|
Neph's POLITE Gun Debate
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. November 2007 @ 19:32 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
In my opinion if everyone had a Gun crime would go down considerably
Yep! Dead people can't commit crimes. Let's really make it safe, and give everyone in the world a nuclear weapon. We could use a form detente by using the doctrine of mutual destruction. Those of us with more wealth could achieve neighborhood nuclear superiority.
Try this!!
The next time you're walking alone on the streets and you come across a stranger whose eyes don't look quite right. Their gaze seems to be fixed on something the rest of us can't see. Their gaze is upon you like a horizon that can't be seen. You have become transparent and they really don't see you. You're there but there as what? Now imagine that they see the ear buds around your neck, and their right hand has just quickly moved to a bulging jacket pocket. You know that you have your gun and so you reach toward it! You make certain that your movements look natural, you don't want to cause an alarm. The stranger is nervously watching you. There's a sudden look of panic on the strangers face as he watches you. The walkway suddenly turns into a narrow short tunnel and the light glows quickly dimmer. Panic sets in as you become aware that you could be in danger because of this odd stranger. All of a sudden he reacts with a shriek and reaches again for the bulging object in his pocket. You're quick! Your hand reaches for the concealed protection that you keep hidden on your person, and just as his hand is about to come out of his pocket, you fire, and drop him where he stands. You drop him and the dangerous paperback book, the nearly dried sandwich, a hat, who knows.
The point is that we can't predict how people will behave, even if their behavior is non threatening. Nor can they determine if some of our behaviors as benign. Freely arming everyone would result in a bloodbath of apocalyptic proportions. That's why many countries have trained police, trained to protect you. They know when to pull a gun and when not to!
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
24. November 2007 @ 20:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Alright maybe not carrying a gun on the streets, but at least in your home. Out of reach from Children of course.
I know I sleep safer because there is a handgun close by me.
|
|
Buik
Member
|
24. November 2007 @ 20:07 |
Link to this message
|
TO: Sophocles
"That's why many countries have trained police, trained to protect you. They know when to pull a gun and when not to!"
What an ignorant fool you are. A trained police force can only respond to a crime. Not protect you from one. When they do try to protect you from criminals, they are usually sued by the likes of the ACLU.
When the "scum of the earth/or any sentient being, claiming special status" wants to victimize any one else, BS!! A person should be able to shoot first and ask questions later. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.
And SOPHOCLES, that you hold the title of "AfterDawn Addict" should not make you so sure of your position. I could have attained that title many years ago. I chose not to strive for that "title or status" when I encountered so many children on this site.
Ya'll have a good day. Especially those posting irrelevant comments to achieve a higher "title".
TC
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. November 2007 @ 20:16 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I know I sleep safer because there is a handgun close by me
In an early 1990's study of the effects of firearms collected from the American Medical Association and the FBI, it was determined that:
An owner of a gun is 43 times more likely to kill a friend or family than they are an assailant.
7 times more likely to be killed by their own gun defending themselves from an assailant than is he assailant.
I think that guns should find their way into responsible hands, but unfortunately their are far more irresponsible and dangerous hands wanting guns. If you are a responsible person than more power to you, but legislating that right measures the worthiness of no one to own one.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. November 2007 @ 20:20 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
What an ignorant fool you are
At least one of us is!!
Quote:
or any sentient being
apparently not including one of us!
Quote:
And SOPHOCLES, that you hold the title of "AfterDawn Addict"
I believe that I obviously hold the higher IQ between us as well. Just call me addicted to intelligence. LOL
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
24. November 2007 @ 20:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Whoa, where did the title debate come in?
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. November 2007 @ 21:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
I had a few firearms at one time in my home but decided that having children in the same house was NOT going to mix. I've heard to many "horror" stories about guns and kiddies. An old Golf Pro, friend of mine, lost 2 children at an early age; one due to a gun incident and the other to a car crash I think. Both were tragedies to say the least. He had more sadness in his voice with the loss from the handgun than the car crash that it almost brought a tear to your eye. :(
Anyway I think the individual should be able to make their own decision and hopefully the "trained police force" will be able to be there in our time of need. ;)
...gm
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
24. November 2007 @ 21:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
So any of you go Hunting? The deer in Florida are pretty small.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. November 2007 @ 21:37 |
Link to this message
|
Sophocles
I've not heard of a rash of strangers being gunned down for brandishing their turkey sandwiches and Harlequin romances. Nuclear weapons? Neighborhood nuclear supremacy? Lets calm down. The problem in the scenario was a person with a mental problem carrying a firearm. The poor stranger would have had a better chance with a Glock than a Quiznos.
You might want to leave off the theatrics and "what if" situations and try to discuss more of "what is". Home invasions, car jackings, and muggings happen. There's people who like to abuse others because they "feel like it" and can. From your words you've covered our land without being accosted by gun toters. An interesting sidenote for you. Most states have laws making it illegal to carry firearms where liquor is served. Bars and honky tonks are among the protected areas. For the crowds that frequent such places, and the amount of alcohol and drugs consumed, I wonder why more violence hasn't occurred. Instead of doing away with guns, do away with musical venues that promote the violent lifestyles.
Here's some "what ifs" from a gun owner's perspective. If the gun toter in the scenario was legally carrying a weapon, he should have discerned whether it was a shoot or no shoot situation. Most states require training for those licensed to carry a firearm. If not licensed, a law was broken. If it's an unjustified shooting, someone needs to go to jail. If gun laws were enforced, there'd be little need for additional ones and a call to take away legally owned firearms. What's funny is that many people against firearms have no idea of what laws are in effect. Most think of what's been in the news in the past. What surprises me most is that people don't discuss owning firearms in a rational manner. Most often the discourse comes from "gut" feelings. Neighborhood nuclear supremacy?
Home defense and sport are the reasons I keep a few firearms. Some guns are a work of art. I've sold my collectibles and keep only a few functional firearms nowadays. Seems guns are a burglar magnet, if word gets out you have a collection. I had to buy a large (heavy) safe to feel comfortable leaving home for a few days. Now it's a repository for items that could be easily carried away in case of a burglary. I don't live on the bad side of town. Interesting thing I noticed though, many theives don't target the bad side of town. ;)
Sophocles... I hope your luck continues. You've lived all these years without becoming a crime statistic. Unfortunately there's a lot who haven't been so lucky. Some poor souls actually get shot down in the streets like the sandwich toter in your story. Maybe a gun would have made some situations worse, but sometimes they wouldn't. I know I'd be less inclined to break into a home if I knew the owner had a gun. In some cities the burglars are protected. If a homeowner or renter shoots a burglar or home invader, they're taken to court and often dealt with more harshly than the real criminal that caused the situation.
If the only motivation was for saving lives, then the anti-gun movement should also be anti-automobile. What's the ratio of deaths on the highway to death by shooting on a daily or weekly average? It's a proven fact that the medical profession kills more people than gun owners. I've not seen a rush to jail doctors. Coming back to reality... let's discuss guns reasonably instead of from gut reactions. One thing is for sure, when legal gun owners can no longer carry firearms, criminals won't feel bad about it.
@abuzar
First off let me say there's a lot of variations in grading guns and pricing them. The 5943 used but in Good condition should run about $300. Above Good grade you have Excellent and New In Box (mint) condition. Highend for one of these is about $550 to $600. You can go online or pick up a copy of Gun Trader for some insight on grading and pricing. Naturally a gun that's closer to Excellent will cost more than one at the bottom of the Good category.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
24. November 2007 @ 21:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
I would say it looks close to excellent condition. I picked it up at Gander Mountains for 450. Oh well they gave me a 100 dollars worth of gift cards.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. November 2007 @ 22:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Greensman
I think the situation with the lost children goes back to Psych 101. The death from a firearm was probably due to personal negligence. The death in an automobile has become more of an "accidental" situation where many factors come into play and the individual isn't always held as directly accountable. With the gun "it's your fault" and with the car it was an "accident". Naturally the guy is going to feel more remorse for something he caused and could have prevented over a car accident. I'd almost bet the guy doesn't keep guns but uses some form of automotive transportation. Strange how people rationalize things.
Since Sophocles didn't boast about being an Addict, I'll give him a bye on that one. LOL Looks to title... ;) From what's been said I don't think many of us have anything against responsible gun ownership. But like anything else there are going to be the irresponsible situations to deal with. If banning was the solution, we'd all be walking and taking care of our health needs while trying to keep warm in our caves. Fire would be banned because someone got burned.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. November 2007 @ 22:05 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by abuzar1:
I would say it looks close to excellent condition. I picked it up at Gander Mountains for 450. Oh well they gave me a 100 dollars worth of gift cards.
Gander Mtn is a little high, but not too far from fair market values. With the gun being close to excellent conditon and merchandise coupons added in, you didn't get burned.
|
Moderator
|
24. November 2007 @ 22:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
@Buik
Knock it off with the personal insults/attacks.
I too do not know why title was even brought up - no relevance to this thread at all so let's keep the comments civil and on topic.
BTW Buik posts made in the safety value do not count towards achieving a higher "title".
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
24. November 2007 @ 23:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
I got my Ruger Mini-30 there for 650 bucks. Beats Ruger's suggested price of 835.
Also is there a good place where I can purchase 9mm ammo.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. November 2007 @ 23:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
Shop around. I buy a lot of ammo at Wal Mart.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. November 2007 @ 23:25 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Also is there a good place where I can purchase 9mm ammo.
Yes i second that Wal-Mart has great prices on ammo. a box of 100 9MM ammo runs about 10 bucks and its Winchester
Antec 1200 Full-Tower Case/Thermaltake 750-Watt PS/ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77 Mobo/Western Digital Black WD500 500GB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache/NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTX 384-bit GDDR3 PCI Express Video Card/CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 16GB DDR3 /Intel Core i7-3770K Ivy Bridge 3.5GHz (3.9GHz Turbo)/CORSAIR Hydro High Performance Liquid CPU Cooler/3-Asus DRW-24B1ST Sata Drives/Samsung 2493HM 24" LCD Monitior 1920x1200 resolution,5ms respone time/OS Windows 10 Pro SP1 64-bit
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. November 2007 @ 23:30 |
Link to this message
|
PacMan777
Quote:
You might want to leave off the theatrics and "what if" situations and try to discuss more of "what is". Home invasions, car jackings, and muggings happen
My hypothetical(not theatrics)is an all to real outcome of gun proliferation. The US has one of the highest murder rates in the civilized world because guns are so easily purchased by anyone. In Florida they can be purchased at flea markets. I wasn't debating an individual's right to own one, I was debating the carelessness with which they are sold to certain individuals. My father was a hunter, and although I didn't choose to hunt, I respected his choice to do it.
Guns without oversight are a hazard to any civilized nation.
Quote:
an early 1990's study of the effects of firearms from the American Medical Association and the FBI.
It was determined that:
An owner of a gun is 43 times more likely to kill a friend or family than an assailant.
Is 7 times more likely to be killed with their own gun when defending themselves from an assailant
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. November 2007 @ 23:31
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
25. November 2007 @ 06:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hello Sophocles
:lol:
|
|
Masterfit
Newbie
|
25. November 2007 @ 12:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by abuzar1:
I got my Ruger Mini-30 there for 650 bucks. Beats Ruger's suggested price of 835.
Also is there a good place where I can purchase 9mm ammo.
Google "Cheaper Than Dirt" they have almost anything you want and you can buy in bulk quantities.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
25. November 2007 @ 14:58 |
Link to this message
|
Sophocles
Your "hypothetical" appeared theatrical the way it seemed to be staged; especially the part about letting us know what your character was thinking and feeling. Anyone as scared as the character in your "hypothetical" needs to stay home in a closet or at the nice, safe, local mental health facility. There's fewer shootings from mental patients wandering down alleyways than drive-bys, gang violence, and criminal activities. Mental patients usually stage the more spectacular shootings. A real life story where an innocent was gunned down would be more effective for your argument.
We don't seem to be at odds here, both of us want to see responsible firearms use. I agree, there's a lot of people who shouldn't own guns. Likewise there's a lot of people who shouldn't own cars and there's doctors who shouldn't practice. As I mentioned before, the sins of part of the group shouldn't be laid at the feet of the entire population.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
25. November 2007 @ 15:28 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Anyone as scared as the character in your "hypothetical" needs to stay home in a closet or at the nice, safe, local mental health facility.
Pacman777
What is it with these attacks? If you want to make it personal then just say so but the thread said "Neph's POLITE gun Debate."
The hypothetical character wasn't about fear, it was about what could happen if a weapon should fall into the hands of a person with an unbalanced mind, which happens all too often. Remember Virginia Tech? Don't you think that a little gun control might help reduce such incidences. The United States is one of a few nations in the industrialized world that has no gun control laws.
Here's a US government statistic:
Quote:
The impact of gun violence is especially pronounced among juveniles and adolescents. The firearm homicide rate for children under 15 years of age is 16 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. Among those ages 15 to 24, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is 5times higher than in neighboring Canada and 30times higher than in Japan, and the firearm homicide rate for the 15- to 24-year-old age group increased 158 percent during the 10-year period from 1984 to 1993 (see figure 4). This contrasts with a 19-percent decline in gun-related homicides for those 25 and older. A teenager in the United States today is more likely to die of a gunshot wound than from all the "natural" causes of death combined.
http://0-www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov.libcat.uafo...nce/sect01.html
Last year I had a 14 year old student who was shot to death with a gun because of an argument between a friend and another person.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. November 2007 @ 15:28
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
25. November 2007 @ 16:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think this is how we got the "polite" gun thread in the first place. In deference to Neph let's keep this POLITE and argue in the PMs.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
25. November 2007 @ 20:28 |
Link to this message
|
Sophocles
I find your inference that I'm becoming personal off the mark. Where did I say anything personal about you? If you write something, then I should have the right to comment on it. I was discussing the points of what was being said, not attacking you personally. There's nothing personal unless I called you stupid or fat.
Made up situations can be set to push the buttons from a given point of view. How about an incident concerning a defenseless old lady in her home: Her door was being broken down by a gang intent on taking the Christmas gifts she'd just purchased with her last pennies for her orphaned grandchildren. The brutal leader of the malicious gang that killed the children's parents was intent on torturing and killing the old lady and children for fun and so they couldn't ID the gang members. The little old lady was forced to take out the Mac-10 her dead husband had left her for self defense. Isn't that sad?
I ask for real examples and not concocted ones. Your reference to a teenager shot during youth violence lends more credibility to the discussion for a need for gun control enforcement than hypotheticals and hyperbole.
I wonder if the slain child would have been stabbed if the assailant couldn't have gotten a gun. Before guns it was a big thing to have a switchblade. My main question is where did the kid get a gun? There are gun laws and someone along the line slipped. I concede there's irresponsible gun owners and dealers and people illegally selling firearms. That means laws already in effect are being broken. Instead of more gun laws, why not enforce the ones in effect. If the kid with the gun stole it, then that means the police failed by not having arrested him. As I keep mentioning, there's more at play than needing more gun laws.
Originally posted by Sophocles:
The hypothetical character wasn't about fear, it was about what could happen if a weapon should fall into the hands of a person with an unbalanced mind, which happens all too often. Remember Virginia Tech? Don't you think that a little gun control might help reduce such incidences. The United States is one of a few nations in the industrialized world that has no gun control laws.
I remember VA Tech and a few others where deranged people were allowed to have guns. It's not just the gun laws that failed though, it was those fighting for the rights of others by not letting it be known those people were mentally unstable and a threat to society. At VA Tech there was several instances that the psychopath could have been reported. I'm not saying he couldn't have gotten a firearm, but at least it would have been illegal for him to own one and he shouldn't have been allowed to remain a student. The college and medical profession dropped the ball on that one. The college knew he was a problem and he'd been diagnosed as being unstable. A gun dealer can't refuse a sale if the buyer isn't on the list of banned individuals. BTW, it's also illegal to carry a gun into most schools except for law enforcement.
I remember another story that made the news. A police officer broke into a residence and killed his ex-girlfriend and others present at a pizza party. There's enough instances to prove not all the guys in blue are there to protect and serve. Who protects us from the police?
A sack of fertilizer and some diesel fuel can make for a nasty situation in a crowd. We saw what a truck full could do in Oklahoma. They're monitoring fertilizer sales, but it's not been banned. So, psychopaths have more at hand than just guns. Run someone down with a car and you can say accident if no one sees it. You lost control if you have to drive on the grass to get the victim. Should we ban cars and fertilizer?
And from the same article you quoted on firearms:
http://0-www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov.libcat.uafo...nce/sect01.html
Quote:
Gun-related crime peaked in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Since that time, the United States has made steady improvement in reducing gun-related violence (see figure 3). Gun-related homicides have declined by 33 percent since 1993, including a 35-percent drop in handgun homicides. Meanwhile, from 1992 to 1996, murder rates declined by 20 percent, aggravated assaults by 12 percent, and the overall violent crime rate by 16 percent.2 The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) Uniform Crime Report data for 1997 show that these trends are continuing, with murder and robbery totals declining by 7 percent over the previous year and the total of all violent crimes declining by 3 percent.
According to the report quoted, the gun problem has been getting better and not worse over the past 20 years (at least up til the time the report was made). Of course statistics change and can have an up and down surge from year to year. You could say gun violence is worse this year over last year, but the 2 years be the lowest in a decade. I also noticed the info in the article comes from 1996, over 11 years ago.
Using the US in comparison to other industrialized nations needs to be done on a per capita basis. There's 50 states with most of them the size of a country and some with larger populations. By sheer numbers there's going to be a percentage discrepancy without taking population into account. How about using a figure derived from the number of legally owned guns and resulting deaths? I've never seen that figure used.
On the forums we're simply giving our bias with whatever support we can muster. Some of us want to see responsible gun use and enforcement of gun laws. We have those who don't want guns to be legal and would like to see legislation banning ownership. We don't need to make up fictitious circumstances. VA Tech was a good reminder of what a deranged person can do with a gun. But that opens a can of worms that goes much farther than just gun control. Anti-gunners would rather use it as a focal point, but how about the ACLU (and it's supporting factions) distorting personal rights to privacy with mentally ill people posing a threat to society. Do we protect their rights to privacy so they can be allowed to continue to the point of mass murder? Could a student or teacher with a gun have stopped the VA Tech massacre. As many people often point out, the police usually react to crime scenes and don't usually prevent them.
In memory of Neph, I'm keeping this discussion polite. I'm a bit nonplussed to be accused of doing otherwise.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. November 2007 @ 03:28
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
26. November 2007 @ 02:39 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Sophocles:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hypothetical character wasn't about fear, it was about what could happen if a weapon should fall into the hands of a person with an unbalanced mind, which happens all too often. Remember Virginia Tech? Don't you think that a little gun control might help reduce such incidences. The United States is one of a few nations in the industrialized world that has no gun control laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From that statement I see a lack of knowledge about gun control or the laws of the land. I suggest research be done no matter which side of the discussion you want to take part in. The United States has some rather strict gun laws.
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=60
Quote:
In addition to federal gun laws imposed by the National Firearms Act (1934), Gun Control Act (1968), Firearms Owner's Protection Act (1986), Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993), the 1994 Omnibus Crime Control Act and other laws, most states and some local jurisdictions have imposed their own firearms restrictions.
Quote:
Under federal law supported by the National Rifle Association, the use of a firearm in a violent or drug-trafficking crime is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of up to 20 years. A second conviction, if the firearm is a machine gun or is equipped with a silencer, brings life imprisonment without release. Violating firearms laws should lead to very real punishment for violent criminals, but the laws first must be enforced.
20 years for use of a firearm in a violent crime (not necessarily murder) and drug-trafficking is Federal law. Is life without parole strict enough? Notice it said nothing about killing anyone, just using certain weapons in a violent crime or drug-trafficking. That is from Federal Law and in addition to whatever the criminal charges bring
Much of the problem has been with enforcement and the system having to deal with personal rights when it comes to people getting firearms that shouldn't. The mentally deranged that become a focal point for anti-gunners are a case in point. The people making the loudest noises are usually the ones fighting to protect the rights of the mentally deranged so they can go out and buy the guns to kill with.
Here's a link to the Federal ATF site where you can read or download a copy of the Federal laws:
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2000_ref.htm
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. November 2007 @ 03:21
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
26. November 2007 @ 18:53 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
From that statement I see a lack of knowledge about gun control or the laws of the land.
It's statements like the one above that take it to a personal level. It is condescending assumes knowledge about me that you aren't in possession of.
Quote:
*Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
* Fugitives from justice.
* Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
* Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
* Illegal aliens.
* Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
* Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
* Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
* Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
The problem with those laws are that they are vague and leave to many loopholes open for purchasing a weapon.
If I went out this weekend I can purchase a gun from any of several flea markets in the area with no checks of any kind. I can also go to someone's home and make a private purchase as well.
http://www.nraleaders.com/state-of-affairs.html
Check to see if you can purchase a gun easily in the state where you live. It is unfortunately all to easy which is one of the many reasons that I believe in greater gun control and restriction.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/tupstudy.htm
I've learned over time that everyone is right in their own minds, and that a debate such as this is unlikely to change the minds of those who are for or against greater gun control. I support your right to own and use guns. I don't know you personally so I can only hope that you do so responsibly.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...7042001980.html
http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/issues/gunviolencestats.html
A lot of tragedy has followed the proliferation of guns. Even those who want a gun for protection ultimately if the situation arises be defending themselves from someone else with a gun.
Cheers!! HLG
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. November 2007 @ 18:55
|
