Alliedassault - View Single Post - Taking the kids to the gun range to shoot

Colonel · 08-14-2002, 07:47 AM

Nice thread guys. I love a lively discussion. Great post Rudedog. FWB, I couldn't disagree with you more. You say that the most important issue is the "if one life can be saved" theory. If you use this logic, you should encourage gun ownership. As I stated before, the statistics show that guns save more lives than they take. The US government has conducted at least ten studies on this in the last fifteen years, most conducted by an administration that was trying to draw the opposite conclusion, and EVERY study proved that guns save lives. You site gun banning as a solution in Britian. However, crime has increased since the ban.

You mention accidental deaths and of course, this is always tragic. The number of accidental deaths in the US is extremely small. (and in fact is at an all time low in the US). Far less than the number of kids who get into their mom's cleaning supplies and drink something they shouldn't, or the number of kids killed on bikes, or the number of kids killed because their parents didn't make them wear a seatbelt, etc. I know your argument that guns were designed to kill and that makes them different. I somewhat disagree, guns are designed to propel a projectile at a high velocity. Where you aim that projectile is up to you. Some guns are designed solely as good target shooters, but could kill if misused. There are many things in our modern world that are dangerous. Should we ban them all? I understand that in Australia, crime with knives went up are the gun ban and that now there is a movement to ban some knives. Where does it end?

A few additional comments about previous posts: The statement that most people are killed by their own guns is false. The fact is that guns are used more times to prevent a crime than they are to commit a crime. The statement that we would not have any mass school killings in the US if we banned guns, unfortunately, may be false also. The boys in Columbine, Colorado also had homemade bombs. I think if a kid wants to take out several people at his school, he doesn't need a gun to do it.

I think discussing crime statistics and accidental deaths, or whether guns should be allowed only for hunting etc. is irrelevant. The discussion should be about whether or not a human being has a fundamental right to certain freedoms. In America we have many freedoms and they are not always popular. One of the posts says that freedom of speech is the best freedom that we have. But this freedom too, is not always popular and can incite people to kill. If we allowed our police to bust into any house and search it, we might be able to "save one life" but freedom from search and seizure is a human right so we have laws against it. The point is that we must defend our freedoms, even the ones that aren't popular, or we will slowly descend into a society with no freedom. Freedoms are not taken from us in big steps but are whittled away over time. The events of 9/11 have many people talking about the necessity to give up a few freedoms in the name of safety. I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson (I'm not sure, it was one of the Founding Fathers) that said, "A people that gives up their freedom in the name of safety, deserves neither freedom nor safety." Once a freedom is taken away it is almost impossible to get it back. It becomes accepted not to have it. If we ban and confiscate all guns, do you think the people that really shouldn't have them are going to just turn them in? No. I have a couple of guns in my house, but not a single bullet. Do these guns pose a threat to anyone? No. Right now they are just attractive paper weights.

Ok, I think I've vented enough. No more posts from me. (except to correct errors in facts maybe)

	(#11)
Colonel is Offline Master Sergeant Posts: 1,789 Join Date: May 2002 Location: Marietta, GA	08-14-2002, 07:47 AM Nice thread guys. I love a lively discussion. Great post Rudedog. FWB, I couldn't disagree with you more. You say that the most important issue is the "if one life can be saved" theory. If you use this logic, you should encourage gun ownership. As I stated before, the statistics show that guns save more lives than they take. The US government has conducted at least ten studies on this in the last fifteen years, most conducted by an administration that was trying to draw the opposite conclusion, and EVERY study proved that guns save lives. You site gun banning as a solution in Britian. However, crime has increased since the ban. You mention accidental deaths and of course, this is always tragic. The number of accidental deaths in the US is extremely small. (and in fact is at an all time low in the US). Far less than the number of kids who get into their mom's cleaning supplies and drink something they shouldn't, or the number of kids killed on bikes, or the number of kids killed because their parents didn't make them wear a seatbelt, etc. I know your argument that guns were designed to kill and that makes them different. I somewhat disagree, guns are designed to propel a projectile at a high velocity. Where you aim that projectile is up to you. Some guns are designed solely as good target shooters, but could kill if misused. There are many things in our modern world that are dangerous. Should we ban them all? I understand that in Australia, crime with knives went up are the gun ban and that now there is a movement to ban some knives. Where does it end? A few additional comments about previous posts: The statement that most people are killed by their own guns is false. The fact is that guns are used more times to prevent a crime than they are to commit a crime. The statement that we would not have any mass school killings in the US if we banned guns, unfortunately, may be false also. The boys in Columbine, Colorado also had homemade bombs. I think if a kid wants to take out several people at his school, he doesn't need a gun to do it. I think discussing crime statistics and accidental deaths, or whether guns should be allowed only for hunting etc. is irrelevant. The discussion should be about whether or not a human being has a fundamental right to certain freedoms. In America we have many freedoms and they are not always popular. One of the posts says that freedom of speech is the best freedom that we have. But this freedom too, is not always popular and can incite people to kill. If we allowed our police to bust into any house and search it, we might be able to "save one life" but freedom from search and seizure is a human right so we have laws against it. The point is that we must defend our freedoms, even the ones that aren't popular, or we will slowly descend into a society with no freedom. Freedoms are not taken from us in big steps but are whittled away over time. The events of 9/11 have many people talking about the necessity to give up a few freedoms in the name of safety. I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson (I'm not sure, it was one of the Founding Fathers) that said, "A people that gives up their freedom in the name of safety, deserves neither freedom nor safety." Once a freedom is taken away it is almost impossible to get it back. It becomes accepted not to have it. If we ban and confiscate all guns, do you think the people that really shouldn't have them are going to just turn them in? No. I have a couple of guns in my house, but not a single bullet. Do these guns pose a threat to anyone? No. Right now they are just attractive paper weights. Ok, I think I've vented enough. No more posts from me. (except to correct errors in facts maybe)