Quote:
willravel
There's no such thing as a 'bad guy'. There are people.
|
There are such things as bad guys. There are bad people. I'm very happy for you that you have been fortunate enough not to meet any. They exist.
Quote:
willravel
dksuddeth, baring military service, you'll never be in a shootout. I can say that with certianty. The "but what if" arguments are so statistically improbable that they become laughable, espically those of the armed-home-invasion-when-you're-home or massive-drawn-out police/well-armed-criminal-shootout persuasion. You won't need your gun. I wouldn't need a gun if I had one. Ch'i wouldn't need a gun if he had one. Because you'll never need your gun, you'll want to use it to excuse your having it. That's kinda dangerous. Combine that with the Rambo mentality, and you've got a recipe for 'accedenal death', 'involuntary manslaughter', or 'criminal neglegence'.
|
It is also statistically unlikely to the point of near impossibility that while working in a daycare I will have to perform CPR (not first aid, actually I'm very likely to need to use first aid). I still stay current on my training for both first aid and the extemely unlikely CPR. The idea being, I know I'm not likely to need it, but what if I do? It's good to have.
Quote:
shakran
Wisconsin lets you carry guns all you want. Hell, it's legal for blind people to hunt there. But there are places in Milwaukee that I wouldn't want to go into during the day.
|
I don't care who you are and what side of the gun control issue you happen to be on, surely we can all agree that blind people USING guns is pretty stupid, dangerous, and unnecessary? I mean how well regulated or trained either one can you be if your militia consists of blind snipers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I'm sure that every unarmed victim of violent crime would argue that point with you.
|
Quote:
willravel
You mean the one in a million? You might as well argue that we should all wear latex gloves and take daily doses of antibiotics to avoid flesh eating bacteria. Yes, some people get flesh eating bacteria, but taking steps to avoid something so rare is nuts.
|
I included both quotes there because otherwise the context of what will is saying is totally lost. I'm reading this to mean that in your mind Will, there almost no chance of an unarmed person being the victim of a violent crime. Please if I'm mistakenly interpreting this post correct me. Otherwise, I would LOVE to see some figures on that one.
I'm pretty sure someone out there is wondering where the consistancy is in my posts. I am the kind of person whose personal views tend to piss off people on both sides of every major issue. I believe in LIMITED control.
I am considered by people in my community to be in favor of gun control. I think we do need to control who has guns. The purpose of a gun is to kill, maim, or at least injure. It is important that those we allow to own these weapons have some basic skills. I dont see how we can justify the need to prove ability to drive before we legally allow someone to drive, yet we do not require that people prove they have the ability to use a gun before allowing them to own a gun. Our constitution does not provide for the use of guns by mad men and blind people. These people, by the nature of their disability, are not able to be part of a 'well regulated' militia, regardless of how you interpret the word regulated.
That said, I'm also very much against letting the government have to much control. I don't really see a way to balance these things out, except to say that when it comes to protecting health and life of innocents the government must be asked to intervene with laws and restrictions, and at all other times they must be kept from intervening.