Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is it that most lawmakers and anti gun zelots can't see the difference between a Lawabiding gunowner that uses the weapon responsibly. And vicious thugs or out of control idiots that want only to seek thrills and distruction and when they are caught, get slaps on the wrist. Why don't the lawmakers sell the posessions of a murderer/violent gun criminal- to pay restitution?
Instead they want to make it as hard as possible on real americans that obey the laws and let the criminal element run rampant?
England, is a prime example as to why we SHOULD NEVER do away with our right to bear arms here in this country. Wish those guys (lawmakers) would look at what is happening in London crime-wise. I think it would be an eye opener for them.
England, is a prime example as to why we SHOULD NEVER do away with our right to bear arms here in this country. Wish those guys (lawmakers) would look at what is happening in London crime-wise. I think it would be an eye opener for them.
Wait. Are you saying that gun laws are creating more crime?
I mean there are a lot of things to consider when looking at crime rates.
And assuming that there were more guns available to the populace isn't an iron clad way to reduce crime. If someone tries to mug you and you chase them off with a gun they aren't going to just get a job and stop being a criminal. I'm sure there is some validity to an armed populace reducing crime but it isn't the only thing that keeps it in check by a long shot.
I'm not from Maine, I have no idea what grows there, or what it's like. Do they have "root cellars" up there or not?
The quote here was a response to a request I made that TKramar provide information about plant foods available to poor rural folks who may be in tight fincancial circumstances and find it helpful to obtain food from the land, to save some money on groceries. The reason I made that request was that TKramar had suggested that the availability of nutritious plant foods should mean that these rural folks need not use guns to hunt for meat, therefore have no need to own guns for hunting. I asked about Maine (and in particular what edible plants might be available in Maine during the long winters there) specifically because the user TKramar was telling he should obtain plant food from the land rather than hunting for meat lists his location as Maine.
So, let's see . . . TK, you're telling a guy in Maine that he need not hunt for meat because he should instead obtain plant food from the land. Now you acknowledge that you know little or nothing about what plant foods might actually be abundant in Maine, especially during the winter. Seems to me that if you know so little about what resources are available in a location, you are not in a position to tell people who live there how best to use the resources that are available.
Both parents, now dead, were abusive. Trust NO one.
Like Omaha Rocks, I truly am sorry to hear this. No one should have to grow up in such a situation. Even so, if this has contributed to your desire to have no guns in your house, you have every right to set that as the policy . . . in your house. There is a problem, though, when people who do not like guns go beyond choosing not to own them, and try to limit others' right to make their own choices about this matter.
Your colorful wild-west description overlooks one fact. It is quite rare for a murder victim to be unknown to his assailant. Nearly all murderers kill people who are already known to them, so there is little doubt in most cases as to the defensive capability of the intended victim. In the entire USA, the number of people killed by a stranger is less than ten per day.
Similarly it is extremely rare for the victim of a theft of robbery to be present at the time of the crime, so whether he possesses a weapon is of no relevance. For exemple, carrying a gun in a holster is highly unlikely to deter someone from stealing your identity or fraudulently using your credit card or hotwiring your car. How is a woman protected from date rape if there is a gun in the purse that is hanging on a doorknob, or if she has been drugged? Or a child from molestation, unless third-graders are packing heat?
If every single law abiding American carried a gun at all times, and guns were magically kept out of the hands of criminals, there would be a reduction of maybe about ten percent in the number of murders, and one percent of thefts and robberies, and crimes of a sexual nature, and no reduction in white collar crimes or at all.
To say guns deter crime is simplistic, and does not explain the crime rate in Dodge City.
Note the last sentence in the quoted passage. To say that guns do NOT deter crime is also simplistic. Something else that is simplistic is quoting statistics that apply generally to the population as a whole, in order to imply that the general situations the stats represent must dictate what every individual does. The reason is that each situation is different.
Take two hypothetical situations for example: In one case you have a physically weak elderly veteran of World War Two. His war experience has made him capable of killing if necessary, meaning he is unlikely to have a gun wrestled away from him because he hesitates to use it against an intruder. He lives in a crime-ridden ghetto area where home invasions are a serious threat, and lives alone so he has no concern about children in his house getting hold of his gun. The second hypothetical is a strapping young father, who is physically strong enough to stand some chance of overpowering an intruder with his bare hands, who is really not so confident in his ability to handle a gun. He lives in an affluent suburb where the chances are slim that his home will be broken into in the first place. He has young children who could potentially be endangered by the presence of a carelessly secured, or unsecured, gun in the house.
I use these two extreme examples to make the point clear that each situation is different, and the balance between the risks of owning or not owning a gun--and there are risks to both--is different in each situation. This is not to say that the young suburban father should absolutely not keep a gun in the house. The point is that there are so many individual situations that it must be left up to each person and each family to decide what works best in his/their particular circumstances, rather than imposing blanket requirements on everyone based on general numbers.
Last edited by ogre; 12-16-2009 at 12:06 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
