GENIUS FORUMS

Guns in the hands of private citizens are mostly used for self defense. Often they can end a situation without being fired. For instance, many rapes are prevented every year when the woman presents a gun to her would-be rapist. Criminals like an easy target.

It's that "mostly" that concerns me. I will repeat: if I could snap my fingers and make all handguns vanish, I would do it. I would need more than your say so to believe that "many" rapes are prevented when the woman presents a gun. If I believe my own household is better off unarmed, then I certainly believe society would be. You allow people to own guns and you allow people to consume alcohol. While I don't perceive a threat in my own community, I can certainly see that "adult" does not equate to "mature and responsible." As the population grows and more guns are manufactured every year, you are increasing the ingredients for tragedies to erupt. Why is this up for debate? If the Virginia Techs can happen, then it is only a matter of time before they do happen.

I was not saying let's go and round up everybody's weapons. It was purely a thought experiment. If all the handguns would go away, then society would be safer.

Your analogy to motorcycles falls short because a motorcyle's purpose is not to injure another human being. I would not even think of saying society would be better off without motorcycles no matter how unsafe they may be.

If owning a gun makes you feel safer, then I just have to be grateful that you are a mature, responsible adult, because the society you and I both live in permits you to possess a weapon. In fact, I owe my life to it, that people who own handguns as a group have seen fit not to take my life.

I see our society as largely unarmed and blessedly safe from tragic occurrences resulting from gunfire. That is on a day-to-day basis. DHodges, you and I both live in the Philadelphia area, so we hear the same news reports of gun violence in the city. You don't think the homicide rate is correlated to the availability of guns? I'm a white guy and I'm telling you I feel safe walking in any neighborhood. If I were armed, I would feel less safe. Far less safe. I would feel like a target.

The only argument you make that I buy is the political one.

I would need more than your say so to believe that "many" rapes are prevented when the woman presents a gun.

Try taking a look at:

http://www.2asisters.org/press/facts.htm

http://www.tysknews.com/TyskWorks/ignor ... excuse.htm

http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=287

The only argument you make that I buy is the political one.

Well, that's really the only one that matters. Mike Huckabee explains:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=53BE93_0gJc

You're an intelligent man, DHodges. Those links you posted are 100% pure propaganda. Do you really buy that crap?

I am reminded of the Three Stooges short wherein the boys find a baby on their doorstep. Curly says to Moe:"I gave the kid a pacifier!" Quick cut to an infant sucking on a revolver.

You numbskull!!

Obviously, I do not own a gun. The more armed people in society there are, the more likely I will die of a gunshot wound. And the idea of everyday women carrying handguns gives me the shivers.

Well, that's really the only one that matters. Mike Huckabee explains:

Yes and he explains it well. Again, I am against tinkering with the Constitution. I do not see my government as a threat to me, at least not at this point. What I see as a threat are these little lethal devices in the hands of ordinary people who may or may not be emotionally stable. There are considerable pressures living in a civilized society. I do not know where all the psychological fissures are. Do you? It seems to me that it is just the type of person who somehow feels threatened that decides to own a handgun.

brokenhead wrote:And the idea of everyday women carrying handguns gives me the shivers.

That's the most misogynistic thing I've heard in quite a while. And that's saying something.

What do you expect from a broken head?

DHodges wrote:

brokenhead wrote:And the idea of everyday women carrying handguns gives me the shivers.

That's the most misogynistic thing I've heard in quite a while. And that's saying something.

You're being disingenuous. We're talking about reality here. Women think it's all right to slap other people, especially men. Society cuts women far too many breaks because it doesn't yet take them seriously. As it is, I do not believe the majority of women are armed, but there is nothing preventing them from getting that way. While I disagree with QRS on many points, it would be insane to think women are any less creatures of emotion than men. If you are not a master of your emotions, you should not own a gun. To my knowledge, there is no test for that. So few people are in enough control of their own lives, that they should own devices whose sole purpose it is to take the lives of others puts undue responsibility upon them. There are handgun mishaps in the military, and those good people are trained in the use and care of handguns. You are deliberately ignoring my point.

Carl G wrote:What do you expect from a broken head?

Hey that was clever, Carl! I thought you gag writers were out on strike. Get off your ass and get back to the picket line.

It wasn't a gag. Exhibit 1: see gibberish below:

You're being disingenuous. We're talking about reality here. Women think it's all right to slap other people, especially men. Society cuts women far too many breaks because it doesn't yet take them seriously. As it is, I do not believe the majority of women are armed, but there is nothing preventing them from getting that way. While I disagree with QRS on many points, it would be insane to think women are any less creatures of emotion than men. If you are not a master of your emotions, you should not own a gun. To my knowledge, there is no test for that. So few people are in enough control of their own lives, that they should own devices whose sole purpose it is to take the lives of others puts undue responsibility upon them. There are handgun mishaps in the military, and those good people are trained in the use and care of handguns. You are deliberately ignoring my point.

Carl G wrote:It wasn't a gag. Exhibit 1: see gibberish below:

You're being disingenuous. We're talking about reality here. Women think it's all right to slap other people, especially men. Society cuts women far too many breaks because it doesn't yet take them seriously. As it is, I do not believe the majority of women are armed, but there is nothing preventing them from getting that way. While I disagree with QRS on many points, it would be insane to think women are any less creatures of emotion than men. If you are not a master of your emotions, you should not own a gun. To my knowledge, there is no test for that. So few people are in enough control of their own lives, that they should own devices whose sole purpose it is to take the lives of others puts undue responsibility upon them. There are handgun mishaps in the military, and those good people are trained in the use and care of handguns. You are deliberately ignoring my point.

Not a gag? No wonder it wasn't funny. I know what the post says. I wrote it. What am I supposed to do? Recoil under your searing, insightful analysis?

I'm guessing you will continue to be caused to be an idiot. By your reply.

This has clearly gone beyond the point where rational discussion is possible. I withdraw.

Me too.

.

Why the Bush Push to Ban Guns?


http://www.thesop.org/index.php?id=9368

.

Just let it die Thomas?

.

West Virginia weighing gun lessons for schoolchildren

The courses would be imparted in secondary schools, from the eighth to 10th grade (13-16 years of age).

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

.

Questions posed to one and all:

- Would you endorse some limited firearms safety training of high school students; even if humans that age are not allowed to own & carry a gun?

- Before a citizen is allowed to drive a car (a deadly machine), they are required to demonstrate proficiency.
Would firearms proficiency testing benefit society?
And if so, what if the citizen to be tested is a 90 year old widow that lives alone, and has been the victim of crime in her own home before. She might not be able to hit the target as well as a SWAT marksman. But she might be good enough to shoot an intruder in her kitchen, or at least scare him away.

And if proficiency testing is a good idea, how would that be reconciled with the 2nd Amendment? "... shall not be infringed"

hahahahah. That's a good one, no I wouldn't approve of required firearms training. Actually, I did shoot a mac 10, m-16, magnum 57, and ak-47 as an 17 y/o senior in highschool, but that was more for fun than training. I was a pretty bad shot, but I still liked the automatic(drug-dealer gun) best. Just like I don't approve of required public service, I wouldn't approve of required gun-slinging, but it's still fun if you like that sort of thing. It's no different than paintball really, but a firearm is a dangerous item to actually own. That's when people murder each other :(

I do approve of training children from the age of six. I believe boys should be organized into youth groups, similar to the scouts but with paramilitary training. If we are to fight terrorism in the streets and on the beaches we need legions of tough young men. It's best to start with them early. I don't see a problem vis a vis the Constitution. That document has been superseded by the exigencies of the times. We are basically now under the New World Order, and the vermin who oppose it need to be disallowed from gaining any toehold, especially in the minds of our young ones.

Carl G wrote:I do approve of training children from the age of six. I believe boys should be organized into youth groups, similar to the scouts but with paramilitary training. If we are to fight terrorism in the streets and on the beaches we need legions of tough young men. It's best to start with them early. I don't see a problem vis a vis the Constitution. That document has been superseded by the exigencies of the times. We are basically now under the New World Order, and the vermin who oppose it need to be disallowed from gaining any toehold, especially in the minds of our young ones.

Well it sounds like you are being serious in this one, Carl.

I think you are also being a bit extreme. Reprising the Hitlerjugend in a supposedly free society is a dangerous propsition. It would have been better had you left out the argument that the Constitution has been superseded, because it makes your suggestion sound more unconstitutional than I think it actually is.

I surprise myself by not being against training of young people in the proper use and care of firearms. By young, I would have to say 16 and older. I think this would not lead to any appreciable increase in gun ownership, but would make the eventual gun ownership of these young people - something that would happen with a certain portion of them anyway - more safe and responsible.

But we shouldn't stop there. American youth is woefully unprepared for adulthood in this society. With the exception of driver's ed classes, our young people do not learn some very important things. For instance, what does the average adult know about the law? The law should be a mandatory, multi-year course in high schools. Sex education should also be mandatory and less half-assed. Economics and basic finances - how banks really work, how taxes really work - these things should be drummed into every citizen while they're young. Self-defense, how to spot scams, the list goes on. It's almost as if we are trying to extend the neotony of our young, rather than perpare them for responsible adulthood.

I see nothing wrong with fostering appreciation and mature attitudes towards firearms.

.


-Singe-
sear - Questions posed to one and all:

Would you endorse some limited firearms safety training of high school students; even if humans that age are not allowed to own & carry a gun?

-tomas-
I don't know if you bothered to read the last article I submitted (West Virginia) ... 10-year-olds can receive hunting licenses.




-Singe-
Before a citizen is allowed to drive a car (a deadly machine), they are required to demonstrate proficiency.

-tomas-
North Dakota (where i grew up) the legal age to drive is 14.




-Singe-
Would firearms proficiency testing benefit society?

-tomas-
Every individual is different.




-Singe-
And if so, what if the citizen to be tested is a 90 year old widow that lives alone,

-tomas-
I'm sure Daybrown has some hillbilly brothers to help her out.




-Singe-
and has been the victim of crime in her own home before.

-tomas-
Electronic barriers may be needed in this area.




-Singe-
She might not be able to hit the target as well as a SWAT marksman.

-tomas-
But the DEA may receive the wrong "snitch information" and kill her instead. Save the taxpayer some $$$ and no nursing home bills.



-Singe-
But she might be good enough to shoot an intruder in her kitchen, or at least scare him away.

-tomas-
Are you admitting to some past burglary (gone wrong) here?




-Singe-
And if proficiency testing is a good idea, how would that be reconciled with the 2nd Amendment? "... shall not be infringed"

-tomas-
Every state has different interpretations.

ps - All kidding aside, American's shoot first and ask questions later (especially in Iraq, Afghanistan) same as it ever was :-)




Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

.

.

My hunch is Carl has a little tongue-in-cheek here,
but is looking at it in "present day" realism :-|




-Clint-
Carl G - I do approve of training children from the age of six.

-tomas-
I grew up with guns, no biggie here.




-Clint-
I believe boys should be organized into youth groups,
similar to the scouts but with paramilitary training.

-tomas-
Bring it on! Reminds me of the Civil War days ... protect the Fatherland. Where art thou, Abe Lincoln?




-Clint-
If we are to fight terrorism in the streets and on
the beaches we need legions of tough young men.

-tomas-
Better to start them off on the path of good, than as crack dealers who end up clogging the prisons.




-Clint-
It's best to start with them early.

-tomas-
This is my rifle, this is my gun.
(this one is for shooting, this one for fun)




-Clint-
I don't see a problem vis a vis the Constitution.

-tomas-
That's right, brainwash that piece of parchment!




-Clnt-
That document has been superseded by the exigencies of the times.

-tomas-
We're all all-right.




-Clint-
We are basically now under the New World Order,

-tomas-
NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM (see back of dollar bill)




-Clint-
and the vermin who oppose it need to be disallowed from gaining any toehold,

-tomas-
By any and/or all means necessary.




-Clint-
especially in the minds of our young ones.

-tomas-
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.


ps - Arizona is an "open carry" state.




Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971



.

"That's a good one, no I wouldn't approve of required firearms training." snow

Me too. But that's not the question.

Would you endorse some limited firearms safety training of high school students; as for example for students that wanted it, and had the approval of their parents?

And what about proficiency testing for gun owners?
Or what about proficiency testing for those that wish to carry a gun in public?
Should citizens that are legally blind be allowed to own a gun? Carry a gun in public?

Tomas,
You have repeatedly quoted my post, but labeled the quotation "-Singe-".
Nope, not sure why. You?

I will consider responding to your future posts if you address my comments by the psued I use, with proper spelling and case.
It's called "Genius Forum". You should be able to spell a four letter pseud correctly.
I've even made it easy for you. If you touch type, you can type "sear" one handed.