How can teaching gun safety in schools help prevent gun violence?

[Jordan Joab]

The Supreme Court basically told us that Americans have a right to own a handgun. How exactly does handgun ownership makes an individual and his/her property safer? This is simply the equivalent of a child covering him/herself with a bedsheet to ward off the evil monsters.

Any burglar with a 1/4 brain will rob your house while you are not there. If a burglar does break in he might bring his own firearm and maybe a friend in case of trouble.

No. Your handgun will not hit that F-22 flying 20,000ft above you when you decide to rebel against the Government.

Yes, you might be able to fend off a criminal on the street but chances are said criminal will come from behind you.

Wouldn't a higher supply of legal guns create a higher supply of illegal guns?

Finally, I can only imagine the following scenario: "S***! Some students came in today with guns and started shooting people" "Alright, enyone outside this classroom is fair target."

Please enlightment me, how does gun ownership make a person safer?



Jordan Joab.

 

[drankin]

The Supreme Court basically told us that Americans have a right to own a handgun. How exactly does handgun ownership makes an individual and his/her property safer? This is simply the equivalent of a child covering him/herself with a bedsheet to ward off the evil monsters.

Any burglar with a 1/4 brain will rob your house while you are not there. If a burglar does break in he might bring his own firearm and maybe a friend in case of trouble.

No. Your handgun will not hit that F-22 flying 20,000ft above you when you decide to rebel against the Government.

Yes, you might be able to fend off a criminal on the street but chances are said criminal will come from behind you.

Wouldn't a higher supply of legal guns create a higher supply of illegal guns?

Finally, I can only imagine the following scenario: "S***! Some students came in today with guns and started shooting people" "Alright, enyone outside this classroom is fair target."

Please enlightment me, how does gun ownership make a person safer?



Jordan Joab.

This question is hardly worth answering so I'll respond with an equally absurd question.

If I'm about to be mugged how would NOT having a gun make me safer?

 

[WarPhalange]

Here's a better question:

If I'm mugged how would a gun make me safer?

If you think you can pull out your gun and shoot the bad guy when he's already pulled a gun or knife on you, then you watch too many movies.

 

[drankin]

Here's a better question:

If I'm mugged how would a gun make me safer?

If you think you can pull out your gun and shoot the bad guy when he's already pulled a gun or knife on you, then you watch too many movies.

Here you go, http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx"

Just enter a state in the search engine.

Thousands of accounts of people defending themselves with guns in all sorts of situations. I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. Hypothetical situation arguments a waste of time.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Allow me to clarify my position where it comes to firearms.

I believe Americans have the right to have a rifle, shotgun, longgun, carbine, etc at home to protect themselves and their property (still a false sense of security). However, when it comes to handguns, I believe only law enforcement should be allowed to carry them.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of an increased number of handguns out on the street. It is dangerous. It is ridiculous to think that having more people armed with handguns will create a safer, more secure society. If the previous was truly the case, why not give every country on Earth nuclear weapons? I'm sure wars will cease to exist!



Jordan.

 

[drankin]

Allow me to clarify my position where it comes to firearms.

I believe Americans have the right to have a rifle, shotgun, longgun, carbine, etc at home to protect themselves and their property (still a false sense of security). However, when it comes to handguns, I believe only law enforcement should be allowed to carry them.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of an increased number of handguns out on the street. It is dangerous. It is ridiculous to think that having more people armed with handguns will create a safer, more secure society. If the previous was truly the case, why not give every country on Earth nuclear weapons? I'm sure wars will cease to exist!



Jordan.

Concern for our society starts with concern for the individual. It does not make sense that individual should have to carry a rifle for personal defense. Though a more visual deterent against personal attack. (I've never heard of someone carrying a rifle getting mugged ). It's not very practical. A handgun, like I carry myself, is adequate.

It's the same old tired argument. Create laws that restrict the law abiding citizen from having guns (handguns or otherwise), then only the criminals will have them rendering the law abiding citizen to a legal and lethal disadvantage.

 

[WarPhalange]

Here you go, http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx"

Just enter a state in the search engine.

Thousands of accounts of people defending themselves with guns in all sorts of situations. I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. Hypothetical situation arguments a waste of time.

That's a logical fallacy, because you aren't showing the other side. The people that die while trying to protect themselves instead of just giving up their wallet, and the people who get shot with their own guns.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Allow me to clarify my position where it comes to firearms.

I believe Americans have the right to have a rifle, shotgun, longgun, carbine, etc at home to protect themselves and their property (still a false sense of security). However, when it comes to handguns, I believe only law enforcement should be allowed to carry them.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of an increased number of handguns out on the street. It is dangerous. It is ridiculous to think that having more people armed with handguns will create a safer, more secure society. If the previous was truly the case, why not give every country on Earth nuclear weapons? I'm sure wars will cease to exist!



Jordan.

Actually, when it comes to nuclear bombs, mutually assured destruction did work. The real threats here are the people who either want the world to end, or people who are too stupid to realize that using a nuke will absolutely lead to their own destruction. But when you point your gun at someone, they know that they are about to die, so unless they want to die at that particular moment, you have the advantage.

As for handguns, they are much easier to store and to use in a pinch: Rifles and shotguns require the use of two hands. Hand guns can be operated with one hand. Handguns can be stored in drawer by the bed or kept in an easily accessable, secret location, whereas long-barrel guns are generally more difficult to hide or store. Most handguns have a clip that can be switched in a few seconds. Rifles and shotguns require that each shell be loaded individually when needed. Also many States require that all shotguns be plugged so that they can only hold three rounds.

Do you really think that laws will stop crooks from carrying guns when by definition they don't follow the law? Also, it is easy to make a gun. Laws will do nothing but create a black market for illegally produced guns.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

 

[Evo]

Here you go, http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx"

Just enter a state in the search engine.

Thousands of accounts of people defending themselves with guns in all sorts of situations. I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. Hypothetical situation arguments a waste of time.

A website like this is too silly to even be considered.

You realize that this has no meaning because there is nothing to measure against, right?

Shall we start a website listing people that had their own guns turned on them or that injured themselves or other innocent bystanders with their own guns, what, no one is going to brag about that?

Just last month there was a guy on the news because he tried to pull a gun on an intruder in his home and the intruder wrestled with the homeowner and the homeowner suffered broken ribs, a broken arm, and was shot in the shoulder with his own gun before the intruder got away, apparently unharmed. :rofl: They were making fun of the gun owner on the morning news, a reporter stopped him as he was returning home and asked him how he was, he said "I was shot". Ok, it wasn't funny that they repeated that sound clip a hundred times.

If you pull a gun on someone and you wait to see what they'll do, you've put yourself at risk. Ask yourself, do you intend to kill the first person you come across with that gun?

 

[Jordan Joab]

But who honestly believes that an increase in the number of law-abiding citizens carrying handguns will deter or reduce violent crimes? Ridiculous.

I can see the following scenarios taking place:

A) More responsible citizens carrying handguns. Criminals realize the risk is higher and get even more violent.

B) More responsible citizens carrying handguns. Criminals target areas where handgun ownership is lower or non-existent. More pressure to re-direct law enforcement services to those areas.

C) More responsible citizens carrying handguns. Increased number of legal handguns might increase the number of illegal weapons.

D) More responsible citizens carrying handguns. These citizens feel empowered to resolve matters or disputes out of their area of responsibility. i.e disputes at work, on the street, on the bus, on the subway, home, etc.



Jordan Joab.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But who honestly believes that an increase in the number of law-abiding citizens carrying handguns will deter or reduce violent crimes? Ridiculous.

I just posted evidence to that effect.

Frankly, what is silly is thinking that having a weapon does not make one safer; provided that they know how to use it properly. And as for those who are reckless with guns, even a single match costs many lives if used carelessly. Should we make matches illegal? How about cars? A car can be a much more lethal weapon than a gun.

 

[drankin]

That's a logical fallacy, because you aren't showing the other side. The people that die while trying to protect themselves instead of just giving up their wallet, and the people who get shot with their own guns.

It should certainly be up to the indidual who is being robbed to make the determination as to either hand over his wallet or to risk a shootout (possibly shooting himself ). If someone has the drop on me, I may hand my wallet over, though he may take it and shoot me anyway but anything can happen in a particular situation. It's my call as to what to do if someone is pointing a gun, waving a knife, a bat, or is in some other way is threatening my life.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It should certainly be up to the indidual who is being robbed to make the determination as to either hand over his wallet or to risk a shootout (possibly shooting himself ). If someone has the drop on me, I may hand my wallet over, though he may take it and shoot me anyway but anything can happen in a particular situation. It's my call as to what to do if someone is pointing a gun, waving a knife, a bat, or is in some other way is threatening my life.

There are times when a having a gun is useless and only a fool would try to use it. There are other times when a few seconds of warning means the difference between life and death. And if the guy walking up behind the guy mugging you has a gun, then you still have a potential advantage through the actions of others.

Speaking generally, you can't take my guns just because some people are idiots.

 

[Evo]

And as for those who are reckless with guns, even a single match costs many lives if used carelessly. Should we make matches illegal? How about cars? A car can be a much more lethal weapon than a gun.

Ivan, how many people intend to set fire to people? Or run over someone with a car in the bedroom? Many household items can be lethal, but they serve real purposes other than killing or harming people.

Hand guns are made to kill people.Too many people buy guns out of fear and are afraid to use them or don't know how to use them. An intruder in your home with a gun won't hesitate to use it on you if he sees you have a gun. Where a typical homeowner with a gun will just stand there like a deer in headlights.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, how many people intend to set fire to people?

How many fires are set intentionally? I would guess a very large number of them.

Or run over someone with a car in the bedroom? Many household items can be lethal, but they serve real purposes other than killing or harming people.

I am thinking more of someone driving onto a campus and running down students, as opposed to using a gun, as we have seen recently. Do you really think that someone that sick won't find some other mode of operation? Are you suggesting that the mentally ill are only dangerous because they have guns?

Hand guns are made to kill people.Too many people buy guns out of fear and are afraid to use them or don't know how to use them.

How many?

An intruder in your home with a gun won't hesitate to use it on you if he sees you have a gun. Where a typical homeowner with a gun will just stand there like a deer in headlights.

An intruder comes into my home and he is likely dead.

 

[WarPhalange]

It should certainly be up to the indidual who is being robbed to make the determination as to either hand over his wallet or to risk a shootout (possibly shooting himself ).

*slaps forehead*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/ap_on_re_us/officer_shot

Please tell me you were just joking and really understood what I was coming at.

If someone has the drop on me, I may hand my wallet over, though he may take it and shoot me anyway but anything can happen in a particular situation. It's my call as to what to do if someone is pointing a gun, waving a knife, a bat, or is in some other way is threatening my life.

Murder vs. mugging carries totally different sentencing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can also say that a couple of times I have gone for my gun. Luckily I have never had to use one to shoot a person, but I was SURE glad to have them when I thought that I may need them.

There was NO hesitation.

 

[Cyrus]

Before this gets to page 1-billion, Id like to point out this glaring error Jordan Joab.

The point of the 2nd amendment is NOT to protect yourself on the streets. The right to own a gun is to overthrow a tyrannical government.

This entire handguns this, protecting yourself in a crime that, is nothing more than BLA BLA BLA... It misses the point.

Could we possibly, for once, argue about what the 2nd amendment is really about?

...Jeeeeeeeeeezus.

 

[Evo]

How many fires are set intentionally? I would guess a very large number of them.

Not in comparison to the number of matches sold, it would almost be too tiny to measure. My point is, matches are not normally purchased with the intent of using them as a weapon.

I am thinking more of someone driving onto a campus and running down students, as opposed to using a gun, as we have seen recently. Do you really think that someone that sick won't find some other mode of operation? Are you suggesting that the mentally ill are only dangerous because they have guns?

And what percentage of the car owning population is this? Like I said just about anythong can be used to kill somone, a piano string, pantyhose, a plastic dry cleaning bag, the point is that they are not "intended' as lethal weapons.

Hand guns are made to kill people.Too many people buy guns out of fear and are afraid to use them or don't know how to use them.

How many?

I'd say look at the number of handguns that are owned and the number of owners that are proficient at shooting ranges with those guns would be a good measurement. I'd say the average person that buys a hand gun to keep at home for protection would not be able to shoot someone. That's a HUGE mistake. If you buy something made to kill people, you'd better be ready to kill the first person you aim it at. Most people don't even think that far ahead.

An intruder comes into my home and he is likely dead.

That's the "only" attitude you should have if you buy a handgun. Kill first, think later. And just hope you didn't shoot the wrong person.

 

[rootX]

Does anyone have statistics showing relationship between guns owned by public and crime rates in that country?

Personally, I think there is a correlations between people owing a gun and number of crimes per something ..in that country.
[Canada vs US?]

ahh found some!

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

 

[humanino]

"More Guns, Less Crime" does not show numbers, it states, I don't buy it.

Show the probability that you die of shotgun, if you have a gun at home and if you don't. I don't have reference. As far as remember, the difference was not because people who have gun live in dangerous areas. The difference was substantial and due to another member of the family using it against you.

Hey, I just state, it is no less valid than Ivan's link.

How many years ago was your constitution written ?

I know myself. I sometimes go crazily mad. I do things I can regret later. I could kill somebody out of anger if I had a gun. Or out of alcohol. Or out of an accident. Or out of stupidity (like Joe Horn).

Some arguments are just out of date.

 

[Evo]

Before this gets to page 1-billion, Id like to point out this glaring error Jordan Joab.

The point of the 2nd amendment is NOT to protect yourself on the streets. The right to own a gun is to overthrow a tyrannical government.

This entire handguns this, protecting yourself in a crime that, is nothing more than BLA BLA BLA... It misses the point.

Could we possibly, for once, argue about what the 2nd amendment is really about?

...Jeeeeeeeeeezus.

Most people don't know that Cyrus. Most people can't even remember the first sentence of the Preamble, you expect them to know what the 2nd amendment says?

Heck, I bet a lot of people don't even know that there is a preamble.

 

[Cyrus]

In all seriousness, I would like to see every american given a FULL, MILITARY GRADE assault rifle with a grenade launcher attachment on it. And you keep this locked in a gun safe in your house for that day the sh!t hits the fan. And if you EVER take it out for ANY REASON other than to shoot it at the range to stay proficient, your are in a WORLD of trouble. And you are REQUIRED to be able to shoot x-targets at some determined range while you have the gun each year. Meaning, it can't collect dust.


I really am getting fed up with people playing police man with the 2nd ammendment. The framers didnt give a damn about you protecting your house against a robber.

 

[Cyrus]

No. Your handgun will not hit that F-22 flying 20,000ft above you when you decide to rebel against the Government.

A handgun was not designed to take down stealth fighters, there's no point to this statement.

Yes, you might be able to fend off a criminal on the street but chances are said criminal will come from behind you.

So what?

Wouldn't a higher supply of legal guns create a higher supply of illegal guns?

Finally, I can only imagine the following scenario: "S***! Some students came in today with guns and started shooting people" "Alright, enyone outside this classroom is fair target."

Please enlightment me, how does gun ownership make a person safer?



Jordan Joab.

All of this really means nothing, and has nothing to do with the spirit of the second amendment. I fail to see you making any point here other than ranting.

It says the right to bear arms. Not the right to bear arms, 'except hand guns'.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Before this gets to page 1-billion, Id like to point out this glaring error Jordan Joab.

The point of the 2nd amendment is NOT to protect yourself on the streets. The right to own a gun is to overthrow a tyrannical government.

This entire handguns this, protecting yourself in a crime that, is nothing more than BLA BLA BLA... It misses the point.

Could we possibly, for once, argue about what the 2nd amendment is really about?

...Jeeeeeeeeeezus.

Cyrus, I am glad you brought this up. Yes, I understand the point of the 2nd Amendment is to the right to own firearms to overthrow tyrannical governments. However, this decision by the Court has nothing to do with protection against oppressing governments.

Protecting against tyrannical governments is not an individual right but a collective right. State-regulated militias accomplished this effectively. Once you break it down to the individual level it gets messy.

Are you telling me that citizens with handguns will effectively fight a theoretically tyrannical U.S. Government? Maybe back in 1861 this made sense. Not in 2008.

This whole "individuals have rights to possesses firearms" line of thinking is not being used as a means to protect citizens from their governments.
Jordan.

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right

 

[Jordan Joab]

In all seriousness, I would like to see every american given a FULL, MILITARY GRADE assault rifle with a grenade launcher attachment on it. And you keep this locked in a gun safe in your house for that day the sh!t hits the fan. And if you EVER take it out for ANY REASON other than to shoot it at the range to stay proficient, your are in a WORLD of trouble. And you are REQUIRED to be able to shoot x-targets at some determined range while you have the gun each year. Meaning, it can't collect dust.I really am getting fed up with people playing police man with the 2nd ammendment. The framers didnt give a damn about you protecting your house against a robber.

Let's also give Americans an F-16 fighter jet, a Javelin, military-grade comms, surface-to-air missiles, and a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead to keep things fair when fighting that tyrannical government.
Jordan.

Edit: but I am going off-topic. Private handguns foster a paranoid society.

 

[Gokul43201]

I personally don't care for guns and I think recreational hunting is a form of barbarism, but most data I've come across only indicates that attempting to control gun ownership does not reduce crime rates or homicide rates[1,2,3].

Does anyone have statistics showing relationship between guns owned by public and crime rates in that country?

I'd like to see this too, though I anticipate that it could easily be deceptively misleading.

Personally, I think there is a correlations between people owing a gun and number of crimes per something ..in that country.
[Canada vs US?]

It is also possible that both gun ownership and crime rates are causally related to some other more basic underlying social system, creating the illusion that they are causally related to each other.

ahh found some!

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

That is not the data you were looking for, but it definitely is interesting (and quite unexpected, given the other numbers I've seen). That table shows only the rate of firearm deaths, not the rate of all homicides+suicides. The impression I have is that in countries where there are stricter gun ownership controls, people find other ways to commit crimes if a gun is not available.

"More Guns, Less Crime" does not show numbers, it states, I don't buy it.

Show the probability that you die of shotgun, if you have a gun at home and if you don't. I don't have reference. As far as remember, the difference was not because people who have gun live in dangerous areas. The difference was substantial and due to another member of the family using it against you.

I recall something like this as well, but the thing is that accidental deaths are much fewer than homicides. While reducing gun ownership reduces accidental gun deaths, that is not a sufficiently big number that the rate of homicides+accidental deaths decreases noticeably. Furthermore, if the rate of homicides increases even slightly, any benefit from decreasing accidental deaths is wiped out.

Hey, I just state, it is no less valid than Ivan's link.

How many years ago was your constitution written ?

I know myself. I sometimes go crazily mad. I do things I can regret later. I could kill somebody out of anger if I had a gun. Or out of alcohol. Or out of an accident. Or out of stupidity (like Joe Horn).

In the case of Joe Horn, I think the problem is more with the legality of being allowed to shoot someone for no good reason rather than the issue of gun ownership itself. I doubt that Mr. Horn would turn in his shotgun if gun ownership was made illegal.

And that's another big problem with suddenly imposing stricter gun control - there appears to be no good way to implement and enforce it, at least over the short term. That was the main problem in Australia. They banned gun ownership, and only about 10% of the estimated number of guns in the country were returned to the authorities. And those were largely from licensed gun dealerships. And after this ban, crime rates in Australia didn't get any better.

[1] http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/key2000i/

[2] http://www.saf.org/JFPP14ch5.htm

[3] Guns and Crime - Australia

 

[Cyrus]

Are you telling me that citizens with handguns will effectively fight a theoretically tyrannical U.S. Government? Maybe back in 1861 this made sense. Not in 2008.

Yes, I am telling you that. Because its not that simple. If there were a war within the US, people in the military would leave, it would not be us vs. Uncle Sam in the sense your thinking about it. Guess what, Iraqis and Afghani's are reeking all sorts of hell with home made road side bombs and cheap russian Ak-47s against big bad uncle sam and his apache gun ships and armored humvees. Right?

The question is if a handgun serves as a tactical advantage? Do you see police using rifles or handguns? For certain cases its probably better to have a handgun. I am not a gun-nut, so I can only assume in urban areas a handgun is good. Do you mean to tell me that a war wouldn't include urban senarios? Dont most US soldiers carry hand guns as their secondary weapon?

 

[JasonRox]

An intruder comes into my home and he is likely dead.

I'm sure the criminal will shoot you in your sleep.

 

[Cyrus]

Let's also give Americans an F-16 fighter jet, a Javelin, military-grade comms, surface-to-air missiles, and a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead to keep things fair when fighting that tyrannical government.



Jordan.

Edit: but I am going off-topic. Private handguns foster a paranoid society.

If you can afford a 16 million dollar jet, fine by me. In fact, some mega-rich aviation nuts do own supersonic fighter jets that they fly for fun. Better duck and cover, he might bomb you! ...


Again, you missed the point of what I was saying. Why do you assume that becuase someone owns an F-16, they are allowed to use it however they please?

Lots of people own and have guns, all around you. Do you walk around in constant fear of being shot? No...

 

[Jordan Joab]

Yes, I am telling you that. Because its not that simple. If there were a war within the US, people in the military would leave, it would not be us vs. Uncle Sam in the sense your thinking about it. Guess what, Iraqis and Afghani's are reeking all sorts of hell with home made road side bombs and cheap russian Ak-47s against big bad uncle sam and his apache gun ships and armored humvees. Right?

No my friend. You assume all military personnel would leave. If we are talking about fighting a domestic tyrannical government then that government has troops and loyalists that will fight you. Foreign tyrannical government? We have our armed forces. What you just described is anarchy; in that case your measly handgun will only take you so far.

The question is if a handgun serves as a tactical advantage? Do you see police using rifles or handguns? For certain cases its probably better to have a handgun. I am not a gun-nut, so I can only assume in urban areas a handgun is good. Do you mean to tell me that a war wouldn't include urban senarios? Dont most US soldiers carry hand guns as their secondary weapon?

Handguns offer a tactical advantage: concealment. Law enforcement agencies use both rifles and handguns (SWAT). Military personnel, cops, federals militias, etc. with handguns is acceptable to me. Private citizens with private handguns is not.

I live in NYC. I can't even imagine what would happen if more New Yorkers carried handguns in the subway, buses, public places, etc.



Jordan.

 

[Cyrus]

No my friend. You assume all military personnel would leave. If we are talking about fighting a domestic tyrannical government then that government has troops and loyalists that will fight you. Foreign tyrannical government? We have our armed forces. What you just described is anarchy; in that case your measly handgun will only take you so far.

You seem to be mixing two things up, well sort of. Were a foreign country to invade us today, it would be the job of the miltary to fight them - nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. If the military did a bad job and failed, then you could get your gun in your basement and take action.

I disagree with you, strongly, that 'the government has troops and loyalists that will fight you'. This makes no sense, and I don't think its true either. Its not anarchy, its called a civil war. People in the military would likely leave and take sides with whoever they want to fight for. Obviously, this is a hypothetical. It could be a split in two, three, ten. Who knows. But the point is, to say that the us military will just stay together is too much of a stretch.

Handguns offer a tactical advantage: concealment. Law enforcement agencies use both rifles and handguns (SWAT). Military personnel, cops, federals militias, etc. with handguns is acceptable to me. Private citizens with private handguns is not.

I live in NYC. I can't even imagine what would happen if more New Yorkers carried handguns in the subway, buses, public places, etc.



Jordan.

Ok, so if I am trying to fight a government, shouldnt I have a gun that is concealed?

 

[Jordan Joab]

If you can afford a 16 million dollar jet, fine by me. In fact, some mega-rich aviation nuts do own supersonic fighter jets that they fly for fun. Better duck and cover, he might bomb you! ...

Except those particular planes are stripped off their armament systems. Also, these nuts would have to buy bombs and ammunition from... guess who... the Goverment! Not to mention they would need special equipment and personnel to arm the aircraft.

Again, you missed the point of what I was saying. Why do you assume that becuase someone owns an F-16, they are allowed to use it however they please?

And why do you assume that private handguns will be used legally all the time?

Lots of people own and have guns, all around you. Do you walk around in constant fear of being shot? No...

Situationally, yes. I think every American by law should live 1 year in NYC.




Jordan.

 

[Cyrus]

Except those particular planes are stripped off their armament systems. Also, these nuts would have to buy bombs and ammunition from... guess who... the Goverment! Not to mention they would need special equipment and personnel to arm the aircraft.

Who says it has to be the US government? There is this concept called 'arms dealers' that sell quite illegal weapons around the world for the right price. You think if someone really wanted to, they couldn't rig up something? On an old soviet airplane that's made all around the world.....come on now.

And why do you assume that private handguns will be used legally all the time?

What do I care what they are used for illegally? Thats not the POINT! Sheesh. Lots of things are used illegally all the time......and?

Situationally, yes. I think every American by law should live 1 year in NYC.


Jordan.

I live in DC, I am not impressed. I've had a gun to my head before, that does not mean I am against guns. Can you say the same?