What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

very, very good news...............

  • #41
in Bobbitts case even if a gun was availible she would have still used the knife.....had she wanted to kill him she could have with the knife....prolly would have been alot easier to do than what she did do.....

so by the same arguement you want to outlaw alcohol because someone might drive drunk and kill someone even though 99.9% of the users of alcohol never do? the statistics are the same for guns....there are about 44 million gun owners in the US and less than 60,000 gun related deaths in a year........infact gun owners records are prolly better than ppl who drink alcohol....
 
  • #42
It is said that, "Guns don't kill. People do." But what are people using to kill? They use whatever they have available. If it's a gun... they use it. In a headline from last year a totally fed up pastor's wife used the gun in the house to kill her husband. Why was the gun there in the first place.... self defense? Protection? From whom? Well I'm sure the pastor wasn't thinking his old lady would do him in!

If you think about it, you're using the same argument that pro gun people use. Somebody that is intent on killing somebody will do it with something else if theres no gun around. The gun is a tool they use to kill, the same as a knife or a car or whatever.


I think the fact that Lorena Bobbit used a knife instead of a gun, proves that the laws against the mentally insane can own a gun works to some degree. Have you ever heard her talk? That chick is crazy.

Man, if she had a gun handy, instead of a pair of scissors

Hey man shoot me anyday. I'd much rather be shot. I've been shot before and I still rather take a bullet.
 
  • #43
there are about 44 million gun owners in the US and less than 60,000 gun related deaths in a year.

A big majority of that 60,000 is probably done by illegal guns.
 
  • #44
I'd ban alcohol, too! Obviously, human beings are too stupid to refain from doing destructive things, either to themselves or to others.

Why don't we give people nukes, while we're at it. People don't think straight when they're drunk, angry, or with their blood rushing to the wrong parts of their anatomies!
 
  • #45
People don't think straight when they're drunk, angry, or with their blood rushing to the wrong parts of their anatomies!

and no matter how much stuff you take away or how thickly you wrap someone up in bubble wrap armor you aint going to stop it....one study shows that guns are used to prevent crimes over 2 million times a year in the US, the overwelming majority never fire a single shot, just brandishing the firearm is enough to deescilate the situation over 90% of the time......it is estimated that women use guns over 200,000 times a year to defend themselves agains sexual abuse.......granted this is via pro gun websites but even the anti gun Clinton administration admitted it was prolly around 1.5 million though likely not 2 million.....also armed civilians shoot more criminals than cops(1,527 to 606), and while cops shoot some one due to mistaken identity in 11% of shootings, civilians have only been wrong 2% of the time........i would rather have a law abiding citizen point a gun at me than a cop in a case of mistaken identity.......i have a better chance not getting shot by the citizen.....
 
  • #46
And I'd rather keep the guns away from all human beings! We're way too stupid!!! We may actually use them on each other!
 
  • #47
And I'd rather keep the guns away from all human beings! We're way too stupid!!! We may actually use them on each other!
We should also ban knives while we're at it. I attended a soccer match in Leeds in the 1990s where two people were stabbed in the abdomen and a third hit in the thigh with a dart. Oh, ban the dart -- not to mention the pint cup urine missiles from the opposing team.

"Tough darts," as they say . . .
 
  • #48
if we are to stupid to have guns, than we are to stupid to have cars........even with 44 million ppl in this country having guns your far more likly to be killed by a car......actually when it comes to what might kill Joe Citizen in a given year.....guns are WAY down on the list......second hand smoke kills way more.....obesity kills way more........hell the number of guns in this country is at an all time high but violent crime is at a 30 year low....there is zero corilation to the number of guns availible to the amount of violent crim.....
 
  • #49
Yeah but very few people intentionally use a car as a weapon. I'd ban cigarettes, too!!!!!!!!
 
  • #50
I attended a soccer match in Leeds in the 1990s where two people were stabbed in the abdomen and a third hit in the thigh with a dart.

And if every fan at the match had a gun, would the two stabbings and the "darting" have been prevented? Although that's the kind of thing that gun advocates insist would occur, it's very difficult for me to even imagine. Soccer in the UK and many other parts of the world elevates human emotion to a level approaching hatred (and maybe even reaching it) for the other team and its fans. Tens of thousands of riled up fans of opposing teams in the same stadium, in combination with guns -- it's a recipe for disaster.
 
  • #51
Having everybody armed at a soccer match where everybody is drunk and hate the other team has no relation to having a gun in your home to protect your family.
 
  • #52
And if every fan at the match had a gun, would the two stabbings and the "darting" have been prevented? Although that's the kind of thing that gun advocates insist would occur, it's very difficult for me to even imagine. Soccer in the UK and many other parts of the world elevates human emotion to a level approaching hatred (and maybe even reaching it) for the other team and its fans. Tens of thousands of riled up fans of opposing teams in the same stadium, in combination with guns -- it's a recipe for disaster.

and no one is saying give all of them guns, but if such ppl want a gun to protect themselves in their home, doing some target shooting and maybe hunting.....where is the issue....hell even in Montana where we have extreamly lax gun laws, even if i have a concealed carry permit(which means i get finger printed, have a full background check AND need the county sheriff to sign off on it) i still cant carry said firearm into a school, bank or i believe establishment such as a bar where hard alcohol is served(though i think a resturant with a beer/wine licence is ok)
 
  • #53
Is there any law in any state that restricts guns to an owner's home, or to target shooting or hunting? If there is, does it work?
 
  • #54
well there was in DC till yesterday....a lawsuit has been filed in Chicago over it yesterday after the SC desision....im sure one is sure to follow in New York City as well as in others....Atlanta comes to mind as another.......the bans did nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns but it made criminals out of ppl who's only intent was to have a firearm in their house that was easily accesible for defence....Heller was willing to go through a permit process to get a gun to defend himself in his own home and DC refused to allow him that....so it went to court and worked its way up to the supreme court that said DC HAS to allow him to be able to protect himslef in his own house with a handgun.....
 
  • #55
I think you need to read again the DC law that was struck down. But it seems that your misconceived notion of the DC law is what you are supporting -- at times, anyway.

if such ppl want a gun to protect themselves in their home, doing some target shooting and maybe hunting.....where is the issue....
 
  • #56
i think you misunderstand......the DC law that was struck down stated that handguns are illegal with in city limits and any long guns outside of a safe must either be disassembled OR have a trigger lock........
 
  • #57
scotus-01-1.jpg

scotus-02.jpg

scotus-03.jpg


it says:

the second amendment applies to the individual and not the militia

preventing law abiding citizens that meet the federal requirements for owning a handgun to keep one in their home is unconstitutional

requiring the use of trigger locks with in a persons home is unconstitutional

cant spell it out any better for you.....it aint me that is misunderstanding what was done....
 
  • #58
Is there any law in any state that restricts guns to an owner's home, or to target shooting or hunting?

well there was in DC till yesterday.


According to your citation, the DC law did NOT allow Heller to have a handgun in his home.
 
  • #59
sorry was trying to work while doing this....misread your post thought it said restricted handguns from being in an individuals house........no state says certain firearms cant enter your house but you can have them but some cities say even some of the more basic firearms you cant own or tells you how they must be kept in your house......
 
  • #60
Like others have said, banning guns from law abiding, permit obtained citizens does nothing but hurt those who follow the law. Criminals know that law abiding citizens won't have a gun to defend themselves, and that gives them the upper hand.

What's the crime rate in Texas these days? I bet they have a lower crime rate that places like the east coast. They bare arms, and now they can even use them on someone trying to steal their cars.

Jimscott:

I understand you're a family man right? If some criminal one day threatened to hurt/kill your family and they had a gun, what would you do about it being unarmed? Ever see the movie "The Punisher", where the guys family gets all shot up? Obviously this isn't the movies but you get my point.
 
Back
Top