The Gun Control Debate

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

I'm sorry if you feel it is unacceptable.

But those guns you own have no other purpose than to be aimed at something and fired.

You defend your right to own these weapons with such tenacity. Has anyone ever pointed one at you? Would you still feel the way you do if someone had?

Your right to own those weapons was given to you in a day and age when automatic weapons were unheard of. And before guns could be manufactured by the truckload.

The Constitution has been amended before and it can be again. Yes, citizens should be able to protect themselves. But it doesn't need to be with a handgun or an automatic weapon. And citizens don't need to stockpile guns to protect themselves. You have two hands - two weapons registered legally in your name is all you need.

but that something isn't you. someone get a stepladder so becca can get down off that high horse.

i've had guns pointed at me.

we are not talking about automatic guns are we? in the incident that sparked this thread, automatic firearms were not used.

Sure.

But why should collecting a large collection of deadly weapons be construed as a 'liberty' more precious than say - my right to walk into a classroom and fear not having one turned on me?

how many knives do you have in your kitchen? isn't that a large collection of deadly weapons?

[rebeccajo 14]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

Why?

Seems to me many of you rise to a vocally violent defense of something that has no purpose other than violence.

But the image of pointing the weapon is distasteful.

Tsk tsk.

so quick to throw away your rights in this, but so quick to also pitch a fit about your rights with the patriot act are you?

You've lost me.

[britty 1]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

Yep. I think that one comment alone makes me win by default.

That comment is unacceptable. Responsible gun owners do not point their guns at others, EVER. Maybe if you understood more about gun ownership, you would understand this.

I'm sorry if you feel it is unacceptable.

But those guns you own have no other purpose than to be aimed at something and fired.

You defend your right to own these weapons with such tenacity. Has anyone ever pointed one at you? Would you still feel the way you do if someone had?

Your right to own those weapons was given to you in a day and age when automatic weapons were unheard of. And before guns could be manufactured by the truckload.

The Constitution has been amended before and it can be again. Yes, citizens should be able to protect themselves. But it doesn't need to be with a handgun or an automatic weapon. And citizens don't need to stockpile guns to protect themselves. You have two hands - two weapons registered legally in your name is all you need.

No one has ever pointed a gun at me. You only ever point at something if you are prepared to fire. The people I know would never point a gun at anyone unless their life, family's life, or home was threatened. Thankfully I have not been put in this position. I certainly don't stockpile weapons. The number of firearms I have is irrelevant in that they are properly stored and I can use each one responsibly and safely. Gun owners are some of the most responsible people you will meet.

Most gunowners may be responsible. But I think it's safe to say (from what we are witnessing in society) than many are not.

I brought up the pointing of a weapon for a reason and it's a simple straighforward reason. That's all guns are good for. They are nothing more than an implement of destruction.

If you want to hunt, you could do that with a bow and arrow. If you want to aim at targets, you could throw darts. If you want to protect yourself you MIGHT need a gun. If you want to rise up against an oppressive government, you might need a gun.

Overall, I think the public good and safety should take precedence over an individual right that needs to change with the rest of the times. And that right should have been questioned whenever the first genius decided to design a pistol that could fire itself multiple times with one pull of the trigger.

Rebeccajo, I respect your point of view. You and I will never agree on this subject however. Of course guns are implements of destruction, if they only contained water, I wouldn't be able to defend myself against the nutters and criminals who may wish to harm me. A firearm that can fire multiple shots makes doubly sure the threat doesn't get up again. The public good and safety is even firmer if I carry a concealed weapon, and see a madman trying to take out a bunch of innocent people.

[rebeccajo 14]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

Yep. I think that one comment alone makes me win by default.

That comment is unacceptable. Responsible gun owners do not point their guns at others, EVER. Maybe if you understood more about gun ownership, you would understand this.

I'm sorry if you feel it is unacceptable.

But those guns you own have no other purpose than to be aimed at something and fired.

You defend your right to own these weapons with such tenacity. Has anyone ever pointed one at you? Would you still feel the way you do if someone had?

Your right to own those weapons was given to you in a day and age when automatic weapons were unheard of. And before guns could be manufactured by the truckload.

The Constitution has been amended before and it can be again. Yes, citizens should be able to protect themselves. But it doesn't need to be with a handgun or an automatic weapon. And citizens don't need to stockpile guns to protect themselves. You have two hands - two weapons registered legally in your name is all you need.

Your ignorance of showing. Ownership of automatic weapons is already very restricted and requires special BATF licensing. Perhaps you don't know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semiautomatic weapon?

The pump shotgun the perp in Illinois used would be neither automatic nor semiautomatic. The Glock pistol was semiautomatic, the same weapon used by many law enforcement and military organizations around the world.

Semiautomatic makes the gun less deadly then?

Semiautomatic or automatic, neither of those weapons were around when the Constitution were written.

Times have changed. Our protections need to change with it.

The needs of the many outweigh the few. People should not be susceptible to danger, even if it is at the hands of a madman, because of a Constitutional right that mass-production of weapons had made obsolete.

[Miranda&James 8]

Most gunowners may be responsible. But I think it's safe to say (from what we are witnessing in society) than many are not.

I brought up the pointing of a weapon for a reason and it's a simple straighforward reason. That's all guns are good for. They are nothing more than an implement of destruction.

If you want to hunt, you could do that with a bow and arrow. If you want to aim at targets, you could throw darts. If you want to protect yourself you MIGHT need a gun. If you want to rise up against an oppressive government, you might need a gun.

Overall, I think the public good and safety should take precedence over an individual right that needs to change with the rest of the times. And that right should have been questioned whenever the first genius decided to design a pistol that could fire itself multiple times with one pull of the trigger.

Sure, many are not, but the same argument could be made that alcohol should be banned because when it is consumed and individuals get behind the wheel of a car, it becomes a very deadly weapon. Sure, drinking and driving is illegal but so its shooting someone (except in rare cases). Our country is so large and diverse that to me it seems obvious that we have issues - we are trying to apply laws and standards to a country that has thousands of different cultural viewpoints. I imagine that applying laws in a small country with one main cultural background is not quite as hard since most people have the same beliefs. Although I don't have the statistics, I feel pretty safe in saying that gun deaths and drunk driving related deaths are both very large numbers. Where is the outrage about banning alcohol? Of course guns can kill someone easier and faster than a knife but to imply that the violence issues in our country can be solved by simply banning guns is very naive (in general, I am not necessarily replying to only your posts).

And like others have said before, responsible gun owners NEVER point a gun at another person unless they intend to shoot them, loaded or unloaded and I certainly would consider myself a very responsible gun owner.

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

Why?

Seems to me many of you rise to a vocally violent defense of something that has no purpose other than violence.

But the image of pointing the weapon is distasteful.

Tsk tsk.

so quick to throw away your rights in this, but so quick to also pitch a fit about your rights with the patriot act are you?

You've lost me.

you don't want the 2nd amendment, but you've been awfully quick to speak out about the patriot act have you not?

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

Semiautomatic makes the gun less deadly then?

yes. lower rate of fire.

Semiautomatic or automatic, neither of those weapons were around when the Constitution were written.

neither were cars and computers. should we ban them too?

[Heracles 417]

There are two sides to gun control.

Allowing people to own guns like AK47 is just stupid. Don't give me this ####### of they are not fully automatic because there are cheap kits out there which convert them to fully automatic weapons.

To the contrary, anyone who actually believes that guns are the sole problem need a reality check. There are lots of countries out there who permit gun ownership who do not have anywhere near the same murder rate as the US. The same people who usually support tight gun control seem to fail to accept or even acknowledge that incidents like this are a consequence of an anything goes / each to their own style society. People are born and breed with the mentality that it is all about them. #### everyone etc etc etc; especially in the so-called 'progressive' states. Then when #### like this happens they blame the weapon of choice rather than the actual cause.

Then again certain people in America have other more important issues to worry about like apologizing for slavery, gay rights, American idol, Hollywood, what an actor's / athletes / singers #### smells like etc.. The need for so-called "Change".

Edited February 15, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[rebeccajo 14]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

Yep. I think that one comment alone makes me win by default.

That comment is unacceptable. Responsible gun owners do not point their guns at others, EVER. Maybe if you understood more about gun ownership, you would understand this.

I'm sorry if you feel it is unacceptable.

But those guns you own have no other purpose than to be aimed at something and fired.

You defend your right to own these weapons with such tenacity. Has anyone ever pointed one at you? Would you still feel the way you do if someone had?

Your right to own those weapons was given to you in a day and age when automatic weapons were unheard of. And before guns could be manufactured by the truckload.

The Constitution has been amended before and it can be again. Yes, citizens should be able to protect themselves. But it doesn't need to be with a handgun or an automatic weapon. And citizens don't need to stockpile guns to protect themselves. You have two hands - two weapons registered legally in your name is all you need.

No one has ever pointed a gun at me. You only ever point at something if you are prepared to fire. The people I know would never point a gun at anyone unless their life, family's life, or home was threatened. Thankfully I have not been put in this position. I certainly don't stockpile weapons. The number of firearms I have is irrelevant in that they are properly stored and I can use each one responsibly and safely. Gun owners are some of the most responsible people you will meet.

Most gunowners may be responsible. But I think it's safe to say (from what we are witnessing in society) than many are not.

I brought up the pointing of a weapon for a reason and it's a simple straighforward reason. That's all guns are good for. They are nothing more than an implement of destruction.

If you want to hunt, you could do that with a bow and arrow. If you want to aim at targets, you could throw darts. If you want to protect yourself you MIGHT need a gun. If you want to rise up against an oppressive government, you might need a gun.

Overall, I think the public good and safety should take precedence over an individual right that needs to change with the rest of the times. And that right should have been questioned whenever the first genius decided to design a pistol that could fire itself multiple times with one pull of the trigger.

Rebeccajo, I respect your point of view. You and I will never agree on this subject however. Of course guns are implements of destruction, if they only contained water, I wouldn't be able to defend myself against the nutters and criminals who may wish to harm me. A firearm that can fire multiple shots makes doubly sure the threat doesn't get up again. The public good and safety is even firmer if I carry a concealed weapon, and see a madman trying to take out a bunch of innocent people.

Ok. Personally I don't own a weapon. My Father did not. My ex-husband did not. My husband does not. I once dated a guy who owned a handgun and rifle. He gave me a few lessons - I've fired a weapon. It was years ago and I wouldn't have a clue now how to responsibly handle a gun (beyond what common sense would tell a person).

I am opposed to guns, but there's that Constitution out there, and those guys were far smarter than me.

So even though I personally am not a gun owner, and personally it would suit me just fine if there were no more guns ever manufactured or sold, I realize that's probably not realistic. And despite my 'sunshine up my a$$' feeling on the subject, in the real world our forefathers were trying to build, my pacifist beliefs are outweighed. In the concept that the right to bear arms was created, I can learn to live with that.

But I don't think any kind of weapon that automatically reloads itself, or fires multiple times from one pull, should be available to anyone but law enforcement. As for protecting myself, I'll take my chances with a ball bat or a meat cleaver and leave the heavy artillery to the boys in blue. I don't think people need to own a bunch of guns - a gun isn't the same thing as stamps or coins. They are weapons. One or two should be enough.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

"Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government."

-Ron Paul, June 26, 2006

[rebeccajo 14]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

Why?

Seems to me many of you rise to a vocally violent defense of something that has no purpose other than violence.

But the image of pointing the weapon is distasteful.

Tsk tsk.

so quick to throw away your rights in this, but so quick to also pitch a fit about your rights with the patriot act are you?

You've lost me.

you don't want the 2nd amendment, but you've been awfully quick to speak out about the patriot act have you not?

The Patriot Act is a load of ####### and an invasion of our privacy. Look to my post above for how I feel about the Second Amendment.

[rebeccajo 14]

Semiautomatic makes the gun less deadly then?

yes. lower rate of fire.

Semiautomatic or automatic, neither of those weapons were around when the Constitution were written.

neither were cars and computers. should we ban them too?

Not by much.

Cars are a mode of transport. Computers store data. Guns shoot.

Next?

[garya505 2]

Denmark and Finland have high rates of gun ownership and low crime rates.

Switzerland and Israel have high gun ownership rates and low homicide rates.

Focusing on gun ownership misses the big picture and doesn't make sense unless you just don't like guns because they're "bad".

[Flames9_RN 359]

Wait till more suicide bombers come to America, and they will, see how you feel about things then!!

[Heracles 417]

The Patriot Act is a load of ####### and an invasion of our privacy. Look to my post above for how I feel about the Second Amendment.

Never seizes to amaze me how the same people who say the second amendment has been misinterpreted, which I actually agree with, fail to see the same with the First amendment; which actually refers to freedom of political speech.

Context is definitely a word and concept people fail to understand.

"the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc."