Gun Control Debate - Beaverton, OR

Discuss the national Gun Control debate in Beaverton, OR.

Would you support a ban on handguns?

Beaverton opposes
Oppose
 
8
Support
 
1

Vote now in Beaverton:

rick

Portland, OR

#1 Jun 7, 2011
"right to bear arms" nuff said
GHOSTHUNTERS IN MORSE MIL

Vilonia, AR

#2 Jun 9, 2011
I guess everyone knows that Ghost Hunters is filming at Morse Mill Hotel tonight June 9th?(Thursday) TRUE...VERY TRUE
paul

Beaverton, OR

#3 Oct 10, 2011
2nd ammendment
StJason

Wilsonville, OR

#4 Jan 16, 2012
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

...in other words, the second amendment is about setting up the National Guard.

Handguns serve one purpose and one purpose alone: To make crime easier.
Louiston

Des Moines, IA

#5 Jan 17, 2012
StJason wrote:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
...in other words, the second amendment is about setting up the National Guard.
Handguns serve one purpose and one purpose alone: To make crime easier.
Then why do law enforcement and the military carry them?
And the 2nd Amendment doesn't say a word about the National Guard.
Elizabeth

Beaverton, OR

#6 Jan 20, 2012
People aren't smart enough to have weaponry. Enough said.
Law

Omaha, NE

#7 Jan 20, 2012
Elizabeth wrote:
People aren't smart enough to have weaponry. Enough said.
Said a frustrated control freak. Please project your stupidity in a different direction.
Law

Omaha, NE

#8 Jan 20, 2012
StJason wrote:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
...in other words, the second amendment is about setting up the National Guard.
Handguns serve one purpose and one purpose alone: To make crime easier.
Will you be showing us one instruction book that comes with a handgun that equivocally states that its sole purpose is for making crime easier? Does the handgun have mystical powers that turns an ordinary law-abiding citizend into a criminal?
Tell us why those same powers are not included in a shotgun or long rifle.
Elizabeth

Beaverton, OR

#9 Jan 21, 2012
Law wrote:
<quoted text>Said a frustrated control freak. Please project your stupidity in a different direction.
I'm really not stupid.
Let's look at the facts, shall we?
In countries where guns are better controlled, or more tightly restricted, less people die in gun accidents.
Somebody in my class, a fairly smart boy, as I remember, died in a gun related accident.(Assumed accident. No history of depression, nobody else was in the house at the time.)
Half the people who own guns don't know how to use them correctly; in fact, more people in the US are injured or killed by their own guns than are saved by the weapons.
Whilst I agree, a ban is a bit extreme, it's better than the alternative.
There are good reasons for owning guns. Reasons that generally aren't why people own them.
Better safe than sorry. So the saying is.
It's funny, because some of the most intelligent people out there were control freaks. It's really not an insult, just an impulse that needs to be controlled.
Law

Omaha, NE

#10 Jan 21, 2012
Elizabeth wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm really not stupid.
Let's look at the facts, shall we?
In countries where guns are better controlled, or more tightly restricted, less people die in gun accidents.
But they do still die as a result of not being able to defend themselves against a stronger attacker.
Or is it only deaths by firearms that bother you?
In addition, do those countries have a constitution that affirms other rights and liberties as well on par with the US Constitution?
.
And yes, you are stupid to have uttered..."People aren't smart enough to have weaponry. Enough said. "
Elizabeth wrote:
Somebody in my class, a fairly smart boy, as I remember, died in a gun related accident.(Assumed accident. No history of depression, nobody else was in the house at the time.)
And in the meantime, how many people died that same day in automobile accidents? How many chldren were poisoned that day? Drowned in a swimming pool?
.
And even more importantly, how many people were able to save their lives, the lives of their loved ons, and their property?
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.ht...
.
"....There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually"
It would appear quite a few.
Elizabeth wrote:
Half the people who own guns don't know how to use them correctly; in fact, more people in the US are injured or killed by their own guns than are saved by the weapons.
Let's see, you claim half the people who own guns don't know how to use them.
Do you have credible source to back that up? Will you be posting it soon? Real soon?
And to your "fact" that more people are killed than saved by their weapons, will you be supplying a credible cite to back that up? anytims soon?
Your going to run into a problem squaring that with the 14 studies in the link above but I'd like to see you make the effort anyway.
Elizabeth wrote:
Whilst I agree, a ban is a bit extreme, it's better than the alternative.
No. A ban is a direct infringement on a right enu,merated in the Bill of Rights. Anyone agreeing to the restriction of ights and liberties is someone with no concept of how hard freedoms werre to win and will swallow anything the government tells them particularly if it stated to be for "the common good".
Elizabeth wrote:
There are good reasons for owning guns. Reasons that generally aren't why people own them.
Such as? Again, if you're going to make that claim, you'll have to back it up.
Elizabeth wrote:
Better safe than sorry. So the saying is.
It's funny, because some of the most intelligent people out there were control freaks.
Like Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Castro?
Are these heroes of yours?
Elizabeth wrote:
It's really not an insult, just an impulse that needs to be controlled.
Impulse? Control? Yup, you're big on control and those that would control you.
Law

Omaha, NE

#11 Jan 21, 2012
One last question, Elizabeth. Which of the women below is morally superior in your opinion?
Both have to walk through a dimly lit parking lot to get to their car aftter work.
.
A.) The woman who gives in to the whims of her attacker/rapist/potential murderer knowing that he may very well strangle her to death after his dastardly acts upon her.
.
B.) The woman explaining to the law enforcement officers how that bullet hole came to be in her attacker's chest.

One answer. A or B. Simple as that.

And if you think that banning guns will force criminals to cease preying on the weak and defenseless (thanks to you), then you know nothing of criminal history and those that lead a life in that line of work.
Elizabeth

Beaverton, OR

#12 Jan 22, 2012
Law wrote:
<quoted text>
But they do still die as a result of not being able to defend themselves against a stronger attacker.
Or is it only deaths by firearms that bother you?
In addition, do those countries have a constitution that affirms other rights and liberties as well on par with the US Constitution?
It's called the Uk. France. Canada. Australia. Or do you only accept fact that help you? And no, actually, they really don't. If somebody is stronger and quicker than you; having a gun doesn't affect. Your aim will probably either not hit, or they will take the gun from you before you have a chance to use it. Unless you don't give them a chance to back out and shoot on sight. Which doesn't get you defense in court. Trespassing does not constitute lawful murder. Whilst you might not shoot to kill, if they're stronger than you, a non-vital hit might mean they still have the strength to over power you.
Law wrote:
<quoted text>
And in the meantime, how many people died that same day in automobile accidents? How many chldren were poisoned that day? Drowned in a swimming pool?
.
And even more importantly, how many people were able to save their lives, the lives of their loved ons, and their property?
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.ht...
.
"....There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually"
It would appear quite a few.
<quoted text>
Funny. Written by a pro-gun person. Data is easily skewed. Show me multiple studies from all sides.
Redneck

Saltillo, MS

#13 Jan 22, 2012
Elizabeth wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called the Uk. France. Canada. Australia. Or do you only accept fact that help you? And no, actually, they really don't. If somebody is stronger and quicker than you; having a gun doesn't affect. Your aim will probably either not hit, or they will take the gun from you before you have a chance to use it. Unless you don't give them a chance to back out and shoot on sight. Which doesn't get you defense in court. Trespassing does not constitute lawful murder. Whilst you might not shoot to kill, if they're stronger than you, a non-vital hit might mean they still have the strength to over power you.
<quoted text>
Funny. Written by a pro-gun person. Data is easily skewed. Show me multiple studies from all sides.
So why do cops carry if they can't hit or have their guns taken from them? Might want to check Castle Law. I have rechecked my data. Kennesaw GA. You need to recheck yours. Those places you spoke of do not have lower crime, they just have more people on their knees crying "don't hurt me".
Redneck

Saltillo, MS

#14 Jan 22, 2012
Elizabeth wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called the Uk. France. Canada. Australia. Or do you only accept fact that help you? And no, actually, they really don't. If somebody is stronger and quicker than you; having a gun doesn't affect. Your aim will probably either not hit, or they will take the gun from you before you have a chance to use it. Unless you don't give them a chance to back out and shoot on sight. Which doesn't get you defense in court. Trespassing does not constitute lawful murder. Whilst you might not shoot to kill, if they're stronger than you, a non-vital hit might mean they still have the strength to over power you.
<quoted text>
Funny. Written by a pro-gun person. Data is easily skewed. Show me multiple studies from all sides.
Oh by the way, the U.K. does have one thing we don't, a queen you must bow down on your knees for.
Law

Omaha, NE

#15 Jan 22, 2012
Elizabeth wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called the Uk. France. Canada. Australia. Or do you only accept fact that help you? And no, actually, they really don't.
Do tou care that violent crime rose in Australia and England after they enacted stricter gun control? Why? Because the criminals KNOW their victims will not be able to effectively defend themselves.
And you're okay with that?
Elizabeth wrote:
If somebody is stronger and quicker than you; having a gun doesn't affect.
Really? Then explain all of the self defense with firearms stories.
Elizabeth wrote:
Your aim will probably either not hit, or they will take the gun from you before you have a chance to use it.
Pure hypotheticals on your part. So you think the woman SHOULD just accept being raped rather than perhaps having her gun taken away. How noble.
Elizabeth wrote:
Unless you don't give them a chance to back out and shoot on sight. Which doesn't get you defense in court.
Oh? Would you like to debate the laws of self defense with me? How long have you been a fan of criminal enabling/victim disarmament policies?
Elizabeth wrote:
Trespassing does not constitute lawful murder.
What does your straw man have to do with this issue?
Or is it your assertion that a homeowner confronted in their own bedroom at 3 AM by an intruder does not have the right to believe that their life in in danger and kill the intruder? Is that what you're saying?
Elizabeth wrote:
Whilst you might not shoot to kill, if they're stronger than you, a non-vital hit might mean they still have the strength to over power you.
And that's worse than them not hurt at all because I don't have a weapon in the first place?? Why are you so keen on disarming law-abidng citizens and quick to question their motives but not those of the criminals?
Elizabeth wrote:
Funny. Written by a pro-gun person. Data is easily skewed. Show me multiple studies from all sides.
And there you have it Dear Readers! Elizabeth is showing her intellectual laziness by tring to say that the link given above was writtent by a pro-gun person when in fact, that person highlighted 1 of 14 studies on the matter of Defensive Gun Uses. And included links to the other 13 studies.
Now, Elizabeth will have you believe that the following sources of the study are "pro-gun"
The Department of Justice
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which uses the Dept. of Justice and FBI Uniform Crime numbers as their source.
----------

Face it, Elizabeth. You only managed to discredit yourself. And you never did answer the simple "A or B" question posed to you. Why is that?
hick-spanic

Beaverton, OR

#16 Jan 27, 2012
I'm all for gun ownership and ccw permits. I feel safer knowing that a law abiding citizen is ready to stand up and defend his fellow civilians (there's never a cop around when you need one). The one condition: perhaps more thorough tests, on paper and in the field. As for accidental shootings: some guns come with a free gun lock. They aren't too expensive if you don't get one free. A gun sitting on its own will never shoot. Irresponsible and neglectfull people are to blame, and that goes beyond just guns. In everything you do, take every step possible to ensure everyones saftey. God bless and be safe.
Law

Omaha, NE

#17 Jan 27, 2012
hick-spanic wrote:
I'm all for gun ownership and ccw permits. I feel safer knowing that a law abiding citizen is ready to stand up and defend his fellow civilians (there's never a cop around when you need one). The one condition: perhaps more thorough tests, on paper and in the field. As for accidental shootings: some guns come with a free gun lock. They aren't too expensive if you don't get one free. A gun sitting on its own will never shoot. Irresponsible and neglectfull people are to blame, and that goes beyond just guns. In everything you do, take every step possible to ensure everyones saftey. God bless and be safe.
So who oversees those more "thorough" trsts you speak of and who makes sure they are taken. What if someone doesn't pass the test?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Beaverton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Where best pizza? (Jul '14) 45 min mellowman 234
Tell me about Portland 6 hr Of course 5
Local Politics Do you approve of Andy Duyck as Commissioner? Mon davaloha 1
Local Politics Do you approve of Denny Doyle as Mayor? Mon davaloha 1
Organized Stalking / Gang Stalking Oregon Forum (Jan '14) Jul 31 Mind Games 45
Morgellons" in response to Sharon Jul 30 Spooky22 1
Anti-Islamic Movement of Portland AIM-OP Jul 29 I Ssotlohiefmjns 2

Related Topics

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]