General Category > General Discussion
CT school-Newtown CT
wiggy:
Why are you arguing over what areas are "gun free" and not? There's no such thing in this country.
There are SO many studies which show that civilian gun owners almost never use their weapons in any effective protective means. In fact, more home owners are killed by their own guns when there's an intruder than those who are able to effectively decent themselves.
Your logic is terribly faulty. You cite that civilians who can't defend themselves against other civilians with handguns is an argument for handguns. If they weren't any handguns available to anyone then their would be no need to defend against them.
Obviously I haven't purchased a gun lately, so please get to your point.
redsox2012:
"It's the same with drug laws. Laws that are passed always do the opposite of their intention. It's called unintended consequences."
Just as the right to bear arms has unintended consequences.
Unfortunately, our gun laws are like medicines whose side effects are worse than the ailment that they cure. Many people believe that citizens must be armed to prevent the government from "taking over". What's worse - the government imposing martial law on the people, or innocent children being massacred? I'd vote to save the children and take my chances with the government. No fate, even the loss of some freedom, is worth the price of children's deaths.
Some say that the 2nd amendment exists for citizens to protect their liberties. Well, guns are legal (always have been), and our children are still being slaughtered. Who is protecting them?
EDIT - This entire post is mine except for the first line I quoted from a previous comment - I messed up the "quote" function
sheep2001:
And how does a gun so called free state make any difference when you can legally buy one in a neighbouring state? It needs to be a national blanket ban to have any impact, and probably takes a generation at the very least to filter through. There would still be gang related gun crime, as hardened criminals would still trade in weaponry, but your average emo sociopath wouldn't get his hands on them.
I don't expect any pro gun people to agree with any such sentiment, but perhaps a glance at gun death statistics across the US compared with say the whole of western Europe would be any eye opener. no? Didn't think so!
wiggy:
That's exactly what I'm driving at. There's no such thing as a so-called "gun free" zone. It's like banning sand in Arizona. So what? There's sand in every neighboring state, so it's bound to find its way back in.
n64gamer4ever:
Bans sure have a great history of working. Look at alcohol prohibition, worked well. Drug prohibition, that is one that is really working well. The fact is, banning something does not get rid of problems. Drugs are banned, yet people have easy access to it. Heck, your neighbor may be dealing right now.
Banning guns only keeps them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. When I say something about a gun-free zone, it's the law abiding citizens that are gun free. They have no means to protect themselves.
Whenever they do ban guns, those that want them WILL get them. Just as a drug user gets what he wants.
Let's say someone decides they want to slaughter 20 people and drive a car through a crowd. Should we ban all cars? It was, afterall, used as a weapon.
And as far as giving up freedom to save some lives, wtf. Maybe we should allow warrantless searches of all houses on random basis. This way, you would be more safe because they might find something in your neighborhood that is unsafe.
You all are thinking emotionally, and that's exactly why our freedoms get shredded. Do you really think that guy would have been able to kill 20 kids if the teachers were armed and trained? If you say yes to that, there is no hope for this nation.