Thoughts on gun control

snood wrote:

I got nothing against guns. I like shootin 'em, myself - and think they can serve as vital tools in some situations.

I have something against people whose ownership of firearms has seemingly usurped part of their humanity.

That I agree with.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

...If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Henry never met Muhammed Atta, did he?

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

snood wrote:

...If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Henry never met Muhammed Atta, did he?

Your point?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
snood wrote:

...If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Henry never met Muhammed Atta, did he?

Your point?

Oh please, Gunga, let me field this one. Smile

You're walking down a hiking path on a cold morning and find a nearly frozen snake immobilized on the gravel. Taking pity on the poor creature you cup it in your hands and take it to your bosom to warm it and thus save its life. Revived, the newly invigorated snake is totally unimpressed with your compassion and kindness and will strike your hands or your heart, whatever it can reach, in an intentional attempt to kill you.

That's what snakes do.

Do you get Gunga's point now?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
snood wrote:

...If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Henry never met Muhammed Atta, did he?

Your point?

Oh please, Gunga, let me field this one.

You're walking down a hiking path on a cold morning and find a nearly frozen snake immobilized on the gravel. Taking pity on the poor creature you cup it in your hands and take it to your bosom to warm it and thus save its life. Revived, the newly invigorated snake is totally unimpressed with your compassion and kindness and will strike your hands or your heart, whatever it can reach, in an intentional attempt to kill you.

That's what snakes do.

Do you get Gunga's point now?

No

0 Replies

I'm sure it's been said already (I'm not about to read 70 pages, but I did go back 5), but I view gun ownership as another form of insurance. You hope you never need it, but you also never want to be without it.

I carry concealed about 50% of the time (I would carry more if I could). I have never been in a situation where I've had to draw my gun thankfully, but I cannot see a downside to protecting myself or my family.

Also, from what I've read/understand, most states/city's with concealed weapons and more liberal gun laws have lower crime rates and/or lower murder rates.

I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on this.

0 Replies

source

0 Replies

Int, thanks for posting that drivel. Even if the numbers are correct it shows how few incidents there really are - and note my favorite liberlism, the wiggle word "either".

Also it should be pointed out that D.C. is the most violent of all cities, and it is supposed to be unarmed, so I don't believe anything from a D.C. based "Violence Policy Center".

0 Replies

One man's drivel is another man's facts. Just because someone differs with facts, does not make the facts drivel. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

The National Rifle Association acknowledges the VPC as "the most effective...anti-gun rabble rouser in Washington."

Pick your side. I'll be on the side that is armed - to the teeth.

0 Replies

Rebuttal to Intrepid's article:

Florida crime rates dropping
Posted by David Hardy · 11 July 2006 06:55 PM
Interesting data released today. Florida is, of course, the inventor of liberalized handgun concealed carry permits, of "castle doctrine" laws that allow lethal force in self defense without having to retreat, and a few other such measures.
Naturally, the Brady Campaign used Florida as their poster child for a gun-crazy state. Brady began an advertising campaign to warn tourists against entering this dangerous state. "The ?Shoot First ? law is a new law in Florida that police, prosecuting attorneys and gun violence prevention advocates worry may lead to the reckless use of guns on the streets of Florida cities." Sarah Brady intoned, ""The net effect of the new 'Shoot First' law in Florida is, unfortunately, precisely what we feared. People are dying who did not deserve to die." Just for good measure, Brady added "Gun violence in Florida could increase in 2005 because Congress failed to renew the federal assault weapon ban, which expired last fall, and Florida has no state law restricting assault weapons or rapid-fire ammunition magazines. Florida also does not require background checks at gun shows, does not require child-safety locks to be sold with guns, does not have any handgun safety standards to limit Saturday night specials and even forces police to let people carry hidden handguns in public."
Well, the Palm Beach Post reports that Florida's crime rates have fallen to the lowest level since 1971. "A telephone message left for comment after hours with the The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, D.C. was not immediately returned."
You can get the report, in pdf format, here. It shows that, even though the state's population is growing, total homicides fell by 6.9%, and firearm homicides by 6.1%. Given the population increase, the decrease in rates would have been greater.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/07/florida_crime_r.php

John Lott Jr. completed maybe the most comprehensive study done on this:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14167.ctl

An interview with John Lott
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
snood wrote:

...If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Henry never met Muhammed Atta, did he?

Your point?

Oh please, Gunga, let me field this one.

You're walking down a hiking path on a cold morning and find a nearly frozen snake immobilized on the gravel. Taking pity on the poor creature you cup it in your hands and take it to your bosom to warm it and thus save its life. Revived, the newly invigorated snake is totally unimpressed with your compassion and kindness and will strike your hands or your heart, whatever it can reach, in an intentional attempt to kill you.

That's what snakes do.

Do you get Gunga's point now?

Yeah, we all "get" gunga and cjhsa's "point" driven home to us on a daily.

The sig line is just saying men would generally discover they are more alike than different if they could see inside. Why don't you just leave it at that?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
snood wrote:

...If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Henry never met Muhammed Atta, did he?

Your point?

Oh please, Gunga, let me field this one.

You're walking down a hiking path on a cold morning and find a nearly frozen snake immobilized on the gravel. Taking pity on the poor creature you cup it in your hands and take it to your bosom to warm it and thus save its life. Revived, the newly invigorated snake is totally unimpressed with your compassion and kindness and will strike your hands or your heart, whatever it can reach, in an intentional attempt to kill you.

That's what snakes do.....

Good way to put it, in fact there's a song along such lines ("Let me IN, oh pretty woman....").

The thing that totally blew my mind about 9-11 was the idea that those guys could have lived here with Americans for six or seven years, integrated into American society, kids gone to school with Americans, wives doing every sort of social thing with Americans, and THEN done something like that.

Clearly we're not dealing with people who are "just like us" in this case, and the "kum-bay-ah" stuff has clearly outlived any usefulness it might have ever had.

0 Replies

Gunga writes

Quote:

Clearly we're not dealing with people who are "just like us" in this case, and the "kum-bay-ah" stuff has clearly outlived any usefulness it might have ever had.

Actually there is a certain arrogance when we think "everybody is just like us." I'll admit to falling into that trap at one time until the world became aware of militant Islamofacist terrorism. I once thought pretty much everybody loved their kids, but I don't believe people who send their sons into crowded markets to blow themselves up love their kids. This apart from the fact that everybody doesn't want to be like us.

I do believe most criminals can be rehabilitated in the right environment. And I also think you could take pretty much any sexual predator, kleptomanic, serial killer, international terrorist or other sociopath into your home, love him, have him talk it all out, understand him, appreciate him, forgive him, etc. etc. etc. and at the end of the day what you'll have in your home is a sexual predator, kleptomaniac, serial killer, international terrorist, or other sociopath.

I am all for allowing anybody their thoughts, opinions, or propensities until they presume to use a position of power to force them on others. At that time I think the wise and prudent as well as the compassionate among us must make a distinction between good/harmless and evil and to what extent we will tolerate evil.

And I believe there is such a thing as good. And also such a thing as evil.
I think those advocating personal self defense understand that. I think those who object to personal self defense see very different things as evil than those who do understand that.

0 Replies

Many do not object to personal self defence. Just the manner in which the defence is achieved.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Many do not object to personal self defence. Just the manner in which the defence is achieved.

But you see, that's where you and I may really differ. When a killer/predator/maniac/sociopath or whatever intends to rape, torture, maim, or murder me or mine or any innocent victims, they aren't real particular about how that will be accomplished. And I'm not particular at all in how I or mine or any innocent victims are defended against that. I favor whatever self defense is reasonable, necessary, and effective whatever that might be. And I think there are many times when a gun is the only reasonable, necessary, and effective choice.

0 Replies

What surprises me now is that now mentally ill persons ("maniac/sociopath ") are introduced here as target for a gun as reasonable, necessary, and effective choice.

There are definately cultural and - more important - moral difference in how Europeans and US-Americans deal with such.
(Leaving outside that terrible time when we were ruled by the Nazis.)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

What surprises me now is that now mentally ill persons ("maniac/sociopath ") are introduced here as target for a gun as reasonable, necessary, and effective choice.

There are definately cultural and - more important - moral difference in how Europeans and US-Americans deal with such.
(Leaving outside that terrible time when we were ruled by the Nazis.)

You think the sociopaths are mentally ill? That's certainly different all right.

But even aside from the cultural differences, I'll take it that if a maniac or sociopath is killing you, you think it would be immoral for the police or your neighbor or family member to shoot him when that is their own viable option to save your life? Maybe someday you can explain that reasoning to me, but right now I don't share that sentiment.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You think the sociopaths are mentally ill? That's certainly different all right.

Well, at least it's listed in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10, F60.2 if I remember correctly) as well as in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM ... not sure at all about the where)

"Maniacs" don't seem to be questioned as ill?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But even aside from the cultural differences, I'll take it that if a maniac or sociopath is killing you, you think it would be immoral for the police or your neighbor or family member to shoot him when that is their own viable option to save your life? Maybe someday you can explain that reasoning to me, but right now I don't share that sentiment.

Might be illegal (at least for the neighbours, family members and myself).

For the police it would be only possible as a (very) last resort.

0 Replies

Thoughts on gun control

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know