Printable View
I knew you'd agree :)Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
It just gets up my nose that people don't see the sense in it.
Sure guys like Fousto and Tony are most probably absolutely fine owning a gun and I'm sure would never turn them on someone else, but it's not Fousto or Tony I'm worried about. Is it really worth people's lives to have the freedom to own a gun which you will most likely never need to use?
You don't see how the use of a crosshair targeting a politician could be seen as inflammatory? Particularly at a time when:Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
(link)Quote:
Gun-rights advocates across America have made a point of turning up to some political events carrying weapons, including powerful rifles, in order to demonstrate their right to bear arms
It's not about the use of one word, it's about the atmosphere in which politics is being played out in the US at present.
Indeed. The fact of someone feeling the need to own one for reasons of security I have never understood. That is indicative either of major societal problems or, more probably given that the fear of crime is always enormously greater than the likelihood of being a victim, a deep-seated sense of paranoia and insecurity — something I feel a fair number of right-wing Americans are affected by, to a much more significant degree than one sees amongst those on the right in European countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Had a law abiding gun carrying citizen been in the crowd, then maybe other lives would have been saved. I understand that our foriegn buddies don't fully understand why some of us own guns. Believe me, as a father to be, I have been thinking a lot about what I want to do with my guns. At this point, some will be placed in another location (locked in a safe). I do own a handgun, which is the one I am wondering what to do with it. I live in the mountains, so I am more apt to shoot a bear than a human intruder. But its better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.
As for the politcs of the AZ killing. Some say this nut leaned left. Likely because they are trying to protect their own politcal leanings. And those on the left are trying to protect theirs. All I can say, anyone ranting about the constitution, gold, and anti-government doesn't sound that left to me. Its hard not to call this shooting politcal because of the anti-government rantings and the fact a Congresswoman was the target. It was a sad event, and clearly showing how divised our country has become. Sad, Sad, day for the entire country.
Or maybe others would have been lost had the law-abiding gun-carrying citizen not known how to use the weapon safely. I would personally feel far less safe knowing there were people brandishing firearms in any sort of crowd, no matter how law-abiding or sensible these individuals may be, than if there were no such weapons present.Quote:
Originally Posted by OWFan19
Like I said, I don't really have a problem with people having bolt action hunting rifles. Sure they can be used to kill people but the potential is much lower and of course hunting is a perfectly legal activity. Sure it's better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it, but what about having a gun and being Phil Hartman? -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hartman#DeathQuote:
Originally Posted by OWFan19
Why did there need to be a law abiding gun owner in the crowd? Unarmed people tackled the gunman without the aid of guns. Plus as Ben says, it's a crowd, a law abiding but possibly poorly trained member of the public is possibly likely to kill a bystander......
Yes, I agree with you guys to a point about another gun in the crowd might be an added danger. But 18 people got hit, with a second possible gunman on the loose. Sure an innocent person could be shot, but at that point they already were in great danger. A well trained gun owner would not just start firing in a crowd.
A hunting rifle does far more damage than a shotgun or handgun. Granted handguns hold more rounds, the rounds themselves are only good up to a short distance. Rifles are highly accurate, and ungodly powerful that can project the bullet more than a mile. All guns are dangerous, one isnt better than the other in terms of being safer.
As for Phil, guns do not prevent anything, they are just a slight insurance policy. The sad fact in our country, guns are everywhere. There are too many to ever remove them all.
The point is that it's VERY difficult to carry a hunting rifle undetected.Quote:
Originally Posted by OWFan19
Yes, I agree with that. Unless you really plan it out to hide, which someone that is nuts might. JFK killing is a good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Law enforcement is the job of the appropriate agencies, not private individuals. It concerns me somewhat that anyone would even consider endorsing the presence of random armed people in a crowd as a means of guaranteeing security.Quote:
Originally Posted by OWFan19