Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Guns
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 31 of 301 (397967)
04-28-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 2:40 PM


Re: So, what does the 2nd amendment mean to you?
in California, we have 8-gauges and handguns above .357s banned. I don't see the point; you can kill someone with a .22.
This right here is the major disconnect.
Yes, you CAN kill someone with a .22. you CAN kill someone with a #2 pencil.
However, it's a LOT harder to kill someone with a .22 than it is to kill someone with a 9mm.
In fact, I saw a cops episode where a fat kid in jeans was running away from a guy who shot at him with a .22 and it didn't break his skin. I kid you not. It left a hell of a welt, but no penatration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 2:40 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Jon, posted 04-28-2007 5:08 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2007 9:16 PM Nuggin has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 301 (397973)
04-28-2007 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
04-28-2007 12:18 PM


Re: Militia
That said there's never been a civilization in the history of mankind where you didn't have to earn the right to bear weapons. So I think barriers to gun ownership are a good idea. I think sweeping bans on weapons aren't necessary, but I support measures like a national ballistics database and other technological means (including mandated retrofitting of weapons) that would mean that every fired bullet could be matched to a gun and a fingerprint.
You know this is a fallacious statement; and you know that someone was bound to point it out to you. Explain to me how what other civilizations have done is even half-way relevant in deciding what is right for the here and now.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 04-28-2007 12:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2007 9:12 PM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 301 (397976)
04-28-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Nighttrain
04-28-2007 3:14 AM


Re: Militia
"the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not"
...
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
If the Canadian army decided to attack the United States, and the citizens of Duluth, Minnesota grabbed up their guns, went out of their houses, and started shooting them down as the Canadians came on through... THAT is a militia.
A militia such as that is important in defending a country. Imagine how many Canadians those Duluthians can kill off before the government has time to react and send trained soldiers. The government at that timed realized that a militia:
1) could be gathered almost immediately. Remember, in the days that law was written, the only way to send messages was on horse, so that invaders would otherwise be able to destroy homes and kill citizens in the time it took the horse to run to wherever the trained soldiers were stationed, wait for the generals there to formulate a plan, send the trained soldiers along with all the supplies needed to sustain them away from the base, etc.
2) greatly increases the number of 'fighters' available to the country. Imagine how powerful the country's defence would be against the Canadians if all the able-bodied people grabbed their guns and started plucking off Canadians one-by-one... a lot more powerful than just the military on its own.
3) allows people the basic and fundamental 'God-given', as it were, right to defend their own land against invading Canadians, Mexicans, Russians, etc. At this time in the country's history, I do not think many people held the military in very high regard, and I would imagine those hesitant about the revolution were probably concerned with whether or not the military could effectively protect all its citizenry, especially those living far from the main government centres.
I hope that has cleared things up.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Nighttrain, posted 04-28-2007 3:14 AM Nighttrain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 1:25 AM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 301 (397977)
04-28-2007 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Nuggin
04-28-2007 3:16 PM


Re: So, what does the 2nd amendment mean to you?
In fact, I saw a cops episode where a fat kid in jeans was running away from a guy who shot at him with a .22 and it didn't break his skin. I kid you not. It left a hell of a welt, but no penatration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 3:16 PM Nuggin has not replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 35 of 301 (397978)
04-28-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Nuggin
04-28-2007 3:09 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
It's very difficult for me to be patient when you're taking parts of the quote that are, on their own, argueable without the rest of the quote in context. Please show more integrity than this from now on, and answer the question, yes or no as I have complied to yours after you dodged mine the first time.
Yeah, we here this so much it's a cliche. "I don't know what happened officer, I was holding the knife and all of the sudden it just went off."
Little Timmy is actually more likely to cut himself than anyone else, but either case does happen. If a child (or anyone) is dumb enough to play with a gun, then in the absence of a gun they'll play with the deadliest thing available, in the stupidest way available.
I remember in highschool when this drunk idiot thought it'd be fun to bring out and show everyone his switchblade while hosting a party(I didn't attend this one, just heard it from a friend who did). slashed some kid down his arm by 'accident'.
Right. But preventing those same lousy parents from stockpiling assualt rifles and glocks will.
Yeah, and I'll bet most of those lousy parents have a background that might hint at bad parenthood(or, at least might give us that impression in regard to safety seeing as their record shows that they suck at life). Now that I think about it, a 3-6 month background check prior to buying a gun's a great idea. If all you're suggesting is this, then we can agree on that much. Still doesn't mean we should be stupid enough to disarm ourselves completely.
And I'm suggesting that she not have bullets.
Guess what. If a housewife goes after her husband with a knife he stands a chance to get away. Believe it or not, you can outrun a knife. You can not outrun a bullet.
In this same example, the housewife is clearly insane; she needs psychological treatment. If these needs are met, this scenario won't even unfold. Neither will the next one which is more likely to happen.
A criminal breaks into the house of a sane housewife while the husband's gone. She's not very strong, while the invader is. She goes after him with a knife because there are no guns; he disarms her with little injury and then beats the crap out of her, then sodomizes her, and kills her before he helps himself to the TV to score whatever drug he's after. In this instance, she would've been damn better off if a 12-gauge was still legal for a citizen to bear. Don't you dare tell me this situation would/has never happen.
One Charred Wing writes:
Okay... but you're acknowledging that it does happen, right? Do you think that, in all time, the death toll from this has been less than 32? Come on, now
here's where you dishonestly and (as far as I can see) deliberately misquoted me so you could strawman your way out of this arguement
you quoted me to writes:
the death toll from this has been less than 32
To which you replied:
nuggin writes:
I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but believe me the deathtoll from accidental shootings in the US is WAY higher than 32 this year. And you are claiming it's been less than 32 over the 200+ year history of the country? come on.
In reality, this is what you said and the context in which my response was dealt:
nuggin writes:
How many gun weilding maniac home invasion cases happen? Is it more or less than accidental shootings. And to use your own glib bs (hint: the vice president SHOT A MAN IN THE FACE!)
Okay... but you're acknowledging that it (somebody wielding a gun while breaking in) does happen, right? Do you think that, in all time, the death toll from this has been less than 32? Come on, now.
I was saying that, in the course of history in America, the number of innocent people who were killed by somebody breaking in with a gun was higher than 32. If we take guns away from private citizens who obey the law, this number will probably rise because there would be NO WAY for us to defend ourselves in this scenario whereas if we weild guns of our own, we've got a fighting chance.
You misquoted me, and babbled about accidental shootings. This has nothing to do with the specific that you 'edited'. Please be honest in this debate from now on. With that in mind, don't you have a yes or no question to answer?
Wait, you are contradicting yourself. You say this type of crime happens now, when people have easy access to guns, but also say that criminals wouldn't do it because we have easy access to guns. Pick a side and stay on it. Either the criminals are afraid of hte guns and therefore this type of crime doesn't happen, or the criminals aren't afraid of the guns and this type of crime does happen.
Either-or fallacy. Some criminals are afraid of it, some aren't. You don't need to be a criminal psychologist to know that not all criminals think alike. The prospect of a shootout scares some away from homes that they think/know have guns in them. Others will break in no matter what, sometimes with a gun. That said, we will want a gun of our own in the instance that this does happen. Please don't misquote this response.
Again, pure insanity. You are suggesting that if someone were simply in error but NOT holding a gun, there is a equal chance of an innocent victim being shot in the head. False. If there is no gun, there is no accidental shooting.
No, but there's certainly a chance that people can get hurt other ways anyway. And 'error' is a light statement in terms of mishandling firearms; how about we do a better job of keeping people in line with gun safety? For that matter, lots of people get killed by drunk drivers; friend of a friend got killed about a month and a half ago by said scenario. Would banning alchohol and automobiles be a positive measure to protect the innocent?
because you feel the need to defend yourself against IMAGINED threats. You are suggesting that the only thing keeping criminals from instituting a nationwide killing spree is the off chance that someone might have an assault rifle under their trenchcoat.
No, I'm not. Hyperbolic strawman syndrome. I'm saying that the fair chance that a household has a gun for home defense will keep a good number of potential robbers away from said household, and allow the home owners to defend themselves adequately from invaders who may or may not have a firearm of their own.

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 3:09 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 7:25 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied
 Message 41 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 7:31 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied
 Message 45 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 7:56 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied
 Message 47 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 8:05 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 36 of 301 (397979)
04-28-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Nuggin
04-28-2007 2:52 PM


Re: Fingerprinting
I don't believe that everyone who has a gun is hellbent on mass murder. I do believe that everyone hellbent on mass murder, however, is very likely to go out and get a gun.
Although a bit trite, nothing to argue with. Thanks for the clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 2:52 PM Nuggin has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 301 (397983)
04-28-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Quetzal
04-28-2007 1:00 PM


Re: Fingerprinting
quote:
Although somewhat off-topic for this particular thread, I personally believe that fingerprinting for other than criminals (or certain types of high-security employment) is overly intrusive.
I was "footprinted" in the hospital as an infant for identification purposes.
Was that overly intrusive?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 04-28-2007 1:00 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Jon, posted 04-28-2007 8:17 PM nator has replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 38 of 301 (397984)
04-28-2007 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Nuggin
04-28-2007 2:52 PM


Re: Fingerprinting
I second what Quetzal said--that kind of clarity makes debating a pleasure rather than a chore. Although I don't believe this way either .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 2:52 PM Nuggin has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 301 (397985)
04-28-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 2:31 PM


Re: You, on the other hand, are right.
quote:
Okay, so you're suggesting better background checks before owning a gun?
Those, and all the other things I mentioned as well.
quote:
I'm fine with that; innocent people have nothing to hide. You want background checks? Great. But don't you dare say that the guns themselves need to be taken away from private citizens.
Some guns should be taken away from private citizens because there is no good reason for a private citizen to have them.
Alternatively, if private citizens think they need, say, certain military-style weapons, then the hoops they should have to jump through and the insurance they should be required to purchase aught to be extensive and significant.
It should be difficult to get them. Very difficult.
quote:
all the bans in the world won't prevent people from losing it one way or another.
Sure.
But if he had only had access to a knife, or a pipe wrench, or a pool cue, how many people do you think he would have been able to kill?
Killing people with anything other than a gun is really quite difficult. It takes a lot of time to stab or strangle or beat someone to death compared to shooting them. It is also much more intimate and involves much more risk to the attacker. Vicims can also run away from a person holding a knife or a wrench or a pool cue.
Guns allow one to kill many people effortlessly, from a distance.
There's a reason this kind of thing is extremely rare in Japan and Europe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 2:31 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 7:37 PM nator has replied
 Message 66 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 1:13 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 301 (397987)
04-28-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 5:59 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
quote:
I remember in highschool when this drunk idiot thought it'd be fun to bring out and show everyone his switchblade while hosting a party(I didn't attend this one, just heard it from a friend who did). slashed some kid down his arm by 'accident'.
The kid survived the slashing, right? Probably needed some serious stitiching-up but was otherwise fine, wasn't he?
What if he had been shot in the arm at close range instead?
Do you think his injuries might have been more extensive? Like shattered bones, perhaps, requiring surgery or even amputation.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that guns are far more dangerous than knives?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 5:59 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 41 of 301 (397988)
04-28-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 5:59 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
quote:
A criminal breaks into the house of a sane housewife while the husband's gone. She's not very strong, while the invader is. She goes after him with a knife because there are no guns; he disarms her with little injury and then beats the crap out of her, then sodomizes her, and kills her before he helps himself to the TV to score whatever drug he's after. In this instance, she would've been damn better off if a 12-gauge was still legal for a citizen to bear. Don't you dare tell me this situation would/has never happen.
In 1998, for every one time a woman used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 302 women were murdered in handgun homicides.
source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 5:59 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 7:48 PM nator has replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 42 of 301 (397989)
04-28-2007 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by nator
04-28-2007 7:16 PM


Re: You, on the other hand, are right.
Some guns should be taken away from private citizens because there is no good reason for a private citizen to have them.
Alternatively, if private citizens think they need, say, certain military-style weapons, then the hoops they should have to jump through and the insurance they should be required to purchase aught to be extensive and significant.
It should be difficult to get them. Very difficult.
To a lesser extent, perhaps, I agree. To what degree do we 'dumb down' the caliber of firearms that people can use? I'm not too opposed to doing so, as long as you don't say that we take away shotguns and handguns.
But if he had only had access to a knife, or a pipe wrench, or a pool cue, how many people do you think he would have been able to kill?
Granted, in this instance, not as many. But the damage count could've still been high if he did it at night, where only a few people were around, and in different places as he did.
Killing people with anything other than a gun is really quite difficult. It takes a lot of time to stab or strangle or beat someone to death compared to shooting them. It is also much more intimate and involves much more risk to the attacker. Vicims can also run away from a person holding a knife or a wrench or a pool cue.
So I guess that sucks for the now defenseless housewife when a homocidal maniac breaks into her house and is about to break the lock to her bedroom? Unless you'll say that a two-hour seminar on self defense can stop a much stronger, faster, more agressive, and more experienced fighter from kicking the crap out of her? This is my field here; the response to such a proposition is no. And even if she's tough, nothing stopping a criminal from bringing a gun and just shooting her.
Yeah, guns make killing easier. But you take them from private citizens, and I assure you the number of instances like I described above will far outnumber 32 in no time (not even counting, of course, incidents like this that happen regardless.)

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 7:16 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 8:04 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied
 Message 98 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 10:09 AM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 43 of 301 (397992)
04-28-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
04-28-2007 7:31 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
Real quick, about the slash incident, who knows. If he shot him on the arm about where he cut him, the damage would've been about the same.
Anyway,
In 1998, for every one time a woman used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 302 women were murdered in handgun homicides.
Okay, that's a legitimate point. However, that statistic was convientely vague.
1.Let's say these were 'the guy just snapped' incidents. Do you think they'd have much trouble killing a smaller, slower opponent with a knife? Their bare hands? A shot from a gun's louder than the voice of God; either way somebody's gonna hear it next door.
2.No doubt there were a few incidents where this was a break-in situation. Okay, then that just shows the average american should train with handguns and/or other weapons more often, to the point where even the average housewife can effectively defend herself against a gun, with a gun. Again, criminals will always have guns.
Women, and men as well, have been murdered in big numbers forever. Guess what? I bet the vast majority of those women couldn't have successfully dispatched someone in self defense without that gun. That said, the gun was the only saving grace. Without guns, the stat might read more like 0 to 302.

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 7:31 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 7:53 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied
 Message 48 by Nuggin, posted 04-28-2007 8:08 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 44 of 301 (397995)
04-28-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 7:48 PM


so sad
” Nearly one-third of all women murdered in the United States in recent years were murdered by a current or former intimate partner. In 2000, 1,247 women, more than three a day, were killed
by their intimate partners.ii
” Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds of were killed by their intimate partners.iii
” Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more
than in instances where there are no weapons, according to a recent study. In addition, abusers
who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.iv
” In 2002, 54 percent of female homicide victims were shot and killed with a gun.
” Handguns are more likely than rifles or shotguns to be used in homicides in which men kill
women. In 2002, handguns were used in 73 percent of cases where men used firearms to kill
women.v
” In homicides where males use firearms to kill women, handguns are the most commonly used
weapon, over rifles and shotguns. Seventy-three percent of all female were killed with a
handgunvi
” In 1998, for every one woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in selfdefense,
83 women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun.vii
” A study of women physically abused by current or former intimate partners found a five-fold
increased risk of the partner murdering the woman when the partner owned a gun.viii
” Domestic violence misdemeanor convictions and restraining orders were the second most
common reason for denials of handgun purchase applications between 1994 and 1998.ix
” From 1998 to 2001, more than 2,800 people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions
were able to purchase guns without being identified by the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System.x
The Facts on Guns and Domestic Violence
http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/Guns.pdf
Edited by nator, : added link to source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 7:48 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 10:30 PM nator has replied
 Message 67 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 1:16 AM nator has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 45 of 301 (397996)
04-28-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 5:59 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
yes or no
OR
I've already answered that.
I remember in highschool when this drunk idiot...slashed some kid down his arm by 'accident'.
And the kid died right? Or did he just have to get stitches? Do you think the kid would have just needed stitches of this same drunk idiot accidently put a 9mm round between the guys eyes?
a 3-6 month background check prior to buying a gun's a great idea
The would be a good start. But a 3 month wait period so that Joe Schmo can have a fully automatic M-16 isn't gonna cut it.
Additionally, that same Schmo buying a 9mm in 1980 and still having it today means that 27 years of crazy could have happened since the 3 month wait period.
Or him have a 9mm and then 10 years later having a crazy kid, means that there's nothing stopping that kid from getting his hands on the gun and bringing it to school today.
A criminal breaks into the house of a sane housewife...
You scenario still holds to this theory you have that the only thing keeping criminals from running amok us the potential threat of handguns.
Ask yourself this: Was gun violence more common or less common in the wild west? Just about everyone had easy access to guns. If your theory is correct, the percentage of the population exposed to gun violence in Tombstone, AZ should be MUCH lower than in modern Phx.
I was saying that, in the course of history in America, the number of innocent people who were killed by somebody breaking in with a gun was higher than 32.
Yes, that's what you were saying. And what you were implying is that the number of people killed by accidental shootings was less than 32, as you were answering my question about home invasions as a comparison to accidental shootings in the home.
Don't accuse me for misleading people just because you made an unsupportable claim.
this number will probably rise because there would be NO WAY for us to defend ourselves in this scenario whereas if we weild guns of our own, we've got a fighting chance.
Do you have ANY figures showing the number of houses not broken into because the owners owned guns? Do you have ANY figures on the number of criminals actually fought off by gun owners as opposed to gun owners killed by their own hand guns? Do you have any figures at all?
You are trying to push this wild theory that somehow it is safer to have a hand gun in the home because of the "crime menace" lurking out there waiting to break in and rape your women. But there's NO evidence that supports the theory. It's just regurgitated NRA crap.
Yes, it happening the movies. Guess what, movies aren't real life.
The prospect of a shootout scares some away from homes that they think/know have guns in them
Any evidence of this? Any figures? Is it MORE or LESS criminals than are scared away by "ADT" stickers or big dogs? You THINK that this is true, but you don't have any evidence to prove that it's true.
lots of people get killed by drunk drivers
I'm surprised it took you this long to fall back on this old standby.
Yup, people are killed by drunk drivers. But cars are not manufactures specifically to kill people. There is no reason to own a hand gun other than to shoot a human with it.
I'm saying that the fair chance that a household has a gun for home defense will keep a good number of potential robbers away from said household, and allow the home owners to defend themselves adequately from invaders who may or may not have a firearm of their own.
And how exactly does the criminal know which house has an uzi vs which house has a shotgun vs which house has a karate expert vs which house has a big dogs in it. They don't.
You scenario relies on psychic criminals hellbent on mayhem held in check by the specter of gun ownership. It's pure fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 5:59 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 11:11 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 68 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 1:19 AM Nuggin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024