Too many guns in the US?
Sort:
I wonder what spair thinks of rat traps, and bug poisons. I have read of somebody being killed by a rat trap, I don't recall where it was but it happened. Besides there really isn't anything that can't be used to kill.
the TS is right. people act strange when angry. outlawing guns could be messy. unconstitutional even. but what about outlawing anger? could we ticket people for emotion? and if someone makes you mad, then they could be ticketed for inciting emotion.
Dec 7, 2007
0
#84
Dictators want the weapons of the people. The predates the invention of guns. The elimination of guns in Britain has led to more violent crime, including burglaries when residents are home. More laws are passed to reduce the rights of those who follow the law. This applies to all laws, not just those dealing with weapons. For example, if a city has too much traffic because of illegal parking, government may decide to not allow cars to enter the city unless three people are in the vehicle. This ignores illegal parking at the expense of legal parkers. Criminals with guns are at an increased advantage when the law abiding are unarmed. Guns can be no more uninvented than nuclear weapons. Weapons are necessary for the exercise of natural human rights. Self defense and group defense are among these.
Dictators want everything form the people not just the weapons
Dec 8, 2007
0
#86
Harbinder wrote: An educated person bent on mass murder doesn't need a gun for it. People wishing to protect their families and homes do.
that may be the case but educated people generally aren't bent on mass murder
Dec 8, 2007
0
#87
Yes RedSoxpawn, dictators want everything. Taking away weapons is part of rendering the people powerless. The British seized guns in Boston in 1775 and then marched on Lexington and Concord to take more. The American Revolution started over gun confiscation. Yet, today, the gun laws of Massachusetts would seem to indicate the Americans lost. In the USA, guns are used legally and successfully 1.5-2.5 million times a year, often without a shot being fired. If newspapers reported all this, without increasing their size, there would be no room for other news.
That is true, thanks for covering that little piece about the amount of time guns are used legally.
Dec 13, 2007
0
#89
The possession of guns by the people is sometimes sufficient or at least helpful in providing defense without their use being necessary. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, the Japanese military had no plans to invade the US mainland. The reason given was the ownership of guns by the population in the US (as if the entire nation was full of World War I heroes such as Sgt. York). When a German questioned what would Switzerland do if the Nazis invaded with an army twice the size of the Swiss population, the answer was, "We would all fire two shots and go home."
When a govt fears the people you have freedom, if the people fear their govt you have tyranny. Has any govt ever feared an unarmed populace? And thats all I have to say about that. 
Feb 25, 2008
0
#92
spair75 wrote:
Should guns be taken off private licence holders in the US? Another nine people killed at random this time in Omaha. The trouble with men ( all over the world mind ) is that they tend to get angry quite often - for no apparent reason sometimes. To expunge that anger they do all sorts of crazy things, boys beat up other boys at school/college, some men beat up their wives, and so on... simply because they can do so. That they are stronger. You give us men a gun in our hands - we are liable to use it too. Proof - these killing sprees in the US ( and sometimes elsewhere too ) are mostly done by men. Innocent families suffer, having seen their loved ones get killed simply for want of buying food at their local superstores. That is if the whole family is not wiped out entirely. Isn't it time therefore for the authorities to rid the citizens of their right to bear arms?
Sounds like we men have an education problem, not a gun problem. Guns, like all other tools, are innanimate and the person using it is the problem.
And it is not just a manly problem. Violent crimes by women are on the rise.
At any rate, the education comes in people learning how to live better lives. Governments can legislate and restrict freedom all they want, but unless real education takes place, nothing else will matter.
Furthermore, violent, rude, disgusting people will always be in the world. It is not in the proper role of government to attempt to guarantee security. It simply is not possible.
Jason
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world and every adult male there owns an assault rifle?
Overall guns are horrible because of violence! No one wants violence!
However, some people feel that they need it because they own farm animals.
If the animal is suffering really badly, then they may want to put the animal to sleep by the gun.
This is what an Australian farmer said to me...
lulubell83 wrote:
Overall guns are horrible because of violence! No one wants violence!
However, some people feel that they need it because they own farm animals.
If the animal is suffering really badly, then they may want to put the animal to sleep by the gun.
This is what an Australian farmer said to me...
Do you think guns cause violence? Do you think there would be no violence if there were no guns? Surely, noone can really believe such nonsense? Do you think there was no violence before the existence of guns?
I like the basic idea. That people should have guns to protect themselves from their own government because a government should fear its people. Then you can argue how well it turned out but the idea is nice.
On a sort of related note, isn't this a politic thread? Did the rules about that change?
Too many guns eh well we all know criminals will still be able to get weapons no matter what and crime will still continue. Also we know that the guy that enters your home at 3Am in the morning uninvited is not there to say hello. So you may be willing to wait however long it takes the police to arrive if they even do while in the meantime he does whatever he pleases to you and your family but i'm not. If more of these wastes of society were blown back out into the steet by the man who is trying to protect his family with a gun then maybe this crap would end. The way it stands now the criminals have more rights then you do. So live in your fantasy world and keep believing that taking guns away is the right answer but don't come crying when your family is threatened by some jackass with a gun and you can't protect them because some politician living in a gated community took away your right to own a gun.
Markle wrote:
Too many guns eh well we all know criminals will still be able to get weapons no matter what and crime will still continue. Also we know that the guy that enters your home at 3Am in the morning uninvited is not there to say hello. So you may be willing to wait however long it takes the police to arrive if they even do while in the meantime he does whatever he pleases to you and your family but i'm not. If more of these wastes of society were blown back out into the steet by the man who is trying to protect his family with a gun then maybe this crap would end. The way it stands now the criminals have more rights then you do. So live in your fantasy world and keep believing that taking guns away is the right answer but don't come crying when your family is threatened by some jackass with a gun and you can't protect them because some politician living in a gated community took away your right to own a gun.
This is a great example of where it went wrong. The right to bear arms wasn't put there to protect the people from each other. The responsibility to uphold and enforce the law lies with the state. That's one of the benefits with belonging to a community, that within the community there are laws upheld by the state so that the people won't have to protect themselves against each other. The right to bear arms was put there to prevent the government from trying to get too much power over the people. It's when people start thinking that the government is always right and shouldn't be questioned and that the right to bear arms is there to protect them against other people, that's when things go wrong.
We come up with ever more innovative ways of killing ourselves. If not guns bombs and nukes.
Would spair approve of tasers?
Blast Knuckles (950,000 volt brass knuckles) or Stun Guns and Tasers alright instead of guns?
If someone died because of non-lethal overdose, would then spair approve some other form of self-defense? Would spair like every one to rely on the police for protection? What about private security officers, or armored transport companies, would spair like them disarmed as well? How would spair suggest people should defend their children, or their homes, or themselves, from would be attackers?