Gun control

[AMDG]

It was HoB who gave that warning.

I mispoke. I meant fairieevah.

Did I say something out of line?

Don't think so.

Lots of tools are dangerous when used negligently or with ill-intent.

Agreed. But the intention of guns is to kill (wildlife or people).

Your daughter would not have been and better off had her rowdy friends decided they wanted to cruise around the yard in daddy's car or play with Daddy's chainsaw, hot-water heater, oxy-acetelyne torch, matches, or any other number of useful things that demmand respect and care.

Yikes. Oh, a correction--these were not "friends"--these were children of 5 yrs old and 7 yrs old that she was babysitting.

 

[MikeK]

Yikes. Oh, a correction--these were not "friends"--these were children of 5 yrs old and 7 yrs old that she was babysitting.

I know - I fixed it

 

[Rebekka]

subscribing to read this thread later.

 

[MikeK]

subscribing to read this thread later.

Fine - but if you come back and post in disagreement with me - I'm gonna shoot a cute animal and eat it out of spite.

 

[AMDG]

Farmers are far more likely to die in a farm accident than a gun accident. Combines don't get the press that guns do though, because guns are scary and easily politicised. they are a tool that can kill - the only reason they get the press that they do is because they are mors common than other tools that can kill - not because they are more dangerous.

Another reason combines don't get the press might be that hardly anyone but a farmer can even afford one and it's certainly something that can't be carried under a coat, propped up in a closet, or just left out in the open for anyone to pick up and use.

BTW, I come from a family who used rifles to provide food for the family and who even were known for bluing their guns in the kitchen! So actually I know what you mean by being "uncomfortable" with the senseless deaths and injuries from the proliferation of guns just for guns' sake.

BTW thanks for fixing your post.

 

[MikeK]

Another reason combines don't get the press might be that hardly anyone but a farmer can even afford one and it's certainly something that can't be carried under a coat, propped up in a closet, or just left out in the open for anyone to pick up and use.

BTW, I come from a family who used rifles to provide food for the family and who even were known for bluing their guns in the kitchen! So actually I know what you mean by being "uncomfortable" with the senseless deaths and injuries from the proliferation of guns just for guns' sake.

BTW thanks for fixing your post.

You bet.

If I ever snap - I'm totally doing it with a combine. Dare to be different, you know?

 

[Rebekka]

Fine - but if you come back and post in disagreement with me - I'm gonna shoot a cute animal and eat it out of spite.

Oh, I'm too afraid to read this thread now. :o The poor animal!

 

[InTheCloud]

If no one had a gun, no one would have to have a gun to defend themselves from gun violence.

Edged weapon such as a large knife, swords, machetes and spears are just as dealy as guns. You can use a gun to protect yourself from crimminals yielding those too.
Rapists often use sheer force to overpower women who are often 100lbs lighter as smaller. You can use a gun to fend of people like this.

The GUN DEATH STATISTIC is misleading becasue it only compares gun deaths, not the overall efect of crime. A society with strict gun control laws can have lower gun death levels that the US but might have higher rape and buglary levels that the US. So you have to look at the whole picture.
Also I have found that the gun death rates for English speaking whites in the US, Canada and the UK are very similar. Statistics in the US are higher because a dirty secret. A poor african american underclass that is about 4 % of the population of the US, even for african americans they are a minority but they have about half of US homicides. That his a very, very hight level of violence, often fueled by drug trafficking. Other us minorities have that problem in lesser scale.
Legalize drugs and fight poverty and you might reduce violence more efectively that with any gun control measures.

 

[helenofbritain]

There have been some interesting arguments put up. Can't say I'm finding them convincing at this point.

Did anyone take the time to read the article I linked to? Did anyone notice the stats on gun deaths in a nice table in that article?

Please read them, and then tell me why, in terms of avoiding unnecessary deaths, gun control is bad.

Thankyou.

 

[Rebekka]

Oh boy, what am I to do - if I write that I am anti-gun, and anti-hunting as well, Mike will kill an animal out of spite. And if write that I'm not anti-gun I'm a liar. So I will have either an innocent animal's blood on my hands or I'll do something else that is intrinsically evil. I'm doomed.

 

[MikeK]

There have been some interesting arguments put up. Can't say I'm finding them convincing at this point.

Did anyone take the time to read the article I linked to? Did anyone notice the stats on gun deaths in a nice table in that article?

Please read them, and then tell me why, in terms of avoiding unnecessary deaths, gun control is bad.

Thankyou.

I didn't look at the table, because "unnecesarry gun deaths" don't have anything to do with the 2nd ammendment to the US Constitution or the reasons for the American right to keep and bear arms. It's a lot like the Church on abortion or contraception (though not divinely inspired), allow me to explain.

Many Catholics say "abortion is wrong - look at how much the mothers who abort their children grieve after the fact". That's not why abortion is wrong, and if we suddenly created an abortion that women were guaranteed not to regret, the Church would still be against abortion.

I've heard catholics say "contraception is wrong, look, (method x of contraception) not even 100% effective and sometimes you can still spread STDs when using it!" That has nothing to do with why contraception is wrong. If contraception were perfectly effective every time, it would still be just as wrong.

Many people will look at the ammount of gun deaths in the US and say - "that's a failed ammendment because it is imperfect - look, some (maybe even many) people are dying because of it". This may be true, but even if the number of murders in america tripled, it wouldn't change the fact that our founding fathers wanted us to be armed should we ever need to defend our country from withing or without. The 2nd ammendment is not about hunting or trap-shooting or even the individual's right to self-defence. It exists so that the homeland can be defended from outside attack (something a standing military can do today) and from a turned-oppressive government (something the military cannot do for us). It's been effective, in that we still have a mostly-free country and we have yet to be taken over. Should there ever be a day when a cult-of-personality President somehow consolidates power, should we ever see concentration camps built on our soil, we have a chance. Checks and ballances. Revolution is not a pretty thing, but sometimes it's gotta happen.

 

[MikeK]

Oh boy, what am I to do - if I write that I am anti-gun, and anti-hunting as well, Mike will kill an animal out of spite. And if write that I'm not anti-gun I'm a liar. So I will have either an innocent animal's blood on my hands or I'll do something else that is intrinsically evil. I'm doomed.

LOL - FWIW - I haven't hunted in years and have no plans of doing so in the future. I might just buy a tasty animal to eat though - but I don't think you'd object to that.

 

[Rebekka]

LOL - FWIW - I haven't hunted in years and have no plans of doing so in the future. I might just buy a tasty animal to eat though - but I don't think you'd object to that.

No, I wouldn't object to that as I am a hypocrite in that respect as well. And I killed a spider last night because I was too lazy to unlock the doors.

 

[MikeK]

No, I wouldn't object to that as I am a hypocrite in that respect as well. And I killed a spider last night because I was too lazy to unlock the doors.

But not a cute spider, right?

I'm guilty of that too. I'd eat an ugly chicken but not a cute kitten. strangely - I only eat attractive fish. I won't touch catfish or cod or anyof that stuff. Salmon and trout? Game on.

 

[Rebekka]

But not a cute spider, right?

I'm guilty of that too. I'd eat an ugly chicken but not a cute kitten. strangely - I only eat attractive fish. I won't touch catfish or cod or anyof that stuff. Salmon and trout? Game on.

Actually, it was a cute spider. I usually don't kill spiders but this one was making a web on the couch.

I find chickens pretty cute, but I still eat them. I eat any sort of fish (cod's not ugly!) - but we have greatly reduced our meat & fish intake about a year and a half ago. ( - sorry, I don't want to sound morally superior because that's not how I feel at all - it's just a personal conviction, I'm against factory farming.)

 

[AMDG]

I only eat attractive fish. I won't touch catfish or cod or anyof that stuff.

Just try not to think about it as you eat it. (I know, easier said than done--I'm still wrestling with a couple--some "bright light" just had to describe feeding habits. )

 

[InTheCloud]

Please read them, and then tell me why, in terms of avoiding unnecessary deaths, gun control is bad.

Becasue there is not a direct casuation between gun control and murder. The Gun Death statistic is a fake statistic since it does not take in account the overall murder rate and the whole effect on crime.
The US has a high gun death rate but also has a high knife and blunt trauma death rate. Is the high rates of people with murder on their minds who cause a high homicide rate.
If people want to kill, and feel is important for them to kill their enemies people will get guns anyway. Brazil. South Africa. Jamaica, Colombia have very strict gun laws but the gansters always have guns and use them a lot. Gun control only created a ilegal market were only those willing to break the law are going to have guns. The righteous and the law aviding do not get guns and are impotent to do anything.
Is the same problems with drugs.