Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: The context for self-defense [View all]Hoyt
(54,770 posts)36. More guns are like more chemical pollution. Gun proliferation = more guns available to wrong folks.
Your love of guns means more gun crimes; more kids shooting friends; more accidental shootings; more spousal abuse with guns; more stolen guns; more unarmed teenagers shot for minor crimes; more right wingers using their guns to oppress; more attempts to pass laws that allow more guns;more Loughners; more school shootings; more gang violence; more criminals shooting people first and asking questions later because the victim might be armed;more crooked gun dealers and private sellers who don't care who buys their guns; ever increased attraction to even more lethal weapons; more unintentional discharges; more guns are used as an excuse for not passing laws because "you'll there are too many guns to get rid or control them all;" more profits for those who trade in guns; less reliance on "non-gun" means of self-defense and awareness; and I could go on and on.
The truth is -- if someone proved guns cause cancer or something worse, there are still those who'd cling to the dang things.
And please don't cite the bull about violent crimes have declined despite increasing gun ownership. Violent crimes may have declined even more without the gun proliferation promoted by the "gun culture."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
He did not speak of firearms in public -- The comments you improperly cite were about MILITARY arms
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#35
But, not because he or any individual was "deprived" of guns. He was talking about British depriving
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#44
But, that is NOT WHAT Gandhi was talking about. Do some real research rather than relying on
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#59
You are attempting to shift the debate to one involving carrying firearms in public...
spin
Jan 2012
#50
Assuming they need dispatching. In any event, glad to have you protecting society with your guns.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#52
Sure, the only "rational" ones are the 4% of population who can't venture out without a gun or two.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#10
No No No...having the means to defend yourself and loved ones is mean, hateful, and impolite.
ileus
Jan 2012
#5
You should learn better ways of "defending" yourself, if you really honestly think you need it.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#11
I don't think the 96% of people who walk outside without a gun see it as "inferior" response.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#18
Ah, that old trick again -- they aren't a member of "gun culture" once they get caught in crime.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#58
You were probably "grandfathered in" or provided life-time membership upon first caressing a gun.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#62
No, it indicates a small percentage of population is desperate to have a gun with them always.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#66
Hopefully the "indirect" effects of gun proliferation will not screw others. Unfortunately it will.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#27
More guns are like more chemical pollution. Gun proliferation = more guns available to wrong folks.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#36
One never sees the claim that arsonists are emboldened by matches or lighters,
friendly_iconoclast
Jan 2012
#24