|
Post by LisaRocksYourWorld, yo on Apr 4, 2002 21:42:49 GMT -5
^^^Erm, A lot of the scissors in school aren't sharp enough to cut butter, but that's besides the point.
It's a shame because there are law-abiding gun owners who are responsible. Of course, there's always one bad apple that spoils the bunch. There are always going to be people, though not a large number compared to the responsible ones, who will either get a gun for the sole purpose of committing a crime, or not keep it in a proper place.
Because you have to keep it in an out-of-reach place, I never saw the point of owning a gun for protection in the first place. If someone is coming into your house, you need to act fast, and reaching into the top shelf of your closet, finding the safe, doing the combination, etc., defeats the purpose.
So if we outlaw ALL guns, and limit manufacturing on them, there won't be a need for them in the first place, and because there's no manufacturing, they'll be much harder to get on the black market.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Apr 5, 2002 1:14:39 GMT -5
So if we outlaw ALL guns, and limit manufacturing on them, there won't be a need for them in the first place, and because there's no manufacturing, they'll be much harder to get on the black market.
No offense Lisa, but that argument does not work at all. Law abiding citizens would be the ones following that line of thinking. You think the criminals are going to give their guns to the authorities because the law says so? I think not! That's what makes them criminals! Just because you stop manufacturing them, doesn't mean they will all go away. What that means is that the guns will be in the hands of those who do not give a damn about what the authorities say, or the law.
Anyway, if such a law were passed, I wouldn't give my firearm away. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six...
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Apr 6, 2002 18:14:10 GMT -5
I really do not see any direct correlation between the existence of guns and crime. There is evidence that in areas where the public is well armed there is actually less violence and crime. Think about it for a second, if you know that most people on the block have accessible guns, are you really going to want to rob that house? No, because you know if you do you'll get your head blown off!
Lisa, no offense but I find that plan absurd. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, and it means just that.
You know Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that we will not need it until they try to take it from us."
|
|
|
Post by x n0ise on Apr 12, 2002 17:53:36 GMT -5
My History teacher always says, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' And I totally agree with that 100%. But my History teacher also says that he owns a gun, and that his gun is in one hiding place and the bullets are in another hiding(so that the kiddies won't get them). Now, if someone breaks into his house, how in the heck is he going to get the bullets into the gun fast enough to save himself and the rest of his family? How he is going to do this is beyond me. Especially if the parts are in separate rooms. Uh-der.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Apr 12, 2002 18:42:15 GMT -5
^^ LOL I agree. My dad has his bullets and guns locked away in the same place, but they're downstairs soi if someone did break in, it wouldn't be too good. Which is why he is investing in a nice little storage case that can be bolted to the floor under the bed.
|
|
|
Post by x n0ise on Apr 12, 2002 20:43:28 GMT -5
^Yes, that might be a good idea. Or at least better than having them in a whole other room. Sometimes my History teacher just doesn't make sense. It's just like, uh-der! ;D
|
|
|
Post by RebDoMINe on May 20, 2002 20:33:44 GMT -5
I agree completely. Guns are not the cause of violence. Guns certainly assist in violence, there's no denying that. But if someone is already planning to kill someone, the gun simply makes it easier and smoother.
I have heard the a phrase that I think makes a lot of sense. Yes, it's a little mean, and it's not exactly right to make an example out of a person, but it is very logical if you think about it.
"Blaming guns for Columbine is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donell being fat."
Although it's not the kindest example, it seems to ring true. You cannot say that because someone craves the food and chooses to continue eating it, that it's the spoon's fault for them being heavy. Certainly the spoon assists them in their task. Sure, they would probably be a bit thinner without the spoon to help them out. But it did not make them overweight.
I know that all sounds pretty odd. A person can be violent with or without guns. If a truly violent person chooses to obtain a weapon, they can. If I were determined to shoot up my school, I would get a gun. There's no stopping someone when they're like that. You cannot simply take away guns and assume the violence will stop.
What you'll have is a serious demand for ropes.
|
|
|
Post by julinka on Jul 3, 2002 17:15:12 GMT -5
I don't think I'd ever buy a gun, and I'd never let my kid play at someone's house where they were kept unlocked and in-reach. I'd also like to see some more uniformity and enforcement of existing gun laws.
Banning them, or registering every gun? Nah... don't think that's a good idea. I went to visit Canada for a week and got offered a handgun in that time. It would never work.
pettyluv - you might be interested to know that the current administration's tendancies to run over some of our other rights has gotten me leaning a lot more strongly in this direction...
|
|
|
Post by eyezofgold on Jul 8, 2002 16:40:12 GMT -5
I totally agree with you pettyluv! I definitley think that it's not the guns that cause violence, it's the people who use them for wrong reasons. I know some people say that if there were no guns being sold and everything, then we wouldn't have this problem. Well, we need guns. Some people use them for hunting. Some use them for protection. i know that if I had a gun, it would be b/c it would make me feel safer, escpecially if someone lived out somewhere on some of their own land that they bought or somehting, I would probably have a gun to make sure that no one would trespass and try stealign or something like that. So, I think that guns aren't the things causing violence, it's the epople who use the guns for stupid reason that cause violence.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Jul 8, 2002 23:41:14 GMT -5
^^^ I disagree. I feel that no ordinary citizen *need* a gun. However, to prohibit them from owning one would be violating the constitution. I still think that our founding forefathers did not intent for guns to be used the way they are now, though. I think they're probably rolling around in their graves, knowing that people purchase guns to go target shooting, and their kids end up blowing their brains out because the gun wasn't locked up and they weren't taught that playing with a gun is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Jul 9, 2002 0:42:10 GMT -5
^^^ I disagree. I feel that no ordinary citizen *need* a gun.And I disagree. Many people do need guns, for protection purposes. The police aren't there to protect you, they're there to clean up the mess. However, to prohibit them from owning one would be violating the constitution.Darned tootin'! I still think that our founding forefathers did not intent for guns to be used the way they are now, though. I think they're probably rolling around in their graves, knowing that people purchase guns to go target shooting, and their kids end up blowing their brains out because the gun wasn't locked up and they weren't taught that playing with a gun is wrong.I think that they did intend it for the civilians. That way, our government would be kept in check (more so than if we had nothing). If the forefathers are rolling in their graves, then it wouldn't be because civilians have guns. It would be because some people weren't respecting the weapon and teaching their loved ones how to use it properly. The gun is not a feared object in the hands of someone who takes the time and proper precautions with the weapon, and it is not to be feared if you learn about it.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Jul 9, 2002 0:50:13 GMT -5
>>I think that they did intend it for the civilians. That way, our government would be kept in check (more so than if we had nothing). If the forefathers are rolling in their graves, then it wouldn't be because civilians have guns. It would be because some people weren't respecting the weapon and teaching their loved ones how to use it properly.<<
Yes, that is what I was trying to say. And those people defend their right to bear arms, yet they are completely irresponsible about owning a gun.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Jul 9, 2002 13:06:34 GMT -5
Yes, that is what I was trying to say. And those people defend their right to bear arms, yet they are completely irresponsible about owning a gun.
Ok, yes. But the fact is, that there are many more repsonsible gun owners than there aren't. That's like saying since so many people get into car accidents, then we should take away the cars, then there will be no accidents. It's a give and take situation, just like with anything.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Jul 9, 2002 14:40:01 GMT -5
^^^ I never said that guns should be illegal! I just said that a lot of people are irresponsible with their guns.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Jul 9, 2002 17:21:32 GMT -5
^^ I was going on your comment that you didn't think regular civilians should have guns and that you didn't think that the forefathers meant for us to have them. I was just going off of those comments. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
|
|