Is a gunfree USA a better place? (Congress, dollar, education)
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.
I dont think a gun free country is a possibility, anymore than gun free areas are possible.
That said "safer" is relative in a free country. In our country every free person has a right to keep & bear arms, if they excercise that right then its safer for them.
Its got nothing to do with being a "Wuss" or some other catchy topic shifter. Its simply about responsibility & the recognition that, ultimately, your saftey & that of your family is your responsibility & yours alone. Our country's founders had no illusions, they knew, admitted & respected this fundamental reality & tried to preserve it for all of us.
Anyway, America has the potential to be the safest country for honest law abiding people on Earth. Only because so many people leave it up to politicians & paid servants to provide security at a personal level are our crime rates higher than other countries.
If the whole country was like Texas thered be less crime & less criminals in jail.
If the whole country was like Texas thered be less crime & less criminals in jail.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the country would be a lot worse off if every state was like Texas. Texas has the 9th highest crime rate of any state. If the whole country had Texas' crime rate, there would be about 10,000 more crimes everyday.
Executing 10 people per year instead of 5 has very little effect on the number of burglaries.
Why did you refuse to answer these two questions? Scared?
I'll repeat the questions: 1. Did people figure out ways to kill each other - en mass - before the invention of guns? YES or NO?
2. Would people still be able to kill each other - en mass - in the absence of all guns today? YES or NO?
The fact that you won't have the balls to answer either of those questions with a simple YES or NO answer is evidence of the FACT that the answers are undeniable.
The bottom line is that you have, as usual, aligned yourself with the wrong side - the side that is lacking common sense.
You completely avoided my points, Jtur. Are you conceding defeat?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Since I'm not involved in any drug gangs and I'm not the police or the army, what have I got to worry about? If you're involved in drug marketing, yes, I suppose it is a good idea for you to defend your stash with an arsenal. But the rest of us don't need to bother with it.
This statement leads me to believe you have no idea why the second amendment was written into the constitution in the first place.
I recommend you read a poem called "First They Came" by Martin Niemoller.
I strongly urge you to read the poem. I also recommend you think about current regulations towards firearms, and the reason we are supposed to have those in the first place. I'll give you a hint--we can't own automatics without money, and living in the right states. New auto's aren't even produced for civilian markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur
I live in a city of 60,000, with 100 cops and an average of less than 4 murders a year. What should I be scared of? Why should I spend my life cowering in fear?
For the same reason you buckle your seatbelt when you drive. I wouldn't consider that action paranoid nor "cowering in fear."
As for the liberal groups that advocate banning of firearms, you need to pay attention to what they do, not what they say. Actions speak louder than words. They advocate any and all gun regulation, anything to disarm the American public because of their infantile fear. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, lauded by Brady and Friends for taking the first steps towards what they called "sensible" regulation, despite "assault weapons" being the rarest firearms used in crimes. Or California, where the sale and transfer of ammunition could be so controlled (if the bill there passes) that you can't buy more than a box of ammo a month. Can't use a gun without bullets. Of course, I already pointed out the city in Illinois that banned firearms in its city. Remember that 15% increase in crime? What about Chicago, where politicians can carry self defense weapons, but the citizens they serve cannot.[/quote]
The vast majority Gun-rights activists are not paranoid, and your repeated accusations of such is baseless and insulting. It would be equivalent to calling liberals spineless goat ****ers.
You are not dense, so you deliberately acting obtuse. "Gun-grabbers" (since your insistence on gun-nuts) are intent on disarming the public. The police, by law, does not have have a duty to protect the individual, only society at large. It is the duty of the individual to protect themselves. Remove handguns, especially concealed carry (as Brady, HCI, CGFA, et al.) want to do, and you effectively rob the physically weak and disable from protection.
You don't wear a seatbelt because you're paranoid of getting into an accident, you do it because it's safe behavior, because if you get into an accident, you want the protection.
For the same reason you buckle your seatbelt when you drive. I wouldn't consider that action paranoid nor "cowering in fear."
Maybe it's because I'm very smart and nimble and quick to catch on, but it didn't take me years of my life and thousands of hours to learn to put on my seat belt effectively, and my seatbelt didn't cost thousands of dollars, and I don't have to worry about protecting my seatbelt from thieves. And there's no risk of my seatbelt accidentally killing me or anybody else.
If seat belts cost that much money and effort, of course I'd never use one.
On your citation, cut and paste the relevant words. It's a long document and I have more important things to read.
Maybe it's because I'm very smart and nimble and quick to catch on, but it didn't take me years of my life and thousands of hours to learn to put on my seat belt effectively, and my seatbelt didn't cost thousands of dollars, and I don't have to worry about protecting my seatbelt from thieves. And there's no risk of my seatbelt accidentally killing me or anybody else.
If seat belts cost that much money and effort, of course I'd never use one.
I see you're still avoiding the rest of my post, including that citation you want.
And what does any of that have to do with protecting yourself?
I see you're still avoiding the rest of my post, including that citation you want.
And what does any of that have to do with protecting yourself?
I edited a moment later, to ask you to point out the specific wording in which anyone proposes banning ALL guns.
The rest of your post was made completely irrelevant, according to the answer I gave you. I'm not going to sit here and answer you sentence by sentence when a single summary make it immaterial. Your fear sounds infantile to me. Murder is also the "rarest of all" crimes, but you seem pretty hysterical about all those people just dying to murder you.
OK, actions speak louder than words, and nobody has banned all guns. What's your problem?
What does WHAT have to do with protecting yourself? Clarify your question.
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.
