Why do you need to carry a GUN

[peky]

You cannot tell me that you didn't see what I said were in those pictures. Just look. 

maybe if I inhale some weed I would 

[peky]

back to some serious considerations

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2085401831001/mom-who-shot-intruder-becomes-part-of-national-gun-debate/?intcmp=obnetwork

[Shantel]

back to some serious considerations

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2085401831001/mom-who-shot-intruder-becomes-part-of-national-gun-debate/?intcmp=obnetwork

Gee, wonder why she just didn't submit to the man like a good politically correct American housewife? The poor fellow was probably from a disadvantaged background and poor upbringing, perhaps he was hungry and just needed something to eat. She could have offered him a little money from her purse. Now the taxpayers will be stuck with paying his hospital bills, well that really sucks doesn't it? Those awful guns!

[Brooke777]

Gee, wonder why she just didn't submit to the man like a good politically correct American housewife? The poor fellow was probably from a disadvantaged background and poor upbringing, perhaps he was hungry and just needed something to eat. She could have offered him a little money from her purse. Now the taxpayers will be stuck with paying his hospital bills, well that really sucks doesn't it? Those awful guns!

This made me laugh so hard!!

[Constance]

The poor fellow was probably from a disadvantaged background and poor upbringing, perhaps he was hungry and just needed something to eat. She could have offered him a little money from her purse.

I know clergy persons who probably would have done just that.

[Brooke777]

I don't care what someones intention is when they broke into my house. If you break in, you are not there with good thoughts and well wishes. Therefore, you will not be leaving alive. I will make sure of that personally. If I am not there, my roommate will get you with her 12 gauge which is a worse way to go than I would have made it. Best advice. Knock.

[Shantel]

I know clergy persons who probably would have done just that.

Of course you know I was being facetious, the clergy man would probably wind up in the hospital if he was really lucky.

[gennee]

I'm for the ban on assault rifles. I'm for people having guns and rifles to protect their family and homes.
I personally would not own a gun.

The one element that is being ingored is that in all the mass shootings, the perpetrator was on anti-psychotic
medication. No one is talking about that. If you watch all the commercials on tv, the pharma companies are
always pushing a pill for this, a pill for that. The media isn't going to tell you this because they are behind the
campaign blitz for these drugs.

[Shantel]

I'm for the ban on assault rifles. I'm for people having guns and rifles to protect their family and homes.
I personally would not own a gun.

The one element that is being ingored is that in all the mass shootings, the perpetrator was on anti-psychotic
medication. No one is talking about that. If you watch all the commercials on tv, the pharma companies are
always pushing a pill for this, a pill for that. The media isn't going to tell you this because they are behind the
campaign blitz for these drugs.

Amen to that drug company business, you are so right!

[Sarah Louise]

Guns are as dangerous as the person who owns them.  Guns do kill, but only if the person who is carrying it pulls the trigger.

[Shantel]

Yes, and considering the tens of thousands of annual gun violence deaths in the US, I'd say quite a few people are pulling the triggers.

Besides, guns make it so easy to kill. Point, click, guy's dead.

Tens of thousands? Oh Please, get your figures right before commenting.

More people are killed in auto accidents in the US than by guns, they are actually dangerous in the hands of some people, they should be banned from the roads.

[SarahM777]

Considering the fact that the damage is so extensive and all guns can't be taken back, that's probably the best path. Then again, I never bought into psychiatric evaluations (I would fail every time  ). After all, on the ink blot test, the guy asked me what I saw and...



...two welders flipping up their masks and eating the eyeballs off of a clown while simultaneously high-fiving. The one on the left ate it faster, causing a trail of blood on the left side of the clown's face.



... two giant birds from a mad scientist's lab carrying a giant beetle that will replicate and eat all of the metal in a city, unless a ransom is paid to said scientist.



Mutant panda.

You're right they are there (Overactive imagination perhaps)

(Although I think the last one is a mutant leopard) 

[mistressstevie]

perhaps a certificate of sanity issued by a psychiatrist should be required to purchase, own, and carry any kind of firearm..this should include the military and police.

I do not know how to do so without a registration system which has pitfalls of its own.

The history of governments murdering citizens points out there is some logic in your including the military and the police in that.  And, on the other side why many oppose registration. 

Rudolph Rummel documents what he calls democide as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder" http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills

His numbers grow frighteningly high to the hundreds of millions.   

The attached charts show some summaries. 

[peky]

I did check my figures:

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

Also, are you trying to say that guns aren't dangerous in the hands of some people? The use of the word "actually" is a bit misleading. Besides, cars are actually needed for transportation. Not everyone has a good public transportation system or the time needed to commute 20 miles via a bad one. There is no actual need for guns. Learn to throw a knife, use a sword, or get a longbow, which can actually pierce a bulletproof vest. Don't use false comparisons in an argument. Most automobile deaths are inevitable accidents and are higher in number than gun killings because cars are used much more often than guns. The fact that cars kill more people doesn't mean that a "point, click, and kill" weapon should be allowed frivolously.


And don't give me that 2nd amendment garbage.
1. The right to bear arms is to promote a well-maintained militia. That's way outdated, and if taken literally, should mean that all civilians should have access to tanks and F22 raptor jets. The Constitution calls for a militia, not an individually armed, everyone-for-themselves slug-fest.

2. The Constitution was written by a bunch of people who believed that blacks weren't equal and who were also exposed only to the musket, a crappy weapon. Not exactly the most reliable people.

Glad someone sees it. 

Only 11,000 deaths due to homicide by gun.

Only 40,000 deaths due to drinking and driving

I do not see you trying so desperately to ban alcohol! Why?

Furthermore CDC estimates that up to 100,000 deaths a year are due to excessive alcohol consumption, that is 10 time more that the deaths caused by gun homicides

[peky]

I do not know how to do so without a registration system which has pitfalls of its own.

The history of governments murdering citizens points out there is some logic in your including the military and the police in that.  And, on the other side why many oppose registration. 

Rudolph Rummel documents what he calls democide as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder" http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills

His numbers grow frighteningly high to the hundreds of millions.   

The attached charts show some summaries. 

Great point Missstevie,

For all the bitching by the Europeans and the Brits about the "American Cowboys and Cowgirls and their guns," I do not see the USA listed a having committed any democides.

When I come to think, we have two intervene twice last century to save them for annihilating themselves.

[mistressstevie]

I do not see the USA listed a having committed any democides.

For all the flaws the US system may have it was structured with layers of internal checks and balances.  The clearest explanation about the balance firearms hold in the US constitutional system were articulated by John Adams who penned the Declaration of Independence with Thomas Jefferson and went on to be the second President of the US. 

Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense.

source: – John Adams, A DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, at 475, (Philadelphia 1788)

[oZma]

if you ban guns... how do you purpose you collect them?

ohhh! by using guns LOL... hypocrites

nobody is anti gun... they are only pro gun for an elite group of people (police?) owned by gov people farmers

[Shantel]

if you ban guns... how do you purpose you collect them?

ohhh! by using guns LOL... hypocrites

nobody is anti gun... they are only pro gun for an elite group of people (police?) owned by gov people farmers

Good one oZma, I'm beginning to like you. Not only pretty but smart!

[oZma]

Your anti-govt attitude reminds me of a silly argument against gun regulation: "We need to protect ourselves from tyranny."

Seriously, if the US govt wanted to, it would easily stop any rebellion in 24 hours. However, that wouldn't be good for money, so it doesn't. 

Well, I for one am anti-gun, for your information. 

However, circumstances have made them a necessary evil for the police. When criminals have guns, it's only reasonable to arm those who are supposed to protect people appropriately. Don't bag on the police; they are far from elite. Plus, consider what would happen without a police force. Just ask the victims of the Boston police strike. Oh, wait, you can't; they're dead. 

As much as I would love all guns to evaporate into nothingness, the damage is done in the US. I would never be caught dead using one. Maybe I should move to Scotland... 

oh and hey, after we ban guns... lets tackle cocaine and heroine next?

[oZma]

Don't assume that I'm for banning guns; I'm for gun REGULATION. Background checks, waiting periods, etc. Banning guns would be a stupid idea since only law-abiding citizens would forfeit their guns, leaving only criminals armed with firearms. Banning guns is only a good idea in countries that never had them to begin with.

I frankly don't care for drug bans, either. If people want to ruin their lives, let them. Save some money and resources while we're at it. Plus, if drugs are legalized, they can be sold and taxed, leading to lower incentive to use them. Not to mention that the "cool" factor would be gone. 

You assume too much.   

not necessarily assuming... just because I hit the quote button doesn't mean I was responding only to you... I was really just trying to add onto my original post and since you already replied and I was reading it, I hit the quote button. plus its hard to navigate these forums on a cell phone LOL

I'll try to be more straight forward next time !