Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan
The only way that any child could get a hold of my firearms is to either take the key from my keychain or else break the glass.
|
But not every gun owner is as responsible or thorough as you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan
...
Motion lights? Do they have raccoons or opossums where you live? Bullet proof vests don't do anything to defend the home. Tasers require you to get too close and when you're talking two or three to one odds, I'd like to keep things as much in my favor as possible. FYI: Tasers can and are used to commit crimes, they're simply not as "popular".
|
Or as "lethal". My point is that there are plenty of things you can do to protect yourself and your home besides having a handgun at the ready to kill someone. Isn't that true?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan
Do you truly think that by signing a new amendment into place abolishing firearms, the criminals will simply cease to carry them in the next ten to twenty years? Do you know the laws they have against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse...? Yet these crimes continue, why is that? Possibly because in order to first be a criminal one must first make a conscious choice to break the law. If we have people that are willing to break the law in order to commit all of the above and NONE of the aforementioned crimes require firearms in order to commit them, then it stands to reason that none of these crimes would be prevented by abolishing firearms.
|
So you're saying that laws against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse don't stop those crimes, so laws against gun posession won't stop gun crimes, is that right? By that logic, we should revoke the laws against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse - after all, they're not stopping those crimes. Let's just not even attempt to stop those crimes, the way you want to not even attempt to stop gun posession. I do not support legislating the abolishment of firearms, I support voluntarily giving them up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan
Oh yeah, your argument that others should loose their property for someone elses negligence holds no water. Should you lose your car because someone went out and purpousfully ran over their mother-in-law? They aimed their weapon, pressed the "trigger" and took someone's life. I reserve the right to own a gun and a car, others have guns and cars, both are used to commit crimes and both are involved in lethal accidents.
Let's abolish cars as well.  |
Actually, you lose "property" for other people's negligence all the time. Car insurance rates increase in proportion to the likelihood of your "group" getting into an accident. Same with health insurance. Your buddy's doughnut eating is increasing the cost of your health insurance. Go figure.
When you reserve the right to own a gun, you reserve the right of others to own a gun... others who may use those guns for criminal activities or who allow children to have access to them.
I've heard the "(insert ludicrous object here) kill people, and nobody wants to outlaw them" argument before. I'm sure somebody's been "spooned" to death before, so let's outlaw spoons. Bottom line: Handguns were made for killing people. (Quick, someone jump in and say how they are used for sport or protection from dangerous animals.) They were made for killing people. The world would be a better place without them.