Your voice on guns

[Fozzer]

Blimey eno... ...!

...looks like the chap had a "gun", (the subject of this thread), rather than a "very angry shout".... ...!

I wonder which of the two would have caused the most damage... ...?

Cheers all... ...!

Paul.

[Loafing Smurf]

I guess the whole idea is about the legal ownership of guns. Where people who legally own them, don

[Saitek]

Thanks eno.
Interesting. The guy is in the right place anyway!

Ben

[ozzy72]

Oddly my students reckon my shouting is the worst thing imaginable... mind you I'm a bit loud once I'm angry, and I really do tell it like it is

[Romulus111VADT]

Oddly my students reckon my shouting is the worst thing imaginable... mind you I'm a bit loud once I'm angry, and I really do tell it like it is

Nah, Really.....

Must be something to do with military service. I very rarely shout. One Christmas, my step-sons step-children were acting up and wouldn't sit at the table. I got angry and barked off, "SIT DOWN NOW!" really loud. They hit the chairs and were little angels. As I looked around at the adults....lmao...everyone of them had sat at there respective places. I started laughing and my wife said, "Sheesh, the ole Master Sargent came out LOUD and clear!"....lmao....

Seems old habits are hard to break....

[Woodlouse2002]

When it comes down to it ..... GUNS dont kill ... PEOPLE do.

I've heard this argument many times and I just can't help thinking that the gun helps.

[ChuckMajik]

No no, you got it all wrong.
Guns don't kill nor do people... bullets do!

[Woodlouse2002]

Again, the gun helps.

[ChuckMajik]

Again, the gun helps.

I could physically ram a bullet up your left nostril and kill you.
And my .22 would never have left it's case.  :P

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote][center]
I could physically ram a bullet up your left nostril and kill you.
And my .22 would never have left it's case.

[ChuckMajik]

Besides, if the gun wasn't invented then there wouldn't be bullets.

True, but we would probably have a fairly large stockpile of pointed sticks instead.

[chomp_rock]

First of all:
Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

I was raised around guns, I learned how to shoot and use a number of firearms safely at age 8. I own a few now too, I just shoot targets for the fun of it. I strongly agree with eno's post, there is nothing wrong with the guns themselves, just the people that own or use them.

[Tequila Sunrise]

You know what has always bothered me about the gun arguement (not this post, but the gun arguement in general) is that most people who oppose it seem to have minimal to no experience with firearms.  All they see is the bad side of guns becasue thats the only side that makes the news-and in order to witness a good gun experience you have to have it yourself, because you'll never hear anything good about guns on the news.  I firmly believe that most people who have never used a gun (if they support gun control or not) would have very different feelings about them if they learned how to shoot and realized there is a sport in it.  Even if they are against hunting, there is a great challenge in target shooting and its a very difficult skill to be good at.  Anyway, thats my feelings about it.

for the record I was also in the Air Cadets for about 3 years and was trained to shoot No.8s (.22 lee enfield I think), Martini's (also .22) , L-81's and L-98CGP's(7.62mm), was fun at the time, target shooting obviously, but I still don't see any civilian use for firearms other than hunting for food.

this says it all really  :-/:

11,000 something in america, and 117 or something in canada, die by guns

[ChuckMajik]

Just thought I'd share this little tid-bit.
This is what crazy @$$ gun laws will get you.

I think Parliament should pass some stricter drug laws.  :P

Almost 10 times as many people are killed annually in Canada by aspirin-type products
(1,500) than by homicides involving guns (160).

[Brett_Henderson]

It's a matter of freedom. The more you (or a society) have... the more inherent the risks (or reduced security).

I guess it's where you want to draw the line... because for every bit of forced (legislated) security you get.. a bit of freedom goes away, with it.

Traffic laws don't keep people from dying in car accidents, but outlawing cars would.

The more free a society ... the riskier it is. Total freedom (anarchy) and/or totalitarianism are the extremes. No matter where the line falls; guns, cars, speech, tobacco, alcohol or ANYTHING where personal choice is a factor; it's all a matter of balancing freedom and security. (Wise man said, "Those willing to sacrifice freedom FOR security deserve neither").

Constitutionally... Did freedom of speech mean only town-halls and single-page newspapers ? The musket-only argument would leave the internet WAY outside of constitutional protection.. speech-wise.

I don't know the solutions, or perfect balance.. But when in doubt, I'll lean toward freedom. Left to their own devices, as a rule, people suck. I'll choose how I'll make my way around them.. and if need be, defend myself..