Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 May 1999 22:55:23 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
CJC@NEWSGUY.saynotospamCOM
|
Viewed:
|
801 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Dee <richard.dee@virgin.net> wrote:
> The last comment, antisocial shooters. Intriguing, and I shall
> dredge up the old, gun-ownership isssue.
Why? People are usually as polarized on this issue as the abortion
issue.
> In light of the events at Columbine, would you (plural, all
> Americans, anyone in general, and perhaps proponents of some
> political philosophies), still support gun ownership? Would
> it still be the contention that any one of the lives of the
> 15 that died would be insignificant, when weighed against the
> symbolic notion of freedom that the pro-gun people imply gun
> ownership to represent?
It is my contention that the only thing more disgusting than bringing
up a tragedy like this in such a "if you support the right to own a
gun you think those children who died are less important than your
right to own a gun" way would be the gun-nut who would counter with
something equally ridiculous like "well, if it weren't so hard already
to buy a gun maybe some of the other kids could have shot the evil
shooters before they killed all those kids."
> Would pro-gun people still argue that "keeping the government
> in check," to be one of the tenets and responsibilities of
> gun ownership? Do people really think that the military
> would sit by and allow a dictatorship to evolve and rule?
Mmmmm.... not that I'm stating whether or not I believe a bunch of
heavily armed rednecks could do much against any government that
wanted to squash them, but do you realize how silly what you just
wrote sounds?
How many dictatorships do you think have risen to power relying solely
on the awesome might of the broom-wielding janitors or the
staple-shooting secretaries of the civil service?
> Do people actually believe the oft-repeated notion that
> people kill people, not guns?
A gun, like almost all inanimate objects, cannot do much of anything
without the help of a willing animate object. In most cases that
means a person.
> Will people keep voting for legislation that makes it easier
> to acquire weaponry? Will *any* legislation passed in relation
> to gun ownership continue to fail the innocent?
I haven't kept up with the gun debate for years. So I don't know much
about recent legislation. I know a lot of it from the time I was
paying attention was mainly stupid.
> Do people really, truly fear, or believe, that there is a gun-
> toting maniac around every corner? Or that their mild-mannered,
> harmless neighbour will snap, necessitating them to heavily
> arm themselves to protect against such a possibility?
No. But I know _for a fact_ that within 3 months of moving into my
current residence, that a woman pretending to be in need of help with
her car tried to scam her way into my apartment at 2am one night when
Rachael and I were up late watching TV. I say tried to scam her way
in because she claimed to be alone even though I couldn't see her
through the peephole and when I wouldn't let her in I heard about 6
sets of footsteps walking down the stairs and saw a like number of
shadows head off to another building in my complex.
In that situation I did the best thing I could do - I didn't let her
into my home, I merely offered to make the call to a relative for her.
She declined. But if, for some strange reason, she or her 5 friends
had tried to force their way into my apartment, they would have been
met with deadly force from two handguns, both wielded by adults who
felt comfortable with their use and were good shots.
So no, I don't own weapons to protect myself and my wife from the
silly boogymen you conjur up to ridicule people who do feel the need
to own a gun. I own one because in the real world some people are
bad, and if I'm ever forced to deal with one I want to make sure the
right person walks away from it.
> Or will there continue to be a mini-, localised arms race,
> and more innocents dying because no politician has the
> stomach to do anything about it.
Dunno about an arms race. My next "gun" purchase will be a paintball
gun. Sometime this year I plan on purchasing a shotgun. Two handguns
and a shotgun ought to do it for me since I doubt I'll ever need a
rifle because I don't think hunting (in my circumstances) is much fun
or justifiable.
> Think about it. By doing nothing for so many years, the problem
> has only gotten worse, and much harder to do anything about it.
> What real need has anyone to possess a gun. What real justification?
You probably won't accept any of the reasons I could give, even though
I could back them up with real-life personal facts, not NRA
propaganda, so what's the point in asking. Are you honestly prepared
to consider the "debate" with an open mind? I'm honet enough to
admit that I'm not, although I'm for reasonable control measures as
long as they don't overly hinder my right as an adult citizen with
nothing more than a speeding ticket or five on his record.
> What justification is there today for gun ownership? None, really.
> How many people are shot in their homes by hostile invaders? I
> would suggest (I have no *evidence* to support the notion) that
> more people are shot accidentally, or by other members of that
> household, then by outsiders. From whom might one expect a military
Ok, so borrowing a page from your book up top, would you say the lives
of those who ARE saved, even if only a few, aren't worth making it
possible for law-abiding citizens to own guns?
> invasion? Canada? Mexico? Cuba? Hunting nowadays, more for sport
> than food procurement I imagine. And most meat is available
> packaged in the refrigerated section of the local supermarket,
> already killed for you. And really, what are the odds, of you going
Yep, one of the reasons I couldn't, with a clear conscience, hunt.
> One last thing, pertaining to the notion of people kill people,
> though I cannot quote a source, it has been proven, from a
> psychological standpoint, that guns *do* kill. If faced with a
> situation where violence might be used, the weaponry available
> to the individual will dramatically alter the life expectancy
> of the person on the receiving end. Reactions to different
> forms of attack, and the ability to counter different forms
> of attack will increase the survivability of that attack. A gun
> doesn't so easily enable an individual to have second thoughts
> about an action. One has a higher probability of dying from
> a gunshot than being stabbed. One might need to stab more than
> once, or should one strangle.....I give up. I cannot explain
> it! A goodly proportion of murder is "crime of passion." The
> methods available to act upon a shock that leads to it, alter
> the survivability chances of the victim.
Ah. Ok, so guns are bad because they don't allow people with
murderous intent to rethink their course of action while in the
process of killing someone. How clear it seems now.
--
Lego Shop at Home: 800-835-4386 (USA) / 800-267-5346 (Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - A great new resource for LEGO fans worldwide
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| I just want to put my two cents on this one, whereas I will just keep my big mouth shut about the other threads... For what its worth, Mike Stanly seems to absolutely right! (again) Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) Good point, I think I will (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) I would have to agree with Mike. The biggest problem with gun legislation, is that it's in the second amendment of the US Constitution. Spelled out specifically. If the government deems is necessary to take away that amendement, what's to stop (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) I agree with this statement. I think a 'gun license', similar to a 'driving license', is a reasonable and rational requirement for gun ownership. Anyone who wants to legally obtain a gun should be willing to go through a period of training and (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| On Wed, 12 May 1999 00:32:49 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) No comments on education. I am not of schooling age, nor have children, or likely to in the near future. (When considering flameage in your replies, (...) (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
