Do We Really Need Guns?

[2aguy]

Most of the civilized world is a gun free zone. You should get out and experience the civilized world.

And the victims of rape, murder, torture, beatings and robbery regret this every day...as they are attacked and assaulted by criminals who appreciate the fact that their victims can do nothing to stop them.....

 

[NoNukes]

You could not control yourself here, and there was the possibility that you were not drinking.

Please don't assume you know anything about me. Keep making up your bullshit lies and exposing yourself as the liar you are. I pity idiots like you.

You are the one to be pitied being caught out on your bullshit by someone with a good memory.

If by good memory you mean a total liar then I would agree that you have a good memory.

You have already admitted that you think that it is OK to carry when you are in a bar having a drink, which is what the original discussion was about. How stupid are you?

I'm not stupid enough to get drunk while carrying a firearm.
I'm not stupid enough to think that by going to a bar and having a couple of drinks makes a person intoxicated.
I'm not stupid enough to think that a person has to drink alcohol when they go into a bar.

My girlfriend doesn't drink any alcohol and she accompanies me into a number of clubs around Houston.

Yes It is perfectly ok to partake in alcoholic beverages while carrying a weapon as long as you are not intoxicated. This it the law in Texas and I hope you keep your happy ass out of my state.

The only reason that I am ever in Texas is that it is sometimes difficult to avoid. As for the rest, you are too thick to discuss it further.

 

[NoNukes]

Most of the civilized world is a gun free zone. You should get out and experience the civilized world.

And the victims of rape, murder, torture, beatings and robbery regret this every day...as they are attacked and assaulted by criminals who appreciate the fact that their victims can do nothing to stop them.....

You are really paranoid and should certainly not carry a gun.

 

[martybegan]

passing a law saying it is illegal does not deter a person who doesn't care about the law, and those are the people who would be most likely to start shooting up a place.

We do not have to encourage people who are going to be drinking to carry guns in bars because it is legal.

or we say you can't be intoxicated and carry, and leave it up to the CCW person to either carry and stay sober, or not carry and drink. The issue is when a blanket restriction is made that doesn't prevent people of ill will from carrying, and only restricts those who would follow the law anyway.

Encourage it then. Have the police go into bars, frisk everyone and breathalize those with guns.

How about we do the same thing to everyone with a set of car keys in their pockets?

In many places, the bartender is responsible for serving a person if they drive drunk and are in an accident. If a drunk person shoots someone, should the bartender be responsible.

And yes, a drunk person's car keys should be confiscated from them. I did it when I was a bartender.

A bartender has to knowingly serve a very very intoxicated person to be held liable, and even then it is tricky.

And as for my other point, we are talking about police, not bartenders. Keep to your point and stop moving goalposts.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Please don't assume you know anything about me. Keep making up your bullshit lies and exposing yourself as the liar you are. I pity idiots like you.

You are the one to be pitied being caught out on your bullshit by someone with a good memory.

If by good memory you mean a total liar then I would agree that you have a good memory.

You have already admitted that you think that it is OK to carry when you are in a bar having a drink, which is what the original discussion was about. How stupid are you?

I'm not stupid enough to get drunk while carrying a firearm.
I'm not stupid enough to think that by going to a bar and having a couple of drinks makes a person intoxicated.
I'm not stupid enough to think that a person has to drink alcohol when they go into a bar.

My girlfriend doesn't drink any alcohol and she accompanies me into a number of clubs around Houston.

Yes It is perfectly ok to partake in alcoholic beverages while carrying a weapon as long as you are not intoxicated. This it the law in Texas and I hope you keep your happy ass out of my state.

The only reason that I am ever in Texas is that it is sometimes difficult to avoid. As for the rest, you are too thick to discuss it further.

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Most of us outgrow our security blankets by 3 years old. Many NRA types still need it years later. My brother won't go to the 7/11 without his 1911. He even stopped flying because the government won't let him take it aboard a commercial airliner in case he finds it necessary to get into a crossfire in the cabin at 7,000 feet.

Oh look -- an anti gun loon, arguing from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Who would have guessed?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And how many are FOR a gun ban? I ask that question because in the years that I have been on this board, I have never once seen a poster advocate a gun ban.

The Obama openly seeks to ban rifles, handgun and shotguns.
Numerous people here support The Obama in that effort.

 

[Claudette]

i have head it before

but it is true you really are a dumb ass

--LOL

appearing in a public place
Public intoxication laws require that the defendant be in a public place, rather than a private residence or other area that is not open to the general public. Examples of public places include sidewalks, streets, stadiums, and parks. In some states, bars and restaurants are considered public places because they are open to the general public.


What is Public Intoxication Drunk in Public Laws and Penalties Criminal Law

Once again, we are not talking about public intoxication.

Well then what ARE you talking about? There are laws regarding using your firearm responsibly. You can't just go into a bar, get drunk and start shooting your weapon. You will be arrested. What other law would you like to see regarding this issue?

Passing a law that says it is legal to carry a firearm in a bar does not help society.

cobbling together "gun free zones" certainly has not helped society

Most of the civilized world is a gun free zone. You should get out and experience the civilized world.

I'm sure most of the citizens of those "gun free zones" wish to hell they hadn't given up their guns.

I know I won't be giving up mine. You however, can do as you please.

 

[reason10]

It's my first thread here, and I want to start with the issue, that worries me a lot.

Gun owners always claim that they own guns for self protection, even though the guns in their homes impose a much greater risk to their lives than an intruder. They also state they need guns to protect themselves from the government and from tthr police. Oh, seriously? Other argument for guns is hunting. Food production in the US is quite complex and capable of providing all types of foods to all parts of the country. And, if someone is too poor to buy food to eat, they are too poor to buy weapons. So what for?! Explain me, please.

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

**** off you stupid little c***!
The FIRST place you'd run to if your home was about to be invaded would be to the MAN down the road with a NRA sign on his lawn.
Permanent Ignore asshole!

That was uncalled for.

 

[Pogo]

Wrong question.

The question is not why she "needs" a gun to stop this nut. The question is why this nut "needs" a gun to be one.

it is the exact question....he doesn't need a gun...another killing here in Wisconsin, a husband, who threatened to kill his wife, followed her to Wisconsin from Illinois, where she was hiding from him....he found her, ambushed her outside her hotel, and killed her with a hatchet....which you can get at Walmart or any hardware store for 10 bucks....

She didn't have a gun, he didn't have a gun....she was still killed....

So, you want these women disarmed in the face of the men who plan on killing them....right?

Once again - the post assumes that the topic is murder. It isn't. Try reading the thread.

 

[BlackSand]

Wrong question.

The question is not why she "needs" a gun to stop this nut. The question is why this nut "needs" a gun to be one.

Because it is the most effect tool in either case.

.

 

[Pogo]

"Do we need" is not the same as "let us ban". Nomsayin'?

Okay ... Are you suggesting the absence of firearms would be possible without a ban?

Edit:
Oops ... Never-mind
You would say it is possible regardless of the fact it is entirely improbable.

Nah, I wouldn't go technical on you. Maybe on a dim person, not you.

The way I see it, "need" speaks of something's value, so while it would always be "possible", it just needn't be the automatic go-to any time somebody steps on your foot or cuts you off at the traffic merge. We don't "need" to blow that person away. Just as we don't "need" a fountain pen to write or an 8-track tape to listen to music. You can still do it (it's possible) but it just doesn't have the value. It would be a rarity. The decline in smoking might be a good parallel here -- still possible but more and more uncool.

To me making gun slaughter a rarity without trying to force the situation is ideal. Voluntary rather than involuntary is always waaaaay more effective. If we as a collective didn't have a continuously-fed "need" to gun people down, gun slaughter would be as rare as axe murders. Axe murder will always be possible, but since we don't live in an axe culture where axes are used in every TV cop show and most movies and video games, it just doesn't have the... what is the word.... cachet.

 

[Pogo]

Once again, we are not talking about public intoxication.

Well then what ARE you talking about? There are laws regarding using your firearm responsibly. You can't just go into a bar, get drunk and start shooting your weapon. You will be arrested. What other law would you like to see regarding this issue?

Passing a law that says it is legal to carry a firearm in a bar does not help society.

cobbling together "gun free zones" certainly has not helped society

Most of the civilized world is a gun free zone. You should get out and experience the civilized world.

--LOL

it is prove it

If you think most of the world carries the violence mentality we do, you just ain't been outside, son...

 

[2aguy]

You are really paranoid and should certainly not carry a gun.

Soooo...you are saying that every day in this country there are no rapes, beatings, stabbings, robberies or murders.....well, now that I know that I guess I don't need to have a gun....

Hmmmm....but the FBI statistics show that each year there are at least 8-9,000 murders a year....true, most of them are in the very cities gun grabbers love.....since those cities tend to be run by democrats and have been for decades....New York was spared because Giulianni came in and cleaned it up....

 

[Pogo]

Most of us outgrow our security blankets by 3 years old. Many NRA types still need it years later. My brother won't go to the 7/11 without his 1911. He even stopped flying because the government won't let him take it aboard a commercial airliner in case he finds it necessary to get into a crossfire in the cabin at 7,000 feet.

Kudos to your brother for taking responsibility for himself and his surroundings. He sounds like a smart, righteous man. What happened to you?

Yeah, what could be "smarter" than a hail of bullets in a pressurized cabin at six miles high.

Gee. I don't know. What do Sky Marshalls carry? Well, well. Looky here. They use the .357 SIG and their issued ammunition is Speer Gold Dot. They plan on replacing them with frangible bullets, but for over ten years they've been plying the skies with high velocity bullets that have no problem punching a hole through the skin of an aircraft. What idiots!

Of course the fact that explosive decompression is a figment of the movie makers imagination probably didn't cross your tiny little mind did it....

Could you quote the part where I said "explosive"?


Didn't think so.

Evidently, Americans think we need guns...........on Black Friday, guns sold in record numbers........background checks 3X every second!!

They also sell about 25 millions of pounds of fruit cake over the Christmas holidays.....


Gun sales boom on Black Friday - CNN.com

Sorta tells ya all y0u have to know about the gun grabber assholes.

They also sell about 25 million pounds of fruit cake over the Christmas holidays.....

And then the same day brings people trampling each other at Mal-Wart for the privilege of laying out good money (with fifty bucks off) for a telescreen that sits in their home and tells them to buy stuff they don't need, so it's maybe not the sharpest knife in the drawer being used as a basis here...

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public".

 

[BlackSand]

Nah, I wouldn't go technical on you. Maybe on a dim person, not you.

The way I see it, "need" speaks of something's value, so while it would always be "possible", it just needn't be the automatic go-to any time somebody steps on your foot or cuts you off at the traffic merge. We don't "need" to blow that person away. Just as we don't "need" a fountain pen to write or an 8-track tape to listen to music. You can still do it (it's possible) but it just doesn't have the value. It would be a rarity. The decline in smoking might be a good parallel here -- still possible but more and more uncool.

To me making gun slaughter a rarity without trying to force the situation is ideal. Voluntary rather than involuntary is always waaaaay more effective. If we as a collective didn't have a continuously-fed "need" to gun people down, gun slaughter would be as rare as axe murders. Axe murder will always be possible, but since we don't live in an axe culture where axes are used in every TV cop show and most movies and video games, it just doesn't have the... what is the word.... cachet.

I understand your points about an abusive gun culture and unrealistic expectations of some firearm owners ... And always have.

I think where we separate in opinions about firearms resides in the the reality of when firearms assist potential victims. I would never condone the senseless gunning down of criminals ... But I am not willing to accept that a firearm does not supply the best defense against an armed assailant with the intent to inflict bodily harm (no matter what they are armed with).

Firearms create an atmosphere that escalates firearm violence ... That's a no-brainer. Firearms are present in our society and they will remain the best defense against criminals who intend bodily harm. Whether not we need firearms is negated when you can accept a potential victim still has a better chance of survival when facing an axe murderer if they have a firearm.

The firearm is a very effective tool ... Our opinions on firearms and how they are portrayed in media will never change that.

.

 

[Pogo]

Nah, I wouldn't go technical on you. Maybe on a dim person, not you.

The way I see it, "need" speaks of something's value, so while it would always be "possible", it just needn't be the automatic go-to any time somebody steps on your foot or cuts you off at the traffic merge. We don't "need" to blow that person away. Just as we don't "need" a fountain pen to write or an 8-track tape to listen to music. You can still do it (it's possible) but it just doesn't have the value. It would be a rarity. The decline in smoking might be a good parallel here -- still possible but more and more uncool.

To me making gun slaughter a rarity without trying to force the situation is ideal. Voluntary rather than involuntary is always waaaaay more effective. If we as a collective didn't have a continuously-fed "need" to gun people down, gun slaughter would be as rare as axe murders. Axe murder will always be possible, but since we don't live in an axe culture where axes are used in every TV cop show and most movies and video games, it just doesn't have the... what is the word.... cachet.

I understand your points about an abusive gun culture and unrealistic expectations of some firearm owners ... And always have.

I think where we separate in opinions about firearms resides in the the reality of when firearms assist potential victims. I would never condone the senseless gunning down of criminals ... But I am not willing to accept that a firearm does not supply the best defense against an armed assailant with the intent to inflict bodily harm (no matter what they are armed with).

Firearms create an atmosphere that escalates firearm violence ... That's a no-brainer. Firearms are present in our society and they will remain the best defense against criminals who intent bodily harm. Whether not we need firearms is negated when you can accept a potential victim still has a better chance of survival when facing an axe murderer if they have a firearm.

The firearm is a very effective tool ... Our opinions on firearms and how they are portrayed in media will never change that.

I agree with a lot of that with one strong exception. Basically I think we're saying similar things in different temporal directions; you're talking present tense and I'm talking future. I see a culture in the present tense that needs to change itself. What we suffer is not a failure of laws but of spirit.

The strong exception I take is here:
"Our opinions on firearms and how they are portrayed in media will never change that"

Au contraire, I submit that public opinion always effects change, and that media and the larger body of cultural mores follows, not leads, public opinion. The impediment in that dynamic is influencing that public opinion on a large scale. That's no easy task but it always starts with introspection; as the sage says, the longest journey begins with a single step.

Hollyweird sells violence because violence sells. And violence sells because it has cultural value, just as fire burns because it has fuel to consume. As long as we the people keep supplying the fuel by buying the product, the fire burns. In this particular cultural value we are not so much "consumers" as "enablers".

 

[BlackSand]

I agree with a lot of that with one strong exception. Basically I think we're saying similar things in different temporal directions; you're talking present tense and I'm talking future. I see a culture in the present tense that needs to change itself. What we suffer is not a failure of laws but of spirit.

The strong exception I take is here:
"Our opinions on firearms and how they are portrayed in media will never change that"

Au contraire, I submit that public opinion always effects change, and that media and the larger body of cultural mores follows, not leads, public opinion. The impediment in that dynamic is influencing that public opinion on a large scale. That's no easy task but it always starts with introspection; as the sage says, the longest journey begins with a single step.

Hollyweird sells violence because violence sells. And violence sells because it has cultural value, just as fire burns because it has fuel to consume. As long as we the people keep supplying the fuel by buying the product, the fire burns. In this particular cultural value we are not so much "consumers" as "enablers".

Maybe I didn't express my point about our opinions and firearms correctly. The statement was toward how effective firearms are at doing the job they do ... And opinions don't have an effect on the firearm.

We can influence more responsible firearm ownership and attitudes towards firearm violence ... But that doesn't effect to the ability of a firearm to remain the most effective defense mechanism. Our attitudes can change the desire to use a firearm (especially in unwarranted circumstances). Our attitudes can reduce the desire of individuals to reach for a firearm as a solution (much less the best solution) to any problem.

It will never make the firearm as a tool less effective at doing its job ... Not meaning to get technical ... But they work at eliminating threats.

.

 

[NoNukes]

You are really paranoid and should certainly not carry a gun.

Soooo...you are saying that every day in this country there are no rapes, beatings, stabbings, robberies or murders.....well, now that I know that I guess I don't need to have a gun....

Hmmmm....but the FBI statistics show that each year there are at least 8-9,000 murders a year....true, most of them are in the very cities gun grabbers love.....since those cities tend to be run by democrats and have been for decades....New York was spared because Giulianni came in and cleaned it up....

I said the civilized world.

 

[2aguy]

We can influence more responsible firearm ownership and attitudes towards firearm violence ... But that doesn't effect to the ability of a firearm to remain the most effective defense mechanism. Our attitudes can change the desire to use a firearm (especially in unwarranted circumstances). Our attitudes can reduce the desire of individuals to reach for a firearm as a solution (much less the best solution) to any problem.

If we were able to solve inner city violent crime....we would see gun violence dramatically decrease....law abiding gun owners do not cause the mayhem that is constantly complained about on these threads....but those who oppose private ownership of guns focus on the law abiding rather than those who are actually committing the gun crimes....and so the actual problem is never addressed...