So if there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime then what is the problem? I think it is more cultural than anything else. Even if Chinese people had guns they would not think about using them to resolve disputes. Saving face is very important to the Chinese and anybody who goes into a school and starts shooting at people definitely loses face. That is a lot worse than speaking out of turn. Americans on the other hand have a long history of settling disputes with violence. If they did not have guns there would probably be a lot of school stabbings. In fact, I think there already are.
They are fairly useless for self defence unless they happen to be in my hand. If somebody wants to rob me at the target range then they are in trouble. If somebody breaks into my house then I will confront them immediately rather than go get a gun, take it out of its case, load it and then confront the intruder, all the while hoping he was waiting around for me to get ready. If I happen to stumble into a terrorist situation and I’m armed for some reason and the terrorist is in my line of sight and I have a clear shot then yes I will take the gun out and aim for a head shot. But how often are all of those criteria met? It has never happened to me so far.
8 comments:
You sound like a girl who doesnt miss much.
Now take that name Bul Cherokee. People think this inoffensive. Cherokees were actually quite peaceful hence their constant being kicked around.
Now, what if I had a gun and called it a glock 19, jew version. I would be arrested.
By gum, I am going to go to that Durban II thing and raise this issue.. what do you think... will they listen? I'll wear my cleveland Indian T shirt and a hat from the washington redskins and ride in on my apache helicopter.
Last point on ageism. I knew my Smith and Wesson .38 revolver inside and outside and was rated sharpshooter on the long gun we used, a .308.
I read that the RCMP now uses the Glock 17, a machine gun, a taser, pepper spray and they still run away.
All I had was a night stick and a modicum of self reliance. This goes to show how old I am.
Why shoot the terrorist in the head? You'd have a better chance shotting for the body.
I think shooting a potential bomber in the head is the only shot available. One has to stop the bomber completely and quickly otherwise that person might activate the device. It would be a desperate and difficult situation all around and I fear that my response might be to run away as fast as these old legs could carry me.
Suicide bombers sometimes pack explosives to their chest and stomach. Aiming for the abdomen is a very bad idea.
My bravery in this area is purely hypothetical. I've never been tested. I might as easily soil myself and cry for my mother. Hopefully I'll never find out.
I don't think Americans name things after Indians to be offensive. I think most Americans admire the culture. Not so much 200 years ago, but now. Although naming your team Redskins just seems a bad idea.
Bravo on the first comment.
Guns are just bad. They serve no purpose other than to kill. If everyone threw away there guns there'd be no school shootings, no carjackings, no holdups. There'd be no innocent children shot by their friends while playing or shot by the neighborhood drug dealer while walking to school.
Yes a car can be a deadly weapon too, but a car serves a purpose other than to kill. Guns don't.
In the hands of a responsible person guns serve several purposes that have nothing to do with killing.
Without guns there would still be school stabbings, carjackings and robberies. People would simply use other weapons.
A gun is a tool. Taking that tool away from people will not make them less violent.
Post a Comment