Quote:I'm not missing anything. What you propose, a return to the Old West, where everyone is armed without restriction, registration or training, is madness.
You go ahead and take your chances. I'll continue my way and I'll be just fine.
Madness is allowing yourself to be disarmed with the belief that the government will protect you. It can't. It won't. You alone are responsible for you.
Quote:I'm not missing anything. What you propose, a return to the Old West, where everyone is armed without restriction, registration or training, is madness.
Except, the fact of the matter is that people who owned and used firearms back in the "Old West" were in fact "trained". Most children knew how to properly operate and handle firearms at a very early age.
Restrictions started coming about due to violence and unlawfulness in towns, usually tied to drinking, gambling and prostitution.
Quote:You go ahead and take your chances. I'll continue my way and I'll be just fine.
Madness is allowing yourself to be disarmed with the belief that the government will protect you. It can't. It won't. You alone are responsible for you.
Disarming me is unnecessary, I've never owned a gun, nor have I been attacked. My home in Jacksonville was burglarized 3 times when I wasn't home. Ironically, my roommate's .38 was stolen during one of those burglaries.
My fear is being in a crowded public location and some nut starts shouting something crazy, reaches into his pocket and several well-meaning but untrained citizens open fire without regard to collateral damage.
Quote:I'm not missing anything. What you propose, a return to the Old West, where everyone is armed without restriction, registration or training, is madness.
I'm not sure how accurate it is but I read that many Old Western towns were relatively safe. It said that some of the "wildest" towns (Dodge City, Ellsworth, Wichita, etc.) had only 1 murder per year. I'm sure it isn't 100% accurate, but the same can be said for anything. Also, it spoke about towns that had highers murder rates also had almost nonexistent criminal activity (burglaries, robberies, rape, etc.).
The idea that the Old West was lawless came when people sometimes got a punishment far exceeding the crime as a result of their own behavior. Think a drunk fighting someone with a gun and getting shot.
Either way, assuming the murder rate is ... 20 times higher than reported, it'll still be safer than many of the safest places in the US today.
Quote:I'm not sure how accurate it is but I read that many Old Western towns were relatively safe. It said that some of the "wildest" towns (Dodge City, Ellsworth, Wichita, etc.) had only 1 murder per year. I'm sure it isn't 100% accurate, but the same can be said for anything. Also, it spoke about towns that had highers murder rates also had almost nonexistent criminal activity (burglaries, robberies, rape, etc.).
The idea that the Old West was lawless came when people sometimes got a punishment far exceeding the crime as a result of their own behavior. Think a drunk fighting someone with a gun and getting shot.
Either way, assuming the murder rate is ... 20 times higher than reported, it'll still be safer than many of the safest places in the US today.
Actually, my reference to the Wild West was a mistake on my part, in regards to assuming it was lawlessness I was talking about. I just can't see unfettered gun ownership working today as it did then, mainly because it is easier for bad guys to get guns than it was then, due to the economics of the times.
Quote:Disarming me is unnecessary, I've never owned a gun, nor have I been attacked. My home in Jacksonville was burglarized 3 times when I wasn't home. Ironically, my roommate's .38 was stolen during one of those burglaries.
My fear is being in a crowded public location and some nut starts shouting something crazy, reaches into his pocket and several well-meaning but untrained citizens open fire without regard to collateral damage.
I would have to question the "well-meaning but untrained citizens opening fire without regard to collateral damage" statement. Has an event such as this ever occurred? Name one incident where a "well-meaning but untrained citizen" gunned down a victim that was "collateral damage".
I would venture to say that most people who possess a Conceal Carry permit are very well trained (myself included).
Quote:JagNGeorgia, that may be part of the problem, but it is not the whole problem.
I won't pretend to know the answer. Problem is we have a hard enough time discussing it. To busy arguing why one side is right and the other isn't. I think both sides make good points.
I think there should be, at the very least, a US required gun course you have to take along with testing before owning a gun (other than say shot guns). I don't think as a whole we respect guns enough. Would this not be a start?
Do you not recognize other countries are doing a better job? It is a complicated issue and there is no one fix all solution. We can however look to other countries who are doing a better job. I think that is a reasonable approach.
I like the idea that people should be fully trained and well-versed on using their gun and self-defense laws. The problem, however, is that it will undoubtedly stop someone from getting a gun where that person would have otherwise been able to defend his or herself. You don't have to be a crack-shot if you're a female getting raped and the attacker is physically touching you. You also don't need to know State law for that to be an obvious self-defense situation.
Again, I like the idea if we take it at face-value. The problem arises when someone is put in charge of determining how "qualified" someone should become.
I think people absolutely respect guns. I find that people who don't quite understand the power / consequences of carrying a gun is often from people that adamantly oppose it. While I agree that it isn't where it should be, I don't agree that people "as a whole" don't respect them. I think, maybe, you're underestimating the overwhelming number of people who lawfully carry and never so much as use their gun.
I definitely see that other countries do better with gun-related crimes. I wish we were that successful. I've never seen a correlation with gun control and gun violence. I believe that those countries don't have the mental illness and education problems that we do. They routinely better educate their children and address mental illness far better than we do. Let's face it, you have to be a bit crazy to kill someone outside of self-defense. Those people are crazy before and after they kill someone. We never address these people, and I think that's where the problem should be resolved.
Quote:Actually, my reference to the Wild West was a mistake on my part, in regards to assuming it was lawlessness I was talking about. I just can't see unfettered gun ownership working today as it did then, mainly because it is easier for bad guys to get guns than it was then, due to the economics of the times.
Are you kidding me? It's easier for the bad guys to get guns today than back in the 1800's? Are you really serious?
During the days of the "wild west" (the later 1800's) it was common for pretty much every household to have firearms present. Most children that could hold a firearm, be it a handgun, rifle or a shotgun knew how to use it and how to handle it.
The "wild west" is more a figment of Hollywood than reality.
Yes, people in the days of the wild west carried firearms. However in many frontier towns you were simply not permitted to carry in public. Gunfights were rare in Frontier Towns during the days of the Wild West. They had more restrictive gun control than the laws that we have today. Some Frontier Towns also required you to check your gun in with the Sheriff when you came to town.
You know the famous shootout at the OK Corral? It was the local Sheriff and Marshall trying to enforce Gun Control. The Earp brothers were trying to disarm the Clanton gang.
So yeah, people owned guns back in those days (mostly for protection from bandits, which were far more common than they are today). But they certainly had gun control, and carrying in public was rarely allowed unless you were an officer of the law.
Quote:Are you kidding me? It's easier for the bad guys to get guns today than back in the 1800's? Are you really serious?
During the days of the "wild west" (the later 1800's) it was common for pretty much every household to have firearms present. Most children that could hold a firearm, be it a handgun, rifle or a shotgun knew how to use it and how to handle it.
The "wild west" is more a figment of Hollywood than reality.
You're talking, in general terms, about the "good guys" who owned guns. Property owners, families, etc. The sheer volume of guns available today trumps the old west by far.
Quote:Pistols are for self defense.
Sure. Rifles and shotguns are as well. Plus you can use them for other purposes like hunting.
Although the point is moot...if no one had pistols I would venture to guess crime would be way down.
Not gonna read all the pages so sorry if this has been discussed.
What is you southern folks opinion on the confederate flag? If you dont have a problem with it, do you have a problem with the swastica? Just cruious to see the reasoning in some of you.... people, heads.
On the gun issue. Obviously America has a problem. No other developed society has issues like this. And if you dont think the problem is the abundent availability and culture of guns im not gonna argue with you.
But it is way too late now to do anything. Even the strictest of policies which would never pass wont stop these things from happening jn the future. All thanks to an article in the constitution written when the only guns took a minute to load.
Quote:Sure. Rifles and shotguns are as well. Plus you can use them for other purposes like hunting.
Although the point is moot...if no one had pistols I would venture to guess crime would be way down.
So...you think there was less crime before the pistol was invented?
Quote:Not gonna read all the pages so sorry if this has been discussed.
What is you southern folks opinion on the confederate flag? If you dont have a problem with it, do you have a problem with the swastica? Just cruious to see the reasoning in some of you.... people, heads.
It's a free speech issue. If you aren't supportive of the right to exercise speech you disagree with then you aren't for free speech at all.
Quote:A. Australia already had a lower homicide rate overall than the US.
B. The vast majority of the reduction in the rate was suicides, not homicides.
C. Australia is an island nation with pretty stringent immigration policies that have been around for 200 years. Once they were loosened they started having violence problems that resulted in now infamous "stop the boats" policy.
D. The US already had a similar ban on automatic weapons.
So lowering suicide isn't worth it? Having no mashootings isn't worth it?
Not sure what immigration has to do with anything? And the boats are refugees not immigrants and has nothing to do with immigration policies.
Have you gun nuts ever travelled and learned about other countries? May realise society is a bit nicer...
Quote:So lowering suicide isn't worth it? Having no mashootings isn't worth it?
Not sure what immigration has to do with anything? And the boats are refugees not immigrants and has nothing to do with immigration policies.
Have you gun nuts ever travelled and learned about other countries? May realise society is a bit nicer...
To the first two, no it's not worth it.
Immigration makes a huge difference to the overall violence rate. Here is the States we have to worry about connected borders, we don't have the water to protect us like you do.
You make it sound like being a "gun nut" is a bad thing. Clearly a "gun nut" such as myself couldn't possibly have been exposed to the enlightenment that can only be found in foreign cultures.
Quote:It's a free speech issue. If you aren't supportive of the right to exercise speech you disagree with then you aren't for free speech at all.
That wasnt my question.
It doesnt make sense to me how a swastica would be viewed with vitriol by the same people who think the confederate flag is acceptable. I agree people have the right to free speech. But that is not the point here.
People like to argue the confederate flag has history and more meaning. But guess what? So does the swastica. But at the end of the day these symbols are directly remembered for tragic events in world history. Both should be viewed in the same way imo.
Quote:To the first two, no it's not worth it.
Immigration makes a huge difference to the overall violence rate. Here is the States we have to worry about connected borders, we don't have the water to protect us like you do.
You make it sound like being a "gun nut" is a bad thing. Clearly a "gun nut" such as myself couldn't possibly have been exposed to the enlightenment that can only be found in foreign cultures.
I'm sorry what is your point on immigration? So you think you need guns to protect yourself from gun wielding immigrants? You sound so paranoid, you really could do with experiencing other countries and cultures.
Quote:That wasnt my question.
It doesnt make sense to me how a swastica would be viewed with vitriol by the same people who think the confederate flag is acceptable. I agree people have the right to free speech. But that is not the point here.
People like to argue the confederate flag has history and more meaning. But guess what? So does the swastica. But at the end of the day these symbols are directly remembered for tragic events in world history. Both should be viewed in the same way imo.
My point isn't about the validity of the Stars and Bars, it's that everyone has the right to speak their mind (even if they come off as an idiot in doing so).