The GUN thread - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-10-2004, 07:41 PM   #16
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BluberryPoptart


I cannot see the logic in this. I'm sorry, if the fucker coming to rob me has a gun, I want one too. If I was the fucker coming to rob, I'd be much less likely to carry out the crime if I thought the guy in the house or the store had a gun too. But mostly I think guns are needed for protection, such as women traveling alone in cars at night, or staying home alone at night. The option should still be there.
If you feel as strongly about this as your post is suggesting to me, I'm curious as to why you are personally anti-gun. I have a habit of misunderstanding what you mean and I'm confused once again.
__________________

__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 07:45 PM   #17
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The second amendment does not protect citizens from the military because it does not allow citizens to arm themselves with weapons and training that would be effective against the military. That was not the case 200 years ago when what the average soldier was armed with was not significantly different than what the average citizen was armed with. Once again, times have changed.
So, if we did ban guns - what should we do to insure that we don't become a military dictatorship? Scarletwine brought up a good point.
__________________

__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 07:49 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BluberryPoptart


Consider too the vast difference in population. UK has about 52 million, we are coming up on 300 million. Consider also that some places in Wyoming and the Dakotas have more guns per capita the small population and have never had a murder, while the bigger cities kill hundreds each year. I honestly believe that drug related crime is the reason for this, not the guns themselves, as the western states prove.

Another thing, who needs a gun if you want to kill somebody? Those people in FL were beaten with baseball bats and stabbed.



I cannot see the logic in this. I'm sorry, if the fucker coming to rob me has a gun, I want one too. If I was the fucker coming to rob, I'd be much less likely to carry out the crime if I thought the guy in the house or the store had a gun too. But mostly I think guns are needed for protection, such as women traveling alone in cars at night, or staying home alone at night. The option should still be there.
Even taking the fact that the United Kingdom population nearly 60 million is 5 times smaller than the USA, if you were to proportianlly extrapolate how many deaths the United Kingdom would have it had 300 million people, you would have 250 people killed per year compared to the United States which has 10,000.

The reason that states such as Wyoming and the Dakotas have smaller number of deaths from firearms is because the poverty rates in these area's are so much smaller than the inner cities. Firearm deaths and other crimes happen in area's that have higher levels of poverty which is the cities. Most people with guns in Wyoming and the Dakotas have not experienced gun violence not because they are armed to the teeth but because few people in those area's are attempting crimes or firearm violence do to the higher standard of living.

The guy in Florida would not have had to hire anyone to murder the people if he had a gun and was prepared to use it. It would have been faster and would have had a higher probability of success. Its true that your not going to prevent murder by disarming citizens of their guns, but the evidence from the United Kingdom and Ireland shows that you will significantly reduce it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 07:52 PM   #19
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 04:35 AM
BostonAnne- I am personally against guns because I am afraid of them and I oppose hunting. But I do believe they are necessary for protection in certain cases. While I am afraid to have one anywhere near me, my sister, who commutes 30 miles to work and drives home late at night, would not leave home without her little pistol under the seat. She should have that right. I also agree that if guns were all taken away or kept locked up somewhere we would be more in danger of a military dictatorship. As long as the general public is armed I believe our freedom is safer. The crime in the inner cities due to drugs is something else that needs to be addressed seperately. We should not ban all guns because of that violence, and as I said too murders are not going to stop because there are other weapons.
__________________
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 07:57 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BostonAnne


So, if we did ban guns - what should we do to insure that we don't become a military dictatorship? Scarletwine brought up a good point.
Well, whether you have the second amendment or not, citizens would not be capable of stopping the military with hand guns and rifles. It is the military that is dedicated to preventing the very outcome you are concerned about.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 08:02 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Well, whether you have the second amendment or not, citizens would not be capable of stopping the military with hand guns and rifles. It is the military that is dedicated to preventing the very outcome you are concerned about.
STING2

Popmartijn also

And if you are armed and want to stop someone criminal, chances are verry high that we will be killed.
We can look at statistics of different countries to find out - the more weapons civilians have, the more civilians get murdered.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 08:04 PM   #22
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BluberryPoptart
BostonAnne- I am personally against guns because I am afraid of them and I oppose hunting. But I do believe they are necessary for protection in certain cases. While I am afraid to have one anywhere near me, my sister, who commutes 30 miles to work and drives home late at night, would not leave home without her little pistol under the seat. She should have that right. I also agree that if guns were all taken away or kept locked up somewhere we would be more in danger of a military dictatorship. As long as the general public is armed I believe our freedom is safer. The crime in the inner cities due to drugs is something else that needs to be addressed seperately. We should not ban all guns because of that violence, and as I said too murders are not going to stop because there are other weapons.
Thank you for the explanation. I'm afraid of guns too, unless I was supervised while using. I'd never own one and I also hate the thought of hunting.

Does anyone know of a link to show the rate of crime prevented because citizens had guns? All I ever hear is stories of things gone bad because a citizen had a gun - Child found it, the weapon was stolen, the gun owner turned bad, the gun was brought out in self defense but it made matters worse. I don't remember reading stories of people thankful that they had that gun to save themselves.
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 08:07 PM   #23
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Well, whether you have the second amendment or not, citizens would not be capable of stopping the military with hand guns and rifles. It is the military that is dedicated to preventing the very outcome you are concerned about.
Makes sense to me. GO military dedicated to preventing the outcome GO!
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 08:14 PM   #24
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:35 PM
I know MM is polemtic but he had some good stats on gun violence in Canada versus the US with very similar gun owning % of population. STINGS right it's the violence of the particular society not gun ownership. Drugs do account for part of it, but poverty is a greater contributing factor.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 08:18 PM   #25
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 04:35 AM
I also said the inner cities drug problem was the reason for the violence more than the guns, since states with more guns have less crime.

Which leads me back to my old buddy, GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE DO!
__________________
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 08:20 PM   #26
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 04:35 AM
The reason UK and Ireland and even Canada don't have the murder rate we do is the same reason Wyoming and the Dakotas don't have the murder rate: the inner city drug culture which is so prevailent in US big cities and not so much in other countries or more rural areas.

Not to derail my own thread again, but these drug related shootouts are akin to the booze shootouts and gangland violence of prohibition, and legalizing and regulating drugs would do more to stamp out the culture than any gun laws!
__________________
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 08:27 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,292
Local Time: 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Dakotas have smaller number of deaths from firearms is because the poverty rates in these area's are so much smaller than the inner cities.
Have you seen the poverty rates in North Dakota?

I know this is WAY off topic, but I just spent six days in North Dakota about six miles from the Spirit Lake Reservation of the Souix Indians. There are a number of reservations in the Dakotas that account for some of the most impoverished areas in the United States. Fortunately, you do not see a lot of gun violence.

Sorry for the tangent....back to your gun talk!
__________________
zoney! is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 08:29 PM   #28
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 10:35 PM
Well this is a first in FYM. I agree 100% with Sting. I think a full out ban would be hard and take a long time, but I do believe it's what we would eventually need.

As for protection against the military...good luck, I don't think you and your assault rifle has a chance against say....a tank.

As for personal protection, your chances are small. Unless it was like the old west and you carried your arms on your hip, you are at a huge dissadvantage with someone who suprises you with a gun in your hand.

Murder will not end with the ban of the gun. But I'd take my chance with a weapon that forces you to make contact with me rather than something that allows them to stand 50ft. away. At least I could try and run.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-10-2004, 08:36 PM   #29
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by zoney!


Have you seen the poverty rates in North Dakota?

I know this is WAY off topic, but I just spent six days in North Dakota about six miles from the Spirit Lake Reservation of the Souix Indians. There are a number of reservations in the Dakotas that account for some of the most impoverished areas in the United States. Fortunately, you do not see a lot of gun violence.

Sorry for the tangent....back to your gun talk!
Yes, I have. I have noticed that after you leave Minnesota and until you reach the west coast, there are no signs of affluence(visible to me from the roads and interstates I was on or the towns I visited) I don't mean all poverty, yes the poverty is there, but I did not see any affluent or even semi upper middle class neighborhoods like you see in the east, midwest and west coast. No offense, but it appears things are of somewhat cheaper quality out there because people simply don't have the money (again only judging by what I saw personally don't bash for generalizations) Yes, there are all socioeconomic level everywhere, but there seems to be more poverty or lack of affluence in that region. Yes the reservations are heartbreaking. The ones in the southwest are even worse. Suicide and alchohalism rates are high, but violence is not. It seems to be a problem unique to the US inner cities. Even the poor of Appalachia don't have the high murder rates of the city though they do have the poverty. Of course, you can have your weirdo who freaks out and goes on a rampage anywhere, or your wife killer in Utah, but in general, it's an inner city thing.
__________________
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 08:53 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Well this is a first in FYM. I agree 100% with Sting.
Although there have been times I've agreed with him before, they have been rare and it's great to be at 100% on an issue.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com