Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:45:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
395 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> > > In the spirit of not trying to pick a fight, I'll include my opinion to this
> > > topic and hope for the best...
> > >
> > > Is it true that Hitler managed to remove weapons from the common people in
> > > Germany sometime before he went on his mad killing spree? And perhaps
> > > Stalin as well?
> >
> > Is this really the best you can do.
>
>
> For the moment, yes. Are you concerned that there may actually be a sound
> reason that people should maintain the ability to defend themselves?
One does not need guns do defend rights. Most of Europe does not have guns
under their beds but we are still here. I feel safe that HM Gov is not about
to oppress me. Even though you have the right to own a gun, you still fear
what your government plans for you. Do you not see the contradiction?
Scott A
>
> > Which members of the gun owning public stopped your courts dragging away
> > alleged communists during McCarthy’s reign?
>
>
> Though I am not well read on this issue, I can imagine many reasons why
> arms may not have been raised...here are a couple...
>
> 1). John Doe is eating supper with his family when the feds break down the
> door and act too quickly for John to get his gun...
>
> 2). John Doe actually thinks the courts will find him innocent...
>
> 3) John Doe's neighbors don't know him very well and actually believe what
> the media says...
It is not about how well his neighbours know him, it is about his rights.
Irrespective of what his views are, does he not have the right to have them?
>
> > >
> > > I'm gonna search the web a bit today and see if I can find a site that
> > > offers this information, but I don't know if I'll have any luck...I know
> > > it's out there somewhere though.
> > >
> > > In light of this (if it's true or something similiar is) I am all for
> > > keeping guns or any other choice of personal defense on hand...as far as I
> > > can tell, weapons are best suited for self defense from an opposing force,
> > > specifically invading governments, and sometimes your own government may
> > > your worst enemy.
> > >
> > > Sure, there's a risk, and children certainly die, but how many children die
> > > in car accidents, I wonder...is anyone advocating the banning of motor
> > > vehicles...?
> >
> > You are trivialising the debate. Falling pianos no doubt have their victims
> > too. The fact is that guns are designed to kill - cars are not. Cars are
> > designed to get us from A to B - guns are not. If you genuinely are in fear
> > of your government raiding your home I respectfully suggest that you get
> > more of your countrymen to vote rather than keeping a gun under your pillow.
> >
> > Scott A
>
>
> The argument is that guns are responsible for the loss of innocent life...my
> perception is that guns are a defensive measure intended for the use of
> ensuring individual freedom against oppresion. Yes, guns have been used for
> entertainment (hunting) and they have also been abused (violent crime).
> However, guns in America take fewer lives than automobiles.
>
> Purhaps you think it is trivial matter that few people actually follow
> posted speed limits.
>
> Construction workers now have to protect themselves with concrete dividers
> so that negligent drivers will not hit them.
>
> Automobiles are released on the market capable of far greater speeds than
> laws permit to be driven (why does the public need a car that exceeds 100mph?).
>
> It purplexes me that people think guns need to be banned when some of our
> very luxuries are more dangerous. I am convinced that the only thing
> keeping me from dying on the express-way is either good fortune or divine
> intervention. I am more likely to survive a bullet wound than an automobile
> accident.
>
> How can America be so willing to ban guns? If you want make this a safer
> country, ban alchohol...it contributes significantly to the death toll...oh,
> but wait, that was tried once wasn't it...America had to reinstate the
> legalization of alchohol regardless of the abuse it recieves because the
> people couldn't live their daily lives without this luxury.
>
> Maybe you just don't want to here my opinion?
>
> Purhaps my opinion is too personal?
>
> Alchohol kills
>
> Automobiles kill
>
> Guns kill
>
> which one is really more dangerous?
>
> > >
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > > > I think the basic idea is having the handguns leaves the likely possibility
> > > > of being shot with one. Plus, the way our media portrays violence with
> > > > handguns, it creates a climate where the possibility is even more likely.
> > > > Getting rid of the handguns and automatic weapons will lower the odds,
> > > > that's just common sense.
> > > >
> > > > I say to hell with the NRA and just ban all handguns and automatic weapons.
> > > > If those NRA scumbags want to hide behind the Constitution, just know that
> > > > it was written in the days of muzzle loaders. The right to bear arms needs
> > > > to be specific, just by virtue of those startling statistics you offered.
> > > > These NRA bastards don't seem to understand that it's called "amendment"
> > > > because it can be "amended." They had no problem changing their term limit
> > > > rule to accomodate Charlton "Soylent Green" Heston for another term as their
> > > > president.
> > > >
> > > > Make handguns and automatic weapons illegal. Or as comedian Eddie Izzard
> > > > says: "Keep the guns and get rid of the bullets." If someone has one, turn
> > > > it in and be reimbursed by the Fed or donate it to a museum if it's
> > > > considered an artifact. Then if anyone is ever found with one, make it hefty
> > > > fine along with confiscation and destruction of the weapon. Keep rifles and
> > > > shotguns, since the NRA is the National *RIFLE* Association anyway. Those
> > > > weapons are harder to conceal and stats show handguns are the firearm of
> > > > choice in violent crimes and murders.
> > > >
> > > > Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) For the moment, yes. Are you concerned that there may actually be a sound reason that people should maintain the ability to defend themselves? (...) Though I am not well read on this issue, I can imagine many reasons why arms may not have been (...) (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
|
|
|
|
