NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me somewhat contradictory that people who support the current American situation with regard to guns (IE right to bear arms) would also oppose nuclear proliferation. The logic is that if everyone owns a gun then you can detur those who would use a gun badly from trying to because they know someone with a gun will stop them. But surely the same logic can be thus applied to nuclear weapons. Personally I'm oppsed to liberalisation of gun laws and nuclear proliferation, but I can see a clear contradiction in suporting gun freedom but not nuclear freedom

Maybe it's because the whole MAD concept isn't a perfect detterrent. It certainly doesn't work for guns, but one idiot with a gun can't wipe out billions of innocent people. An idiot with a nuke can.

There are plenty of hippies and environmentalists who like their guns. Go rural and you'll find plenty of them ready to put a bullet in your head if you try to take their guns. Many of them don't like nukes.

Ok in my opinion this is a simple answer. First I want guns to be owned by the public because it is in our constitution that we have the right to bare arms. Secondly there is also a pledge that the President of the USA takes to Defend the country from any enemy. What could be worse then having Nukes in more of our enemies hands. Guns are easier to contain if they become a problem, Nukes once the are a problem then there is no going back and no containment. Once they are out there for everyone then We have no more advantages over anyone. This means that the current war on Terror would then become even more nasty when one guy could take down a city the size of NY. Where if he had just a gun then at least it was not millions he could kill before he got taken care of. For guns against Nuke Proliforation.

What could be worse then having Nukes in more of our enemies hands. I think guns in our enemies' hands is pretty bad, too. ;)

It seems to me somewhat contradictory that people who support the current American situation with regard to guns (IE right to bear arms) would also oppose nuclear proliferation. The logic is that if everyone owns a gun then you can detur those who would use a gun badly from trying to because they know someone with a gun will stop them. But surely the same logic can be thus applied to nuclear weapons. Personally I'm oppsed to liberalisation of gun laws and nuclear proliferation, but I can see a clear contradiction in suporting gun freedom but not nuclear freedom

That's not the only reason people oppose inappropriate limits on the Second amendment.

The key difference between any other arm and a nuke is, well nukes are messy. Not only do you destroy your target, you make it uninhabitable for years. It is how MAD came out. The problem is we are getting those with this technology who are bascially suicidal. (Iran/terrorists) The larger problem is, the pandora's box is open, even if we could get everyone to agree to destroy thier nukes it would not assure that some city in the future does not disappear under a mushroom cloud.

we have the right to bare arms.

Now that's a lot more sensible than the right to own weaponry. We demand the right to short sleeved shirts. Bring back the singlet.

Why not as much as I try I can't seem to Blow up North Korea with my Glock 40.

I see no contradiction. The simple fact of the matter is that guns are easy to build and obtain; therefore, their distribution cannot be stopped. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, require a far greater amount of resources to be produced and take much more time to develop. Thus, their proliferation may be prevented if the right cautionary measures are taken to do so. The two issues have nothing in common...guns and nukes are entirely different subjects.

Ok in my opinion this is a simple answer. First I want guns to be owned by the public because it is in our constitution that we have the right to bare arms.

That isnt an argument in itself. Thats like saying "my countries constitution allows us to own the entire world, and there is nothing you can do about it". Just because a document says it does not make it a good idea. You have to have arguments that back it up


Secondly there is also a pledge that the President of the USA takes to Defend the country from any enemy.

See above.


What could be worse then having Nukes in more of our enemies hands


What could be worse than having guns in everyones hands? Anyone could kill anyone


Guns are easier to contain if they become a problem

Clearly not in America. Every time I tell Americans that letting everone have guns isnt a good idea, they all cite the fact that before the Nazis came to power in full, they took away the Germans guns. Guns are not human rights


Nukes once the are a problem then there is no going back and no containment. Once they are out there for everyone then We have no more advantages over anyone. This means that the current war on Terror would then become even more nasty when one guy could take down a city the size of NY. Where if he had just a gun then at least it was not millions he could kill before he got taken care of. For guns against Nuke Proliforation

Your twisting this and making it about scale, when it is about principle. The principle is that just as every individual should not have a gun, so every state should not have nuclear weapons.

In my humble opinion this is about the dumbest or one of the dumbest threads I have seen in a while.

Gun controll / nukes ???????????

But hey its only my simple opinion...you never know someone may actually come with a way to link the two that actually makes sense.


Your twisting this and making it about scale, when it is about principle. The principle is that just as every individual should not have a gun, so every state should not have nuclear weapons.

Who's principle ? And what army ? Or navy?

Whats next no country should have a defense then we are all equally vulnerable ? So we wont have any war ?

Unless someone see's the really great opportunity to slaughter all the now stupid unarmed sheep and take controll by force. While you go around screaming " its not fair you signed a treaty ".:D

The principle you base your whole premise on is extremely invalid .
I want to walk among snakes to do my job I will carry my gun to shoot the snakes.

Even the human ones .

To a great extent, a contradictory stance would be hypocritical. A "rogue state" is no different in idiosyncrasies to that solitray loon who uses his gun for malign, or muderous ends, only in a somewhat larger context.

What could be worse than having guns in everyones hands? Anyone could kill anyone
Generally speaking, if the ability to kill people is your primary concern, then you ought to ban these too: http://www.3d-screensaver-downloads.com/images/free-car-screensaver/big3.jpg
It's rather easier to kill with one of those than it is to kill with a gun.

As it stands, right now, I could go kill people with what I have available, but I don't.


Clearly not in America. Every time I tell Americans that letting everone have guns isnt a good idea, they all cite the fact that before the Nazis came to power in full, they took away the Germans guns. Guns are not human rights
Then you've been arguing with n00bs. They ought to realize that Godwin comes into effect when they make that argument.



Your twisting this and making it about scale, when it is about principle. The principle is that just as every individual should not have a gun, so every state should not have nuclear weapons.

There's a fundamental difference though, because amongst individuals, the state is sovereign, and if they abuse their guns, then the state will bust out its whuppin' stick and show them what for, and that the people know that. In the international system, there is no state, and anarchy remains prevalent. In this state of anarchy, what matters is the ability and will to project power, and any state that wishes to be powerful has to protect that position. If someone threatening builds a nuke and threatens the existence of the state, it's the job of the state to go remove that threat. The same rules don't apply to the state and the individual.

There's a fundamental difference though, because amongst individuals, the state is sovereign, and if they abuse their guns, then the state will bust out its whuppin' stick and show them what for, and that the people know that. In the international system, there is no state, and anarchy remains prevalent. In this state of anarchy, what matters is the ability and will to project power, and any state that wishes to be powerful has to protect that position. If someone threatening builds a nuke and threatens the existence of the state, it's the job of the state to go remove that threat. The same rules don't apply to the state and the individual.

Excellent point. That, and the fact that guns will always remain in distribution, but nuclear proliferation is a much more complex process and may be stopped before said nation has a nuclear weapon made and ready for use.

Excellent point. That, and the fact that guns will always remain in distribution, but nuclear proliferation is a much more complex process and may be stopped before said nation has a nuclear weapon made and ready for use.

Can't disagree that nukes are tougher to make, hell, look at this (http://www.care-bears.com/CareBears/html/index.html).

That original link might have been a bit unwise to post, so, instead, I'll tell you to just go to google and look up "zip guns"

As a law abiding gun owner I have a problem when people feel they have the right to tell me what I should and shouldn't be able to do. I hunt. Not just for the trophy buck, but for the meat, the enjoyment of nature, and the time that I can spend with my grandfather. I also enjoy target shooting, and shooting muzzle loaders.

Gun control is ineffective in curbing violent crimes. Take away guns, criminals start using bows or knives. Take away the Bows and knives, and they'll use use broken bottles. Take it away and they'll find something to replace it. The law abiding gun owners continue to jump through the hoops, only to be given one more hoop because of criminals.

If we want to stop people from dying needlessly, lets take cars away from people who obviously can drive. There was a report on Channel One news that teenagers are now driving and texting at the same time. Those idiots are less dangerous than a guy with a gun?

Generally speaking, if the ability to kill people is your primary concern, then you ought to ban these too: http://www.3d-screensaver-downloads.com/images/free-car-screensaver/big3.jpg
It's rather easier to kill with one of those than it is to kill with a gun.

As it stands, right now, I could go kill people with what I have available, but I don't.

And I have the capacity to go and kill someone with a biro. But the signficent diffrence is that a gun is designed to kill someone. A car is not. And you can tell that from the number of safety features.


Then you've been arguing with n00bs. They ought to realize that Godwin comes into effect when they make that argument.

I don't see why comparisions to the Nazis should never be made, but in that particular case, it isnt aproproate no.


There's a fundamental difference though, because amongst individuals, the state is sovereign, and if they abuse their guns, then the state will bust out its whuppin' stick and show them what for, and that the people know that. In the international system, there is no state, and anarchy remains prevalent. In this state of anarchy, what matters is the ability and will to project power, and any state that wishes to be powerful has to protect that position. If someone threatening builds a nuke and threatens the existence of the state, it's the job of the state to go remove that threat. The same rules don't apply to the state and the individual.

True, and a fair point. But would you agree that they should? I believe that the international system would be far better with a genuine overarching authority.

And I have the capacity to go and kill someone with a biro. But the signficent diffrence is that a gun is designed to kill someone. A car is not. And you can tell that from the number of safety features.
Which of course brings up a lot of questions about intended use. I'm a member of the Ohio State Pistol Club, where we practice competition style pistol shooting. The pistols we use are a small caliber, and are specifically designed for competition style pistol shooting, but, could be used violently. Much as a baseball or cricket bat is designed explicitly for whacking a little round ball about.

Of course, despite this intent, the gun laws in, say, the UK, would forbid the competition pistols that we fire at the pistol club. It's clear that the pistols are for the purpose of a sport, but could they be turned to ill? Absolutely, just like a car.

I don't see why comparisions to the Nazis should never be made, but in that particular case, it isnt aproproate no.
It's never appropriate, making the Nazi comparison is such an emotionally loaded argument that it makes virtually everything someone is saying totally invalid, and cancels out reason.


True, and a fair point. But would you agree that they should? I believe that the international system would be far better with a genuine overarching authority.
Of course I'd prefer an overarching international authority on many issues, it's just that usually these things get started by wealthy countries, and leftish types start screaming about imperialism. At the same time, rightish types start screaming about the surrender of sovereignity, and so on and so on. It will be a long time before a borderless world becomes reality.

That isnt an argument in itself. Thats like saying "my countries constitution allows us to own the entire world, and there is nothing you can do about it". Just because a document says it does not make it a good idea. You have to have arguments that back it up



See above.



What could be worse than having guns in everyones hands? Anyone could kill anyone



Clearly not in America. Every time I tell Americans that letting everone have guns isnt a good idea, they all cite the fact that before the Nazis came to power in full, they took away the Germans guns. Guns are not human rights



Your twisting this and making it about scale, when it is about principle. The principle is that just as every individual should not have a gun, so every state should not have nuclear weapons.

Not everyone in America CAN have firearms. Anyone who is a felon or has been institutionalized cannot legally own a firearm. However, why shouldn't any sane, law abiding citizen be allowed to own a firearm? I have one (unfortunately, I haven't been to the range with it yet :( ), and I can guarantee that I'm not a danger to anyone with it (targets on the other hand, won't be safe).

The problem with guns is: if everyone has a gun, and someone want to rob you, he will take a gun as well. And so there is a danger for a shooting. Otherwise, he perhaps would only took a knife, or no weapon at all.

And you can kill someone with a knife or even with a baseball bat - but it is much harder and you can defend yourself much more easily.

And if everyone lawfuk citizen can get a gun easily, than it is much easier for the unlawful citizens to get guns. Not to forget, that sometimes lawful citizen become criminals. And when they can use their guns they have bought legaly.

There is a reason, why there are much more deaths by fireweapons in the US than in other countries, e.g the UK, where not even the normal police officers carry pistols.

In Europe, shooting clubs aren't outlawed. But the members must leave their weapons at the clubhouse, where the weapons are locked up. And they normaly use air pistols or air rifles, which are much less dangeorus than normal firearms.

Hunting is allowed, too. But normaly, hunting rifles aren't used for crimes. They are much too large for this purpose - criminals prefer pistols or small submachineguns, which they can hide easily. And of course, you need a special license to be allowed to hunt and to get a hunting rifle.

And the principle - "If I have a pistol, nobody will rob me" doesnt't really work.

Well, it worked for 60 years with nukes, why where was no WW III? But we will get problems if some psycho like Kim-il-Yong gets nukes. I don't trust him, that he will stay rational.

Now that's a lot more sensible than the right to own weaponry. We demand the right to short sleeved shirts. Bring back the singlet.

I was going to say something if you hadn't. I read down just to be sure, and sure enough, you got it!

It seems to me somewhat contradictory that people who support the current American situation with regard to guns (IE right to bear arms) would also oppose nuclear proliferation.

I don't opppose nuclear proliferation - I rather think it's inevitable - and I support the right to bear arms. So I'm safe from that particular contradiction, yay!

Not everyone in America CAN have firearms. Anyone who is a felon or has been institutionalized cannot legally own a firearm. However, why shouldn't any sane, law abiding citizen be allowed to own a firearm? I have one (unfortunately, I haven't been to the range with it yet :( ), and I can guarantee that I'm not a danger to anyone with it (targets on the other hand, won't be safe).

Lets look at the logic of escalation to see the danger of firearms.

A man buys a revolver to keep himself safe from criminals. Other people fear the man with a revolver as he could, if he so wished, turn it on them. So they buy revolvers also. Criminals now see everyone has a revolver so they buy pistols. The man who first bought the revolver sees that criminals have pistols so to protect himself further he buys a semi-automatic weapon. Other pepople fear the man with a semi-automatic weapon so they buy etc, etc.

The fact is that an armed public is far more dangerous than an unarmed one. And gun crime figures in the UK support this. Although slowly rising (but since 2004 they have been nominal if not falling in most areas), it is a very far cry from the situation in the US. And the reason is this. A nation where guns are in public use and far easier to purchase, means that is far easier for criminals to own them. Where as in countries where is is not so easy for the public to own them, it is much harder.

Let's face it, guns and nukes are here to stay. But personally, I would rather have a gun and a nuke to defend myself from those who would use them against me than be naked of both.

Ask yourself-be able to protect yourself or constantly be unproctected. There's always one who would take advantage of your lack of weapons.

Lets look at the logic of escalation to see the danger of firearms.

So many falsehoods, so little time.

A man buys a revolver to keep himself safe from criminals. Other people fear the man with a revolver as he could, if he so wished, turn it on them. So they buy revolvers also. Criminals now see everyone has a revolver so they buy pistols. The man who first bought the revolver sees that criminals have pistols so to protect himself further he buys a semi-automatic weapon. Other pepople fear the man with a semi-automatic weapon so they buy etc, etc.

Or..

Neighbors know said man has firearms and calls on him if there is an intruder. Criminals keep away from "protected by Smith & Wesson" signs.

The fact is that an armed public is far more dangerous than an unarmed one. And gun crime figures in the UK support this. Although slowly rising (but since 2004 they have been nominal if not falling in most areas), it is a very far cry from the situation in the US. And the reason is this. A nation where guns are in public use and far easier to purchase, means that is far easier for criminals to own them. Where as in countries where is is not so easy for the public to own them, it is much harder.

The fact is that crime has gone down in the US even w/ millions more firearms in civilian possession and crime has gone up in the UK even w/ more gun grabs and restrictions. Some countries show other trends. Keep your causalities to yourself.

Neighbors know said man has firearms and calls on him if there is an intruder. Criminals keep away from "protected by Smith & Wesson" signs.

Either that or criminals stop being "nice" and just kill their victims immediately. Criminals aren't just going to give up and instead of chancing getting caught themselves they will simply use their weapon at the start of their criminal act. There will simply be a lot more dead victims instead of live ones.

The fact is, is that most who support "gun control" are more afraid of this:

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2006/06/10/freetime/doc44888949424f9138110237.txt

Than this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mai_lai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

Either that or criminals stop being "nice" and just kill their victims immediately. Criminals aren't just going to give up and instead of chancing getting caught themselves they will simply use their weapon at the start of their criminal act. There will simply be a lot more dead victims instead of live ones.

False. They will go towards areas that have less firearms. Criminals are not "nice". Assuming one is, is a recipe to further victimization.

Either that or criminals stop being "nice" and just kill their victims immediately. Criminals aren't just going to give up and instead of chancing getting caught themselves they will simply use their weapon at the start of their criminal act. There will simply be a lot more dead victims instead of live ones.

Yeah, that makes sense. Cuz ya know, criminals will be "nice" as long as us good little citizens are unarmed?

This is nothing but... yes, I'm gonna use the word... "appeasement." Doesn't work.

False. They will go towards areas that have less firearms. Criminals are not "nice". Assuming one is, is a recipe to further victimization.

Yeah, that makes sense. Cuz ya know, criminals will be "nice" as long as us good little citizens are unarmed?

This is nothing but... yes, I'm gonna use the word... "appeasement." Doesn't work.

As of now most criminals are at least willing just to stick a gun in your face and rob you and then run. You live. If everyone is armed, criminals aren't going to go get real jobs. They will simply kill you and then rob you so you don't get a chance to shoot back.

It's rather straight forward:


Personal firearms are not nuclear weapons

"Oh, so you'd just let everyone have their own nuke?!?!?!" response to anti-gun control positions is Reductio ad absurdum nonsense

Nuclear weapons are the product of state aggression, as is gun control; opposition to both goes hand in hand.

As of now most criminals are at least willing just to stick a gun in your face and rob you and then run. You live.

Erm, yeah. Or maybe they kill you to not leave a witness. Or because they're completely fucked up psychologically. Or on drugs. Or maybe they rape you. Good news all around!

Let's think about this logically.

Option 1: I am not armed.

Results

*Criminal kills me so as not to leave a witness.
*Criminal kills me because he's psychologically fucked up
*Criminal kills me because he's a junkie
*Criminal rapes me because I'm a woman (with or without killing after)
*Criminal leaves me alone and apologizes for the inconvinience

Option 2: I am armed.

Results

*Criminal kills me so as not to leave a witness.
*Criminal kills me because he's psychologically fucked up
*Criminal kills me because he's a junkie
*Criminal rapes me because I'm a woman (with or without killing after)
*Criminal leaves me alone and apologizes for the inconvinience
*I shoot criminal dead.

So you see, the only real difference is in one case, I am putting my life entirely in the hands of the criminal's choices, in the other - the one where I have a right to bear arms - I have a choice of my own that increases my odds of survival.

If everyone is armed, criminals aren't going to go get real jobs. They will simply kill you and then rob you so you don't get a chance to shoot back.

Unless you can guarantee that they won't kill me if I'm unarmed, this isn't an argument. Just more appeasement strategy.

snip

Unless you have some amazing response time, whether you are armed or not the criminal can shoot you dead before you realize you are at risk. Besides, it is this kind of paranoia that drives people to get guns to begin with. The majority of criminals are not going to kill you no matter what scenarios you come up with. Now, if all the scum on the planet know that everyone has a gun as well then they will be MUCH more likely to simply kill you. Then of course, having easy access to guns equals to criminals getting guns easily as well. Hardly a way to try to reduce crime.

http://www.comics.com/editoons/asay/index.html

I want guns to be owned by the public because it is in our constitution that we have the right to bare arms.

So? Just because someone wrote it down doesnt mean its a good idea. There are plenty of arguements for and against gun control, but wanting guns just because the constitution says so seems a little lazy and thoughtless.

I am all for gun control, simply because it seems crazy to me for people to own an item whose sole purpose is killing other people. I also oppose nuclear proliferation, because eventually some Crazy dictator or terrorist won't care about mutually assured destruction, and will kill us all.

On the other hand, I oppose nuclear disarmament for countries like amreica, england, france etc, because it achieves nothing, and increases the danger from rogue states. I also like nuclear power, and the cold war scare mongering about anything involving atoms has really set us back, and when global warming destroys mankind because we kept using fossil fuels instead, those hippies are going to look pretty stupid.

So? Just because someone wrote it down doesnt mean its a good idea. There are plenty of arguements for and against gun control, but wanting guns just because the constitution says so seems a little lazy and thoughtless.

I am all for gun control, simply because it seems crazy to me for people to own an item whose sole purpose is killing other people.


As I said previously, there are plenty of other uses for guns that don't involve killing.

Shooting sports, for example.

Unless you have some amazing response time, whether you are armed or not the criminal can shoot you dead before you realize you are at risk. Besides, it is this kind of paranoia that drives people to get guns to begin with. The majority of criminals are not going to kill you no matter what scenarios you come up with. Now, if all the scum on the planet know that everyone has a gun as well then they will be MUCH more likely to simply kill you. Then of course, having easy access to guns equals to criminals getting guns easily as well. Hardly a way to try to reduce crime.

And yet it has happened in the US. More states having CC laws and more firearms /= more crime.

Your belief in the causality is faulty.

Unless you have some amazing response time, whether you are armed or not the criminal can shoot you dead before you realize you are at risk

And you are willing to bet your life, and the life of your family or friends, on your certainty about that?

Suit yourself...

Besides, it is this kind of paranoia that drives people to get guns to begin with. The majority of criminals are not going to kill you no matter what scenarios you come up with.

Oh sure, they might ONLY rape you. And take everything you have. Or maybe they WILL kill you. Again, you're betting your life, sanity, and future on something that is just plain untrue.

Now, if all the scum on the planet know that everyone has a gun as well then they will be MUCH more likely to simply kill you.

One can apply the same idiotic logic to knives. And then fists. And then freedom to move. Ban it all, because hey, apparently criminals base their actions on what "they know everyone in the world has?" HA.

What is the price of security, I ask?

I support weapon ownership and know that nuclear warheads can be used for peaceful purposes. It's called a nuclear pulse rocket and it could get rid of all those nukes without costly dismantling and disposal while furthing space exploration. And we could be doing that right now, very soon, or have started years ago if we could or could have just gotten over our irrational fears.

So? Just because someone wrote it down doesnt mean its a good idea. There are plenty of arguements for and against gun control, but wanting guns just because the constitution says so seems a little lazy and thoughtless.
Yeah I know what you mean. There are plenty of arguments for and against free speech too, but wanting the ability to speak without fear of reprisal just because the constitution says so seems a little lazy and thoughtless. I mean free speech and self-defense are such outdated concepts that only hold us back.

The police won't always be there for you and I'd rather have a way of holding someone off or holding them in place until help arrives than just hoping I'll get lucky and a quick response.

And now that I think about it, the only way for the cops to always be there to help you is if there's some all-pervasive, omnipresent police force and I find that idea a bit scary.

1 bullet= 1 person at worse
1 Nuke= +500 persons

BIG difference

The casulaties inflicted with a nculear warhead depend entirely on population density and the explosive yield of the weapon.

Option 2: I am armed.

Results

*Criminal kills me so as not to leave a witness.
*Criminal kills me because he's psychologically fucked up
*Criminal kills me because he's a junkie
*Criminal rapes me because I'm a woman (with or without killing after)
*Criminal leaves me alone and apologizes for the inconvinience
*I shoot criminal dead.


The thing is that most Murders.. Rapes etc are by people you know, they are very very rare events when caused by strangers. The most common interaction people are likely to have with criminals that are not known to them are property infringements.

Lets consider the case of property infringements.. with you armed and ready to use it.. and unarmed.

Case1:Unarmed

Criminal asks you for money
1: You say no and walk off..
[Result: No loss]
2: You say no and walk off ... criminal demands money.. you give them money.. call police and give report.
[Result: Small financial loss]

Case2:Armed

Criminal asks you for money
1: You say no and walk off..
[Result: No loss]
2: You say no and walk off ... criminal demands money..
you draw weapon.. criminal backs off
[Result: No loss]
3: You say no and walk off ... criminal demands money..
you draw weapon.. criminal draws weapon
a)You get hurt
[Result: Large financial and physical loss]
b)They get hurt
[Result: Small financial and psychological loss]
c)You both get hurt
[Result: Large financial, psychological and physical loss]

when it comes down to gun injuries chances are they are gonna cost more than the money they stole. Whether you pay it at the hospital cause you are injured, or in taxes to support the hospital they go to since they must treat them criminal or not.

You are just better off reporting it.. not worth getting shot over a few bucks. Banks have done the math on this.. why do you think they advocate just handing over the cash?

Licensed Hunting rifles .. I got no problem with.
Guns in gun ranges.. no problem.. as long as they stay there.
Guns in homes and on the street are just gonna cause trouble.

Well being robbed causes also psychological damage - many people are afraid of getting robbed or burglared a second time, they tend to become paranoid.

But a weapon can't change this feeling. In fact, I would prefer that people who are slightly paranoid don't carry any guns, they are endagering themselves and others unnecessary.

And another question:

Assume, some junky tries to rob you. You pull your gun and shoot him. Later, the parents of him are waiting in front of your door. They accuse you to have murdered their son for 50 bucks.

How would you feel? Wouldn't you feel a little bit guilty afterwards? Killing another man can cause serious psychological trouble.

Nuclear proliferation?? Yes, I oppose it. It can affect people not even remotely involved in the conflict.

Gun control? Hell no. I'm liberal (these days) and the rational behind the 2nd amendment is starting to look pretty solid. If you don't know what I mean, read it REAL carefully.... Then think about the past 10 years.
I sat on the fence for 15 years about this. Logic won me over. I bought myself a couple. I already had prior safety training. I reviewed.
Nearly every liberal I know is pretty ok with the 2nd amendment, but there are always some squeaky wheels who are too frightened to think outside their preconceptions of firearms and ownership. They give us as bad a name as the dumbass-thinks-he-knows-gun-safety yahoos who end up shooting themselves in the foot give to the right-wingnut crowd.
Taking up Skeet and/or Trap shooting soon...
If ya own one: Take a safety class! It pays to review!:sniper:
:mp5:

The thing is that most Murders.. Rapes etc are by people you know, they are very very rare events when caused by strangers. The most common interaction people are likely to have with criminals that are not known to them are property infringements.

Lets consider the case of property infringements.. with you armed and ready to use it.. and unarmed.

Case1:Unarmed

Criminal asks you for money
1: You say no and walk off..
[Result: No loss]
2: You say no and walk off ... criminal demands money.. you give them money.. call police and give report.
[Result: Small financial loss]

Case2:Armed

Criminal asks you for money
1: You say no and walk off..
[Result: No loss]
2: You say no and walk off ... criminal demands money..
you draw weapon.. criminal backs off
[Result: No loss]
3: You say no and walk off ... criminal demands money..
you draw weapon.. criminal draws weapon
a)You get hurt
[Result: Large financial and physical loss]
b)They get hurt
[Result: Small financial and psychological loss]
c)You both get hurt
[Result: Large financial, psychological and physical loss]

when it comes down to gun injuries chances are they are gonna cost more than the money they stole. Whether you pay it at the hospital cause you are injured, or in taxes to support the hospital they go to since they must treat them criminal or not.

You are just better off reporting it.. not worth getting shot over a few bucks. Banks have done the math on this.. why do you think they advocate just handing over the cash?

Licensed Hunting rifles .. I got no problem with.
Guns in gun ranges.. no problem.. as long as they stay there.
Guns in homes and on the street are just gonna cause trouble.



Lets add a few more realistic ones to the "unarmed" catagory.

You say no.

Criminal pulls out knife or gun and assaults you.

You say yes.

Criminal pulls out knife or gun and assaults you anyway, just for kicks.

The firearms aren't the ones "causing" troubles. That would be the criminals.

I got an advertisement today in the mail...it said don't vote for Linn Swann because he doesn't support Gun controll....I live in Pa. I work to get CAsey Elected......its bullshit. TOTAL bullsit.... I carry and so do a bunch of Democrats I work with . In fact I don't see that much of a difference ...unless you are radical left...dont go outside certain boundaries and expect to be whelmed BTW .. So its bullshit that most people unless they are brain dead can see.....Good reciever...one of the ..Greats of all time even...but ...Governor ?

Nope despite my lack of punctuation....its friday...I worked enough...



But COMMON Swann you SERIOUS ?? Get real man .


WTF is GUN CONTROLL anyway....... besides someone else making sure they have the guns ...but the OTHERS they fear........... do not ?


Help me with that ....

It seems to me somewhat contradictory that people who support the current American situation with regard to guns (IE right to bear arms) would also oppose nuclear proliferation. The logic is that if everyone owns a gun then you can detur those who would use a gun badly from trying to because they know someone with a gun will stop them. But surely the same logic can be thus applied to nuclear weapons. Personally I'm oppsed to liberalisation of gun laws and nuclear proliferation, but I can see a clear contradiction in suporting gun freedom but not nuclear freedom

One nut with one or two guns can kill a few people. One nut with a nuc can kill thousands.

One rational person with one gun can protect him/herself. One rational government with one nuc can not protect themselves.

Maybe it's because the whole MAD concept isn't a perfect detterrent. It certainly doesn't work for guns, but one idiot with a gun can't wipe out billions of innocent people. An idiot with a nuke can.

One nuc does not = billions dead. Tens of thousand possibly but not billions.

Gun control would hinder or remove some of my actions and liberties.
I oppose any hindrance to my actions and liberties so I oppose gun control.

Nuclear proliferation is something which I could not personally do. I'm not entirely against others being controlled if I think controlling them is in my interest. So I oppose nuclear proliferation.

There are plenty of hippies and environmentalists who like their guns. Go rural and you'll find plenty of them ready to put a bullet in your head if you try to take their guns. Many of them don't like nukes.

No one in their sane mind likes nukes.

The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms so that we cannot be oppressed by a corrput government. It has been seen in countless countries that when the government takes away the populace's guns, that country is helpless to stop an authoritatian/dictator/other-bad-government-juju take over, its not just Nazi Germany. As long as Americans retain the capacity to bear arms and the will to do so, we should never fall to such deprevations. Though, it did sadden me that when reading through this thread, I saw no more than a handful of allusions to the actual purpose of this amendment and the real reason why gun control should be opposied.

The current gun laws do little more than appease those panzies who are afraid of being shot by disgruntled postal workers or kids who had irresponsible parents. Law abiding, responsible gun-owning citizens are not a threat to anyone but corrupt goverments and pesky criminals.

Nukes are way easier to keep track of then just simple guns. I personally cluch my Bill of Rights and every one of my rifles and hand guns every time an argument like this occures. I beleive that letting others have guns is alright but i beleice that the only people that should have nukes is the USA and their closest allies. Other than that Its enough to go to war with. I mean common... this small bomb, the size of a pop machine to as small as a suitcase could easily be smuggled into L.A. or N.Y. easy and kill millions!!!!! I tell some people to go out and grow a brain stem!!!! Rights are good, safty is better. period.