Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   gun control
mark24
Member (Idle past 5301 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 34 of 72 (33581)
03-03-2003 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by funkmasterfreaky
03-03-2003 6:05 PM


Re: just another article about effect of gun control
Funk,
quote:
I really don't have much to add to it myself, I've read so much information on this subject I'm begining not to care.
However I have not found much of anything that shows gun control as an answer to the problem of violent crime.
I tend to agree, but I'd rather have people be violent without weapons, than with.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 03-03-2003 6:05 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by derwood, posted 03-04-2003 1:46 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5301 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 35 of 72 (33583)
03-03-2003 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jdean33442
03-03-2003 4:15 PM


Re: I am not the one I am owrrying about...
quote:
So you believe gun control laws should be imposed because a very small minority use guns illegally?
Sorry, too Orwellian for me.
I don't think the murders attributed to guns in the US can be described as "a very small minority". It is horrendously all too common.
I agree that most gun owners are responsible, but the problem is that the population at large being able to gain legal access to guns means it is all to easy to get them illegally. If they exist, they can be obtained.
If the right to bear arms was squashed 100 years ago, there would be a LOT more people alive in the US than there is today. Sometimes small freedoms must be given up so that lives can be saved.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jdean33442, posted 03-03-2003 4:15 PM jdean33442 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 03-04-2003 12:44 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 03-04-2003 12:03 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 52 by Peter, posted 03-05-2003 8:35 AM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5301 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 39 of 72 (33628)
03-04-2003 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Silent H
03-04-2003 12:03 PM


Holmes,
quote:
While I am not a gun fanatic, I cannot agree with this statement and the horrific precedent such an idea sets. To me there is no such thing as a "small freedom."
I'm sorry, Holmes, but there are clearly "freedoms" that have a greater or lesser effect on yours, or anyone elses lives if removed. Removing your freedom to own a gun is as nothing compared to removing your freedom travel outside the town of your birth, for example.
Of course, you could campaign to allow rocket launchers to be owned by the public, or would that be a "small freedom" that is best left withdrawn?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 03-04-2003 12:03 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 03-04-2003 9:16 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5301 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 47 of 72 (33659)
03-04-2003 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by funkmasterfreaky
03-04-2003 2:46 PM


Re: just another article about effect of gun control
Funk,
quote:
I thought the idea of allowing citizens to own guns was so that they could protect themselves. Not so much from the criminals, but in case a gov't trys to steal their freedom.
It amazes me how many freedoms people will give up for an illusion of safety.
Likewise. You accept the argument that a 6 shooter is going to fend of the best equipped army in the world? You're kidding yourself. If not, I'll pay to be in one of the M1 Abrams as your community gets rolled over, or in an f-22 as it drops a gps 2,000lb HE warhead guided weapon on your 6-shooter.
Get real! This is a spurious argument. Some people will have to get a different hobby. A small price to pay for getting less dead peeps.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 03-04-2003 2:46 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Silent H, posted 03-04-2003 9:43 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024