and I'd say you are wrong. Fine opinion to have. You're just wrong, lol. The major pro of having an armed populace is in order to act as a check against a tyrannical gov't. There are hardly any cons that even come close to equaling this. All of the other "cons" are just as prevalent with any weapon, not just firearms. The fact is, people can be shitty and be violent against each other. The availability of guns does nothing to change that

3/19/2010 9:34:19 PM

it just makes it easier for people innocent and non-innocent to die and nobody has a right to kill someone else.

3/19/2010 9:43:01 PM

you don't get it. people will kill people no matter what.

3/19/2010 9:46:33 PM

Quote :

"old testament vs jesus"

Jesus supported the old testament:

"The Scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35
"But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Matthew 15:3
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18
"have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God" Matthew 22:31

What about the time that he told his followers to sell their cloaks and buy swords so that they could defend themselves after his arrest?

3/19/2010 10:00:36 PM

mr joshua, I support gun rights, but your interpretation of that passage from mathew is wrong. the, "till all is done" part is referring to the crucifixion and resurection, jesus said that before his death. after the resurection jesus sets aside the old covanant and gives us a new covanant.

3/19/2010 10:34:42 PM

Quote :

"the police are there to defend you. just like the military is there to defend you from nukes. everyone has a cell phone. call 911. Its extremely rare that a random criminal comes with the intent to harm."

The police are 45 minutes away when you call and tell them someone is shooting at you. When it comes to defending me from harm, the only thing the police are good for is picking up the bodies after the fact. And in the end, I would rather they not be picking up my body.

Quote :

"it just makes it easier for people innocent and non-innocent to die and nobody has a right to kill someone else."

No one has a right to enter my home uninvited. No one has a right to threaten me and mine with bodily harm. Therefore, when someone does these things, I will use any and all force reasonably necessary to stop them. If that involves them dying, that is the risk they took when they decided to do something they had no right to do in the first place.

3/19/2010 10:47:48 PM

and because many people feel the same way as you, guns need to be limited. if everyone had guns there would be non-stop shootouts.

3/19/2010 10:52:25 PM

Quote :

"and because many people feel the same way as you, guns need to be limited. if everyone had guns there would be non-stop shootouts."

[citation needed]

3/19/2010 10:58:25 PM

its called proliferation

[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 11:24 PM. Reason : funny the same people thiink iran shoulndt have nukes and we should]

3/19/2010 11:11:29 PM

Quote :

"its called proliferation"

So you have no proof then. Good, as long as we're clear that you just pull random shit out of your ass.

Quote :

"funny the same people thiink iran shoulndt have nukes and we should"

I also don't think that violent offenders should have guns while serving their sentence (after the fact is another discussion), nor that mentally incompetent people should. Perhaps it is possible for one to believe in allowing people the freedom to do the things they want and be who they want, until such time as it is proven that they are using that freedom to harm others. I know, it is nearly impossible for someone like you to imagine a world in which there wasn't some magical over seeing force (god, government or otherwise) telling everyone what to do, how to do it and when to do it; and I pity you for that fact.

3/19/2010 11:31:35 PM

so you are saying Iran uses its weapons to attack others? are you saying they have done it in the past?

what are you saying in reply to my last comment? I'm confused.

3/19/2010 11:43:07 PM

Quote :

" I support gun rights, but your interpretation of that passage from mathew is wrong. the, "till all is done" part is referring to the crucifixion and resurection, jesus said that before his death."

The context is the law set forth by scripture, how did you conclude that it was about the crucifixion?

Quote :

"after the resurection jesus sets aside the old covanant and gives us a new covanant."

I missed the part where he abolished the old testament.

Regardless, I have no idea why religion has anything to do with gun laws.

3/20/2010 3:12:20 AM

Quote :

"forgive us our trespasses AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US"

wow. broke out the bible for this one eh? separation of church and state. don't base your imaginary laws off of your religion, because that makes them twice as stupid.

and LOL at biblical trespassing == trespassing on private property! good one!



[Edited on March 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2010 10:29:47 AM

except the conservative advocates of the 2nd ammendment and founding fathers base everything on God and christianity. or is it only when it works for them? take it or leave it.

3/20/2010 10:51:17 AM

I have mostly conservative views. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, the right to self defense, and the right to bear arms. I, however, do not base my legal beliefs on religion; hence my views of:

- no problem with gay marriage
- the references to God on our money and in our Pledge are probably unconstitutional (although the courts have said the opposite)
- I have no problem with the use of the morning after pill, or abortions for those who women who medically need it
- I believe in the death penalty; but the entire justice system needs an overhaul if we continue to use the death penalty
- I don't believe that because someone was an exotic dancer/posed in an adult magazine, that they should be fired/barred from teaching children
- I agree that schools/teachers/coaches should not force or lead religious rituals in schools; allowing the students to do so own their own or as a student group is fine though

and a true Christian view would be against use of lethal force in self defense.... so yeh

so yeh, I don't want anything both ways... good try though

[Edited on March 20, 2010 at 11:15 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2010 11:12:13 AM

you are the minority

3/20/2010 11:16:58 AM

maybe, but I feel more younger people have similar views.

but your point still has no bearing on the right to bear arms and for self defense. you are caught up in this idea that only guns are used in crimes/in self defense, and that anyone with gun will use it on a whim, when that certainly is not the case. furthermore, no one is advocating that everyone should own firearms; it's a right, not a mandate. the right to preserve your life is one of the most basic and important rights. Just because someone commits a crime, any crime, doesn't mean they deserve to die; however, the benefit of the doubt must be with the victims of crimes, not the criminal. If someone breaks into a house with a weapon, then the residents of the home have the right to make the choice: is this guy with a knife/gun/etc going to seriously injure or kill me; odds are if someone is coming at you with a weapon, they intend to do major damage and it is your right to preserve your own life. You obviously have seen no facts about self defense and legally owned firearms. Each one of your statements is obviously based on unsubstantiated fears, left wing propaganda, outright lies, and a lack of knowledge.

3/20/2010 11:24:53 AM

you watch too much tv.

3/20/2010 11:55:38 AM

lol, yeh because ESPN is all about action movies.

3/20/2010 12:03:14 PM

Quote :

"and because many people feel the same way as you, guns need to be limited. if everyone had guns there would be non-stop shootouts."

it's too bad that fucking FACT disagrees. if you look across the nation, the areas with the most gun ownership tend to have the lowest crime rates. and you know what? CAUSE THE DICKHEAD CRIMINALS KNOW PEOPLE ARE PACKING HEAT, so they go elsewhere. wow... what a crazy fuckin idea

3/20/2010 6:02:17 PM

Just to clarify, we are saying that criminals are thinking ahead and factoring in the chances that the people they are committing crimes against will have weapons? Are the rates of gun ownership somehow known by most prospective criminals and factored into their decision making processes?

Maybe I could agree if these figures were clearly reinforced within each community, but I doubt that is the case. At least with respect to laws, they are publicized and criminals are aware of them actively to be used as a deterrent.

If that is not the case, then are you saying that criminals' behavior is adjusted purely based on their anecdotal experiences and those of their friends when committing crimes?

I haven't checked your figures and you haven't cited a location for them, but supposing they are real, is there any proof that correlation is causation here? You statement assumes the latter.

[Edited on March 20, 2010 at 8:30 PM. Reason : n]

3/20/2010 8:26:06 PM

they most certainly do think ahead about these things. Now, crimes of passion, of course, don't factor in to this. But things like armed robbery, break-ins, muggings, and the like, are certainly deterred when criminals know that their intended victims are armed. Now, you are correct that correlation !=> causation. But, we certainly have some logic that helps explain the correlation, too. One of the things that is not factored in to crime statistics is the number of crimes that are thwarted or where the severity is reduced simply by the intended victim having a firearm.

3/20/2010 8:57:54 PM

Quote :

" One of the things that is not factored in to crime statistics is the number of crimes that are thwarted or where the severity is reduced simply by the intended victim having a firearm."

and when firearms enhance severity

3/20/2010 10:00:30 PM

because I didn't really mean to kill that guy when I pointed a gun at his face and shot him. No, if I had had a knife, I wouldn't have killed him at all

3/21/2010 12:21:23 AM

^^^^

Quote :

" “...most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.” 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot. -- Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, Wright and Rossi, 1986"

Quote :

" In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year. --Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force, Dr. Gary Kleck, Social Problems, February 1988"

^^

Quote :

"You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were: 160 Resisting with a gun 6% Did nothing at all 25% Resisted with a knife 40% Non-violent resistance 45% --British Home Office "

Quote :

"When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when the woman was unarmed -- Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, U.S. Department of Justice, 1979 "

3/21/2010 9:19:15 AM

If it was a question of "should there be guns," then I'd say no. They do cause a lot of harm. Unfortunately, they have been created, and are manufactured all over the world, so there's no getting rid of them. Criminals will undoubtedly get their hands on them, so peaceful citizens should be able to defend themselves.

3/21/2010 11:50:02 AM

why not take guns and work on ending crime instead of just conceding illegal activities to criminals?

3/21/2010 1:01:26 PM

How exactly do you propose that we "take guns" from the criminals? Obviously, we would need to do this part first before I and other law-abiding citizens turn over our means of self defense. Let's get rid of the feel good BS and hear a real solution. How do you get rid of guns without giving criminals a free-for-all with defenseless citizens?

3/21/2010 1:14:01 PM

If you confiscate all ammunition and enhance criminalization of having a gun, the amount of guns will dwindle. You also have to shut down border smugglers and black market which wouldn't be too hard. Yes there will always be guns but not enough for people to feel the need to have theri own. Kind of like the threat of being struck by lightening.

3/21/2010 1:23:45 PM

Quote :

"You also have to shut down border smugglers and black market which wouldn't be too hard."

because it has worked so well with drugs, right?

3/21/2010 1:26:00 PM

I'm not sure if the war on drugs was ever intended to actually stop drugs. No attempt of attacking the cashflow was ever made. Thats a whole nother story though.

3/21/2010 1:45:03 PM

^^^ It's not too hard? Is that a serious statement? If it's not too hard, I assume that the only reason that the black markets HAVEN'T been shut down so far is that everyone thinks they're good? WTF kind of logic is that? Do you even think about what you're going to say before you type it and hit the "Post Reply" button?

Increase criminalization? The death penalty for murder isn't high enough? If someone has no problem shooting me, I'm going to assume that they're not too worried about that. What do you want to do? Kill them twice?

How are you going to confiscate all ammunition? This is not regulated in any way whatsoever so how the hell do you think this is even remotely possible? We'll not even get into how easy it is to load your own ammo. With firearms, there's at least an original bill of sale with owner's information. What you suggest is as outlandish as confiscating all #2 pencils.

How do you know when I will feel the need to have my own? If criminals have guns, I feel the need to have mine. Period. There's no real leeway there. In fact, as long as criminals have access to ANY weapon, I don't feel the need to get rid of my guns. I have no problem whatsoever being the better armed person in an attack on my person.

[Edited on March 21, 2010 at 1:49 PM. Reason : extra ^]

3/21/2010 1:49:12 PM

and it worked so well with alcohol in the 20s, too!

3/21/2010 3:08:31 PM

eh. you know what? i don't really care

[Edited on March 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2010 3:34:43 PM

Quote :

"If you confiscate all ammunition the Marijuana/Cocaine/Meth and enhance criminalization of having a gun Illegal Drugs, the amount of guns Illegal Drugs will dwindle. You also have to shut down border smugglers and black market which wouldn't be too hard"

We all know how well the "War on Drugs" has gone.....

3/21/2010 7:41:02 PM

http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2850498

3/22/2010 7:42:11 PM

^^war on drugs was not about getting drugs off the street. no assault was made on the black market.

3/22/2010 9:15:41 PM

keep telling yourself that. what about the war on alcohol? would you say there was an assault on the black market? how well did that do?

3/22/2010 9:17:30 PM

Quote :

"except the conservative advocates of the 2nd ammendment and founding fathers base everything on God and christianity. or is it only when it works for them? take it or leave it."

how the fuck did I miss this little gem

3/22/2010 9:24:19 PM

^
I'm a conservative advocate for the 2nd Amendment, and an atheist.

3/22/2010 10:00:32 PM

Quote :

"war on drugs was not about getting drugs off the street. no assault was made on the black market."

you are a complete moron

3/22/2010 10:22:00 PM

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

4/4/2010 3:51:51 PM

that's a bit of an overstatement. there's no middle ground on this issue, is there? polarization won't help us come to consensus as a country, it only serves to make people less likely to listen to your reasonable arguments.

4/4/2010 4:17:46 PM