More people have died from hammers and clubs then rifles..

[red1]

I still find it idiotic how the richest and most advanced country in the world still feels the need to cling to guns and insist that its for their own protection, when the rest of the world seems to get along alright without them. This isn't going to be a popular post with bmulls lol but I think all guns should be banned, and screw the 2nd amendment. Your enjoyment is never, EVER above the death of somebody else.

bro you need to be more respectfull towards bmull's need to shoot deer

[miller-time]

I still find it idiotic how the richest and most advanced country in the world still feels the need to cling to guns and insist that its for their own protection, when the rest of the world seems to get along alright without them. This isn't going to be a popular post with bmulls lol but I think all guns should be banned, and screw the 2nd amendment. Your enjoyment is never, EVER above the death of somebody else.

My problem with that is that it sets a precedent. I don't think you can just go out and obliterate any of the amendments. That is kind of the problem with having a Bill of Rights though. Once you give rights it is hard to take them away. It is a catch 22.

[red1]

Listen if shooting deer is that important to you than get the proper license and go to a hunting range. Sure it is a little inconvenient but it will create a more stable society

[Nanners]

You lose credibility citing Breibart.

Municipalities are certainly free to restrict hammers if they choose. No foaming at the mouth nut is screaming that carrying a hammer is a God given inalienable right.

when longhorn is the one to say you lose credibility because your source is too far right wing, you know its time to re-evaluate

[Balla_Status]

I still find it idiotic how the richest and most advanced country in the world still feels the need to cling to guns and insist that its for their own protection, when the rest of the world seems to get along alright without them. This isn't going to be a popular post with bmulls lol but I think all guns should be banned, and screw the 2nd amendment. Your enjoyment is never, EVER above the death of somebody else.

Really dumb post since criminals don't follow laws. And me enjoying shoot a gun doesn't kill somebody else. Thus the flaw in your argument.

[miller-time]

Really dumb post since criminals don't follow laws. And me enjoying shoot a gun doesn't kill somebody else. Thus the flaw in your argument.

Criminals are only criminals after they've actually committed a crime, and in some cases (but not all obviously) the simple possession of a gun may be the deciding factor as to whether or not a person will go through with a crime. Some people might be more adverse to breaking and entering, or mugging, or robbing stores if they don't have a gun.

What I'm saying is that for significant crimes, the possession of a gun happens BEFORE they've committed the crime. Not after.

[Balla_Status]

Criminals are only criminals after they've actually committed a crime, and in some cases (but not all obviously) the simple possession of a gun may be the deciding factor as to whether or not a person will go through with a crime. Some people might be more adverse to breaking and entering, or mugging, or robbing stores if they don't have a gun.

What I'm saying is that for significant crimes, the possession of a gun happens BEFORE they've committed the crime. Not after.

Right but if you make the possession of a gun illegal...just possessing it is illegal.

Either way you can't guarantee the person won't get a gun somehow regardless of what laws you put into place.

[miller-time]

Either way you can't guarantee the person won't get a gun somehow regardless of what laws you put into place.

I think one problem is that everyone is searching for a solution for today, instead of for tomorrow. Heavily restricting some guns, and banning others won't mean that people can't get a hold of them now, but 30 years down the track - when both the cultural climate has changed and old guns are increasingly harder to come by (also jacking up their price) guns will be less desirable to own and much more difficult for the average person to get their hands on.

[Balla_Status]

I think one problem is that everyone is searching for a solution for today, instead of for tomorrow. Heavily restricting gun, and banning others won't mean that people can't get a hold of them now, but 30 years down the track - when both the cultural climate has changed and old guns are increasingly harder to come by (also jacking up their price) guns will be less desirable to own and much more difficult for the average person to get their hands on.

So what about the people in between now and then. We're f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]cked?

You'd probably be right though.

[miller-time]

So what about the people in between now and then. We're f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]cked?

They're already f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]cked. But change isn't instantaneous. You can't have it all. You are essentially giving up some of your perceived and actual rights and security for the future. I've said time and time again, if you want to live in a society you have to give something up.

[brantonli]

Right but if you make the possession of a gun illegal...just possessing it is illegal.

Either way you can't guarantee the person won't get a gun somehow regardless of what laws you put into place.

Isn't that a rather silly argument? 'Since Law X doesn't guarantee person A can't do Task B, then Law X shouldn't exist' ? Which law on earth DOES guarantee that people can't do Task Whatever then? Obviously you require the enforcement of the law.

It's like saying 'Since laws don't guarantee people won't go out and make explosives, then why have laws against explosive materials?'


note I'm not an american, I'm from asia so my perspective on guns and how commonplace it is in USA is probably different from yours.

[flipogb]

guns are meant for killing people/animals, has no other use.

hammers and whatever blunt instrument you can find are used for other purposes

[brantonli]

btw, this article is for gun right advocates (to add another anecdote)

[QUOTE]http://myfox8.com/2013/01/06/ga-mom-...aves-children/

Mom hides children, shoots intruder Paul Ali Slater 5 times

LOGANVILLE, Ga.

[miller-time]

btw, this article is for gun right advocates (to add another anecdote)




Good for her to be able to protect herself, but god damn, the guy survived 5 shots to the head and neck area, got out of hte house, drove the car, crashed it, and was still alive at the hospital?

She didn't answer the door? So he thought no one was home... Burglars aren't looking to rape and kill you, they want your stuff. And they like to take it without any interruptions.

[brantonli]

She didn't answer the door? So he thought no one was home... Burglars aren't looking to rape and kill you, they want your stuff. And they like to take it without any interruptions.

Agreed. Although one would've thought that if the mum and 2 kids were in the house, then the lights must be on (so must be a pretty dumb burglar). I reckon the moment he found the three people hiding in the closet he would've tried to run for it, rather than do anything dangerous to them. Sucks to be him either way.