Another reason to support the right to arms...?

Officers pull their gun on people for a number of reasons to protect themselves and the public from aggressive offenders.

#1 reason why I don't like the gun laws you have in america. Cops are terrified of being shot by people, act very rashly, causing people to hate them. I mean when i see one of those "hero cop" videos on youtube, I can't help but think I'd hate to have this here, and how that cop would probably be investigated/suspended/jailed over here. the whole cops and crime climate in the UK is probably the thing I like the most about this country.

Also, regarding the car vs gun argument... People use cars a lot more than guns, and driving is an exhausting and dangerous activity. But cars weren't designed to kill. guns were.

ren wrote:

Officers pull their gun on people for a number of reasons to protect themselves and the public from aggressive offenders.

#1 reason why I don't like the gun laws you have in america. Cops are terrified of being shot by people, act very rashly, causing people to hate them. I mean when i see one of those "hero cop" videos on youtube, I can't help but think I'd hate to have this here, and how that cop would probably be investigated/suspended/jailed over here. the whole cops and crime climate in the UK is probably the thing I like the most about this country.

I know right? Cops can be OK, but sometimes they seem extraordinarily fidgety, and even though I can understand that, it still makes me nervous.

one of my favorite simpsons episodes:

homer buys a gun

same episode: homer uses the gun for everything, changing channels on the tv, opening cans and bottles, scaring flanders.

Actually, no- it's not a matter of being afraid of being shot. It's a matter of showing authority so you don't get in the middle of a brawl.

For example, let's say you walk into a situation where someone is being gang raped. A police officer should be afraid of being JUMPED. With a gun, you command presence, everyone's attention is now on you the moment they realize there is a police officer in the room. The culprits are more afraid of getting shot, than a police officer is.

People here arent afraid of being shot... cops don't carry guns. I think the biggest concern cops have over here, when it comes to dealing with members of the public, is being spat on, because of hepatitis B.

Surtr`Amun wrote: This is new to me. Since when do anti gun advocates ALWAYS think legal gun owners are murderers or psychopaths? At the very least in the case of the first post in this thread the gentleman shot this small girl because he mistook her for a skunk. Does the difference in numbers of deaths make each death whether by fire arms or doctors or car accidents... more or less important? What is a human life worth? I am a little concerned how Jedi members here find such statistics as numbers of deaths as being "funny".

Not at all what I meant. I don't find death hilarious and I don't think ALL anti gun advocates think we're a bunch of nuts, but you have to (well not have to) admit that when this discussion comes up fear reigns. Oh no! You have a gun??? Why? Who do you plan on killing? Those seem to be regular remarks, and they're just not called for. Not all gun owners are evil, bad, stupid, or out to kill. Not every gun owner has or causes tragic accidents like the sad story posted here. If that were the case Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and Alaska to name a few would have a much lower population.

Also, I love that everyone has an opinion, but if you live in a country where firearms are outlawed then you might not know what it's like to live in a country where they are legal. I wonder, how many anti-gun advocates have been around guns or have been educated in gun safety? Knowledge about a topic usually helps reduce the fear level...and accident level.

Lastly, I am totally for people being pro or anti gun. What I am not for is people telling me what I can and can't do. Why would anybody want to control another person like that? And why would they expect gun owners to trust anti-gunners and give up their firearms when anti-gun advocates refuse to trust the gun owners?

You know what I find funny, I don't own a gun, never have. I might never own a gun, I've considered range as a factor in home defense and have SERIOUSLY considered a bow/arrow or crossbow as an option. If I do own a gun it will be a shotgun because it will be the "GO TO" solution for stopping someone from entering by force of will as it requires little training to aim and fire and will stop most threats.

That said.

I wouldn't bring a gun outside, into the dark, unaware of what I may or may not be shooting at.

I wouldn't go outside, living in the suburbs as I do, with my sword unsheathed or even with me, I have LESSER weaponry for that such as a walking stick.

The problem isn't the gun, or the sword, or the knife, or the staff, it's the mentality of the man who uses it. Your safer squaring me down in my home than someone with a knife even if I have a fully automatic assault rifle because if you say "Hey man, I made a mistake, I just want to leave" I'm going to let you. It's a matter of my mentality. So yeah, you come knock out my windows with a bat, I draw my sword and you retreat, your probably getting out of this ok. Most people the mentality is "ME FIRST" and that means you knock out their window and they are going to shoot you first before you have a chance to make other mistakes.

ALL OF THAT SAID

That said I'm shocked and appalled that the first response was to use this as a political ploy when my first response was "Oh MY GOD THAT POOR LITTLE GIRL!!!"

As Jedi don't you think it would be better of us to debate Gun Control in a different thread and perhaps have a bit of mourning and reservation for a life lost?

That is the last you'll hear of me on this thread on this topic. If I see another gun control thread start up I'll be happy to debate in there but I will not disgrace the memory of a child by using her or seeing her used as a political ploy.

Little nameless girl, your life was worth more than a political maneuver and it was worth more than to be taken by mistake or by decision of some half brained twit with a firearm. I mourn for you here in public that you will be remembered not for the person you had been or could become but as a political sticking point.

tragedy sparks political discussion, urahara. ask the duke of wherever, whose assassination sparked WW1. or the guy who set himself on fire to protest his treatment at the hands of oppressive police who confiscated his scales he needed to make a living, sparked the arab spring.

we can honour her memory and attempt to rectify the reason behind her injury (if i remember correctly, not death) at the same time. they are not mutually exclusive. in fact, i submit that a persons memory is further restored and honoured if their death leads to a political or legal reform needed to stop that kind of thing from happening again.

UraharaKiskue wrote: As Jedi don't you think it would be better of us to debate Gun Control in a different thread and perhaps have a bit of mourning and reservation for a life lost?

That is the last you'll hear of me on this thread on this topic. If I see another gun control thread start up I'll be happy to debate in there but I will not disgrace the memory of a child by using her or seeing her used as a political ploy.

Little nameless girl, your life was worth more than a political maneuver and it was worth more than to be taken by mistake or by decision of some half brained twit with a firearm. I mourn for you here in public that you will be remembered not for the person you had been or could become but as a political sticking point.

As Jedi, we strive to be as realistic as possible and accept conditions as they actually are. Let's not overreact here.

As far as I can determine, as of today she is still alive and being treated in the hospital ER. Yes, the accident was unfortunate, but it has so far not resulted in her death. Nor is simply being shot the most traumatic thing that can be done to a young girl. Believe me, I have reason to know.

This has been an interesting discussion so far.

Jestor wrote: But, I believe in the right, David makes some excellent points, especially the 'landlock-ability'... Not that Canada and Mexico, or Cuba (just a floating bathtub away) will ever invade us, but, it is definetly less likely for sure...

By that part of what I said, I meant both increased advantage to invaders but also much greater difficulty in regulating imports and trade. Our landmass is much larger than Britain's, and has much more coastline and landlocked borders as a result. What appears to work in Britain may not be workable in other places like the US.

I like how you worded that -- that you believe in the right. So do I. To me, that is the real heart of the issue. I have heard the expression before, that "you can't legislate morality." You can only legislate away freedoms. Is that really what we want? People are going to do what they're going to do anyway, especially those of a criminal or dominating mindset.