kelpdiver 2 #126 January 30, 2007 Quote the average american gun fan seems to think it's a price worth paying for a few guns to get in to the wrong hands and potentially get used to kill innocent people...just as long as they get to keep their guns In the context of this discussion (excluding sporting concerns), the average gun fan just wants to have more than one option (asking the bad guy not to kill him) in a bad situation. It's a wish to try to take care of yourself rather than hope someone else will. Doesn't apply to me at my size, but some of my 100lb girlfriends would like to have more options than just locking themselves in the bathroom should a stalker ex come barging in the door, waiting for that 20 minute police response time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Peter_Phile 0 #127 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuote the average american gun fan seems to think it's a price worth paying for a few guns to get in to the wrong hands and potentially get used to kill innocent people...just as long as they get to keep their guns In the context of this discussion (excluding sporting concerns), the average gun fan just wants to have more than one option (asking the bad guy not to kill him) in a bad situation. It's a wish to try to take care of yourself rather than hope someone else will. Doesn't apply to me at my size, but some of my 100lb girlfriends would like to have more options than just locking themselves in the bathroom should a stalker ex come barging in the door, waiting for that 20 minute police response time. ok, it's a direct question at you... is it a price worth paying (the odd person getting killed by a gun that would have been taken out of circulation otherwise) just so that you can keep your gun? i don't suppose for one minute you'll answer this question directly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #128 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote the average american gun fan seems to think it's a price worth paying for a few guns to get in to the wrong hands and potentially get used to kill innocent people...just as long as they get to keep their guns In the context of this discussion (excluding sporting concerns), the average gun fan just wants to have more than one option (asking the bad guy not to kill him) in a bad situation. It's a wish to try to take care of yourself rather than hope someone else will. Doesn't apply to me at my size, but some of my 100lb girlfriends would like to have more options than just locking themselves in the bathroom should a stalker ex come barging in the door, waiting for that 20 minute police response time. ok, it's a direct question at you... is it a price worth paying (the odd person getting killed by a gun that would have been taken out of circulation otherwise) just so that you can keep your gun? i don't suppose for one minute you'll answer this question directly First you have to address the absolute NONSENSE that all guns are going to magically disappear just because they were banned - still hasn't happened in "Merry Olde" yet, has it? Then, prove that the attacker wouldn't have killed the person if they'd been using a piece of pipe, baseball (or cricket) bat, knife, etc... THEN we can discuss it... and my answer will be - if one life is SAVED because someone had a gun at the right time...is it worth it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #129 January 30, 2007 Quoteand my answer will be - if one life is SAVED because someone had a gun at the right time...is it worth it? How many inoccent lives would have to be lost through people going on a rampage or kids having accidents with guns for your answer to change? Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Peter_Phile 0 #130 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote the average american gun fan seems to think it's a price worth paying for a few guns to get in to the wrong hands and potentially get used to kill innocent people...just as long as they get to keep their guns In the context of this discussion (excluding sporting concerns), the average gun fan just wants to have more than one option (asking the bad guy not to kill him) in a bad situation. It's a wish to try to take care of yourself rather than hope someone else will. Doesn't apply to me at my size, but some of my 100lb girlfriends would like to have more options than just locking themselves in the bathroom should a stalker ex come barging in the door, waiting for that 20 minute police response time. ok, it's a direct question at you... is it a price worth paying (the odd person getting killed by a gun that would have been taken out of circulation otherwise) just so that you can keep your gun? i don't suppose for one minute you'll answer this question directly First you have to address the absolute NONSENSE that all guns are going to magically disappear just because they were banned - still hasn't happened in "Merry Olde" yet, has it? Then, prove that the attacker wouldn't have killed the person if they'd been using a piece of pipe, baseball (or cricket) bat, knife, etc... THEN we can discuss it... and my answer will be - if one life is SAVED because someone had a gun at the right time...is it worth it? still no answer to my question.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #131 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteand my answer will be - if one life is SAVED because someone had a gun at the right time...is it worth it? How many inoccent lives would have to be lost through people going on a rampage or kids having accidents with guns for your answer to change? It is estimated that in the US over 80,000 crimes do not happen just because the victim produced a gun. Not fired, just pulled out. That does not even cover as smaller number of crimes where police say because the intended victim had a gun they are still alive or unijured. How many of these would it take for you to change your mind?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #132 January 30, 2007 I take it from the answer you gave that your not going to answer my question. Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #133 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteand my answer will be - if one life is SAVED because someone had a gun at the right time...is it worth it? How many inoccent lives would have to be lost through people going on a rampage or kids having accidents with guns for your answer to change? How many innocent lives have to be lost to auto accidents before you advocate getting rid of cars? Do you have the same outrage for drownings? Accidental poisonings? Falls? If not, you are blaming a TOOL and not the *user* of the tool.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #134 January 30, 2007 QuoteI take it from the answer you gave that your not going to answer my question. You did not ask me a question. Will you answer mine?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #135 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote ok, it's a direct question at you... is it a price worth paying (the odd person getting killed by a gun that would have been taken out of circulation otherwise) just so that you can keep your gun? i don't suppose for one minute you'll answer this question directly First you have to address the absolute NONSENSE that all guns are going to magically disappear just because they were banned - still hasn't happened in "Merry Olde" yet, has it? Then, prove that the attacker wouldn't have killed the person if they'd been using a piece of pipe, baseball (or cricket) bat, knife, etc... THEN we can discuss it... and my answer will be - if one life is SAVED because someone had a gun at the right time...is it worth it? still no answer to my question.... I notice you can't provide me any proof of the above...just that "guns are bad"... disconnect your emotions and argue the ACTOR, not the tool they use. See my post directly above in regards to auto accidents, etc.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #136 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote the average american gun fan seems to think it's a price worth paying for a few guns to get in to the wrong hands and potentially get used to kill innocent people...just as long as they get to keep their guns In the context of this discussion (excluding sporting concerns), the average gun fan just wants to have more than one option (asking the bad guy not to kill him) in a bad situation. It's a wish to try to take care of yourself rather than hope someone else will. Doesn't apply to me at my size, but some of my 100lb girlfriends would like to have more options than just locking themselves in the bathroom should a stalker ex come barging in the door, waiting for that 20 minute police response time. ok, it's a direct question at you... is it a price worth paying (the odd person getting killed by a gun that would have been taken out of circulation otherwise) just so that you can keep your gun? i don't suppose for one minute you'll answer this question directly First you have to address the absolute NONSENSE that all guns are going to magically disappear just because they were banned - still hasn't happened in "Merry Olde" yet, has it? Then, prove that the attacker wouldn't have killed the person if they'd been using a piece of pipe, baseball (or cricket) bat, knife, etc... THEN we can discuss it... and my answer will be - if one life is SAVED because someone had a gun at the right time...is it worth it? still no answer to my question.... It's a bad anology. From what I've read the number crimes/attackers that were averted because the potential victim had a gun far outnumber all gun related crimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Peter_Phile 0 #137 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteand my answer will be - if one life is SAVED because someone had a gun at the right time...is it worth it? How many inoccent lives would have to be lost through people going on a rampage or kids having accidents with guns for your answer to change? How many innocent lives have to be lost to auto accidents before you advocate getting rid of cars? Do you have the same outrage for drownings? Accidental poisonings? Falls? If not, you are blaming a TOOL and not the *user* of the tool. can you explain how you can go on the rampage in a school with a gun, shooting children, if you don't have a gun ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #138 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteand my answer will be - if one life is SAVED because someone had a gun at the right time...is it worth it? How many inoccent lives would have to be lost through people going on a rampage or kids having accidents with guns for your answer to change? How many innocent lives have to be lost to auto accidents before you advocate getting rid of cars? Do you have the same outrage for drownings? Accidental poisonings? Falls? If not, you are blaming a TOOL and not the *user* of the tool. can you explain how you can go on the rampage in a school with a gun, shooting children, if you don't have a gun ? Can you explain how, evidently, people can ONLY be killed by a gun? Again, you are blaming the TOOL, not the user. It is the USER that decides how the tool is used. My pistols have never killed anything except paper targets - they must be defective!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #139 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteand my answer will be - if one life is SAVED because someone had a gun at the right time...is it worth it? How many inoccent lives would have to be lost through people going on a rampage or kids having accidents with guns for your answer to change? How many innocent lives have to be lost to auto accidents before you advocate getting rid of cars? Do you have the same outrage for drownings? Accidental poisonings? Falls? If not, you are blaming a TOOL and not the *user* of the tool. can you explain how you can go on the rampage in a school with a gun, shooting children, if you don't have a gun ? This is an emotionally "loaded" question. If maintaining current gun laws means 5 children per year will die in in school rampages every year and if banning guns reduces that to zero but it means an additional 20 homicides per year, which option do you pick? Status quo or ban guns? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #140 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteand my answer will be - if one life is SAVED because someone had a gun at the right time...is it worth it? How many inoccent lives would have to be lost through people going on a rampage or kids having accidents with guns for your answer to change? How many innocent lives have to be lost to auto accidents before you advocate getting rid of cars? Do you have the same outrage for drownings? Accidental poisonings? Falls? If not, you are blaming a TOOL and not the *user* of the tool. can you explain how you can go on the rampage in a school with a gun, shooting children, if you don't have a gun ? This is an emotionally "loaded" question. If maintaining current gun laws means 5 children per year will die in in school rampages every year and if banning guns reduces that to zero but it means an additional 20 homicides per year, which option do you pick? Status quo or ban guns? All the data available suggest that "western" countries with serious gun restrictions have a far lower homicide rate than the USA, and have done for decades. Your scenario is spurious.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #141 January 30, 2007 Quotecan you explain how you can go on the rampage in a school with a gun, shooting children, if you don't have a gun ? If it's just the children you are worried about, why not fight to ban what kills most of them. Firearms are not at the top of the list. Far more children drown each year, many in swimming pools. Shouldn't we start there. How about all the children killed in auto accidents? Pools and cars don't save alot of lives. Guns do. There are a lot of things that kill a lot of people. Booze? How many people are killed by booze. How many use it to protect themselves from violence. If it is just about that one life you keep reffering too, there are plenty of things that will save it without costing another one. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #142 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuote This is an emotionally "loaded" question. If maintaining current gun laws means 5 children per year will die in in school rampages every year and if banning guns reduces that to zero but it means an additional 20 homicides per year, which option do you pick? Status quo or ban guns? All the data available suggest that "western" countries with serious gun restrictions have a far lower homicide rate than the USA, and have done for decades. Your scenario is spurious. As is your direct comparison of two distinctly different cultures. Make a correlation between two American cities or two European cities and you would be closer to being correct - you cannot discount the cultural differences. Let's see... Switzerland has fully automatic combat rifles in roughly 14% of all homes... I'm sure the percentage for the United States would be less than 5%. Switzerland homicide rate for 1999-2001 was 1.2 / 100k. United States was 5.91 per 100k in 2001. By God, John...you're right! More guns DOES equal less crime!!! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #143 January 30, 2007 Obviously you have never been to Switzerland. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #144 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote This is an emotionally "loaded" question. If maintaining current gun laws means 5 children per year will die in in school rampages every year and if banning guns reduces that to zero but it means an additional 20 homicides per year, which option do you pick? Status quo or ban guns? All the data available suggest that "western" countries with serious gun restrictions have a far lower homicide rate than the USA, and have done for decades. Your scenario is spurious. As is your direct comparison of two distinctly different cultures. Make a correlation between two American cities or two European cities and you would be closer to being correct - you cannot discount the cultural differences. Right, Canadian, Australian and English culture is SO different from US culture. Quote Let's see... Switzerland has fully automatic combat rifles in roughly 14% of all homes... I'm sure the percentage for the United States would be less than 5%. Switzerland homicide rate for 1999-2001 was 1.2 / 100k. United States was 5.91 per 100k in 2001. By God, John...you're right! More guns DOES equal less crime!!! 1. Long guns in the US are not the problem. Handguns are the problem, as well documented in the FBI UCR every year. 2. How many US gun owners have the same level of training as the Swiss gun owners?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #145 January 30, 2007 QuoteObviously you have never been to Switzerland. Actually, I have... nice place, and (as I've mentioned) an entirely different culture.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #146 January 30, 2007 It is a very nice place, have family who live there and who went through military service there. How many of those automatic rifles did you see while you were there? Just asking, cause I ahve been to Switzerland, maybe 40 to 50 times in my life, but have yet to see one of those. The only rifle I have ever seen was an old bolt action one, once in all my vists. Certainly have never seen a civilian carry one down the street though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #147 January 30, 2007 QuoteRight, Canadian, Australian and English culture is SO different from US culture. How many inner city gangs in Toronto, Sydney or London are doing drive by shootings in reponse to someone "dissing" them? Again, there ARE cultural differences that help to drive crime rates whether you care to admit them or not. If it were only the availability of handguns, then every concealed carry state would have seen an INCREASE in crime when the laws were passed - as is clearly NOT the case. Quote2. How many US gun owners have the same level of training as the Swiss gun owners? Every US Army and Marine veteran since roughly 1965 - YOU run the numbers.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #148 January 30, 2007 QuoteHow many inner city gangs in Toronto, Sydney or London are doing drive by shootings in reponse to someone "dissing" them? It happens here on occassion. Specially the Crips have been pretty active in Toronto the last little while. In speaking with senior police officers, one of the things keeping gun crime down is not that the "bad guys" are having a hard time getting guns, but that they are having a hard time getting amunition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #149 January 30, 2007 So you answer my question with another question, good way to duck giving a answer. Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #150 January 30, 2007 QuoteSo you answer my question with another question, good way to duck giving a answer. Do you really expect an answer to a questioned framed it such a way that you can only get a response you want or one you can flame? Reframe it for an honest response and I will reply. Otherwise, you got what you wanted already."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
