Remember if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns!

[Phil C]

:mad:

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by Phil C
:mad:

A good book to read about our right to own guns is Second Amendment Primer from the American Heritage Library (NRA).

[Phil C]

Originally posted by MUSTANG69
A good book to read about our right to own guns is Second Amendment Primer from the American Heritage Library (NRA).

Right you are and this was one right that our founding fathers wanted us to have.

[BullsFan]

The Founding Fathers didn't know about automatic weapons and assault rifles, and if people today had to go to all the trouble loading and shooting guns that people back then did, I'll bet the crime rate AND number of accidental/heat-of-the-moment shootings and deaths would all decrease greatly.

And yes, I know this is an unpopular opinion--I get it from my own family every time I say anything. Which is why mostly I don't. :)

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by BullsFan
The Founding Fathers didn't know about automatic weapons and assault rifles
Our Founding Fathers had to fight like hell to get out from under an oppressive government, that had the worlds most powerful military at it's disposal. You can bet your bottom dollar, that had automatic weapons and assault rifles been in existence, the framers of our constitution would have insisted that the civilian citizenry be allowed to keep and bear them.

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
Our Founding Fathers had to fight like hell to get out from under an oppressive government, that had the worlds most powerful military at it's disposal. You can bet your bottom dollar, that had automatic weapons and assault rifles been in existence, the framers of our constitution would have insisted that the civilian citizenry be allowed to keep and bear them.

You might bet your bottom dollar, but I sure as heck wouldn't. Had the Founding Fathers had the foresight to see the results of our societies' insistence on weapons for all, I'm not convinced they'd have written the Second Amendment into existence at all. YMMV, and almost certainly does.

[MUSTANG69]

I don't think it would have mattered what the weapons were at the time. The Founding Fathers recognized the need for the citizens to be able to defend themselves and their country. That need is even greater today. An individual must be able to defend himself and his family against the many dangerous individuals that live in our society. You can not realistically expect the local police force to be able to help you when a dangerous situation occurs. (example: drug crazed idiot breaking into your house or Muslim terrerists attack your church during services)
I can depend on my SW 357 or my 12-gauge at that moment to defend my family.

To own a gun is a right and a necessity in today's world.

[Trashman]

Originally posted by BullsFan
The Founding Fathers didn't know about automatic weapons and assault rifles, and if people today had to go to all the trouble loading and shooting guns that people back then did, I'll bet the crime rate AND number of accidental/heat-of-the-moment shootings and deaths would all decrease greatly.

And yes, I know this is an unpopular opinion--I get it from my own family every time I say anything. Which is why mostly I don't. :)

If a guns were not available they would use something else to kill each other......Knives, clubs, rocks.:thinking:

[BullsFan]

I don't mean that no one should be allowed to own a gun. I'm saying that I don't think it takes an AK 47 to defend your home. That's strictly my own personal opinion, and not generally one shared in this part of the country. Or in my own family. ;)

And yes, if guns weren't available then other weapons might be used, but there aren't as many that are as deadly or as swift as a gun.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
I don't mean that no one should be allowed to own a gun. I'm saying that I don't think it takes an AK 47 to defend your home. That's strictly my own personal opinion, and not generally one shared in this part of the country. Or in my own family. ;)

And yes, if guns weren't available then other weapons might be used, but there aren't as many that are as deadly or as swift as a gun.

BullsFan, do you know the functional difference between an "AK 47" and a Remington Model 742?

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Reds fan
BullsFan, do you know the functional difference between an "AK 47" and a Remington Model 742?

I do not. But if there's not much of a difference, then in my opinion they're both unnecessary to your average American.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
I do not. But if there's not much of a difference, then in my opinion they're both unnecessary to your average American.

There is no difference in the function of the two firearms....the only difference is cosmetic. The Remington 742 is a semiauto used by tens of thousands of average Americans every year for hunting, target shooting and recreation.

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Reds fan
There is no difference in the function of the two firearms....the only difference is cosmetic. The Remington 742 is a semiauto used by tens of thousands of average Americans every year for hunting, target shooting and recreation.

I wonder how many are used to shoot and kill other people?

Even one is too many.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
I wonder how many are used to shoot and kill other people?

Even one is too many.

I completely agree, even one is too many. We have laws to cover that.

However, you are straying from the point. You previously stated that "I don't mean that no one should be allowed to own a gun", "I'm saying that I don't think it takes an AK 47 to defend your home."

Those statements reflect the emotional reaction, that those who would like to deny a freedom guaranteed to citizens by the Second Amendment, continue to solicit. Play on folks emotions long enough, don't let one think for themself, and soon your freedoms are slowly eroded away. The "AK 47" has a "scary military look" therefore should be banned, yet a gun that functions in the exact same way is OK because it does not look military?

I happen to think one death by any violent means is too many, would you not agree? So take your feelings to the next level, let's ban water, someone could be out there trying to hold someone under and drown them to death! You cannot prevent violence by removing one's defensive tools.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by Reds fan
I completely agree, even one is too many. We have laws to cover that.

However, you are straying from the point. You previously stated that "I don't mean that no one should be allowed to own a gun", "I'm saying that I don't think it takes an AK 47 to defend your home."

Those statements reflect the emotional reaction, that those who would like to deny a freedom guaranteed to citizens by the Second Amendment, continue to solicit. Play on folks emotions long enough, don't let one think for themself, and soon your freedoms are slowly eroded away. The "AK 47" has a "scary military look" therefore should be banned, yet a gun that functions in the exact same way is OK because it does not look military?

I happen to think one death by any violent means is too many, would you not agree? So take your feelings to the next level, let's ban water, someone could be out there trying to hold someone under and drown them to death! You cannot prevent violence by removing one's defensive tools.

well stated

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by Reds fan
I completely agree, even one is too many. We have laws to cover that.

However, you are straying from the point. You previously stated that "I don't mean that no one should be allowed to own a gun", "I'm saying that I don't think it takes an AK 47 to defend your home."

Those statements reflect the emotional reaction, that those who would like to deny a freedom guaranteed to citizens by the Second Amendment, continue to solicit. Play on folks emotions long enough, don't let one think for themself, and soon your freedoms are slowly eroded away. The "AK 47" has a "scary military look" therefore should be banned, yet a gun that functions in the exact same way is OK because it does not look military?

I happen to think one death by any violent means is too many, would you not agree? So take your feelings to the next level, let's ban water, someone could be out there trying to hold someone under and drown them to death! You cannot prevent violence by removing one's defensive tools. :clap: :clap: :clap:

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Reds fan
I completely agree, even one is too many. We have laws to cover that.

However, you are straying from the point. You previously stated that "I don't mean that no one should be allowed to own a gun", "I'm saying that I don't think it takes an AK 47 to defend your home."

Those statements reflect the emotional reaction, that those who would like to deny a freedom guaranteed to citizens by the Second Amendment, continue to solicit. Play on folks emotions long enough, don't let one think for themself, and soon your freedoms are slowly eroded away. The "AK 47" has a "scary military look" therefore should be banned, yet a gun that functions in the exact same way is OK because it does not look military?

I happen to think one death by any violent means is too many, would you not agree? So take your feelings to the next level, let's ban water, someone could be out there trying to hold someone under and drown them to death! You cannot prevent violence by removing one's defensive tools.

No, I don't think that an AK 47 should be banned and a gun that works the same way shouldn't just because it doesn't look military. I think they should BOTH be banned. Circumstances have changed considerably since the Constitution was framed, and because our Founding Fathers thought everyone should have a ball musket to defend themselves doesn't in my opinion mean that everyone now has a right to own an automatic weapon or an assault rifle. If anyone anywhere could give me one logical reason why such weapons were necessary or NEEDED then I'd happily concede the point, but so far the reasons that usually come up are the Second Amendment and the need to defend one's home. At one time there were amendments prohibiting alcohol and banning women from voting, but eventually we as a society came to realize that those weren't appropriate and we repealed them. I'm not trying to equate guns to suffrage or prohibition, but I am equating the situations--the fact that something was considered a moral imperative by the Founding Fathers doesn't make it true and right today.

And as to defending your home, as I said earlier it doesn't take an AK 47 to do that. I think there are far more cases of accidental and heat-of-the-moment shootings than there are warranted homeowner shootings of criminals, although I don't have hard stats. But comparing guns to water is a bit of a straw man, isn't it? Water is necessary to live. Guns aren't.

Please note: I am NOT at all heated about this, and while I personally feel strongly about it I understand that other people feel just as strongly about it the other way. I'm not trying to convince anyone, but I do appreciate being able to discuss both sides without it getting ugly. I've actually enjoyed this thread so far. :)

[MUSTANG69]

This has been an enjoyable thread, unlike the one about fishing on the Sports Forum. Congrats to both of you (RedsFan and BullsFan) for a very civil conversation. Sometimes sanity prevails.:)

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
No, I don't think that an AK 47 should be banned and a gun that works the same way shouldn't just because it doesn't look military. I think they should BOTH be banned. Circumstances have changed considerably since the Constitution was framed, and because our Founding Fathers thought everyone should have a ball musket to defend themselves doesn't in my opinion mean that everyone now has a right to own an automatic weapon or an assault rifle. If anyone anywhere could give me one logical reason why such weapons were necessary or NEEDED then I'd happily concede the point, but so far the reasons that usually come up are the Second Amendment and the need to defend one's home. At one time there were amendments prohibiting alcohol and banning women from voting, but eventually we as a society came to realize that those weren't appropriate and we repealed them. I'm not trying to equate guns to suffrage or prohibition, but I am equating the situations--the fact that something was considered a moral imperative by the Founding Fathers doesn't make it true and right today.

And as to defending your home, as I said earlier it doesn't take an AK 47 to do that. I think there are far more cases of accidental and heat-of-the-moment shootings than there are warranted homeowner shootings of criminals, although I don't have hard stats. But comparing guns to water is a bit of a straw man, isn't it? Water is necessary to live. Guns aren't.

Please note: I am NOT at all heated about this, and while I personally feel strongly about it I understand that other people feel just as strongly about it the other way. I'm not trying to convince anyone, but I do appreciate being able to discuss both sides without it getting ugly. I've actually enjoyed this thread so far. :)

:clap:
I too am enjoying this, otherwise I would not bother. I know I can't convince anyone one way or another, but I can address the misconceptions that are all too abundant, especially when it brings the possibility that my freedom and yours can be infringed upon.

There is just a big misunderstanding of the perception of what an automatic gun is. A rilfe, shotgun or pistol, for that matter, can be an automatic, which is already illegal to own, or can be semi-automatic, which is legal to own. There is a huge difference. Automatic meaning- multiple rounds can be fired by depressing the trigger and holding (illegal). Semi-automatic meaning, the trigger must be depressed each time a round is fired (legal). That is what those who would like to repeal the Second Amendment thrive on...they do not want that differentiation known.

I just get the feeling that you may be under the misconception that the "AK 47" and the Remington 742 are "automatic". If they were, they would be illegal to own without special permit. However, the are semi-automatic, no different from the semi-automatic shotgun or pistol that can be used for either self defense, hunting, target shooting and recreation.

[Phil C]

But the point is

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!

:mad:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Phil C
But the point is

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!

:mad:

No Phil, the police and military will also have guns. Just like now.

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Reds fan
I just get the feeling that you may be under the misconception that the "AK 47" and the Remington 742 are "automatic". If they were, they would be illegal to own without special permit. However, the are semi-automatic, no different from the semi-automatic shotgun or pistol that can be used for either self defense, hunting, target shooting and recreation.

To be perfectly honest, if it were up to me there'd be so many regulations on gun ownership that it'd take a spotless record and a psych eval before you could even apply. (Fortunately for the many many gun owners in this country, it's not up to me. ;) ) Automatic or semi-automatic doesn't make a whit of difference to me, because truly it only takes one. Both automatic and semi-auto just make it a whole lot easier to shoot more than once at a fairly quick rate of speed. And if guns were only EVER used for self-defense, hunting, target shooting, or recreation, then I wouldn't have a problem with them at all.

Well, not much. If I'm honest, I hate the idea of hunting for sport, and I think some of the lengths people go to are both unfair and unsporting. Automatic feeders and night cameras are a couple of prime examples--good thing slpybear isn't hanging around in this thread, because he's put both to what he considers good use. Sometimes my bleeding heart bleeds so much it splashes aaaaall over the place. :D

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
No Phil, the police and military will also have guns. Just like now.

The problem is that the police can not respond fast enough in many situations. A person must be able to defend himself, his family and friends.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
To be perfectly honest, if it were up to me there'd be so many regulations on gun ownership that it'd take a spotless record and a psych eval before you could even apply. (Fortunately for the many many gun owners in this country, it's not up to me. ;) ) Automatic or semi-automatic doesn't make a whit of difference to me, because truly it only takes one. Both automatic and semi-auto just make it a whole lot easier to shoot more than once at a fairly quick rate of speed. And if guns were only EVER used for self-defense, hunting, target shooting, or recreation, then I wouldn't have a problem with them at all.

Well, not much. If I'm honest, I hate the idea of hunting for sport, and I think some of the lengths people go to are both unfair and unsporting. Automatic feeders and night cameras are a couple of prime examples--good thing slpybear isn't hanging around in this thread, because he's put both to what he considers good use. Sometimes my bleeding heart bleeds so much it splashes aaaaall over the place. :D

Well now, at least, you are finally being honest! And agreed, it is indeed a very good thing it is not up to you.:)

I will promise you this, the very day that a gun gets itself up, loads itself, carries itself, travels itself, aims itself, pulls it's own trigger and fires, I'll go to the steps of the Supreme Court with you and demand they be banned.

Until then, I'll continue to comprehend the fact that the only thing to fear is the person with mal intent holding a weapon. I do not care what that weapon is, an ice pick, a rope, an ax, a plastic bag, a WMD, a car, poison or anything else you can think of, does not matter. I have the right to defend myself and my family.

I will also defend your right to choose not to! As long as that is a choice.

:)

[BEAST]

Great thread and debate. I pray to God Bullsfan never gets his way. Guns are not the problem. People are. Thats why you need a gun, to take care of the problem. Ive got alot of problem solvers. Most are hunting weapons. Are those ok to you? We enjoy deer meat and dove and so on, sure hope you understand that I need a gun to harvest that. I do have other weapons to take care of someone trying to get into my house, its a SW .357. If that doesnt work, the 12 will.




BEAST

[BullsFan]

My greatest disagreement with your post, BEAST, is the "his way" part. That's "her way", thank you very much. ;)

[Phil C]

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!

What that meant and somehow I haven't made it clear to you was that the criminals wouldn't turn in their guns while the honest citizens would and that would put them in possible helpless and dangerous situations. Of course the police and other law enforcement officials would have guns. But the citizens that are honest and turn their guns in could be in peril against criminals that wouldn't turn them in. That was the point of the old saying above.

[BEAST]

Originally posted by BullsFan
My greatest disagreement with your post, BEAST, is the "his way" part. That's "her way", thank you very much. ;)

My bad. Please accept my apology. Now it makes more sense to me. My wife was against guns, but she never really could explain why. As it turned out, she was really just afraid of them. After alot of practice, she is now a great shot. I think the biggest problem is peoples lack of understanding. A gun is nothing more than a peice of metal. Its how you use that piece of metal that makes all the difference in the world.


BEAST

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Trashman
If a guns were not available they would use something else to kill each other......Knives, clubs, rocks.:thinking:

TRASH CANS!;)

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Phil C
IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!

What that meant and somehow I haven't made it clear to you was that the criminals wouldn't turn in their guns while the honest citizens would and that would put them in possible helpless and dangerous situations. Of course the police and other law enforcement officials would have guns. But the citizens that are honest and turn their guns in could be in peril against criminals that wouldn't turn them in. That was the point of the old saying above.
....Not to mention that as long as guns exist, there will always be someone selling them -- legal or not. That means that if they try and take our guns away, those persons who turn them in would definitely be in peril because of their inability to defend themselves. As long as guns are legal they will always be a deterrent to those with criminal intentions. Anyone wishing to outlaw guns is just being naive, and is not in touch with reality, in my opinion.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by MUSTANG69


Originally posted by ronwx5x
No Phil, the police and military will also have guns. Just like now.

The problem is that the police can not respond fast enough in many situations. A person must be able to defend himself, his family and friends.

I did not comment on whether people should be allowed to legally own guns. It is in reply to a statement that untrue on the surface and intended to incite rancor.

For those who don't know, Japan, Germany, France and Italy all have gun control and a far lower death rate by guns, whether it be a bad guy attacking a homeowner or a homeowner shooting
a bad guy. You may draw your own conclusions on this fact. Notice I stated gun control and not disallowing weapons completely.

[Old Dog]

I know this comment will not change any minds, but I'll pass it on anyway. My sister's neighbor in Austin grew up in Cuba during Castro's taking over power. The Army came to each household and registered guns as a matter of national defense. A year later the Army showed up again, demanding surrender of all registered guns. Those that would not or could not produce the guns were promptly hauled off to jail. Some were never heard from again.

If anyone is foolish enough to think "this can't happen here" best pull their proverbial head our of you know where because it could!

Okay, I've laid my butt out there and you hammerheads can have at me..............

[PhiI C]

Originally posted by Old Dog
I know this comment will not change any minds, but I'll pass it on anyway. My sister's neighbor in Austin grew up in Cuba during Castro's taking over power. The Army came to each household and registered guns as a matter of national defense. A year later the Army showed up again, demanding surrender of all registered guns. Those that would not or could not produce the guns were promptly hauled off to jail. Some were never heard from again.

If anyone is foolish enough to think "this can't happen here" best pull their proverbial head our of you know where because it could!

Okay, I've laid my butt out there and you hammerheads can have at me..............

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Exactly why our forefathers wanted us to have the right to bear arms.

[SintonFan]

I personally think that AK 47s and the like should be allowed for honest, safety minded and hard-working citizens who happen to live in high crime areas. Heck, I think they should be issued there.
Then make the punishment for criminals higher for possessing these, too.

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by BEAST
My bad. Please accept my apology. Now it makes more sense to me. My wife was against guns, but she never really could explain why. As it turned out, she was really just afraid of them. After alot of practice, she is now a great shot. I think the biggest problem is peoples lack of understanding. A gun is nothing more than a peice of metal. Its how you use that piece of metal that makes all the difference in the world.


BEAST

I hate to tell you this, but lack of knowledge is not why I think there should be more gun control. I'm actually a fairly good shot, or I was at one time. Back in the day, heading out to a country road and letting loose on a few empty cans was the thing to do. And it's kind of insulting for you to assume that my being female explains things somehow. People can disagree with you without it being a "lack of understanding" on their part. I can concede that you're allowed to believe differently than I do without making assumptions about you personally. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to me?

I've outlined my beliefs in this thread already if you've read my previous posts. I think putting more and more guns in peoples' hands is not the way to make society safer, and I think guns make it way too quick and easy to cause permanent consequences in situations where it shouldn't happen--accidents, anger, fighting, etc. I have yet to have it proved to me that automatic weapons and assualt rifles are necessary and needed. And that's why I personally don't have a problem with gun control. YMMV...and so may mine! :)

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
The problem is that the police can not respond fast enough in many situations. A person must be able to defend himself, his family and friends.

I did not comment on whether people should be allowed to legally own guns. It is in reply to a statement that untrue on the surface and intended to incite rancor.

For those who don't know, Japan, Germany, France and Italy all have gun control and a far lower death rate by guns, whether it be a bad guy attacking a homeowner or a homeowner shooting
a bad guy. You may draw your own conclusions on this fact. Notice I stated gun control and not disallowing weapons completely. [/QUOTE]

I don't think anybody on this thread is trying to incite rancor. Many of us believe that we have the God-given right to defend ourselves and those close to us. We are more capable of doing this by having the right to own guns. The second amendment gives us this right.

Gun control is like a slow moving cancer. The powers to be in our government can not be happy with a simple and logical law that would control ownership of guns. Gun control will keep changing until it has eaten away your right to own a gun completely.

[BEAST]

Originally posted by BullsFan
I hate to tell you this, but lack of knowledge is not why I think there should be more gun control. I'm actually a fairly good shot, or I was at one time. Back in the day, heading out to a country road and letting loose on a few empty cans was the thing to do. And it's kind of insulting for you to assume that my being female explains things somehow. People can disagree with you without it being a "lack of understanding" on their part. I can concede that you're allowed to believe differently than I do without making assumptions about you personally. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to me?

I've outlined my beliefs in this thread already if you've read my previous posts. I think putting more and more guns in peoples' hands is not the way to make society safer, and I think guns make it way too quick and easy to cause permanent consequences in situations where it shouldn't happen--accidents, anger, fighting, etc. I have yet to have it proved to me that automatic weapons and assualt rifles are necessary and needed. And that's why I personally don't have a problem with gun control. YMMV...and so may mine! :)

I think you have taken what I said out of context. I was talking about why my wife didnt like guns. I wasnt saying that was why you didnt. I do believe people in general are afraid of guns and therefore think they should be outlawed.




BEAST

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by MUSTANG69
I did not comment on whether people should be allowed to legally own guns. It is in reply to a statement that untrue on the surface and intended to incite rancor.

For those who don't know, Japan, Germany, France and Italy all have gun control and a far lower death rate by guns, whether it be a bad guy attacking a homeowner or a homeowner shooting
a bad guy. You may draw your own conclusions on this fact. Notice I stated gun control and not disallowing weapons completely.


]I don't think anybody on this thread is trying to incite rancor. Many of us believe that we have the God-given right to defend ourselves and those close to us. We are more capable of doing this by having the right to own guns. The second amendment gives us this right.


Gun control is like a slow moving cancer. The powers to be in our government can not be happy with a simple and logical law that would control ownership of guns. Gun control will keep changing until it has eaten away your right to own a gun completely. [/B]

And appearently you didn't understand my post. There was no comment whatsoever concerning whether or not there should be gun control or a gun ban. The comment was made that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. My comment was no, the police and military will still have guns, just like now. The statement that "only outlaws will have guns" is incorrect. My personal beliefs on guns were never mentioned, just a statement that the post was not correct.

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by BEAST
I think you have taken what I said out of context. I was talking about why my wife didnt like guns. I wasnt saying that was why you didnt. I do believe people in general are afraid of guns and therefore think they should be outlawed.




BEAST

Well let's look back. First you basically said "Oh, you're a women--well now this all makes sense." Then you went on to tell how your wife also didn't like guns because she was afraid of them and didn't know how to use them, but now that she's learned to shoot she's fine with them. Pardon me for making assumptions about the implications of all that. Goodness knows there was clearly no reason for me to think you meant that, being a woman, I was also afraid of guns because I didn't understand them/know how to use them. ;)

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
And appearently you didn't understand my post. There was no comment whatsoever concerning whether or not there should be gun control or a gun ban. The comment was made that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. My comment was no, the police and military will still have guns, just like now. The statement that "only outlaws will have guns" is incorrect. My personal beliefs on guns were never mentioned, just a statement that the post was not correct.

I was not addressing any opinion that you may or may not have made about gun control. I was addressing your statement about someone trying to incite rancor.

I then simply stated my opinion about gun control.
Sorry if you misunderstood my post.

[sinton66]

If you believe in statistics, we should outlaw cars and trucks, not guns. There are more deaths by vehicular accident than by guns.

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by sinton66
If you believe in statistics, we should outlaw cars and trucks, not guns. There are more deaths by vehicular accident than by guns.

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

I wonder what the percentages/ratios are. I'm sure there are far far more car and truck owners in the country then there are gun owners.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by BullsFan
I wonder what the percentages/ratios are. I'm sure there are far far more car and truck owners in the country then there are gun owners.

Last I heard, there were something like 7 weapons for every man woman and child in the U.S. I don't think the same can be said for cars. The "Official"estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million owned by 80 million people. There are, however, a lot the "officials" don't know about and never will.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by sinton66
Last I heard, there were something like 7 weapons for every man woman and child in the U.S. I don't think the same can be said for cars. The "Official"estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million owned by 80 million people. There are, however, a lot the "officials" don't know about and never will.

Here's what I found on vehicles:
According to the US Bureau of Transit Statistics for 2006 there are 250,844,644 registered passenger vehicles in the US. Out of these roughly 251 million vehicles, 135,399,945 were classified as automobiles, while 99,124,775 were classified as "Other 2 axle, 4 tire vehicles," presumably SUVs and pick-up trucks. Yet another 6,649,337 were classified as vehicles with 2 axles and 6 tires and 2,169,670 were classified as "Truck, combination." There were approximately 6,686,147 motorcycles in the US in 2006. The number declined in 2009.

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by sinton66
Last I heard, there were something like 7 weapons for every man woman and child in the U.S. I don't think the same can be said for cars. The "Official"estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million owned by 80 million people. There are, however, a lot the "officials" don't know about and never will.

There may be 7 weapons for every person in the US, but I'll bet there are far more households that own cars/trucks/etc than own guns. I'd really like to see percentages. But not enough to actually look them up or anything. ;)

[sinton66]

Originally posted by BullsFan
There may be 7 weapons for every person in the US, but I'll bet there are far more households that own cars/trucks/etc than own guns. I'd really like to see percentages. But not enough to actually look them up or anything. ;)

I wouldn't even know where to look. I know several people who own guns that don't let many people know they do. Needless to say, they aren't registered. (Those don't show up in "official" counts.)

Here's what I saw:

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

Be sure to scroll down and examine the causes of accidental deaths.;)

[LE Dad]

I have posted this many times and I will post it once again...

Be careful when you allow the goverment to infringe on someones rights because someday that someone will be you.

This is very true with guns.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by LE Dad
I have posted this many times and I will post it once again...

Be careful when you allow the goverment to infringe on someones rights because someday that someone will be you.

This is very true with guns.

:iagree:

And it is frightening how people are willing to hand over our rights to the government because thay are afraid of something of which they have no concept, just emotion.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by sinton66
I wouldn't even know where to look. I know several people who own guns that don't let many people know they do. Needless to say, they aren't registered. (Those don't show up in "official" counts.)

Here's what I saw:

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

Be sure to scroll down and examine the causes of accidental deaths.;)

When my Dad passed away, I wound up with 2 pistols and a 30-06 hunting rifle, none of which did I need. They are, of course, not registered. If there is a law that says I need to register them, I am totally unaware of it. Am I a criminal?

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
When my Dad passed away, I wound up with 2 pistols and a 30-06 hunting rifle, none of which did I need. They are, of course, not registered. If there is a law that says I need to register them, I am totally unaware of it. Am I a criminal?

No you are not a criminal. Guns do not have to be registered in Texas.

[Old Dog]

Hell no ronwx5x, those guns you inherited are no ones business but yours. Everytime we "allow" the government to control anything, we are also giving away a liberty someone fought for!

[Old Dog]

Sorry, I couldn't get off my soapbox............

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Phil C
But the point is IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!
:mad: Not so fast Phil.... If guns are outlawed only those who know who how to manipulate the law will have guns...

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by Old Dog
Sorry, I couldn't get off my soapbox............

Please stay on your soapbox!!!!!:2thumbsup

[Reds fan]

This was never a true story, never the less, there is truth in it:

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

:D

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Reds fan
This was never a true story, never the less, there is truth in it:

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

:D
:spitlol: :evillol: :D:clap:

[Phantom Stang]

:2thumbsup for Reds fan's last post.:D

[bobcat4life]

lol does this remind anyone of the 4x4, small vehicles should be banned and pit bulls should be banned threads?

[Phil C]

:mad: