Main > Everything Else
The Clinton gun ban has expired!
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: Buddabing on September 14, 2004, 12:32:32 pm ---
--- Quote ---Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
--- End quote ---
I respectfully disagree. Guns do kill people. For every story about someone defending him/herself with a gun, there are probably twenty stories about...
--- End quote ---
That's just irresponsible and emotional talk coming forth. You say "probably", have absolutely nothing to back up that statement and can only fall back on "PROBABLY". If you think that there are 20 stories about THE GUN killing people (rather than the people using a gun to kill people, including themselves) you'd also have to believe that the news is just supressing these stories. That argument is beyond reason
--- Quote from: Darkstalker on September 14, 2004, 02:14:24 pm ---"And the National Rifle Association says that, 'Guns don't kill people, people do,' but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, 'Bang'! That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that�"
-Eddie Izzard, "Dressed to Kill"
--- End quote ---
Is this kind of like standing there going "Stab, stab, stab" not killing too many people with knives? Please. If someone intends to kill someone, they will search for a weapon. Whether it's a knife, gun, rope, baseball bat....they will use SOMETHING. Because THEY chose to use a gun should never mean that Joe Law-follower should have his ability to purchase a similar item taken away. Punish the criminal, STOP treating the law-abiding worse than the law-breakers.
--- Quote from: hunky_artist on September 14, 2004, 06:30:40 pm ---But why anybody ....would actually want, or should be allowed to own a firearm is beyond me.
--- End quote ---
People used to be killed for being a witch because the things they did "were beyond me" to those who couldn't figure out what they were doing. Does your "logic" advocate that we should go back to doing that? Just because it's beyond YOU doesn't mean legislate away the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase these items. They become detrimental when those who would break the very laws written to stop the use of those items do exactly that.
--- Quote ---(and don't give me that 'it's so we can defend ourselves and our country,and take our country back from an opressive government' crap... you have that now and i dont see any of you taking to the streets)
--- End quote ---
I guess REASON and the capability to follow the law DOES make a difference, hey?!? ::) What's next, are you going to tell me I should "rise up and fight" when the price of toilet paper increases due to the "oppressive government" regulations force this price increase? I see many who protest this war, and I certainly don't see them taking to the streets with guns and pitchforks either. That line of reasoning is beyond belief.
Shmokes, I agree that we all believe in SOME form of control, such as I don't need a Patriot missile or a nuclear briefcase. You make a valid point there. My problem is with people who would say that a ban on certain types of weapons will keep us safer. When compared to other death factors, this ban wasn't/isn't justified, unless we as a society are willing to go along with a ban on all other items that kill in the same (or higher) ratios. When you stop to think that that would mean banning cars (ANY car, not just SUV's) and other variously extreme examples, then it becomes easier to see why so many don't agree with a start on the "ban parade" with assault weapons. Pandora's Box comes to mind.
Floyd10 (james), I found your replies to be very hard to follow. Could you elaborate, or further flesh out your replies. It seems some of them don't apply to the parts you are replying to. Can ya help a brutha out? :P
fredster:
There is a difference between a "BAN" and "regulated".
Like Banning cigarettes would be very upsetting to about 40% of the population. But nobody has a problem with "regulated" use and sale of cigarettes.
It's mostly the "BAN" thing people have a problem with.
The two concepts shouldn't be confused. Only fanatics think that things should be "BANNED".
shmokes:
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on September 15, 2004, 01:17:05 am ---If someone intends to kill someone, they will search for a weapon. Whether it's a knife, gun, rope, baseball bat....they will use SOMETHING.
--- End quote ---
That's nonsense. You're lumping all gun-violence into the relatively small context of premeditated murder with motive. The gun facilitates it. Your argument is like saying, "Student aid doesn't increase the number of people who choose to go to school, befcause when someone really WANTS to go to school they will find some way to do it." But, of course, the easier you make something -- the more accessible you make something -- the more that thing is going to happen. It is astronomically more difficult to kill someone (especially to kill someone and get away with it) with any of those other weapons you mentioned (knife, gun, rope, bat).
--- Quote ---Shmokes, I agree that we all believe in SOME form of control, such as I don't need a Patriot missile or a nuclear briefcase...
--- End quote ---
...so we're back on need, now? How do you know you'll never need a rocket-propelled grenade launcher? What if we are occupied? They certainly have been useful for Iraqi resistance fighters... And I thought your side believed that this was about a right to own these weapons, not about a need.
--- Quote ---When you stop to think that that would mean banning cars (ANY car, not just SUV's)
--- End quote ---
Ah...the slippery slope. Ban assault rifles and what's next? Forks? Penicillin? The problem is, these things don't exist in a vacuum. We balance their overall effect on society. Do cars kill people? Yes. Do they do anything else that significantly affects our society? I think maybe they do. Do guns kill people? Yes. Do they serve other, useful purposes? Sure, of course. But we "ban" cars all the time. Some cars are not allowed to be driven on U.S. roads (this amounts to an all-out ban), some people are not allowed to drive cars (very young, very old, blind, etc.). Cars are required to meet certain safety standards before they can be sold.
People, I think, tense up and dig their hills in whenever they hear the words "gun control" when, in fact, they truly do believe in gun control. But since they automatically switch to defend-to-the-death mode any time someone suggests changes in gun regulation it makes them unable to step outside the box and say, "okay...I do actually believe in regulation. With that said, maybe I should actually give some thought into what amount of regulation is best instead of obstinately claiming that all gun control is bad."
I don't think all guns should be banned outright. Many liberals do, and I think they suffer from the same ideological mental block as the "gun-nuts". They refuse to actually apply any meaningful analysis to the issue. One side says, "GUNS KILL," and the other side says, "PEOPLE KILL," and niether one can see the forest for the trees. Maybe, and I'm just throwing this out, but just maybe it's a little of both.
Floyd10:
Well What Im saying is, not everything you've said is entirely true. I listed reasons... I dont memorize my posts...
DYNAGOD:
unfortunetly for me I live in shithole massachusetts..
most if not all the assault weapons no longer banned by federal law have been banned permanently here under state law..its ridiculous...
shame so many people in the country cant throw away their freedom fast enough....
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version