Gun Control Debate - Beaverton, OR
Discuss the national Gun Control debate in Beaverton, OR.
Would you support a ban on handguns?
#1 Jun 7, 2011
"right to bear arms" nuff said
#2 Jun 9, 2011
I guess everyone knows that Ghost Hunters is filming at Morse Mill Hotel tonight June 9th?(Thursday) TRUE...VERY TRUE
#3 Oct 10, 2011
#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.
#5 Jan 17, 2012
Then why do law enforcement and the military carry them?
And the 2nd Amendment doesn't say a word about the National Guard.
#6 Jan 20, 2012
People aren't smart enough to have weaponry. Enough said.
#7 Jan 20, 2012
Said a frustrated control freak. Please project your stupidity in a different direction.
#8 Jan 20, 2012
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.
#9 Jan 21, 2012
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.
#10 Jan 21, 2012
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. "
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?
"....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.
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.
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".
Such as? Again, if you're going to make that claim, you'll have to back it up.
Like Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Castro?
Are these heroes of yours?
Impulse? Control? Yup, you're big on control and those that would control you.
#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.
#12 Jan 22, 2012
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.
Funny. Written by a pro-gun person. Data is easily skewed. Show me multiple studies from all sides.
#13 Jan 22, 2012
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".
#14 Jan 22, 2012
Oh by the way, the U.K. does have one thing we don't, a queen you must bow down on your knees for.
#15 Jan 22, 2012
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?
Really? Then explain all of the self defense with firearms stories.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
#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.
#17 Jan 27, 2012
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?
Add your comments below
|Where best pizza? (Jul '14)||2 hr||spag||158|
|Chinese delivery?||23 hr||Ken920||1|
|Portland Cash For Cars!!! Portland JUNK vehicle... (Jan '09)||Jan '15||Calvin James||25|
|Review: Torched Illusions (Jun '09)||Sep '14||Witness||28|
|topix drug dealers (Jul '14)||Jul '14||FYI||1|
|Cruise-In benefit for homeless veterans revs up (Jul '14)||Jul '14||August||1|
Find what you want!
Search Beaverton Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC