Notices
The Team Speed Shooting Range The Guns, Ammunition, and General Personal Protection Discussion Forum.

NJ passes Bill that limits Purchase of Handguns to One per Month

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #51  
Old 06-30-2009 | 08:22 PM
M5Kid's Avatar
Teamspeed Pro
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,188
From: Oregon
M5Kid has a reputation beyond reputeM5Kid has a reputation beyond reputeM5Kid has a reputation beyond reputeM5Kid has a reputation beyond reputeM5Kid has a reputation beyond reputeM5Kid has a reputation beyond reputeM5Kid has a reputation beyond reputeM5Kid has a reputation beyond reputeM5Kid has a reputation beyond reputeM5Kid has a reputation beyond reputeM5Kid has a reputation beyond repute
Chuck,

The point I was trying to make is related to what you mentioned. To draw a legitimate correlation between the two factors (guns and crime) is a major undertaking. And, one has to consider the array of other factors that do, or could have an impact on the results. In the end, it's a moot point, because I still firmly believe people should be able to have their guns. However, I get a little nervous when people start making such definitive correlations and broad statements, and there is no consideration of other factors. But, I'm an economics major, this is just how I process things.
 

Last edited by M5Kid; 06-30-2009 at 08:27 PM.
  #52  
Old 06-30-2009 | 09:27 PM
Tsar's Avatar
Yea, boobs never hurt.
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,979
From: Live Free or Die
Tsar has a reputation beyond reputeTsar has a reputation beyond reputeTsar has a reputation beyond reputeTsar has a reputation beyond reputeTsar has a reputation beyond reputeTsar has a reputation beyond reputeTsar has a reputation beyond reputeTsar has a reputation beyond reputeTsar has a reputation beyond reputeTsar has a reputation beyond reputeTsar has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Dave S
I see your point Brian and I appreciate that you state your case and keep from name calling.
I think the main schism here is how we define freedom. I'd be inclined to say that in a real civilized society, there should be no need for a private citizen to be armed in order to feel or be safe. The law enforcement, the part of our society that we ourselves decided should defend us, should protect us. There really should be no need for private citizens to arm themselves to their teeth in order to feel or be safe.
In a situation where this clearly doesn't work, I see the need for the average Joe to own guns, but then, is not the real problem that the society can't defend and protect its own citizens?

I can't see how getting everybody in a town armed will solve the crime problem long term. This is the real problem, a problem that haven't got anything to do with guns at all.

.
I only know two government agencies that are proactive, they are the CIA, and DEA. The rest are reactive, so how exactly will they protect me from being robbed/killed in my house if they are reactive? It's a great thing that they might investigate my death and find those responsible but that will not make me un-dead, so it doesn't matter much to me when push comes to shove. I would rather have my chance to defend my self by the means I deem necessary instead of waiting for someone to defend me, or telling me how I can and should defend myself. And as a great man once said; it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wyatth
///M
26
09-05-2012 11:37 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
 


Quick Reply: NJ passes Bill that limits Purchase of Handguns to One per Month



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:22 PM.