Banning guns

here is my thing; i voted no they should not be banned, because it violates our constitutional right to bear arms. the reason we have the right to bear arms is so the government can't control us should we see fit to rebell or have a revolution. We would have to have guns.... otherwise they would just kill our asses.

Here in lies the quagmire... guns are violent and evil and i personally wouldn't want to own or handle one. but what do you? I would, of course, want to lead a nonviolent rebellion, but what would happen if something took hold enough to become a second revolutionary war???

We are talking about the world be live in, not the world we would ideally love to create. Once you have something, like fire, you can not simply tell the world to stop using the new thing, like fire. You could never- although it would be nice- confiscate the world population of guns and other firearms because some people would still hang on to them, and once you realized that, it would be too late. Then you have someone capable of hurting the population at large and therefore taking control of certain pocket of society... its like the atom bomb...who has what and who has the most? those are those in power...

Its such a what if kind of thing...its not something we could actually realistically have in this life. Education for more people would be a better thing. then they would have the presence of mind to not use firearms in a callouse and dangerously violent way...

I vote: education instead

 

In 2003, there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S:


16,907 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,920 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
730 unintentional shootings (2% of all U.S gun deaths),
347 from legal intervention (police shootings) and 232 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm



-730 people were accidentally shot in 2003, out of 300,000,000.

-11,920 people were killed by people with guns



People who have a problem with our Constitution and the second amendment may leave the country whenever they would like to. Or they can choose to debate something which is actualy up for debate. Make your choice.

 

match gun v car deaths and tell me which is more dangerous.

 

Yes I think that those suicides would still have happened. Doubtful that they were spur of the moment. They would have succeeded eventually. I am pro-gum BTW. The facts I listed are just that...facts. I was mainly discrediting the 50,000 claim that someone else made earlier.

 

YUP. Let's have these anal-retentive anti-gun people stop getting into these dangerous vehicles and then see how much they care about gun control.

 

But unfortunately its not a perfect world. Built into human nature and nature at large is the tendency for predation or dominance over other beings, often as an ugly mechanism for survival. I would love to never hear of another billion dollar defense bill ever being discussed. But frankly, human kind's development of even more destructive and twisted ways to kill each other
has introduced the necesity to protect yourself. I believe that the 2nd Amendment was given to us as a different kind of mechanism. Not one that ensures we can continue to hunt our favorite game or be able to shoot clay pigeons, but as a last resort or social insurance contract to counter the viciousness and oppression of tyranny.
When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. To take care of the problem that the use of guns is a result of will require a massive shift in cultural paradigm as a whole. Until that happens, I will continue to support the Bill of Right's statement that a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

All of the politicians, governments, and industrialist pigfuckers who subsidize the arms manufacturers with our tax money and their efforts to propagate war need to be held to task for their treason against humanity.
Good day,

-Blessed be the peacemakers-

 

I'm from china, we talk on the issue with our foreign teacher in class,and his explaination was the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. [size=-1]Under the "individual right" view, the Second Amendment secures to individuals a personal right to keep and to bear arms. If the government goes crazy, so people can overthrow it with their guns, am i Right?[/size]

but i think it's embarrassing. in china, guns are banned, and all the illegal approachs are cut off. i never see so much gun fighting as in US. i wonder if the government can enforce strict policy, how come the crime rate rocket after the guns are banned?

 

DOCTORS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS

Allow me to present a few facts.

The number of physicians in the U.S.----700,000

The number of accidental deaths caused by physicians per year--120,000

The accidental deaths per physician----0.171

The number of gun onwers in the U.S.---80,000,000

The number of accidental gun deaths per year(all age groups)--1,500

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner--0.0000188

Staistically,doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.Not every body has a gun,but every body has at least one doctor.Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.We must ban doctors,as soon as possible,before this gets out of hand!!!!!!

As a public health measure,I withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical aid.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

wow your an ass hole

 

Some how I don't think banning guns would change much. i say no and give people the ablity to defend themselves.

 

number of
unaccidental deaths by gun owners-lots and lots

would take a long time to get all peoples guns destroyed though, cos the US was stupid enough to make them legal in the first place.

here in the UK guns are illegal and outside of the inner cities there is very little gun crime. guns are pointless, in 95% of the UK people dont need guns to defend themselves cos no-one has any to attack them with

 

Now I hope you'll tell us why the UK bans public possession of fixed blade knives, lock-back knives, knives with blades over 3" long, and is currently considering a move to ban even kitchen knives that have pointy ends. Were you too stupid to ban knives in the first place, or have you been inundated by belligerent Swedish chefs? :H

What's next, a ban on sticks, rocks, and any really hard objects that might be used to bash someone in the head?

 

No, he's a realist. It may not seem so to you, but there is a difference.

 

:H

 

I don't mind you calling me an asshole. I think you should call it as you see it, no doubt. I would like to learn something from this though. Could you tell me what about my post rubbed you the wrong way? Lately I have been trying to be a bit more introspective, you know the whole self-awareness thing. I have no intention of debating you on whether I am an ass-hole or not. Actually, I might be on your side of that debate, who knows

FYI - I used the $ charachter as an abreviation for the slang term "money". I use the slang term money in place of "sweet" or "right on" sometimes. I especially enjoyed the part about lawyers and the public health measure. I thought it was classic (funny).

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm
long bladed knives are of no extra practical value to most people than shorter bladed ones. so regulating their use would be a good idea. wont stop all the stabbings, but it might a few. instead of mocking an idea, try saying why its a bad one.

 

refer to your posts in abortion and you will know