I appreciate the spelling correction. I don`t equate firearms ownership with masculinity. I was merely having a little fun. But I guess you have no sense of humor what so ever. I do equate the right to defend my home from intruders with masculinity. But I cannot help but find something very odd about a man that doesn't at least like to talk firearms. They are a fun tool. BTW, I haven't bought a firearm in 10 years. Currently I own a Colt python handgun for target fun. AR-15 (civilian m-16..no full auto function) for target plunking also. And a Remington 1100 shotgun that serves multi purpose for duck hunting and home defense. I wish I could buy a Barret 50 caliber bolt action rifle.....but the wife would put the squash on that. Nothing masculine about that..LOL. Lighten up.
There are a lot of stupid people in this world, and in this country. Giving them the right to bear firearms just doesn't sit well. As I understand it, most victims of murder are killed by people they knew (according to my extensive research of television crime drama ). I suspect that a lot of such crimes may have been committed in the heat of the moment. I could be wrong, but there is no lack of people with impulse control problems (ever drive on the highway?). Now, while almost anything can serve as a murder weapon if a person is sufficiently motivated, the easy use of a firearm is the last thing that someone in a blind rage needs. Frankly, I'm just not quite that trusting of my fellow man's levelheadedness. Hell, they elected GWB TWICE! How much more evidence do you need?
What we have here, gentlemen, is a dyed-in-the-wool, big government liberal! "Please Government, protect us from us stupid people!"
Which is one of the reasons why private firearm ownership is so crucial. It helps put a bit of power on the right side of the horribly lopsided government/private individual equation.
They already have that right. And things aren't bad at all compared to other ways to die. In 2001 there were 11,671 homocides by firearm whereas modern medicine kills 999,936 deaths annually but no one wants to do anything about it. (Death by Medicine) http://www.healthe-livingnews.com/articles/death_by_medicine_part_1.html Like I said previously: Where I live, the nearest police station is 22 miles away. Yet crime is extremely rare around here. Criminals know that we are armed and dangerous. They fear us. Take our guns away, and the crime will increase dramatically. Why should we give up the right to self-protection? I am responsible for my own safety. The government, the police will only respond hours after I'm dead whether by knife or baseball bat. How will granny be able to protect herself when the police are minutes to an hour away? When granny and her neighbors are armed, the thugs will fear her and not attempt any type of crime against her. Don't you like granny? You got somethin' against the helpless elderly? Please, Thunderdog, don't take granny's guns away.
In only around half the murders in the U.S. do the perpetrator and victim have a personal relationship. A generation ago it was 75%. American blacks kill at a rate better than 7x that of whites. In fact most American cities enjoy white homicide rates on a par with Europe. Let's say for the sake of argument that a high population of gun owners leads to a corresponding higher incident of gun crimes. (not necessarily true as stats from Switzerland and white America prove but let's assume). And let's say (forgetting the 2nd amendment for the moment) that legislatures enact laws strictly prohibiting the ownership/possession of fire arms. Why would one logically expect that stiff penalties for mere possession of a gun to have any greater success in curbing guns than laws we already have that imprison criminals for the illegal use of guns. In other words if a robber is not deterred by the 8 years he'll get for sticking up a store netting $73, why the fuck would a criminal be intimidated to violate a gun law that will punish him with only a fraction of the same sentence. Look at drug laws. Intent to distribute cocaine is a legal no-no. Pot may get you a ticket or a slap in the wrist but an ounce of blow will most certainly get you time in the slammer. Does that fear of arrest keep tens of thousands from "dealing" coke? Even though most "dealers" make little more than what a job at McDonalds would pay they keep on dealin'. Most robbers steal LESS than what a night at a crap job would pay. Why? Because they're CRIMINALS!. They're anti-social scum who'd chew gum in Singapore. To think that those folks will pay heed to gun prohibition is folly.
I just don't know. On the one hand, arming yourself to protect your family from a criminal element that will never go away makes sense. On the other hand, becoming part of the problem hardly seems to be the way to solve that problem. I don't pretend to know what should be done. However, the idea of paranoid militia groups and other unstable but as yet undiagnosed persons having the right to bear arms is a very sobering proposition. One thing I think is very wrong is that the judicial system is often farcical. First offenses should be treated harshly. And in a scenario where gun ownership is outlawed (for the sake of argument), then even mere possession should be treated as a serious crime. The other thing is that imprisonment should not be equated with a warm bed, free meals and a color TV. Prison should be punishment, not a break from the routine. To many offenders, prison may actually be an improvement in lifestyle, which hardly makes incarceration a deterrent. Although I admittedly don't have an answer to the question of gun ownership, I think that prison should mean hard labor, whatever that labor may be. It should be serious bootcamp. Rehabilitation, whatever that may be, should be secondary. First and foremost, prison should mean justice to the victim(s) by way of genuine punishment for the offender.
Notably, neophyte321. Government is why there is no longer a "Wild" West. As you know, the Democrats will now have more of a say in how government is run. If that makes you feel out of place, then perhaps you should go out and live in a field somewhere. Far away.
Tdog, in any comlex phenomenon, causal relationships can only ever be suggested. One can virtually always make the claim that "correlation doesn't equal causation" (particularly when the causal relationship claimed isn't to one's liking). It's a question of how reasonably the causal relationship is explained. In the case of guns and crime, the explanation is straightforward. In the case of guns and gyms, the explanation is, well, I don't know, I can't even conceive of one. So to answer your question, yes, the suggestion is very much that there exists a causal relationship. And, lucky you, you can relax, because you'll always be able to invoke "other factors" to cast doubt on the reliability of that causal relationship, no matter how sound it might appear, because, as a liberal, you just know guns are bad.