Girl accidetally excercises her second-amendment rights

[Ex-Cyber]

The right to gun ownership isn't rooted in self protection, but protection from the government. Revolution isn't really possible if the established power has guns and all you have are knives and sticks.

Revolution using those means isn't really possible here anyway. The government would bring more people with more guns than you could put together,

And that's probably after any kind of fortification you've made has been hit by a few guys with a plane. Or maybe they'd just raze the whole neighborhood to make an example; we are talking about a situation where government behavior actually justifies armed rebellion, right?

[FiendWithoutAface]

"I'd rather not live in fear of the hypothetical boogeyman who is going to bust into my house, steal my TV and rape my women-folk. Guns hurt people. They are not good things to have around. Criminals will always use whatever means they have at their disposal to commit crimes. They're criminals, so that's kinda their thing. You don't seem to take seriously my argument that a gun in the home is an accident waiting to happen, but simple common sense tells me that if I had a gun, I'd be more likely to shoot myself or somebody I know accidentally than an intruder trying to do me harm. Locking the doors at night has always been all the security I need to feel safe in my home. If you're so paranoid that you need a gun in order to feel safe, I think the biggest problem resides in your head." OneThirty8

"I'd rather not live in fear of the hypothetical boogeyman who is going to bust into my house, steal my TV and rape my women-folk" OneThirty8

I don't advocate for anybody to live in fear. I don't and neither should anybody else.

"Guns hurt people" OneThirty8

That is false. People hurt people. I have never heard of a firearm that is capable of firing at someone by itself

"You don't seem to take seriously my argument that a gun in the home is an accident waiting to happen, but simple common sense tells me that if I had a gun, I'd be more likely to shoot myself or somebody I know accidentally than an intruder trying to do me harm" OneThirty8

You're right, I don't. I do not have the same paranoia that I will somehow negligently handle a firearm and that one day it is going to get mad and shoot me. Thats because I have taken gun safety classes and I fully understand and appreciate the potential dangers of a firearm and I store and handle them accordingly. As for your argument that you're more likely to shoot yourself with your own firearm than an intruder is to shoot you... If thats how you really feel then Im glad you do not have a firearm as you clearly have no idea how to responsibly handle one.

"Locking the doors at night has always been all the security I need to feel safe in my home." OneThirty8

If thats what makes you feel safe all power to you. I am not trying to force anyone to carry any type of weapon to protect themselves. I am merely advocating the freedom for law abiding citizens to own handguns should they choose

"If you're so paranoid that you need a gun in order to feel safe, I think the biggest problem resides in your head." OneThirty8

Most of us put our seat belts on when we get in the car just in case we get into an accident. Although personally I have never been involved in or seen one up close I still do it. But that doesn't make me paranoid that I am going to get in an accident does it? I think a majority of people regard that as being safe. That said I do not carry nor do I own a handgun. Of the guns I do own (a 12 gauge semi auto Browning, a Remington chambered lever action Marlin, and a Remington 22 cal rifle) I have never accidentally nor intentionally pointed it at anybody and I am not expecting to have to shoot anyone either

In closing... At most you have no argument. At the very least you do not articulate it well. In either case this thread has strayed far from the original topic (we got into revolution) and I am done with trying to reason with you.

[Quzar]

My point about revolution was only that the concept of a 'tradition' of 'American gun ownership" is a myth. The concept behind it isn't to empower the people against each other but to empower them in the face of the government. Until around the time of the first world war and all it's mass killers, this concept made sense.

In closing... At most you have no argument. At the very least you do not articulate it well. In either case this thread has strayed far from the original topic (we got into revolution) and I am done with trying to reason with you.

Of course they do: guns are dangerous. There is no argument against that, they were designed to kill. The government either heavily regulates or doesn't let us have dangerous things. The biggest problem I see with gun legislation nowadays though is that it is left up to individual states, which creates wierd issues.

Like driving, in order to get a license to carry a gun, one should have to demonstrate knowledge of safety rules and relevant laws. In most states when you register you simply have to affirm that you understand the most basic things that are not obvious, such as reporting it if it is stolen or lost (where it's a crime to not do so).

[|darc|]

Guns hurt people

That is false. People hurt people. I have never heard of a firearm that is capable of firing at someone by itself.

And people with guns hurt people at a much higher rate than people without guns.

You can argue "guns don't kill people, people kill people" all you want, but the fact is that if you take any sort of mass killing directly by a single person and replace the guns with knives, it wouldn't have happened. Do you think Harris and Klebold or Seung-Hui Cho would have killed all those people if they had knives instead of guns? No.

I don't really have a stance on gun control. I'm often on the fence and make judgments in different ways on different days. But really, stop trying to defend guns as if they don't hurt people. They do. Despite how much arguing you do want to do over the exact semantics of "guns hurt people" (because of your lack of understanding metonymy), you know that gun-enabled people harm other people more than non-gun-enabled people harm other people. So guns do hurt people. And gun-enabled people are much harder to fight off even by other gun-enabled people than a knife-enabled person is by another knife-enabled person.

[Christuserloeser]

Revolution using those means isn't really possible here anyway.

Revolution happens from within the system, within the political parties or within the media.

[Lartrak]

And people with guns hurt people at a much higher rate than people without guns.

I just feel like being nit picky and stating the thing that people hurt other people with at the highest rate basically everywhere are fists and feet, and maybe simple bludgeons.

Revolution using those means isn't really possible here anyway.

Maybe, maybe not. It's a very difficult scenario to imagine. Would the entirety of the armed forces stay loyal to the government? Regardless, if properly motivated, America would have some of the nastiest guerilla warfare around. Any proper retaliation by the government would only increase this. And the government can't nuke itself into winning the war. Our government is so heavily divided in terms of leadership that I can't imagine it working too effectively against a very strong internal enemy. I don't know what would happen. No one does. It would be extremely bad for everyone though.

Oh, and on the safety... I don't know what type of gun it was, but if it was a revolver I'm betting she simply kept the safety off, or the gun didn't have one. It's not uncommon for people carrying double action guns to do that. Keep in mind our police officers didn't even HAVE safeties for many decades, and they carried constantly with very, very few issues.

However, I would have to say if you're going to do that you shouldn't be carrying it (apparently) unsecured in a purse within reach of a child. You're supposed to always be aware of where your gun is when carrying, it's one of the most basic rules.

[FiendWithoutAface]

Guns hurt people

That is false. People hurt people. I have never heard of a firearm that is capable of firing at someone by itself.

And people with guns hurt people at a much higher rate than people without guns.

You can argue "guns don't kill people, people kill people" all you want, but the fact is that if you take any sort of mass killing directly by a single person and replace the guns with knives, it wouldn't have happened. Do you think Harris and Klebold or Seung-Hui Cho would have killed all those people if they had knives instead of guns? No.

I don't really have a stance on gun control. I'm often on the fence and make judgments in different ways on different days. But really, stop trying to defend guns as if they don't hurt people. They do. Despite how much arguing you do want to do over the exact semantics of "guns hurt people" (because of your lack of understanding metonymy), you know that gun-enabled people harm other people more than non-gun-enabled people harm other people. So guns do hurt people. And gun-enabled people are much harder to fight off even by other gun-enabled people than a knife-enabled person is by another knife-enabled person.

You can argue "guns don't kill people, people kill people" all you want, but the fact is that if you take any sort of mass killing directly by a single person and replace the guns with knives, it wouldn't have happened. Do you think Harris and Klebold or Seung-Hui Cho would have killed all those people if they had knives instead of guns? No.

Do you think Harris and Klebold or Seung-Hui Cho would have been able to kill all of those people if perhaps some of the school staff were armed? Doubtful. I'm not really sure how the whole knife argument is really adding to this issue however 911 showed us what a few motivated individuals can do with box cutters. Food for thought.

Despite how much arguing you do want to do over the exact semantics of "guns hurt people" (because of your lack of understanding metonymy), you know that gun-enabled people harm other people more than non-gun-enabled people harm other people

I was taking issue with OneThirty8's stance that because one has a gun in his home that an accident is bound to happen which I do not for a second believe. I know all to well that a gun can aid someone's desires to hurt or kill which is why I advocate for peoples rights to bear arms to defend themselves. That has been my point all along.

So guns do hurt people

Applying the term semantics to my rants in no way validates that statement though I understand the route you are trying to take with that so... Guns also save people.

And gun-enabled people are much harder to fight off even by other gun-enabled people than a knife-enabled person is by another knife-enabled person

Considering I have never been involved in such things I am going to have to accept your experience and expertise in this matter and agree with that statement

[Lartrak]

Do you think Harris and Klebold or Seung-Hui Cho would have been able to kill all of those people if perhaps some of the school staff were armed? Doubtful.

There was an armed deputy at Columbine who exchanged gunfire with them before retreating. It's just too bad he missed.

[Egotistical EvilN]

Handguns are really simple tools. You point them, you pull the trigger, and something dies or gets seriously injured. They have no other purpose.

Knives require skill to use as weapons, and possibly one of humanity's greatest creations, besides the wheel and the transistor.

At a local hospital, robberies have been going on. The hospital claims to be a weapon free zone, but the robber has held both guns and knives. The employees were told not to carry in any tools for self defense, and if found on their possession, they could be fired. They were advised to call security instead.
http://www.abc3340.com/news/stories/0308/502761.html

If handguns are banned, criminals will still not hesitate to use them, but at the same time, they exist for nothing but to harm people (either defensively or by a criminal).

[Prophet][]

Getting a gun here is alsmot dead impossible. Sure the real criminals will get them but they don't go killing anyone for fun, you need like to steal drugs off them or some shit. We have a very low gun violence, one of the lowests i nthe world.

[Christuserloeser]

Revolution happens from within the system, within the political parties or within the media.

Allow me to rephrase that:

Revolution has to happen from within the system, within the political parties or within the media.

[Kevin Beckman]

Well apparently 55% of gun deaths are suicides. So...yeah.


In the US ofcourse.