. Even if they managed to organize a huge "gun drop-off" like some countries, guns will still be available through illegal means. Hell, I have a book (for academic purposes only, of course) that gives step by step instructions on how to construct a 9mm sub-machine gun. With a good Dremel and an ample supply of Guinness I could manufacture probably five a week. If I can do it, any hardcore nutter can (and those are the ones we need to worry about to begin with).

yayer

[quote name='inanimate_object' date='Jul 30 2005, 10:21 AM']Like I said, I haven't a problem with people having guns and I can appreciate the gun abuse problem you have over there, just when someone comes up with an excuse or a statistic that they think that somehow makes guns look safe is just plain ignorant. I think the frame of mind some people have concerning guns needs changing, possibly because guns seem to be a part of everyday life and people are complacent towards them. I don't see any reason why ordinary people should be allowed carry a gun in public, etc., maybe if laws like this were changed it would go towards addressing this issue, a few people might get upset but how could it do any more harm than good?



Mark


[/quote]





First, to call my credit to statistics and economics ignorant.. is ignorant. You can argue morality and ethics, but you can't argue numbers. That's why we look for them, they reflect reality.



Second, there is nothing wrong with an 'ordinary' person carrying a gun in public. Until you can prove how that is bad thing, stop trying to deprive us. If you're scared, maybe ask yourself if you'd be less scared if you were the one with the pistol.



Third, the harm done is the senseless interference with a man's freedom, in this country.. anything like that is absolutely outright WRONG. Alcohol kills more people than guns do, we tried a ban on it.. didn't work. What makes you think a ban on guns period is the right thing to do? It's not harmless, it's a very bad thing to stop good people from serving their own interest of self-preservation. Until you can prove otherwise, let us be. Just because you don't understand why we want them, doesn't justify your denial of our right to own and operate firearms.