I agree.
I did not mean that I could defend myself agaisnt anything with very little trouble - it might be the hardest thing in the world. And yes, I have had my life threatened before, so I understand the importance of not under estimating the offender.

My statement - "I am pretty sure that I could kill a person in at least 4 other ways without going through much trouble" - mearly said that I could do it. I could walk up behind someone choke them to death with a piece of rope... are we going to outlaw ropes now? I could inject air into someones blood stream if I had the opportunity to get close to them while they were sleeping... are we going to outlaw air and syringes too?

No, we aren't going to ban everything that could kill someone. It wouldn't be possible. My point was that it's the people that kill other people. It's not the gun who pulled the trigger.

 

Uhm, no. In certain parts of the world, gangs aren't known as gangs, but rebel groups. The gangs in Somalia, Brazil, Darfur, Chechnyea(sp?), and the like make the crips and bloods look as harmless as American pre-schoolers. In fact, the pre-schoolers in those countries could whip the crips and bloods of the states.


The only protection anyone has is to protect themselves. That is the crux tenet of gun ownership. No other country has the gun culture America has because no other country was formed when guns were new. Without the gun, the American west may never have been founded (for good or bad, it's irrelevant to this discussion). It's different now, becuase in today's developing countries, all sides are equally armed, more or less.

 

Biggest Offenders in sending gang members to the US? China, Southeast Asia, Mexico (and all the other southern countries that send in gangs through our southern border). The (illegal) immigration of gangs accounts for a VERY large percentage of the growth and proliferation of gangs in the US

 

since we're getting stupid, having people partially blame legal gun ownership for this crime.

so, where's the talk about outlawing asian foreigners? or asians all together? see how stupid that sounds?

who killed these people, the gun or the guy?

 

You know, 9/11 wouldn't have happened without the use of planes either. Let's go ahead and just get rid of those as well. We don't use 'em that much anyways.

 

That's actually a good point. . . but I think the topic is starting to digress (I'll take some of the blame for that)

 

Gotcha.

 

we're one of the few countries in the world that has such freedom of the press. Most countries censor this type of thing.

 

I made that arguement a few pages back. . . and it is a pretty rediculous argument, but that is the point. Then cars too. . . they are a leading cause of unnatural death for those under the age of 40. Many countries in Europe do perfectly well with public transit, so we don't NEED cars. HA!

But the point is that it's not about the car, the plane, or the gun. It's about the driver, the airline, and the shooter.

And someone made the point that guns (unlike the rest) are specifically designed to kill, which differentiates it from the other examples, and it is a valid point. However, the best use of a gun is as a deterent, not as an active weapon. I seriously doubt the US will ever use Nukes ever again. But we still keep them as a deterent so no other country will nuke us. Even if Iran were to land a SINGLE nuke on US soil, we could obliterate their entire country in a matter of minutes. They'd take out 1 city, we'd wipe them out of existence. THAT is a deterent. And with modern media and accountability, i doubt ANY U.S. President would be able to justify the use of Nukes as a pre-emptive action.

Now the argument about weapons escalation. . . that would be a very compelling argument. If only someone would chime in on THAT.

 

I think it is fairly obvious that I am a pro-gun. . . but WHAT of weapons escalation. Does it mean that if we all load up on guns, will the criminals start using dirty bombs?

It's a somewhat valid argument (a slippery slope at that). There is some empirical evidence that an armed public does deter crime, so it's tough to say.

 

Banning anything never works, it simply raises the market price for goods with high demand (simple economics) as you reduce the supply. Prohibition didn't work. Hey, many guns ARE banned, yet they find their way to the US somehow. Prostitution, drugs, murder, rape. . . they are all banned and they still happen.

It's about deterence rather than some piece of paper that says that you're not allowed to do something.

 

weapon escalation as in the rules of engagement and escalation of force? Or do you mean escalation as in "if you use a sling shot, I'll use a gun. If you use a gun, I'll use a missle." ?

 

Guns kill people, like pencils misspell words.

People killed people before guns, with swords and axes, and before that, with rocks and sticks. It is the human that kills someone. We need to be responsible for our own actions.

 

Exactly your last example. Some anti-gun people argue that if we arm ourselves, the criminals will only seek bigger and better guns and that it is a never ending cycle.

 

I don't see a weapons escalation, but I do see a tactics escalation. In Mexico, when they do a home invasion, it's with 40 gunmen, not 4. However, labor (including criminal help) is dirt cheap.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...67916662594488

THE VIDEO THAT MADE ME WISH CA PERMITTED LEGAL CARRY

 

Dont get me started on illegal immigration.

People want to outlaw guns because they THINK it will stop crazy people from killing

People want to pass laws that protect me from myself in any way they can, however invasive

People want to ban prayer in schools because thier precious little selves are offended.

Yet, hardcore liberals line up to protest when our govt wants to uphold the laws we have against illegal immigrants. And get all crazy over us (heavens forbid) trying to penalize those that have lived and worked here illegally (TAX EVASION). And the biggest thing that gets them: locking down the borders. These people want to let anyone and everyone in, allow them to work illegally with no consequence, but then blame guns and the govt. when a terrorist attack occurs and we cant track down those responsible right away.

The people I am reffering to are horribly diluted. They dont want to do anything that can offend anyone (except law abiding US citizens and those that believe in a god) yet wonder why we have no control over the violence in the streets.

It should be at least as hard to come into this country as it is ANY OTHER. It should be punishable (enforced) by law to be here illegally and to work without paying tax. Law abiding citizens should not have to lose more rights than we already have so a group of overly extreme liberals can show the world that we love everyone and that being a pacifist (aka not addressing the real issues) is the way to solve these things.

IMO, gang members, people like this shooter, terrorists, sexual offenders, etc are not human and deserve no human rights when it comes to protecting others safety. If people want to solve these types of problems, they have to be harsh, not soft and weak. Prohibition and rehabilitation are NOT the answer. It never has worked and it never will. We have seen that over and over throughout history, yet people still chose to ignore that fact. Hell, lets ban going outside all together... then only criminals will be outdoors

People can argue all day long. But all I ask from those saying it is the guns fault and that laws will solve it by banning them, please elaborate and tell us just how that will work. I have yet to ever hear a response that made any sense of that.

 

Yeah..over here you'd never find 40 people willing to exert the effort.

 

How bad is illegal immagraion in MA...what Canadians???Well i suppose speaking french is about as bad as spanish....
But..the Canadians...got some nice guns...... :drool:

 

Illegal Canadians......You mean Sno Backs