Right to bear arms

[Sophita]

[Adrian Magicent]

Honestly, I can't really say. I'd only be speculating on that. I didn't really post a lot of what I meant to say. I don't particularly want to get into argument with anybody. I meant it more as a point to aid discussion, since I thought it was lacking in the discussion now. But, to the basic issue, I don't like guns much. I don't think it's necessarily easy to have an accident anymore, though. I do, however, believe in the right to bear arms, but prefer swords, myself. Also, I find the benefits of carrying a gun for protection to be fringe. I see the issue best in the terms of defense against tyranical government.

[Noot]

[Sualtam Lugh]

"That's incredibly naive, I have to say."

Nut, that was a stupid thing to say. Her point is, while this SHOULD be how it is, it's unreachable. That's why it's still a problem. Of course it's a naive want. But she already knows that. And the drugs comment....well, I'll put it this way.....they have the right goal, but the delivery of how to get to that goal....*shakes head* No.

"Guns should be kept for hunting or for protection, and that reason alone."

I think they should just be kept for hunting. Make a less dangerous, but equally effective weapon for protection. We hunt to kill. We shouldn't need to kill, whilst protecting ourselves. Avoid casualties at all costs.

Edit: Changed all his/he to her(s)/she.

[St. Ajora]

[Sualtam Lugh]

Sorry about that. >< That's what happens when you don't stray far from your Country's forum, for a long period of time.

[Noot]

Sorry if I took your comment out of context. I was replying to my reply, and I didn't see any brackets. My apologies.

[Filipe]

The problem with finding a just as effective way of self defence that does not involve death does not exist. Home protection only goes so far and there are ways around that with few problems if you know how. I dont know how mind you but I think there are ways. Pepper spray, you have to get up close to them to use it and by the time you do they could have very easily shot you. Same goes with a baseball bat or anything else that isnt a projectile weapon.

You could say well why dont people use a bow and arrow, carrying a bow with a quiver of arrows as well. All I can say to that is, you know how dumb a person would look walking down the street with those? Not only that it's not very efficient in normal circumstances if you are facing someone with a gun. Thats the problem with finding an alternative mode of self defence. What they need to defend against is a gun, they havent made a useable weapon to combat a gun yet.
_________________

[St. Ajora]

But the thing is, what is everyone so scared of? Or whom?

I know the sillyness of that question, but it's coming from someone who lives in a province with about a million people. In New York city alone, there's like 16 mill, right? I guess all I can do is shake my head. But sometimes, to an outsider, it looks like people are being way too paranoid.

[Lunarblade]

[Sophita]

[Lunarblade]

[Noot]

It's not that people are scared of the average joe-blow walking down the street, because you're right, crime has been dropping steadily in this new millenium (in America) and people here are probably safer than they've been in quite some time. So it's not that people are going out thinking there's a criminal lurking in every shadow looking to mug them, it's that they should be allowed the freedom to protect themselves in case such an unlikely situation occurs.

It's like an umbrella. A person might wish to always have an umbrella handy just in case it happens to rain. Even if Al Roker says everything is clear in your neck of the woods, there should still be nothing wrong with carrying an umbrella for your own peace of mind, right?
_________________
~~Harmonian Tenhei Star~~

It's hard to bargle naudle zauss with all these marbles in my mouth.

[Sualtam Lugh]

The difference between an umbrella and a gun is that....well, you can't easily kill a man with an umbrella (Shaddap, that's not the issue at hand. You know what context I mean this in.) as opposed to a gun, which is a weapon. It doesn't have a practical, everyday use, like an umbrella. You use an umbrella to protect from rain. You use a gun to protect yourself. Fine. But if you take away the guns...that would reduce violence. If you don't take it, you can't use it. But if you do bring it, you run the risk of having to use it, which would lead to trouble that doesn't need to happen.

....What I'm trying to say is that, guns are more destructive than constructive. They kill more than they save.

[Filipe]

You also have to remember is, that if you dont bring a gun you run just as much risk of running into a situation where you would need to use it but didnt bring it. The situation probabilities are just as likely both way whether you have a gun or not for those with self control. I mean naturally, if you are insanely paranoid, then you have no buisiness having a gun in the first place. It's those people who have the probability of shooting off a gun for no reason when thinking they are in danger. I mean with me if I chose to carry a gun around for my own protection, I would use it only if I needed it and then only if approached with a weapon.

You can't ban all guns for personal use just because a minor portion of said legal owners cant handle having one. Besides everyone knows criminals have guns and are willing to use them so why not have one to assure that if they come after you, you will have a better chance of fighting back. If a criminal comes after you to cause some sort of harm and you kill them in the process then you are in the right. Sure they will be dead and it will be seen as violence but, to defend against violence sometimes violence is nessasary. I mean look at the war on terror. The army is fighting against the terrorists to ensure or try to ensure that the US is not attacked again.
_________________