13-Yeal Old Boy Abducts Stripper

Beautiful ideas or theories all of them. JE makes a good point take away firearms and the hunter is left resorting to spears, arrows and traps yes they are all effective but not near so as a gun. Will the grocery stores and quick marts remain open forever, a never ending supply of over priced food until the day we, our children, and grandchildren die? No one can say for sure. Therefore firearms are not just a want, theyre a need.


Criminals and homicidal maniacs will posess firearms for years to come regardless of all gun production stopping this very minute. You can count on the fact they will be produced illegally and they will be used, regardless of what law states. The day an intruder is in your home at 2:30 in the morning is the day you will never be left without a firearm by your bedside again.


Dont be fooled into believing not having a gun will prevent an armed and dangerous intruder with deranged intentions from brutally murdering you and all you love. It happens everyday and night those unarmed wish they were armed, that is if they survive. The damage is done, firearms litter the streets dont be left with your pants down when your home is being invaded by armed assailants high on crack or crystal meth. These days criminals murder for fun, and profit its a game to them if you dont believe it just switch on the evening news if you can bear to watch for that long... the details lie therein. No, criminals dont discriminate and they are usually well armed and half insane. I'd never go to a knife fight carrying a hair brush, would you?

 

And people who ARE armed can be killed too.


Let's take a simple scenario: you're fast asleep, a noise awakens you. Assume you're clear-headed and know from the instant you wake up an intruder is in your house and means you harm.


You go get the key to where your gun is locked up, and while your getting your gun, do you say to the intruder who is rushing at you "hold on a sec. I haven't got my gun out yet"?


Back in the 30's many people owned guns and carried around with them, even little old ladies. When WW II ended, England banned all handguns. The penalty was 10 years in jail and a huge fine.


The first couple of people arrested/charged were given the max. sentence to prove the gov't meant business.


Within a few years, handguns were a rarity.


Can we ever get rid of ALL handguns? Of course not. But we can stop most gun violence by banning handguns, since most criminals buy guns that have been stolen from legal owners.


A partial solution is being tested right now. A small 'chip' that could easily fit onto a ring or bracelet. Anyone not wearing the ring or bracelet that matches the specific firearm cannot operate it.

 

QUOTE

You go get the key to where your gun is locked up, and while your getting your gun, do you say to the intruder who is rushing at you "hold on a sec. I haven't got my gun out yet"?

...a firearm designated for "Home defense" is pretty much useless if stored in such a manner. Ammuntion locked up in a seperate area from a locked up gun may be ideal for storage 'n such, but my "weapon of choice" against a home invasion(a model 870 assault shotgun)has it's home leaning against the headboard, right beside the nitestand, alternate loads of "00" buck and rifled slugs.
"No waitin' in line here folks, come on in"


QUOTE

A partial solution is being tested right now.  A small 'chip' that could easily fit onto a ring or bracelet.  Anyone not wearing the ring or bracelet that matches the specific firearm cannot operate it.

...I'm not much for jewlery, thanks anyway

The anti-gun faith commonly characterize defensive gun ownership as
"paranoid."

What paranoid means in this context
is not entirely clear?at least today. It may now be no more than a psych-jargon dressed expression of abhorrence of defensive gun ownership.
But what paranoid literally conveys is a view that was common among American intellectuals up
to about a decade ago. In that view, the extent of crime had been vastly exaggerated as a result of
public hysteria; crime was neither increasing nor dangerous nor pervasive enough to justify being
armed.Such a precaution so far exceeded the real level of danger as to be an irrational overreaction.

Thus, it may be useful to compare defensive gun ownership to another kind of precaution that is
generally deemed sensible. Conventional wisdom considers homeowners who buy earthquake
insurance not paranoid but prudent, especially in California, even though such insurance runs at least
$2.00 per $1,000.00 valuation, or $300.00 annually (for a middle class dwelling costing about
$150,000.00 at California prices).

Over a ten year period the homeowner will pay $3,000.00 in
earthquake insurance premiums. In contrast, a used Smith & Wesson .38 special revolver, which will
last forever with proper maintenance, costs perhaps $150.00. Yet the likelihood of an average
American household (much less one in a high crime area) suffering burglary or robbery over that
periodis roughly ten times greater than the chance of injury from all natural disasters (such as flood,
earthquake, hurricane, or tornado) combined.

Can defensive gun ownership be deemed an irrational overreaction if it is reasonable to pay
twenty times as much to insure against a danger less than one tenth as likely? The gun owner might
even argue that his weapon is a better investment in that it may actually avert the anticipated harm
while insurance only recoups its costs. Some may object that insurance is not comparable to a gun
since insurance always pays off, but whether gun ownership protects against crime is a matter of
controversy. While this may be true, it does not suggest that gun owners are paranoid. If the
empirical evidence discussed infra proves the gun owner's faith in the weapon's protective efficacy
to be wrong, then wrong is what it is?not paranoid. That gun ownership does not represent so
exaggerated a perception of the crime problem as to constitute irrational overreaction is made evident
by the now well accepted view that crime makes life significantly more dangerous in the United
States than it is in many other countries.

Moreover, if fear of crime equates to paranoia, why then
does the mental health of gun owners actually appear to be superior to that of non-owners? Because
gun owners feel more confident about their ability to deal with crime, studies find them less
frightened of crime than are non-gun owners living in the same areas

Typical of cases enunciating the non-responsibility of the police for protecting individual
citizens is Warren v. District of Columbia

in which three rape victims sued the city and its police
department. Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard men who had broken in downstairs
attacking their roommate. After half an hour they assumed the police must have arrived in response
to their repeated phone calls and went to check on their roommate. In fact, their calls had somehow
been lost in the shuffle while the intruders beat their roommate into silent acquiescence. So when
the roommates went downstairs, as the court's opinion graphically describes it, "the women were
held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to
submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers for the next fourteen hours.

The court exonerated the District of Columbia and its police, as was clearly required by the
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty
to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

As the phrase "fundamental principle of American law" suggests, this holding is not some
legal aberration unique to the District of Columbia. It is universal, being enunciated by formal statute
as well as judicial decision in many states.

Nor is it simply a cynical ploy for government to avoid
just liability. The proposition that individuals
must be responsible for their own immediate
safety,with police providing only a general deterrent, is inherent in any society. Consider the matter
just in terms of the number of New York City women who seek police protection each year. To
bodyguard just those women would exhaust the resources of the nation's largest police department,
leaving no officers available for street patrol, traffic control, crime detection, apprehension of
perpetrators, responding to emergency calls, and so on.

Given what New York courts have called
But it bears emphasis by reiteration that
the term "anti-gun" is not used here to describe mere support for gun control; rather it is used only in its most literal sense: cultural
or moral revulsion against guns and their owners, and concomitantly against gun use in self-defense. It also bears emphasis that most
Americans are not anti-gun in this sense, yet are "pro-control" in perceiving a need for rational control of deadly weaponry. June1976. This81%figurewasabout 250%
greater than the 33% of the population who then owned guns. "[t]here is no evidence suggesting" that gunowners are "an especially unstable or violent
or maladapted lot; their 'personality profiles' are largely indistinct from the rest of the population.")
the police cannot be made responsible for protecting the
individual citizen. Providing such protection is up to the threatened individual, not the police.

...from Australias gun ban..

Critics of the gun ban believe the overall increase in violent crime is due to the lack of availability of firearms for protection.

Australian citizen Kerri Dickinson writes, "guns are now only available to those who are the least responsible, those who are able to buy them illegally through the black market. I had to hand in my grandfather's gun he used in the war. It was modified so that it was useless and harmless, but it was illegal for me to have it. There's now a blank spot over my fireplace where it used to be. I feel I have the right to have some sort of defence. I'm not even allowed to use the hairspray in my bag as self defence - I might damage the poor bugger's eyes if I do! My dog isn't even allowed to attack a burglar in my own house! I found this out when I was burgled . . . and the [guy] sued me because my dog took a chunk out of his leg while he was in my yard. I had to pay his medical expenses!"

I could go on-and-on-and-on...but there is plenty of statisrics/theories supporting or condemning either side of the argument, easily found with a click on "search".
Fact is, very little can be said to alter anyone's set opinions. If you're in favor of the banning of handguns, your argument falls on deaf ears here, likewise, I'm up here on my "soapbox" preaching only to the choir...

(Edited by Hicountry2 at 5:17 am on Nov. 26, 2004)

 

So... because it's so bad we should just keep making handguns?


THAT... is the solution?


We gotta start somewhere. Anything worth having or changing requires a grace period. In theory a couple of hoemowners may die in the early stages. A small price looking at the big picture. Execute the culprit. Make a huge example of them. In time this could be a huge detterent. Is it flawed? Of course! The solution is a long & winding road. But for Jeezus H. Christ's sake, doing nothing & being fooled by the gun Co's puppet organization... the NRA doesn't make sense. Are they looking out for us? Do they give a rat's ass about the constitution? HELL NO! Its' about profits & what propaganda works in this 50 state Dodge-City, country of ours.


Charelton Heston says more guns at Columbine would've eliminated that level of voilence. More guns! Yeah that's it.


All firearms should not be banned. Handguns are for high noon showdowns, criminals, law enforcement, target practice, home protection & lunatics who have to overcompensate for some defficiency in their lives (I personnaly know 2) From that list, law enforcement is the only neccessity.


Hunting, target practice, drooling while polishin up yer piece.... can all be achieved with a rifle.


Someone said we won't change anyone's minds, sad but true. America is all about $$ and how we can be manipulated.


A lifetime of beliefs, generally passed down from father to son etc. is a strong case. The constitution, a faded action hero even our own damn presidents are highly effective tools, masterfully weilded. "Why we couldn't overthrow our gov't without our weapons! That's our right!!" How ignorant. The gov't is owned by these groups. If you believe they're looking out for you & yours over their personal gains & agenda... well, I got some $2800.00 an oz. dirtweed for ya.


If folks don't wake up we'll be arming our teachers & babysitters with that mentality,


while we sit in prison for growing a plant!


(Farenhiet 9/11 isn't out on cable yet, I did see Bowling for Columbine )

 

a fully auto glock. i hate glockz, very bad imo. did any1 know dat @ 1 point da gov't wuz gunna outlaw glockz, but dick cheney wuz da leadin spokesman 2 keep em legal? this issue wuz in da 1st election. glock has been a problem 4 a while bcuz of itz ease 2 get on2 airplanes. very odd dat glock iz still available. a person can own a glock, but dbl sided clips r illegal? does it really matter how many shots u fire on a plane? stop makin glockz- btw glockz jamm frequently when itz manipulated 2 b fully auto.