I'm a liberal, and I'm for gun control to a degree. Obviously people
who have criminal histories shouldn't be able to register guns.. but
I've grown up around them and shot plenty of them and I believe in the
right to bear arms.

But... I don't carry because I really don't want to shoot anyone. There
are other ways to protect yourself besides carrying guns.

Adventure said it all on page 1
I am licensed to carry concealed,hope I never have to use one in
violence. If necc I will, no problem. I will protect the weak/needy &
my family to what ever end is necc.
Done it before.

I personally don't like guns. I have a mixture of respect and fear for
them. I don't own a gun, I haven't used one in years. But around here a
lot of people do. And no one dares cross the line.

Last time someone tried to rape someone in this town- he was shot. We
all know who pulled the trigger.... but the police will never found them
(hehe). There was a gang trying to get started here (we live waaay too
close to chicago).... they left after a few people walked out onto their
front steps holding rifles and shotguns.

Criminals don't like victims who fight back. Any women's self defence
course tells you this. All statistical evidence backs it up.


Violence begets only violence- this is true. But the threat of violence
makes most violent people shut up and hide.

Gardenforge wrote:

"Jese642 if guns increase the crime rate, why does South Dakota where
there are ample guns and citizens can apply for and get a concealed
carry permit with ease have one on the lowest murder rates in the U.S.
while Washington D.C. where handguns are forbidden and which has one of
the most restrictive gun laws on the books have the highest murder rate
in the U.S. when the population of South Dakota and Washington D. C. are
approxmiately the same. Guns dont cause crime, people cause crime. "

A truism trying to slide by on statistical slight-of-hand that won't
past muster when dissected. I certainly doubt if you'll support the
logical consequent of your implied premise, that relaxing all gun
control in Washington D.C. would have the same result there that it's
had in South Dakota, right?

A logician would cite the 'many worlds' theory, which basically says you
have to consider statistics and the conclusions you draw from them with
one eye on the reality in which they occur if they are to have the
validity you assign them.

Obviously, the two places are vastly different, with differing factors
at work that you're not taking into account. So, gun control could make
perfect sense in D.C., while it would unnecessarily restrictive in a
place like S. Dakota. Too, in both places, the right to bear certain
kinds of arms is restricted-- one can't own certain types of military
armaments whose only purpose is for out-and-out waging of wars against
other armies.

The courts have found innumerable times that some forms of weapons
control is NOT at odds with the Second Ammendment.

"
Ted
Kennedy and Bill Janklow's cars have both killed more people than my
unregistered guns"

That may be, but one could also say the same thing about American
nuclear weapons, yet I'm sure you're not against non-proliferation
efforts to keep them out of the hands of certain regimes. I could
construct the same type of Straw Man fallacy by extrapolating your gun
control argument to suggest that, according to your logic, a nuclear
weapon in every country's arsenal would make the world a safer place and
make war obsolete.

But we both know that is a sophistry....

-Kerry O.

Ah. But nukes in everyone's hands WOULD have a stabilizing effect. It
would essentially halt any military aspirations of all nations on earth.

Except for the occasional true lunatic. Nukes, as with guns, will
always come with some crazy people. Thus far, none of the nuts (except
maybe Kim Jung Il) have gotten ahold of a nuke.

If we could limit guns so thoroughly that only a few people on earth
could have them (and make it *stick*)- then gun laws would work.

If we lived in a world where every rogue lunatic could get ahold of
nukes, it would make no sence to disallow a nation to having them.


The one operational difference, though, is that a lunatic with a gun
can't potentially cause the extinction of the entire human race. And
there are a LOT more guns. We can't cork firearms- a crude gun could be
made by anyone with a junk car to cut apart and a hillbilly's garage.

And since they're available to the criminals, no matter what we do, we
should make them available to honest and legitimate people.

If no one had one we wouldn't need to arm ourselves now would we?

If no one had guns. Someone would use a KNIFE. We can't eliminate every
weapon. And even if we did- guys with muscle would beat on the guys
without. And women, of course, would be worse off still. Not that this
doesn't happen anyways.


The only way crime stops is when victims fight back. It's just that
simple.

" Ah. But nukes in everyone's hands WOULD have a stabilizing effect. It
would essentially halt any military aspirations of all nations on
earth."

No, it's more like having your hands around the throat of an immortal
cobra-- do you have it, or does it have you? So many years after the War
To End All Wars was brought to a halt with the aid of nukes, the U.S.
has been in how many *more* wars? What happens is the wars just got
fought with pawns and proxies. I daresay that's why we find ourselves in
our present state of war-- a cascade of our past shadow wars, where we
taught people like the mujahadeen in Afganistan how to go toe-to-toe
with a superpower and win.

The spectre of the gun (in all its forms) casts a long shadow...


-Kerry O.

But look at the war it prevented. The one between the USA and the USSR.
A war between the two would have cost more lives than all wars fought
before or sence, combined.


And, whatever else you can say about the other wars we've been in- we
came to them. No country with nuclear weapons has EVER been attacked by
any outside enemy, except via sabotage or other clandestine methods.

Hmmmm....I'd rather face a nut with a knife than a nut with a gun....

Oceans

Not that I'm a great fan of nukes. I wish they never existed. I wish we
could have a full disarmament. I wish the same of guns. And violence in
general. BUT since that is *impossible*- we need the ability to defend
ourselves if and when some sad, evil little man brings them to bear.

May I share a train of thought, please?

ok, historically, first was bare hands, then rocks, sticks, spears,
arrows, knives, guns, cannons, nukes, tazars, (sp?), umm, and so on and
so forth...

It just keeps escalating...

What will be the weapon of choice next?

What violence reaker will be invented next, to curtail the violence...

I know my ideals are simplistic to some...I just see the elemental fear
of "get them before they get me", has gotten society nowhere..

a hosltered weapon takes more time to pull out than someone with a
knife. if you research this you will find, believe this or not (and I
must admit it seems contradictory , but none the less true) that the
knife strikes the first blow.
studies were done with quick draw sharp shotters for the secret service
and found that a person with a knife could close on and deliver a
cripple strike before the gun can even get out of the holster.

i know i know i know, i didnt believe it myself, but have seen it and do
believe that it is as true as a baby is pure.

whats the point. its not the weapon that kills but the person. we are
not going to change bad people into good, simply because wqe want it to
be so.


well thats my two cents.
\





doc

Hey Jess!

Disarmament takes courage. Few people have what it takes, and so the
escalation goes on and on.

I've done a bit of shooting -- target and terrain simulations -- and it
is a bit of a kick -- boys with toys and all that -- but I'll take a
game of foosball any day!

Oceans

Disarmament takes UNITY. If we were limitted to just one mindset- if
everyone believed in peace and goodwill towards men and all that great
jazz- then it'd work. And maybe, one day, it will happen.

But we live in a world where people strap bombs to themselves as a
method of military assault. We live in a world where strict gun laws
ultimately mean more gun crimes and gun deaths than loose ones.


In a perfect world, you guys would be right. In a perfect world.

Disarmament takes UNITY. If we were limitted to just one mindset- if
everyone believed in peace and goodwill towards men and all that great
jazz- then it'd work. And maybe, one day, it will happen.

But we live in a world where people strap bombs to themselves as a
method of military assault. We live in a world where strict gun laws
ultimately mean more gun crimes and gun deaths than loose ones.


In a perfect world, you guys would be right. In a perfect world.

disarmment

takes away your freedom

if no one is armed the govt can do whatever it wishes

hitler was a strong gun control advacate as well

With all the gun control we have today you would think violence would go
down, but I saw on the news yesterday that mass killings were way up
since the 1960's. Go fiqure..., or should I say assume. You say you
would rather face a nut with a knife, well I am very profiecent with a
knife as well as a gun. I would not attack you with either though, which
takes me back to,,, Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Why does
everyone feel the need to take away our guns? Aint there some other
place yall can stick your do-gooder noses. How about make a law against
whining about other people's buissness. Taking away peoples guns will
not prevent murders.
The right to bear arms is in the constitution to prevent the government
from becoming to powerful. If we have guns we can at least fight back,
like they did in 1776...

We never had this problem about gun control till they gave women the
right to vote....LMAO
maybe we should resend that law??

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy
from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a
precedent which will reach to himself."

--Thomas Paine (1737-1809), conclusion, _Dissertation on First
Principles of Government,_1795