🚀 go-pugleaf

From: David Geesaman <gees...@newsguy.com>

> > Yes knives *could* kill
>
>              ^ Do ^

Could/Do, depends how you look at it.

> > Apples and oranges here.  There are benefits to having knives.  They are
a
> > tool which we need in our daily lives.  Unless you hunt, you don't need
a
> > gun.
>
> This is not true.  There are several good reasons to own a gun.  A knife
is
> used frequently, for small tasks.  A gun (outside of hunting and target
> shooting) is used infrequently, in extreme circumstances.  But they are
both
> tools, both incidentally used in crime, both completely controlled by the
user.
>
> Where can a gun be used?  Here are a few very realistic cases:
>
> 1) Wild animals.  If you live anywhere outside of a city, you have
certainly
> seen bear, porcupine, wolverine, stray dogs, or rabid racoons, skunks,
etc.  A
> gun is the best protection against a large animal.  It doesn't happen
often, but
> having a gun around has saved many people in situations involving an
> unpredictable animal.  Did you know that Shark fishermen frequently carry
a
> handgun (like a .38 or .357) in their boat so that they can quickly and
> effectively kill a dangerous animal before bringing it into the boat?

You shoot skunks and porcupine?  What are you afraid they'll do to you?
Yeah a gun saved many peoples lives when they were attacked by animals, but
so did knives, cameras, rocks, and other items people grabbed to defend
themselves.  There are better potential solutions out there to stop wild
animals then killing them.  How about using some kind of long distance
electric stun gun?  I'm sure if people wanted a better solution they could
come up with one.  If americans can send a man to the moon, I think they can
come up with ways to knock an animal out in its tracks.  Guns are a good
solution to hunting, but not for self defence.

> 2) Intruders.  Having a gun is a deterrent.  A locked, alarmed gun case
will
> turn a burglar around quicker than a toothy dog.  They know that they are
likely
> up against a responsible, aware gun owner.  The argument over whether a
gun is
> always effective in preventing a crime is still up in the air, but here in
the
> US, the government explicitly protects my right to make that decision
myself.
> This case is a big issue and I won't attempt to cover any more in this
list.

Why would a burglar turn around and run when he/she stumbles upon a gun
case?  This would only indicate that there are guns in the house and he
should shoot anyone who he sees because they are now a threat.  It could
also be the only guns in the house and the people inside are unarmed.  A gun
case would mean nothing to me if I were robbing a house except that I should
be more cautious.  One again, I think some form of weapon that stuns people
should replace the gun, specifically for paranoid home owners.  Then if guns
were banned (except for hunting/law inforcment/army) and laws were VERY
strict (such as 25+ yrs for illegal possesion of a gun, and 50+ yrs for
using a gun to commit a crime) even criminals might start carrying stun
guns.  Why kill someone if you can get the results you want with a
non-lethal weapon?

> 3) Political disturbances.  This is what our second amendment was most
> explicitly written for.  The right to keep and bear arms represents the
freedom
> for each citizen to choose whatever tools they feel is most appropriate to
> protect their freedom, be it from foreign invasion, civil war, or even
their own
> government.
> Yes, folks, that means that our constitution says that each citizen has
the
> right to decide whether our government is doing its job correctly in
protecting
> our freedoms.  In essence, it protects the tools to revolt and create a
> government in the same way our country was formed.   Just because we
haven't
> revolted in 200 years doesn't mean that we won't need to ever again.  I'm
not a
> revolutionary, but I can see how our government has bloated and
degenerated from
> the lightweight and powerful form that it once was.  Our culture, society,
and
> technology has changed in ways the the writers of the Constitution
couldn't
> forsee.  I can believe the idea of a major reshaping of the US government
in a
> couple hundred years, and you'd bet that I want the citizens to be able to
fight
> with the same tools as everyone else.  The fact that this happens rarely
(hasn't
> in over 200 years) doesn't make it less important.
> This last instance is, IMO, the single most important reason to allow guns
and
> every other form of weapon that is commonly available.  This philosophy
requires
> tremendous responsibility, but it offers the most to its citizens, and the
US is
> different from most major nations in this outlook.  Our Bill of Rights has
a
> very careful order: first, declare the rights that we hold most dear,
second,
> declare the right to protect our rights.  Many other countries don't
believe
> this philosophy, so comparing them to the the US is the real apples vs.
oranges
> issue.

Hypothetically if your govenrment wanted to take control, it would.  It has
a larger inventory of weapons then you and it always will.  I would like to
hear your explanation on what exactly the govenrment would have to do, to
put you in a position where you would have to rebel, and who exactly would
you be rebelling against?  If you're worried that the government would make
the army turn on its own people, then I suggest you start raising your
children with better morals so that when they join the army one day they
will be strong enough to say "NO!, I won't turn the gun on the american
public".  The governmet has no power if he has no army right?  The other
point I would like to make is the american way of thinking.  Like someone
mentioned alread, Americans seem to put up with a lot of law
breaking/bending when it comes to their presidents.  For a democratic
country to let someone like Clinton get away with *lying* to his country
shows where american morals are.  If americans wanted to send their
government a clear message, they would have kicked his ass out of the
presidents chair.  No wonder you carry guns, if I saw the majority of
citizens didn't care about what the govenrment did, I would carry a gun just
to protect myself from exactly those people.  Probably the same people that
make the american army, which coorelates with my first point.

> Why?  He provided reasoning, we would all appreciate if you shared your
> reasons.

I have my own reasons as to why I don't think america is the best country in
the world.  Much of it has to do with my views on how violent and over-sexed
most americans are.  My view on this topic, however, is off topic so I won't
expand on it.

> > Like I said, knives make our lives easier.  Guns make our lives worse.
>
> Guns made my life possible, and probably yours also.  Please share why
guns
> have made it worse.

Isn't it obvious?  Guns kill more innocent people then they do criminals.
Guns were good weapons for their time, but their time has passed as far as
I'm concerned.  Ordinary citizens should no longer have the right to bear
arms.

> I don't think that guns have made crime worse.  If that is so, then so
have
> cars, ski masks, knives, and subways (for quick urban getaways).

They might not have made crimes worse (although I doubt that, just look at
those two guys that robbed a bank about a year ago and were heavily armed
with armor piercing bullets and loaded up from head to toe with body armor.
They had more deadly fire power then the police.) but they make crimes
possible.  Yes, so do knives and ski masks, but I would rather take my
chances against someone with a knife (or any other hand held weapon) , then
someone with a gun.

> > I was being sarcastic.  However here in Canada they don't sell guns at
> > K-Mart as far as I know.  Mostly clothes and electronics.
>
> Your laws regarding gun sales are different, that is probably the
difference.

Yes, and that is why we don't have as much violence as you americans do.

Apologies for any incorrect spelling, I don't have a spell checker installed
:-)