The great gun-control debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indicagrower

can you honestly say that rifles are ok but shotguns not so much on the grounds that you don't need to "disintegrate the burglar's head".....you obviously don't know anything about guns...a 50cal. will take a mans head off at well over a mile away(research that before you say it's not true) "As I see it, handguns really serve no other purpose but to kill people. You don't hunt with a handgun"....we have deer seasons for pistols here in the us.......

---

actually alot of people that hunt bears also carry handguns, because if the bear charges, you cant always get a round in your rifle yet alot aim it, where you can pull out your pistol, and shoot the bear before it gets to you. and i use a 22 pistol alot for hunting rabbits. i also use a 12 gauge shotgun to hunt pheasent, and a .270 to shoot deer. i believe if everyone had a gun, and there would be less shootings in school. lets face it, half these kids that are picked on, if they come to school and try to schoot everyone up, only to be shot by a teacher thats got a 9mm under her desk, you thikn they would go through with it? if in the situation, where someone has a gun, would you feel safer if you had a gun to protect yourself, or would you rather just duck and hide? the highschool i went to, if you walked through the parkinglot, there would be 2 or 3 rifles hanging in the back windows of pickups. nearly everyone here has a gun. and needless to say there has been 2 shooting deaths in the past 15 years. (murder suicide) we need to protect the right to bare arms amendement. if we let them take that away, what next? our right for free speach? our right to drive a car? our right to even think for our selves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frickr

actually alot of people that hunt bears also carry handguns, because if the bear charges, you cant always get a round in your rifle yet alot aim it, where you can pull out your pistol, and shoot the bear before it gets to you.

---

The way I see it, if you want to eat meat then go out and buy some meat. But, if you want to hunt your meat, I think we should alot the animal a certain amount of respect and not remove any and all possibility of it being able to fight back. Human beings spent hundreds of thousands of years hunting with bow-and-arrow and/or spear, never guaranteed to be safe in every sense.
Now we do have a safe way of getting our meat, going to the supermarket. But I think if you're going to carry on the hunting tradition, to make that kill your self and subject the animal to suffering, at least keep in the spirit of things. Otherwise the animal deserves to die in a more quick-and-painless manner.

I don't mean this to degrade the actions of you or anybody who hunts with backup pistols and the such, my uncle is an avid hunter and eats only meat that he kills himself. I have a lot of respect for that. This is just my philosophy on the matter.


In other news; I made a sticky, horray!:D

if you dont own a gun, who do you look to to protect yourself and your family? the cops? HA! just like they protected those kids at Viginia Tech, waiting outside the building for that nut to either 1. run out of bullets or 2. kill himself. the police dont protect anyone. they only clean up the mess afterwards. another example is the petit family in cheshire connecticut. were the cops able to help them? ask the husband. if they owned a gun the story may not have ended so tragically.

I'm a bit disappointed though that none of the people who voted for a ban on all guns have presented an argument. I promise not to jump all over you! It would be really interesting to understand the other side's perspective on this.

What about the UK? Haven't they proven that taking guns away from the general public can drastically reduce firearm related deaths?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cannavore

if you dont own a gun, who do you look to to protect yourself and your family? the cops? HA! just like they protected those kids at Viginia Tech

---

But would there have been a Virginia Tech incident in the first place without guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATrain

But would there have been a Virginia Tech incident in the first place without guns?

---

That kid would have found them anyway.

How do you smoke pot? It's illegal man.



On another note,
Shotgun's are good for hunting birds. That's why they should stay legal.


And why not keep one in your home? Gives you a better shot at hitting the burglar, rapist, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatw4d

That kid would have found them anyway.

---

Yeah, he might have. But current gun laws made it easier for him to get a hold of those guns. Anyway we can make it more difficult for shooting sprees like that to happen is fine by me.

I think the system in place in the UK clearly show that taking guns away can work.

Oh, and just to toss a few numbers out there...

~ A 2003 study in the US showed that having a gun in the home increases the risk of someone in the household being murdered by 41 percent. (Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study)

~ Domestic violence is more likely to be lethal if there is a gun in the home. For women, the risk of being killed if there is a gun in the home is increased by 172 percent. (Firearm Related Deaths: The Impact of Regulatory Reform)

:postexcuseme:

Just to toss some numbers out there:

Overall, homicides are committed primarily by someone known to the victim. In 1998, of the 431 homicides solved by the police, 45% of victims were killed by an acquaintance, 40% by a family member and 15% by a stranger.
The Daily, Thursday, October 7, 1999. Homicide statistics


And what are the odds of being murdered anyway? 40% higher of a chance is still slim!