Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom)

[TheQuirk]

Okay, I will solve this for all of you:

You should own firearms because they are cool.

You know I'm right!   :rolleyes:                    :cool:

[hm_murdock]

quote:Just because it's a law doesn't make it right

it's not a law, dude. it's one of the cornerstones of our nation. it's one of the ORIGINAL FREEDOMS promised in the Bill of Rights, which is part of The Constitution of the United States of America.

Perhaps you might want to read it?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, [bold]the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/bold]

The amendment exists for several reasons...

1) To protect the people from the government. YES. YOU HEARD RIGHT... TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT. The People of the United States hold the power, but they've let it lapse. It's no longer from the people to the leaders, but it has now become from the leaders to the people.

2) To protect the nation. Not everybody is in the military service. Those who are not can still fight if the battle comes to their homes, into their town, their city. If the United States were invaded, however improbable, if enemy troops set foot on our soil, there would be ordinary citizens dropping the fuckers as quickly as the US Military would be.

3) To protect the citizens from each other. Crime is a problem, there's no getting around it. We should have the right to defend ourselves against it. If someone breaks into your home, your place of living, where you, and your family reside, you were promised the right to dispose of him. It's only in today's immoral, shit-driven, money-powered social wasteland that a criminal or his family can take you to court. However, the instances of people winning cases like that are rare. A judge and jury will very seldom find in favor of the criminal. If someone breaks into a person's home and is killed... that is the way it should be.

Now, I've been cordial, and have given you foreigners the benefit of the doubt, but you seem pretty dead set that somehow you're more right than I am, that somehow, because I feel strongly about a matter, that I'm some kind of "fanatic"... no, I just actually believe in something.

Aww, does that douse your preconceptions of Americans as being dull, mindless people who follow everything unquestioningly? If so, GOOD. If not, then fuck off. Maybe if you knew anything about the fucking world, you'd know that we're all the goddamn fucking same. We're all humans.

But people who put down others simply because they believe in something sicken me. The mediocrity I see in these posts is appalling. I understand that where you're from is different. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE, IS IT, BUDDY?

No. The issue exists here. I believe in something. If you don't agree with it, that's fine. You don't have to. If you feel that you believe so strongly against it, then get up off your worthless, lazy ass, come to the United States and speak your mind to the Congress.

Now shut up with your whining, because that's all it is.

"Oh no, guns kill people. Boo hoo. I live in a country where there's no guns, and I'm going to belittle you for living in a country where they are... I'm going to insult you for standing up for something you believe in. I'm a whiney, crying, mediocre nancy boy who's too pussy to believe in jack."

 If you don't agree, that's fine. That's your fucking choice to make, not mine. I'm not forcing a choice on you, don't fucking force one on me. I don't flame you for being a "fucking pussy ass peacenik" now do I? I don't respect you any less because you're anti gun, or because the nation you live in has limits on firearms. It doesn't affect you as a person.

Stop acting like a bunch of fucking babies. This isn't your country, so stop worrying and whining about it.

[billy_gates]

Bravo Jimmy.  I have nothing to add to that.  That is exactly my opinion.

Oh and Flap you took my quote way out of context.  Right after I said that I said it would work in theory, but not in reality.

[flap]

quote:Now shut up with your whining, because that's all it is.

Who's whining? You're the one who's putting your view across in angry, overly-defensive posts. We don't really have any reason to whine or complain. We can be quite smug about the fact that we already live in a country where guns aren't legal.

 

quote: If you don't agree, that's fine. That's your fucking choice to make, not mine. I'm not forcing a choice on you, don't fucking force one on me. I don't flame you for being a "fucking pussy ass peacenik" now do I? I don't respect you any less because you're anti gun, or because the nation you live in has limits on firearms. It doesn't affect you as a person.

What are you talking about? No-one is attacking anyone personally. Who, besides you, has insulted anyone else in this thread? There isn't a single flame here.

[Faust]

quote:it's not a law, dude. it's one of the cornerstones of our nation. it's one of the ORIGINAL FREEDOMS promised in the Bill of Rights, which is part of The Constitution of the United States of America.

Oh so its written on a MORE IMPORTANT bit of paper?  Completely changes the situation then...  Words arent important, beliefs are.  If the belief of the American people changes tomorrow, so should the constitution.  Sorry, but I hope that a democratic person like you wouldnt want a piece of paper signed by a lot of dead people to be more important than democratic process...  So in the mean time we can argue for beliefs and you can't try and justify them with a symbol OK?

Wasnt this the same constitution that was amended to prohibit "intoxicating liquors!"  DEAR GOD!  The constitution says you cant booze!  Must obey, it was in the constitution and surely you cant argue with the constitution right?  Stop reading from a useless description of the law only when it profits you please.

Oh and arms?  Arms means weapons and you are saying that this amendment lets you own any weapon you want without restrictions from the government.
  Should you have the right to own nuclear weapons or do you believe in restrictions?  Restrictions, not complete loss, is all I think would help.

 

quote:There are different home defense situations, a gun may or may not help. Why does burglary still happen? This is because many people in the US do not own a gun, due to anti-gun messages and anti-gun laws in many states

Do you have any evidence for this?

 

quote:I look at guns as details, not the big picture. Guns can create alot of new issues(like that maryland sniper incident, or columbine), but in the overall day to day murders and injuries, would they really have a major effect? If 4 thugs have guns and attack you, you are fucked. If 4 thugs have baseball bats and attack you, you are still fucked(some people might not be, but most would). In the vast majority of cases, the victim would be dead or hospitalized. How would gun control help here?

A gun can kill someone a lot quicker than a baseball bat can.  At least with baseball bats you can run, and there is more chance of a trained medic being able to save you.  The columbine murderers used Tec-9 semiautomatic pistols.  Dude they look more like mac-10s than pistols...  There is NO NEED for you to have access to that gun.  Its not useful for hunting and unless your being burgled by what, 20 or so guys you dont need something that powerful to defend yourself.  If the columbine murderers didnt have access to guns as powerful as that then a lot less people would have died.

 

quote:You should own firearms because they are cool.

This and the comment earlier about owning a desert eagle "because its cool."  How responsible of you all.

 

quote:If someone breaks into a person's home and is killed... that is the way it should be.

Again you are making it seem like you believe money is more important than life.

 

quote:But people who put down others simply because they believe in something sicken me. The mediocrity I see in these posts is appalling. I understand that where you're from is different. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE, IS IT, BUDDY?

I'm not putting you down, I'm arguing for my beliefs.  Sorry, but thats one of the freedoms I do believe in.  If you cant take it then dont listen.

 

quote:"Oh no, guns kill people. Boo hoo. I live in a country where there's no guns, and I'm going to belittle you for living in a country where they are... I'm going to insult you for standing up for something you believe in. I'm a whiney, crying, mediocre nancy boy who's too pussy to believe in jack."

I believe in a lot of things.  One of those things is that your gun laws are too loose.  If you dont like my beliefs, if you cant take me exercising my freedom of speech then you dont have to listen.  Or you can argue back, we both have the right to free speech.  But you're not going to solve anything with weak insults.

 

quote:Stop acting like a bunch of fucking babies. This isn't your country, so stop worrying and whining about it.

Iraq isnt your country either, but a lot of you worried about that.  China isnt my country either, but me and my Taiwanese friend worry about them.  You live in a global community, and you cant just say that outsiders dont have a right to criticize your corner of it.  Did outsiders have a right to criticize germanies treatment of jews?

[pofnlice]

Preamble to the Constitution

Recite:

WE the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility.  PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE (I beleive that's far enough)

The 2nd ammendment guarantees the RIGHT to keep and bare arms which is based on the (oddly enough) second sentance of the preamble.  Not law...it's a privaledge actually.  If you're a felon, you can't have em.  Although it was written with the intention of local and regional malitias in mind.  I would say honestly the average malitia is degenerated quite a bit over the years into crazed survivalists and seperatists.  However, it is our Constitutional right to keep and bare arms.  The Idea is to provide home, state and country defense.  If the citizens are armed, there is less incentive for large scale dissidence and hostility on our own shores.  I have many guns.  I deal with lots of people who have guns.  I treat people with guns as if they want to kill me when on the job.  Once I get their guns we talk and I decide whether to seize and arrest or give back and leave.  That's part of the job.  Although it can be a hell of an adrenaline rush...I would have it no other way.  I see the bad side of peeps everyday.  I own a PSG, Glock 22, Glock 25, Desert Eagle 500Mag, several derringers, Walther P228, Infield 30.06, Savage 308, Smith and wesson model 1200 12 ga on and on and on...  I dare someone to try to take them from me.  They are all registered and legal (even the silenced PSG- but I am law enforcement and have special permits being a sniper and all    )

[Faust]

quote:Oh so its written on a MORE IMPORTANT bit of paper? Completely changes the situation then... Words arent important, beliefs are. If the belief of the American people changes tomorrow, so should the constitution. Sorry, but I hope that a democratic person like you wouldnt want a piece of paper signed by a lot of dead people to be more important than democratic process... So in the mean time we can argue for beliefs and you can't try and justify them with a symbol OK?

Wasnt this the same constitution that was amended to prohibit "intoxicating liquors!" DEAR GOD! The constitution says you cant booze! Must obey, it was in the constitution and surely you cant argue with the constitution right? Stop reading from a useless description of the law only when it profits you please.

Oh and arms? Arms means weapons and you are saying that this amendment lets you own any weapon you want without restrictions from the government.
Should you have the right to own nuclear weapons or do you believe in restrictions? Restrictions, not complete loss, is all I think would help.

No offense but please acknowledge past points rather than repeating what Jimmy James has already said.

edit:

Oh and its all nice and dandy how you all love these "rights" when they benefit you, but for other people (lets say David Hicks or anyone in Guantanomo) none of you think they exist.  It's only you who are entitled to a fair trial or arrest without cause, so don't tell me you believe in your constitution when youre flouting it like this.  Wasn't it said somewhere that those who really believe in free speech are those that let others say something they dont like?  None of you believe in your constitution.

edit:

 

quote:If the citizens are armed, there is less incentive for large scale dissidence and hostility on our own shores.

Wasn't the point for it to be possible for large scale dissidence against the government (as the only other holder of guns) to be possible?

[ November 08, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]

[pofnlice]

It is solely because I am trying to prove a point.  It's not just a symbol.  It is what we use to determine our rights.  It's what the supreme court is there for.  it's not just a peice of paper written and signed by a bunch of dead guys.  It sets the basis and foundation for the way our country is governed today.  The insight the founding forefathers had was incredible.  They wrote a document that set a basic enough outline to help shape our country.  Yes it has been changed.  It's supposed to be, it was written to be changed.  What I said in theree wasn't simply "It's our right and if you don't like it tough."  I explained why it was determined to be a right in America.  The principle it's based on is somewhat outdated, and that particular amendment has been altered.  Just try and purchase assault rifles legaly.  there are certain handguns which can't be bought anymore.  Only law enforcement and military are authorized the over capacity magazines.  The NRA fought every one of these restrictions tooth and nail. Obviously, they lost.  

I hate to break it down into simple-eeze.  People are bad, not guns.  A bad person with a gun in his hands is just as dangerous as a stupid person with a gun in his hands.  Checks are done to screen gun buyers are legit.  I am not saying the system isn't fucked.  When my father passes I get about 20 guns.  I was raised with guns in the house.  I was raised handling and firing guns.  I was tought by my father responsability with guns by a responsable adult (he spells better than me too).  That is where the responsability lies.  In the person, not the public.  I now work with guns,  alot of different kinds, 40mm Automatic grenade launchers, Sniper rifles, assault rifles, pistols, single shot grenade launchers, automatic rifles, machime guns...you name it.  Knifes kill more peeps every year than guns do....where's the "Lets ban all knives"  movement?  punish the person, not the masses.

Just so you know, I do not support the belief that if I want a rocket launcher on the roof of my house I should have one.  That's just retarded.  But I see no problem with me having my PSG-1.  Does it bother you that a citizen has a silenced sniper rifle as a personally owned weapon knowing now a little of my background and history with weapons?  We don't punish the masses for hackers abusing computers and stealing identities and destroying peeps lives, we punish the individual.  It's still a crime to use something for other than it was meant for (in regards to this conversation, obviously the police aren't going to kick in your door for using a butter knife as a screw driver).

All I hear from anti gun folk is "guns are bad andd guns kill people"

Not true, people kill people.  Inanimate objects are niether good or bad, it's all about WHO is using them and WHAT they are using them for.

Anti-gun folks don't put up an effective fight of why guns should be banned.  I could apply the same theory to cars.  People drive poorly and wreck and diee, so cars should be banned.  Aircraft and trains crash as well, lets get rid of them.  Hammers can be used to kill too, why not them as well.  Hammers are bad.  I have never heard a valid reason why guns should be banned.  I agree they should be limitted.  But, how do you draw the line on what types of guns are legal or illegal.  And by the way, I have used my pistol hunting.  I find it a much more efficient way to finish off the suffering animal if I should only injure it rather than kill it with one of my rifles or shot guns.  Or, would you rather I slice it's throat and wait for it to bleed to death?

[badkarma]

quote:Originally posted by AmericanBastard:
punish the person, not the masses.

And the whole anti-gun argument boils down to this:

prevent the masses from having to punish the person

the keyword here is (yup .. you guessed it) prevent

Another good solution would be to just remove all safety measures from guns ... then the problem would just solve itself  

[lazygamer]

quote:Originally posted by Faust:
And you need a desert eagle for hunting right? In most countries people who say they need their guns for "hunting" cant get access to replica M16s. Easy access to guns sure helped the washington sniper hey?

Did you know that the primary purpose of the Desert Eagle is target shooting and hunting, not self defense? As for replica M16s, are you refering to the semi-auto civilian models? Semi-auto versions of automatic rifles are common. What are you trying to prove here? This guy owns a Garand actually, an EIGHT round .30-06 SEMI-AUTO rifle, what a wonderful choice for hunting. And yes, he does need something meaner than a .22LR for hunting big animals.    


 

quote:Originally posted by Jimmy James

2) To protect the nation. Not everybody is in the military service. Those who are not can still fight if the battle comes to their homes, into their town, their city. If the United States were invaded, however improbable, if enemy troops set foot on our soil, there would be ordinary citizens dropping the fuckers as quickly as the US Military would be.

This would be very applicable to Canada, Canada has shit for military, the US does not.


 

quote:Originally posted by Lazygamer
There are different home defense situations, a gun may or may not help. Why does burglary still happen? This is because many people in the US do not own a gun, due to anti-gun messages and anti-gun laws in many states

 

quote:Originally posted by Faust
Do you have any evidence for this?

Do I need evidence? Use your imagination.

1)Someone could be ransacking your house and the noise wakes you up.

2)Someone could confront you at gunpoint while you walk about.

3)Someone could smash the window to your house, alerting you.

4)Someone could start raping your wife, alerting you.

5)Someone could point a gun at you while you are asleep.

#2 and #5 are situations where a gun for sure wouldn't help. There is no doubt more situations then those listed.


What about anti-gun stuff in America? Let's see what our friends at the Brady campaign have to say.

http://www.bradycampaign.org

Let's show their report card!

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/related_documents/010703.asp

Now look at that. Do you notice that there are states in the US that get good grades? Yes, it isn't just a straight line of D or F grades(of course there is plenty of low grades to go around in this report).

 

quote:Orignally posted by Faust
A gun can kill someone a lot quicker than a baseball bat can. At least with baseball bats you can run, and there is more chance of a trained medic being able to save you. The columbine murderers used Tec-9 semiautomatic pistols. Dude they look more like mac-10s than pistols... There is NO NEED for you to have access to that gun. Its not useful for hunting and unless your being burgled by what, 20 or so guys you dont need something that powerful to defend yourself. If the columbine murderers didnt have access to guns as powerful as that then a lot less people would have died.

Good point, people can run from baseball bats, although in many cases they would not escape.

Your point doesn't take into account that fact that an attacker can hit you as many times as he wants with the bat when you are incapcitated.

Is there more chance of a trained medic being able to save you? I'd say so, except that the chance doesn't drasticly go down when bullets are used. What do you think would cause more damage to your bones though?


Yes, they used SEMI-AUTOMATIC Tec-9 pistols. You really messed up with this dude. So a pistol that LOOKS like a fully automatic weapon is useless for anything besides killing a large group of people? Can you please tell me about magazine capacities? I am not sure if these particular Tec-9s had magazines similar to pistols, or larger, like maybe 30 round magazines. IF they had 30 round magazines then your point has some credibility.

Oh and btw, you know why you need more than 10 rounds in a pistol? If that pistol is ever being used against multiple attackers, the shooter MUST be able to incapcitate all of them, otherwise the surviving attackers will for certain kill the shooter! Assuming the columbine shooters were using 30 round magazines, it would of made no difference because all the student and teachers were probably too terrified to try and attack. So a reload would by easy.

[ November 10, 2003: Message edited by: lazygamer ]

[flap]

quote:Do I need evidence? Use your imagination.

I think he was asking if you have any evidence to support this statement:

 

quote:Why does burglary still happen? This is because many people in the US do not own a gun, due to anti-gun messages and anti-gun laws in many states

All of this hypothesising about different home-defence situations is largely irrelevant anyway. It's not necessary to theorise about the potential advantages of guns being legal, because we can already see the immense disadvantages by comparing the US with other countries. As I've said before, the US has a significant culture of death and violence that you just don't see in other countries, and that's down purely to guns being readily available. Even if you believe that guns do act as a deterrent, or make people feel safer, I don't see how you can feel that this outweighs the damage they do to society.

To quote from the page I mentioned earlier:

 

quote:- in the USA, more people died from gunshot wounds in the last 2 years alone than the whole Vietnam War

- by contrast, Japan with a population of 120 million has lost the number of young men to gunshot wounds in a year that is lost in a single weekend in New York City

- armed robbery is 100 times the rate of Japan

It's fairly obvious that guns are a bigger aid to the criminals than they are to innocent people trying to defend themselves. And in reality home-owners and business owners having guns isn't really a deterrent anyway. The robber will always have the upper-hand as they're catching their victim off-guard. And since trained, alert and armed security guards in banks don't always deter criminals from robbing those, it's unlikely that a civilian having a gun in their home is going to put anyone off. The fact is that when someone breaks into a house they don't expect to be caught.

[ November 10, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]

[Calum]

guns do not kill people.

for anybody who has time, read "deadeye dick" by kurt vonnegut. i just finished it. it is not pro or anti gun but the main character accidentally kills a pregnant mother of two at age twelve, which features as one of the main themes in the novel.

anyway, guns don't kill people. get a few hundred guns together and nobody will die till some people start loading them with ammunition and pointing them at each other. of course, that's what guns are for so you will have a hard time stopping people from doing it. that's one part of it.

but the MAIN part of it is this:
people see people shooting each other on TV. they read about people shooting each other in the paper. They feel inadequate and fed up with modern life, living in shitty assed dumps and no government gives a fuck and people are nasty to each other on the streets for no reason. And they see guns on the TV. guns are cool when you see them on columbo or LAPD or something, you know? black kids see TV shows about blacks shooting people and think they can get recognised by doing it. white kids can afford guns, and maybe white kids read in the papers about white kids who shoot up their class in high school for a laugh and think it's big and clever.Not only that but in this fast paced high tension, high debt world of the US and its social colonies (of which the homogenous UK is one), people get a bit crazy under pressure.

In the same way as people divorce and fight and beat each other up and get pregnant at 13 and drink to excess in the UK because it is on TV, people in the US shoot each other because it's on TV. it is that simple. in canada, there are something like 4 times as many guns per head of population than there are in the US. guess what, there are a TENTH of the gun deaths. why is this? there's something unique about the USA's media and culture. This has in some ways affected other countries, but not to the same extent, especially while other countries can obsess over sex, drink, drugs etc. whatever tickles the local fancy.

anyway, go ahead, take your bestshot, but after you have let loose, please do think about what i said.

[pofnlice]

Guns are tools.  A weapon is nothing more than a tool to accomplish a job.  Whether the weapon is a knife, club or gun is regardless.  ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, if modified properly in some cases and without any modification in others.

I also believe the history of America becoming what it is today is largley to blame for the "Gun related incidents."  I've been in law enforcement for 12 years.  Most shootings I have worked had alcohol/drug involvement.  In a close second were cases of pride (you know, gang stuff, infidelity and rights of passage).  America has been raised in a culture of violence.  It's how we became a country.  Even before the revolutionary war, we fought.  We fought french, Spanish, American Natives, we fought along side and against them.  Then we fought the British.  Ever since, we've fought ourselves.  With the occaisional bombing of some country which we deemed earned themselves one.
America is also comprised of many subcultures.  The first one everyone seems to single out is black.  Black violence is popular because the media have sensationalized it, the equal rights activists have dramatized it and the communities have accepted it.  Fact is there's just as much white crime.  The stats taken concerning the race of offenders, to no surprise, would be dominated by the dominate race of the area.  I would be surprised to see whites as the dominant criminal in Spanish Harlem.  That's just logical.
No one is surprised when "Rednecks" shoot each other, so it's not much for anything beyond local news, also they tend to happen in rural areas.  People want to hear City news.  It's where large portions of society live and visit.  Honestly, lets compare the number of tourists to NYC against some small town like Nevada, Missouri (after you do a yahoo map just to figure it out where it is...then you should understand my point on that).
What the gun debate really boils down to is an issue of Public safety.  Does the government have the right to restrict or take away a right that our founders wrote into the constitution if that act would improve public safety?  Again I refer back to my experience as a Law Enforcement Officer.  For every 1000 peeps I encounter in a day/week/month with guns, maybe 1 or 2 of them are "Bad Guys." That's only peeps with guns now, not the average "Joe." Most people in America are not gun owners.  Correct me if I am wrong...but that makes gun owners a minority.  So, back to logic.  If the majority truely beleived guns were a problem wouldn't they have been banned or higher restrictions placed on them by now.
Freedom, Freedom, Freedom.  We have the choice to make a choice.  If you make good choices then you live your life in relative peace.  If you make bad choices then you usually infringe on other peeps rights and should be ready to accept the consequences of your actions.  It's what freedoms all about.  Making your own choices and living with/accepting the outcome/consequences.
Should the minority speak for the majority?  If the majority refuses to speak then they have empowered the minority over them.  We see this everday in other issues as heated as the gun debate.  There's always no winner debates floating around.  Abortion, Religeon, Politics, Foriegn Affairs, Drugs, bla bla bla.
Back to the question I asked before...As I have said, I am a Police Officer.  I am also a sniper.  I own personally a PSG-1.  It's a silenced sniper rifle.  Because I am a police officer, I get a couple of documents which allow me to personally own that rifle.  Should I be allowed to.  My personal thought is, why should I be allowed to.  It's subsonic, so it's really not effective for anything other than people.  I can shoot a quarter sized target at 300 meters with it.  I can also hit a 3 inch bullseye at 800 meters with it.  Should it be legal for me to own that.  Some would say "Well you're a cop, it's a tool for your job and for a specific duty you perform for your Department."  If that were true, and it was a necessary tool for my job, then why wouldn't the Department keep and issue that to me as needed (For situations and training only).  You have to be prepared when arguing any ethics based debate to plan for all contigencies.  or leave the plan flexible enough to deal with them as they come up.
By the way, just for the record.  Being shot is nowhere near as painfull as being bludgeoned by a bat, and not all shootings end in death.  It's actually hard to kill with a gun if you're not placing your shots.  Sure there are random stories of the one that went through a wall and killed the girl in bed.  Rare and even more coincidental.  Those are one in a billion.  There are only about 5 places on your body where you can get shot and die almost immediately or instantaneously.  With a bat, you just have lay there and continuously get hit with a bat over and over until they decide they've done a good enough job.

[slave]

We just need to encourage a more civil and humane society in this country.  And people should have to be trained or at least prove they know how to safely handle a gun, and have a license to buy or posess one.  You have to do the same for cars, after all. (Cars or guns - which ones cause more deaths, that's a thought)  Personally, I enjoy shooting.  I live in the country and regularly go out with a shotgun and just blast things like rotten apples and beer cans and so on. Now that I'm in college I don't have a gun and simply play violent video games instead -- nothing wrong with a bit of harmless carnage if you ask me.  It's in our human nature to enjoy violence to some extent, and if that emotion is directed at harmless activities it it can be a very positive experience.  If you think we as a society can't enjoy violence and at the same time be non-violent then please think things through again.

[istruthfull]

I don't think that a gun is the problem, just a symptom. Many people have mastered many weapons including their own body. That doesn't mean that they are going out and hurting people. With proper knowledge anything can be turned into a weapon. Defending and attacking are not the same thing. Defending oneself at home or fighting in a war type combat doesn't mean the loss of values. When in war one doesn't have to rape and pillage. It's the character of the person that makes all the difference. However a gun in the hands of an 150lb man sure can help him defend his wife and kids against 2-200 n some lb men burglarizing his home with the intent of raping and killing his wife and kids. With better values those men wouldn't be in his house to begin with.