Revolvers for Everyone!

  • Thread starter Thread starter TinaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
if guns kill are responsible for killing people
pencils are responsible for misspelled words

satan and his demons attacked God, God attacked them back
satan and his demons attacked St Michael, St Michael drew his sword.
satan and his demons attack you, shoot them 🙂

people who break into houses dont do it to rob, they do home invasions now. they will tie you up, rape you and make your kids watch while they do it.

i build all my own rifles (ar, ak, m1a, shotguns on 870 platform).

im all about the 10mm pistol 🙂
 
25 years murder-free in ‘Gun Town USA’; Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents

Article dated April 19, 2007

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted.

In a column titled “Gun Town USA,” Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as “the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world.” Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.

Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: “When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.” Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

The Reuters story went on to report: “Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer.”

Virginia Tech, like many of the nation’s schools and college campuses, is a so-called “gun-free zone,” which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.

Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.
 
TinaG said:
I guess they could teach “Shooter’s Ed,” like Driver’s Ed. A fool with a car can kill many more people than an idiot with a gun. Most of the time, anyway.

-Tina “Support Your 2nd Amendment Rights” G:)
Click to expand...
This is an interesting point, especially when you realize that a car is really only a 1500 pound bullet with wheels.

The difference is that a car is used for much more in our day to day life than a gun is (with the possible exception of police and military)

I agree that the populous should be knowledgable as far as the proper use of firearms goes, but to ‘require’ people to carry is like requiring people to all drive 80 mph on the interstate all the time in all weather etc, just a bad idea.
 
Chris0711 said:
This is an interesting point, especially when you realize that a car is really only a 1500 pound bullet with wheels.

The difference is that a car is used for much more in our day to day life than a gun is (with the possible exception of police and military)

I agree that the populous should be knowledgable as far as the proper use of firearms goes, but to ‘require’ people to carry is like requiring people to all drive 80 mph on the interstate all the time in all weather etc, just a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Most people do not need cars. There is public transportation and bikes and walking. Lets face it kids use cars for recreational if not illicit purposes. If you have ever tried to drive the speed limit you will notice the vast majority of drivers deliberately use their cars to commit crimes every day. You will be hard pressed to find a speed limmit over 70, yet nearly every car will far exceed this deadly limmit.

In addition to the police and military there are the target shooters, hunters, and those who use guns daily for personal defense.

Even if not every one had a gun, knowing that a significant portion of the population was armed would discourage many crimes.
 
TinaG said:
This is a premise that I heard and I thought worthy of debate. I tend to lean against it because it sounds absurd.

The premise is that we would have a much safer country and a much more polite society if everyone was required to wear a loaded sidearm at all times.

One side seems to think people are capable of rational behavior and this would help us control ourselves. It would eliminate a number of crimes, particularly those in which a weapon is used as a means of exerting power over others.

The other side seems to think there would be a perpetual bloodbath.

What do you think? Why?

-Tina “Presently Unarmed” G:)
Click to expand...
I don’t know how safer a society we would have, but constitutionally we have a right as citizens to “bear arms.” But it wouldn’t necessarily make our society more polite, either. However, people would think twice about trespassing over another person’s rights if that person had a handy weapon. If you outlaw guns, then the only ones who will have them are the thugs and criminals. And I don’t know if having a weapon would necessarily eliminate crime. Criminals are going to commit them anyway. Then there’s “road rage.” What happens if it carries over to “gun rage”? I don’t think there’s an easy answer to this one
 
royal_archer said:
Most people do not need cars. There is public transportation and bikes and walking. Lets face it kids use cars for recreational if not illicit purposes. If you have ever tried to drive the speed limit you will notice the vast majority of drivers deliberately use their cars to commit crimes every day. You will be hard pressed to find a speed limmit over 70, yet nearly every car will far exceed this deadly limmit.

In addition to the police and military there are the target shooters, hunters, and those who use guns daily for personal defense.

Even if not every one had a gun, knowing that a significant portion of the population was armed would discourage many crimes.
Click to expand...
Using exceeding the speed limit as an example of committing a crime is not really applicable to the gun issue. The speed limits on highways are generally set too low, primarily because of the superficial reasoning used during some previous administration to reduce gasoline consumption by setting speed limits at 55 mph. So what you had was some bureaucrats restricting automobile usage based on some arbitrary bureaucratic one-size-fits-all criteria that they probably thought up during a coffee break.

The national 55 mph speed limit was established in 1974:

heritage.org/research/smartGrowth/bg532.cfm

If somebody says that most people do not need cars, then they obviously don’t have children or need to travel more than a few blocks or have to transport more than a knapsack of stuff at one time or travel in bad weather or they have a lot of free time and can wait around on the few public transportation routes. Outside of a very few high density urban areas, public transportation is inappropriate, irrevelant and not applicable.
 
wabrams said:
I think requiring everyone to be armed is foolish. I think gun safety should be mandatory in school to remove the curiousity from children and instill in them that you don’t touvh a firearm unless you are supervised by an adult. Personally, I think the gun laws in this country should be loosened. I think open carry should be perfectly legal if someone wants to, though I have no desire to do so myself.
Click to expand...
Gun laws have CAUSED the crime problem. It used to be that kids could actually bring guns to school for gun clubs and such. As guns became more restricted, only criminals carried guns. People who don’t abide the law don’t have a problem getting guns when guns are forbidden. Look, cars are dangerous, but we teach our kids to look both ways before crossing. And in rural areas, kids drive as soon as they can reach the pedals.
 
In a free society, every citizen has a responsibility to defend not only their own safety, but that of others. Making a 911 call is only a tiny portion of this duty. We have come to rely on government for our domestic safety. Having been in government for some years, I assure you that it cannot and will not provide for individual safety in every case. There is court precedent which states that government has no clear responsibility to the individual, but only to society as a whole. This stems from a case in which police failed to locate a prowler in a woman’s house. Said prowler subsequently has his way with her once police departed.

So, if the government has no affirmative duty to the individual, who then? You have insurance on both automobile and residence, correct? Responsibly arming oneself is but another form of insurance. It is neither mandatory nor, in most places, prohibited. It is, however, prudential in nature. The catechism of the Catholic Church, in sections 2263 and 2265, allows that defense of self and others is morally permissible and can be a grave duty of the individual.

In the 1970s, I remember seeing a comic strip entitled “Travels with Farley”. It dealt with a hip-looking man who was a newspaper reporter. In one memorable strip, Farley was on a public transit bus when a disgruntled passenger suddenly stood up and shouted “Nobody move. I have a gun!”. The other passengers displayed predictably shocked facial expressions. In the following panel, each of them also produced their own weapons and collectively shouted “So do we, so sit down!” The final panel revealed the miscreant to have taken his seat, with a frustrated expression on his face.
 
fultonfish said:
Using exceeding the speed limit as an example of committing a crime is not really applicable to the gun issue. The speed limits on highways are generally set too low, primarily because of the superficial reasoning used during some previous administration to reduce gasoline consumption by setting speed limits at 55 mph. So what you had was some bureaucrats restricting automobile usage based on some arbitrary bureaucratic one-size-fits-all criteria that they probably thought up during a coffee break.

The national 55 mph speed limit was established in 1974:

heritage.org/research/smartGrowth/bg532.cfm
Click to expand...
I was speeking to the intent of the individual. with speed limits people know it is wrong and they know that thousands are killed every year because of accidents involving speeding. But they choose to commit a crime that has a potentially deadly outcome. So my point still stands that people are more likely to break the law with their cars than their guns.
fultonfish said:
If somebody says that most people do not need cars, then they obviously don’t have children or need to travel more than a few blocks or have to transport more than a knapsack of stuff at one time or travel in bad weather or they have a lot of free time and can wait around on the few public transportation routes. Outside of a very few high density urban areas, public transportation is inappropriate, irrevelant and not applicable.
Click to expand...
I believe we have difference of opinion on where to draw the line between conveinence and necesity. This is an opinion that will be argued for the next millenia in one sense or another. But I hope we can agree that cars are not an absolute necesity, they only eleviate an unbearable inconveinence which is linked to the way we live our lives.
 
royal_archer said:
I was speeking to the intent of the individual. with speed limits people know it is wrong and they know that thousands are killed every year because of accidents involving speeding. But they choose to commit a crime that has a potentially deadly outcome. So my point still stands that people are more likely to break the law with their cars than their guns.

I believe we have difference of opinion on where to draw the line between conveinence and necesity. This is an opinion that will be argued for the next millenia in one sense or another. But I hope we can agree that cars are not an absolute necesity, they only eleviate an unbearable inconveinence which is linked to the way we live our lives.
Click to expand...
Highways are designed for relatively high speeds. The killing takes place when people insist on driving 50 mph in a local residential area where the town fathers have decreed a 25 mph zone. OR losing control of the car and careering into a crowd of shoppers on the sidewalk while changing the tune on the radio

The issue of convenience versus necessity is none of your business … unless you apply for and are hired to be the local dictator.
 
I think that if someone brandishes a gun to commit a crime, you have to assume the worst. They may only be after your wallet but the gun says otherwise, that they are willing to kill you to carry this out. In this situation it is no different than a home invasion and you are well within your rights to kill them instead. If carrying a pistol on your hip deters this in anyway then I’m all for it. It would almost certainly deter a man with a knife. Actually, loosening the concealed-weapon permit requirements might produce an equal deterrence, because the criminal could never know who was packing and who wasn’t.

But what about simple assaults? I could easily see an argument at a bar turning into a gunfight, wild-west style. If both men displayed weapons then both men would feel on an equal footing. The little dog could confidently challenge the big dog. Instead of a black-eye, though, he might end up with a sucking chest wound. Even simple disputes over property could lead to a deadly outcome, for the same reason. Then what would be the defense of the one who drew first, “Honest, officer, he went for his gun.” This is no way to live. I can imagine our prisons losing populations of actual criminals deterred from commiting their usual crimes only to be repopulated with otherwise law-abiding citizens found guilty of manslaughter.

I think we have to strike some sort of balance between order and chaos, and our current gun laws come very close to doing just that.
 
TinaG said:
This is a premise that I heard and I thought worthy of debate. I tend to lean against it because it sounds absurd.

The premise is that we would have a much safer country and a much more polite society if everyone was required to wear a loaded sidearm at all times.

One side seems to think people are capable of rational behavior and this would help us control ourselves. It would eliminate a number of crimes, particularly those in which a weapon is used as a means of exerting power over others.

The other side seems to think there would be a perpetual bloodbath.

What do you think? Why?

-Tina “Presently Unarmed” G:)
Click to expand...
When you think of it, death rates would skyrocket (both of people who are innocent and those who are the perpetrator). Since I don’t own any sidearms, nor do I plan on purchasing any, I could care less if they ban them their entirety.
 
po18guy said:
In a free society, every citizen has a responsibility to defend not only their own safety, but that of others. Making a 911 call is only a tiny portion of this duty. We have come to rely on government for our domestic safety. Having been in government for some years, I assure you that it cannot and will not provide for individual safety in every case. There is court precedent which states that government has no clear responsibility to the individual, but only to society as a whole. This stems from a case in which police failed to locate a prowler in a woman’s house. Said prowler subsequently has his way with her once police departed.

So, if the government has no affirmative duty to the individual, who then? You have insurance on both automobile and residence, correct? Responsibly arming oneself is but another form of insurance. It is neither mandatory nor, in most places, prohibited. It is, however, prudential in nature. The catechism of the Catholic Church, in sections 2263 and 2265, allows that defense of self and others is morally permissible and can be a grave duty of the individual.

In the 1970s, I remember seeing a comic strip entitled “Travels with Farley”. It dealt with a hip-looking man who was a newspaper reporter. In one memorable strip, Farley was on a public transit bus when a disgruntled passenger suddenly stood up and shouted “Nobody move. I have a gun!”. The other passengers displayed predictably shocked facial expressions. In the following panel, each of them also produced their own weapons and collectively shouted “So do we, so sit down!” The final panel revealed the miscreant to have taken his seat, with a frustrated expression on his face.
Click to expand...
But now the intruder can sue you if your method of protecting yourself is unequal to what he was attempting to use to murder you. I give up!
 
gamewell45 said:
When you think of it, death rates would skyrocket (both of people who are innocent and those who are the perpetrator). Since I don’t own any sidearms, nor do I plan on purchasing any, I could care less if they ban them their entirety.
Click to expand...
This work - as long as the government disarmed as well. Unarmed societies are not free.
 
fultonfish said:
Highways are designed for relatively high speeds. The killing takes place when people insist on driving 50 mph in a local residential area where the town fathers have decreed a 25 mph zone. OR losing control of the car and careering into a crowd of shoppers on the sidewalk while changing the tune on the radio.
Click to expand...
That is still breaking the law and does not undermine my assertion that auto drivers are more of a threat to break the law than gun owners.
fultonfish said:
The issue of convenience versus necessity is none of your business … unless you apply for and are hired to be the local dictator.
Click to expand...
So we agree in principle, no one should be telling me my guns are not a necessity.
 
This discussion is getting very interesting. Please leave your weapons at the door.

-Tina:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top