Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:06:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
379 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> No, I think you are, if you think you can magically get rid of ALL guns, illegal
> included (getting rid of only the legal ones makes the problem WORSE, not better).
So don't bother trying at all, eh? Is there any way to prove your notion,
Tom? I think America could at least TRY to ban all handguns, for heaven's
sake. And make penalties stiffer for people, namely criminals, found with guns.
I really hate the death penalty but maybe it's a necessary evil since prison
rarely "rehabilitates" anyone. And justice is not as blind, especially color
blind, as she's supposed to be. So, until we can address these deeper
issues, having the guns out there isn't going to help anyone. If anyone
could really prove that taking the guns away would cause trouble, then by
all means I'd shut my trap. But my Spidey-sense is tingling on this. To
quote a childhood favorite: "If you pick thistles, expect prickles."
Not to pull a Rob Reiner or Tipper Gore here, but look at the influence
violence in the media has on us?! We are generally desensitized to it from a
young age. Take a run to any store (K-Mart, Target, Walmart) and look at
what is available in the *toy* aisle. All sorts of play guns, cap guns,
squirt guns, action figures with guns, video games with guns, you name it.
Even LEGOs with guns!
And what do guns really do? What is a gun used for? "Guns don't kill people,
people do" says the NRA. Well the gun helps, and so does the bullet. That's
the sort of denial I'm talking about. The Constitution is not specific on
type of guns since all that was available in the late 1700's was muzzle
loaders. Black people were slaves at that time (and for 70 more years), and
women were considered property of their husbands.
Times change. That's why it's called "amendment." That means "just in case
we change our minds later." Well, here we are centuries later with a serious
gun problem and the NRA is says "more guns." Fine, when enough people have
died, maybe the light will dawn that it's just not worth it. That having
guns is more of a priviledge than a right. I doubt the fools who suggested
"more guns" will even be around...bunch of greedy, paranoid old stooges.
Dan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) And what if it doesn't work, what then? Are you going to reimburse everyone, or just say "sorry about that" and make everyone buy new ones? (...) Reread this one a few times, everyone, and think about what it means. Dan, on the other hand, you (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) I don't agree. (...) I do agree - THAT is the answer. Stop penalizing law-abiding citizens (or unnecessarily making them criminals by outlawing something the Constitution protects), and swiftly/harshly deal with the real criminals. (...) And (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) Not going to happen, it's too late. There are untold millions of legal guns out there. Take those away from law-abiding citizens, and you still have millions of ILlegal guns in the hands of criminals. (...) Sure it does. But life is dangerous, (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
