|
Post by Cassiopeia on Jul 9, 2002 23:01:43 GMT -5
^^^ Well, I just don't see any reason why they *need* them. I certainly think that they have a right to own them. I suppose I should have made that more clear, because it was probably confusing.
|
|
|
Post by DancinQT7610 on Jul 10, 2002 17:30:26 GMT -5
Guns may be USED to kill people but they are also used to save people. Let's just say they do ban guns and a robber came into your house in the middle of the night. You try to stop them but they have a gun....because they are criminals whether they ban them or not they will find a way to get them. So how are you going to defend yourself?? Just let them shoot you and your family?? I think not. So we do need guns for protection and whoever uses them to kill somebody in cold blood can just be sentenced to the death penalty. Wouldn't that make sense? Alot more than just getting rid of guns altogether right?
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Jul 11, 2002 12:49:46 GMT -5
^^^ Yes, but what is the direct purpose of a gun? When you shoot a gun at an intruder, it indirectly protects your family. But directly, it injurs or kills the intruder. I'm not saying that it's *wrong* to own a gun. I understand that if guns were banned, only criminals would have them. And I also understand that the constitution gives us the right to own firearms. I just don't really feel the need for them. I prefer to lock my doors or have a security system. I wouldn't want to have such a dangerous weapon in my house.
>>So we do need guns for protection and whoever uses them to kill somebody in cold blood can just be sentenced to the death penalty.<<
Oh, that's a nice way of thinking. Let's let all the people have guns. And it doesn't matter if they kill a whole bunch of people, because then we'll just kill them. (/sarcasm)
|
|
|
Post by DancinQT7610 on Jul 15, 2002 0:05:51 GMT -5
^^^^If the law wouldn't let murderers back on the street and get away for killing people we might not have so many killings and we might not have this whole issue of guns causing violence.
."I prefer to lock my doors or have a security system. I wouldn't want to have such a dangerous weapon in my house. "
Sometimes locking your doors doesn't help. Criminals aren't stupid ...they can break windows. Just tell me, how would you defend yourself if someone did break into your house and you didn't have a security system? Because some people don't want to go spend a fortune on a security system. Some don't have the money to do so. So how would you protect you and your family?? Would you just let the criminal shoot you?? I don't think so...so like I said before we do need guns.Guns are only dangerous if they are put in the wrong hands.
|
|
|
Post by Soleluna on Jul 15, 2002 6:20:40 GMT -5
In Italy only few people own guns, and there is really no need for them. I feel no need whatsoever to have a gun at home. If a robber comes and you have a gun, someone is more likely to get hurt than if you don't have one.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Jul 15, 2002 7:12:40 GMT -5
<<If a robber comes and you have a gun, someone is more likely to get hurt than if you don't have one. >>
I really question that train of thought. I believe that in a well armed society crime drops dramaticaly. It just becomes impractical for the robber to come to your house when he thinks that you probaly have a gun and will blow his brains out.
If someone robs your home at gun point and you are without a fire arm, it puts you on the defense and the robber on the offense. The robber is in charge and an unarmed person can do nothing but submit.
But if the homeowner is armed, he can blow the robber to hell for threatening him and his family.
|
|
|
Post by Soleluna on Jul 15, 2002 8:20:17 GMT -5
And you think that it is right to kill someone because they want to rob you? What if they have no intention of killing anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jul 15, 2002 11:11:36 GMT -5
Robbers have every intention of killing you when they enter your home. They're not just going to break in to your house see you and say, "Listen, I'm just gonna rip off some of your jewelry and take your TV. Then I'll be gone, okay?."
Robbers nowadays break in whether you're home or not and will kill you if they feel like it. They don't want you calling the police on them and giving the police a description of them.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Jul 15, 2002 12:37:41 GMT -5
I believe it is your natural right to defend your property and your family. If someone enters my home with intent to cause harm to myself, my family, or my property than I believe I have every right to shoot him down, I feel that if my life or the lives of my family are in danger that you are acting in self-defense. Now if you feel that you can subdue the robber without a fatal wound, then more power to you, but if you come on private property unauthorized with bad intentions, you better watch out.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Jul 15, 2002 13:33:23 GMT -5
And you think that it is right to kill someone because they want to rob you? What if they have no intention of killing anyone?
So what do you suggest? "Please kind sir. Don't break into my home. This is my home, not yours. And don't take that stereo with you. That was a wedding present." Some criminals don't have the intention of harming anyone (ie. clumsy bank robbers who just want money). But they do anyway. Either way, you are screwed. That is private property. If they violate that privacy, then yes, you do have the right to kill the violator.
|
|
|
Post by EtErNaLfLaMe on Jul 16, 2002 13:02:28 GMT -5
<<Let's just say they do ban guns and a robber came into your house in the middle of the night. You try to stop them but they have a gun....because they are criminals whether they ban them or not they will find a way to get them. So how are you going to defend yourself?? Just let them shoot you and your family?? I think not. So we do need guns for protection...>>
I totally agree 100% Police can't always be there at the right time. No matter what, somone is goign to get hurt, so you might as well not let it be you or one of your family members. It doesn't mean that you have to kill them, but maybe shoot them in their legs, where they can't move or go anywhere till you CAN get Police out at your house.
<<I wouldn't want to have such a dangerous weapon in my house. >>
I don't understand how not having a gun to some people could seem less safe, then if you didn't have one. Almost anything could be used as a weapon, really. Butter knives, scissors, even pencils and pens. Heck, even our teeth or our fingernails could be used as a weapon, and I don't hear anyone saying, let's pull out our teeth, and cut all of our fingernails off. Do you? I think not.
<<Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the law. The law only hinders the law abiding. I don't see why so many people just don't get that.>>
I agree!
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Jul 16, 2002 13:08:06 GMT -5
>>I don't understand how not having a gun to some people could seem less safe, then if you didn't have one. Almost anything could be used as a weapon, really. Butter knives, scissors, even pencils and pens. Heck, even our teeth or our fingernails could be used as a weapon, and I don't hear anyone saying, let's pull out our teeth, and cut all of our fingernails off. Do you? I think not.<<
Alright, I really hate repeating myself, but I'll do it this one last time. I DO NOT THINK GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED. I simply said that I do not feel that there is a need for a gun. And of course anything can be used as a weapon. But can you *easily* kill someone with a pair of scissors? Of course not. With a gun, you just press the trigger and you can seriously hurt or injur someone. I don't really care if people want to own guns, though. Hell, I don't care if they leave their gun out for their three-year-old to play around with. But they'd better not complain when their kid blows his brains out because they were careless about it.
|
|
|
Post by julinka on Jul 16, 2002 17:05:13 GMT -5
I've never bothered to look it up, so this is completely unsubstantiated "my friend told me so". But it wouldn't surprise me.
In Texas, if someone is invading your house, and you shoot them in self-defense, you're better off (legally) shooting to kill. If they die (and it was self-defense) then you're off the hook, but if you leave them paralyzed then they can sue you for it.
My current boyfriend has a gun in the house, and if it came down to it I'd probably grab it and point it at the intruder, and figure he/she wouldn't stick around to find out if it was loaded. He doesn't lock it up, and although it's unloaded, the clip of hollow-point bullets is in the same spot.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Jul 16, 2002 17:13:12 GMT -5
In Texas, if someone is invading your house, and you shoot them in self-defense, you're better off (legally) shooting to kill. If they die (and it was self-defense) then you're off the hook, but if you leave them paralyzed then they can sue you for it.
I wouldn't doubt this at all. It reminds me of the fact that if someone is choking, you have to ask them if you can perform the Heimlich maneuver on them, cuz if you don't and you break a few ribs or something, they can sue you. It's a weird world.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Jul 16, 2002 17:54:31 GMT -5
^^Well that why in a lot of states they have Good Samaritan laws that say if you had good intention in saving someone's life you are immune from law suits following.
|
|