Here's a young man who started using Meth at 18 and another picture of him at 25. He's a perfect example of why someone who lives in the country.....or even in town....might need gun protection. These Meth users are known for breaking into homes to find drugs....and/or money to buy their supplies. As you can see from the article, their drug addiction makes them paranoid, dilusional, and a danger to society. Now, do you think my husband and I who have a little cabin on our acreage should be left to the mercy of someone like him and his drug buddies? At least with a gun, we'd have a fighting chance. Without one, we'd have no chance and no telling what someone like this would do. I personally don't want to find out.
It would be nice to wishful think ourselves into an ideal world, where all people are getting along and are nice to each other. Its also nice to wish away a scenario in which one finds oneself in a life and death situation, not knowing how one would react. However, in rural communities, where law enforcement officers are few and far in between, one never knows what's around the corner, but its always good to be prepared.
I don't have a problem with you owning a gun or guns. Do you need a semi-automatic rifle with a banana clip of 100 rounds of armor piercing ammo? Or a 9 mm and a shotgun? Marine1 posted what I consider to be reasonable suggestions regarding gun ownership.
No, I don't. I'm also not against some limits on those as well. However, I do believe that if banned or limited, the bad guys will STILL have them. Banning them might make some feel better, but I really don't think it solves the problem. We've got to perfect the database system and stop mentally ill people from buying them....actually passing the background check like the Virginia Tech killer. Why was that? Virginia didn't voluntarily send the record in. We need educational promos targeting gun owners and drilling into their heads they MUST keep guns safely locked up....and certainly away from any family members with mental problems. We need parental involvement. In the case of the Columbine killers, had their parents ever have gone into their rooms and been involved in what their teenagers were doing, they could have prevented it. Those parents were absent from the troubled teens lives. In many of these cases it's not lack of money to get help. Look how many have come from well-to-do families. It's about involvement and using some common sense. Most gun owners don't kill people. We need to get to those who are likely to do so....BEFORE it happens, like the incident in Oklahoma recently. That was done by people who heard things coming forward and telling the police. That alone saved a LOT of lives.
fashionable and lightweight bulletproof vests/vests incorporated into normal clothes are going to take off big time in america
imagine having to put your kid in a bulletproof vest in the richest nation state in the history of mankind
No, it's not. Let's just say we could ban all guns. How do you plan to take them all up? How do you plan to get around the 2nd Amendment? How do you propose to get them away from the criminals, especially? I'm afraid that the slogan might sound good. But just as during prohibition of alcohol, people STILL drank, and STILL manufactured booze, guns would still be around....except the law-abiding people would abide by the laws and not have guns....but the criminals and crazies would still be breaking laws and still have guns. That means the law-abiding citizens would be even more vunerable than they are right now. It's just not going to happen. We need to focus on the real problems: those who are committing these horrible crimes.....before it happens. BTW, did you recommend banning fertilizer after the bombing of the Okla City federal building? You DO know, don't you, that McVeigh killed 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6, and injured more than 680 people? Where was the outcry from the left to ban fertilizer????
A gun may very well have to do with one's survival. So that's not true. Fertilizer isn't necessary for survival. And neither is alcohol. Still wondering why the left didn't seem to be as upset about the federal building bombing and the murder of those 19 children under the age of 6.......and the other 160+ people, not to mention the 600 injuries. Didn't you just want to go out and......do something? Ban something? Maybe you could have blamed Clinton/Reno for ramming a military tank into the religious compound with children in it---which led to THEIR deaths in a fire....and causing McVeigh to go off like that. I mean....surely there was someone or some thing to blame....or ban...........right?????
The problem is that, as long as that guy doesn't have a record (and even if he does), he can still easily get access to weapons of death in this country. THAT is the problem I have with the existance of guns. You, nor I would need them if we never let them get into the hands of crazies. I'd much rather take my chances stripping them ALL away from everyone, and seeing what reductions we can make in crime, before letting the same system exist that let's crazy people walk into a store or gun show and walk out with the ability to end multiple lives from the comfort of a snipers perch or your living room. Humanity has abused guns since they were created. And yet we've never seen fit to rid ourselves of the problem. Maybe I was just born a few hundred years too soon for the progressive society I hope we one day evolve to. Of course, we'll likely never get there with the crop of deciders we have in place right now.
We obviously do need guns. No one has even brought up the idea of getting rid of guns. The Right Wing is trying to say that adding a few more questions to a test that allows you to get guns or regulating magazine size means its the first step towards, "Banning kitchen knifes". It's simply idiotic. I could take out that meth hed and several others with a .22.
The meth user was shot in the face. Did anyone notice? His face was destroyed by meth. You are saying that you should be able to shoot the meth user (or at a minimum, scare him off). I am saying there should be NO meth user. If we need to go into schools. If we need to inspect every student. IF THE US MEDICAL POLICE CAN CHECK CHILDRENS' BALLS FOR MILITARY PREPARATION, CAN THEY CHECK CHILDRENS' DRUG POTENTIAL? Why aren't they doing this? Why aren't WE doing this? IF YOU WANT A GUN, TO SHOOT THE METH USER. ***CAN I HAVE SOME TIME... NOT TO SIT DOWN WITH HIM. NOT TO HAVE A CHAT. NOT TO HONOUR HIS FREEDOMS. BUT TO BEAT THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS INTO HIM*** and seek to prevent Meth, use MK Ultra (aka Sodium Pentathol) and discover the entirety of his existence. Can I take him under my wing and fund his existence in a controlled and forced and monitored loving environment (on your dime), in an effort to build a better society? May I please? Not a jail. Not a juvi centre. Not a boys camp, but a temporary rehabilitation centre. Can I do it? What say you. Hypothetical. Some percentage of the meth users would not be "shot in the face" by meth. You, my op, perhaps don't see the humanity in the boy already shot in the face by meth, turned into a zombie, and shot in the head (because of recoil), by the gun you want to have, and the act you want, and rightfully should be able to, do with it... But I see a 5-year-old, a 6-year-old, who through some travesty and failure of the Government (whose job it is to govern) has had a terrible accident. We all ought to save such a 5, 6-year old from a terrible accident? Yet people cannot distinguish in temporal localities.
Its simple really. Guns are not the weapon, its the people who pull the trigger. So perhaps we can agree that guns in the wrong hands are bad, guns in responsible hands have no impact on others.
You're welcome. I asked a serious question as part of the dialogue- the poster responded with conversation. <<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC >>>
The same could well be said about machine guns, bombs and poison gas. And I am not being flip about this. I agree that a gun without someone shooting it is in and by itself just a nice piece of machinery. But there are levels and degrees of deadliness. Fully automatic weapons are very restricted. Possession of explosives is very restricted. Because people mis-using these items can kill or injure many, many people. In general I have been staying out of the 'gun' issue because I find there is too much irrational polarization for a serious discussion of what can seriously be done about gun deaths in America. I happen to think that everything should be on the table for examination and determination of what would work and what would not- rather than just proclamations about what we can't do. If putting a gun in every classroom would save more lives than it would take- then we should do it. If restricting clips to 10 bullets each would save more lives than it would take- then we should do it.
Can you promise me that in a home defense situation that I will not need 11 or even 26 bullets? No, I don't think you can. Look, blaming guns for recent tragedies is the logical equivalent of blaming planes for 9/11. Now the proposition that we should limit magazine capacity to "prevent mass carnage" is the logical equivalent of suggesting that we limit all passenger planes to 10 passengers...because those will certainly do less damage if they fall into the wrong hands. I can predict the responses now "Planes were not designed for killing, and guns were!". Guns were designed for shooting...not killing. Just as planes were designed for flying....not to be used as missals. Either way, if your philosophical argument is that we should reduce the incidents of mass killings...then in an effort to be logically consistent you need to address it across the board. No more buses, large passenger jets, and sure...if you are willing to regulate everything you can certainly throw large cap magazines into the mix. I have a feeling nobody would be willing to put the other categories up for debate though as those actually effect them, where its easy to suggest a ban on large cap magazines by those who do not own a firearm that takes them.
Yes you do. If your trying to protect your family you want as much firepower as you can. I dont know if you've ever been in a live fire situation but its extremely chaotic and nothing like the movies. 10 bullets get fired off quick and you usually miss with most of em. There is a reason that our soldiers use assault weapons rather then pistols and shotguns.....its because they are more effective at killing the bad guy. If some drug guys bust into your house you want them dead as quickly as possible. I dont like assault rifles because I find them clunky and i'm actually more effective with pistols but most people dont have combat training so a spray and pray gun would be better for them for home defense.
Its a fairly broad topic so would you care to elaborate on what exactly is off topic? I would hate to break your rule
I have know a few drug addicts in my time, never have they looked like that wouldn't it be nice if that lie were true though, then we would not need drug tests, we could just spot drug abusers in the crowd .
