|
Post by Sue on Dec 14, 2005 10:52:25 GMT -5
littlepea: I am not giving an opinion one way or the other really about the U.S. being safer if guns were taken away. I really don't know--how could I? I am only saying--like you pointed out--that I would rather be shot instead of stabbed or clubbed to death--and that in itself makes me want to keep civilian gun ownership legal.
Michael Moore? lol Which points exactly? Because he is notorious for making crap up (even Dems know this and that is why respectable ones do not take him seriously). I suggest everyone watch Fahrenhype 911. This covers in detail a lot of crap he made up for Fahrenheit 911--even has interviews with the people he interviewed for his little documentary--who state that he miscontrued what they said--a lot of editing and such. I would just rather not even discuss the "points" that Michael Moore tries to make up.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Dec 14, 2005 11:52:39 GMT -5
Fahrenheit 911 has the drawback of being really crap and boring, however Bowling for Columbine is actually quite interesting. he seems to appeal to emotions for most of the film really - making all the pro-guns people seem like idiots and getting "cool" people to talk about the culture of fear - and there's no doubt that it's too one-sided to be worthy of much respect, but that doesn't take away from the points that he does make.
he basically says that other countries who have guns don't have the same number of gun deaths, so it must be something about american culture specifically, and then he goes on about the "culture of fear" and comes to the conclusion that in a society of that type the last thing you want is for everyone to be armed ...
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 16, 2005 17:06:27 GMT -5
I found this unfortunately Lott did not cite his sources for his stats (he was bashing on Canada for blaming the US for their gun probes) “The experiences of the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to control and monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. Since 1996, serious violent crime has soared by 69%: Robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to 1993 levels. The crooks still had guns, but not their victims.” www.tsra.com/Lott143.htmAnyhow for what it is worth he is a fairly well respected pro gun guy
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Dec 28, 2005 10:57:41 GMT -5
I'm an advocate of strict licensing and stricter penalties for violations.
If you can prove you have the knowledge, skill, and judgment to handle weapons, more power to you. But there's no reason we shouldn't be at least as strict with guns and such as we are with automobiles -- out of respect for their potential for destruction as well as appreciation of their usefulness when properly employed.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Mar 11, 2007 17:26:34 GMT -5
Some Federal judges finally learned how to read. cool deal. This is one of only a few rulings that state that the right to bare arms is a right of the people. This is funny sense the 2nd amendment says it is a right of the people. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Anyhow this will likely go to the supreme court and hopefully we can finally get this mess sorted out where we stop punishing people for owning a gun and only for committing crimes with them. I could also really go for a lifting on the full auto ban because it takes forever to get a semi only version of new guns and they always cost more.
|
|