Another school shooting

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

"How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess." they caused and that is my whole point. The people with the guns caused the damage...not the guns.
...

Using that logic, heroin shouldn't be illegal. It can't do any damage without a person doing something with it, right?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Using that logic, heroin shouldn't be illegal. It can't do any damage without a person doing something with it, right?

National Security Alert! Heroin supports the Taliban, you support Heroin, therefore you support the Taliban!
:::nabs you in the middle of the night, holds you indefinitely without trial, ships you overseas to be tortured in secret prisons:::

[slang]

Originally Posted by BigV

Are you saying that I, a citizen who is not armed, am MORE likely to be a criminal than you, who are legally armed?

Maggie is certainly capable of a reply but I thought I might throw my thoughts in here.

When a person carries a firearm legally with a permit, it changes you and how you might do things.

First off, the last thing that you would like is some type violent confrontation because regardless of the circumstances, YOU will be going to jail. That might be a short stay or a long one but until there is some type of investigation to establish your innocence, you'll probably be in the cooler.

Your vulnerability is no longer from physical attack and you dont want any legal troubles so you tend not to get overly upset. Yelling, screaming any hostile body language tends to disappear from your normal routine ( if it ever was present before ). You dont want to be misunderstood or to appear threatening in a situation that is not threatening your life ( which is 99.99% of them ), so you might over communicate and pay more attention to your tone.

In short, you're a wonderful smiley, polite person that has had check after check after check to make sure that you are up to the responsibility of carrying a firearm that might well be enough to wipe out your neighbors and in some cases, give law enforcement a run for their money.

The armed citizen is also not panicked in situations that may if someone is NOT carrying. If you feel totally vulnerable, it changes your attitude. Many times it makes people act overly aggressive as a defense.

Just my observations here. No citations or criminal studies.

Gun toters less likely to be a criminal? Probably. Just from the background check alone. Someone that knows how to avoid troubles of all sorts? Absolutely.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by slang

...In short, you're a wonderful smiley, polite person that has had check after check after check to make sure that you are up to the responsibility of carrying a firearm that might well be enough to wipe out your neighbors and in some cases, give law enforcement a run for their money.
...

And who may be secretly planning to murder some nice innocent Amish girls...

[slang]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

And who may be secretly planning to murder some nice innocent Amish girls...

Did he have a permit to carry a handgun? You tell me, I dont know.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't have a major issue with hunting or rifles. While handguns can be used for hunting, you have to admit that it's not their primary purpose. You don't have to conceal your weapon from a deer. You also have to acknowledge that a single person can do a lot more damage with a gun than a knife. How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess.

"Law abiding citizens" may feel more secure if they have a gun, until it is used on them, or stolen and used in a crime.


Ok, but I've never heard of a person being "spooned" to death, or killed by being beaten with a roll of toilet paper.

I would be fine with not having my guns as long as NO ONE ELSE gets to have them either, ever... that means cops also.
Until that time... they stay.
BTW, I grew-up on a ranch and my side-arm was used as protection against snakes, boar and a myriad of other things. Not just humans. But, poachers were also an issue.
That you have a problem with people protecting themselves is suspect in my eyes.

Deer in the US are overpopulated, as are many other species, culling is nessicary... hunters are also the major supporters of most of your green, environmentalist, groups. Get educated.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

But at the core, they REALLY LOVE their guns. Most every gun owner in this country doesn't really "need" his gun/s, for self-defense or otherwise. They just LOVE them sooooooo much. The guns are substitutes for their essential insecurity and self-loathing.

There is a lot that you don't understand about the "gun culture."

An awful lot.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

I won't condemn gun-owners for their mentality, only for owning guns they don't need.

May I in return condemn you for owning clothing and CDs and DVDs and luxury food items that you don't need?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Using that logic, heroin shouldn't be illegal. It can't do any damage without a person doing something with it, right?

I wouldn't oppose that.

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

But at the core, they REALLY LOVE their guns. Most every gun owner in this country doesn't really "need" his gun/s, for self-defense or otherwise. They just LOVE them sooooooo much. The guns are substitutes for their essential insecurity and self-loathing.

Then some kid yesterday in AZ steals an AK-47 from his parents house. I hear the gun people say "They did not store the gun properly...blah blah blah." That may be true, but why do these people have an AK-47 in their house? For self defense? I doubt it. It's because they love the power they feel when they hold it in their hands. Eventually, if life becomes too much to deal with for them or their children, they will use it on others. I fear gun owners because they all have a bit of that gun lust in them, and it's bound to come out eventually.

You, obviously, have spent very little time with legitimate collectors. Most enjoy their guns for the engineering, aesthetics and comparing them to others in a series or time period. The idea of power never enters into it... if that was it, they would just upgrade to higher and higher powered weapons, which is rarely the case.

Though, my weapons are just tools. What I have are just for utilitarian reasons.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Flint

Observation: cars have a primary purpose which is not violence-related...

Observation: There is no call to ban cars every time a drunk driver kills a family of five.

I do not carry a gun for the purpose of going out and randomly shooting people. I carry a gun for the purpose of defense.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold needed guns.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold illegally obtained guns, and used them to commit an illegal act.

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

I won't condemn gun-owners for their mentality, only for owning guns they don't need.

I don't want you having things you don't need either... oh, wait... what country do I live in again?
Nevermind... its NONE OF MY DAMN BUSINESS!

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by glatt

My mistake. I'm not a gun enthusiast, so I thought machine guns were outlawed when really they are just heavily regulated. That proves my point even more though. If heavy regulation keeps a certain kind of gun out of a criminal's hands, then outright banning it will do an even better job.

Your drug example is a poor one, because drugs can be easily manufactured by individuals and are therefore hard to control. Guns require a factory. They are also much heavier and bulkier. Much harder to smuggle.

Regulation certainly hasn't kept full-auto out of criminals hands. It's made it somewhat more cumbersome only for the lawabiding in comparison to other firearms. But I think the real reason you don't see more full-auto is it's usually not worth the hassle...unless you have a logistics train supplying you with ammo and acquire the additional skill of using it effectively, it offers not much advantage. That's pretty much why not every infantryman is issued a full-auto weapon.

Full-auto is the wet dream of gun grabbers and gang bangers. And those two loons in body armor that died holding up that bank in LA.

Your prohibition scenario is still a fantasy. I also think you're vastly underestimating how difficult it is to make a gun; it certainly doesn't require "a factory", nor are they terribly difficult to smuggle. In fact, this debate was done here once before, with Jaguar in the role of "gun prohibition does work, no, really".

“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426, June 16, 1788

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).


“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 45 (Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788).

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified
in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would
be justified in silencing mankind.”- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard
even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he
establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ”- Thomas Paine,
Dissertation On First Principles Of Government

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)