Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
road-runner

Gun Free Zones are a Murderer's Dream

Recommended Posts

Guest christopher3393
Well I do not mind the challenge. And I am not a religious person so none of that matters to me. If you are originally from the U.S. just imagine where you would be today if everyone in the U.S had been a pacifist. You may have still been on this continent but would you be free? I think not.

 

OK. That was civil...fair points worth considering. First, I don't assume you have to be a religious person to respect and learn from religious figures in history. Many of them, from all the major religious traditions, have writings we can learn from, no matter what our faith. So maybe you could think of them as great thinkers that you disagree with from what you understand of them.

 

Your claim that pacifism is dangerously impractical, unrealistic, perhaps even a fatal practice on any wide scale--- well, this is a common and very understandable criticism! My response? I think much depends on how you define freedom. Now don't get me wrong--I don't take lightly the liberties that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution articulate and protect. For the most part they are critical for the thriving of a human society. But in Western democracies, I think we generally have an overdeveloped EXTERNAL/ MATERIAL sense of what freedom is, and an underdeveloped INTERNAL sense of it. Whereas some of the greatest developments and discoveries in Asian history are focused on INTERNAL/SPIRITUAL freedom...sometimes to the point of neglecting sufficient attention to the external freedoms. This is one of the reasons India was vulnerable to Islamic conquest and why Tibet neglected to develop any effective form of defense against Chinese invasion.

 

So I don't think any of this has easy answers. To put the question simply, where would you rather be: out of prison, free to roam, but psychologically imprisoned? or in prison but psychologically free, liberated from the passions that torment you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you imagine Jesus with a handgun?

I do now. A nickel plated pistol and a soul patch. Man... he looks BOSS! :)

 

 

If the people who go through the legal process of obtaining a concealed weapons permit so that they can carry a firearm concealed to protect themselves bothers you, then pack up your stuff and move to France. Because you've obviously lost touch with the concept of America and the freedom that our Constitution provides.

"If you don't like it, move." Is that really the best argument you've got? So I guess all of the people protesting abortion laws should just move to France too? If I disagree with a new tax policy, I should just move to France? If everyone who disagreed with anything in our laws left the country, there'd be no one left. I think this is a very weak argument. It ranks right up there with "Cuz I said so!"

 

 

Responsible people who go choose to go armed are not a problem. It's the people who have knee jerk reactions to any form of personal responsibility that are the problem. Especially when that responsibility involves firearms.

Define "responsible". I mean that's really what we're debating, isn't it? Can you really not think of a single person in this country that could pass a gun safety class, but that you don't think is capable of handling a gun in a dangerous situation. I can think of plenty.

 

Currently, our system says that "responsible" (as you've used it here) means anyone who can sit through a gun safety class without failing miserably (may vary in your state, but that's how it is in mine). To me, that's not enough. That's why I don't have a problem with people owning or even carrying weapons, but I think our current requirements for doing so are far too relaxed.

 

 

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." --Sigmund Freud,

There's a difference between fearing a gun laying on a table, and fearing a gun strapped to the hip of America's increasingly immoral and childish general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how about.... some facts?

source: BBC News - Q&A: US campus killings

So what conclusion do you draw from those numbers? All they tell me is that more people get shot in the US than in the UK. It doesn't show that banning guns has reduced the number of people getting shot in the UK. The UK has always had a lower crime rate than the US.

 

In fact, if you look at the pre-ban and post-ban numbers for gun crime in the UK, you'll see virtually no change. What you will see though, is an overall increase in violent crime. As of 2002, 5 years after the ban, you are now more likely to be mugged in London, than in New York City. I'd suggest the dramatic increase of street crime in London is due to unarmed citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I don't think any of this has easy answers. To put the question simply, where would you rather be: out of prison, free to roam, but psychologically imprisoned? or in prison but psychologically free, liberated from the passions that torment you?

Well as I said I am not religious, but I am a spiritual person so I have nothing that torrents me. And having been in prison I know what freedom is. My dog gets better treatment than the human beings in prison I guarantee that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, if you look at the pre-ban and post-ban numbers for gun crime in the UK, you'll see virtually no change. What you will see though, is an overall increase in violent crime. As of 2002, 5 years after the ban, you are now more likely to be mugged in London, than in New York City. I'd suggest the dramatic increase of street crime in London is due to unarmed citizens.

 

the thing is... violent crime was increasing BEFORE the ban...

 

trendtotalmoreseriousviko1.gif

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page39.asp

 

and you can see homicides were following the same trend...

 

trendhomicide06co0.gif

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp

 

BUT... my point is, it's not as if the ban instigated a continuous exponential increase... you can see the levels of crime rise and then FALL to the level before the ban... this shows that a ban does NOT mean a guaranteed ongoing increase in violent crime, with or without guns...

 

after any prohibition law, you will obviously see an increase in crime, but eventually you will see a decline below the levels pre-prohibition...

 

street mugging in the UK has never had ANYTHING to do with the right to bear arms, in my 28 years, i have never seen or heard of anyone (i know) carrying a loaded weapon in England and I've lived in Manchester, the 2nd biggest city in England, near the east end of London, near Birmingham (one of the other major cities), in Liverpool, another city...

 

farmers, yes, my granddad shooting rabbits (cos they keep eating his lettuce lol), yes, friends practising on targets in secluded rural areas, yes... but out on the street? not for your average person... gun related crime in the UK is more related to criminal activity like drug syndicates, armed robberies, etc... not really random members of the public

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To take reds example further, imagine a complete madman like we see at VA Tech, which isnt far from me. Or the Beltway snipers, again only about 45 minutes away. Now imagine one of these madmen runs into you local mall and starts shooting the place up. Hes not deterred by the fact that someone could be carrying. How many lives can be saved by someone who is legally carrying. Hell we've all read articles about people takings shots at trained police officers during traffic stops. Its not just about or enough to protect ourselves against robbery, battery, or the drunkard who stumbles into your house. Its about protecting ourselves from fanatics who only have one thing in mind, killing as many as they can. Though these instances are rare in the grand scheme of things, its still no reason to attempt to ban guns.

 

Its just to bad that when someone is killed by anything other then a gun, its the assailants fault and not the tool used to carry out the crime. The fact is that EVIL DOERS will always exist, and it should always be our right to do something to stop it. I'm not talking about vigilanties, but the sad fact is, is that police are a reactionary force in most crimes. The simple fact is that a straight gun ban does not work. Look at DC, Chicago, and many other areas. Anywhere there is a high populace and a strict no gun policy crime and murder will be high.

 

And about religion, look past the actual words and see. "Those who live by the sword die by the sword." Those who look to hurt or maim someone will die by the same means. "Turn the other cheek." In the instance of Jesus being struck, there was more to be gained by not striking back. Check out Sampson, the way Israel was formed, and even the 7 day war. There are times where stopping violence with force is the only way.

 

I know this is a crass saying but it is one of my favorite; "My 9mm is faster then your 911."

Edited by Cyberbeer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all arguing over something that is not going to happen any time soon, the govornment knows that if they were to do this, that there would most likely be another civil war because there are millions of people in the United States that WILL NOT give up there guns...

 

Ok, maybe a civil war is a little much, but put it this way "some sh#t will be thrown down", if you catch my drift...

 

I foresee militia popping up all over the United States if a "TRUE BAN" were to be enforced...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Hardnrg, what was really accomplished by the ban? Crime obviously wasn't reduced by the ban, but of course caused a spike. I guess if you're ok with more crime for a few years so that crime levels can simply remain go back to the same level as pre-ban, then that's fine with me. I'd rather NOT have the spike in crime, and just keep the same level crime level over the same period by not banning guns.

 

I still feel better knowing the United States has a standing civilian army of roughly 80 million. Keeps the gov't from overstepping their bounds, and is great against a land invasion.

Edited by 94Camaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...