Gun History

[Guest 91108]

I could argue much is amiss in other countries.
Much is amiss when .gov decides it can defend citizens better than they can themselves.. while elderly are beaten regularly for the measing things that are taken. where is the government then?
What is amiss when the goverment decides to gas defenseless people as it did in Iraq?
What is amiss when people can't walk this planet without worrying of manmade borders and walls that prevent us from enjoying all that is natural nad beautiful.
What is amiss when culture overrides the knowing and understanding your fellow man regardless of language?

Yes ToS much is amiss but it does not all reside in the US.
Open your eyes and stop reading so much and look around and experience the world as it is.

[nia25]

It seems to me that the debate here is not about guns, but about crime. THere is so much more to guns than defending yourself if your house is robbed. As a teenager I learned how to handle guns at around 14 years old. For my family and I it is a sport. Why should something I enjoy doing be illegal just because some idiot gets a hold of a gun and decides to shoot people? Now given the chance if need be I am sure that I would use it in defense; but owning a gun would not make me feel safer or make me feel macho. The only reason I do not own a gun right now is because my hobbies cost more than what is in the bank. Given the chance I will buy a gun; and no I will not use it to shoot someone. The real question here is why does the government feel the need for gun control? They have made illegal guns that are semi automatic because they are dangerous. Sorry but I think a bullet from a .22 can kill someone just as much as anything coming out of a semi automatic. I feel that if people were more educated on the use of guns that maybe it wouldn't be such a problem. There will always be some idiot out there that will get a hold of a gun and shoot someone or a bunch of people. More than likely that idiot who does so will get that gun illegally. Obviously it is the law abiding citizens who are being punished for other's stupidity. But, that's how the world is.

[Ozme52]

It seems to me that the debate here is not about guns, but about crime. THere is so much more to guns than defending yourself if your house is robbed. As a teenager I learned how to handle guns at around 14 years old. For my family and I it is a sport. Why should something I enjoy doing be illegal just because some idiot gets a hold of a gun and decides to shoot people? Now given the chance if need be I am sure that I would use it in defense; but owning a gun would not make me feel safer or make me feel macho. The only reason I do not own a gun right now is because my hobbies cost more than what is in the bank. Given the chance I will buy a gun; and no I will not use it to shoot someone. The real question here is why does the government feel the need for gun control? They have made illegal guns that are semi automatic because they are dangerous. Sorry but I think a bullet from a .22 can kill someone just as much as anything coming out of a semi automatic. I feel that if people were more educated on the use of guns that maybe it wouldn't be such a problem. There will always be some idiot out there that will get a hold of a gun and shoot someone or a bunch of people. More than likely that idiot who does so will get that gun illegally. Obviously it is the law abiding citizens who are being punished for other's stupidity. But, that's how the world is.

This is also a very good point... Why automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Because I can spray bullets? I can do that with a shotgun too. And most of the countries with gun laws omit shotguns... the ultimate sporting weapon... but also a military weapon back when automatics weren't available.

In humor, I suggested that cars with automatic transmissions should be outlawed because when using a car as a weapon, more people use cars with automatic transmissions than with standard transmissions. And it's easier to jump a curb or change directions with an automatic.

To me... it's the same kind of logic.

[nia25]

This is also a very good point... Why automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Because I can spray bullets? I can do that with a shotgun too. And most of the countries with gun laws omit shotguns... the ultimate sporting weapon... but also a military weapon back when automatics weren't available.

In humor, I suggested that cars with automatic transmissions should be outlawed because when using a car as a weapon, more people use cars with automatic transmissions than with standard transmissions. And it's easier to jump a curb or change directions with an automatic.

To me... it's the same kind of logic.

TOTALLY agree with that one... LOL It's almost as though they feel they can control everything... wait they almost can!

[TomOfSweden]

I could argue much is amiss in other countries.
Much is amiss when .gov decides it can defend citizens better than they can themselves.. while elderly are beaten regularly for the measing things that are taken. where is the government then?

Ok, that's fine, but this attitude is actually at odds with the idea of liberal democracy. The government should defend the citizens better than they can defend themselves to make sure everybody is equal under the law. The border between defending and being proactive isn't exactly clear, is it? When does the proactive measure become a one sided aggressive act? How is the law supposed to address that?

I don't have any problems with people defending themselves when they're attacked. It's the part of doing it better than the cops or army that I've problems with. The state should be better than it's citizens to ensure that the laws of the country are upheld, and not the strong citizens own vigilante book of law. The law of the strong is what we're trying to avoid by liberal democracy, isn't it?

What is amiss when the goverment decides to gas defenseless people as it did in Iraq?

If Bush would seize power with the army in USA, you'd be fucked. No matter how much guns you have. USA has the most powerful and experienced army in the world. Backed up by extremely powerful CIA and FBI you wouldn't have a chance in hell to stop him. But this is all assuming the army would back a dictatorship up in USA, which would be a first. There is no examples in history of a stable democracy with a generation having grown up with democratic traditions reverting to a military dictatorship, (or a shit loads of generations since 1776).

I hear that as an argument against gun control all the time, and even if it sounds good, it has no relevance to USA.

What is amiss when people can't walk this planet without worrying of manmade borders and walls that prevent us from enjoying all that is natural nad beautiful.
What is amiss when culture overrides the knowing and understanding your fellow man regardless of language?

How are these arguments for guns?

Yes ToS much is amiss but it does not all reside in the US.
Open your eyes and stop reading so much and look around and experience the world as it is.

But I'm not for gun control as such. I'm just for anything that can make the world safer. If guns lead to a safer USA I'd like to see something to back it up. I know off-course that statistics can be read very liberally depending on what you're trying to prove. But do somebody really deny the vast number of murders committed in USA? If it's not guns that's the problem, then what is it?