100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > notquite00
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
Accidents happen....how do you lessen the incidents of accidents? Education Electricity kills many people? Ban it? Like several people posting on these boards I grew up around guns. First rule as another poster mentioned. Guns are dangerous tools. Second...always assume a gun is loaded. There are other rules too but those are typically the first rules many of us who grew up in households with guns learned. A child who is able to get access to a gun and ammunition and who has not been properly educated is highly dangerous to themselves and others. Is it a reason to ban guns? No The facts about gun violence are might surprise some anti gun people. NPR did an excellent piece about guns some time ago. Yes I can see the eyes roll since many think NPR is completely anti-gun. That is not the case however. I wish I could find the book and author who was featured but a quick look hasn't brought it up. The author pointed out that legal gun owners are not the problem and he supported his points well. It was one of the most reasonable pro-gun presentations I have ever heard and avoided all that pry it from my cold dead hand hysteria that gives legal gun owners such a bad name. People who legally own guns are dramatically less likely to use a gun to commit an act of violence including self defense. (I don't consider self defense committing violence but I know some do) The numbers change abit with suicide in males but even people committing suicide don't always use a gun even when they legally own one. Women for instance are much more likely to take an overdose. Not surprisingly southern rural people are much more likely to legally own guns but also less likely to be involved in a gun crime. Urban northern populations are much more likely to illegally own guns and are dramatically more likely to be involved in gun crime as either a victim or perpetrator. Legal gun owners are not the problem here. I completely support a waiting period, a background check, a requirement that guns be stored and secured and even legislation that makes gun owners responsible legally if say a kid is able to get a gun and hurts themselves or others with it perhaps even a registry but beyond that I do not support further restrictions placed on the legal owners of guns. What is needed is a very different approach. Education, seizure of illegally owned guns (waiting for the howl here), mandatory sentences and truth in sentencing for anyone who commits a crime with a gun (sorry about your luck Plexico), a change in how gun violence is viewed (there is nothing or should be nothing glamorous about thugs) and gun safety programs for children might all be good places to start. I think it's funny that many on the left want kids to get sex education in school but they would have kittens if anyone were to suggest their kids have a gun safety class too. To me, they are or could potentially be equally important to a child's safety. I think the NRA in many ways does a disservice to legal gun owners but that's another post...and I am rambling here. I would highly recommend a class for your kid in gun safety. Here in Michigan we have hunter safety classes. Those classes don't just cover gun safety but it's a good introduction to guns for a kid. At any rate parents who are concerned about guns ought to talk frankly with their kids about them. Don't own a gun? Have that talk anyway. One of their friends parents might. Closing your eyes to teen sex, guns, drugs, sexism, violence or any other thing won't make it magically go away. You cannot child proof the world. Yes, ban it if we can do with out it, which we can with guns. Education takes a **** load of money, where as legislation to prohibit the sale of new guns, effective in a few years, takes far less money and gives businesses time to sell-out and change their inventories. I find it surprising that you're comparing sex ed to gun ed. Sex is much more prevalent than guns by large factor, and guns have a much smaller impact on lives and society than sex. Guns are machines used primarily for killing, whether that entails hunting or defense, even if casual use just involves a shooting range, and for this reason, for many, guns are something extremely scary and unattractive. I don't find it surprising at all that some parents feel uncomfortable with gun ed when they support sex ed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
that's it right there - people with malicious intent kill people YES, but seeing as this thread *started* with a child killing another child accidentally, that is *without malicious intent*, I would have guessed that you'd have understood my point. When it comes to guns, it's much easier for people *without malicious intent* to kill others *accidentally*. 
while they maybe manufactured/produced for a specific use - things (sh!t) can always happen - accidents are just that unexpected actions/events. I for one use a butter knife as a screwdriver when in haste 
there will always be a what if - I say what if we were all careful, educated and accepted the fact that when in possession of a weapon or firearm we are liable for things/events/accidents that occur - more would be responsible. Does this mean banning guns - No
Does this mean banning guns? Why not? I have yet to hear one practical reason for having guns that isn't immediately and easily debatable. In fact, I've seen on several occasions supposedly pro-gun arguments that actually support my argument, for example, the one raiderfan_32 made "against" my "decreasing guns in homes" argument. You say we should be liable for whatever might happen with our guns. I don't doubt it for a second, though, that many gun owners who have had their kid accidentally killed by a gun don't feel at least a little guilt for having that gun. Granted, there will be those who only feel guilty about not locking things up tighter, but you've got to admit that there will be plenty who also regret having the gun at all. Okay, I'll play your speculation scenario game. Someone walks into your home and shoots your mother and father. You're in another room. What do you do? Wait until they come shoot you? HOPE you can overtake them? If you would watch that Youtube link I posted it will clear things up nice and pretty like for you. Okay, I'll play too. Someone comes in and randomly shoots my mom and dad. I grab the wooden sword that's in my room and hide to the left of my doorway. The guy comes after me: as soon as he enters (supposedly his hands are in front of him, so gun first), I swing for his gun, hit, then plow the guy over. First thing: I push my fingers into his eyes, knee him in the crotch. I get up, kick him in the head, then call the police. If I had a gun in my house, this is how I'd do it: I'd do the same exact thing, except when he enters, I use the gun to shoot his hand, then shoot him in the head. That's if the gun is in my room or something. Now, let's say I'm in the living room and this happens while my parents are in the kitchen. Well, probably I wouldn't have a gun, and I wouldn't have a wooden sword. I'd still head for a doorway and try to tackle the guy... And if I tried to get into a long range gunfight with the guy, well, then who knows who'd win. Lastly, the probability of a psychopath just entering and shooting is much less than someone entering when everyone's asleep, stealing some ****, then leaving. In that case, let the guy steal the **** and leave - safer for everyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
Edited by
notquite00
on
Mon 02/02/09 10:33 AM
|
|
Please watch and listen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EdiTK4PRJM I wish I could. My comp doesn't support plug-ins at the moment... Of course, no one is saying ban everything that causes accidents. What's more, it's difficult to unintentionally stab someone with scissors and kill them, I'd say, especially considering the fact that they make children scissors with rounded edges these days. Also, these days they're trying to make poisonous substances have a child-proof cap. What's more, scissors and bleach are useful in almost every household...I say this because most households probably have a pair of scissors and a bottle of bleach. However, how is it that most households do not need a gun? I'd say yes, because most households do not have a gun. Lastly, I'd like to note that in the statistics shown by ReddBeans earlier, accidental injury or death from poison was noted to occur less than injury or death due to firearms, if the order is to be taken to show frequency. Seeing as more homes have bleach than guns, and that death by bleach is only *one* form of poisoning, it looks like death by bleach is *much* less common than death by guns. The quote is: Unintentional home injury deaths to children are caused primarily by fire and burns, suffocation, drowning, firearms, falls, choking and poisoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
Edited by
notquite00
on
Mon 02/02/09 10:22 AM
|
|
You live in a fantasy land... Weren't you offering a hypothetical situation? I don't think it's fantasy at all to think that if the US introduced an anti-gun law, it'd be practical to ban the sale of *new* guns and ammo effective a year or so after the law is passed. Even if people stockpile ammunition, it's more than safe to say that people would in a decade, run out. I have been kind enough to try to back up my statements with explanations. It'd be nice if you'd do the same, instead of just trying to make me feel bad through the Interweb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
that's it right there - people with malicious intent kill people YES, but seeing as this thread *started* with a child killing another child accidentally, that is *without malicious intent*, I would have guessed that you'd have understood my point. When it comes to guns, it's much easier for people *without malicious intent* to kill others *accidentally*.
while they maybe manufactured/produced for a specific use - things (sh!t) can always happen - accidents are just that unexpected actions/events. I for one use a butter knife as a screwdriver when in haste
there will always be a what if - I say what if we were all careful, educated and accepted the fact that when in possession of a weapon or firearm we are liable for things/events/accidents that occur - more would be responsible. Does this mean banning guns - No
Does this mean banning guns? Why not? I have yet to hear one practical reason for having guns that isn't immediately and easily debatable. In fact, I've seen on several occasions supposedly pro-gun arguments that actually support my argument, for example, the one raiderfan_32 made "against" my "decreasing guns in homes" argument. You say we should be liable for whatever might happen with our guns. I don't doubt it for a second, though, that many gun owners who have had their kid accidentally killed by a gun don't feel at least a little guilt for having that gun. Granted, there will be those who only feel guilty about not locking things up tighter, but you've got to admit that there will be plenty who also regret having the gun at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
funny that no one is remarking upon the fact that the gun was STOLEN. It was an illegal gun in the first place. No law is gonna stop illegal possesion of guns if the kids stole a skillsaw and chopped off his arm would we be banning skillsaws? no law is gonna stop people with bad intent I doubt the kid killed his friend on purpose. Plus, I think the gun was *stolen* from somewhere else or someone else's home, not that it was contraband to begin with. I didn't read the article closely enough, though, to say that for sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
NOT INCONTESTABLE FACT!!! mindless conjecture, at best. if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns! You act like the NRA is some formless, amorphous, mystery entity.. It's not. It's made up of men and women across the country who feel strongly enough to stand up for their God-given, inalienable right to the means to their own defense. Period. Scotus rulings have determined that a policeman has no obligation under the law to insert himself in a position of peril to protect you. You and you alone are responsible for your own safety. I don't believe that *you* believe that if there are less guns in homes, less guns in those homes will find their way into the hands of children. In your own words, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Like I've said before, probably *less* outlaws will have guns. What's more, normal, law-abiding homes won't have guns, so the instance of children getting their hands on guns would be less. Really, you just seem to be reinforcing my argument... Not reiforcing your arguement, disproving it. Probably's and maybe's just don't cut it. but let's follow your line of thought. suppose you did get your way and we wake up tomorrow with a total, out and out gun ban.. what do you do about the millions and millions of previously legally owned firearms and the billions of round of ammunition people already have?? how do you enforce your new law? keep in mind there are no registration rolls, so no way of knowing who has guns, what kind they have, how many, or where they live... Maybe I'm just dumb or over-zealous. I still don't see how you disproved my logic. You said, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!" Okay, so if it's only the outlaws that have guns, that means that homes have fewer guns. This means Objective #1 is satisfied: Homes have fewer guns. Thus, you have reinforced the first part of my argument. The second part of my logic - the part about less outlaws having guns - was not really helped by your argument, I admit, but that's okay. That one is pretty self-evident: if guns are harder to get for criminals, then less criminals will get them. Also, I speak in "probably"s and "maybe"s because one) I feel it's a little easier on the ear, and two) I don't KNOW for a fact what would happen. Even if I KNOW how things went in one situation, I often still don't KNOW how they'd go in another situation. Especially when things come to real life situations, there are often too many factors to see... The issue of rounding up everyone's firearms is something to consider should a ban ever come into place. The way I'd do it is to ban the sale and trafficking of firearms and ammunition, thus the flow of new firearms into the market would be stemmed a bit. This means that sooner or later, all 100% law-abiding citizens would eventually be fresh out of ammo. No ammo means any guns still in homes pose zero threats to children. As for the black market, well...guns would be more difficult to get for the poor, which is most criminals, especially drug dealers. Casual ownership of guns by poor teens in gangs would decrease a bit, thus lowering firearm fueled gang wars (knife, of course, would still happen, but they happen now anyway). Also, now you have more reason to book criminals who might also be dealing in other contraband. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
And again, I contest that trust people to "be responsible," to o "educate themselves," and to "do the right thing" is asking way too much. Yeah, freedom's a b1tch, ain't it? Right, freedom to be dumb can get annoying. No one is saying that we should by law force people to be dumb though. Some of us are saying we should then *educate* people. Well, I say that this takes more resources than we have and that banning guns would solve more problems than just *educating*. Even educating may not even do such a good job at solving the problem, since it's small children, who tend to be clumsy and not mindful, who often are the victims of these accidents. I mean, if the government cared so much about freedom, it'd be doing a lot of other, much more important stuff, differently. Freedom to bear firearms is not the issue for the government, even if it is the issue for you guys. It's the lobby groups and the tradition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
Speed reading must not be your forte either. I copied & pasted the article exactly as it was written. And provided the link so that anyone who may have doubted that could check for themselves.
You have your opinion on guns and I have mine. I'm sure that you can agree that we disagree. I respect your opinion, however I don't agree with it. I can respect that you don't agree with my opinion. What are you talking about, lol? I am quoting and pointing at the text where as you are twisting the words: First, you say the stats *you* quoted did not even mention guns. It listed guns. Next, you point out that falling and choking are more probable than being shot accidentally. You point to the fact that guns are listed fourth to support this point. However, falling and choking are listed as *fifth and sixth*. Why try to attack my reading when I've shown that I've read it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
that's it right there - people with malicious intent kill people YES, but seeing as this thread *started* with a child killing another child accidentally, that is *without malicious intent*, I would have guessed that you'd have understood my point. When it comes to guns, it's much easier for people *without malicious intent* to kill others *accidentally*.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
NOT INCONTESTABLE FACT!!! mindless conjecture, at best. if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns! You act like the NRA is some formless, amorphous, mystery entity.. It's not. It's made up of men and women across the country who feel strongly enough to stand up for their God-given, inalienable right to the means to their own defense. Period. Scotus rulings have determined that a policeman has no obligation under the law to insert himself in a position of peril to protect you. You and you alone are responsible for your own safety. I don't believe that *you* believe that if there are less guns in homes, less guns in those homes will find their way into the hands of children. In your own words, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Like I've said before, probably *less* outlaws will have guns. What's more, normal, law-abiding homes won't have guns, so the instance of children getting their hands on guns would be less. Really, you just seem to be reinforcing my argument... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
And I certainly don't want to be swinging a bat at someone who could possibly have a gun and not connect the first time. If I am swinging in the dark it's more likely I will just piss them off and then they really will hurt me. No thanks, I will take my chances having a gun. The odds might not be perfect but at least odds are that I will have my gun when I need it. I assume, in that case, that your house has *zero* doorways for you to hide behind with a bat. And if you think your bat swing is less accurate with someone half a foot in front of you than your firearm aim is at someone several meters away in the dark, I think you are crazy. You are more likely to connect with someone is a meaningful way with a bat than you are with a gun from that distance. Plus, many gun owners *do* keep their guns unloaded and locked away for safety. I don't think you should be giving *yourself* as an example, but the average gun owner. You seem more responsible and knowledgeable about such things than the average person, I would assume. And again, I contest that trust people to "be responsible," to o "educate themselves," and to "do the right thing" is asking way too much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
Edited by
notquite00
on
Mon 02/02/09 09:32 AM
|
|
It's tragic and sad, (and that doesn't even come close really to describing the loss). The family will take a long long time to recover from theloss of their child. I think everyone could agree that this was a sad and probably preventable tragedy. The issue of "Banning Guns" is alotgether a different issue. Everytime something like this happens, all the gun-grabber, nanny-staters come out of the woodwork. The arguement is that if gun sales weren't legal or if people weren't allowed to own guns, things like this wouldn't happen. total bs. the above assumption makes the leap in logic that 'banning guns' would rid the street of all firearms. Such an assertion is laughable on its face. The only thing that guns bans accomplish is to remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Do you honestly think that the gangbanger down the street is going to go down to the police station and hand in is 'gat'?? honestly, look at the city of chicago or Washington DC.. two cities with among the highest crime rates in the nation, both, at least until recently, had total and strict firearm restrictions. yet, "gun crimes" happened nearly daily. banning guns is not the solution. When the Romans conquered judea, they outlawed the manufacture of weapons. why? because they feared insurrection. In Nazi Germany, one of the first things Hitler did on his ascent to absolute power was to outlaw civlian ownership of firearms. Nazi stormtroopers gathered up gun registration rolls and consfiscated civilian firearms, specifically from the Jews. This proceeded the night of the broken glass, also known as Kristalnacht. By whatever means, or rationalle, outlawing civilian ownership of weapons, (i.e. restricting the right to keep and bear arms) is the first step to government trampling of rights. Completely untrue. The argument about children's exposure to guns has *nothing* to do with completely ridding to streets of *every* gun. The majority of people in a country are not black market-visiting criminals. Banning gun ownership would get guns out of *by far* most homes with children. What's more, you are completely ignoring the fact that in general, the closer a demographic goes to poverty, the more crime there is among that demographic. If that is true, more criminals will not even be able to afford guns and ammo as such items will be difficult to procure. Of course, SOME criminals *will* have guns, but probably less. Finally, there are tons of free, Democratic governments that enforce anti-gun regulation. To claim that such governments *trample* the rights of their citizens is downright offensive and insulting........at least if I didn't know better.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
Guns dont kill. People kill. Maybe we should outlaw pens?? While we are at it we can outlaw autos, pencils, hammers, screwdrivers, etc...... Sorry, did you even read my post? I could use a cellphone or a book to kill someone, so duh, people with malicious intent kill people. How many times does this argument need to be repeated? What's more, that still says nothing about the incontestable fact that accident deaths due to guns would drastically decrease if guns were banned! Number two, it says nothing about how the instance of armed crime is likely to decrease as well as a result. HELLO, on both fronts of the argument, you can find statistics to support the anti-gun opinion. Repeating this "Guns don't kill" mantra has become ludicrous. The only reason gun sales aren't banned is because the NRA is such a huge lobby group and because tradition supports guns, not because your argument holds water. I mean, statistics show it does not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
Unintentional home injury deaths to children are caused primarily by fire and burns, suffocation, drowning, firearms, falls, choking and poisoning. I understand the need to condense what I had pulled from the article but I would appreciate at least the entire sentence being quoted. Firearms are the 4th cause of accidental death of children according to the report. Sorry, I did not mean to remove important parts of the article, only to condense. But...and you'll excuse me...only fourth place? Whoop-dee-doo.
It is still in the category of the *primary* cause for unintentional home injury deaths to children. You'll also note that falls and choking are *fifth and sixth*, which were two of the main causes you noted in the article. Thus, it is arguable that firearm related injuries and deaths are *more* prevalent than falling and choking. Again, speed reading is best not used for specifics during a discussion unless you're really good at it, ReddBeans. ^_^ i would rather kill my food than have it given to me
I understand being too prideful to take state handouts, but to take many lives to avoid it...well, I don't mean to judge, but for me, at least, that's too far to go just for pride. Of course, I acknowledge that the lives of animals is hardly viewed the same way by everyone, so I don't find this surprising or mean... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Considering you started with that particular hypocritical example, just shows that you don't understand the question here. I thought it was about being fair to everyone, and there is nothing fair about the way blacks discriminate against whites, and anyone else when convenient, with their black colleges, BET, Chocolate News... As long as blacks discriminate the way they do, I will call BS on their racism just like that of any other group. And these types are REALLY crawling out of the wood work these days. The election was a perfect example of just how much racism and discrimination blacks are more than willing to dish out, and then lie claiming they are the ones being discriminated against. Sorry, what's hypocritical about my example? Or did you mean hypothetical? And I don't see how I'm missing the point: the thread is about kicking a supposedly Lesbian pair from a Christian school. I used an example about not allowing a Black kid to join a private school to high light a problem I saw with someone's argument. How did I miss the point? The key word is PRIVATE...In my private life I wouldnt marry a lesbian or a gay man thats my choice because its my private life..Private schools have private rules and until we become a dictatorship the government should respect these rules...Everyone has their own rights but no one has the right to tell someone else they have to change their rules to accomodate them..Leave the private schools alone and either follow their rules or dont go to school there....IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE HAS RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY EXCEPT A HETHROSEXUALE WHITE MALE WHO LIVES A LIFE ONCE CONSIDERED NORMAL BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE BIBLE.
So, if in my private boarding school, I decide to teach four-year old children Nazi, anti-semitic ideologies, you have no problem with that if the parents know about it? I hold that the government is here to protect the people *as well as* the people's rights, even when someone is in a public institution. Lastly, in response to your all-caps statement, I understand you may have faced difficulties being a Heterosexual White male. I do not know your situation, but it's best to overcome adversity through hard-study, work, and active protest on the streets. If you have exhausted these options completely, perhaps coming onto Mingle2 to voice your grievances is justified, however...perhaps *you* can do more than you think to overcome the difficulties you face! Believe in yourself and do not underestimate yourself. If you think you have done all you can, I bet you are capable of trying even harder than you thought possible! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Religous schools are extentions of the church..and protected by the constitution, this is plainly stated, you may not like it, but you have the freedom to either except it or stay away from it, that is the choice that everyone has. Laws that discriminate?? you've got to be kidding, most anti-discrimination laws are by nature discrimitory to someone. When a white male applies for entrance into a public school, anti-discrimination laws prevent him from attending even if he is the most qualified person to apply. Intead he will be turned away and someone of another ethnic group will take the place that he should rightly get..isn't that discrimination?? I think so. You cannot right the wrongs of the past by continuing or refocusing the discrimination to another group.. For one, even if religious schools are extensions of the church, I do not believe that they should be considered strictly religious institutions. In that vein, I think anti-discrimination laws should apply. Two, if a man is known to be gay and he walks into a church, I do not think the church should be allowed to ask him to leave. To allow this sort of discrimination is to restrict one's right to religious freedom, of course, so the government should protect this freedom by law. The same logic applies to schools. Such a stipulation is hardly a violation on one's right to religious freedom because a gay person sitting in a church does not physically prevent someone from attending mass or what have you. I do not see how anyone could poke a hole in this logic. As for anti-discrimination laws being discriminatory, I would say that you are correct, though only superficially. It is arguable that the reason why a Black individual is not as qualified is because they came from a poorer background. These sorts of anti-discrimination laws have helped many ethnic families move up the socioeconomic ladder when their poverty would have made this much more difficult. Yes, these anti-discrimination laws discriminate against Whites and Asians, but they are fair in a deeper way. Sure, there are loop-holes, where a Hispanic kid from a rich family may get a scholarship when a more qualified White kid may not, but the system ain't perfect. If it were, well, we wouldn't be discussing this issue! I had a situation where I was hiring for some positions I had open..a man came in and before I even introduced myself, he stated that he was gay and wanted to know if I had a problem with that...to which I said that it didn't have anything to do with the job..he turned around and yelled that I was a gay basher and would sue me for discrimination...now I know that it was not a common practice, but these kind of things make it hard for me to see LGBT point of view with that kind of thing going on.. I've heard of that sort of thing happening, but this is the first time it has happened to someone I've talked with. Although I get that you're trying to make a point, I really find it odd that it colors in any significant way how you feel about the LGBT community, though. When has one individual ever represented an entire demographic?! For you to allow one stupid man to "make it hard" for you to see the LGBT side of things really surprises me. He may not even have been gay, but just have been out to sue people. Again, I get that you're trying to make a point, but still... ..if you throw out all faith based beliefs and laws that are perceived as faith based, then there are no common moral standards by which to make laws based on...
I honestly don't get this argument. I have no religion, so are you saying I have no moral standards? Or rather, that I have no moral standards in common with most people? "Thou shalt not kill...Thou shalt not steal." - I think there is plenty of common ground for any logical group of people to find a moral basis for laws. What's more, I think taking religion as a source for our laws is an extremely bad idea. There are a plethora of examples, ranging from anti-gay laws to anti-contraceptive laws to anti-stem cell laws, and these are only the religious morals that have made it to law books. What about the morals taught in the Bible and the Old Testament that have not made it to US law? I won't list them here because some of the examples are controversial and I don't want to distract people from my above arguments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
Edited by
notquite00
on
Mon 02/02/09 08:17 AM
|
|
Most of these accidents could probably be prevented with a some thoughtful action, a few safety precautions, etc. But, we cannot outlaw everything that has the potential to cause harm if certain common sense precautions aren't taken. You're right - many accidents are preventable by careful thought and safety. Also, we cannot go around banning shoelaces, ladders, roof re-tiling, climbing trees, etc etc. However, we *can* ban guns and there *is* more than one good reason to do so. I, for one, would like to learn how to use a gun very much. Despite this, well, you all know my stance on the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
Edited by
notquite00
on
Mon 02/02/09 08:17 AM
|
|
I went and did alittle websurfing to get some statistics since everyone in the Political forum likes statisitcs so much http://www.lancastergeneral.org/content/greystone_37645.htm ... Nowhere does it mention accidental death by guns. Since bicycles are the leading cause for injury among children should they be outlawed? Oh, you forgot to mention Article 2 of the Bill Of Rights which gives the right to bear arms.  
I find it funny how you talk about statistics...that's a whole other discussion though. Yes, the leading cause of accidental child death is not related to guns. I could have guessed that without a statistic. The point is that banning kids from playing and riding bicycles (injury by falling), swimming (injury by drowning), eating (injury/death by choking) is a dumb idea. At that rate, perhaps you'd suggest that we ban having kids? Oh, and your statistics report *does* mention firearms if you read carefully: Unintentional home injury deaths...drowning, firearms, falls...
As for Article 2...lol, of course I didn't mention it. If you noticed, I gave some examples of articles that were *broken*. Seeing as they haven't revised the article about guns, of course I didn't mention it. Really, ReddBeans, I don't doubt that you're smart and all, but your reading a bit too quickly. ^_^ Thumper, I agree with you that proper education and safety protocols would go a long way. However, since the government doesn't have the right nor the resources go into each home with a gun to do safety inspections every day, and since gun safety programs in schools cost money, I honestly don't think today's situation is going to change. Banning guns would automatically and dramatically cut down these sorts of accidents. It is also arguable that such a measure would decrease the number of armed robberies. Think about it: if it's harder and more expensive to get a gun (because one would have to go to the black market), more criminals would not use guns. Seeing as most criminals are neither wealthy nor educated, I think we'd see a drop in armed crime. You may not believe this but for many people hunting is not a recreational activity. It is a means to feed their family. I know many people who would not be able to otherwise provide year round for their family if it were not for hunting. I know people who hunt with the same gun that their grandfather used. Nowadays buying a box of ammo is alot cheaper than going to the grocery store and buying meat to feed your family. Well, for one, if there are many families like this in America, I'd say that they should be able to apply for a special gun license or something. Either that, or just get food stamps for when they need it. What's more, they should try to cut back on meat and eat vegetables. Vegetables tend to be much cheaper, at least here on the East Coast. Also, we have welfare for a reason. What's more, if the family has been depending on a gun for a few generations for food, I suggest the family force one of their kids to study his or her butt off so the kid can get a scholarship, get a good job, and get the family off of subsistence for Christ's sake. I know it's easier said than done, but honestly, this gun issue should not be decided by these families on the brink of poverty. They are the minority, I am sure. Anyhow, let me repeat thatif there is a special permit for these sorts of situations, I have no problem! It's not good to take away a family's livelihood, and I'm sure some sort of work-around can be found. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
What I find lame is the pass the buck mentality. Were people to accept responsibility for their actions the whole pointing of finger, blaming this or that would cease. I don't think anyone is "passing the buck." The police are investigating to find how the gun got into the children's hands and usually you see *people* getting arrested, not the guns, lol. That doesn't mean, however, that taking a more proactive approach means that we are "pointing fingers at this and that." In fact, there is no "this and that" - there is the person and the gun. Arrested the responsible person and then one day deciding to ban guns is pretty accurate and reasonable "finger pointing" if you ask me. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
