Results 41 to 50 of 136
-
11-05-2008, 09:22 PM #41
You don't need a gun to kill someone, just like you don't need a gun to protect yourself.
However, overall, its not about the actual guns - it won't matter if you ban the object. Its the social mindset surrounding violence, safety and crime.
What social systems are in place that facilitate the growth or sustenance of violence? How do we interact with and interpret those social settings to determine the need for personal defense (i.e. in the form of a gun)? What does it mean for people to carry a weapon/form of defense for personal security?
-
-
11-05-2008, 09:32 PM #42
also that an m-16 cost like 5k to buy...
-
11-05-2008, 09:34 PM #43
in my view you will never stop violence, for one thing some people love it, and others use it to take out frustration. but i do think that you need a gun to protect yourself, because if a guy is in your house with a gun, the only way to stop him is with a gun...
-
-
11-05-2008, 10:08 PM #44
Sadly, yes, violence will never be changed. However, there is a difference between violence and aggression (which is what I think you were bringing up). Here's how I see it: violence is largely a maliciously intentional act to cause direct, serious harm (whether physical, emotional, etc) to another person; aggression is something of an emotional release, which can be through physical activity. What is the link or line between violence and aggression when considering the use of guns, or force in general?
I think you missed my point about not necessarily needing a gun. Like I said, a burglar doesn't need a gun to rob your house, just like you don't need a gun to stop that particular robber. The bigger picture is not that you want a gun to address the chance of a burglar having a gun or not - it is thinking about how social conditions of potential criminals have deteriorated, how those people perceive crime when turning to easily accessible guns, and why they turn to crime when considering the influence of the state of their social lives.
That said, I am not against guns as a personal defense. I am just critical of the social, systematic, and historical influences that have led to violence and crime, which can involve guns.
As far as the cars, we don't restrict the actual car, but we do restrict the action (speeding) done with the car. It is not an issue of the object, but improving the personal responsibility when owning that object (whether its a gun, car, etc). You do that by looking at the societal pressures and perspectives toward the action, not the object.
-
11-05-2008, 10:44 PM #45
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns are the weapon of choice. I don't here an outcry to ban knives when someone is stabbed. Criminals will find guns or other ways to do what they want. Taking the guns from LAW ABIDING citizens like myself WILL NOT solve crime and violence in America. I own numerous guns, my 12th birthday present was a .20ga Shotgun. Even the Supreme Court agrees with the Second Amendment. An easy answer is to take things away, how about education? Hunter's Safety is a great thing. Learn to respect a gun. Remember, guns don't get up, walk and shoot someone, a person has to use it in order for it to work.
-
-
11-05-2008, 10:55 PM #46
I bought a new gun today. They had me fill out a form, and then called the FBI for my background check. Seems like a good deal to me. Now if we could just deal with the black-market and stolen guns.....
-
11-05-2008, 11:30 PM #47
I'm 100% against guns for reasons already stated in this thread. They simply are not necessary. Hunting? Too bad; humans have evolved to the point where they don't need it. Protection? Very seldom does one protect oneself from an agressor with a gun.
To eliminate all guns, we need to start by thoroughly documenting ALL gun owners. After the illegal owners have been fazed out, ban guns outright. Documentation obviously proves who has them. Sure, there will be a few who secretly has them, but, again, they'll be fazed out.
-
-
11-05-2008, 11:45 PM #48
You're against hunting because you dont enjoy it. You shouldnt make others suffer just because you dont find something enjoyable. Think about it, some people think collecting pieces of cardboard with athletes pictures on it is pretty pointless, haha, but we still enjoy it. Hunting is not just an American past-time, but something we've done since the beginning of time. Sorry if you dont like it, and if you feel threatened by hunters.
As long as criminals have guns, we should too. Police officers can try as hard as they can to be everywhere all the time, but they just cant. So why should we and our families be left vulnerable just because someone is afraid of guns. When all you're trying to do is take guns away from the ones you SHOULDNT be worried about.
-
11-06-2008, 12:11 AM #49
I'm 100% against guns for reasons already stated in this thread. They simply are not necessary. Hunting? Too bad; humans have evolved to the point where they don't need it. Protection? Very seldom does one protect oneself from an agressor with a gun.
It only takes once. No, it doesn't happen often and most people probably go through their entire lives without needing that kind of protection. But there are people who are put in that situation and I bet 99 times out of 100 they are either glad they had a gun or wish they did.
I've told this story on here once before, but it bears repeating. It's a true story, but I read it a while back and don't remember every detail. To make it short, a VERY strong anti-gun person was home with his family one night when a couple of men came onto his property and were acting very aggressive. He wasn't sure what their intentions were, but he was sure they weren't supposed to be there. He took his pistol out of his closet and confronted them, scaring them off of his property. When questioned about it later, as he was famously anti-gun, he said something along the lines of gun control is all well and good until it's my house and my family that need protecting.
To eliminate all guns, we need to start by thoroughly documenting ALL gun owners. After the illegal owners have been fazed out, ban guns outright. Documentation obviously proves who has them. Sure, there will be a few who secretly has them, but, again, they'll be fazed out.
That's faulty logic. How do you document guns owned illegally? They stolen, obtained off the black market, etc....they don't have registries you sign when you pick one up. The only documentation possible would be for people who purchased their guns legally. And that's the whole point...it's easy to document, register, regulate, and if it comes to it, take away guns of law abiding citizens, but it's nearly impossible to do so for criminals. The only time you get guns of criminals is if they're caught using them, which happens now anyway.
-
11-06-2008, 12:19 AM #50
obviously you don't understand the ramifications of no hunting. The balance of wildlife for centuries has been balanced out through hunting. No hunting would do more damage to the enviroment then any drilling for oil could. All over the country when one species begins to multiply more than is good for the enviroment, who does the state turn to? That's right, hunters. You know why? Because, you either let guys come hunt, who are going to use the meat to feed their families, or you have to go kill the animals just to kill them.
Agree with OPT that it only takes once of defending yourself. My wife feels much safer when I am gone knowing that she has a gun she can use. Because yeah, I might be able to defend myself against a burgler, but do you think most women could without protection (no offense intended toward women)?
Also, there is no way to document those who have guns illegally. If you could, they wouldn't have them. So, that would be one more way that the law abiding citizens are the ones who are hassled and put out while the criminals, who are the ones doing the crimes with guns, are free to do whatever they want.
-
Originally Posted by ensbergcollector 
