But not eliminating guns doesn't seem to be working. Perhaps its time we tried the other method.

 

[QUOTE=Chris Stack,Apr 17 2007, 02:56 PM] Clearly in life there are no guarantees, but in the instance I find myself in a situation with an armed bad guy, my odds are pretty stacked against me.

 

No, that's not exactly right. I'll go back to the point I made before, the day before yesterday the killer would have qualified to buy a gun and would have had no trouble getting one.

I don't think you should make a choice of starting with the good guys or the bad guys, because oftentimes the good guys turn into the bad guys. That's what happened yesterday. I just think you should eliminate guns.

 

[QUOTE=ralper,Apr 17 2007, 04:02 PM]No, that's not exactly right.

 

Frankly I think the notion of needing a gun is based in large part on how you were raised. My parents did not own a gun, I do not own a gun, none of my children own a gun. It's not something I've ever felt I needed or wanted. Playing soldier with them was enough.

Personally, I think better gun control laws are WAY over due -- especially for automatic weapons on any kind.

In fairness, I must say that for all fear spreading of "bar shootouts" and the like that we heard would happen if MI passed a CCW law - it never came to pass. Did CCW's curb any crime? Not that I can tell. In the end, life went on after passing the concealed weapons bill just like it had before. One thing I am sure of; there are some damn scary people who do have CCWs, as my wife works in an area that processes them.

I certainly see no need to lock more people up when we already have a prison system that is overcrowed, underfunded, and letting out known nut cases early to make room for more. It's clear to me that the war on drugs is not working in spite of all the laws, billions and billions of dollars spent, and arrests.

There doesn't seem to be any simple answers to guns or drugs but both need to be looked at with fresh ideas.

 

Do you feel that eliminating my handgun is a good use of a few hundred dollars of YOUR money? I don't have a carry permit: it remains in my home except for an occasional trip the the range. It's transported to the range in the trunk, unloaded, with the ammunition in the glove compartment. It's never been pointed at any living thing (knock on wood).

The Constitution prohibits the taking of property without fair compensation. There are probably darned near as many guns as people in the US. Do the math. It will cost each of us all quite a chunk of change.

I didn't do anything wrong; I'm a bit tired of the solution to each of society's ills involving taking something away from me. Why not leave the law-abiding citizens alone?

 

After more thought: the risk that someone MIGHT someday do something is the cost of living in a free society. Denying someone a gun SOLELY (as in, not because of past criminal or mental illness history) because they may some day commit a murder is no more right than demanding we castrate you because you may some day commit a rape.

For better or worse (and I happen to believe the former), in this country you can only have your rights restricted for things you DID do, not for things you might someday do. And our founding fathers determined that the right to a gun IS a right, not a priviledge.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you Chris but I think this part of the second amendment is often ignored in these discussions:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

The late 18th century was a different time with different problems and internal and international tensions.

I do keep a hand gun at home for protection but I'm really glad I don't need a carry permit to conduct my day to day affairs.

 

Here we go again ........ the anti-gunners vs the pro-gunners...... Neither side will ever convince the other to change their minds. I'll leave it at that.

 

[QUOTE=trapper,Apr 17 2007, 05:15 PM]