Revolvers for Everyone!

[royal_archer]

Wouldn’t you agree, though, that there are certain environments where everyone carrying a firearm would not be a good idea? I don’t mean to generalize, but most college students that I know or have known (myself included) I would not like to be around if they were armed.

There are environments not suited to being armed. For instance when engaged in sporting activities where a gun would get in the way such as physically demanding activities. There are also situations of which are on private property where the owner of that property, at their discresion, may decide that guns are innappropriate. However, at a public college in a classroom setting, the presense of guns does not create an inherrant risk. If you are afraid of the environment, stay away.

You appear to be saying that it is the people in the environment that is the issue. If someone can’t be trusted with a fire arm they should not be allowed to drive.

 

[Lycorth]

That’s exactly it. Most critics of firearms ownership are actually afraid of the environment and the people around them, and not so much the firearms themselves.

They often fail to realize that if they are armed as well, the playing field becomes more level, and they can protect themselves if need be.

 

[gamewell45]

Wouldn’t you agree, though, that there are certain environments where everyone carrying a firearm would not be a good idea? I don’t mean to generalize, but most college students that I know or have known (myself included) I would not like to be around if they were armed.

I wonder what the reaction would be from a a Priest, Minister or Rabbi, if he knew that a majority of the parishoners were armed in the house of worship?

 

[royal_archer]

I wonder what the reaction would be from a a Priest, Minister or Rabbi, if he knew that a majority of the parishoners were armed in the house of worship?

How would he react?.. calm with no sudden movements

…and piece be with you…and with you…and with you .

…of course we have a very high caliber chior at our church

I know that someone who is paranoid of guns may not find those funny but for most of us carring guns does not seem all that much more dangerous than carrying pocket knives.

 

[Lycorth]

Heh, good post, archer

Honestly, a priest would only have a problem if he were an anti-gun type. If he had more level-headed beliefs about firearms, he’d realize it more than likely posed no issue at all.

 

[Lujack]

That’s exactly it. Most critics of firearms ownership are actually afraid of the environment and the people around them, and not so much the firearms themselves.

They often fail to realize that if they are armed as well, the playing field becomes more level, and they can protect themselves if need be.

That implies that the people who don’t want firearms would ever want to carry a gun. If there’s a war and the United States is attacked, I supposed I’d go into the army and carry a gun, but I have no desire to go about my day with a firearm in my hand. Where I go to school, I feel pretty safe, and I’d feel less safe if I knew it was allowed for the fraternities next door to keep guns.

 

[rwillenborg]

If you truly think that having a well-armed society will make it safer, I suggest you take a visit to my old neighborhood in southwest Detroit.
Most everyone, from little old ladies to thugs, is armed.
For a while, the post office stopped delivering mail there because it was too unsafe.
But, hey, if that’s the kind of world you want to live in, have at it. There’s plenty of abandoned properties to move into!

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

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

A society without guns would be infinitely safer especially when enforced in every aspect of interaction. Guns were invented by men who desired a means to kill or maim. Science is capable of and even now is currently developing other means of restraint in tasar technology or anesthetics or adhesives which contain violent persons. Bullets are projectiles that penetrate and destroy human flesh and is an archaic method to stop crime and criminals. Containment is far more beneficial to society and so is restraints that do not harm the human person which alleviate the guilt complex which accompanies the act of killing. We all would benefit from new science which would stop violence before it occurs without harm to either the victim or the perpetrator.

 

[Lycorth]

That implies that the people who don’t want firearms would ever want to carry a gun. If there’s a war and the United States is attacked, I supposed I’d go into the army and carry a gun, but I have no desire to go about my day with a firearm in my hand. Where I go to school, I feel pretty safe, and I’d feel less safe if I knew it was allowed for the fraternities next door to keep guns.

That’s great that you have such a safe place to go to school and live.

Where I grew up, you could get shot just looking out of your door at the wrong time of the day. Day, not just night.

Until the Lord returns, there will be violent people in the world, and violence will need to be used to protect ourselves.

A society without guns would be infinitely safer especially when enforced in every aspect of interaction. Guns were invented by men who desired a means to kill or maim. Science is capable of and even now is currently developing other means of restraint in tasar technology or anesthetics or adhesives which contain violent persons. Bullets are projectiles that penetrate and destroy human flesh and is an archaic method to stop crime and criminals. Containment is far more beneficial to society and so is restraints that do not harm the human person which alleviate the guilt complex which accompanies the act of killing. We all would benefit from new science which would stop violence before it occurs without harm to either the victim or the perpetrator.

There is no such thing as stopping violence before it happens. This isn’t Star Trek and the real world doesn’t allow for such Pollyanna-ish responses to real world violence and thuggery. It’s admirable, to be sure, to want a world where firearms only have a place as museum pieces or for sport and target shooting and hunting, but it profits us ore to live in and adapt to the world as it is rather than the world as it does not.

I contrast where I used to live with where I am now. I used to live in a big city on the east coast, now I live in a small farming town in the midwest. Both places have widespread firearms ownership; mostly illegal in the former’s case and presumably legal in the latter. However, violent crime is more widespread in that big city because of the prevailing attitudes of violence and glorified gang mentality. In the midwest, where fewer such thugs roam the streets (indeed, where none even exist in my little town), there is no gun crime.

Firearms are never the problem. People, now as ever, are, and as long as there are violent, immoral people around, I will remain armed and pray that everyone else does the same.

 

[royal_archer]

That implies that the people who don’t want firearms would ever want to carry a gun. If there’s a war and the United States is attacked, I supposed I’d go into the army and carry a gun, but I have no desire to go about my day with a firearm in my hand. Where I go to school, I feel pretty safe, and I’d feel less safe if I knew it was allowed for the fraternities next door to keep guns.

I wouldn’t worry about a bunch of Frat boys with guns, instead worry about them driving.

 

[royal_archer]

If you truly think that having a well-armed society will make it safer, I suggest you take a visit to my old neighborhood in southwest Detroit.
Most everyone, from little old ladies to thugs, is armed.
For a while, the post office stopped delivering mail there because it was too unsafe.
But, hey, if that’s the kind of world you want to live in, have at it. There’s plenty of abandoned properties to move into!

and if you want to live somewhere where only the authrorities have weapons, consider Cuba or China.

 

[royal_archer]

A society without guns would be infinitely safer especially when enforced in every aspect of interaction. Guns were invented by men who desired a means to kill or maim. Science is capable of and even now is currently developing other means of restraint in tasar technology or anesthetics or adhesives which contain violent persons. Bullets are projectiles that penetrate and destroy human flesh and is an archaic method to stop crime and criminals. Containment is far more beneficial to society and so is restraints that do not harm the human person which alleviate the guilt complex which accompanies the act of killing. We all would benefit from new science which would stop violence before it occurs without harm to either the victim or the perpetrator.

Are you advocating that these instruments be available to all citizens at a price as reasonable as guns?

Also are these non lethal instruments as effective as fire arms for incapacitating multiple targets?

Are these non lethal instruments effective when confronting an enemy with traditional lethal weapons?

 

[chessmane4e5]

I say we go back to medieval times and have everyone wear a sword.

If we are going to have everyone wear a gun, they should at most be single shot revolvers, no one should need 5 or 6 shots

Seriously though, what we need is education not weapons. When I was younger, I would lose my temper and resort to violence (usually not against other people, but I do feel bad for those walls). When I finally “grew up” and learned to control my emotions, I realized how stupid my actions were.

Unfortunately, some people never grow up, those are the ones I would scared of having guns.

Even if more guns lowered the overall crime rate, the rate of violent would have to go up.

 

[royal_archer]

I say we go back to medieval times and have everyone wear a sword.

If we are going to have everyone wear a gun, they should at most be single shot revolvers, no one should need 5 or 6 shots

Seriously though, what we need is education not weapons. When I was younger, I would lose my temper and resort to violence (usually not against other people, but I do feel bad for those walls). When I finally “grew up” and learned to control my emotions, I realized how stupid my actions were.

Unfortunately, some people never grow up, those are the ones I would scared of having guns.

Even if more guns lowered the overall crime rate, the rate of violent would have to go up.

Unfortunately gun laws result in the disarming of the good guys and not the bad guys. If you are woried about gun crime and criminal uses of guns, get rid of the criminals and the guns will become a moot point.

 

[Lujack]

I wouldn’t worry about a bunch of Frat boys with guns, instead worry about them driving.

Gettysburg is a walking town. Even the grocery store and movie theaters are walkable. Even the liquor places are in walking distance, which is good for the safety of the people and the sanity of the police. Driving is for special occasions, and “drunk” is far from a special occasion on the Gettysburg campus for the fraternities.

 

[Newbie2]

There are environments not suited to being armed. For instance when engaged in sporting activities where a gun would get in the way such as physically demanding activities. There are also situations of which are on private property where the owner of that property, at their discresion, may decide that guns are innappropriate. However, at a public college in a classroom setting, the presense of guns does not create an inherrant risk. If you are afraid of the environment, stay away.

I am thinking more of the dorm on Friday or Saturday nights when the kegs get tapped.

You appear to be saying that it is the people in the environment that is the issue. If someone can’t be trusted with a fire arm they should not be allowed to drive.

So do you think our laws that prevent felons from carrying firearms should be changed to include driving? That’s the practical application of what you’re saying,no?

I wonder what the reaction would be from a a Priest, Minister or Rabbi, if he knew that a majority of the parishoners were armed in the house of worship?

There was a long, contentious thread on weapons in a house of worship a couple of months ago…

 

[royal_archer]

Gettysburg is a walking town. Even the grocery store and movie theaters are walkable. Even the liquor places are in walking distance, which is good for the safety of the people and the sanity of the police. Driving is for special occasions, and “drunk” is far from a special occasion on the Gettysburg campus for the fraternities.

They don’t go to the middle the battle field to drink any more? more than one party was held on the old observation tower before it was torn down.

 

[royal_archer]

So do you think our laws that prevent felons from carrying firearms should be changed to include driving? That’s the practical application of what you’re saying,no?

That probably wouldn’t be a bad idea, and expand it to the entire federal watch list and also make people go through a background check before buying or renting a vehicle.

 

[rwillenborg]

and if you want to live somewhere where only the authrorities have weapons, consider Cuba or China.

Do you think that’s what makes the US different from Cuba or China? That everyone can get a gun?

 

[TinaG]

-Tina “Just Listening” G