03-04-2004, 01:15 AM
1: With your logic any security using guns has raised the threat level and foced a robber to upgrade theirs. Maybe we should arm people with rubber duckys so criminals will use Nerfâ¢sports equipment. <_<
2: You take the other side. You are assuming everyone who carries a gun has insufficient ability with it. Guns are not particularly complicated at close range. I am a horrid shot even without kickback, but even I can hit something 20 feet away
3: "My logic flat out states that if NO ONE had guns, people would be safer." As I said: "Idealogic drivel."
Interesting word "need". If you want to start slinging that around you can get down to most people don't need a gun. Those that do what is their need? Who determins this? I doubt Doc needs half the guns he has; should he be forced to give them up should someone decide his need isn't great enough? I don't disagree with you about the current meathods used to determine who gets a firearm and who doesn't are flawed (see my previous post). However I have no problem someone who doesn't nessesarily "need" a certain firearm owning one, as long as they are law abiding and resonably proficient with it.
2: You take the other side. You are assuming everyone who carries a gun has insufficient ability with it. Guns are not particularly complicated at close range. I am a horrid shot even without kickback, but even I can hit something 20 feet away
3: "My logic flat out states that if NO ONE had guns, people would be safer." As I said: "Idealogic drivel."
Quote:1) it's too easy for a poorly trained civilian (particularly in america, but I'm not singling out the states by any means) to get ahold of gns far beyond any reasonable need,
2) it's too easy to obtain weapons far beyond the need posed by hunting or self defence.
Interesting word "need". If you want to start slinging that around you can get down to most people don't need a gun. Those that do what is their need? Who determins this? I doubt Doc needs half the guns he has; should he be forced to give them up should someone decide his need isn't great enough? I don't disagree with you about the current meathods used to determine who gets a firearm and who doesn't are flawed (see my previous post). However I have no problem someone who doesn't nessesarily "need" a certain firearm owning one, as long as they are law abiding and resonably proficient with it.