|
Post by pettyluv on Jul 16, 2002 17:56:09 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.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Jul 16, 2002 18:14:28 GMT -5
^^ Gotcha. Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
Post by ColeSlaw12 on Aug 3, 2002 22:18:25 GMT -5
If your really interested, read Give A Boy A Gun. The story's not so great but the facts on the bottom of each page is quite an opinion changer.
|
|
|
Post by lucette on Aug 6, 2002 17:14:03 GMT -5
The reason why a gun does cause violence and a fork doesn't:
To attack somebody with a fork you'd have to make actual physical contact with the person you're attacking. This means getting close to your victim, which means jeopardizing your own safety. If your victim has speed and agility, he could avoid your attack and maybe counter-attack. He could hurt you with your own weapon. You do not have this problem with a gun. You can shoot somebody from quite far off, without ever touching him or getting nearer him. If you have a gun and the other doesn't, that would make the other defenseless, as he can never get close enough near you to attack you. Now, if somebody was to break into my house, and I had only a fork to defend myself, would I attack him? Hell no, I would run away as fast as I could, thinking: "let him have my stuff but don't hurt me". However, would I have a gun I would probably shoot him. There you have violence caused by the fact a gun is present.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Aug 6, 2002 17:47:52 GMT -5
^^ I love how some things are black and white for some people out there.
Does a gun jump off the shelf? Does it load itself? Does it pull its own trigger? The answer to the previous questions are all 'no'. If they were 'yes', then the gun would be the cause of violence. If people were all given labotomies, then I would guarantee you that there would be no violence, meaning the gun would not be an issue (which means that the issue is with people, not with guns) and there would be no more violence.
As for the fork, if my life was in jeopardy, and all I had was a fork, you could bet your bottom dollar that I would go down fighting if I had no other option...
People blame violence on an easy scapegoat: guns. They simply don't want to admit that the problem lies with people, not with a piece of metal.
|
|
|
Post by lucette on Aug 7, 2002 2:47:33 GMT -5
^^you evidently managed to miss the entire point. I never said the violence in the example above mentioned was caused by a gun. I said it was caused by the fact a gun was present. People agress more easily with a gun than with a fork.
Like you said, when you're life is in jeopardy you'd try to defend yourself with any weapon that might be useful, even if it was a fork. But would you actually attack someone with a fork when you're life was not in immediate danger? You would risk bringing your life in danger then. You see, a gun is the ultimate "attack-weapon", not necessarily the ultimate "defense-weapon".
People blame violence on an easy scapegoat: guns. They simply don't want to admit that the problem lies with people, not with a piece of metal. Even though I slightly agree with you on this one I'll ask you to think about the consequences of this statement. If people really are the problem, why make guns available to them? It's a disaster waiting to happen with the disposition of the human mind and the nature of the gun as an offense-weapon.
You see, what I don't get about this whole thread... I was reading the drug legalization one, and it is argued drugs should not be made legal because, althought anyone should have the right to do to his body whatever pleases him, his usage may have a negative effect on others. Suddenly, with this thread, this is not an issue anymore...
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Aug 7, 2002 14:33:33 GMT -5
^^ The fact is, in the US, there are more responsible gun owners than there aren't. Many people have actually stopped crimes because of the fact that they had a gun. You probably have an entirely different POV simply because you are in Europe whereas I am from the States.
Say that your example had used a different object. Say, cars. Should we outlaw cars because there are irresponsible ones who drink and drive, or don't know how to safely direct a vehicle? Thousands of people are killed each year by vehicles. If anything should be outlawed because it can harm the user and an innocent bystander, then that would be it.
|
|
|
Post by DancinQT7610 on Aug 7, 2002 22:56:04 GMT -5
^^^^*applauds* couldn't have said it better myself.
There are plenty of things out there that are used to cause accidents or acts of violence but that doesn't mean we should get rid of them. People just need to be more responsible. And if they would lock the people up who kill people, or give them the death penalty, then we wouldn't have such a big deal over this now would we?
Guns are only dangerous if they are put in the wrong hands. But they also protect us. Like I said in one of my post before. Criminals will find a way to get a gun no matter what because they are just that...criminals. So we're just taking it away from the people who use it for protection. and that is not right.
|
|
|
Post by lucette on Aug 12, 2002 7:47:04 GMT -5
Of course the difference between guns and cars is that cars are designed to bring you from point A to point B whereas guns are designed to kill.
Guns are only dangerous if they are put in the wrong hands. But they also protect us. Like I said in one of my post before. Criminals will find a way to get a gun no matter what because they are just that...criminals. So we're just taking it away from the people who use it for protection. and that is not right.
Your logic is not quite convincing. The bad guys have it so we're going to give the same to the good guys? I hate to go a little off-topic here but that poses some problems. When is somebody good and when is he bad? "Criminals" are obviously bad in your view. But what if a gunowner is usually a good, responsible person but acts in a rage (out of revenge/alcohol/drugs/anger)? Doesn't that make him bad? You gave the gun to a good person but he used it for bad purposes...it's a responsibility that must weigh heavy on your shoulders. You say crimimals will always find a way to find guns. I'm not completely disagreeing with you. However, it is possible to make it really really hard for people (at least for the petty criminals) to find guns. Don't you think the world would be a safer place if only a few people would carry guns (be it criminals) instead of everybody who wants to? You seem to imply there's a huge amount of criminal people in relation to a small yet brave amount of good people who are in absolute need to defend themselves. Somehow I don't think this is the case.
Maybe I do have a basicly different POV because I'm from europe, I don't know. When you see the word "gun" you seem to think of the article in your newspaper last week where somebody stopped a crime with a gun. Whereas I immediately think "may 1916 Verdun 54309 german men killed or missing". Seems to me guns do (in general) more evil than good.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Aug 12, 2002 14:28:31 GMT -5
Of course the difference between guns and cars is that cars are designed to bring you from point A to point B whereas guns are designed to kill.
You don't seem to get it. It doesn't matter what the point of an object is. It really doesn't. A knife was made to slice and cut, does that make it ok if some cannibal decides to slice and gut a person? No.
Your logic is not quite convincing.
Neither is yours.
The bad guys have it so we're going to give the same to the good guys?
Yes! So the good guys can defend themselves against the bad guys.
I hate to go a little off-topic here but that poses some problems. When is somebody good and when is he bad? "Criminals" are obviously bad in your view. But what if a gunowner is usually a good, responsible person but acts in a rage (out of revenge/alcohol/drugs/anger)? Doesn't that make him bad? You gave the gun to a good person but he used it for bad purposes...it's a responsibility that must weigh heavy on your shoulders.
You think of things as black and white, when there are so many grey areas... There are more responsible, law abiding gun owners in the US than there are not! And I have no such responsibility weighing on my shoulders. For that to happen, I must be guilty of something, which I am not. I have a decent head on my shoulders, 6 guns in my house, and I would not even think of using it to harm someone unless they were threatening my family or me. I am all for personal responsibility, so don't you go trying to pin some guys irresponsibility on me. I am not one for the "It takes a village to raise a child" way of thinking.
You say crimimals will always find a way to find guns. I'm not completely disagreeing with you. However, it is possible to make it really really hard for people (at least for the petty criminals) to find guns. Don't you think the world would be a safer place if only a few people would carry guns (be it criminals) instead of everybody who wants to? You seem to imply there's a huge amount of criminal people in relation to a small yet brave amount of good people who are in absolute need to defend themselves. Somehow I don't think this is the case.
I wish I had rose colored glasses on like you... The world would be a much better place... The fact is, you want to take away the only thing standing between a criminal and law abiding citizens. That is why they are criminals. They will find a way of getting weapons and harming others. That is what they do. What I want to know is, why do you find it so necessary to leave the law abiding defenseless?
I have included in my next post an editorial that is superb to say the least. Please read it. Maybe it will change your way of thinking...
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Aug 12, 2002 14:36:16 GMT -5
cont'd (Sorry it's so long, I have a nifty article that I want to share...)
"Gun Control Doesn't Work, Editor's Commentary Kristie Snyder © 1999 Discerning the Times Digest and NewsBytes
Anyone familiar with statistical analysis knows that statistics can be twisted to say almost anything. Take for example the number of deaths caused by medical mishaps: 120,000 per year in the U.S. which has approximately 700,000 physicians. That’s .171 deaths per doctor each year. Compare that with the number of gun owners, which is around 80,000,000, with 1,500 accidental gun deaths each year. That means that the number of accidental, gun related deaths each year per gun owner is .0000188. Nevertheless it would be ludicrous to say that doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. The comparison between gun owners and physicians just makes no sense. So let’s look at some statistics that really that do make sense.
Advocates of gun control want us to believe that banning private gun ownership will reduce violent crime. In 1996, in the wake of a mass shooting, the Australian government seized more than 640,000 guns from its citizens. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the next two years, armed robbery rose by 73%, unarmed robbery by 28%, kidnaping by 38%, assault by 17% and manslaughter by 29%.
Following the trend from down under, the government in the U.K. also imposed new gun controls after a mass shooting. Again violent crime did not decrease. According to the U.S. Justice Department Bureau of Justice Statistics, although the rates of murder and rape are higher in the U.S., England has surpassed us in its rate of robberies, assaults, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts. And the English crime rate has been rising while the U.S. rate has been falling. In 1998 the mugging rate in England was 40% higher than in the U.S., furthermore, assault and burglary rates were nearly 100% higher in England than in the United States.
Another rate that will strike terror in the heart of every woman is the rate of hot burglaries, which are burglaries that take place when people are home. I think one of my worst nightmares would be to wake up in the dead of night to find an intruder in my room. Yet, most criminals in this country know that breaking in with people home is a good way to get shot. In fact, if someone were to break into my home when we are home, that is exactly what will happen. The hot burglary rate in the U.S. is 13%. However, in countries with strict gun control, such as England and Canada, the hot burglary rate is closer to 50%. The criminals know that their victims, having been rendered helpless by their governments, cannot defend themselves.
If the facts show that gun control legislation does not lower crime rates, then why is there such a push to take guns away from law abiding people? What happened to our Constitutional right to bear arms? The founding fathers knew that a well armed citizenry would not easily be taken over by a tyrannical government. Those pushing for a global government are keenly aware of this fact as well. To control a people, first you must disarm them.
U.S. Code Title 22 section 2551, which was passed as Public Law 87-297 by President Kennedy in 1961, lays out the plan to completely disarm both citizens and governments of the world. Section 2552 defines disarmament this way: "identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement including the necessary steps taken under such an agreement to establish an effective system of international control, or to create and strengthen international organizations for the maintenance of peace." (Bold added)
Every president since Kennedy has worked to implement this agenda. The United States has been systematically emasculating its military for more than a decade. The Russians and Chinese are supposed to be reducing their military in the same manner, but as DTT has previously reported, that is just not happening. The final outcome of this plan is that the armies of the world will be centrally controlled, becoming a global force, and that only the military will be armed. Our national sovereignty has been traitorously undermined.
Gun control finds its greatest success in keeping guns out of the hands of ordinary, law abiding citizens. The government will always be armed. And the criminal mind will always find a means of acquiring weapons. That will leave you and me stuck somewhere in the middle between criminal corruption and government tyranny. It’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference."
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Aug 12, 2002 14:37:14 GMT -5
And in conclusion to my very lengthy post (again, I apologize).
Maybe I do have a basicly different POV because I'm from europe, I don't know. When you see the word "gun" you seem to think of the article in your newspaper last week where somebody stopped a crime with a gun. Whereas I immediately think "may 1916 Verdun 54309 german men killed or missing". Seems to me guns do (in general) more evil than good.
No, the difference between you and me, is that you think that an object is good or bad. I merely see it as a tool which can be used for good or bad. The media has certainly done it's job of striking fear into the hearts of many...
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on Aug 12, 2002 17:02:28 GMT -5
>>If the facts show that gun control legislation does not lower crime rates, then why is there such a push to take guns away from law abiding people?<<
Actually, there are also facts that show that for example, the percentage of violence leading to death is 5 times higher in the US than in the Netherlands (as I have said in a previous post).
>>What happened to our Constitutional right to bear arms? The founding fathers knew that a well armed citizenry would not easily be taken over by a tyrannical government.<<
So you think everyone in the US who owns a gun keeps it only in case someone is about to 'take over the power', get rid of the democracy and become the next Mussolini?
I would write more about this subject but I have to go now...
~*Esther*~
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Aug 13, 2002 18:29:18 GMT -5
So you think everyone in the US who owns a gun keeps it only in case someone is about to 'take over the power', get rid of the democracy and become the next Mussolini?
I just posted the article, I didn't write it. But I do think that many people do keep weapons because of that fact. And if they don't keep it because of that fact, I believe they think of keeping a weapon as a benefit for that reason...
Remember, the founding fathers came from a time where there was a monarchy and they escaped from that for a reason (government controlling peoples' live, in example, in the form of religion). They didn't want the people of the US controlled by their government (although I am simplifying things quite a bit). I think that that is one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment, to keep our government in some sort of check...
|
|
|
Post by julinka on Sept 4, 2002 18:22:28 GMT -5
However, it is possible to make it really really hard for people (at least for the petty criminals) to find guns. How? I've never seen it work particularly well. I spent a week in Canada, wasn't particularly looking, and could have bought a handgun there. If someone wants it, it's available, even to the average petty criminal.
the percentage of violence leading to death is 5 times higher in the US than in the Netherlands And Switzerland's rate is really low, in a country where gun ownership is more common than the US. The US is a violent culture, and taking guns away will not change that.
So you think everyone in the US who owns a gun keeps it only in case someone is about to 'take over the power', get rid of the democracy and become the next Mussolini? Nope. But it's kind of nice to know that in the event of large-scale crap like that, not all military power would be in the hands of a few.
|
|