Strong Reason to Retain the Second Amendment

[arnisador]

I agree. However disarming the populace would not be an option for them. The guns are as much to protect us from criminals and foreign invaders as they are to protect us and this countries ideals from a possibility of a corrupt government.

I'm not looking for disarmament. I doubt they would take that approach either but I'm sure they'd try to do something about the problem.

 

[arnisador]

They damn sure would have asked why no one else was armed. If you believe different, you haven't read their writings on firearms.

I don't think it's that simple--if the saw what was happening today, with the capabilities now available to kill many people quickly.

 

[arnisador]

Now, imagine if there were no guns at all...would these crimes have not happened...of course not...they would still happen. The criminals would simply change tools or attack in larger numbers and pick weaker, more defensless targets...BUT THE ATTACKS WOULD STILL HAPPEN

Not in the same numbers. Don't you think guns make crime easier?

What the gun grabbers are saying is that those 533,470 people, which we know of through these stats...should not defend themselves with the most effective tool, but should submit to their attackers and endure whatever those attackers decide to inflict on them...

WAIT! Guns are legal now, and those people were victimized. They could've been openly carrying an AR-15 in each hand in most places. Your system is already not working, by your own analysis.

 

[Big Don]

I don't think it's that simple--if the saw what was happening today, with the capabilities now available to kill many people quickly.

You're right, they would likely be outraged that any weapon/weapon system was denied the public

 

[Tgace]

capabilities now available to kill many people quickly.

A capability that's not happening to any statistical relevance....

 

[Drasken]

I'm not looking for disarmament. I doubt they would take that approach either but I'm sure they'd try to do something about the problem.

I truely believ that YOU are not looking for disarmament. But you ignore the fact that many of these people are. And if, for example, a government registration of all firearms was in place, a corrupt and tyrannical government would start by rounding up all firearms to put down any threat of resistance.
You say it can't happen here, but it can. I'm not saying it will. I'm saying it increases the danger that it COULD happen. If we're talking about stopping history from repeating itself, why increase the risk of a very real and catastrophic occurrence on an entire population for a response to a couple horrible, but statistically insignifigant, occurances?
There are other ways to deal with this problem that have not been explored. Or even talked about. But the problem is that you, and many like you, are thinking quick fix and short term. While opposing those trying to point out long term issues and risks that are being ignored.

 

[arnisador]

You're right, they would likely be outraged that any weapon/weapon system was denied the public

Oh yeah, Thomas "Nukes for All" Jefferson would want that. Good guess. Ben Franklin could go into business making nerve gas for home defense use.

 

[arnisador]

A capability that's not happening to any statistical relevance....

...and yet you don't want it taken away? Is it relevant, or not?

 

[arnisador]

There are other ways to deal with this problem that have not been explored. Or even talked about.

I'm listening.

 

[Drasken]

I'm listening.

Several ideas have been thrown out there already in other threads. Ideas that you ignored or didn't pay attention to in order to pick apart one statement.

I agree that things can and should be done. But we can't rush into it. We have to think short term goals AND long term. If not there are severe risks and consequences.
Take prohibition for example. Alcohol is illegal. Should cut down on drunken fights, drunken domestic violence, drunk driving, immoral behavior... Only it didn't do very well in practice. Criminals still had booze, and citizens became criminals who went to other criminals to get it.
It also started a thriving organized crime wave.

It was a short term solution to perceived problems, that had unforseen and long lasting concequences. The gun control legislation is being pushed through with no review, few if any reading it, and no thought to long term issues.
THAT my friend is bad. Logically you can hopefully see that?

I'm not going to sit here and look up all the things that others, and myself, have Listed as alternatives in other threads. But there are many options. Lots of constitutionally acceptable ones. But I would have issues with ANY laws being passed without careful consideration. Even ones that we have suggested.

 

[Tgace]

Alcohol is probably at the root of more death and destruction in this nation than ANY other item. Want to try prohibition again?

 

[arnisador]

Several ideas have been thrown out there already in other threads. Ideas that you ignored or didn't pay attention to[...]I'm not going to sit here and look up all the things that others, and myself, have Listed as alternatives in other threads.

No no, this is what you said:

There are other ways to deal with this problem that have not been explored. Or even talked about.

What are the things that have not yet been talked about?

 

[Drasken]

No no, this is what you said:



What are the things that have not yet been talked about?

It is true. What other options have been explored or discussed on a governmental level?

 

[Drasken]

Alcohol is probably at the root of more death and destruction in this nation than ANY other item. Want to try prohibition again?

My grandfather always said that as a police officer he would rather see people smoking weed than drinking. Inevitably when you have a domestic disturbance it likely involves alcohol. Fights at a bar involve drunk idiots. And it is dangerous to deal with drunks because once they become violent they are usually fairly indiscriminate when it comes to who that violence is directed at.

 

[celtic_crippler]

What are the FBI stats. on self-defense with guns?

Some accumulated stats and facts for your reading pleasure: https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

A few highlights:

• Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. 1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. 2
  • The overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3
• As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
• Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."
• Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense.
• Criminals avoid armed citizens: Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89%

Now, based on that last fact, would you like it if we were crusading to force you to own a gun? I’m not. I don’t presume to know what’s best for you. I’d appreciate the same respect in kind. You know, the whole “do unto others” thing? That’s a major aspect of what separates liberal gun-grabbers from the rest of us.