Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ Va Tech Shooting

[baby21]

Mate I see your point and it refreshing to debate with someone who can put his thoughts into words as well as yourself. I just have to ask one question though... what came first, the chicken or the egg? The gun saved x amount of people that day but without the criminal's gun, would the samaritan's gun be needed?

Oh Bondi.. looks like we're the only two here that share our opinion... which suprises me and scares me a little... haha.

I guess I just don't see the appeal in owning a gun for protection. I would never want to be responsible for injuring or killing a person, not even in the name of self-defense (Yes I'm as close to a "tree-hugging" whatever you call it... but for the record I've never hugged a tree).

I know that people will always have guns, but I'm possitive that if they were illegal or much harder to get, you wouldn't have your white suburban house kids shooting each other with daddy's guns or killing each other with the gun they paid their friend to get... The fact that guns would be harder to find would discourage some people.

So if you really want a gun then you should have to go through a hell of a lot to get one. If you're not willing to do that.. then you must not want it that bad.

[SKULLZ0MBIE]

no comments

[closeup]

It's relatively easy to see merit in both sides of this debate. One the one hand, nobody wants to get shot by some nut who got ahold of a gun. On the other hand, nobody, (except evidently Baby) would want to be robbed, raped or killed and have no way to adequately protect themselves. I guess the question is; who is ultimately responsible for protecting your (and your families) life. You, or a stranger (cop, bystander, etc). I believe each citizen has a right to protect themselves. And with that right comes responsibility. The government doesn't "give" you the right to protect yourself, it's something you are born with as a citizen of the United States. (inalienable rights). Although you may pay for that protection thru taxes, it's a simple fact of life that the cops can't be there every time someone needs that protection. Then there are Second Amendment issues. The Founding Fathers were well aware of what governments were capable of. Disarming the citizenry was looked upon as taking away a citizens ability to stand up to a hostile government.

[bondiguy]

Oh Bondi.. looks like we're the only two here that share our opinion... which suprises me and scares me a little... haha.

I guess I just don't see the appeal in owning a gun for protection. I would never want to be responsible for injuring or killing a person, not even in the name of self-defense (Yes I'm as close to a "tree-hugging" whatever you call it... but for the record I've never hugged a tree).

I know that people will always have guns, but I'm possitive that if they were illegal or much harder to get, you wouldn't have your white suburban house kids shooting each other with daddy's guns or killing each other with the gun they paid their friend to get... The fact that guns would be harder to find would discourage some people.

So if you really want a gun then you should have to go through a hell of a lot to get one. If you're not willing to do that.. then you must not want it that bad.

Baby I never thought there would be anyone who would agree on my stance with this issue, just because of the differences in our socities. Australia was never bought up on guns, my dad never owned one, neither did his father, or his father. yet the same can not be said for people inside the USA who hold on to their ancient constitutional right like it has any relevance or any merit in today's society. They feel like if you take their right to own a gun you take away all democratic freedom and it is something that will take a lifetime to being to change.

It's relatively easy to see merit in both sides of this debate. One the one hand, nobody wants to get shot by some nut who got ahold of a gun. On the other hand, nobody, (except evidently Baby) would want to be robbed, raped or killed and have no way to adequately protect themselves. I guess the question is; who is ultimately responsible for protecting your (and your families) life. You, or a stranger (cop, bystander, etc). I believe each citizen has a right to protect themselves. And with that right comes responsibility. The government doesn't "give" you the right to protect yourself, it's something you are born with as a citizen of the United States.  (inalienable rights). Although you may pay for that protection thru taxes, it's a simple fact of life that the cops can't be there every time someone needs that protection. Then there are Second Amendment issues.  The Founding Fathers were well aware of what governments were capable of. Disarming the citizenry was looked upon as taking away a citizens ability to stand up to a hostile government.

I'll keep stating it. I don't own a gun and I live in a city whilst it seems lovely and blue and dandy on tv commercials has an underground scene. I have never been shot and I have never though (shit I wish I had a gun right now)

Maybe that is the general difference here, the countries and societies we live in

[closeup]

Baby I never thought there would be anyone who would agree on my stance with this issue, just because of the differences in our socities. Australia was never bought up on guns, my dad never owned one, neither did his father, or his father. yet the same can not be said for people inside the USA who hold on to their ancient constitutional right like it has any relevance or any merit in today's society. They feel like if you take their right to own a gun you take away all democratic freedom and it is something that will take a lifetime to being to change.
I'll keep stating it. I don't own a gun and I live in a city whilst it seems lovely and blue and dandy on tv commercials has an underground scene. I have never been shot and I have never though (shit I wish I had a gun right now)

Maybe that is the general difference here, the countries and societies we live in

Here's another way to think of it: You don't wear a motorcycle helmet everytime you ride because you're gonna fall off everytime you ride. You don't wear a life vest everytime in a canoe because you think you're gonna capsize everytime you go out. But the ONE time you need it, it's only gonna be there because you use it EVERYTIME. The one time you may need a gun, and don't have one, could very well be one time too many. Why bother wearing a helmet if you don't plan on crashing that day? Why wear a seat belt if you've never been in a fatal crash and have no intention of getting in one today? It's not a fatalistic attitude to want to protect yourself, it's a realistic attitude. Nobody leaves the house in the morning thinking they're going to be the victim of a robbery, rape, or stabbing. But, the fact is, it happens.

[SKULLZ0MBIE]

no comments

[bondiguy]

Here's another way to think of it: You don't wear a motorcycle helmet everytime you ride because you're gonna fall off everytime you ride. You don't wear a life vest everytime in a canoe because you think you're gonna capsize everytime you go out. But the ONE time you need it, it's only gonna be there because you use it EVERYTIME. The one time you may need a gun, and don't have one, could very well be one time too many. Why bother wearing a helmet if you don't plan on crashing that day? Why wear a seat belt if you've never been in a fatal crash and have no intention of getting in one today? It's not a fatalistic attitude to want to protect yourself, it's a realistic attitude. Nobody leaves the house in the morning thinking they're going to be the victim of a robbery, rape, or stabbing. But, the fact is, it happens.

I see your point but I will never agree I'm afraid. Guns aren't for me.

Can I ask you something? DO you carry a handgun everywhere you go?

If you ask me that is a fucking paranoid existence. I'd rather not live

[closeup]

I see your point but I will never agree I'm afraid. Guns aren't for me.

Can I ask you something? DO you carry a handgun everywhere you go?

If you ask me that is a fucking paranoid existence. I'd rather not live

No, I don't carry all the time. But I do have a concealed weapons permit. I'm armed when I'm carrying a lot of cash, or in a bad neighborhood, or whenever I think I might want the protection of a handgun. I'm not a gun nut, by any means. I've been trained by the Marines in the lawful use of deadly force.I've also taught Air Force officers and personal how to shoot both handguns and rifles. I ran the armory in a reserve unit in the Army. Not to toot my own horn, but I've been honorably discharged from the Marines, the Army and the Air Force.In all three branches of service, I've been involved with weapons. In the Marines, one of my duties was to guard the payroll. I would carry a satchel with $25,000-$35,000 dollars across the base where 2500 Marines had M-16 weapons in their possession. The base I was stationed on was where the "first response" of Marines would originate from if anything happened in the world that required an immediate response. These Marines DID NOT keep their weapons at the armory. When I was a Corporal, one of my duties was to guard the payroll after it got dropped at the base but before it got loaded onto a naval ship. I remember sitting all night with a weapon locked and loaded on five safes that contained $250,000 cash. Again, the base where every Marine had an automatic weapon with them. I guess my point is I've been in situations where being armed was not only a good idea but absolutely necessary. It would upset me tremendously to shoot another human being. But, and this is the key, it would upset me even more to get attacked and have no way to defend myself. When it comes to deadly force, having a second chance is not an option. I value my life to the extent that I don't want some crack-head who wants to steal my $50.00 sneakers for his next hit to be the one who decides whether or not I live or die. I know it's hard to understand why someone might be pro- gun ,but it's more a matter of being ready if the ultimate bad luck chooses you as it's next victim. I'd hate to miscalulate even once.

[SKULLZ0MBIE]

no comments

[baby21]

Discourage People? 
Prisons Can't stop Prisoners from getting Drugs or Killing each other in Prisons

If you thought for about two seconds about what I wrote, then maybe you'd realize that the whole process of getting a gun would discourage people. If they were at least somewhat more difficult to obtain, it would take the "appeal" out of it and someone who was going to committ a crime of passion wouldn't be as capable in most circumstances.

It's relatively easy to see merit in both sides of this debate. One the one hand, nobody wants to get shot by some nut who got ahold of a gun. On the other hand, nobody, (except evidently Baby) would want to be robbed, raped or killed and have no way to adequately protect themselves. I guess the question is; who is ultimately responsible for protecting your (and your families) life. You, or a stranger (cop, bystander, etc). I believe each citizen has a right to protect themselves. And with that right comes responsibility. The government doesn't "give" you the right to protect yourself, it's something you are born with as a citizen of the United States.  (inalienable rights). Although you may pay for that protection thru taxes, it's a simple fact of life that the cops can't be there every time someone needs that protection. Then there are Second Amendment issues.  The Founding Fathers were well aware of what governments were capable of. Disarming the citizenry was looked upon as taking away a citizens ability to stand up to a hostile government.

Yes, since I so said that I wanted to get robbed, raped or killed. There are other methods of self defence other than carrying a gun around that would be just as effective and less harmful. I feel more threatened by paranoid people such as yourself than anything else. I honestly doubt that you will ever run across an instance where you will need your gun. If you do I doubt that you'll be carrying it and have access to it in time to make any difference.

That's not really my point though.. my point, like Bondi's is that guns just aren't for me. My other point is that if you value your right to own a gun so much, then you should go through all the training, and background checks, and yearly checkups the government can handle to inforce. (sounds like you shouldn't have a problem with this since you've apparently already had training). I really don't see what the big deal is.

[baby21]

Baby I never thought there would be anyone who would agree on my stance with this issue, just because of the differences in our socities. Australia was never bought up on guns, my dad never owned one, neither did his father, or his father. yet the same can not be said for people inside the USA who hold on to their ancient constitutional right like it has any relevance or any merit in today's society. They feel like if you take their right to own a gun you take away all democratic freedom and it is something that will take a lifetime to being to change.
I'll keep stating it. I don't own a gun and I live in a city whilst it seems lovely and blue and dandy on tv commercials has an underground scene. I have never been shot and I have never though (shit I wish I had a gun right now)

Maybe that is the general difference here, the countries and societies we live in

It always suprises me just how many people out here own guns/ are fanatical about their "rights." I've grown up in a family without guns and been around families without guns. My mother has even been politcally active in trying to get stricter gun laws. I just can't imagine seeing one or wanting to use one, let alone to hurt someone. I guess if you really feel the need to have one... that's your choice in this country, I just think the majority of people don't need to or deserve to carry.


I suppose I need to pack my bags and head to Australia! Sound good??

[bondiguy]

No, I don't carry all the time. But I do have a concealed weapons permit. I'm armed when I'm carrying a lot of cash, or in a bad neighborhood, or whenever I think I might want the protection of a handgun. I'm not a gun nut, by any means. I've been trained by the Marines in the lawful use of deadly force.I've also taught Air Force officers and personal how to shoot both handguns and rifles. I ran the armory in a reserve unit in the Army. Not to toot my own horn, but I've been honorably discharged from the Marines, the Army and the Air Force.In all three branches of service, I've been involved with weapons. In the Marines, one of my duties was to guard the payroll. I would carry a satchel with $25,000-$35,000 dollars across the base where 2500 Marines had M-16 weapons in their possession. The base I was stationed on was where the "first response" of Marines would originate from if anything happened in the world that required an immediate response. These Marines DID NOT keep their weapons at the armory. When I was a Corporal, one of my duties was to guard the payroll after it got dropped at the base but before it got loaded onto a naval ship. I remember sitting all night with a weapon locked and loaded on five safes that contained $250,000 cash. Again, the base where every Marine had an automatic weapon with them.  I guess my point is I've been in situations where being armed was not only a good idea but absolutely necessary.   It would upset me tremendously to shoot another human being. But, and this is the key, it would upset me even more to get attacked and have no way to defend myself. When it comes to deadly force, having a second chance is not an option. I value my life to the  extent that I don't want some crack-head who wants to steal my $50.00 sneakers for his next hit to be the one who decides whether or not I live or die. I know it's hard to understand why someone might be pro- gun ,but it's more a matter of being ready if the ultimate bad luck chooses you as it's next victim. I'd hate to miscalulate even once.

Well then that goes against your very argument. Do you carry it to church? Do you carry it when you have $2 in your pocket and you are just quickly going to the store to get some milk?

You said you never know when you're going to need it so I presumed it went everywhere with you? Know that I know it doesn't it makes your argument hold less sway.

You are obviously not the type of person I am talking about and I am sure you know that. You seem not only qualified but mentally stable enough to own a gun and hold enough common judgement of when and if to use it. I just don't like the idea of some dude sitting next to me having a coffee is carrying something that could kill me because I accidentaly glanced the wrong way

It always suprises me just how many people out here own guns/ are fanatical about their "rights." I've grown up in a family without guns and been around families without guns. My mother has even been politcally active in trying to get stricter gun laws. I just can't imagine seeing one or wanting to use one, let alone to hurt someone. I guess if you really feel the need to have one... that's your choice in this country, I just think the majority of people don't need to or deserve to carry.
I suppose I need to pack my bags and head to Australia! Sound good?? 

You're damn right you do honey!

Owning a gun in the USA looks as much like having a baby. Everyone is able to do it but maybe the bloody well shouldn't.

Owning a gun (and having a child) should be a privilage not a right

[SKULLZ0MBIE]

no comments

[closeup]

[quote=baby21,Dec 20 2007, 04:48 AM]
If you thought for about two seconds about what I wrote, then maybe you'd realize that the whole process of getting a gun would discourage people. If they were at least somewhat more difficult to obtain, it would take the "appeal" out of it and someone who was going to committ a crime of passion wouldn't be as capable in most circumstances.
Yes, since I so said that I wanted to get robbed, raped or killed. There are other methods of self defence other than carrying a gun around that would be just as effective and less harmful. I feel more threatened by paranoid people such as yourself than anything else. I honestly doubt that you will ever run across an instance where you will need your gun. If you do I doubt that you'll be carrying it and have access to it in time to make any difference.

That's not really my point though.. my point, like Bondi's is that guns just aren't for me. My other point is that if you value your right to own a gun so much, then you should go through all the training, and background checks, and yearly checkups the government can handle to inforce. (sounds like you shouldn't have a problem with this since you've apparently already had training). I really don't see what the big deal is.

Well, where to start? First off, I can think of many instances where being armed is better than not. I might be driving a moving van into an area that is a high crime area. The truck I'm driving contains literally every single thing a family owns, except maybe a suitcase and the clothes on their backs. If someone were to rob me and get the keys to my truck, that family would lose everything. Insurance would cover MY loss, but not theirs. I do antique shows around the country. There are times when they're are items in the truck worth many, many thousands of dollars. (I need to carry two million dollars of insurance just to be eligible to carry these loads.) Do you think a crook wouldn't love to steal a truck with a that kind of pay-off? There are times when I have to report to the local police station and get an escort into the place where I'm unloading. I need to show them my weapon and carry permit so everyone knows that I'm armed.
And, Bondi is right. I don't always have a weapon on hand. I don't carry when I'm jogging or shooting hoops or just going to the beach or grocery store. America is safe in the sense that people don't need to walk around paranoid, but that is beside the point. I have a responsibility to myself to try never to be a victim of a random crime. It is not my intention to try to persuade others to act as I do. I'd be happy if there were less guns and more restrictive availability. There should be background checks and mandatory training. But, for the government( which, in reality, is just someone bureaucrat) to say that I don't have the right to protect myself, that's where I draw the line. They're not up to the task of protecting every citizen. How many times have you ever heard of a cop PREVENTING a rape or robbery? They always show up on the scene AFTER the damage is done. And, how much comfort is it to the victim's family to hear such platitudes as, " We'll do every thing we can to find the guy" or "We're sorry, we're doing all we can." And, I'm not knocking the cops, they're in an impossible position. It's simply not possible for them to prevent crime. They respond after the crime has been committed. I think that most people who feel "safe", are delusional to a certain extant. They seem to go around with the mindset of "It can't happen to me". But, it can and it does. I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind about guns or gun laws, but not everyone is in the same boat.

[SKULLZ0MBIE]

no comments

[bondiguy]

lol, do you even watch the News or History Channel?
Discourage? you can't even discourage teens from having sex!
You can't discourage people from doing or making Drugs!
You can't discourage the Middle East from Killing Each Other or the rest of the Free World!

Its not about Discourage, its about Teaching Everyone Right from Wrong!
And why would you be THREATENED by an Armed American with the CCW?
Do you feel Threatened by Armed Polices? If only 4 person with a CCW on the planes of 9/11, would have save thousands of lives that day! If only 2 person with a CCW at Va Tech would have save 32 lives!
Are you also THREATENED by Armed Jesus? Is Jesus Paranoid? Or just you?

Guns save lives

Jesus Saves

Prove me wrong but showing me how many lives guns save rather than end? Please I beg of you.

In 2005.... over 10,000 people dies from homocide alone inside the USA. Show me where guns have saved 10,000 lives and I will eat humble pie. (and I mean at a civilian level, not law enforcement or military)

Well, where to start? First off, I can think of many instances where being armed is better than not. I might be driving a moving van into an area that is a high crime area. The truck I'm driving contains literally every single thing a family owns, except maybe a suitcase and the clothes on their backs. If someone were to rob me and get the keys to my truck, that family would lose everything. Insurance would cover MY loss, but not theirs. I do antique shows around the country. There are times when they're are items in the truck worth many, many thousands of dollars. (I need to carry two million dollars of insurance just to be eligible to carry these loads.) Do you think a crook wouldn't love to steal a truck with a that kind of pay-off? There are times when I have to report to the local police station and get an escort into the place where I'm unloading. I need to show them my weapon and carry permit so everyone knows that I'm armed.
And, Bondi is right. I don't always have a weapon on hand. I don't carry when I'm jogging or shooting hoops or just going to the beach or grocery store. America is safe in the sense that people don't need to walk around paranoid, but that is beside the point. I have a responsibility to myself to try never to be a victim of a random crime. It is not my intention to try to persuade others to act as I do. I'd be happy if there were less guns and more restrictive availability. There should be background checks and mandatory training. But, for the government( which, in reality, is just someone bureaucrat) to say that I don't have the right to protect myself, that's where I draw the line. They're not up to the task of protecting every citizen. How many times have you ever heard of a cop PREVENTING a rape or robbery? They always show up on the scene AFTER the damage is done. And, how much comfort is it to the victim's family to hear such platitudes as, " We'll do every thing we can to find the guy" or "We're sorry, we're doing all we can." And, I'm not knocking the cops, they're in an impossible position. It's simply not possible for them to prevent crime. They respond after the crime has been committed. I think that most people who feel "safe", are delusional to a certain extant. They seem to go around with the mindset of "It can't happen to me". But, it can and it does. I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind about guns or gun laws, but not everyone is in the same boat.

Mate I can understand your want and need to carry a gun in your line of work and if you feel as though you need to do so during other parts of your life that is fine. Personally I think it is paranoid but we each have our own opinions.

What isn't helping your case is the militant gun not above me sprouting all sorts of bullshit propaganda believed only by people of his ilk

[SKULLZ0MBIE]

no comments

[closeup]

That was an interesting article, thanks for taking the time to post it. Here's another interesting point: Have you ever noticed when these nutcases go on their rampages, it's almost always a school or mall or church? In other words, where people are unlikely to be armed. You never see them shoot up a police station or an army post. Why? Because they know they are likely to get shot before they can kill anyone.
To answer Skull's question, I carry a military-issue Colt .45.

Attached thumbnail(s)

[SKULLZ0MBIE]

no comments

[baby21]

Well then that goes against your very argument. Do you carry it to church? Do you carry it when you have $2 in your pocket and you are just quickly going to the store to get some milk?

You said you never know when you're going to need it so I presumed it went everywhere with you? Know that I know it doesn't it makes your argument hold less sway.

You are obviously not the type of person I am talking about and I am sure you know that. You seem not only qualified but mentally stable enough to own a gun and hold enough common judgement of when and if to use it. I just don't like the idea of some dude sitting next to me having a coffee is carrying something that could kill me because I accidentaly glanced the wrong way
You're damn right you do honey!

Owning a gun in the USA looks as much like having a baby. Everyone is able to do it but maybe the bloody well shouldn't.

Owning a gun (and having a child) should be a privilage not a right

I couldn't have said it better... I feel that the world would be a whole lot better with less children and less guns!! Oh well...

I don't really think this conversation is getting anywhere, but I suppose it's refreshing to hear the other side argued out. I will choose to respectfully disagree with you guys. I just hope you realize that there are people out there that feel safe without guns, and I don't believe that a live in a dilusional state. I just choose to be happy with my life and every minute of it so if and when something does happen to me I'm ready, whether that's a hundred years from now from old age or tomorrow from some serial killer...

I guess we just live life differently and hold some different views! I'm glad your gun offers you the protection and safety you feel it does, and out of all of this it is refreshing to see a responsible level headed gun owner.

[SKULLZ0MBIE]

no comments

[bondiguy]

bondiguy 

here the answer to your question

WHEN AN ARSONIST lights a match that burns a building, is the match at fault? Are match manufacturers responsible for the fire? Should laws be passed prohibiting you from having and using matches, or restricting which types you can have, and in what quantities?

The obvious answer to these questions is no. The same match that is misused by the arsonist lights the fireplace that warms us, and the stove that feeds us. The match has no mind of its own. It is not an evil invention. Its purpose is to ignite, nothing more. If it is misused, the solution is to punish the individual wrongdoer. Everyone else should be left alone.

The same is true of firearms.

Firearms are employed every day by police, military, and law-abiding private citizens to deter crime, participate in competitions, hunt, and in the gravest extreme, to save the life of a victim of murder, rape, or serious assault. Most often, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to stop criminal activity in its tracks.

To the woman whose clothes are about to be torn from her body by a knife-wielding rapist in a deserted parking lot, a handgun in the purse is a lifeline. It is a genuine equalizer that may mean the difference between her life and her death. It gives her a chance when she otherwise would have none.

Every police officer who has made an arrest or stopped a crime understands this principle. Every soldier who has known battle understands this as well. And every private citizen who has ever faced a violent criminal alone, and knows the feeling of an impending, untimely death at the hands of a merciless savage, understands the importance of being able to own and carry a firearm, whether or not he or she ever has to fire it.

Guns Stop Crime

Criminologists of all political persuasions, in over a dozen studies, estimate that firearms are used for protection against criminals several hundred thousand to 2.5 million times per year, often without a shot fired. This is a staggering statistic, but it's not one you are likely to hear on the evening news. Why is it that you don't hear about the homeowner who defended his family before the police could arrive; or the shopkeeper who saved his own life and the lives of his customers; or the woman who stopped her own rape and murder; or the teacher who stopped the school shooting?

Yet when a single criminal goes on a tragic rampage, that's ALL you hear about, over and over and over again, along with angry cries to ban firearms.  Why?

Media Bias

A recent study by the media watchdog Media Research Center (Alexandria, Virginia) concluded that media coverage of firearms is overwhelmingly biased to the negative, noting that between 1995 and 1999, television networks collectively aired 514 anti-gun stories, to a mere 46 that were pro-firearm, a ratio of more than 11-to-1 against firearms.

Unfortunately, we are only being told one side of the story. When we hear only one side, we assume that what we are told is all there is to know, and we do not inquire further. Biased media coverage controls public opinion by controlling public perception.

We have been conditioned to associate gun ownership with criminal activity, when in fact the opposite is true. There are nearly 80 million law-abiding gun owners in America, whose use of firearms is entirely for sport and self-defense. For these millions of people, firearms represent safety, security, and recreation. Shooting is even an Olympic sport, and the first medal of the 2000 Summer Olympics was gold, and was won by an American woman in a shooting event.

When a lone criminal misuses a firearm, does that negate the hundreds of thousands of times each year that firearms are used by citizens to prevent crime? Should the misdeed of a single wrongdoer be seized upon as an opportunity to recast all firearms and their law-abiding owners into evil entities to be ostracized, regulated and banished from society? Should you be compelled to turn in your matches because of the acts of an arsonist; or to turn in your steak knife because of the acts of a slasher; or to turn in your car because of the acts of a drunk driver? Of course not.

Crime Control, Not Gun Control

The public outcry for justice after a tragedy is both understandable and correct. But rather than calling for specific justice -- the apprehension and punishment of the particular wrongdoer so severely that future criminals will be effectively deterred -- we have been conditioned to emit an emotional response decrying guns and gun owners, and calling for urgent new regulation in the name of public safety.

This ignores the fact that there are already more than 20,000 gun laws in the United States, and every act perpetrated by the criminal was already in violation of existing law. What makes us think that new laws will have any more influence over the criminal mind than the existing ones?

New laws may make us feel good for the moment, satisfying the emotional need for a sense of justice after a tragedy, but all they really accomplish is to further restrict the rights of those who already follow the law.

Like the arsonist and his match, it is the wrongdoer who must be punished, not the law-abiding owner or manufacturer. Arson was already illegal when the fire was started. What will a new law accomplish, except making it more difficult -- perhaps impossible -- for you to light your fireplace when you need its warmth to stay alive?

Self Defense Hindered

Regulating and banning guns has the effect of disempowering the law-abiding while supplying advantage to the criminal. Try arguing this point with Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. In 1991, after leaving a legally owned firearm in her car in compliance with a local “safety” law restricting its carry in certain public places, Suzanna watched helplessly as her parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. Suzanna followed the law; the criminal didn't. How might the outcome have been different if the law had not restricted Suzanna’s right to have her firearm with her?

One might ask the same question about every mass shooting or terrorist attack that has occurred in recent memory: how might the outcome have been different if one of the victims had been lawfully armed?

The inescapable answer to this question is that lives would have been saved. This has been demonstrated in many documented incidents, but the mainstream media refuses to report that lawfully armed citizens have stopped killings before police could arrive.

For example, in 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old satanist murdered his ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students at a high school. As he was leaving to kill more children at a nearby junior high school, the assistant principal retrieved a lawfully owned handgun from his car and held the youth for five minutes until police arrived. Not long after, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school rampage ended abruptly when a local merchant lawfully armed with a shotgun convinced the teenage killer to surrender before police could arrive. How many more children would have died if “safety” laws had prevented the assistant principal and the merchant from owning and accessing their firearms?

And how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had a pilot, an air marshall, or a qualified passenger been lawfully armed?

Gun Ownership Reduces Crime Rates

The surprising truth is that there is a direct connection between lawful ownership and possession of firearms and the reduction of violent crime rates. In his book More Guns, Less Crime, Professor John R. Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press) provides the most comprehensive and statistically reliable study of firearms and crime ever conducted, analyzing the relationship between gun ownership and FBI crime statistics for each of the 3,045 counties in America over an 18 year period.

The study’s irrefutable conclusion: crime rates for murder, rape and robbery drop six to ten percent, and are sustained at reduced rates, when and where law-abiding adult citizens are permitted to carry concealed firearms. The reason for this is obvious: some criminals are deterred when they think that their intended victims may be armed.

This principle is not novel. For several years, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia had an ordinance requiring every resident to keep at least one firearm in the home. As a result, the home burglary rate in Kennesaw fell by over 80%. A similar regulation was recently passed in the town of Virgin, Utah.

Before you conclude that Georgia and Utah are populated by the misguided, consider the nation Switzerland, which actually issues military firearms and ammunition to be kept in the home. Possession of pistols and semi-automatic firearms by civilians is only modestly regulated. The resulting crime rate is surprisingly low – lower, in fact, than the crime rate in Great Britain, where gun control laws are the most restrictive in the western world.

Guns Prevent Oppression

Movements to ban and overregulate firearms and demonize their owners are based on fear and misunderstanding of the role that firearms play in a free society. Private firearms ownership insures personal safety when police are delayed or unavailable, and collective firearms ownership by a population is an insurance policy against government oppression and extreme abuses of power. This is what the men and women who founded America had in mind when they acknowledged the people's right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights, next to the First Amendment.

If you don't think that governments oppress and commit atrocities against their own people, think again. During the 20th century, while Americans were building cars, factories, and shopping malls, at least seven major genocides occurred throughout the world, in which more than 50 million people were exterminated by their own governments (Germany, USSR, Communist China, Cambodia, Uganda, Guatemala, and the Ottoman Empire). Each of these state-run atrocities was preceded by "common sense" gun control, registration, and eventual confiscation by the government, all under the pretext of advancing public safety.

The most well-known example is Nazi Germany. Prior to the murder of 13 million people throughout Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, a gradual and systematic program of gun control and registration was implemented. Public safety was the stated justification. Once gun owners had been identified through registration, an aggressive gun confiscation program to disarm the population (and in particular, Jewish people) was implemented. As a result, the population was rendered defenseless against the slaughter that followed. Said Hitler in his Edict of March 18, 1938: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."

How might the outcome of the Holocaust and other government-organized genocides have been different if the victims had not first been disarmed under the pretext of public safety?

Even the great pacifist leader Mahatma Ghandi comprehended the significance of a population's right to be armed. Said Ghandi in an autobiography: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

Guns Save Lives

The bottom line is that firearms stop crimes, prevent oppression, and save lives. Like any tool or instrument, they can also be misused. The solution is not to restrict or eliminate the tool in general, but rather to punish and banish the specific misuser. Restriction or elimination of the tool creates the mere illusion of justice while depriving everyone else of its undeniable benefits.

—Scott L. Bach
   (Publication Pending)

I highlighted the only word worth highlighting in your post.... show me the facts!

Take a match out of an arsonists hand and it will take him a long time to burn that building down rubbing 2 sticks together!

Guns may not stop murders but it surely only limit them?

I couldn't have said it better... I feel that the world would be a whole lot better with less children and less guns!! Oh well...

I don't really think this conversation is getting anywhere, but I suppose it's refreshing to hear the other side argued out. I will choose to respectfully disagree with you guys. I just hope you realize that there are people out there that feel safe without guns, and I don't believe that a live in a dilusional state. I just choose to be happy with my life and every minute of it so if and when something does happen to me I'm ready, whether that's a hundred years from now from old age or tomorrow from some serial killer...

I guess we just live life differently and hold some different views! I'm glad your gun offers you the protection and safety you feel it does, and out of all of this it is refreshing to see a responsible level headed gun owner.

Yeah I am now officially over it. I do like the USA and most of it's people but with guns bred so deeply into it's culture I am glad I do not live there. If I had to carry a gun for protection I'd rather put it to my own temple.

[baby21]

I highlighted the only word worth highlighting in your post.... show me the facts!

Take a match out of an arsonists hand and it will take him a long time to burn that building down rubbing 2 sticks together!

Guns may not stop murders but it surely only limit them?
Yeah I am now officially over it. I do like the USA and most of it's people but with guns bred so deeply into it's culture I am glad I do not live there. If I had to carry a gun for protection I'd rather put it to my own temple.

Well.. you could put your gun to my temple.

(ooo that was bad .. I'm sinking to new lows!)

[bondiguy]

Well.. you could put your gun to my temple.

(ooo that was bad .. I'm sinking to new lows!)

Finally.... welcome to our level!

I possess a lethal shot!

[belicked6924]

I highlighted the only word worth highlighting in your post.... show me the facts!

Take a match out of an arsonists hand and it will take him a long time to burn that building down rubbing 2 sticks together!

Guns may not stop murders but it surely only limit them?
Yeah I am now officially over it. I do like the USA and most of it's people but with guns bred so deeply into it's culture I am glad I do not live there. If I had to carry a gun for protection I'd rather put it to my own temple.

Not to get into this arguement because I can truly see both sides on this one, but trying to show facts on something not taking place is impossible. It brings to mind the old question of if a tree falls in the woods and there is noone around to hear it does it make a sound?

[bondiguy]

Not to get into this arguement because I can truly see both sides on this one, but trying to show facts on something not taking place is impossible. It brings to mind the old question of if a tree falls in the woods and there is noone around to hear it does it make a sound?

oh contraire it is quite possible. These days you can find statistics on the internet about anything. If a civilian prevents a death with a handgun it would be on the news and and will be logged by criminal statisticians I promise you.

Hearsay, rumuor, innuendo, predictions do not hold up in court or in any debate

[baby21]

Finally.... welcome to our level!

I possess a lethal shot!

I don't know... I need some proof before you make me a believer.

[bondiguy]

I don't know... I need some proof before you make me a believer.

Well get your fine little self over here!

[baby21]

Well get your fine little self over here!

Easier said than done!

[bondiguy]

Easier said than done!

Open the first VS store in Sydney!