user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
There would be less street crime and burgulary, as people couldnt be sure if their potential victims were armed or not, however the murder rates would soar methinks
How do you argue with people who believe you can stop a terrorist bomb with a handgun or a rifle?
Its fairly obvious to any Freudian, why most people own guns and it has nothing to do with 'protection'.
Sooner or later, human beings will evolve and resist the urge to settle their disputes at the barrel of agun.
Just that some people evolve at a slower rate.
wild west? more like stalingrad
*tell me why, I dont like Monday's...... tell me why, I dont like Mondaaaaay's.
A well armed public makes for a verrry polite society..you just never know what somebody's going to pull outta their pocket..like the aspiring actress in NYC last week.."Well, what are you going to do..?..shoot us?" yep, that's just what happened...
Good point Spanky and I'll place a wager that the assailents illegally possessed the firearms and were probably of inferior intelligense.
anymore , I don't think I'd even wait for them to get off the first round..
Steelhamster: On this issue, Freud actually said almost the exact opposite of what you and most people THINK he said.
Freud actually wrote that a fear or hatred of guns is usually a sign of immaturity and sexual dysfunction, especially in males.
And I thank you for once again proving it!
An alert, well-armed public may not be able to stop terrorism, and it may lead to increases in certain kinds of violence, but it sure beats having a clueless and helpless public. Also, being alert is very different from looking for trouble.
Yeah, what Zorra said.
Positive correlation of a well armed public and a low occurance of crime is a fact.
Low crime levels fact huh?
I best not point out the huge gun related crime in the US and of course the gun related homicides, oh and the 100s of children killed by guns they find in their homes... but apart from THAT, then hey, lets all join hands and sing cumb by ya.
Freud said nothing of the sort Neal, if your going to make up facts, at least make them credible.
Rednecks stoked on meth, armed with AK-47s. That would solve the crime problem.
Steelhampster,in a perfect world criminals cannot access fire arms(oxymoron?perfect world,criminals? but anyway ...)In the real world they always do.When you take away the right,and I do mean right in every sense of the word, you are actually advocating tyranny apon the governed.Hitler and Stalin are prime examples of this as they both abolished gun rights.Furthermore your vague statistic on child/gun related death is misleading.Bicycle accidents,swimming,choking and even space heaters are responsable for more children's deaths than are guns.Add to this the fact that a large portion of those deaths are actually from illegally owned guns in the homes of criminals.This is not to trivialize any death but let's keep things in proportion.As for gun related homicides it's apparent that you didn't even concider the obvious fact that again those deaths are mostly attributive to CRIMINALS.Would you suggest that only the police and criminals have access to firearms?Is it or should it be the governments job to deny me my right to defend myself and family?Why is it that the states and cities with the most liberal gun control laws are low on the scale of gun related deaths and those with stricter gun control laws actually have more gun related deaths?
I must add that the majority of those acts of violence are committed by so called minorities which people of your leftist mindset allow into the US despite the fact that most US citizens are against it.This same unrealistic,elitist liberal mentallity is actually responsable for the bulk of the violence that they are not qualified to address.Having your face stomped in for no apparent reason or being mugged can change your outlook on life alot.Maybe you think that's a stretch but I've seen stupid liberal idea after liberal idea lead to disaster here in the US in the form of stupid legislation.
Airborn idealism is for intelligent morons.Figure that out.
BTW,I understand it's easy to get worked up when you hear about people dying.I ask though when has it ever been good to act on only hearing one side of an argument?
Steely boy: you know that washington DC has one of the highest murder rates in the country? They also have the strictest gun laws. What many people fail to realize, yourself for instance, is that gun crime is rarely committed by legally owned guns. Most are aquired illegally, and most occur in neighborhoods with a specific racial breakdown, I'll let you guess which one.
Did you also know that you are 7X more likely to be mugged in london than in new york? And that in most cases that it has been implemented strict gun control laws do nothing to reduce crime, and actually increase it in many cases?
Ignorance is the problem here. Fortunately there is a cure.
And cath: part of being alert means knowing how to use it, and use it responsibly.
Would someone driving drunk, 90 mps, down a crowded sidewalk be considered an 'alert driver'? Of course not.
A responsible public that knows how to use firearms and the carries then is a great deterent for crime and certain terrorist attacks.
No, they won't stop planes from crashing into buildings, or explosive filled cars, but they can stop lone gunmen and the like. Your flu shot will do nothing to prevent cancer, does that mean it's a waste of time?
Cath: the opposite of an 'alert well armed public' is a disarmed and unalert public. Do you think this is desirable?
No. Which is one reason why I dislike extremes.
Fortunately, there is a huge amount of options in between your poles -- it is not a case of one or the other.
Herzog, you expose the perfectionist fallacy that others use... Just because one option doesn't solve all the problems, it doesn't mean the option doesn't solve any of the problems. I agree with you that well-armed states have lower overall crime than states where gun owners are afraid of the consequences that follow good samaritan behavior.
Unfortunately, others expose the same fallacy in the gun advocates' arguments: Just because a ban on assault weapons did not restrict all guns, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be in place. I disagree, but there it is. Both sides can use the same fallacy.
Herzog, you're only 7 times more likely to be mugged in London than New York because Londoners report every little incident to police.
New Yorkers, who are used to massively higher levels of violence historically, hardly bother to report muggings in comparison.
This is also backed up by the fact that you're around 8 times more likely to be murdered by a firearm in New York than in London. Proof, if it was needed, that murder is the only reliable crime statistic.
I agree with you on guns generally though. Steelhamster genuinely surprises me with his comments on this topic as he seems an intelligent fellow.
|
|
