Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

denim · 03:49 PM

Given children being kidnapped right out of lovers' lane ( see here), can anyone honestly say that being armed is a bad thing? If these kids had been armed, the attacker would have been dead and no loss to the world.

fxbezak · Aug 1, 2002, 02:06 PM

Guns are good. Everyone should own one. err...

Everyone should own (^at least )one there we go.

My kids will know how to shoot one before they are age 10 and handle it safely and respect it.

so eat my A$$ you liberal wacko pigs.

fxbezak · Aug 1, 2002, 02:09 PM

did i say wacko?, i meant commies.

::maroma:: · Aug 1, 2002, 02:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by denim:
Given children being kidnapped right out of lovers' lane (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/01/teen.abduction/index.html" target="_blank">see here</a>), can anyone honestly say that being armed is a bad thing? If these kids had been armed, the attacker would have been dead and no loss to the world.<hr /></blockquote>HAHA! Do you really think it's so easy to kill someone? You watch too many movies.

Guns are tools of the weak.

denim · Aug 1, 2002, 02:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ::maroma:::
Guns are tools of the weak.<hr /></blockquote>There are a lot of "weak".

Arty50 · Aug 1, 2002, 02:26 PM

I am a staunch gun supporter, and pride myself on being a responsible owner of several firearms. However, I don't think children should be responsible for home defense. Operating a firearm indoors requires great care, and I don't think a frightened child has the knowledge required to do so properly. Selecting the proper tool for the job and firing it in a safe direction are difficult enough for adults under duress. I wouldn't trust a kid with this task.

BRussell · Aug 1, 2002, 02:27 PM

1. How do you know the attacker would have been dead? It's not as if having a gun is some automatic magical 24th century cloaking/shielding device.

2. The attacker had a gun too. That's at least one guy who shouldn't have had one. Guns are great for victims, but the gun control advocates want to restrict guns from getting to the bad guys, and the tools to know the difference between the good guys and bad guys. Gun-control opponents are opposed to restrictions of any kind, even on the bad guys.

3. In hindsight, if everyone who was attacked would have had a gun, that would be great. But having guns carries risks when you're not out defending yourself from the criminals. So to protect these specific girls, are you saying that all girls should carry guns? Wouldn't that be more dangerous than the protection it would offer to the rare victims like these?

TNproud2b · Aug 1, 2002, 02:27 PM

A bigger gun improves the likelihood of a fatality. Using a small gun is stupid. Why take chances? When the situation arises that you need to cap somebody, doesn't it make sense to do it right?

Use the right tool for the job, people. You're making all gun owners look inept.

nonhuman · Aug 1, 2002, 02:28 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ::maroma:::
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by denim:
Given children being kidnapped right out of lovers' lane (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/01/teen.abduction/index.html" target="_blank">see here</a>), can anyone honestly say that being armed is a bad thing? If these kids had been armed, the attacker would have been dead and no loss to the world.<hr /></blockquote>HAHA! Do you really think it's so easy to kill someone? You watch too many movies.

Guns are tools of the weak.<hr /></blockquote>Assuming you have even a very rudimentary knowledge of human anatomy, and you've fired a gun before, it's pretty much point an click.

::maroma:: · Aug 1, 2002, 02:28 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by denim:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ::maroma:::
Guns are tools of the weak.<hr /></blockquote>There are a lot of "weak".<hr /></blockquote>There certainly are.

The_Equivocator · Aug 1, 2002, 02:34 PM

Let's look at some numbers, shall we?

The study can be found <a href="http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/siter_rpt.asp" target="_blank">here</a> and was conducted by the Research and Statistics Section at the request of the Firearms Control Task Group, Department of Justice Canada. Information was collected between January and April, 1995.

US
Suicide Rate: 12/100,000 (30,810)
Suicide with Firearm Rate: 7.1/100,000 (18,526)
Homicide Rate: 9.3/100,000 (24,273)
Homicide with Firearm Rate: 6.4/100,000 (16,704)
Accidents with Firearms: 1,441
Firearms Ownership Rate: 85,385/100,000 (222 m.)

Britain
Suicide Rate: 8.6/100,000 (4,284)
Suicide with Firearm Rate: 0.4/100,000 (191)
Homicide Rate: 1.3/100,000 (675)
Homicide with Firearm Rate: 0.14/100,000 (74)
Accidents with Firearms: 8
Firearms Ownership Rate: 3,307/100,000 (1.7 m)

The Brits know what's going on. Stop telling me that guns protect people. Look at the numbers. The more you raise the regulations on guns, the more homicide rates drop. The numbers for Japan are similar to those of Britain, except lower... and they prohibit handguns all-together.

I have to run to an eye appointment, now... but expect more later.

[ 08-01-2002, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: The_Equivocator ]

hellooperator · Aug 1, 2002, 02:39 PM

There are really only a small handfull of possible situations that having a gun will actually have any benefit. You pretty much have to be aware of the potential threat and prepared with a gun in hand. Otherwise, once a gun is pulled on you; you are at the assailant's mercy.

To be completely prepared for any such situation, people have to be constantly carrying the weapon at all times. That could lead to all kinds of disasters.

fxbezak · Aug 1, 2002, 02:58 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Arty50:
I am a staunch gun supporter, and pride myself on being a responsible owner of several firearms. However, I don't think children should be responsible for home defense. Operating a firearm indoors requires great care, and I don't think a frightened child has the knowledge required to do so properly. Selecting the proper tool for the job and firing it in a safe direction are difficult enough for adults under duress. I wouldn't trust a kid with this task.<hr /></blockquote>Thats why you gotta train them early
I agree with ya, no kids shouldnt have to use guns, but a can be an only means of protection, and I want my kids knowing HOW, WHEN, and WHY to use a gun. I dont have a very large family, so i cant say per my family, but i do know other peopel kids very aware and responsible.

rampant · Aug 1, 2002, 03:13 PM

But if I have no gun, how can I protect my home from the king of england!? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

gerbnl · Aug 1, 2002, 03:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by denim:
Given children being kidnapped right out of lovers' lane (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/01/teen.abduction/index.html" target="_blank">see here</a>), can anyone honestly say that being armed is a bad thing? If these kids had been armed, the attacker would have been dead and no loss to the world.<hr /></blockquote>or...

One of the teens could have been dead... (over a heated argument, or by accident of even by an attacker taking no risks)

fxbezak · Aug 1, 2002, 03:22 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gerbnl:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by denim:
Given children being kidnapped right out of lovers' lane (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/01/teen.abduction/index.html" target="_blank">see here</a>), can anyone honestly say that being armed is a bad thing? If these kids had been armed, the attacker would have been dead and no loss to the world.<hr /></blockquote>or...

One of the teens could have been dead... (over a heated argument, or by accident of even by an attacker taking no risks)<hr /></blockquote>no offence here, and i dont mean it all all, i just wanna use this as an example. I think your playing devils advocate.. This is exactly the same crap in the media that they try to spin on guns. Its really not all about arguments, or fighting. Its about 1+1 If Gun Then protect myself. This sounded like something i would hear on CNN. (communist news network)

I hope you dont get ofended, and i really think you were playing devils advocate more than anything.

I jsut see all fo that same psycobabble all too often. Like comparing apples and oranges.

::maroma:: · Aug 1, 2002, 03:34 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by fxbezak:
no offence here, and i dont mean it all all, i just wanna use this as an example. I think your playing devils advocate.. This is exactly the same crap in the media that they try to spin on guns. Its really not all about arguments, or fighting. Its about 1+1 If Gun Then protect myself. This sounded like something i would hear on CNN. (communist news network)

I hope you dont get ofended, and i really think you were playing devils advocate more than anything.

I jsut see all fo that same psycobabble all too often. Like comparing apples and oranges.<hr /></blockquote>And saying that if you own a gun you are automatically protected against others with guns isn't playing devil's advocate? There is no guarantees when people are allowed to own guns. There are millions of scenarios that could happen. Most of them have already happened before. Yes, even the cases where somone pulls a gun in self defense, and ends up dead.

You saying that if they had guns, everything would've been fine and dandy is absolutely playing devil's advocate. It's people like you who are the ones who keep guns on the streets, killing kids and innocent people.

fxbezak · Aug 1, 2002, 03:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ::maroma:::
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by fxbezak:
no offence here, and i dont mean it all all, i just wanna use this as an example. I think your playing devils advocate.. This is exactly the same crap in the media that they try to spin on guns. Its really not all about arguments, or fighting. Its about 1+1 If Gun Then protect myself. This sounded like something i would hear on CNN. (communist news network)

I hope you dont get ofended, and i really think you were playing devils advocate more than anything.

I jsut see all fo that same psycobabble all too often. Like comparing apples and oranges.<hr /></blockquote>And saying that if you own a gun you are automatically protected against others with guns isn't playing devil's advocate? There is no guarantees when people are allowed to own guns. There are millions of scenarios that could happen. Most of them have already happened before. Yes, even the cases where somone pulls a gun in self defense, and ends up dead.

You saying that if they had guns, everything would've been fine and dandy is absolutely playing devil's advocate. It's people like you who are the ones who keep guns on the streets, killing kids and innocent people.<hr /></blockquote>Ill agree with this: I did not clarify on what i mean and I should have.
A gun could be used as a means of protection. not that it is a gaurentee.
BUT in any case my Kids WILL know how to use one and will understand that it is a means of protection.

and no..
no one but their kids parents keep them on the strrets with guns.
I have no control over some little bastards parents sitting at home smoking crack all day while they are in gangs. (one example)

TikTokk · Aug 1, 2002, 03:43 PM

I am NOT anti-gun, but here's a scenerio for you.

Assailant puts gun to teenagers head. Teenager grabs for their gun, gets killed, assailant now has more guns.

I don't see how you can think that minors carrying guns would be a good thing.

typoon · Aug 1, 2002, 03:46 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TikTokk:
I am NOT anti-gun, but here's a scenerio for you.

Assailant puts gun to teenagers head. Teenager grabs for their gun, gets killed, assailant now has more guns.

I don't see how you can think that minors carrying guns would be a good thing.<hr /></blockquote>Yes but the reverse to that is if Assailant knows teen has gun will he mess with teen, if teen knows how to use said gun?

climber · Aug 1, 2002, 03:46 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by The_Equivocator:
Let's look at some numbers, shall we?

The study can be found <a href="http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/siter_rpt.asp" target="_blank">here</a> and was conducted by the Research and Statistics Section at the request of the Firearms Control Task Group, Department of Justice Canada. Information was collected between January and April, 1995.

US
Suicide Rate: 12/100,000 (30,810)
Suicide with Firearm Rate: 7.1/100,000 (18,526)
Homicide Rate: 9.3/100,000 (24,273)
Homicide with Firearm Rate: 6.4/100,000 (16,704)
Accidents with Firearms: 1,441
Firearms Ownership Rate: 85,385/100,000 (222 m.)

Britain
Suicide Rate: 8.6/100,000 (4,284)
Suicide with Firearm Rate: 0.4/100,000 (191)
Homicide Rate: 1.3/100,000 (675)
Homicide with Firearm Rate: 0.14/100,000 (74)
Accidents with Firearms: 8
Firearms Ownership Rate: 3,307/100,000 (1.7 m)

The Brits know what's going on. Stop telling me that guns protect people. Look at the numbers. The more you raise the regulations on guns, the more homicide rates drop. The numbers for Japan are similar to those of Britain, except lower... and they prohibit handguns all-together.

I have to run to an eye appointment, now... but expect more later.<hr /></blockquote>Well, why don't you look at the statistics in Canada, where these number were used to justify increased gun control. No statistically significant change after almost 10 years of increased gun control.

The stats you cite DO NOT prove a causal relationship between guns and increased crime. They only suggest a casual relationship. Same concept as skirt lenghts and the stock marke values.

thunderous_funker · Aug 1, 2002, 03:55 PM

the gun debate is pretty funny.

A:"the world if full of wackos, better arm yourself".

B:"if it's easy to get armed, won't the wackos just arm themselves too?"

A:"wackos already are armed! Get better armed and better trained. Get quicker on the draw!"

etc ad naseum..

Maybe if everyone felt better about our ability to spot, disarm, and eliminate wackos it wouldn't be such an issue.

Think about it. If you had any faith in the criminal justice system, why would you feel the need to arm yourself?

The lack of personal safety we feel in America has been eroding for years. We abandoned the idea that there can be any way of addressing the social problems that create rampant violent crime so our only solution is to deputize every citizen and give them a weapon?

Seems to me we're negotiating from an already compromised position.

SimeyTheLimey · Aug 1, 2002, 03:55 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TikTokk:
I am NOT anti-gun, but here's a scenerio for you.

Assailant puts gun to teenagers head. Teenager grabs for their gun, gets killed, assailant now has more guns.

I don't see how you can think that minors carrying guns would be a good thing.<hr /></blockquote>This is probably true. I'm not anti-gun either. I carried one for a couple of years with a concealed weapons permit when I was woking protection for generals in the Army. It's one thing to carry if you are trained and alert and only worried about the protection of someone under your charge. It's quite another to carry for self-protection.

There probably are some situations where being armed could allow a person to protect themselves. But there are probably many others where all they are going to do is make you cocky and take unecessary risks.

Even with my training and when I lived in a state that would allow me to carry legally, I never personally owned a gun. They have their uses and I would not support outlawing them, but guns are not a panacea.

fxbezak · Aug 1, 2002, 03:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TikTokk:
I am NOT anti-gun, but here's a scenerio for you.

Assailant puts gun to teenagers head. Teenager grabs for their gun, gets killed, assailant now has more guns.

I don't see how you can think that minors carrying guns would be a good thing.<hr /></blockquote>Well I dont nececarily think Minors carrying them would be a good/bad thing. I havent really deceided on that yet. But i can tell you that i fully belive in minors knowing how to use them.
I nee dot leave work right now

<thinking off>

Mr. Blur · Aug 1, 2002, 03:57 PM

...as Dale Gribble sez...

"guns don't kill people...the government does."

Xaositect · Aug 1, 2002, 03:58 PM

1. New gun control laws only affect the law-abiding. Those who are breaking the law now will do so tomorrow, so don't tell me gun control advocates only want them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them (or even argue how we can tell - unless it's obvious, we can't tell, and the obvious is already encoded in law). Every gun control law written in the last 15-20 years has only limited the law-abiding. Period.

2. Murder, robbery, suicide, fatal acidents, etc. have happenned for all of human history. Rates go up and down by the respect for life shown in the society/time period more than by how hard/easy any physical thing makes it. Right now, American society has placed a rather low "value" on life, so rates are up. The way we commonly talk about it - "value", like it's based on money - only accentuates it. Correct that, and the numbers go down.

For the record, I don't collect guns, use them regularly, or even own more that one (a showpiece kept for sentiment over who purchased it). I will defend those who do want to own/use/collect guns, and believe it is a necessary right in a free society that wants to stay free.

thunderous_funker · Aug 1, 2002, 04:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Xaositect:
1. New gun control laws only affect the law-abiding. Those who are breaking the law now will do so tomorrow, so don't tell me gun control advocates only want them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them (or even argue how we can tell - unless it's obvious, we can't tell, and the obvious is already encoded in law). Every gun control law written in the last 15-20 years has only limited the law-abiding. Period.

2. Murder, robbery, suicide, fatal acidents, etc. have happenned for all of human history. Rates go up and down by the respect for life shown in the society/time period more than by how hard/easy any physical thing makes it. Right now, American society has placed a rather low "value" on life, so rates are up. The way we commonly talk about it - "value", like it's based on money - only accentuates it. Correct that, and the numbers go down.

For the record, I don't collect guns, use them regularly, or even own more that one (a showpiece kept for sentiment over who purchased it). I will defend those who do want to own/use/collect guns, and believe it is a necessary right in a free society that wants to stay free.<hr /></blockquote>I must agree. Guns for protection are a symptom of a greater social problem. If Americans didn't feel so personally threatened by violent crime the issue of Gun control would be moot. They'd be collectors peices. No one would be talking about the righ to "protecting yourself". Protect yourself from what?

Work towards a world that requires less personal protection, then collect whatever you want.

boardsurfer · Aug 1, 2002, 04:15 PM

I love my guns - all 28 of them. Eventually, my kids will learn to respect them and know which is used for what and when. My weapons range from high power hunting rifles to Black Powder revolver and while growing up I learned from my dad, one by one, the details of each of them.

On topic - Now, it is one thing to protect your home. I would not have any problem investigating my home for a prowler with a .357 in my hand. To carry a concealed weapon in public is just asking for trouble though. How many times have you been in a situation to require a weapon? And if so, are you willing to fire in public? To make a decision like that on behalf of anyone around is not one I am prepared to make. I could not account for actions of others around me in a way that I could safely fire a round. <img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" />

denim · 03:50 PM

Looks like we've got a nearly perfect result. The animal was killed and the girls were recovered just fine.

andymcdeee · Aug 1, 2002, 05:26 PM

So long as everyone understands that it's only america that has this attitude (ie. wanting more guns). Therefore, let them shoot each other. I mean, if they really want guns give them guns. Bucket loads of guns. Guns for every newborn child in america!!!

Anyone that thinks that guns are a good thing are just f u c k e d i n t h e h e a d.

Not even our police carry guns here. And our national leader does not need a police excort everywhere she goes. I pity your gun wielding nation.

climber · Aug 1, 2002, 05:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by andymcdeee:
So long as everyone understands that it's only america that has this attitude (ie. wanting more guns). Therefore, let them shoot each other. I mean, if they really want guns give them guns. Bucket loads of guns. Guns for every newborn child in america!!!

Anyone that thinks that guns are a good thing are just f u c k e d i n t h e h e a d.

Not even our police carry guns here. And our national leader does not need a police excort everywhere she goes. I pity your gun wielding nation.

<hr /></blockquote>Well I would disagree. My guns are ONLY used for hunting. The Elk in my freezer has been putting almost all the "meat" on my family's table since last fall. This is a family of five. The net effect on the environment is much less than the cattle industry, and the meat is much lower in animal fat and it tastes better.

So before you continue spouting your dribble, think first, not all guns are used for crime or self defense.

And for those of you who want to start a anti hunting thread, you better be a card carrying vegetation first!

Blakhawkg3 · Aug 1, 2002, 06:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by denim:
Looks like we've got a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/01/teen.abduction/index.html" target="_blank">nearly perfect result</a>. The animal was killed and the girls were recovered just fine.<hr /></blockquote>wait...maybe i'm reading this wrong

but
"the man suspected of kidnapping them Thursday morning was shot and killed by police "

isn't this thread about normal civilians carrying weapons? i don't know for sure if those two girls would have been able to kill the man...

tie · Aug 1, 2002, 06:15 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Xaositect:
I will defend those who do want to own/use/collect guns, and believe it is a necessary right in a free society that wants to stay free.<hr /></blockquote>Maybe you can explain this. I can understand the argument in chaotic transitional societies like revolutionary America or modern Afghanistan. But what is the role of guns in a modern democratic society?

How do they help us keep free? ("Us" = normal people, not afraid of UN black helicopters

)

daimoni · 11:01 AM

.

V · Aug 1, 2002, 06:31 PM

Guns, to do what? guns are tools to hurt and kill. Like mentioned by tie, there no place for guns in a true democracy. To protect yourself? From what? where do you live? You are an imbecile if you lived in a dangerous place and buy guns to protect your child. What a wonderful education. have you ever think about moving? I don't know for the US, but where I live you still can sleep with the doors unlocked, and even open them when it's too hot!

26 800 deaths by guns (murders-suicides) in 1999 in the US! Wake up! <blockquote>quote:<hr /> They only suggest a casual relationship. <hr /></blockquote>Wake up!

Japan 28 deaths, 28, wake up!

[ 08-01-2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: V ]

SimeyTheLimey · Aug 1, 2002, 06:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />

Japan 28 deaths, 28, wake up!<hr /></blockquote>This may not be a very good comparison and poor logic. After all, the suicidal will just find other means. I hope you don't think that suicide is only a problem if the means used is a gun.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> One very interesting statistic is the suicide number. 67 people commit suicide on an average day in Japan. Theoretically, then, the U.S. number should be about 134, but it's actually only 84, indicating that the U.S. has a much lower suicide rate than Japan. <hr /></blockquote><a href="http://w3.one.net/~voyager/jcompare.html" target="_blank">Source. </a>

SimeyTheLimey · Aug 1, 2002, 06:44 PM

Double post.

[ 08-01-2002, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: SimeyTheLimey ]

tie · Aug 1, 2002, 06:46 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Xaositect:
1. New gun control laws only affect the law-abiding. Those who are breaking the law now will do so tomorrow, so don't tell me gun control advocates only want them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them (or even argue how we can tell - unless it's obvious, we can't tell, and the obvious is already encoded in law). Every gun control law written in the last 15-20 years has only limited the law-abiding. Period.
<hr /></blockquote>This can't be true. People with enough money and sophistication will always be able to get around gun control laws. But most criminals are poor and pretty unsophisticated.

I agree, though, that it is usually impossible to tell whether or not a given person should be allowed to have a gun -- whether or not that person is a potential criminal.

Waiting periods can still be effective, though, in perhaps preventing more impulsive crimes. And they are a very minor obstacle to the law-abiding. Are there other policies that disproportionately affect criminals? Banning certain kinds of guns, definitely. Perhaps taxes (since crime and poverty are linked)??

I feel like there is a divide (a little fuzzy, maybe) between rural and urban Americans over gun control. Rural folks like their guns and have practical, legal uses for them, like hunting. But for the urban folks, the gun violence is an enormous, enormous cost. Is it so terrible for us to make a few sacrifices to save the lives of some kids in the inner cities?

Gun enthusiasts and the gun industry need to be willing to accept reasonable, responsible limits.

MGossett · Aug 1, 2002, 06:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Japan 28 deaths, 28, wake up!<hr /></blockquote>Japan also lost WW II. Now, I know that was like 60 years ago, but my point is this: You can make the argument that our military is so good because the US has a gun culture. A lot of people in the military have been shooting guns since they were kids, so their skills with those weapons are far superior to soldiers from non-gun-cultured nations, such as Japan, Singapore, etc. In fact, if you look at another superpower, like England, you will find the same gun culture. People in England hunt just like Americans do.

-Mike

V · Aug 1, 2002, 06:57 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> One very interesting statistic is the suicide number. 67 people commit suicide on an average day in Japan. Theoretically, then, the U.S. number should be about 134, but it's actually only 84, indicating that the U.S. has a much lower suicide rate than Japan. <hr /></blockquote>It's forbidden to commit suicide in the US (religion), but Japan has a "cult" of suicide, japanese preferred suicide over dishonour. It's a cultural difference

boardsurfer · Aug 1, 2002, 06:59 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by V:
[QB]Guns, to do what? guns are tools to hurt and kill. Like mentioned by tie, there no place for guns in a true democracy. To protect yourself? From what? where do you live? You are an imbecile if you lived in a dangerous place and buy guns to protect your child. What a wonderful education. have you ever think about moving? I don't know for the US, but where I live you still can sleep with the doors unlocked, and even open them when it's too hot!
[QB]<hr /></blockquote>I didnt obtain all of these guns for the purposes of protection (although they fill the role, that is not what they are meant for) They have put meat on my table, just like someone else commented. I also own a decent sized plot of land that is literally out in the middle of nowhere (Southern Colorado). Great place to teach my kids to shoot and hunt (if they desire). My dad started me on a .22 when I was 7 or 8. I grew to respect them as weapons and to know what they are capable of. I intend to raise my boys the same way. And yes, it is a wonderful education. Just think, another person in the world who is not afraid of guns like you. Someone who wont try to have them outlawed because they know nothing about them.

V · Aug 1, 2002, 07:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MGossett:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />
Japan 28 deaths, 28, wake up!<hr /></blockquote>Japan also lost WW II. Now, I know that was like 60 years ago, but my point is this: You can make the argument that our military is so good because the US has a gun culture. A lot of people in the military have been shooting guns since they were kids, so their skills with those weapons are far superior to soldiers from non-gun-cultured nations, such as Japan, Singapore, etc. In fact, if you look at another superpower, like England, you will find the same gun culture. People in England hunt just like Americans do.

-Mike<hr /></blockquote>that's one of the biggest stupidity I heard in a while. this is the industrial (and technical) domination of the US that made them win the war. japan lived in tis time in the nineteenth century. the defeat was like a slap in the face. Then they embrace the twentieth century and became the leader in electronics.

daimoni · 12:44 AM

.

V · Aug 1, 2002, 07:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by boardsurfer:
<hr /></blockquote>I didnt obtain all of these guns for the purposes of protection (although they fill the role, that is not what they are meant for) They have put meat on my table, just like someone else commented. I also own a decent sized plot of land that is literally out in the middle of nowhere (Southern Colorado). Great place to teach my kids to shoot and hunt (if they desire). My dad started me on a .22 when I was 7 or 8. I grew to respect them as weapons and to know what they are capable of. I intend to raise my boys the same way. And yes, it is a wonderful education. Just think, another person in the world who is not afraid of guns like you. Someone who wont try to have them outlawed because they know nothing about them.[/QUOTE]

I have nothing against weapon to hunt, I also have to admit that I enjoy a little session of gun shooting from time to time! I also think that teaching your kids to use a weapon can be an excellent lesson about responsibility and prudence. But guns must not become a cult. Or a solution. Neither a tool.

SimeyTheLimey · Aug 1, 2002, 07:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MGossett:
[QUOTE]
but my point is this: You can make the argument that our military is so good because the US has a gun culture.
-Mike<hr /></blockquote>Now that's truly bad logic as well. I never touched a gun in my life before I joined the Army. I qualified expert. Most of the people I served with in the infantry also had no experience with guns before going in. Marksmanship really isn't all that hard to learn. In fact, ask any drill sergeant and they will tell you that the kid who has been shooting since he was 7 is the worst shot -- too many bad habits to unlearn.

I suppose also it is also superflous to point out that most of the weapons that make the US military great have nothing whatever to do with rifles and handguns. Do you really think a gun culture really helps a person to learn to shoot an M1A2, or an F-16?

Don't be silly.

alphamatrix · Aug 1, 2002, 07:15 PM

What you guys dont like guns!!!!! <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />
Liberals can have guns too right?
Cant a guy do a little target shooting?
<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/alphamatrix/images/BLAM.jpg" alt=" - " />

MGossett · Aug 1, 2002, 07:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Now that's truly bad logic as well. I never touched a gun in my life before I joined the Army. I qualified expert. Most of the people I served with in the infantry also had no experience with guns before going in. Marksmanship really isn't all that hard to learn. In fact, ask any drill sergeant and they will tell you that the kid who has been shooting since he was 7 is the worst shot -- too many bad habits to unlearn.
<hr /></blockquote>OK, OK...you all have proven me wrong. Sorry for my bad examples and horrible points.

-Mike

andymcdeee · Aug 1, 2002, 07:25 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by climber:
Well I would disagree. My guns are ONLY used for hunting. The Elk in my freezer has been putting almost all the "meat" on my family's table since last fall. This is a family of five. The net effect on the environment is much less than the cattle industry, and the meat is much lower in animal fat and it tastes better.

So before you continue spouting your dribble, think first, not all guns are used for crime or self defense.

And for those of you who want to start a anti hunting thread, you better be a card carrying vegetation first!<hr /></blockquote>Fair comment. But I don't believe this thread is about hunting. It's about self defence. If nobody had guns wouldn't it be better? Of course it would. Anyway, how did they catch elk when they didn't have guns? With a little skill I'd wager.

Incidentally, I am a vegetarian (have been most of my life) but that is neither here nor there with regards to your argument.

End of 'dribble'.

rambo47 · Aug 1, 2002, 07:28 PM

For home defense, I highly recommend the Mossberg 870 12 Ga. Pump Shotgun, chambered for eight 3 1/2 inch magnum loads, 4-Buck Remmington shells. Accept no substitutes.

"An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject."

daimoni · 12:44 AM

.