:hmph: hoy many people in the world own cars and how many people own firearms? [COLOR=‘Black’]inb4 “there are more firearms than cars in the world” In the US there are 90 guns per 100 people. This does NOT mean 90% of Americans own a gun: most owners have more than one weapon, and the US firearm stock is concentrated in around 40% of households.
They are both capable of killing, no?
So do you support banning any item expressly used for the destruction of a target?
main purpose of cars= transportation
main purpose of guns= killing
Also, a man brighter than all of us had the last word on this over 200 years ago.
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
“One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
Did I say that?
I think some people in this thread are getting a little confused.
The LEGAL possession of guns is directly tied to a decrease in crime. I haven’t checked this ratio myself, but I’m pretty certain that most violent crimes involving guns were guns obtained ILLEGALLY. In which cases stricter gun laws do little if anything to prevent those situations. (injuries and deaths from accidental misfirings might be higher though, but that’s not something that making ownership more restrictive is actually directly addressing. I’ll get into that more towards the end here)
The fact of the matter is that most criminals don’t really want to put themselves in any actual danger. They get guns because they know most people don’t carry them and can’t do anything to fight back against a person who has them. When it’s understood that everybody in a town is not only allowed to own a firearm, but encouraged to do so, they know that they stand a 50/50 chance of getting their ass shot dead if they try to do anything like that, and even less if there is anyone else in the immediate vicinity, since that’s twice as many targets to hit with twice as many bullets to respond to an attack with.
Even in ghetto areas with high gang rates, yes gang members will be obtaining guns in order to fight rival gang members, but it still boils down to them being able to escalate things beyond what the law abiding citizens in their area are able to do anything about.
What? You think making stricter gun laws in those areas is going to do jack shit? That the people who are shooting other people for food, money, or simple paranoid pride will just turn in their guns because they aren’t supposed to have them? they’ll just stop shooting people because “the law says you shouldn’t do that”? That less guns will make everyone’s crops and food grow better?
Of course not, it’s because NORMAL right wingers are arming themselves and using their guns responsibly, and when possible carrying them openly so that would be criminals THINK they are paranoid rightwingers who would shoot a stranger at the drop of a hat. The easiest way to avoid a fight is to make sure everyone knows, or at least thinks, you’re ready, willing, and able to handle anyone that tries challenging you.
Furthermore, it’s a basic American right to possess arms, not only to defend themselves from criminals, but to defend themselves from a potentially corrupt government that no longer listens to its populace. Of course the government has not reached that point yet, but much of that is because it would be stupid to do that while people still have weapons to use in protest. Tell me, what would you do if your government started taking away your rights? Pick up signs in protest? There are already governments that control their own media so no one else will see your signs, except maybe for other people whose only option is to pick up signs too. Maybe throw rocks? I’m sure that’ll be effective. Oh! I know, you can post about it in your blog. That’ll make the difference, and there’s no way the government could stop that. well… unless they decided to cut off your internet access or put restrictions on your ISP or something, but surely the government wouldn’t, nay, couldn’t do that, not the same government that made it illegal to own firearms, going against a basic right upon which that very government was founded, right?
As for children using guns. Absolutely. Every child should be taught, from the time they’re strong enough to handle the recoil/kickback of the gun they’d be firing, how to aim, shoot, clean, repair, and maintain a weapon and all the safety procedures of handling it. (always treat weapon as loaded, never point barrel at any creature or yourself that you do not intend to shoot, do not intend to shoot at anything that you do not have a specific reason to do so, and always be aware of/check your surroundings and the surroundings of the object you are intending to shoot, etc) Being an adult does not automatically make you responsible with a firearm, and neither does being a child make you irresponsible with it. When a child is never allowed to use a knife to cut their food at the dinner table, they do not grow up to become adults that are responsible knife users, they grow up not knowing how to cut their own food. When a child is only ever given velcro shoes, they become adults that can’t tie their own shoes.
Only actual experience and correct teaching of how to properly use an object can the proper sense of responsibility for that object be instilled in a person. The more experience you have with a firearm = the more competent of an aim you are = less chance of innocent person getting hit, also the better judge of what type of damage that bullet can do, and therefor better judge of when that trigger should or shouldn’t be pulled, as well as better prepared to handle the damage that follows once the damage is done, instead of freezing up in what could otherwise be a critical situation.
So bscly shut the fuck up. Guns are awesome.
Well, Sais serves two functions as well and I can assure you, they were/are both useful in gardening, and for killing. I can appreciate your thinking on this, only those willing to kill someone else, do not think the same way you think.
With hunting, there is no need for an automatic weapon - in fact, I would say that unless you are sure that your shot is going to take down the animal you are hunting, don’t pull the trigger. One could also say that about hunting humans.
If memory serves, the 233 bullet was desinged to kill people - It is a very versatile round. Generally, it comes in a 40 grain shell, or a 56 grain shell depending. It comes in many different versions, and powder loads. Full metal, fragmenting varieties all serve different functions… etc. It is an amazing round for varmits, paper or… people.
A 270 has also been used as both a hunting, and sniper round… Is the round at fault, or the intent of the one pulling the trigger?
For me, I do not own a gun, but I do have a bow, sais, katana, Tai chi jin sword, Chinese wax wood fighting sticks/battons. throwing knives, tonfas, bo, butter knife and for that matter, a pen and of course, bare hands. Any of these can have a few different Non-violent uses; but every one of these items can be used to do an increadible amount of damage to another human, should a person choose to use them to that end.
The hands that can take life and destroy, can also bring healing and build for the betterment of mankind and the planet. I do think that there are a few advantages in having weapons registered and the use of them moderated, but warped puppies are not too concerned what they use to do damage. In Canada, Stats as of a few years ago (it may be different now) were 60% of the murders we committed by knife, not a gun - Just sayin
oh u
I seem to remember a massive poweroutage several years ago. How many people got shot during that? The city I live in had NONE. 500,000+ people and not a single shooting
How long was the power out for?
And is the risk of a force invading the US high? At all? And what about the military? Do they just not factor into the equation?
That’s what the second amendment says. It says “well regulated militia”. There’s nothing there that talks about randoms owning guns. At a base level, it needs regulation.
In my view, the harms of people owning guns far outweighs the benefits. There is just no reason to have guns, and their continued proliferation throughout society only causes more harm than good.
Guns are fun. Get out and go shoot some.
/thread.
Rossman… Yes! Just so.
For those first timers, go with someone experienced and/or take a gun safety course first. - but enjoy!
I don’t feel the need to own a gun, personally. If I want to shoot things, I’ll load up a Half Life game. 
EDIT: Also:
If either of you knew anything about statistics you’d know that correlation =/= cause. Just because in the same year gun ownership goes up and crime goes down, it does not imply that one causes the other, or even which way round that relationship would go if it did.
For example (not claiming this is relevant, merely hypothetical), there could be a third factor like an improvement in the economy both driving down crime and allowing people more free money for hobbies like gun ownership.
Yeah, but cars don’t kill people on purpose, unless your name is Stuntman Mike.
I would like to see some ratios on the purposeful use of guns to kill people to the number of guns in the country versus the purposeful use of cars to kill people to the number of cars in the country and see how they stack up.
The ‘cars kill more people than guns’ analogy is laughably simplistic and tries to compare apples to oranges.
That’s why I made a point of following up my statistical point with logical reasons why the correlation contains at least SOME causation, rather than simply quoting some random statistical survey.
I can follow that up with another point, but I’m sure the anti gun critics are going to get up in arms against it (pun intended); a school shooting as a simple mental exercise for this, college, highschool, whatever. A student takes a gun to school with the intention to shoot people.
Currently possession of firearms is illegal on school grounds so you have entire student body + teachers = unarmed. The number of dead and injured people who can result from this are equal to the number of bullets the single student can carry and load into his weapon. Even with an armed police officer on campus, you’re still talking 1 or 2 officers protecting campus grounds that can can span over several city blocks. When you have a situation like this, a depressed or desperate student can easily see that a gun is essentially undisputed “power” in that area. Even in the small unlikelihood that they would be killed, they stand a strong chance of being able to kill whoever their intended target is first.
Now lets for a minute imagine if part of training to be teacher involved training for sharpshooting as well as training to ensure proper carrying (not allowing others to touch gun to ensure it isn’t taken) At this point, you now have every teacher also capable of defending whatever students are in their sight. Instead of 1 or 2 people protecting a single campus you now have about 5%-10% of the campus capable of defending it. In this hypothetical situation, even a student serious about killing his targets will recognize that the “power” is no longer undisputed, he stands MUCH higher chance of dying, and possibly without even being able to accomplish his intended goal. Not only is the likelihood of the student being stopped earlier much higher, but the likelihood of the student even making the attempt is much lower.
Does the term 9/11 mean nothing to you? Official foreign military is not the only type of attack that can invade the US. This also includes dangerous gangs as well as underground crime.
The key term here is REGULATION, base word “Regular” = Even, Standard, Normal, Steady. Well Regulated =/= Heavily Restricted.
The fact is that no matter how much you, or how many people also, think that guns shouldn’t exist, they always will. You will never get rid of guns completely, and as long as guns exist at all, criminal elements will be able to obtain and use them, and even the active police force will not be as effective at defending the law abiding population as a properly armed population would be.
I would like to see how many people have been able to defend themselves from an attacker with their car vs how many people have been able to defend themselves with their gun.