Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Thanks for your response, Diest.

Those questions certainly interest me, too! (obviously)

saab

My understanding (from posts to this thread) is that these pro-gun folk are more concerned about dealing with a possible robber, or intruder , to their home, than forming some sort of "militia" to defend their democratic society.

.... & this, apparently, is why they need heaps of high power weapons in their homes!!!

...or in the streets where they walk. They can never really know what danger actually lurks out there & they must must be prepared, just in case!

It´s like fundamentalistic fanatic religiously people - they see the devil everywhere.
The fanatics trust in their God - the others in their guns.
Religious people trust in one God - the others need an arsenal.

So you happen to know no one who was rob or harm by crime?

Lucky you!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been robbed in the past, Bill, & it's certainly not a good experience, I know. (Very upsetting, of course.) But shooting the robber (if actually I saw them?) Is that a brilliant idea? I don't think so.

Oh for the record the last time a friend of mine was harm was when she was beaten up badly enough to needed to spend two days in a hospital as she was leaving her business in Florida City Florida, by two brave gentlemen.

The amusing thing was she and her husband had hired an arm security guard to provide security for their customers however, he was patrolling the front of the business not the back parking lot at the time of the attack.

She now tends to leave the business with either the arm security guard on hand or with her gun in her hand.

Shame on her for fearing harm for no good reason or being more then welling to shot the robbers next time instead of spending another two days in a hospital or perhaps dying.

I'm still waiting for one of you anti-gun people to define the term "gun-nut".

You like to use that term but none of you have defined it.
How many guns must a person own to qualify as a "gun nut"?

How forceful must someones defense of the 2nd amendment be to qualify as a "gun nut"?

How new must a persons gun (or guns) be to be considered a "gun nut"?

So many of you use it as a derogatory term, so lets see your honest definition of the term.
Once you do that, we can start on a real discussion.

Well (& I'm sorry if I sound flippant, Bill. I really don't mean to be.) but if you live in a society where just about anyone can own a gun, that's what happens. All too easily. It's dangerous for everyone.

I haven't personally used the term "gun nut", mysteryman. But I suspect it means someone who is rather obsessive about owning guns (& perhaps posting their favourite photographs of firearms to a thread like this one? For reasons that are rather hard to comprehend.)

... and I don't understand at all why "an honest definition of this term" is required before we can have a "real discussion" about gun ownership & the problems caused as a result. Though I do agree with you that a real discussion hasn't exactly happened so far ... It has tended to be rather one sided.

The two gentlemen did not shot her they just used the fact that they happen to be two big men and she happen to be a small woman. They had no need for a firearm however she sure the hell did.

People happen to had been rob and kill long long before firearms enter history.

Second with two hundred millions or so firearms in the US how do you plan by any law to disarm someone who does not care about the laws?

The only thing that more anti-gun laws will do is to limit the ability of my friend to protect herself as she does care to follow the laws.

A gun in her hands or my hands or my wife hands is not a threat to public peace or safety. In fact if my friend had have had a gun openly in her hand that night and been aware of her surrounding an attack on her would had been very unlikely. Those two brave gentlemen more then likley would had gone looking for a person who does not believe in being arm.

I haven´t used the term "gun-nut" but let me say whom I don´t think are "gun-nuts"
Soldiers, policemen, watchmen and others who need a gun in their profession.
Hunters depending on what they hunt, a beginners hunter usually need about 4 - later about 6 guns and sometimes more - depending on what games they hunt They are not "gun-nuts"
People collecting old guns are not "gun-nuts" as these guns usually cannot even be used.
People who constantly have to have a gun or several around who close to paranoya think their life is depended on it I would if I would use the expression call "gun-nuts"

Oh in the same city Florida City there is a bar owner who everyone know carry cash from the bar every night to the local bank night deposit and yet somehow no one had attempted to rob him.

I am not sure why but it might had something to do with the fact that he is a civil war nut and had decided to carry openly on his hip during his bank runs an old and very very big cap and ball naval revolter from that time period.

Saab so your judgement is better then mine as far as where and under what conditions I might need to carry a gun?

You know the high crime areas of my location better then I do?

Second and far more important the shootings that occur by those men with evil guns that started this thread happen at random and not in high crime areas it would have been nice if someon ein those areas had been a arm gun nut and therefore had some small chance of ending the killing sprees would it not?

Once more with two hundred millions firearms no one is going to be able with any possible law to stop someone from becoming arm and going on killing sprees if they wish to.

The only thing anti-gun laws are going to do is made sure no one is going to have the tools to stop such a killing spree.

(Sorry, Bill & others, I seem to be the only one from the "other" side of the argument online at the moment, so what you're hearing from me is just my views, OK? ... others may well want to offer different views later on.)

First of all (as you already know, Bill) they were not "two brave gentlemen" .
Apart from that, how on earth would I know what effect it would have had on those two men had your friend been armed? It it impossible to speculate on what might or might not have happened. There is a possibility that being armed might have made her situation worse. But how would you or I know, either way, for certain?

msolga
I am on your side.

Hello saab

Sorry, I posted my last comment about being the only one on "this side" of the debate before I saw your post.

So I haven't mistaken you for a pro-gun person, rest assured!

Perhaps the gun in her hand would had make the situation worst but now the question is do you or I had the right to pass laws that would take away her rights to legally have that gun in her hand on her property if she feel that it does reduce her risk of harm in the future?

Guns are not of themselves evil or good it all depend and it all seem to come down to the question does a law abiding adult ciitizens had the same ability to be arm as the crimial elementals if they wish to?

Guns are not the only mean of defense and under some situtions they could indeed make the sitution worst however are we going to take that judgement away for the citizens?

You hear about the senseless killing sprees and react by thinking we need more anti-gun laws and I react by thinking that I should carry one of my guns more often then I do now.

I do have one quesiton for you are you of the opinion that any possible law is going to stop one of those killing sprees? Can any possilbe law stop someone who have the drive to get his or her hand on a firearm?

Would even a complete legal ban on all firearms removed a large percent of those two hundred millions weapons from our society?

(You pro-gun guys are certainly big on these hypothetical situations! )

I'd be interested in laws where anyone wishing to own a gun (in the US situation) would be required to apply for & justify ownership. With stringent controls (if gun ownership by any individual was approved by your authorities) on the type & number of guns an individual could legally possess. With strong penalties for anyone breaking the law.
In my own country I would expect the law to be responsible for the safety of citizens. As the situation is now. (Rather than citizens taking the law into their own hands.)