Where in the World Isn't Bob Saget?

MinnieM123

MinnieM123

Premium Member
Goofyernmost said:
I know that the impression of us that that we all own guns and can't wait to use them. The fact of the matter is, that unless you live in a rural country side where hunting is a way of life, there really are not that many floating around. The bad guys have them and they are pretty much the only ones that know how to use them without shooting themselves in the foot anyway. The last person in my family to own a gun was my grandfather and the was just a 22 cal. Rifle. Now I have been trained (many years ago) to know how to take care of and use an M-16 rifle and an M-60 machine gun, but, those things get very bulky under your coat. Say hello to my big friend!
Click to expand...

I agree. I think the U.S. media tends to show the most sensational news stories. It's a business, and viewer ratings generate more profit for the news organizations. However, that can sometimes give a false impression (to some) that "everyone" owns a firearm, which is not true. I would also share with @JenniferS , that only one person I know, out of friends, family, and coworkers down through the years, has owned a weapon, and it was a hunting rifle. (His family would go to Maine in hunting season, and that was a passed-down tradition from his great-grandfather. He was a responsible person, and always kept it locked up, with the ammo locked up in a different location from the rifle.) Even my eldest brother who (years ago) was a Marine, never owned any weapon after his tour of duty concluded.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
John said:
Gun purchases in America are at all time highs. Americans are arming themselves at an incredible pace.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ber-are-owned-all-australia-charles-c-w-cooke
Click to expand...
That is a bit misleading as it failed to take into account gun collectors that may have hundreds just by themselves. I never stated that there weren't a lot of them, but, the (in the mind) ratio is a lot less then we are all lead to believe. There are a lot of recreational usage that are of no threat to anyone in any real sense. I guess it would depend on what area of the country that you live in. For example, there are a lot of guns floating about in Vermont, but, I can assure you that they are not looked at as anything other then a "possible" defense device. Secondary at best, you're pretty safe to drive through the state and not get shot at. In a depressed urban area, one person with a gun is much more dangerous the the accumulation of every single one in Vermont. If everyone owned a gun, or even the majority NRA would be out of business. There would be no need, it would be a given that it was a way of life and no law will change that. That is still not the truth. I never have owned a gun, I had no need and I never intended to kill anyone anyway, so why have one? I still believe that we have a right to own them though and that the fear that we all have them and are not afraid to use them might just be why so few attempts (other then the revolutionary) to invade the mainland have not come about.

Can we even imagine how much different history might have been if the Jewish population during WWII had been allowed to defend their lives and property. They weren't, they died in mass numbers. Do we really think that can't happen again? If we do then we have evolved into having less intelligence then the early cave man.
 
Last edited:
John

John

Well-Known Member
Goofyernmost said:
That is a bit misleading as it failed to take into account gun collectors that may have hundreds just by themselves. I never stated that there weren't a lot of them, but, the (in the mind) ratio is a lot less then we are all lead to believe. There are a lot of recreational usage that are of no threat to anyone in any real sense. I guess it would depend on what area of the country that you live in. For example, there are a lot of guns floating about in Vermont, but, I can assure you that they are not looked at as anything other then a "possible" defense" device. Secondary at best, you're pretty safe to drive through the state and not get shot at. In a depressed urban area, one person with a gun is much more dangerous the the accumulation of every single one in Vermont. If everyone owned a gun, or even the majority NRA would be out of business. There would be no need, it would be a given that it was a way of life and no law will change that. That is still not the truth. I never have owned a gun, I had no need and I never intended to kill anyone anyway, so why have one? I still believe that we have a right to own them though and that the fear that we all have them and are not afraid to use them might just be why so few attempts (other then the revolutionary) to invade the mainland have not come about.

Can we even imagine how much different history might have been if the Jewish population during WWII had been allowed to defend their lives and property. They weren't, they died in mass numbers. Do we really think that can't happen again? If we do then we have evolved into having less intelligence then the early cave man.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is? But agree with some of them. One thing I will disagree with is "Do we think it could happen again?" It has and probably will. Its happened all over the world, just not as publicized. Its happened in Africa and in the middle east with ethnic cleansing. Would it happen in the USA......of course not. Although I may or may not own a gun I do support the right to own them. I live near a suburban city with a high crime rate but that too is misleading. We are not supposed to get t political around here so I will try to refrain. But nearly all the crime ( gun crime ) is committed by one group of criminals. I often go in to the worst of the worst neighborhoods in the city and have no problems what so ever.

Which leads me to the fact that I agree with you that its the "one dangerous person" that we have to worry about. I think that the rights of many should out weigh the concern for the few individuals that can cause chaos. I think if a person or group of people are bent on causing chaos they will find a way......with or with out guns.

Its kind of ironic that this morning when I turned on my computer and checked my facebook feed this is what was on it.

http://baltimorenewsnetwork.com/2016/03/18/parkville-man-shoots-burglar-home/
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
John said:
Not sure what your point is? But agree with some of them. One thing I will disagree with is "Do we think it could happen again?" It has and probably will. Its happened all over the world, just not as publicized. Its happened in Africa and in the middle east with ethnic cleansing. Would it happen in the USA......of course not. Although I may or may not own a gun I do support the right to own them. I live near a suburban city with a high crime rate but that too is misleading. We are not supposed to get t political around here so I will try to refrain. But nearly all the crime ( gun crime ) is committed by one group of criminals. I often go in to the worst of the worst neighborhoods in the city and have no problems what so ever.

Which leads me to the fact that I agree with you that its the "one dangerous person" that we have to worry about. I think that the rights of many should out weigh the concern for the few individuals that can cause chaos. I think if a person or group of people are bent on causing chaos they will find a way......with or with out guns.

Its kind of ironic that this morning when I turned on my computer and checked my facebook feed this is what was on it.

http://baltimorenewsnetwork.com/2016/03/18/parkville-man-shoots-burglar-home/
Click to expand...
We are on the same page for what you have said, and that was my point. This idea that absolute control of guns will end the violence problem in this or any other location isn't even logical. The historical fact is that when the public weren't allowed to have a way to defend themselves, violence became worse and it was one sided.

The thing you found on the computer is much more coincidental then ironic. We seem to forget that computers and social media are a very recent addition to our society. The difference in people since years ago is that we now know instantaneously what is happening. I read someplace that when Lincoln was assassinated, it took months in some places for people to know about it. So, that violence didn't mean it didn't happen before, it just wasn't required to fill 24 hour news sources. Different world, but, with many of the same consequences.
 
JenniferS

JenniferS

When you're the leader, you don't have to follow.
Do Americans celebrate Earth Hour?
If so, we are supposed to dim the lights and shut off all non-essential appliances between 8:30-9:30 pm.

Pretty sure I'll be having a 45 minute nap.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom