I completely agree, no amount of laws will ever completely end anything,
because you're right. Where there is demand supply will be available.
However if guns weren't so easy to get a hold of you have to admit that many
would not commit acts of violence. If a kids gets beat up by a bully and has
the ability to run upstairs and grab a gun and put it in his back pack, he's
more likely to do it, than if he had no access to a gun in the house and
would have to figure out how to get one. Chances are he'd cool off and think
about it.
I can't even imagine what logic dictates to own several guns. Ok if I take
into account that there are accounts of people defending themselves with a
fire arm, why more than one? In case you are being attacked by several
assailants? In case you need to arm the wife and kids?
People who are for guns seem to always have many guns. and a lot seem to
have no need for them. I live in a particularly crappy area, I hear gun
shots at night at least once a month or more, I feel in no way compelled to
arm myself.
The argument that our country was founded on guns and our ability to defend
ourselves is moot. When the constitution was written our army was small and
mostly militia. Of course they needed to be armed. However our country was
also founded on slavery, and yet somehow we saw fit to abolish that. So we
can't argue that was good back in 1776 is still good and applies today.
Today needs to be judged by today, and today we have a nation of people
armed to the teeth simply because they can be. And unless evidence is made
available that the number of innocent people killed by family guns is much
smaller than the number of people saved by a family gun, I'll choose to stay
un armed.
J.
John Wilker
Web Applications Consultant
Macromedia Certified ColdFusion Developer
www.red-omega.com <http://www.red-omega.com>
"Pessimism - Every dark cloud has a silver lining, but lightning kills
hundreds of people each year who are trying to find it." ~despair.com
-----Original Message-----
From: George Kaytor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 11:49 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Violent education
"All guns kill" - Nope, I own several guns and they have never killed
anything. (I don't hunt, only target shoot) My dog did kill a frog once
though......
"However we aren't talking about criminals" - The second those psycho kids
started planning their assault on the school, they became criminals. Are you
really naive to think if their parents didn't own guns they could not have
gotten them?
Also, there are plenty of stories of people successfully defending
themselves with firearms. The media chooses to downplay them though.
Here's more food for thought.... Washington DC has the strongest gun control
laws in the country? They also have one of the highest crime rates. Make
your own conclusions....
-george
>From: "John Wilker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Violent education
>Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 11:09:43 -0700
>
>I completely agree that gun control will have little effect on the
>criminals
>out there. However we aren't talking about the criminals. We're talking
>about kids going out and shooting their classmates in cold blood with the
>parents weapons. Gun control would come very close to solving that problem.
>If you look at all these school shooting cases I don't recall any of the
>kids coming from the homes of known criminals. They come from the homes of
>the people who feel a gun will offer them protection from criminals.
>
>"I think everyone for gun control should put
>a big sign in their yard (We have no firearms in this household). This
>would
>serve as a great invite to burglars."
>
>I'll put a sign in my yard that says I have no gun. How many people who own
>guns "for protection" have had to protect themselves? If some one kicked in
>your door would you have either the time or inclination to run for your
>gun?
>Houses are usually robbed when empty and when they're not it's a home
>invasion scenario in which case, many are killed with the guns they bought
>to protect themselves.
>
>"So .. if I have guns and the kid down the street has guns and he kills a
>bunch of people and I don't, what's the difference? It's not the guns.
>I'll say its 50% nature and 50% nurture ... that's what it *really* boils
>down to."
>
>The difference is, that if neither household had a gun in it, the kids
>would
>be alive and your chances of being robbed would be no greater.
>
>Do any of us really think that criminals know where the houses with guns
>are? Owning a gun is no more a deterrent than being an off duty police
>office asleep in your bed, a crook isn't gonna know that going in.
>
>"The next problem with your logic is where do you draw the line? Drug
>dealers
>train attack dogs to protect their 'crack houses'. When the police bust in,
>these dogs attack the police buying their owners time to either attempt
>escape or destroy evidence. Do we ban owning dogs?"
>
>That's a slippery slope that can't be answered. By that logic we should out
>law doors, since they impeded a cops entering of a house. That's not really
>a strong argument. But to address dogs, not all dogs kill, some do some
>don't. All guns kill. People or animals, guns have no other purpose than to
>end life.
>
>J.
>
>
>
>John Wilker
>Web Applications Consultant
>Macromedia Certified ColdFusion Developer
>
>www.red-omega.com <http://www.red-omega.com>
>
>"Pessimism - Every dark cloud has a silver lining, but lightning kills
>hundreds of people each year who are trying to find it." ~despair.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Todd Ashworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 10:30 AM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Re: Violent education
>
>
>| If we had strict gun control then who would we need to protect ourselves
>| from? If the criminals couldn't get guns then people wouldn't think they
>| needed them in their houses.
>
>I hate to disagree, but strict gun control isn't going to do much to keep
>the guns out of the hands of people. Drugs are actually illegal, yet kids
>these days have better access to drugs in schools than they do guns. Gun
>control might help, but it won't solve anything in the long run. Don't get
>me wrong .. I'm no fan of the NRA, but I don't believe in gun control for
>the sake of preventing violence alone. It just isn't going to work.
>
>Growing up, I played violent video games, watched violent shows on TV, had
>toy guns, played war with my buddies and all of that. I also had access to
>guns and even personaly owned a few. I had my share of run-ins with
>bullies
>in highschool, but I *never* felt compelled to take a gun to school and
>blow
>some people away for the hell of it.
>
>So .. if I have guns and the kid down the street has guns and he kills a
>bunch of people and I don't, what's the difference? It's not the guns.
>I'll say its 50% nature and 50% nurture ... that's what it *really* boils
>down to.
>
>Todd
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
