If you outlaw guns, then only....

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

This thread is balanced. That makes me warm and fuzzy inside. Carry on.

Don't get all noodley on us.

What does the gun freedom contingent propose as a solution? The facts that they lay out seem to be, and please correct me if I'm wrong:

- Guns are no more responsible for the high rate of firearm deaths in our country than spoons are for the low rate of spoon deaths - if it weren't for humans, there would be no deaths from either weapon.

- Everybody who passes "the screening" should be able to carry a handgun, and should carry said weapon.

- Americans have a constitutional right to possess firearms, and the constitution should not be changed, including all that stuff about no slaves and allowing women to vote.

- Eliminating hand guns would not reduce the level of damage being done, any more than making rocket propelled grenades legal and easy to get would increase the level of damage.

- Fear and stupidity are leading causes of problems associates with firearms.

- Making guns illegal would ensure that only criminals had guns, making the rest of the population helpless victims, just as those of us without guns are helpless victims now.

- Making guns illegal will create a whole new “gun smuggling” industry.

- As much damage can be done using a knife as using a gun.

- A rifle or shotgun will not be as useful defending yourself/your possessions as a handgun will be.

- There are many armed bad people near all of us, just waiting for us to be unarmed, so that we can be killed or our possessions taken from us. Shooting those people is obviously the only way this situation can be resolved.

- Since it’s illegal for students and teachers to possess gun on school grounds, they won’t.

- A legally armed person is less likely to soot someone than an unarmed person.

- Having the right to possess a handgun is more important than saving the lives of innocent young girls. Especially Amish ones.

Wrapping up: the availability of handguns in our society is not the problem, since other countries have even greater rate of handgun possession, but not nearly the rate of handgun crime that we have. So, all you second ammendmenters, how do we lower the rate of handgun-associated crime in the US?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Wrapping up: the availability of handguns in our society is not the problem, since other countries have even greater rate of handgun possession, but not nearly the rate of handgun crime that we have. So, all you second ammendmenters, how do we lower the rate of handgun-associated crime in the US?

Enforce other laws. Drug laws, crimes committed with firearms laws, etc. Send felons found in possession of illegal firearms back to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200, etc.

Stop rewarding broken families.

Interrupting the inner-city culture where drug dealers are seen as being cool, successful, and hip is the hard part. Selling someone on working for minimum wage at Mickey D's over the hundreds that fall out of your pocket by working your way up in the drug trade is not an easy thing.

[Pangloss62]

and the constitution should not be changed, including all that stuff about no slaves and allowing women to vote.

This country has a long tradition of using violence to solve problems, as well as a very deep anti-intellectualism. The ideals of the Enlightenment were not pronounced in the Colonies, and by the time of Westward expansion, guns & violence (with a heavy dose of Christian righteousness) were par for the course. When the British occupied Boston and used guns to do so, the locals resorted to guns themselves; this is not surprising. Debate over the 2nd Ammendment often centers on what was meant at the time by the "right to bear arms" as opposed to what people today want it to mean. As you pointed out, it's important to consider the historical context of the Constitution and its Ammendments. Slavery and sufferage, as well as "the right to bear arms," were all part of a historical and philosophical evolution, one that still is going on today.

Maggie overeacts by posting that presumptuous and condescending article about an alleged "phobia" of those who, like me, just don't care for guns and have found that many gun-owners are themselves fanatical, paranoid, and equally phobic in their own way. Besides, I'm not taking away Maggie's gun or her alledged "right" to own it. If I did, she'd probably shoot me anyway.

I gotta go to my black helicopter now.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Don't get all noodley on us.

On this topic at least, you can refer to wolf's opinions to get mine. Slang too, iirc. Guns=good. Lock away those who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us alone.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

... Lock away those who misuse guns,...

By then, it's a little too late, isn't it.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

...lock away those who misuse guns...

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

By then, it's a little too late, isn't it.

It's not a deterrent, it's a punishment, and a way to ensure that the person won't ever get the chance to misuse a gun again.
I've come to believe that the threat of consequences does very little to deter people from serious crimes. Shoplifting, yes. Murder/rape, no.

[wolf]

What you fail to understand about Maggie, is that she would never shoot you, unless she was in threat of losing her life.

This is what separates Maggie (and myself) from the homies that are engaged in population control in North and West Philadelphia lately.

[Pangloss62]

she would never shoot you, unless she was in threat of losing her life.

OK. I suppose. At least she would shoot me virtually, wouldn't she? I'll do it for her:


Maggie Pangloss62


That actually felt pretty good...I must be a masochist.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by wolf

What you fail to understand about Maggie, is that she would never shoot you, unless she was in threat of losing her life.

No, she would shoot someone if she thought she was in threat of losing her life.

Originally Posted by wolf

This is what separates Maggie (and myself) from the homies that are engaged in population control in North and West Philadelphia lately.

So those folks don't think they are in threat of losing their lives? Really?

[Elspode]

Why do we always blame guns instead of the crazy bastards who use them to commit atrocities? Would we want to outlaw hands if he'd just raped and strangled them after?

Crazies are crazies. Tragedy is tragedy. The biggest tragedy in the Amish case is that the crazy SOB didn't just kill himself first and leave the innocents out of it. Some broken people can't or won't be fixed, and they do really bad things. This guy was a self-professed child molester from his teenage years, apparently, and it just went downhill from there. If he hadn't had access to guns, how do we know he wouldn't have just gone and stabbed them all to death, or bludgeoned them?

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Why do we always blame guns instead of the crazy bastards who use them to commit atrocities? Would we want to outlaw hands if he'd just raped and strangled them after?

There's a word for people like you, you HANDOPHOBE you!

[Elspode]

Hey, I'm all for a Federal Hand Control Law. I think the way they do things in Muslim countries would also belie the old saw, "When hands are outlawed, only outlaws will have hands"...'cause they cut 'em off.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

So those folks don't think they are in threat of losing their lives? Really?

An interesting question. Is a drug dealer shooting a rival drug dealer constitute a justifiable shooting in self defense?

That's pretty easy ... the answer is "no."

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by wolf

An interesting question. Is a drug dealer shooting a rival drug dealer constitute a justifiable shooting in self defense?
...

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with, Wolf.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with, Wolf.

It's your brush, I just dipped it into a different color of paint for you.