Hi.

[SBWCP]

Guns are bad.

[alittlelark]

1. uh, yeah.....

hmmmm. You are either completely out of touch with reality or casting a line.

[SBWCP]

2. Eh?

That's my opinion, I think it makes perfect sense.

[alittlelark]

24. WHY did you COMPLETELY change your post?

Why? Were you ashamed.... you should be

[amber dog democrat]

3. you know, I may not agree with what you say

but I will defend to my death your right to say it.

( Voltaire )

We'll have to agree to DIS agree here.

[SBWCP]

5. Care to offer some counterpoints?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

[amber dog democrat]

7. I not in the mood for a harrangue

nor a screed. So, respectfully, your opinion is noted.

I mean, "Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it." does not establish much of a basis for communication, does it? I am more intersted in what you have to say.

[LibLabUK]

25. Hmm

"but I will defend to my death your right to say it. ( Voltaire )"

Your quote should be attributed to Evelyn Beatrice Hall (who wrote The Friends of Voltaire (1906), under the pseudonym S G. Tallentyre)

[Unstuck In Time]

4. You should try to be a bit more subtle.

Try a little stealth, I'm sure you'll have much better luck starting a flame-war.

:dunce:

[Massacure]

6. If you disarm the public it takes 1 person with an ak to kill everyone

If you fully arm the public, no one would dare to mug or rape anyone knowing that they would get shot in the process.

[SBWCP]

8. If you disarm...

Then crooks won't HAVE to use an AK. The only reason gangs have guns is because regular people have them too. All you have to do is go to the heart of the problem, and you fix it.

[Massacure]

11. What the difference if a gang uses a gun or a baseball bat?

The effect is the same.

[brothermak]

15. right

"All you have to do is go to the heart of the problem, and you fix it."

Agreed, get rid of the sources of crimes and make the rest irrelevant.

Btw, I thought gangs armed themselves for drug/turf wars, not because of armed citizens.

-BM

[dave502d]

10. Don't say that.

If Bush wins,were going need our guns.

[salvorhardin]

9. I've been thinking about moving lately...

Could you tell me where the best bridges to live under are located?

[Unstuck In Time]

12. "Answer me these questions three... !!!

LOL! :7

[SBWCP]

13. It is not the same

If you use a gun or a bat. Did the colombine kids die from fully automatic bats? THERE IS NO MACHINE BATS! A gun is much more powerful, since you can shoot hundreds of bullets in seconds, you can throw hundreds of bats from 100 feet in seconds.

[Unstuck In Time]

14. Eek!

[amber dog democrat]

16. A bat is always loaded.

[Unstuck In Time]

20. I'll drink to that!

[amber dog democrat]

21. cheers.

:toast:

[-..__...]

22. Yes, they did.

"Did the colombine kids die from fully automatic bats? "



(I know I'll probably burn in J/PS Hell for even responding to this).

[enfield collector]

26. Bat Porn!

[happyslug]

17. Impossible and NO country has ever done this.

The reason for no country ever completely banning firearms (with the nearest Country to do so is Japan) is that if you ban firearms you force the Government to do the following:

1. Provide Police protection for Private Companies, thus you are subsidizing such companies for such companies than do not have to incur the expense of maintaining their own Firearm using force AND the costs to properly train them (and transferring the Risk of misuse by one of their "Police officers" from the Private Company to the Taxpayers.

2. Many a small farmers use Firearms as a pest control weapon for it can be used on a single pest unlike poisons which kill not only the pest intended but other animals and birds. If you outlaw firearms such farmers will have to go to poisons or you will have to tie up Police Officers to do the Job (a terrible waste of Resources).

3. Police can NOT be everywhere, for example in Rural America it may be DAYS after someone calls the Police before they show up. What are people in such situations to do? Wait and get themselves killed? We can NOT afford to have police officers able to respond to every call, it would bankrupt the US, thus you will always have a shortage of Police Officers and the more rural area you live in the less likely you will see a police officers (Which tend to be concentrated in Urban Areas which permit quicker response times).

4. Farming today depends on a adequate control of wildlife, control done by Hunting. You could re-introduced predators, but if you do so whenever (and they will) they attack domestic animal or crop the group that re-introduced the predators will have to compensate the farmer for his loss. Farmers are a low profit business and a few extra lost sheep or cows can mean the lost of the farm thus some sort of wild animal control must be done. At present it is done by hunters who pay for the right to hunt, if you ban firearms animal control must still be done but by professional hunters who will have to be paid. Hunter with hunting licenses are more cost effective than professional paid hunters (assuming such professional hunters ARE police officers, to day when such hunters are used they tend NOT be be Police thus if Firearms are outlaw Police officers will to tied up doing this job)).


Thus there are HIGH public costs involved with outlawing firearms, costs that will have to be incurred by the Taxpayers AND/OR private people (Mostly in Rural Areas but also in Urban areas).

Now the other extreme i.e. No regulations which is just as untenable as a ban on firearms for such lack of regulations also have HIGH PUBLIC COSTS:

1. No one wants an insane person to have a firearm.

2. No one wants an escaping Felon to have a fire arm.

3. No one want a child to have a firearm.

Thus the debate on Gun Control is NOT to ban Guns but what are reasonable restrictions for private people to own such weapons so to minimize the public costs of such private ownership. We also do not want so high a restrictions that you end up with high cost to the public do to restrictions. A balancing must be done and that is the debate on Gun Control not any ban on Firearms nor any lack of regulations on who may own a firearm.

[jody]

18. People are bad; not guns, knives, baseball bats, or other weapons and

each of those tools can be used to exercise one's inalienable right to defend self and property as recognized by the earliest state constitutions that predated our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Firearms are the most effective means of self defense as recognized by criminals and law enforcement personnel, none of which have the inalienable right to defend self and property.

[amber dog democrat]

19. by the way,

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Jack_DeLeon]

23. mmmkay.

[ronzo]

27. Locking.

Original message was flamebait, and the edit? well...

Thanks,
ronzoNOLA
DU Moderator