tC4italy

If there were no guns in the first place I wouldn't need a gun to defend myself from a man with a gun.

There's not much we can do about baseball bats (the PURPOSE of those is to play baseball) or human hands (we can't really go ahead and chop everyone's hands off now can we?) but guns yes. The purpose of guns is to kill someone/something. Guns can be taken away, guns can be banned.

Obviously you don't believe in the country's armed forces that you need to take it in your own hands. And that's fine, but I think otherwise and no one I know will own them.

salteen

draxcaliber

i'm for gun ownership but that is because i'm also for population control!

i dream of a world where a man can get alcohol, tobacco and firearms at a drive-thru and use them all before he gets home!

HeathenBrewing

Guns can NEVER be taken away. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. All you are advocating is leaving the choice of defense up to the criminals. Look at he REAL crime statistics (not that propaganda they have the Brady websites and the like) that you can find from police offices (albeit a year or two old). There you will see that more firearms save innocent lives than take them. What you advocate would put in harms way more innocent people, not the other way around.

Sure, a world without guns would be great, but it is a dangerous disillusion that is in no way based in reality. Life would be great if there were no nuclear weapons, no war or crime and money grew on trees, but you cannot uncreate something. The technology is here and no matter how much you wish it was not, turning your back to the problem will only make it worse.

Look at gun crime in the UK, where private ownership is illegal. Has that stopped gun crime? Has it made the streets safer? No, it only emboldens criminals who now know that the citizens cannot defend themselves in the most efficient manner.

Ban guns and only criminals will have them.

tC4italy

I'm not arguing with you Heathen. I'm not advocating anything. I'm stating MY opinion. And no one can nor will change it; just like I won't change yr opinion.

Well I gave mine here so I think I'm done

HeathenBrewing

You really havent been paying attention to current events have you? Or Supreme court rulings.

tC4italy

No I haven't cos I think the world has become a POS to live in. I have my own problems to think about and I don't want to be even more depressed by the animals and idiotic stuff going on in the world.

I used to watch the italian news but hey every time I turned it on only and I mean ONLY macabre (dunno the word in english) came up. Never anything nice, never.

So screw that.

tC4italy

As far as supreme court rulings my sis works for a judge so I get the info from her.

HeathenBrewing

Never mind that every major scientific study has shown that firearms ownership in a community reduces violent crime.

Never mind that every increase in firearms ownership in the United States since 1900 has resulted in a decrease in firearms accidents.

Never mind that every community that has instituted major gun control becomes an example of excess crime: Washington DC, Los Angeles, New York City.

HeathenBrewing

You are showing classic denial.

Im not arguing with you either TC, just trying to make some points for others to ponder. As you have stated, you want to put your head in the sand and wish all the bad away. I want real solutions to problems and am not afraid to step on some toes to get there. Do I have all the answers? No. But I do advocate being the solution rather than depending on others to come up with a solution for me.

tC4italy

I said I don't watch the news, meaning on tv, not that i'm not aware of what goes on in the world. I lived pretty much everywhere so I SAW it with MY eyes not through TV. So I'm far away from being sheltered.

HeathenBrewing

With all due respect, because one is aware of events it does not mean one is not in denial about them.

matt_a

A gun is only a tool. It's the person using it who decides if it will be used for good or bad. If someone is intent on harming someone else, they will find a way. If not a gun, they'll use a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, or a car. Putting restrictions on tools doesn't change the person.

tC4italy

True. But I have my own reasons to choose not to "see" everything.

Skeorx13

Sadly we can't have handguns in chi-town, but I do plan to get a rifle in the near future. I'm no gun nut either. I'd prefer a nice hunting bow. Still waiting for that one. I just feel strongly for the constitution and having the legal right to defend my home should the gov try to impose themselves on me. Plus they're fun to shoot at non-living targets. I do all my living target shooting in videogames.

whipple81

Damn...this is getting interesting...

if there are two things I know for a fact, it's this:

1) guns don't kill people...PEOPLE kill people.
2) you can argue with a woman all you want, and you may be right...but remember...you're NEVER right. (Heathen, Italy...naughty naughty). Men have outies, and woman have innies...hence, men make the laws and women argue them :-D

Let the lashing begin!!

Muahahahaha

whipple81

and on a side note...Italy...you HAVE guns...all women do...and they lure us men into a false sense of security and BAM! you're married!

matt_a

If the government decides to invade your home, no gun you'll own is going to stop them. BUT..if a local crackhead decides to climb through your livingroom window at 2:00 A.M., you'll be able to do something about that!

HeathenBrewing

United we stand, divided we fall.

In your example, you may be correct, but an armed society helps because even evil people can calculate costs.

Governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone. The mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where "gun control" ideas and laws had taken a strong hold.

Bad guys rob convenience stores and pizza delivery guys whom they know are unarmed. Bad guys do not rob gun stores nor do they burgle police stations, because the criminal’s personal risk of getting caught and killed is too high.

It is known that **** Germany did not invade Switzerland largely because the ***** did not want to invest a lot of machinery and manpower to subjugate a nation that was civilian-armed to the teeth. Similarly, historians tell us that the Imperial Japanese military leaders did not want to invade the United States during World War II because they knew they would encounter fierce resistance from armed citizens.

Remember that human beings are the ones who carry out orders. People calculate risks. Even though there is a lot of crime and lots of criminals infesting certain parts of Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C. (for example), the police will not go to those parts of town without backup. And in some areas, they will not go at all –certainly not at night.

We learn from all of these examples that armed civilians can deter even armed government functionaries.

Likewise, in the Iraq War, the American military chooses to deploy its forces in a manner less likely to result in American casualties. Thus, the American military does not blindly attempt to move into some towns and regions where they know the civilian resisters (“insurgents”) are armed and dangerous.

We therefore learn from modern military history that even powerful armies steer clear of armed and motivated civilian populations.

tC4italy

Sadly enough this country has very few women in power...kinda weird coming from the FREE LAND

and I'll take yr next post as a joke