Warning: Undefined array key "HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/includes/common.inc.php on line 360 Guns...should they be in every household? - Minitokyo

Guns...should they be in every household?

page 4 of 6 « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next » 138 total items

As has been said by wiser men than me, "an armed society is a polite society" if a potential assailant wondered if a potential victem were armed, perhaps that assailent would look for a less risky line of work. if owning a firearm was made criminal, only criminals would have firearms(remember, criminals break the law for a living) law abiding people would give up their guns and criminals would have carte-blanc to rob/kill/rape/etc. I have firearms in the house, the boy knows not to touch them without me, he has been told that there is a great potential for death involved in the use and handling of firearms, and it is not something that is ever pointed at anyone unless you have the intention to kill that person(that being the purpose of guns after all) anyone who is childish enough to think that passing a law to restrict gun ownership will make life safer is living in never never land, the second amendment to the constitution reads:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." the militia of the time, the people WHO FREED THE U.S. FROM THE BRITISH RULE were just folk, who gathered up their guns and freed the country, this does not refer to the army/national guard etc. it referes to us this is why there is a second amendment, to protect all the others!

cenocres

cenocres

a blind witness

i haven't read all of your posts, but just a think:
who has watch "booling for colombine", by michael moore?
i've seen it: that's really surprising, you know!
in canada, there is a lot of people who have many guns, full of bullets, but there is a little number of victims by guns per year (around one hundred), that's the same thing in usa, but around 11 000 victims by guns per year! so, WHY?

maybe, this is not the fact that people have guns or not in their home. Michael Moore, me too, thinks that there is a connection with the TV information. he says that in the USA, there is a culture of fear: "we have to show blood, crash, dead people, und so weiter." that is not the same situation in Canada. that could explain this difference.

my own opinion is that: less guns then less deads and less violence.
sorry for those who love guns!

libre de tous ses carcans,
il se leva et partit vers l'ouest.
plus rien ne le retenait, maintenant

Truthfully, most people who support this I've known to be United Statesian... guns are stupid, they shouldn't even allowed at all only under certain circumstances.

Signature
	Image
Avatar + Signature made by TripleG :D Thanks

Canada this Canada that. You know, I'm starting to wonder about how friendly my neighboors to the north are(I live in Washington State). Every time a Canadian says something about America, there is a 90% chance that: A-its negative B-uniformed C-personally biased D-Not true at all E-all of the above. Some of you flaunt your country's low fatality rate by gun fire when compared to the US. Lets do the math-A country second in size only to Russia, with about 1/10(32 million) the population. Hmmm, so here we go: on average, 1200 people per year die of gunshots in Canada, and there are about 30 mil people there. That is an average of .004%. Now we take the US and do the math- 30,000 people per year with a population of roughly 300 million. The average is .01%.
Thus far the difference is a whole 6/1000 of 1%. But lets do population density now-Land Area of Canada: 9,976,140 square km, divided into 32 million is a density of about 3 people per square km. Now the US 9,631,418 square km divided by 300,000,000 is about 31 people per square km.
A country with ten times as many people per km^2, less restrictive laws concerning firearms, and a great many more firearms in private hands than there are even people in Canada, with a 6/1000 of 1% difference in gun deaths per capita is not really that much more dangerous.
I hate to quote the most worthless left wing liberal news agency in the world, but here is something from the BBC:
"The United States has the largest number of guns in private hands of any country in the world with 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms."
This is from the Canadian House of Commons(2001):
"ACTUAL NUMBER OF FIREARMS IN CANADA

In 1945, despite massive non-compliance, the RCMP managed to register nearly 2 million firearms, comprised of 1.7 million rifles and shotguns and the remainder handguns. Add to this the nearly 8 million firearms imported between 1945 and 2000 and you get 10 million firearms.
Using the Justice Minister’s 1974 estimates I calculated: 10 million firearms + 6,500,000 (250,000/year x 26 years) = 16,500,000 firearms in Canada in 2001."
Now this brings me to my next point: If we take the amount of gun deaths per gun in Canada, we get 0.007% deaths per gun. Now the US has 0.0015% deaths per gun. Now what does this all equal out to, another very small percentage(5.5/1000 of 1%). From all of this data(look it up if you want) I can say this: With a 0.01% average(US) compared to 0.004%(Canada), you are about twice as likely to get shot by someone in the US as opposed to Canada....But, chances are, if you run into a Canadian(0.007% deaths per firearm) with a gun, you are 4.7 times as likely to get shot as you would by an American(0.0015% deaths per firearm).
So now I will make the same kind of assumptions I see all over the board about how "dangerous" America is, but this time, its Canada's turn: OMG if I run into a Canadian with a gun, I'm gonna get shot, they are so untrustworthy with guns, I wonder what their problem is?
Oh yeah-for all you guys that love to delve into Micheal Moore's works and put them off as fact, remember this(and look it up if you don't trust me): His movies are all based on his opinions and are totally biased toward his views. They weren't made to tell the whole truth, or the other side of the story, only his side(that is what he said himself).

Sallyf322

Sallyf322

*_Amateur Guitarist_*

Woah...I haven't looked up the facts, but I think I can say that JLSL really made me speechless XD That's a lot of info right here...and I think he's made his point.

It seems that my question of the right to bear household guns has fueled a debate about guns in general...which is nice ^-^" I think it is true that America is seen as a very dangerous place, but I personally find my neighborhood peaceful. Sure, we've got some dangerous/poor/corrupted neighborhoods here and there, but doesn't every country? I do believe that one should have a gun in the house...just in case. It's not necessarily for your kid to shoot themselves or for you to shoot a random person who walks by your house, either. I believe in ownership of a household gun for emergency---whether it be for a situation of life or death or to blow off a lock if it's stuck and you need to get out or something. You never know...

"If everyone cared and nobody cried, if everyone loved and nobody lied, if everyone shared and swallowed their pride, then we'd see the day...when nobody died. I'm singing amen I, amen I, I'm alive." - Nickelback: "If Everyone Cared."

If only, if only, the world were like this. If only, if only, it only existed.

fawna-chan

fawna-chan

butterfly ghost

In my opinion, I think that a gun's not really necessary. Well, let's just say that there are a lot of other household items in my house that are just as lethal as guns. But, really, I think htat a gun, even to protect yourself would be a bit harsh to the robber, or whatever's attacking you. I still trust the police in my area....

For those who didn't know this, guns were originally made to KILL people, and thus it will still be used to KILL people with. To those who are saying that it's for protecting the home or themselves are just using that as a cover up. If a robber comes barging inside of your home will you aim at the legs or the arms? Most likely not. Most likely people are going to aim at the head of the robber. And to those people who say that it's for sport, then let me ask you another question. How many people actually use their gun for hunting or target practicing? Not many people. And for those people who say that's it's in the constitution that they have the right to have guns (Talking about the US). Then I'll give you a bit of info. The Supreme Court decided that: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." And for those people say that Militias don't exist anymore then I'll ask. Do you have a police force in the city? Or do you have a form of military in your country?

I'm not against having guns, but there should be limitations to owning a firearm such as NO AUTOMATIC weapons, "West Hollywood" ring a bell? I also believe that the government should monitor who has a gun and what gun they have, (no they don't have that type of system). And last but not least, EDUCATION about what guns can really do to people.

Uhh, My family has well over 30 guns in our house, and you know what. They are used for competition, target, and sport shooting. Many gun owner's go to ranges and shoot their guns just for the heck of it. Millions of Americans are in organizations such as the NRA or other shooting clubs. Many people shoot just for the fun of it, and yes it is fun and challenging to shoot in competitions or qualifications. So Maverick007, you are way off the mark in saying that no one shoots their guns for "target practice".
You are wrong about second ammendment as well. A states militia comes in the form of its National Guard units. The National Guard is the state militia, it just got renamed some time early last century. Here's something from the National Guard web site:
"The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." However, recognizing the militia's state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force."
A police force is not a militia and neither is the federal military. As for automatic weapons, it was just as illegal to own a fully automatic weapon during the West Hollywood bank robbery as it is now. The only state that openly allows fully automatic weapons without expensive licenses is Nevada. I must also point out that using one incident to justify a nation wide ban on automatic weapons is not a good one. Its just as ignorant as saying that the US has a bad human rights record because of Abu Graihb or inmates compaining at Guantanamo. To my knownledge, the use of fully automatic weapons in the perpetration of a crime hasn't been wide spread since maybe the 1930's during prohibition. But I don't really see the need for having a fully automatic weapon either.
No offence, but obviously you have never purchased a firearm before. If you buy a firearm, a background check is done and it is registered. Especially with pistols or semi automatic firearms. But you are totally right about education-if states are willing to teach about safe sex, alcohol and drug awareness, and driving safety, they should teach firearms safety. For the most part, it is only the uneducated that are hurt accidentally by guns.

Guns are innecesary. But i larger tows i think a person should be able to have a gun inside his house, IF he hav been to proper training. i myself got 3 gun with permisson from the local police.

(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.

One thing if everyone had a gun in there house then if there was a war they could fight for a side.

JLSL ^-^ Yup you are right about the militia I sincerely take back what I said about the "militia" thing, but I still have faith in my good ole policia. Also, good job on fine reading. You know with the ban on ASSAULT (not AUTOMATIC) weapons and all (For those who don't know 19 semiautomatic weapons with a 30 round clip or larger is banned from the market, all AUTOMATIC weapons have been banned from the market for a LONG time as what JLSL stated). But didn't the Brady Law expire just a while ago, to my knowledge Congress didn't really pass the extension and Mr. President didn't sign it.

True, but do you know how they picked the "assault" weapons to ban in the Brady Bill. They looked through a firearms digest and picked out the most menacing looking of the weapons, or ones that bore resemblence to military firearms(IE Bayonet lug, extended magazine, pistol grip, ect), and simply banned them. That is what happens when you let people that know little or nothing about firearms have control over them. Am I saying that certain guns shouldn't be banned? No, but an informed decision may have put the right firearms off the streets earlier as opposed to ones that looked scary, but never actually were used in the perpetration of a crime. And thus saving lives that were lost in the mean time. But, as we have seen, there hasn't been a huge increase in shooting deaths because of the lift on the ban, so I think we should be ok.

you have got to remember that the purpose of them passing the laws is just to show that they care, whether or not it does any good is irrelavent, as the fact filled post by jlsl was shortly, though not directly followed by a yea , but post, along the lines of dont give me facts, i FEEL like this is wrong. Facts will never matter to a person whos mind is made up about a subject.

no...because people cant drive cars let alone be able to fire weapons

you have got to remember that the purpose of them passing the laws is just to show that they care, whether or not it does any good is irrelavent, as the fact filled post by jlsl was shortly, though not directly followed by a yea , but post, along the lines of dont give me facts, i FEEL like this is wrong. Facts will never matter to a person whos mind is made up about a subject. -Elwood


You are right. But maybe it will allow those people that don't like guns search for a more viable option then taking away someone elses rights. Just because you don't believe the same things someone else does, doesn't mean you have to push your views on them. The same thought applies to all things, be it religion, or abortion.

As someone who owns several firearms and has been carrying one on a daily basis for four years, I'd have to say that my side of the issue is squarely in "the government should stay the hell away from my rights" category. Some folks say that guns are made to kill, but that's only half-correct. Guns are made for combat, and combat is a fancy way of saying "keeping the other guy away from encroaching on you by use of force". That "other guy" could be an invading nation or the thug on the street. No one with any degree of training shoots to wound, but neither do they shoot to kill. Correct shot placement is to shoot to STOP the attack, and that means neutralizing the threat. This does not necessarily mean killing the attacker, but their health is not exactly a worry in a situation that requires the use of deadly force.

I personally don't trust my safety to anyone but myself, as a US court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual... something self-defense proponents knew all along. I prefer to take responsibilty for my own safety and not rely on help that may never come. Witness New Orleans, LA in the wake of Katrina for a hard example of why gun ownership by citizens is a good thing as the "authorities" held very little sway in the aftermath and people were at the mercy of the criminal element. Then FEMA stepped in and bunged it all up, kicking people out of their houses and confiscating firearms - but this enormous cock-up received such widespread bad publicity that they will think twice before attempting to illegally run roughshod over citizens' rights in the future. That situation goes to prove that uniformed individuals acting under color of "law" (bureaucratic fiat) pose as much of a threat to individual liberty, if not more, than the average street thug.

FWIW, I ran for public office here in Virginia this year. I didn't win the seat, but I did get 27% of the vote - not bad for a first-timer on the Libertarian ticket.

Due to Minitokyo's policies, I will no longer be submitting any wallpapers or scans to this site.

candy-chan

Retired Moderator

candy-chan

protection should be assumed by the state, not the individual.
"Protect my own kind" is a very american standart that is rarely found elsewhere. And so I will permit myself this generalisation: Of course if you live in the USA you will want a gun to protect your family. It's part of your culture (goes along with the ultimate liberty concept)
But be aware that it has it's bad sides. Hence the high violence problems in the states.


Quote: Uhh, My family has well over 30 guns in our house, and you know what. They are used for competition, target, and sport shooting. Many gun owner's go to ranges and shoot their guns just for the heck of it. Millions of Americans are in organizations such as the NRA or other shooting clubs. Many people shoot just for the fun of it, and yes it is fun and challenging to shoot in competitions or qualifications. So Maverick007, you are way off the mark in saying that no one shoots their guns for "target practice".


You ARE right. But what about that one time where an accident happens? What about that one time where a kid finds a gun and starts playing with it? What about that one time where someone who obviously needs help can easily procure himself an arm to go shoot his school comrades? What about that one time where the father is maybe a little bit too angry with the guy who just beat up his daughter? I believe that in our demented society, there must be rules to our liberty.

What about the guy that gets a little too drunk, but drives anyway? What about the mom that forgets to turn the water off in the babybath? What about the kid that looks up how to make a bomb on the interet to blow up his school comrades? What about the girl with a razor that thinks life isn't worth it?

Should we ban all these things-Razors, the internet, alchohol, ect? A child could more easily drink bleach then shoot themselves, and I bet kids dying from ingesting chemicals is more prevailent in the US than accidental gunshots. My point is prevention is the key-lock all these things that could hurt children up and teach kids to stay away from them.
And this may just be me, but any guy that beat up my daughter, mother, or sister would get A-shot B-stabbed C-clubbed or most likely D-Get the living crap kicked out of him. But thats just me.

candy-chan

Retired Moderator

candy-chan

Quote: and I bet kids dying from ingesting chemicals is more prevailent in the US than accidental gunshots.


I wonder in what kind of world you live.

Don't know, I live in the world that in 2000 the number of firearms related deaths(accidental) was 86(National Center for Health Statistics) for children ages 1-14. In 2000 the number of accidental deaths from chemical poisoning of children ages 1-12 was 114(American Association of Poison Control Centers). Now there is a two year difference(ages 1-14/1-12) but it only suggest that more kids die from accidental poisoning than accidental gunshots. But if you go all the way to age 19 the number increases to 193 for accidental gunshots(NCHS), compared to 206(aapcc) for accidental poisoning. Those two numbers are close, but the fact still remains that more minors die each year from poisoning. Ten years ago in 1995-1996(fiscal) the fatality rate for children by accidental gunshots was 171(Center for Disease Control) among children ages 1-14. In 1996(calender) the the fatality rate among kids from poisoning, ages 1-12 was 164(aapcc). Giving that there is a two year difference again, I would say the numbers are pretty close.

So tell me, what kind of world are you living in?

Cybo

Never tell them everything!

The gun laws in South Africa are not as strict as some other countries, though we are busy tightening them up. The good thing about having a gun in the household - you feel protected against just about anything. Hearing a noise at night and knowing that you have your pistol in hand when investigating is rather assuring. The bad thing though is that there are more guns out there to be stolen and used ilegally. Last week a motorist shot and killed a taxi driver on the highway in a fit of road rage. The good the bad and the ugly....

If you come ... you will find me.

haha i watched this show about currambine or something where they had guns in every household...an there was a few outbreaks that occured coz of them. I dont think guns should be in every household. In america right, there apparently is easy access to guns...more then ten thousand people die from guns alone in america, in australia 64 per yr lol..why do i remember these stats...Guns are unessessary. There shoudlnt be a need for them.

\(^o^)/

Well beer is unecessary too, and it leads to a lot more people getting killed then guns but nobody wants to ban it. Why? Booze lead to more abuse, broken or unplanned families, car accidents, murders, rapes, fights, accidental and malicious SHOOTINGS, health problems, ect then guns ever could. For what, to get drunk? Wow, get up in arms about that will you. But no one will, because its "popular" and everyone does it.

candy-chan

Retired Moderator

candy-chan

I'd like to know where these statistics come from

page 4 of 6 « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next » 138 total items

Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

Warning: Undefined array key "cookienotice" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/html2/footer.html on line 73
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.