|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/17/2008 9:30:51 PM
Posts: 183,
Visits: 446
|
|
Jadegold (3/2/2008)
My child has never been curious about weapons. Ah, yes. The anecdote. I knew someone whose parachute failed to deploy and he survived. Therefore, I guess we can surmise parachutes are superfluous when skydiving. My first NRA instructor was missing his thumb because of a firearm accident. His sons also managed to shoot one another in a hunting misadventure and the real miracle of that anecdote was that neither were killed. The point your trying to avoid is that many kids do gain access to their dad's firearms and, in some cases, tragedy results. And it's a fact it occurs more frequently than the instances of some unknown homicidal maniac bursting into one's home. Firearm accidents also occur more frequently than cases of our largely mythical homicidal intruder. The point that keeps getting obscured here, especially by Anti-Gunners, is that in the overall scheme of things (deaths by <something> - firearms are waaaay down toward the bottom of the list (published by the CDC, I think). Yet firearms are the only items that have Funded Groups out there lobbying HARD to "rid them from society". If the goal is to reduce accidental deaths, why not focus on that list starting from the top down? It does not matter that "guns are made to kill people". Doesn't matter. They kill MUCH less often than many other common things in our society. If the Anti's were truly sincere, they would be pushing for bans and restrictions on those MORE DEADLY items (at least in addition to firearms).
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 7/23/2008 2:25:52 AM
Posts: 125,
Visits: 113
|
|
snscott (3/6/2008)
[quote]They kill MUCH less often than many other common things in our society. If the Anti's were truly sincere, they would be pushing for bans and restrictions on those MORE DEADLY items (at least in addition to firearms).
In a lot of cases, they kill much less often than things that are much less common.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 4/4/2008 3:44:07 AM
Posts: 21,
Visits: 57
|
|
toothy (3/5/2008)
That is clearly an honest answer Artie.
We can fantasize about how we'll react to a threat, or we can plan. A gun is nothing more than a tool, one of the many tools the intelligent freedom lover gets to enjoy.
Let's notjeopardize access to our rights by behaving like arrogant bullies.
OK, who logged on as Toothy?
Sticks
Curiosity was framed, poor judgment killed the cat
911 is just part of the process of filing paperwork
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/27/2008 7:26:41 AM
Posts: 18,
Visits: 34
|
|
| I'm sorry to open up old wounds, but, Toothy, I have another question: one of your first statements is that "...the issue is the violent underclass of criminals." I agree. The issue is NOT guns! It is the act of or "...the violent underclass of criminals," as you put it. Thank you for reassuring us that guns are not the problem, but... criminals are the problem. I think we agree on that. Now the whole gun debate can focus around criminals instead of guns. I'm just teasing; but, there is much truth to that statement. Incidentally, in the above home invasion scenario, the issue would be the criminal breaking in, and, I know your opinion that no one can ever predict what they'll do in any situation; but.... the gun is not the issue here; again, it's the criminal doing the "invading." Having a gun for protection "as allowed and according to the situation" (sarcasm added for dramatic effect) is only one option to protect oneself. And, personally... I'd rather have that option to protect myself. One more option... not less.
------> The last four words are easy to understand: "...shall not be infringed."
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/21/2008 8:07:38 PM
Posts: 1,
Visits: 24
|
|
|
|
|