Gun Control Harms Children

[chechi]

"Guns are so great, they're so efficient at killing people. They are great tool to have around the house. They're the perfect weapon for our lazy society. Let's face it, do we really want to work to defend ourselves? I thought not. Hell, everyone should have a gun, they should be like the swiss army knife of the new millenium. And why stop with the parents having guns to protect their children, just give the kids guns too, no burgular will mess with them then " Its comments like that the represent ignorance. And arent taken seriously in a serious topic.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<< Yea and how much worse off is she now? Assuming she losses her gun how would that put her in a worst position then not having the gun at all? >>



Now that thug who only had a knife and was only planning on taking granny's money now has a gun and good reason to use it on her (since she was about to shoot him).

 

[Kev]

Any means of self-defense is absolutely forbidden by British law, so the thugs just march in.

What?? If someone attacks you or invades your home you are required by law to let them do whatever the hell they want to you? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I would expect this kind of law from France, but Britain? Are you serious? I don't get the rationale behind this backwards law.

 

[TAsunder]

Looking at one or two countries' increase in burglary rates is fairly meaningless. Instead you must:

1) Look at numerous countries that implement gun banning and compare the increase in burglary to the increase in other countries in similar socioeconomic situations that didn't implement it. The latter would be known as the control group for those of you who did not take junior high science.

2) Look at other crimes, again comparing them in the same manner as #1 above.

Gun control by definition is just regulation of or the attempt to control the sale of guns. Those of you who are against banning handguns should use more accurate terminology. Unless, of course, you are for the complete deregulation of gun sales, thereby making it possible for even the most hardened criminal to purchase guns. I for one am not for that, though I do not know the answer to handgun bans and the like. My only knowledge in this matter is that in an ideal world no one would need to own a handgun or any other means of self-defense.

Also, I enjoyed that link to the texas state rifle association. The page actually looked like the stereotypical hank hill texan web site (grainy picture and all).

 

[chechi]

Well what about the people who own guns for hunting, or sport shooting. You think it is right to stop those activities?

 

[JupiterJones]

Now that thug who only had a knife and was only planning on taking granny's money now has a gun and good reason to use it on her (since she was about to shoot him).

Which is why granny needs to shoot immediately, instead of "holding" the perp for police. Two to the chest, and one to the head (The Mozambique maneuver).

It is ALWAYS better to resist agression.

Your reasoning is a bunch of hooey. 1,960,000 times a year the presentation of a gun ends the encounter without a shot being fired (in the US). The perp doesn't even try to take the gun, he simply flees.

 

[Theslowone]

Remember gun control is only going to work with people who want it to work. Locks only keep honest people out, gun laws will only keep honest people from using guns.

And yes you can kill 5 or 6 people if you had a gun, but bombs(homemade or otherwise) are illegal but that hasn't stopped the use of them. There will always be a means of killing people in a one manor or another. We have cleaning solutions that when combine can be fatal, if done correctly this could hurt/kill a lot of people. Most use of guns in crimes are from people who are not, by law, able to carry a gun or teenagers.

 

[SpongeBob]

Well what about the people who own guns for hunting, or sport shooting. You think it is right to stop those activities?

My beef is strictly with handguns and automatic weapons. These are manufactured for one purpose, killing People. Hell, I own a rifle!

 

[TAsunder]

Always better to resist aggression. Wow, so if I have $5 and my driver's license in my wallet, it's better if I try to disarm the guy with the ak-47 than to give him my wallet? Should I start with something like, "you're not man enough to shoot me in the testicles 5 times and then, after I've suffered for 2 minutes, in the head" ...?

I wouldn't have commented on that comment, but for some reason you felt so strongly that the word always was the correct word there that you put it in caps, where obviously it is not correct. There are an infinite number of scenarios where resisting aggression is not the best course of action.

 

[deerslayer]

Guns aren't only used for self defense. A lot of people enjoy hunting and target shooting/clay shooting etc. Making guns illegal to own would be about as effective as pot being illegal. If someone wants a gun, they will get one, just like if people wanna smoke pot they're going to find it. Even if guns were made illegal, i think a lot of people would refuse to give them up. It would just cause holy he11. You could kill 5 to 6 people with a car without thinking about it, just run them over. I guess if you're going to make guns illegal, a lot of other things are going to have to be made illegal right along with it and our freedom is going to go right out the door.

Just my 2 cents on the topic, not trying to start a war or anything, just trying to point a few things out.

 

[chechi]

Handguns are used for hunting and sport shooting as well ya know. They are not manufactured for one purpose, killing people. That is wrong and you know it. And most people probably use handguns for home protection more than rifles. Your right on the automatic rifles though.

 

[JupiterJones]

Always better to resist aggression. Wow, so if I have $5 and my driver's license in my wallet, it's better if I try to disarm the guy with the ak-47 than to give him my wallet? Should I start with something like, "you're not man enough to shoot me in the testicles 5 times and then, after I've suffered for 2 minutes, in the head" ...? I wouldn't have commented on that comment, but for some reason you felt so strongly that the word always was the correct word there that you put it in caps, where obviously it is not correct. There are an infinite number of scenarios where resisting aggression is not the best course of action.

Point made, let me rephrase. It is ALWAYS better to be prepared to ALWAYS resist agression.

An armed man with the proper mindset is immune to the effects of random violence. For farther information on this, I suggest the writings of Col. Jeff Cooper.

 

[Elledan]

Anyone remembers the child which was shot by a stray bullet fired by some wacko practising with a hunting rifle within city boundaries?

That guy should never have received the rifle in the first place.

Gun control:

- Only those who need a firearm can get a license (self-defense is NOT a good reason).
- Before receiving a license, the crime record of the individual is checked and a test is carried out to test the mental state of that person.
- A crime committed by someone who owns a license, regardless of a firearm was involved in the crime, can be enough to withdraw the license.

etc.

Gun control is merely a case of common sense.

 

[JupiterJones]

Gun control is merely a case of common sense

Only if you are a subject of the state rather than a citizen.

 

[Elledan]

<< Gun control is merely a case of common sense

Only if you are a subject of the state rather than a citizen. >>

What's your point?

 

[glenn1]

<< Gun control is merely a case of common sense. >>



Excuse me for not sharing your vision of "common sense." Fancy that, what with you being from the Netherlands and your country's outstanding "common sense" approach to legalized (and some would argue, implicitly government supported) hard drug usage, euthanasia, and kiddie porn. Methinks that you and your countrymen should be the last to lecture the rest of the world about 'common sense' and morals.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< . Methinks that you and your countrymen should be the last to lecture the rest of the world about 'common sense' and morals. >>

Yep right behind us!

Gun Control isn't going to happen. The proliferation of guns in the US is to great for it to work. The Founding Fathers fscked up ( I think they had their wigs on to tight) and now it's to late to fix it. I wouldn't want to not be able to own a gun for protection against those who own guns.

 

[JupiterJones]

<< Gun control is merely a case of common sense

Only if you are a subject of the state rather than a citizen. >>

What's your point?

A subject is a vassal.

A citizen is entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman

Throughout history, the difference between a vassal and a freeman is the right to be armed. This goes back, literally, thousands of years.

The first battle of the first War of Independence was over a British attempt to confiscate arms from the people.

Ultimately the God-given right to keep and bear arms is to resist tyranny. Fighting crime is a nice fringe benefit.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<< Now that thug who only had a knife and was only planning on taking granny's money now has a gun and good reason to use it on her (since she was about to shoot him).

Which is why granny needs to shoot immediately, instead of "holding" the perp for police. Two to the chest, and one to the head (The Mozambique maneuver).

It is ALWAYS better to resist agression.

Your reasoning is a bunch of hooey. 1,960,000 times a year the presentation of a gun ends the encounter without a shot being fired (in the US). The perp doesn't even try to take the gun, he simply flees. >>



What reasoning? I told you that I am anti gun control. I am however pro using your weapon responsibly and safely. Fact is that granny is highly unlikely to shoot immediately, and there are situations where she won't even have a chance.

After a few self defense classes, I know that someone can easily get close to you before you realize that they have bad intentions or have time to react.
If you try to pull out a weapon when they are close, chances are pretty good that they will be able to wrangle it from you before you can aim and shoot.

The best self defense device outside of the home (for someone who is not skilled at fighting or well trained in the use of a firearm, or who has not taken many self defense classes) is a loud personal alarm.
You can clip them almost anywhere, and if you pull the cord the alarm sounds at a deafening level, it is also too loud to determine the source so they won't be able to grab it and throw it away or smash it (most of these are very difficult to break anyway). It will surely attract attention, and I'm willing to bet it's a great way to ruin the mood for a potential rapist.

I think that a gun in the home is a reasonable defense mechanism because you will often hear the person breaking in and have time to be fully prepared for them, waiting with your gun leveled and fully prepared to pull the trigger if they get close to you.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< Ultimately the God-given right to keep and bear arms is to resist tyranny. >>

The best reason to own a weapon. .. though you can keep the bullsh!t about some God out of it.

 

[JupiterJones]

After a few self defense classes, I know that someone can easily get close to you before you realize that they have bad intentions or have time to react. If you try to pull out a weapon when they are close, chances are pretty good that they will be able to wrangle it from you before you can aim and shoot.

I assume that by self-defense you mean some sort of martial arts. Probably taken under an instructor with a wall full of trophies.

If you want to learn to defend yourself spend a couple of weeks at Gunsite. If you really want to learn to fight try American Combatives.

There is a certain value in Martial Arts (I studied Yoshukai). But that value does not translate into self-defense against random violence.

Nobody can easily get close to you if you maintain the right mindset. Nobody can take your weapon from you if you have the right mindset. This mindset is the most valuable thing you acquire when learning true self-defense.


The best self defense device outside of the home (for someone who is not skilled at fighting or well trained in the use of a firearm, or who has not taken many self defense classes) is a loud personal alarm.

This wouldn?t do you much good on a lonely road in south Alabama. (We do have some crime) Even in a city, where everyone ignores alarms of all sorts, putting your life in a device that still depends on the intervention of others is risky. There is no self-defense item as reliable or as effective as the firearm.


Fact is that granny is highly unlikely to shoot immediately, and there are situations where she won't even have a chance

You don't know my Grandma! Fact is, 1,960,000 times a year the mere presentation of a gun sends the villain fleeing. The odds are in your favor even if the gun is unloaded.

BTW, a few years ago the President of the NRA was a Grandmother -- Marion Hammer.

 

[JupiterJones]

The best reason to own a weapon. .. though you can keep the bullsh!t about some God out of it.

That bullsh!t is in the Declaration of Independence! That makes it hard to keep it out of the discussion. If there is no God then there is no power higher than the state and the whole idea of rights that transcend the state fall apart.

 

[BDawg]

<< That bullsh!t is in the Declaration of Independence! That makes it hard to keep it out of the discussion. If there is no God then there is no power higher than the state and the whole idea of rights that transcend the state fall apart. >>



Hmmm....maybe I'm confused, but which country uses the Declaration?

 

[Red Dawn]

<< If there is no God then there is no power higher than the state and the whole idea of rights that transcend the state fall apart. >>

If you say so. Of course I'm sure John Ashcroft would agree with you while he's busy shelling out $80,000.00 of Taxpayers money to cover up the Breasts of the statue of justice.

 

[JupiterJones]

Hmmm....maybe I'm confused, but which country uses the Declaration?

In The Declaration of Independence (of the united States) there are certain principles presented as reasons we dissolved our ties to Great Britain. These principles are universal. The Rights of Man are bestowed upon us by our Creator and transcend the state. The people must, therefore, hold the state accountable and jealously guard our liberties.

In my discussion with Elledan, I would say that the government of the Netherlands is exceeding the limits of their sovereignty by outlawing the possession of arms. It is up to the people to reclaim that right if they are to be free. If they choose not to do so, then they are not citizens, but rather vassals of the state. Elledans atheistic beliefs would say that morals/rights are due to a consensus of the masses and therefore change over time. He doesn't currently need a gun, so why shouldn't the state ban them.

A Christian Worldview makes it clear that nations are answerable to God, the Supreme Judge of the World, and our God-given rights are inalienable.