lets think about this before we panic.
no one has ever held the position that good people, ie people without any previous background of violence, can't turn, can't make mistakes for which they must suffer the consequences.
the question must turn on rights--nobody here was there when they were given and they were given with provision of repealment. this, in my openion is the sorry state we are in. there are people who honestly believe, for reasons not well communicated, that we can live peacable without personal protection.
what we must do if we want to defend our rights, and i believe we should, is present a true and accurate picture of the needs and the validity of the needs. it is not going to be good enough to try and out yell the opposition(doesn't work with my wife).
somehow people must be convienced if we want to maintaine these rights. in the end will we lose these rights? well-we could.
i do not think we are presenting the best possible defense- we rely on tired old ways that are obviously not covincing some folk-and maybe never will.
remember - those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.
all i am trying to say is a more honest approach is necessary, i think. fear of guns is not bad but fear of people is honest. people will find ways to kill, maim, intimidate, rob, ect.-- the gun just proves to be more efficent.
give the gun to a select group to protect us ? well i love policemen--but they are folks too--and subject to the same faults as the rest of us. seems to me the need for personal protection will still need to exist if they take the gun away--and we will find it again.
personally i like the gun-it is more efficent.
anyone want my soapbox - i'm leaving it -
yea i already know i'm not smart and i have'nt said anything not said before. look this is just my opinion-and nobody paid any admission.
Before we leap to condenm, think about the method. How do you know that any of the detractors of Mr. Lott are not himself offering the negative side of his research? For that matter, how do I know that what is dispensed in this op-ed article is, in fact, true? Think of the principles of debate.
Mr. Lott's research has not been impeached, as of yet, and probably will not be so. One has only to look to Great Britian to see the ineffectiveness of disarming the populace. In fact, mere defense of one's self, with a firearm, there, now will garner you not five years, but ten years, today. Heaven forbid if you kill one about to maim or kill you! I believe that gets one life in the slammer! Who has the rights, in that case?
I, for one will always keep my firearms for self defense and pleasure until they are taken from my lifeless corpse! That is the only right, to be seen as self-evident in the Bill of Rights that separates us from total UN dominion!!!!!
We must stand together, and not be ambivalent on this God-Given, unable to be taken away freedom.
i'm not sure that i can disagree with you and at the same time i'm not sure i do not stand with your final conclusion. i will still say we need a new, more clearly defined, and proactive( i said in the first post "defence" and it should have been "offence") position.
In all of these crime statistics debates, keep one thing in mind. When all is said and done, one statistic stands out and accounts for most of the variance - the average age of the population in question. The greater number of males in the 18-25 age group, the more crime. The lower that number is, the less crime. Other numbers are valueless unless this variable is factored out.
A forum community dedicated to the great outdoors and hunting enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about hunting, fishing, survival, archery gunsmithing, optics, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!