| Pages: | 1 | 2 | |
| NFL fan |
| ||
|
I was reading the following article about how much NFL Players apparently carry heat and take weapons with them wherever they go. I couldn't believe it and thought, 'No track athlete I know carries heat.' Then it hit me, that's why track isn't popular. http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/15052007/3/professional-athletes-packing-heat-streets.html Our stars never get in trouble with the law (unless its the anti-doping police). No arrests, no weapons, nothing exciting to capture the pubic's imagination. Maybe that's what we need. You have to admit Webb would have a lot more street cred if he had to spend 60 days in jail for a parole violation on weapons charges. Maybe it would affect his training to much. But for a sprinter, that certainly would help him more than hurt him. His rivals would fear him. |
| Letsrun reader |
| ||
|
I don't see the connection between athletes and guns. The article seems to be trying to make something out of nothing wth this story. Everyone has a right to bear arms wether you can do a 4 minute mile or not. |
| Militant Man |
| ||
|
You don't "do" a sub four minute mile. You're an idiot. The article is slapping you in the face with one blatant observation that apparently you missed. Even high profile professional athletes aren't above the rampant gun-culture of the U.S. Do high profile actors carry guns? Probably not, but I bet their body guards do. As far as Alan Webb packing heat, I'm not sure that would help his street cred. On the same token though, Jeremy Wariner would scare me if I simply saw him in a hotel lobby if I knew that he served time for having a concealed weapon. You just never know what one of those crazy sub 44 second 400 dudes is gonna do. I'm gonna go eat a PB&J. |
| james316yeh |
| ||
|
Do you Americans ever think that if you made it illegal to carry guns and slowly you got rid of all guns it would be a safer place. I can't unerstand why you beleive it's a safer thing to do to carry guns around. |
| Dan Onymous |
| ||
|
Because when the Brits and the Australians eliminated guns their crime rates shot up. Because 170,000,000 people died at the hands of their governments in the 20th century because they had no guns to answer those of their evil rulers. Because regardless of all of that, it is man's inalienable right to defend his life, should he need to, by any means necessary. |
| ho fo sho |
| ||
Please name me 3 instances in the past 100 years in the US when guns were needed to protect US citizens from the tyrannical (and dangerous) US government. Thanks. I'll give you a couple of weeks to answer, slick. |
| coachkritter |
| ||
|
When the Brits and Aussies eliminated guns, did the murder rate also go up? |
| txRUNNERgirl |
| ||
|
Money + muscles + women + guns = power. Runners lack these "assets." It isn't rocket science. |
| BLACKSPLOITATE ME |
| ||
THEY NOT ATHLETES. THEY AT-LEETZ. |
| i feel special |
| ||
|
its like that one guy in the article said, its just something they do down in Arizona. I'm from San Antonio, Texas and its common for everybody or mostly everybody i know to have a gun. People usually have on in there house and in there car. Not just in S.A. but everywhere in Texas its very likely somebody has a gun. |
| track chick |
| ||
|
The problem with that though, is that guns aren't generally used to defend lives. |
| Corrupt Amish Boy |
| ||
None. Having guns has worked. |
| Ludacris |
| ||
|
Dog fighting, don't forget dog fight. |
| Dan Onymous |
| ||
None. Having guns has worked.[/quote] For the most part, yes. The Battle of Athens, Tennessee qualifies, although it was to defeat a corrupt county government, not the federal government. See here: http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm |
| Dan Onymous |
| ||
Incorrect. Guns are used far more often to defend life and property than to take them. The reason you don't hear about this is that usually, drawing the gun is enough to drive off the criminal. I wish I could find the actual study, but I know I've heard and seen cited that guns may be used (anything from drawn to used to kill) in self-defense as many as two million times per year in the US. |
| the bigger question |
| ||
Incorrect. Guns are used far more often to defend life and property than to take them. The reason you don't hear about this is that usually, drawing the gun is enough to drive off the criminal. I wish I could find the actual study, but I know I've heard and seen cited that guns may be used (anything from drawn to used to kill) in self-defense as many as two million times per year in the US.[/quote] And how many accidents do they cause? Here's the thing- if you live in the rural US (I'm talking backwoods KY or TX), then I can understand your wanting to own a gun. If you live in the city or suburbs, then I'm sorry... you will be hardpressed to find very many instances when a gun is needed. I have nothing against guns or gun ownership, but the bottom line is that (in the vast majority of places) they just aren't needed. |
| soler |
| ||
|
I find the gun debate to be endlessly interesting. As of now, I'm not willing to say that I believe that gun ownership ultimately prevents crime, though I am open to changing my mind based on statistics. What bothers me about the debate is that people seem to think about the issue too narrowly. Many people (and many on these boards) seem to believe that more guns = less crime and gun control laws are violating our rights. The fact of the matter is that gun control laws are good and help prevent crimes. If anything we need more stringent gun control policies, longer waiting periods, more in-depth background checks, etc. I am not saying guns should be outlawed or that law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to own weapons and defend themselves when necessary. However, guns are getting in the hands of aggressive NFL players who have criminal records, drug dealers, and many other people who have violent tendencies. Ideally, the average law-abiding citizen should never have to draw a weapon to defend themselves. It seems like the only way this can happen is to enforce more strict gun control policies to help prevent guns from entering into the hands of people who will use them in aggression against others. Law-abiding citizens who want to own guns should welcome more strict policies. Better gun laws will not affect them other than making them wait longer and go through a more detailed application when they want to get a gun. I realize that some people find ways around the system, but stricter laws will catch some potential aggressors and tighter national security measures have, I'm sure, hurt illegal arms dealers and weapon smugglers. |
| ................ |
| ||
Webb's from VA which has been in the news lately related to the gun raffle in response to Bloomberg's law suits against VA gun shops. Here it's legal to carry an unconceled weapon. It would also help his track cred if he were to carry a gun on his hip while racing. That way, I'd bet he could win everything 200 meters on up! |
| Dan Onymous |
| ||
Incorrect. Guns are used far more often to defend life and property than to take them. The reason you don't hear about this is that usually, drawing the gun is enough to drive off the criminal. I wish I could find the actual study, but I know I've heard and seen cited that guns may be used (anything from drawn to used to kill) in self-defense as many as two million times per year in the US.[/quote] And how many accidents do they cause?[/quote] Far fewer. For example, more children die from drowning in bathtubs than from gun accidents. Bathtub drownings just don't make sexy TV.
Until they are. |
| Second Amendment |
| ||
|
I don't have a gun in the home, but I do have one in the car. I only bother taking it out of the trunk when I have to drive through a ghetto area. Never had to use it before, but it'll be there if I need it. |
| Pages: | 1 | 2 | |