|
|
|
|
calfcramp
May 12, 2003, 3:09 PM
Post #26 of 36
(580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2003
Posts: 391
|
I'm not a huge supporter of Moore either. A little too in your face for me. But how else is anyone going to make a case these days?
I do take exception to the comparison of climbing and shooting. They are both dangerous, but the danger to the non participants is far greater in shooting.
I realize that a few bad eggs (numbering in the thousands) are spoiling it for the upstanding gun owning citizens. But I don't get why people have to be so obsessed with gun ownership. There is no NEED for them. If a person wants a gun, that's fine I guess, but why don't people agree to have them better controlled? If you're an honest citizen, you shouldn't have anything to hide right?
When you're dealing with such potential lethality, strict controls should be in place. Many people can be trusted to possess and handle guns. But there are sooooo many people out there who can't, the responsible people ought to recognize that fact and yield some of their freedom for the greater good.
Those who aren't willing to make such a small sacrifice like their guns a little too much.
|
|
|
|
|
dontfall
May 12, 2003, 5:21 PM
Post #27 of 36
(580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 2798
|
In reply to: In reply to: Honestly I'd like to try shooting myself. :shock: I wouldn't recoment it. :D
:D I would :D
|
|
|
|
|
treeline
May 12, 2003, 5:37 PM
Post #28 of 36
(580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2003
Posts: 12
|
calfcramp and others that don't appear to be shooters, let me try to relate it to you this way. if there were a rash of children killed in climbing accidents, would you support a ban on certain types of climbing? what if you had to apply for a permit (that may or may not be approved) every time you wanted to go climbing so the rescue teams knew how many people would be where? or take a fitness test each year to prove you wern't a risk to yourself or others? how about a climbing permit fee? if you've ever been involved in a serious climbing accident, how about a database and background checks to be sure you didn't buy any more equipment? after all, it would just be a small sacrifice right?
the concepts are the same. all of the gun regulations in the world aren't going to stop people from getting hurt or killed or make the world any safer. they just lessen the enjoyment and increase the expense for anyone willing to abide by them.
and please be carful with the "need" idea. how much stuff do you own or do that isn't essentially needed? and where do you draw the line. how many people "need" a car that can go 150mph? how many accidents occur at high speed and as a result of drivers losing control. how many deaths? would you advocate strict regulating of sports cars, motorcycles, etc? regualtion of quite a bit is not to far a stretch for those with this mentality.
|
|
|
|
|
calfcramp
May 12, 2003, 6:27 PM
Post #29 of 36
(580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2003
Posts: 391
|
People can kill themselves if they want doing stupid things (some, like my mother include climbing on their list of stupid things...) You're only putting yourself, and perhaps other willing participants, at risk.
Drive fast, on a closed course, not in school zones. I'm all for fast cars.
Imagine climbing in an area and spending the day out there having fun, then a bunch of yahoos show up with their gun collections and start enjoying their "hobby". You start up your climb, and BANG! Gunfire.
A little offputting, but you you continue. Then BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! etc... automatic (semi- whatever...) gunfire.
As you are not the person shooting the gun, you have no idea where it's pointed. I, as a rule, don't like having lethal weapons around when I'm out enjoying myself. Sure, my car is a lethal weapon, but I drive on the roads. Not through the woods at 100mph. i.e. responsibly.
There are too many people out there who use their guns irresponsibly. For that, I believe the general gun-toting public should pay the price. Give up a little freedom for the good of the public.
Guns should only be used on shooting ranges, or out in the middle of nowhere for hunting. I suppose you can't control it, but we should be trying to.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
May 12, 2003, 6:34 PM
Post #30 of 36
(580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Nobody ever talks about all the crimes that were prevented because the intended victims had guns. Hmm.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
May 13, 2003, 1:23 AM
Post #31 of 36
(580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: Imagine climbing in an area and spending the day out there having fun, then a bunch of yahoos show up with their gun collections and start enjoying their "hobby". You start up your climb, and BANG! Gunfire.
Yea, right. That happens everyday. A real problem.
In reply to: There are too many people out there who use their guns irresponsibly.
I defy you to prove that.
In reply to: For that, I believe the general gun-toting public should pay the price. Give up a little freedom for the good of the public. Guns should only be used on shooting ranges, or out in the middle of nowhere for hunting. I suppose you can't control it, but we should be trying to.
Precisely what qualifies you to make such a statement? Do you have any training or experience whatsoever? Do you know anything about how, where and when firearms are used in this country by law-abiding citizens? Do you have any personal experience whatsoever to use terms like "yahoos" "gun-toting public?" Are you now or have you ever been involved in law enforcement or legislative work to have the training or education to qualify you to determine what rights other Americans should or should not have? Do you have the foggiest idea of how many gun laws are on the books in this country? I would love to hear you even venture a guess.
Guns owned by law-abiding citizens are only used in appropriate places for appropriate purposes including the protection of the average American family. I will rely on myself and my choice of personal firearm, thank you. You can rely on your alarm systems (if you even have one) and the response time of your local police. Heck, nobody ever gets mugged, robbed or raped anyway. That only happens on TV to the other guy.
If you live long enough, you will probably go somewhere or encounter someone and find yourself in a situation that might enlighten you in a helluva hurry. For your sake, I hope it never happens. But if it does, I'd love to have a cup of coffee with you afterward...if you're still around.
This board is peppered with comments about people abusing alcohol and drugs. Surprised I didn't hear you speak out so boldly then. But hey, that's fun and it doesn't hurt anyone, right?
|
|
|
|
|
charley
May 13, 2003, 1:30 AM
Post #32 of 36
(580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 13, 2002
Posts: 6627
|
good show danoo
|
|
|
|
|
extrememountaineer
May 13, 2003, 2:42 AM
Post #33 of 36
(580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 377
|
Danooguy speaketh the truth! The quotes he highlighted are right from the liberal establishments handbook on anti-gun propaganda. Throw out a bunch of unproven "factoids" enough times and eventually it will stick. And, they have Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and the NY Times et al, to help their cause.
|
|
|
|
|
w6jxm
May 13, 2003, 5:05 AM
Post #34 of 36
(580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 792
|
In reply to: Guns should only be used on shooting ranges, or out in the middle of nowhere for hunting. I suppose you can't control it, but we should be trying to.
You have to realize, to the general public, our crags are "in the middle of nowhere". To them, they are getting away from people and trying to enjoy their sport in a safe, respectable way. I can't really get a hand gun because my residency is in CA and they are big a$$es when it comes to getting permits but I do have bolt action rifle at home, but don't get to use because of outside circumstaces (ie. living on a school campus where I teach and work).
Guns are the second amendment. We all hold the first almost sacred. Why then is the second so frowned upon and made to no effect. I say we make it a law that people have to buy a yearly permit for $200 just to smoke. How many children are born with defects because of parents smoking. How many spouses of smokers get cancer early from second hand smoke. I'm sure there has been at least one car wreck from someone lighting up and not paying attention.
Think of how much safer this country would be in every single citizen had a gun. Criminals would think twice about mugging, breaking and entering, and assault. How namy deaths were there from children playiing with guns 200 years ago? Kids were taught to use guns just like any other farm tool. They knew the dangers. The kids today do not. It is all about education. A gun is just like a knife. When used in an unsafe manner, they can kill. But so can any other weapon used inproperly.
|
|
|
|
|
calfcramp
May 13, 2003, 1:21 PM
Post #35 of 36
(580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2003
Posts: 391
|
Wow. I had no idea that people lived in such fear in the U.S. I suppose vigilante law is the way to go. Why pump millions (if not billions, who knows...) of cash into law enforcement? It appears that police can't hack the job. The friendly neighborhood gun owners are prepared to take the responsibility of defending the general populace on their own. Sounds great. I supppose it will also help protect your herds form wolves and keep the British from turning you back into a colony.
Sounds like progress to me. :roll:
I remember watching the news after the US went into Afghanistan. (Which I was all for) There was a short piece on how dangerous it was going to be because the Taliban didn't have uniforms, and how it was part of the culture for a boy to receive his first gun on his 14th birthday. It was his graduation to manhood. I remember then thinking to myself: "That is nuts!"
But to think that almost the same mentality is shared by (albeit, a small portion of) the US public, is shocking to me.
"I say we make it a law that people have to buy a yearly permit for $200 just to smoke."
I agree, if you'll agree to take that money to get rid of the guns. Will that not make the world a better place? I suppose not in your eyes though, EH? Someone will break into your house, rob you blind, kill your children, take one of your kidneys, and steal the rest of your ammunition the second your gun(s) is/are taken away.
Sleep well!
|
|
|
|
|
w6jxm
May 13, 2003, 4:48 PM
Post #36 of 36
(580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 792
|
The only problems is the bad guys will always have guns. That is a fact of life. No matter how many restrictions you put on the general public, the bad guys will always find a way to have them. What happened to countries that took guns away from their people? They turned into the communistic, freedom restricted, non democratic countires we see in the world today or of yesteryear. When guns are taken away from the people, government will always take control of our lives. give me three examples of why guns are bad, and I will show you ten reasons why other products that are legal that cause more harm and death but are not restricted anywhere near the levels that guns are. Gun control is a mentality, not a law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
