U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[Megalos]

First off, I'm British so you may want to tell me to go to hell, but I simply can't ignore the fact of all the recent shootings in the U.S.

Mindless violence often used in the "heat of the moment" seems to occupy about 70% percent of the "shootings" stories I read, 15% by some mentally disturbed person, 5% gang related the other 10% going to various reasons including extremism, pre med murder and robberies etc.

Now looking at that (I'm not saying that is exactly how things pan out, just by news circulation in the media) the top two reasons could easily be avoided by taking away the right to own firearms, simply by making it more difficult to obtain firearms.

I'm not saying it won't ever happen again, but it's certainly food for thought.


Is it time Americans reliquinshed their right to own firearms?

[Hooahguy]

congrats- you just opened a can of worms!
and no, the 2nd must always be upheld!

[Megalos]

It must be upheld why?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If someone threatens to kill you, you have the right to protect yourself.

If you heard someone breaking into your house, would you like to have a gun to defend yourself?

I believe if you fully consider the situation you would say yes.

The arguments that overall crime rates would drop aren't well supported by data, and there are many other easier ways of reducing the crime rate. But that argument misses the point in the first place--the right to defend yourself is a personal right.

[Meneldil]

While I don't really think the right to bear arms is an unalienable human right, I don't think it is the source of the problem here.
A lot of countries widely allow their citizens to bear arms (Canada, Switzerland), without facing the violence issue that the US does.

I think it's more of a cultural issue than anything else.


The arguments that overall crime rates would drop aren't well supported by data, and there are many other easier ways of reducing the crime rate. But that argument misses the point in the first place--the right to defend yourself is a personal right.
Nice, but the right to defend yourself does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to bear lethal weapons.

Now, I don't think US citizens should give up their right to do it. While I find the amendment to be stupid and outdated, it is apparently a cultural and historical "BIG DEAL" for many people. So well, as long as they find valuable ways to fight violence (sadly, they apparently don't),that's fine with me.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think it's more of a cultural issue than anything else.

Certainly, that is the approach many people take.



Nice, but the right to defend yourself does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to bear lethal weapons.



Well, this is the whole question. Obviously you are allowed to defend yourself, and just as obviously there are things you can't rightly do in self defense. So how far do we take it? Guns are an equalizer like no other weapon. No other method of self defense can reliably give a weak person a chance and defending them self from a strong person, or give one person a chance against multiple people.

I would hazard a guess that if you found yourself under attack and had a moment for reflection, you would not care a fig about the deaths by violence caused by guns being legal, but would wish desperately that you had one yourself.

[Meneldil]

Agreed. Mind you, my issue is not with the right to bear arm per se*, or even with the weapons themselves.

I just think that if the citizen of a given modern country has to buy and bear firearms to feel secure, then there's something wrong in the first place. I'm not saying that american citizens are crazily violent people, or fascists wannabees or what not. Just that so much violence in a modern society is wrong.

*I think the 2nd Amendment is outdated because, if I understood correctly, it was firstly written to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. Nowadays it's used as a right to self defense and kind of lost its original meaning.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Here. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706) I support the right of American citizens to bear arms, and I would support a right to bear arms here in Germany as well.

[Megalos]

Here. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706) I support the right of American citizens to bear arms, and I would support a right to bear arms here in Germany as well.

That article was written in 2000.....

It's also so full of machismo it's untrue. "Only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents" 142 too many, and his use of the word "only" I find insulting. He also gives no sources for his findings in the parts I read ( I must admit I couldn't bear to read too much of that garbage, sorry).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That article was written in 2000.....

Which is completely irrelevant.


It's also so full of machismo it's untrue.

:dizzy2:


"Only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents" 142 too many, and his use of the word "only" I find insulting.

"In 1995, more than 250 children ages 14 and under died in bicycle-related crashes."

From WikiAnswers. It isn't as if more gun control would help these children. Regardless, even if it did help them, the Second Amendment needs to stay. Why? Here you go. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis)


He also gives no sources for his findings in the parts I read ( I must admit I couldn't bear to read too much of that garbage, sorry).

The Cato Institute is the source. They take the statistics and come to this conclusion. You can do it independently and come to the same result.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Agreed. Mind you, my issue is not with the right to bear arm per se*, or even with the weapons themselves.

I just think that if the citizen of a given modern country has to buy and bear firearms to feel secure, then there's something wrong in the first place. I'm not saying that american citizens are crazily violent people, or fascists wannabees or what not. Just that so much violence in a modern society is wrong.

I would agree. It's ironic that the most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment are the most outspoken supporters of the war on drugs and harsh prison sentences.


*I think the 2nd Amendment is outdated because, if I understood correctly, it was firstly written to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. Nowadays it's used as a right to self defense and kind of lost its original meaning.

The amendments are usually interpreted in part based on the known beliefs of the authors, and they strongly believed in self defense. The wording also makes it clear that it is an individual right, it uses the militia bit as an example.

[DemonArchangel]

Yes, but only if we get to have swordfights instead.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I just think that if the citizen of a given modern country has to buy and bear firearms to feel secure, then there's something wrong in the first place. I'm not saying that american citizens are crazily violent people, or fascists wannabees or what not. Just that so much violence in a modern society is wrong.

Ideally, you would be correct. It seems, however, that the real world is a little different. I mean no offense, those are merely my observations.

[Megalos]

Which is completely irrelevant.



:dizzy2:



"In 1995, more than 250 children ages 14 and under died in bicycle-related crashes."

From WikiAnswers. It isn't as if more gun control would help these children. Regardless, even if it did help them, the Second Amendment needs to stay. Why? Here you go. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis)



The Cato Institute is the source. They take the statistics and come to this conclusion. You can do it independently and come to the same result.


Fair enough, more children died in bike accidents than gun accidents. I would be interested to see if gang warfare and murder (non gang related) were listed under gun "accident".

Sorry I have no idea what the CATO institute is, so please forgive my ignorance.

[seireikhaan]

I think the 2nd amendment should be abolished/rewritten, and instead allow for individual states to decide for themselves what sorts of gun laws they want. Different people function differently, and its no different when it comes to violence. I would volunteer two examples- Switzerland and Japan. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, as a function of their mandatory army services. Switzerland has extraordinarily low levels of violent crime. Japan has very strict laws on gun ownership, even on police, who are allowed, at most, a minimum caliber pistol. Japan also has extraordinarily low levels of violent crime. Both systems are capable of working, but they need to be applied with discipline and in the correct demographic circumstances.

[Sheogorath]

Gosh, I don't know WHY the US doesn't follow the UK's example and ban guns. I mean, it was so terrible effective at reducing gun crime in the UK. Just like the knife ban! And no doubt the upcoming 'blunt object ban' will be just as successful.

I'm really sure that attempting to enforce the same legislature on a nation with 300,000,000 people, which is about 200 times the size of the UK, with about a billion more miles of border, and a strong firearms related tradition, with a massive base of firearms supporters, will be really effective!

Golly gee wilikers.

Seriously though. I hate the thought of 'relinquishing' any rights. Maybe in the UK you've got a different perspective, but over here I'd like to think that we can at least pretend the government doesn't run everything.

[Whacker]

I think it's more of a cultural issue than anything else.

I'd agree completely here. However...


Nice, but the right to defend yourself does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to bear lethal weapons.

I contend it does, however this is not absolute. I have a right to defend myself, however that is largely a hollow statement unless I am able to bear arms of similar caliber (not literally, as in gun barrel size) as they who are attacking me. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.


*I think the 2nd Amendment is outdated because, if I understood correctly, it was firstly written to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. Nowadays it's used as a right to self defense and kind of lost its original meaning.

This last bit gets me quite a bit. If anything, given our past presidency, this has simply reaffirmed in my mind the need for Americans to be able to defend themselves against oppressive government. I'm not saying that I'm ready to go out and start another grand Revolution, however I am thoroughly disgusted and quite jaded with quite a bit of legislation that's been passed in the last 10-8 years that impinges direction on our freedom (Patriot Act, DMCA). This is of course notwithstanding what the executive office deciding how it would operate, pissing all over the constitution in the process. The trend has been a constant erosion of our freedom as citizens, and more and more power taken in by the government who clearly has their constituent's best interests at heart. By constituents, I mean big business. The current economic crisis is a direct result of this corruption and greed. So much for tangents huh? At any rate, if the rubber ever does hit the road and the situation keeps getting worse and worse, then I would fight for what I believe is right with deadly force. Again, fighting someone who has a gun with a kitchen knife isn't exactly smart or productive.

[PowerWizard]

The reasons behind the second amendment - as i see it - are twofold.
1./ a well regulated militia
2./ security of the state

The two may intertwine, but not necessarily. Is a well regulated militia indeed needed to prevent the abuse of power of the government? If there's a serious abuse of power or a dictatorship or coup d'etat of some kind, the revolutionary forces would organize their weapon supply anyway. This right is also giving ground for coup d'etats by organizations who would like to overthrow the federal government with weapons. The state and its agencies should uphold superior firepower for situations like that.

"Security of the state" - while this may refer to the security of individuals, it is not a necessary implication. The state should take care of the lives of its citizens, if it is incapable of doing so, that's a matter of ineffeciency that can be improved. Allowing guns to be owned by anyone without any qualification equals giving guns to a bunch of potential criminals. It is a very dangerous policy indeed. The second amendment was reasonable and necessary in the revolutionary times when the Bill of Rights was formed, but it is unnecessary now. But yeah, Americans like to stick to their traditions, especially if it's the Holy Text of the Constitution.

[Crazed Rabbit]

First off, I'm British so you may want to tell me to go to hell, but I simply can't ignore the fact of all the recent shootings in the U.S.

Mindless violence often used in the "heat of the moment" seems to occupy about 70% percent of the "shootings" stories I read, 15% by some mentally disturbed person, 5% gang related the other 10% going to various reasons including extremism, pre med murder and robberies etc.


Data is not the plural of anecdote


Nice, but the right to defend yourself does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to bear lethal weapons.

It's not a right at all if the most effective means of practicing it are forbidden. It's like saying:

the right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to use mass communications devices.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

To everyone who says the Second Amendment is unnecessary, think about what you are saying. The instant you say that it is unnecessary - for whatever reason - and come to take it away, you have just made it necessary or proven that it is necessary.

[PowerWizard]

To everyone who says the Second Amendment is unnecessary, think about what you are saying. The instant you say that it is unnecessary - for whatever reason - and come to take it away, you have just made it necessary or proven that it is necessary.

By the same logic, the government couldn't tax you, because it is "your" money, not theirs. The more reason to have guns! Individual freedom is not boundless, especially if it endangers other people's lives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Is a well regulated militia indeed needed to prevent the abuse of power of the government?Yes because having the people speak out against corruption as brought so much progress.

If there's a serious abuse of power or a dictatorship or coup d'etat of some kind, the revolutionary forces would organize their weapon supply anyway. This right is also giving ground for coup d'etats by organizations who would like to overthrow the federal government with weapons. In other words, the crazy people who are in the vast minority, yeah big threat there.

The state and its agencies should uphold superior firepower for situations like that. Why do you think the government should be prepared at all times to crush its own people?

The state should take care of the lives of its citizens, if it is incapable of doing so, that's a matter of ineffeciency that can be improved. I never understood why people think we should let other people take control of our lives for us. If you think people are truely idiots at living their own lives, why would you let other idiots elected by idiots rule your life for you?

Allowing guns to be owned by anyone without any qualification equals giving guns to a bunch of potential criminals. It is a very dangerous policy indeed. Wrong, criminals buy guns from the black market in order so that the guns can not traced back to them if it is recovered after a crime, the only people who buy from legit gun stores are the average citizen, not criminals.

The second amendment was reasonable and necessary in the revolutionary times when the Bill of Rights was formed, but it is unnecessary now. But yeah, Americans like to stick to their traditions, especially if it's the Holy Text of the Constitution. It is still necessary if you wish for your governement to be respectful towards its own people. Also, great job slapping an incorrect generalization on Americans while alluding to the Bible when mentioning the Constitution.

at three characters need to be here for the post to go through. i think this is enough.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

By the same logic, the government couldn't tax you, because it is "your" money, not theirs.

:inquisitive:

EDIT: OK, my comment was needlessly insulting. Regardless, I think your logic is flawed.


Individual freedom is not boundless, especially if it endangers other people's lives.

Ah, of course, "for the greater good." When does the greater good trump individual freedom? Or is individual freedom the greater good?

I believe the latter.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Individual freedom is not boundless, especially if it endangers other people's lives.

Exactly! I want to know why nobody will take my proposal to ban all those deadly cars seriously. Everyone knows that certain groups of people are dangerous behind the steering wheel and we can't let our children walking to school accidentally be hit. I want a complete switch to bicycles, not only will public safety increase and deaths decrease, but the transportation industry will create thousands of new jobs when we need 250 people on bikes to carry what one 18 wheeler could.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

By the same logic, the government couldn't tax you, because it is "your" money, not theirs.

"No taxation without representation" was one of the reasons we rebelled against the British. The government doesn't have the right to tax you, it something the citizens agree to. Having said that, I'm not sure exactly what EMFM meant or what you mean.


The more reason to have guns! Individual freedom is not boundless, especially if it endangers other people's lives.

Privacy is an individual freedom that endangers people's lives. If we had cameras on every corner and radio tags in our bodies there would be less murder because the police could keep tabs on people with ease. But in this case I think you'd prefer individual freedom over people's lives. Instead of having a police state, we give people the ability to protect themselves.

[Marshal Murat]

The only gun crimes that reach any notoriety are those that involve hostages or mass killings. Just wanted to say that.

I support the ownership of guns because they enable me to defend myself and ensures the protection of my liberty. While it may seem anachronistic with no pesky Natives running around, the 2nd Amendment hasn't lead to the extinction of the American population yet. Gun crimes occur just like knife crimes in the UK. The Media does enjoy a good "hostage" situation or would mourn a tragic gun crime, but that isn't a norm now is it? It's part cultural, it's socio-economic, there are alot of factors that lead to gun crime.


But yeah, Americans like to stick to their traditions, especially if it's the Holy Text of the Constitution.
It's the highest law of the land. I'd like to stick to that.

[seireikhaan]

:no:

I always get ignored here.

:bigcry:

I know! I'll throw out random generalizations about other poster's beliefs and tell them they're freedom haters or violence mongers instead! :idea:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

:no:

I always get ignored here.

:bigcry:

I know! I'll throw out random generalizations about other poster's beliefs and tell them they're freedom haters or violence mongers instead! :idea:

In NYC they ban handguns. That is an example of what you are saying, where it is better for the individual areas to make the laws. But it seems it is allowed under the 2nd amendment, so I don't see the benefit of abolishing it. I'm don't know much about the specifics of the law though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

:no:

I always get ignored here.

:bigcry:


Fine, here you go.


I think the 2nd amendment should be abolished/rewritten, and instead allow for individual states to decide for themselves what sorts of gun laws they want. Different people function differently, and its no different when it comes to violence. I would volunteer two examples- Switzerland and Japan. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, as a function of their mandatory army services. Switzerland has extraordinarily low levels of violent crime. Japan has very strict laws on gun ownership, even on police, who are allowed, at most, a minimum caliber pistol. Japan also has extraordinarily low levels of violent crime. Both systems are capable of working, but they need to be applied with discipline and in the correct demographic circumstances.

The answer to this is very simple: Leaving the decision of gun control or not to the state governments is the same as leaving it up to the federal government. Bad.

[seireikhaan]

In NYC they ban handguns. That is an example of what you are saying, where it is better for the individual areas to make the laws. But it seems it is allowed under the 2nd amendment, so I don't see the benefit of abolishing it. I'm don't know much about the specifics of the law though.
That is a minimum of what I talk about- I mean, each state should be allowed to have complete control over what gun laws they do and don't want enacted. Period.

[seireikhaan]

The answer to this is very simple: Leaving the decision of gun control or not to the state governments is the same as leaving it up to the federal government. Bad.

I know! I'll throw out random generalizations about other poster's beliefs and tell them they're freedom haters or violence mongers instead! :idea:
Awesome. ~:rolleyes:

[Strike For The South]

Awesome. ~:rolleyes:

Don't be such a drama queen.

Every American should be allowed to own a firearm, the Fed should protect that. However thats states can provide stipulations.

[Hooahguy]

people forget that gun laws only prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns, not criminals. the criminals who want them will get them, leaving us good citizens with no defense. the police cant be everywhere.

[seireikhaan]

Don't be such a drama queen.
You, sir, are the champion of devastatingly effective, yet simple taunts. :laugh4:


Every American should be allowed to own a firearm, the Fed should protect that. However thats states can provide stipulations.
Why?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Awesome. ~:rolleyes:

I don't understand your comment. I didn't make a generalization. I simply said leaving it up to the hands of state government is not better then having the Federal government deal with it. I did not call you a freedom hater or violence monger.

[PowerWizard]

Ah, of course, "for the greater good." When does the greater good trump individual freedom? Or is individual freedom the greater good?

I believe the latter.

Yes, the greater good. Either in a Kantian sense (the progress of humankind) or in the Hegelian sense (the progress of history) it is greater than the good of a single person. But this is "flawed" 19th century logic, so let's throw it on the junkyard. Wait, utilitarianism, the one you believe in is from the 19th century too. It's just as incoherent and flawed as any other mainstream ideology out there. So what shall we do now? :embarassed:


I support the ownership of guns because they enable me to defend myself and ensures the protection of my liberty.

I live in a country where gun control is one of the strictest on the globe. I am able to defend myself and ensure the protection of my liberty without waving a gun around. Or are you suggesting that I am not a free person without weapons?

[Strike For The South]

You, sir, are the champion of devastatingly effective, yet simple taunts. :laugh4:


Why?

Thank you.

The constitution clearly states we can bear arms. It doesn't say what an arm is. Back in the 1700s arms were pretty straight forward but now not so much. I mean a nuclear warhead is an arm.

[seireikhaan]

I don't understand your comment. I didn't make a generalization. I simply said leaving it up to the hands of state government is not better then having the Federal government deal with it. I did not call you a freedom hater or violence monger.



The answer to this is very simple: Leaving the decision of gun control or not to the state governments is the same as leaving it up to the federal government. Bad.
Gov't = bad is a generalization.

[Hooahguy]

Gov't = bad is a generalization.
people shouldnt be afraid of their government-governments should be afraid of their people.
-V

[seireikhaan]

Thank you.

The constitution clearly states we can bear arms. It doesn't say what an arm is. Back in the 1700s arms were pretty straight forward but now not so much. I mean a nuclear warhead is an arm.
Yes, I am aware of what the constitution states, and that is why I proposed to alter it, to give states complete control over the matter. The constitution is a "living document", as I'm sure you know, and as such, it can be changed if we should so desire. Of course, the 2nd amendment almost assuredly will not be removed/altered, and certainly not in the manner I stated, but I merely stated what I felt was the most practical solution based on my observations.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes, the greater good. Either in a Kantian sense (the progress of humankind) or in the Hegelian sense (the progress of history) it is greater than the good of a single person.

Yes, it is. However, it fits nicely that the real greater good is also the advancement and liberty of the individual.

The Second Amendment is the greater good. That is precisely what it is designed for. The greater good - the liberty of the people - the ability to resist the totalitarian state.


But this is "flawed" 19th century logic, so let's throw it on the junkyard. Wait, utilitarianism, the one you believe in is from the 19th century too. It's just as incoherent and flawed as any other mainstream ideology out there.

I don't know where you want to go from there, as you just put words in my mouth.


I am able to defend myself and ensure the protection of my liberty without waving a gun around.

Defend yourself against what?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Gov't = bad is a generalization.

Not if you agree with Thomas Paine:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."

[seireikhaan]

people shouldnt be afraid of their government-governments should be afraid of their people.
-V
Interesting thing about that, the Brits tried to abolish the monarchy once, and guess what? They asked multiple monarchs back into the country when they realized they had no idea what they were doing. Wanna abolish the government? Be ready for two things- First anarchy, then military rule as a power hawk tries to quell said anarchy from destroying the country. Government exists for a very good reason.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I live in a country where gun control is one of the strictest on the globe. I am able to defend myself and ensure the protection of my liberty without waving a gun around. Or are you suggesting that I am not a free person without weapons?

You can not defend yourself against attack as well as if you had a gun. So, you are compromising one of your freedoms.


That is a minimum of what I talk about- I mean, each state should be allowed to have complete control over what gun laws they do and don't want enacted. Period.

Which state would be better of with guns banned? Or are you in favor of states over federal gov't in general? I don't see that we would be better off if states could decide for themselves. If guns are banned in one state they can be brought in from the next state over, just like we in Ohio get our fireworks from Indiana.

[Strike For The South]

Yes, I am aware of what the constitution states, and that is why I proposed to alter it, to give states complete control over the matter. The constitution is a "living document", as I'm sure you know, and as such, it can be changed if we should so desire. Of course, the 2nd amendment almost assuredly will not be removed/altered, and certainly not in the manner I stated, but I merely stated what I felt was the most practical solution based on my observations.

Why must it be rewritten? The Fed provides basic ownership while the states wrestle with the nuances.

[seireikhaan]

Not if you agree with Thomas Paine:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."
How could I possibly agree with the statement? It makes no logic, particularly for a democracy. The society IS the government. They are inseparable. The government is not some monolithic force, a lumbering dark monster. It an organization of people who attempt to, at the very least, give order to the rest of their society. The rest of the society can either allow this, cooperate, and thrive, or they can rebel so that a different set of people can attempt to do the same exact task.

[seireikhaan]

Which state would be better of with guns banned? Or are you in favor of states over federal gov't in general? I don't see that we would be better off if states could decide for themselves. If guns are banned in one state they can be brought in from the next state over, just like we in Ohio get our fireworks from Indiana.
I am in favor of states instead of the Feds generally, yes. I feel that they are a little more in tune with the interests of the people who elected them. Maybe not much, but a little bit anyways. :wink:

And yes, there could be complications from people hopping states. However, if the people are that much in favor of being allowed whatever guns they want, then they should elect someone who favors less gun restrictions. I know, there's always going to be minority opinions, and its not a perfect system. I feel its the most intuitive, however.


Why must it be rewritten? The Fed provides basic ownership while the states wrestle with the nuances.
Legal precedent. By abolishing/rewriting it, the 10th commandment can be allowed to take precedent over the issue.

[a completely inoffensive name]

How could I possibly agree with the statement? It makes no logic, particularly for a democracy. The society IS the government. They are inseparable. The government is not some monolithic force, a lumbering dark monster. It an organization of people who attempt to, at the very least, give order to the rest of their society. The rest of the society can either allow this, cooperate, and thrive, or they can rebel so that a different set of people can attempt to do the same exact task.

I tend to view a society as a group of people. I tend to view government as a smaller group of people with power. Power changes people, so in my eyes government and society are two different things.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We are lucky to have the right to bear arms. People should respect that right by not running around shooting one another.

[Strike For The South]

Legal precedent. By abolishing/rewriting it, the 10th commandment can be allowed to take precedent over the issue.

If we abolish it then you open the door for no ownership which is explicitly stated. We are trying to decide how much.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am in favor of states instead of the Feds generally, yes. I feel that they are a little more in tune with the interests of the people who elected them. Maybe not much, but a little bit anyways. :wink:

And yes, there could be complications from people hopping states. However, if the people are that much in favor of being allowed whatever guns they want, then they should elect someone who favors less gun restrictions. I know, there's always going to be minority opinions, and its not a perfect system. I feel its the most intuitive, however.


Legal precedent. By abolishing/rewriting it, the 10th commandment can be allowed to take precedent over the issue.

Funny thing about the tenth amendment, no one seems to follow it. sad yes, but it is true. otherwise we would not have the fed gov involved with social issues, education etc...

[Strike For The South]

Funny thing about the tenth amendment, no one seems to follow it. sad yes, but it is true. otherwise we would not have the fed gov involved with social issues, education etc...

State and Fed power are meant to check one another. Not be exclusive.

[seireikhaan]

I tend to view a society as a group of people. I tend to view government as a smaller group of people with power. Power changes people, so in my eyes government and society are two different things.
And this is where we reach an impasse. In my view, the government is merely a sub-set of society. Society gives its latent support of a government by paying taxes and obeying the laws it lays down. . If society views the government is not doing its "job"(which is ensuring order, as well as any other tasks the society allows/encourages it to do), than the government is replaced by others in the society. In a democracy, this means by vote, if it is a totalitarian state, than by rebellion. Who replaces the deposed regime? Members of the society.


Funny thing about the tenth amendment, no one seems to follow it. sad yes, but it is true. otherwise we would not have the fed gov involved with social issues, education etc...
First of all, this is one reason I specifically stated abolishing/rewriting, instead of just abolishing. I know the poor 10th has been railroaded pretty consistently, but it is still a legally binding part of the constitution. If you are that concerned, the 2nd could simply be rewritten(according to my view, that is) as "The states shall have complete and independent control over arms distribution and/or restriction".(or something along those lines) Of course, that is simply rehashing what the 10th would be supposed to do, so its legally redundant, but safer.

[a completely inoffensive name]

State and Fed power are meant to check one another. Not be exclusive. The Fed and gov are not supposed to check each other per se. The Constitution and the Tenth Amendment outline exactly what the Federal government and State governments have control over. In terms of who has influence over the Federal government, it was supposed to be in Congress a mix between the people (House) and the State Governments (Senate). So originally the States had a back up check against the Federal government in case it decided to just go against the Constitution, but now you see that the State governments have no say in the Federal government and the Fed is bigger then ever. It is hard for a state to assume the Fed responsibilities of providing an army to protect the nation and such but it is easy for the Fed to take over state responsibilities.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And this is where we reach an impasse. In my view, the government is merely a sub-set of society. Society gives its latent support of a government by paying taxes and obeying the laws it lays down. . If society views the government is not doing its "job"(which is ensuring order, as well as any other tasks the society allows/encourages it to do), than the government is replaced by others in the society. In a democracy, this means by vote, if it is a totalitarian state, than by rebellion. Who replaces the deposed regime? Members of the society.

But no change in government can be implemented without some sort of force behind it. Without guns prevalent among the people the only ones with weapons is the government. So you tell me how can we get rid of the ones in charge with guns and tanks and planes without anything better then a baseball bat and a knife?


First of all, this is one reason I specifically stated abolishing/rewriting, instead of just abolishing. I know the poor 10th has been railroaded pretty consistently, but it is still a legally binding part of the constitution. If you are that concerned, the 2nd could simply be rewritten(according to my view, that is) as "The states shall have complete and independent control over arms distribution and/or restriction".(or something along those lines) Of course, that is simply rehashing what the 10th would be supposed to do, so its legally redundant, but safer.

If we leave the decision up to the states, yes some will have guns and some will have banned it. But those can ban or put heavy restrictions will experience the same scenario I just stated to your first paragraph. How can the people remove their corrupt state government if they have knives and the state government has the national guard?


This is all assuming that the government's in these two scenarios refuse to relinquish power.

[seireikhaan]

This is all assuming that the government's in these two scenarios refuse to relinquish power.
My basic point is this- let's say that there are no/very few restrictions on weapons. Go open an insurrection against the state/United States government, guns blazing. See how far you get.

Rebellion does not necessarily entail just armed conflict between combatants. Rebellions require a bit more cleverness and subtlety than that. And frankly, since rebellion are acts of defiance against the law in the first place, I seriously doubt that any gun laws would frankly work anyways.

And as for the second example- who do you think make up the National Guard? Robots? Of course not, its citizens, members of SOCIETY. Hence the term Civil War.

[rvg]

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed...

[Samurai Waki]

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the idea if Americans should have the right to bear arms, since I have yet to actually meet a single person who is willing to rise up against the regime. As history shows, most people that do actually rise up against the regime either end up in one of two places: In a jail, or dead.

I understand the need to defend oneself is priority, however as most demographics will show you (do I really need to show?), the ability to be quick thinking enough to defend one's self in a home invasion type situation and be near to a gun are typically almost nil.

The sad fact of the matter is, is that there is something very wrong with our society, and I don't think guns are necessarily helping the situation.

(waits for the flame)

[Xiahou]

Why stop with the second amendment? Let's just shred the whole Bill of Rights and let it all up to the states. :sweatdrop:


I understand the need to defend oneself is priority, however as most demographics will show you (do I really need to show?), the ability to be quick thinking enough to defend one's self in a home invasion type situation and be near to a gun are typically almost nil.Yeah, you do- because that's nonsense. If you're going to just throw something like that out there, you need to back it up. I know people could easily provide you with hundreds (http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html) of examples that counter your generalization.

[Furunculus]

i voted as a non US citizen for people in the US to keep their firearms.

however i have no objection to that right being limited to people of good character.

[CountArach]

All Americans have the right to own a firearm debate.

[rory_20_uk]

Personally I'm against arms, but I do understand the "then only criminals have them" argument, which is a valid one.

The armed citizenship overthrowing the government? The entire Population vs. the Marines, my money is on the marines!

The average joe is undisciplined, unfit, risk-averse and poorly trained. Verses highly motivated, extremely fit and well equipped forces they'd be slaughtered, those that didn't just run.

I would propose:


fingerprint / rung tagged guns
Guns licensed to a person and an address
Bullet proof vests also need to be registered to a person and an address
need to report it stolen ASAP
Restriction on types: hunting rifles need a concurrent hunting lisence
Restriction on bullet types
Ban on ceramic / plastic firearms
Encourage tazers as "less lethal" alternative
Ban on anti-fingerprint technology on weapons
Large penalties on breaking rules


Self defence does not need an assault rifle with Teflon coated, steel core bullets. Nor does hunting.
If you need a Magnum then you'd better show due care.

~:smoking:

[naut]

Of course not. What method do you suggest should be used to collect all the currently owned legal firearms? There isn't a single viable, or cost effective way to.

Leave them be, just educate in proper and safe use, ownership and vendition.

[rory_20_uk]

Ask people to register them? Give a deadline a generous 6 months away? Hardly rocket science, is it? The law abiding majority will get them registered. Inform people that if there are any ones that require stronger checks or are now illegal of this fact. There are probably not many that fit into this category.

Education is one of those oft used puff terms that basically means "do nothing, and tut a bit when the next massacre happens".

~:smoking:

[Hooahguy]

The armed citizenship overthrowing the government? The entire Population vs. the Marines, my money is on the marines!

i think its possible to overthrow the government. eventually the people will overwhelm the marines with sheer numbers, plus some military personnel would go on the peoples side.

[CountArach]

i think its possible to overthrow the government. eventually the people will overwhelm the marines with sheer numbers
I'm willing to bet that the first thousand deaths would be enough to quell most uprisings for quite a bit after that.

[Hooahguy]

well, did it stop the patriots of the American revolution?

[rory_20_uk]

i think its possible to overthrow the government. eventually the people will overwhelm the marines with sheer numbers, plus some military personnel would go on the peoples side.

Side with the traitors? Like hell! The marines would gun them down mercilessly. They're MARINES, not flower packing, flag burning, oath breakers. I'm sure the sentiment would be napalm would be too quick a death.

Overwhelm guns that can fire thousands of bullets a minute? You really think that the american public is going to engage in Human Wave tactics? As CountArach points out, most uprisings anywhere peter out after at most a few thousand are killed. Perhaps forces such as the North Korean Army might fight on climbing over their dead into the maw of death, hoping that the other side will run out of bullets but I can't think of anyone else.

The patriots did win, or to be more accurate the Brits stopped fighting. Other things on their side: a Government weeks travel away. A King who was insane. Backing from the second biggest power at the time. If at the time Britain had sought to keep the 13 colonies irrigardless of risk or loss elsewhere they most likely would have done - with the massive loss of power in what were deemed more important areas, and probably the deposition of the king to boot.

~:smoking:

[LittleGrizzly]

Exactly! I want to know why nobody will take my proposal to ban all those deadly cars seriously.

Because cars are a rather useless killing implement. Sure loads of people accidently get killed by cars but have you ever purposefully tried to kill someone with your car... its just a little bit harder than killing someone with a gun...

Example 1) Im sat in my house... you want to kill me... you have a gun and a car...

Obviously you knock at my house and shoot me with the gun, with the car you would have to sit outside and hope i come out... then you would need me to be at a part of the street you can get to... and even if i do come out onto the street and try and cross the road, you need to make sure i don't notice you trying to run me over otherwise i can simply jump into someones garden...

Example 2) im am walking through the local high street... you ave a gun and a car...

Again the car is fairly useless here.... for one my local high street contains alot of railings and parked up cars on the side of the road.... makes it extremly hard to get a gap you can fit through to hit me with the car... secondly town is usually packed so your moving fairly slowly (thanks to speed bumps as well) so you would have to do a quick bit of acceleration and given the run up you would need to have a chance at killing me i could have time to run into a shop or behind a metal fence or something...

Whereas with the gun you couldsimply aim and shoot as you were driving past, or park up walk up behind me and shoot

and quite obviously apart from the cars uselessness as a weapon is the fact that cars are pretty much essential for developed economies... people use them all the time... apart from probably the biggest gun nuts and people who don't drive people spend far more time using thier cars than thier guns...

So if anything cars should have a far greater death rate than guns...

[KukriKhan]

6. Restriction on bullet types

Quite by accident, you've uncovered the latest scheme in D.C. to effect "quiet" gun control: don't fight the gun-control fight, you'll lose. Instead, regulate bullets and gunpowder.

"They" are working on it.

[Ronin]

congrats- you just opened a can of worms!
and no, the 2nd must always be upheld!


Very well....then if you are part of a well regulated militia you can have guns....

[Spino]

Side with the traitors? Like hell! The marines would gun them down mercilessly. They're MARINES, not flower packing, flag burning, oath breakers. I'm sure the sentiment would be napalm would be too quick a death.

Overwhelm guns that can fire thousands of bullets a minute? You really think that the american public is going to engage in Human Wave tactics? As CountArach points out, most uprisings anywhere peter out after at most a few thousand are killed. Perhaps forces such as the North Korean Army might fight on climbing over their dead into the maw of death, hoping that the other side will run out of bullets but I can't think of anyone else.

The patriots did win, or to be more accurate the Brits stopped fighting. Other things on their side: a Government weeks travel away. A King who was insane. Backing from the second biggest power at the time. If at the time Britain had sought to keep the 13 colonies irrigardless of risk or loss elsewhere they most likely would have done - with the massive loss of power in what were deemed more important areas, and probably the deposition of the king to boot.

~:smoking:

The problem with a US pro-gun revolution vs. the Marine Corps scenario is that most Marines, like most people in the US military, are pro-gun conservatives. Ordering US troops to fire on say, rioters, looters, domestic terrorists, etc. is one thing but asking them to fire on a cross section of the population fighting to uphold the 2nd Amendment? Good luck with that. Having the US government suddenly label the members of such a movement as traitorous enemies of the state is just asking for a mutiny and/or military coup.

[Hooahguy]

Side with the traitors? Like hell! The marines would gun them down mercilessly. They're MARINES, not flower packing, flag burning, oath breakers. I'm sure the sentiment would be napalm would be too quick a death.

Overwhelm guns that can fire thousands of bullets a minute? You really think that the american public is going to engage in Human Wave tactics? As CountArach points out, most uprisings anywhere peter out after at most a few thousand are killed. Perhaps forces such as the North Korean Army might fight on climbing over their dead into the maw of death, hoping that the other side will run out of bullets but I can't think of anyone else.

The patriots did win, or to be more accurate the Brits stopped fighting. Other things on their side: a Government weeks travel away. A King who was insane. Backing from the second biggest power at the time. If at the time Britain had sought to keep the 13 colonies irrigardless of risk or loss elsewhere they most likely would have done - with the massive loss of power in what were deemed more important areas, and probably the deposition of the king to boot.

~:smoking:
as Spino said, many military personnel own guns outside of the military and will not give them up. plus with their military advice the people can become quite a powerful force. again, look at the american revolution. rag-tag bands of militia with good leadership beat the british army.

[Ironside]

The problem with a US pro-gun revolution vs. The Marine Corps scenario is that most Marines, like most people in the US military, are pro-gun conservatives. Ordering US troops to fire on say, rioters, looters, domestic terrorists, etc. is one thing but asking them to fire on a cross section of the population fighting to uphold the 2nd Amendment? Good luck with that. Having the US government suddenly label the members of such a movement as traitorous enemies of the state is just asking for a mutiny and/or military coup.

And having enough influence on the military that goverment cannot use the military against it's own population is only about 1000 times more important than the amount of small arms among the population the day the revolution comes...

On the issue at hand I would say that a nation obsessed with the idea of no gun restrictions aren't a nation that should have it. ~;p


Edit: BTW how did the Iraqi military fare vs the might of the US military? Are the average US citizen more armed than that?

And don't come with the insurgancy. A: You're supposed to be liberating the country. B: You can withdraw and aren't stuck in a death match scenario. C: The US losses are a fart in the wind compared to the amount of troops there.
FYI the amount of troops vs population would be higher in the second US civil war than what it is in Iraq.

[Sheogorath]

Anybody find the poll results rather amusing?
Almost exactly in line with my prediction :P

[rory_20_uk]

as Spino said, many military personnel own guns outside of the military and will not give them up. plus with their military advice the people can become quite a powerful force. again, look at the american revolution. rag-tag bands of militia with good leadership beat the british army.

Did you read my post? The British stopped fighting, rather than the Americans fielding a great army. Similarly a few vets with old guns doesn't make an army. You're also assuming that they'd all side with the traitors rather than the President.

~:smoking:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Did you read my post? The British stopped fighting, rather than the Americans fielding a great army. Similarly a few vets with old guns doesn't make an army. You're also assuming that they'd all side with the traitors rather than the President.

~:smoking:

In what fraction of the possible scenarios where the citizenry has to fight the government would an armed populace be helpful? Even disregarding the self defense factor, is that fraction enough in your eyes to justify the law?

[Hooahguy]

Did you read my post? The British stopped fighting, rather than the Americans fielding a great army. Similarly a few vets with old guns doesn't make an army. You're also assuming that they'd all side with the traitors rather than the President.

~:smoking:
i have a pretty decent knowledge of US history. from my knowledge, after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Brits withdrew. so technically we did beat them, AFAIK.

[Ser Clegane]

Voted "No" as a non US citizen.

Two reasons:
- a majority of US citizens seems to be in favor of having the right to own guns, not my business as a non US citizen to demand that they should give up their right.
- giving up the right to own guns now seems extremely impractical, considering that gun ownership is so embedded in US culture. Forcing people now to give up their guns will lead to a vast amount of illegal guns in circulation and will probably ultimately cause more bad than good.

OTOH I am quite happy with keeping gun ownership as strictly regulated as it is here in Germany.

There is no "one size fits all" solution that works for every country (and that is actually a thing I came to accept following the numerous gun discussions in the Backroom)

[Meneldil]

I contend it does, however this is not absolute. I have a right to defend myself, however that is largely a hollow statement unless I am able to bear arms of similar caliber (not literally, as in gun barrel size) as they who are attacking me. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.


It's not a right at all if the most effective means of practicing it are forbidden. It's like saying:


the right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to use mass communications devices.

Aren't we on some kind of loop here? If you need to bear firearms to feel able to defend yourself, then I think something is going wrong in your country.

I have been mugged (sp?) a few times in my life. My city is, according to french standards, somewhat insecure (though not ghetto-like insecure). Yet I've never felt the need to bear a gun.
I mean, if some guy start to piss me off and threaten me if I don't give him 10€ or my cellphone, do I need to shoot him? To threaten him with an automatic weapon or a flamethrower?
Most of the time, I tried to talk my way out of it, give a few euros, and be done with it. Bearing a gun would probably only increase the chance of being badly injured and lead to a growth of violence.

The issue here is that the US is an apparently unsecure country that has to deal with extraordinary levels of violence, not that guns is the best way to defend yourself. I seriously don't think my right to defend myself is not respected because I can't shot people.


Ideally, you would be correct. It seems, however, that the real world is a little different. I mean no offense, those are merely my observations.
Well, my observations are that I never needed and probably will never need a gun. Then we're talking about the US, so my opinion on that matter is worthless.


If anything, given our past presidency, this has simply reaffirmed in my mind the need for Americans to be able to defend themselves against oppressive government.
Aren't most of the pro-gun crowd deeply conservative and pro-Bush? My feeling (and I might very well be wrong) is that the people defending the right to bear firearms would also be the first one to support oppressive governments.
That's probably because the US political scene is completely screwed-up, with people assimilating healthcare with communism and tyrannical government :inquisitive:


Ah, of course, "for the greater good." When does the greater good trump individual freedom? Or is individual freedom the greater good?

I believe the latter.
Wait, where did he mention the greater good?
The principle "One's freedom stops where another person's freedom begins" (or something like that, couldn't find a translation) is widely known in Europe.
The constant use of "freedom" as a catch-word shows the limits of liberal ideology.
And the greater good is indeed a valuable and honorable goal. I blame liberalism for the assimilation of state with fascism and what not. I blame liberalism for the failure of the republican ideology, which was IMO much more interesting and intelligent.

To conclude this rather long post:

people shouldnt be afraid of their government-governments should be afraid of their people.-V
Well, if you're trying to show that we should bear guns to fight tyrannical governments, do not quote V for Vendetta as the book is mostly about overthrowing a totalitarian government without any violence (other than V's violence).
I'm not afraid of my government. I'm not afraid of cops. I go on strike, protest, I don't not respect certain symbols of state authority. I don't need a gun to feel free. And I'm fairly sure the french government is more afraid of mass strikes/protests than he would be of a few people bearing firearms.
If, at any point, a western government turns into a totalitarian regime, I'm fairly sure weapons won't be the way to fight it. Intelligence and enlightnment will.

Edit: to be honest, I can't think of any totalitarian/authoritarian regime that has been overthrown by mob violence. Nazi Germany? Check. Fascist Italy? Check. USSR? Check. Cambodia? Check. Romania? Check. Authoritarian Portugal/Spain/Greece? Check.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Aren't we on some kind of loop here? If you need to bear firearms to feel able to defend yourself, then I think something is going wrong in your country.

I have been mugged (sp?) a few times in my life. My city is, according to french standards, somewhat insecure (though not ghetto-like insecure). Yet I've never felt the need to bear a gun.
I mean, if some guy start to piss me off and threaten me if I don't give him 10€ or my cellphone, do I need to shoot him? To threaten him with an automatic weapon or a flamethrower?
Most of the time, I tried to talk my way out of it, give a few euros, and be done with it. Bearing a gun would probably only increase the chance of being badly injured and lead to a growth of violence.

The issue here is that the US is an apparently unsecure country that has to deal with extraordinary levels of violence, not that guns is the best way to defend yourself. I seriously don't think my right to defend myself is not respected because I can't shot people.


Well, my observations are that I never needed and probably will never need a gun. Then we're talking about the US, so my opinion on that matter is worthless.


I'm confident in saying that ~100% of the Americans posting here feel as safe on our streets as you do on yours. You can support the right to self defense without being afraid for your life, just as you can support drug legalization even if you don't take drugs.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Personally I'm against arms, but I do understand the "then only criminals have them" argument, which is a valid one.

The armed citizenship overthrowing the government? The entire Population vs. the Marines, my money is on the marines!

The average joe is undisciplined, unfit, risk-averse and poorly trained. Verses highly motivated, extremely fit and well equipped forces they'd be slaughtered, those that didn't just run.

I would propose:


fingerprint / rung tagged guns
Guns licensed to a person and an address
Bullet proof vests also need to be registered to a person and an address
need to report it stolen ASAP
Restriction on types: hunting rifles need a concurrent hunting lisence
Restriction on bullet types
Ban on ceramic / plastic firearms
Encourage tazers as "less lethal" alternative
Ban on anti-fingerprint technology on weapons
Large penalties on breaking rules


Self defence does not need an assault rifle with Teflon coated, steel core bullets. Nor does hunting.
If you need a Magnum then you'd better show due care.

~:smoking:

Well crap man, should free speech be similarly registered and restricted? Let's just make every house a surveillance outpost of the government.

And the marines would survive for a few months tops. The key to a violent anti-government movement would be to avoid direct combat and to hit them in the resources and supply (and if necessary, supporters). You don't try and take out a tank, you hit the fuel depot. Similarly, in the ridiculous "everyone vs. marines" scenario, how would the marines resupply?

[Fragony]

I find the government against the people a bit an of argument we have better ways to deal with political devision nowadays. If you want 'the people' to be able to raise an army to challenge the government, that's a bit much for me some weapons should be restricted. Once the thugs have installed hauwitzers I might reconsider.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The armed citizenship overthrowing the government? The entire Population vs. the Marines, my money is on the marines!

In all fairness rory, they said that about the redcoats as well - and look who won that one.


EDIT: Everyone in this thread, arguing on either side, should watch...

...this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM)
...and all three parts of this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE)

[Strike For The South]

In all fairness rory, they said that about the redcoats as well - and look who won that one.


EDIT: Everyone in this thread, arguing on either side, should watch...

...this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM)
...and all three parts of this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE)

I've seen that video a thousand times. The fact is 1 anecdote=/= policy. This is of course true if someone puts a grieving mother of columbine up.

Instead of posting violent language and emotive arguments we should argue the merits of firearms ownership and how far we are willing to take it.

We know guns kill people just like we know alcohol kills people

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I've seen that video a thousand times. The fact is 1 anecdote=/= policy. This is of course true if someone puts a grieving mother of columbine up.

It isn't her story so much as her explanation of what the Second Amendment is really about. The arguments I like to leave to the second video series.

[Strike For The South]

It isn't her story so much as her explanation of what the Second Amendment is really about. The arguments I like to leave to the second video series.

No her argument is about conceal and carry in a private establishment. Not firearm ownership. She owned the gun but could not bring it in to a private establishment. Which if the Lubys decides to make policy they have the right to refuse her service.

[Fragony]

Instead of posting violent language and emotive arguments we should argue the merits of firearms ownership and how far we are willing to take it.


As far as a democratically elected government has the time to react to excesses imho. If streetgangs have machineguns and the government doesn't have the means to act against it it should step back.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No her argument is about conceal and carry in a private establishment. Not firearm ownership. She owned the gun but could not bring it in to a private establishment. Which if the Lubys decides to make policy they have the right to refuse her service.

Only it wasn't the Luby's, it was the State of Texas, correct? Regardless, your point does not disprove mine.

[Strike For The South]

Only it wasn't the Luby's, it was the State of Texas, correct? Regardless, your point does not disprove mine.

Correct, however even under current laws. Lubys still would be within its rights.

[Tribesman]

i have a pretty decent knowledge of US history. from my knowledge, after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Brits withdrew. so technically we did beat them, AFAIK.

If you know your history then you should know it was the French that were the key to that victory at Yorktown .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Correct, however even under current laws. Lubys still would be within its rights.

That is the business of Luby's. I don't see how it relates to my point more than slightly, I'm sorry. :book:

[Strike For The South]

That is the business of Luby's. I don't see how it relates to my point more than slightly, I'm sorry. :book:

I fail to see how a 1 in 10,000,000 occurrence should be a factor in legislature.


If you know your history then you should know it was the French that were the key to that victory at Yorktown .


pfffttt. We don't need a stinkin navy or French officers and guns!!!!

[Sheogorath]

If you know your history then you should know it was the French that were the key to that victory at Yorktown .

Does that mean the United States won less than France?
Are we talking like 60/40 here? 20/80?

Can we even quantify victory?

Would you say the British won the Napoleonic Wars less than Russia because the Russians beat Napoleon at his strongest, whereas the British only beat him after he got his ass kicked a few times?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I fail to see how a 1 in 10,000,000 occurrence should be a factor in legislature.

Oh, I see what you mean now, and I agree with you. Self-defence in general, however, was summed up by the second video I linked and by the Cato Institute article. I intended the first link for her explanation of what the Second Amendment was intended for, not her personal story. You must admit, however, that her personal self-defence story is echoed in one form or another by many different people.

[Husar]

Exactly! I want to know why nobody will take my proposal to ban all those deadly cars seriously. Everyone knows that certain groups of people are dangerous behind the steering wheel and we can't let our children walking to school accidentally be hit. I want a complete switch to bicycles, not only will public safety increase and deaths decrease, but the transportation industry will create thousands of new jobs when we need 250 people on bikes to carry what one 18 wheeler could.

Finally someone who understands what's REALLY important! :2thumbsup:

In fact, I'm almost sure that people who stand around in NYC traffic jams for hours every morning would be faster at work with a bike, would save the environment and cause less ait pollution etc. etc.
But agaion and again it's not a matter of practicality but principle and convenience.

Some people think cars = freedom, some think guns = freedom. I say planes = freedom, as long as you're the pilot anyway. But you still have to land and fuel up, space is unreachable etc.

The only good way to find out whether the second amendment should be changed/banned would be to make a poll or a referendum. But since some here think referendums are bad I guess you'll have to go with whatever the god-president Obama and his cronies want. ~D

Also Whacker, bringing an assault rifle to a tank battle won't help you much either.

[PowerWizard]

We are lucky to have the right to bear arms. People should respect that right by not running around shooting one another.

Too bad some people don't respect that and run around shooting one another.


You can not defend yourself against attack as well as if you had a gun.

Yes, I can defend myself. And the probability that people will shoot me in my own country is lower if not anyone can own a gun. I feel myself safe in this country, and I don't need a gun to "protect" myself. I never was in a situation like that, neither anyone I personally know. So your logic is flawed.


So, you are compromising one of your freedoms.

No I am not, where did you get that? I am perfectly free, and I don't need a gun to feel "freer", in fact it would just be a burden. And by supporting a policy that allows anyone to own a gun you compromise the basic human right to live of many other humans. Which is higher in the priority of human rights than this "right to bear arms" 18th century nonsense.

[Strike For The South]

Too bad some people don't respect that and run around shooting one another.



The same could be said for alcohol, drugs, cars and knives.

[PowerWizard]

The same could be said for alcohol, drugs, cars and knives.

Faulty parallelism. They aren't especially designed to kill people.

[Strike For The South]

Faulty parallelism. They aren't especially designed to kill people.

Neither is a gun.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I never was in a situation like that, neither anyone I personally know. So your logic is flawed.


No, your logic is flawed. Data beats personal experience. Always. Anyone that brings up that they themselves have never or have always blah blah blah should find another way to argue their point.

[Sheogorath]

Neither is a gun.

Well, now, to be fair, some are.

But then, there are quite a few vehicles design to kill people as well.

Do we assume that cars are a subset of vehicles, as military weapons are a subset of guns?

[Strike For The South]

Well, now, to be fair, some are.

But then, there are quite a few vehicles design to kill people as well.

Do we assume that cars are a subset of vehicles, as military weapons are a subset of guns?

I don't see how you couldn't, add knives to.

A gun is a tool. A dangerous tool but a tool none the less.

[PowerWizard]

Neither is a gun.

I see. So guns are designed for what? Slicing carrots? Traveling to distant destinations? Getting drunk?


No, your logic is flawed. Data beats personal experience. Always. Anyone that brings up that they themselves have never or have always blah blah blah should find another way to argue their point.

No, your logic is flawed. Anyone that brings up "data beats personal experience" blah blah blah should find another way to argue their point or actually show data (with sources) that support their argument. And what about data that traces gun violence in the United States? Do you ignore it?

[rory_20_uk]

No, your logic is flawed. Data beats personal experience. Always. Anyone that brings up that they themselves have never or have always blah blah blah should find another way to argue their point.

"Worth" of data:

Multi study meta analysis
Multi study
Large study
Small study
"Personal experience" - liked by senior doctors as justification, utterly worthless from a statistical standpoint.

There's more than just the guns, as Americans kill each other a lot more than do the Swiss. If only all vermin could keep their own numbers down...

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Guns don't kill people, mom's do. Well I expect him to be dead, viewer discretion.

[Kralizec]

I accidentally voted no as a US citizen, meant to vote no as a non-citizen.

[PowerWizard]

Guns don't kill people, mom's do. Well I expect him to be dead, viewer discretion.

Can we just skip this bumper-sticker slogan of NRA supporters please? A phrase Dimebag Darrel had always sided with. He believed that guns were no threat, only the people who use them incorrectly are....Ironically, Wednesday, December 8th 2004....Dimebag was shot to death during one of his concerts.... by an U.S. marine, whose job would be to use guns correctly. He also killed four other people in the crowd and injured two.

Eddie Izzard said once: “Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too if they have a gun.”

[LittleGrizzly]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...

Guns are just an incredibly effective way to kill someone as a private citizen... (obviously the army has some slightly better methods...)

[PowerWizard]

LOL.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Side with the traitors? Like hell! The marines would gun them down mercilessly. They're MARINES, not flower packing, flag burning, oath breakers. I'm sure the sentiment would be napalm would be too quick a death.

What, exactly, makes you think the US rebels would engage in conventional combat? Most of you're posts about rebellion seem to hinge on that assumption.


Aren't we on some kind of loop here? If you need to bear firearms to feel able to defend yourself, then I think something is going wrong in your country.

No, I feel I have the right to. It's a vast difference.


Interesting thing about that, the Brits tried to abolish the monarchy once, and guess what? They asked multiple monarchs back into the country when they realized they had no idea what they were doing. Wanna abolish the government? Be ready for two things- First anarchy, then military rule as a power hawk tries to quell said anarchy from destroying the country. Government exists for a very good reason.

Funny post from a guy complaining about generalizations of his posts. Making the government fear the citizen is not equal to abolishing the government.

And getting rid of the second amendment and leaving it to the states is wrong. It's a right, not a privilege to be decided by some state government.

CR

[Strike For The South]

I see. So guns are designed for what? Slicing carrots? Traveling to distant destinations? Getting drunk?


Hunting. Sport shooting. Collecting.

[Fixiwee]

A gun is a tool. A dangerous tool but a tool none the less.
Well everything is a tool if you argue like that.
A gun is made for killing. Or firing bullets.
Eeeeeehg.

[seireikhaan]

Funny post from a guy complaining about generalizations of his posts. Making the government fear the citizen is not equal to abolishing the government.

And getting rid of the second amendment and leaving it to the states is wrong. It's a right, not a privilege to be decided by some state government.

CR
You think a ruler isn't afraid of their people when they chopped off the head of the predecessor? :inquisitive:
EDIT: And I resent your accusation. You see, you generalized my opinion when you stated that I complained of generalization of my posts. I never even complained once. I mocked generalizations. Get your story straight.

And NO, having a gun isn't a right. Don't be silly. There is NO such thing as an innate right. Only what society demands and obtains for itself.

[Sheogorath]

Well everything is a tool if you argue like that.
A gun is made for killing. Or firing bullets.
Eeeeeehg.

Note to self:
Guns shoot bullets. :ave:

Are we going to have to go into the vehicle example again?

Commercial jets are what makes modern society possible. Without them the economy would collapse on itself, because we'd be back to taking a week to cross the oceans by boat.

But the military uses jets too. In fact, there are probably more military jets than large commercial jets. I'd even be willing to bet that airplanes in general have killed more people than guns.

So, should we ban airplanes?

[Crazed Rabbit]

You think a ruler isn't afraid of their people when they chopped off the head of the predecessor? :inquisitive:
EDIT: And I resent your accusation. You see, you generalized my opinion when you stated that I complained of generalization of my posts. I never even complained once. I mocked generalizations. Get your story straight.

Sorry, just meant it as a joke.


And NO, having a gun isn't a right. Don't be silly. There is NO such thing as an innate right. Only what society demands and obtains for itself.

I would argue that there are such things as innate rights. The right to bear arms is part of our right to defend ourselves from evil in individuals or government.

Of course, society only gets what it demands and obtains.

CR

[Ironside]

What, exactly, makes you think the US rebels would engage in conventional combat? Most of you're posts about rebellion seem to hinge on that assumption.


So winning the rebellion has very little to do with gun ownership at the start of the rebellion? :smug:

What's the pupose of partisan warfare if the opponent cannot retreat?
To weaken the opponent and gather own strength until you can béat him in conventional combat. In the US that would require years, particulary to gather weaponry. At that point smuggled equipment will be the vast majority, if nothing else the ammonition needs to be replaced.

Anyway, should I try to conquer the US from within I wouldn't touch the second ammendment. In fact I would embrace it to create a proxy militia, not because of it's combat value, but because they are a good recruitment area for garnision troops after my loyal military forces have crushed all the main resistance. And that I like stylish moves. Controlling the military is prio one though.

[Crazed Rabbit]

There's a book that's fairly well known among second amendment rights supporters. It's called Unintended Consequences. In many ways it's the fantasy of a gun-loving libertarian. Fantasy in that the events depicted, a rebellion against the US government, are very unlikely to happen.

But it posits an interesting case for how a rebellion might occur. It's a sort of grass roots movement and involves fighting (killing) government officials directly, not the military. The rebels wouldn't even fight the military, but would seek out and kill the various government officials they felt had wronged them. Then other agents of the hated government agencies would be less enthusiastic about continuing their jobs and quit, until said agencies imposing on the rights of the people couldn't operate any more.

Note that I don't write this out of admiration for the book (long winded and very vulgar at times) or in agreement with the message, but just as an example to counter the "But the Marines would defeat the citizens in open battle!"

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, I can defend myself. And the probability that people will shoot me in my own country is lower if not anyone can own a gun. I feel myself safe in this country, and I don't need a gun to "protect" myself. I never was in a situation like that, neither anyone I personally know. So your logic is flawed.

My statement was: "you cannot defend yourself as well without a gun" which is true. Whether you feel you are in danger is not the issue--neither do I. We are discussing a principle. If there was one murder a year in the US the principle would remain.




No I am not, where did you get that? I am perfectly free, and I don't need a gun to feel "freer", in fact it would just be a burden. And by supporting a policy that allows anyone to own a gun you compromise the basic human right to live of many other humans. Which is higher in the priority of human rights than this "right to bear arms" 18th century nonsense.

You have the right to self defense, and that requires tools to be effective. If you give up tools, you cannot defend yourself as well, thus you are compromising one of your freedoms.

The issue with individual rights vs collective rights has been discussed before, so I'll just make a comparison.

1) People have the right to life
2) Alcohol being legal leads to drunk driving accidents
3) Therefore, alcohol should be banned

Do you agree with the conclusion?

[LittleGrizzly]

My statement was: "you cannot defend yourself as well without a gun" which is true.

That's very true, my problem is its alot harder to defend yourself when the other person has a gun...

You have the right to self defense, and that requires tools to be effective. If you give up tools, you cannot defend yourself as well, thus you are compromising one of your freedoms.

I would argue that i am far freer without an armed populace...

Although i can see your basic point that if your denied anythingyou are less free, but that just gets silly if you think about it... one country could be freer than another because it allows each and every resident to have thier own arsenal of missles (now thats what you need to take down a goverment!)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That's very true, my problem is its alot harder to defend yourself when the other person has a gun...


Chances are that:

A) The other person will have a gun anyway.
B) There is a chance of you having concealed carry and he won't attack you in the first place.


I would argue that i am far freer without an armed populace...

Why? Instead of a government having a monopoly on firearms, more people can have them. Gun owners in America (legal gun owners) do not make you less free at all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

My statement was: "you cannot defend yourself as well without a gun" which is true.

That's very true, my problem is its alot harder to defend yourself when the other person has a gun...

You have the right to self defense, and that requires tools to be effective. If you give up tools, you cannot defend yourself as well, thus you are compromising one of your freedoms.

I would argue that i am far freer without an armed populace...

Although i can see your basic point that if your denied anythingyou are less free, but that just gets silly if you think about it... one country could be freer than another because it allows each and every resident to have thier own arsenal of missles (now thats what you need to take down a goverment!)

Sure, the question is a practical one. Ideally, the laws would be written to provide the maximum level of self defense capability with the minimum danger to society at large. My feeling is that the people on both sides of the debate agree on this, they just don't agree on the specifics.

With no guns, you will have trouble defending yourself against a stronger opponent. This puts most women in a tough spot. It will also be almost impossible to defend yourself against multiple opponents. If everyone has guns, it levels the field.

I feel like many people approach this from the perspective of, "I don't own a gun, so..." in which case it is natural to prefer that a potential attacker does not either. But that is not a valid reason when the law effects the population as a whole.

[LittleGrizzly]

Chances are that:

A) The other person will have a gun anyway.

Really...? We have alot of crime here in Britian which doesn't involve guns, the chances are if your attacked in Britian your attacker won't have a gun...

B) There is a chance of you having concealed carry and he won't attack you in the first place.

Well you would think it worked that way, but this just seems to encourage an arms race so the criminals get proper stocked up incase they have to face guns...

Plus even though America has alot of firearm ownership people still have crimes commited against them... so the deterrent doesn't seem to be working...

Why? Instead of a government having a monopoly on firearms, more people can have them.

Well we don't have an armed police force.. or mostly not armed with guns we of course have specialist sections and the like and obviously theres the army as well but largely were an unarmed society... no need for private citizens to start arming

And why... well theres freedom to have and do things but theres also also the freedom to be free of certain things...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Really...? We have alot of crime here in Britian which doesn't involve guns, the chances are if your attacked in Britian your attacker won't have a gun...

Good for you - if you had concealed carry you might not be stabbed either!


Well you would think it worked that way, but this just seems to encourage an arms race so the criminals get proper stocked up incase they have to face guns...

Really? You mean those states with concealed carry that do pretty well for themselves without having criminal arms races? The states were criminals are more afraid of attacking? Watch the video I posted earlier or see the Cato link?


Well we don't have an armed police force.. or mostly not armed with guns we of course have specialist sections and the like and obviously theres the army as well but largely were an unarmed society... no need for private citizens to start arming

:dizzy2:


And why... well theres freedom to have and do things but theres also also the freedom to be free of certain things...

You are free of your neighbour owning a firearm? I'm sorry, but the "my right to swing stops where my neighbour's nose begins" doesn't apply here in the slightest. You are free to be free of it - don't own one.

[LittleGrizzly]

With no guns, you will have trouble defending yourself against a stronger opponent. This puts most women in a tough spot. If everyone has guns, it levels the field.


Im not a big fan of the leveller theory... all i see is a different set of ineqaulitys...

From who has the most strength and speed and training in an unarmed brawl....

To who has the best gun and speed and training in a gun fight...

Not that we one we have with guns is preferable to the one without... i just don't see one as superior to the other...

It will also be almost impossible to defend yourself against multiple opponents.

This is one of my main problems with guns actually...

They can give you power over a far larger group of people, if someone walks up to me and my 3 friends with a knife and demands all our money we probably wouldn't give him the money... if he walks up to us with a gun... i don't see any result other than us giving him the money...

I feel like many people approach this from the perspective of, "I don't own a gun, so..." in which case it is natural to prefer that a potential attacker does not either. But that is not a valid reason when the law effects the population as a whole.

TBH whether I owned a gun or not i would prefer my attacker unarmed ~;)

I don't see why the reasoning is invalid, I don't own a baseball bat and i wouldn't want to be attacked by one but i would never advocate banning baseball bats. Guns are very different from regular everyday items like cars and baseballs bats...

Good for you - if you had concealed carry you might not be stabbed either!

Well i would much rather be attacked with a knife than a gun... so this is a good thing :)

Really? You mean those states with concealed carry that do pretty well for themselves without having criminal arms races? The states were criminals are more afraid of attacking? Watch the video I posted earlier or see the Cato link?

What I mean is that if you think the guy your going after is going to be armed then you make sure you can at least match the guy if not outdo him...

That or you kill whoever the person is before they know your there to stay on the safe side...

You are free of your neighbour owning a firearm? I'm sorry, but the "my right to swing stops where my neighbour's nose begins" doesn't apply here in the slightest. You are free to be free of it - don't own one.

I disagree entirely, my nieghbour isn't allowed to play his music loud late at night because of my freedom and he isn't allowed to own a gun because of my freedom...

It is to be free of other people owning guns that i want... whether or not i have one is not a problem... or if it was it could be easily sorted out...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

With no guns, you will have trouble defending yourself against a stronger opponent. This puts most women in a tough spot. If everyone has guns, it levels the field.


Im not a big fan of the leveller theory... all i see is a different set of ineqaulitys...

From who has the most strength and speed and training in an unarmed brawl....

To who has the best gun and speed and training in a gun fight...

Guns are easy to use. You point, you shoot. We're not talking about being a sniper or a western style duel...


It will also be almost impossible to defend yourself against multiple opponents.

This is one of my main problems with guns actually...

They can give you power over a far larger group of people, if someone walks up to me and my 3 friends with a knife and demands all our money we probably wouldn't give him the money... if he walks up to us with a gun... i don't see any result other than us giving him the money...



I would say give em the money either way...why risk death for $40?

[LittleGrizzly]

Guns are easy to use. You point, you shoot. We're not talking about being a sniper or a western style duel...

I know what your getting at...

But imagine me (young healthy male) been practising shooting my pistol for years... and due to my years of computer gaming i also have cat like reactions... then we have an old woman whose son gave her the pistol but she's never practised with it, she has arthritis in her hands which makes squeezing the trigger a struggle her eyesight isn't what it used to be and her reactions are anything but cat like...

Im going to win that gun battle all day long... something would have to go freakishly wrong for me to lose that gun battle...

Obviously thats a slight exagerration but it applies to all situations as well, arming everyone with guns simply means the one with the quickest reactions and the best shot is king, if everyone is armed only with thier fists then the martial artist or the strong man is king...

I would concede that firearms probably levels the playing field slightly, my problem is that whilst the playing field may be levelled slightly it just got a whole lot more dangerous...

I would say give em the money either way...why risk death for $40?

Giving them the money would be the sensible thing to do but i would rather have the chance to fight with a bit less risk (attacker armed with knife) if i choose to do so

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Guns are easy to use. You point, you shoot. We're not talking about being a sniper or a western style duel...

I know what your getting at...

But imagine me (young healthy male) been practising shooting my pistol for years... and due to my years of computer gaming i also have cat like reactions... then we have an old woman whose son gave her the pistol but she's never practised with it, she has arthritis in her hands which makes squeezing the trigger a struggle her eyesight isn't what it used to be and her reactions are anything but cat like...

Im going to win that gun battle all day long... something would have to go freakishly wrong for me to lose that gun battle...

Obviously thats a slight exagerration but it applies to all situations as well, arming everyone with guns simply means the one with the quickest reactions and the best shot is king, if everyone is armed only with thier fists then the martial artist or the strong man is king...

I would concede that firearms probably levels the playing field slightly, my problem is that whilst the playing field may be levelled slightly it just got a whole lot more dangerous...


I'm not an expert it's true, and I don't know that anyone could say to what extent the playing field is leveled. I do know though, that becoming stronger takes much work, as does becoming skilled in a martial art, while on the other hand when I fired a gun for the first time I was quite accurate despite having no training. It was a small caliber gun and I imagine easier than a larger one.

Your points are viable for the mugging scenario you brought up, but that's not my concern; as I said, I would just give up the money. Someone breaking into your house is a different scenario. Say it's a jealous ex-boyfriend breaking into his old girlfriends house with the intention of killing her. In hand to hand she will surely lose, but do you see how if they both have guns she has a much better chance? She can use surprise and concealment to much greater effect, when both have little use in hand to hand combat, unless she can somehow knock him out in one blow, which is unlikely.

[LittleGrizzly]

I do know though, that becoming stronger takes much work, as does becoming skilled in a martial art, while on the other hand when I fired a gun for the first time I was quite accurate despite having no training. It was a small caliber gun and I imagine easier than a larger one.

I do imagine just doing target practice the average first time shooter would probably be fairly accurate... i would say though its a little different if your getting shot at and have to make the shot to save your life... this would usually fall in the favour of the attacker (who you would imagine would be used to or more used to such pressure) or a person with significant training...

Its probably easier to get good with a gun than become strong or a martial arts expert but it still takes some time to learn what you may need to know to keep you alive in a shootout... and even then your potential attacker can still simply out train you or out gun you...

which is another point i wanted to make it could be argued that it unevens the playing field to the rich... or maybe not rich but the poor certainly can't afford the latest guns... they may have to make do with some old crappy pistol... whereas someone with a bit of money could get something a bit faster a bit more accurate .... a bit more lethal...

This i would say would work against ordaniry civilians more than criminals as you could say a gun would be a tool of a criminals trade so he would ensure he has the best tools to do his job whereas your ordaniry citizen has other worries outside of purchasing a good gun to combat criminals with...

Say it's a jealous ex-boyfriend breaking into his old girlfriends house with the intention of killing her. In hand to hand she will surely lose, but do you see how if they both have guns she has a much better chance? She can use surprise and concealment to much greater effect, when both have little use in hand to hand combat, unless she can somehow knock him out in one blow, which is unlikely.

From the sounds of your scenario it would be better for them to both have guns... im sure we could both come up with 100 scenario's where the other would have to admit it would be better to have them both armed or both unarmed.

I suppose in the situations where someone is determined to kill the other person i would rather the potential victim had a gun to defend themselves.... (in a deseted area where there aren't innocent bystanders to kill) but then in your average day to day crime i would rather people didn't have guns...

Imagine if when some kids went to mug an old lady she reaches for her piece... these kids just wanted to snatch her bag but now she's reaching for her gun so they panic go for thiers and thanks to having youth on thier side end up shooting the old lady before she can shoot them... though i also think a young mugger being shot would be tragic as well....

Now without guns the old lady might have had a nasty time of it as well, she could have got beaten up a bit or the youths could have simply snatched the bag and run... but regardless of the fact this little old lady is relatively defenseless its actually less dangerous for her to have a gun...

Edit: the little old lady is supposed to be an example of how guns would escalate ordaniry crimes rather than a scenario where we say guns or no guns is better...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ok, I don't want to promote the image that I am full on hard core gun everyone with no laws whatsoever. I just don't like the idea of banning guns.

I thought about it for a while and have come up with what I hope is a more moderate approach.

A 1 day background check and waiting period.
A safety test and accuracy test to pass before receiving a weapon, which must be passed again every 3 months since receiving the gun (in other words, 4 times a year). THIS MUST BE DONE FOR EACH GUN YOU BUY!

However....
You are allowed to buy whatever gun you may want, assault rifles, whatever you want (if you are that afraid of the government).

So, any type of guns for those not suspected or convicted, terrorists, gang members, mentally unstable etc... with overall minimal restriction, but with key tough measures on being safe with your gun and being accurate with it at all times (to prevent/curb accidental deaths when exchanging fire with a hostile madman or just preventing bad things from happening period).

Opinions?

Excuse me if I am ignorant and these are already in place. But I have not seen or heard of a law that requires an accuracy test to be allowed a gun.

[Strike For The South]

Ok, I don't want to promote the image that I am full on hard core gun everyone with no laws whatsoever. I just don't like the idea of banning guns.

I thought about it for a while and have come up with what I hope is a more moderate approach.

A 1 day background check and waiting period.
A safety test and accuracy test to pass before receiving a weapon, which must be passed again every 3 months since receiving the gun (in other words, 4 times a year). THIS MUST BE DONE FOR EACH GUN YOU BUY!


LOL. What would this do? Other than tax expenditures and bearucratic BS?

[a completely inoffensive name]

LOL. What would this do? Other than tax expenditures and bearucratic BS?

I am just trying to bridge the gap here. And it is important for people who own guns to be responsible with them. To me responsible means being able to use it accurately and with the skill to accomplish its job with no collateral damage.

EDIT: If it really was me making policy, there would many other pointless things cut so that accuracy tests every 3 months would not be another nail in the coffin for the Treasury.

[LittleGrizzly]

A quick visit to a physcologist before you acquire your gun license could be a good thing also...

Maybe after that every 5-10 years a renewed physcological test and then the accuracy test ect. every 3 months seems to short a timespan... though i could see the logic in testing thier accuracy more frequently as age goes on and also maybe physcological status...

I was also trying to think of some way that parents could prove thier guns are kept in locked cupboards and the like where thier kids cannot access them... other than some kind of home visit i can't see how to do it...

It could be another thing checked out every 5-10 years come renewal time...

TBH i don't see how much effect this would have on the problems though... do you think it would help ?

[a completely inoffensive name]

A quick visit to a physcologist before you acquire your gun license could be a good thing also...

Maybe after that every 5-10 years a renewed physcological test and then the accuracy test ect. every 3 months seems to short a timespan... though i could see the logic in testing thier accuracy more frequently as age goes on and also maybe physcological status...

I was also trying to think of some way that parents could prove thier guns are kept in locked cupboards and the like where thier kids cannot access them... other than some kind of home visit i can't see how to do it...

It could be another thing checked out every 5-10 years come renewal time...

TBH i don't see how much effect this would have on the problems though... do you think it would help ?

I don't know why you mention for them to see psychologist unless they have been through some trauma....

3 months should not be that much of a bother, I mean they can choose whatever gun they want and if they truly use it for sport then the accuracy test should be a breeze for them, if they are using it for self defense I can only hope that they would want to be as accurate as possible so when the intruder comes in he/she does not start blasting holes in his own wall.

I can understand a gun under law needing to be sold as part of a "package" of some sort. Trigger guards, lockbox...etc could be included and really should be bought along with the gun in first place.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I do know though, that becoming stronger takes much work, as does becoming skilled in a martial art, while on the other hand when I fired a gun for the first time I was quite accurate despite having no training. It was a small caliber gun and I imagine easier than a larger one.

I do imagine just doing target practice the average first time shooter would probably be fairly accurate... i would say though its a little different if your getting shot at and have to make the shot to save your life... this would usually fall in the favour of the attacker (who you would imagine would be used to or more used to such pressure) or a person with significant training...

Its probably easier to get good with a gun than become strong or a martial arts expert but it still takes some time to learn what you may need to know to keep you alive in a shootout... and even then your potential attacker can still simply out train you or out gun you...

which is another point i wanted to make it could be argued that it unevens the playing field to the rich... or maybe not rich but the poor certainly can't afford the latest guns... they may have to make do with some old crappy pistol... whereas someone with a bit of money could get something a bit faster a bit more accurate .... a bit more lethal...

This i would say would work against ordaniry civilians more than criminals as you could say a gun would be a tool of a criminals trade so he would ensure he has the best tools to do his job whereas your ordaniry citizen has other worries outside of purchasing a good gun to combat criminals with...

Say it's a jealous ex-boyfriend breaking into his old girlfriends house with the intention of killing her. In hand to hand she will surely lose, but do you see how if they both have guns she has a much better chance? She can use surprise and concealment to much greater effect, when both have little use in hand to hand combat, unless she can somehow knock him out in one blow, which is unlikely.

From the sounds of your scenario it would be better for them to both have guns... im sure we could both come up with 100 scenario's where the other would have to admit it would be better to have them both armed or both unarmed.

I suppose in the situations where someone is determined to kill the other person i would rather the potential victim had a gun to defend themselves.... (in a deseted area where there aren't innocent bystanders to kill) but then in your average day to day crime i would rather people didn't have guns...

Imagine if when some kids went to mug an old lady she reaches for her piece... these kids just wanted to snatch her bag but now she's reaching for her gun so they panic go for thiers and thanks to having youth on thier side end up shooting the old lady before she can shoot them... though i also think a young mugger being shot would be tragic as well....

Now without guns the old lady might have had a nasty time of it as well, she could have got beaten up a bit or the youths could have simply snatched the bag and run... but regardless of the fact this little old lady is relatively defenseless its actually less dangerous for her to have a gun...

Edit: the little old lady is supposed to be an example of how guns would escalate ordaniry crimes rather than a scenario where we say guns or no guns is better...

The key difference between the two scenarios to me is this:

In the ex-girlfriend scenario, it is entirely possible that she has done nothing wrong. She can't be held responsible for her ex's actions. If guns are legal then she has the capability of defending herself if she wants to, to practice if she wants to, and the chance to at least try to deal with the pressure of the situation. She might not buy a gun, she might not practice with it, she might not remain calm enough under pressure to shoot straight, but she has the freedom that is a prerequisite for all of those things.

In the granny being mugged scenario, she broke the law by drawing her gun first. The law is fairly strict about when you are allowed to brandish your weapon. She had the freedom to not buy a gun, not carry a gun, and the poor decision was hers.

I don't think the issue is how many scenarios are beneficial to the person vs how many are harmful. I have seen statistics, though I don't know if they are reliable, that people who own guns are more likely to die in the event of a break in. Viewed from the top down (what appears to be your approach), this would indicate that owning guns causes deaths and therefore shouldn't be allowed (disputes about statistics aside, I don't want to go into the practicality of banning guns because that's been done to death and is fairly one-sided). But viewed on the individual level, the death someone who chooses to own a gun and chooses to use it when they're house is broken into is very different from the death of someone who was attacked and was not given the freedom to defend themselves with the necessary tools.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

LittleGrizzly, you're presuming things and creating strawmen. While they are plausible cases, they just don't hold up to facts in general (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706) - or if they do, they are minority cases that won't have any effect on the statistical outcomes.


4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.

True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't know why you mention for them to see psychologist unless they have been through some trauma....

heh, I mean to assess thier mental state rather than try to work through thier issues with them...

I imagine most criminals would pass one i was just mainly thinking a physcologist may spot someone who is mentally unstable and so should own guns whereas they could met all the other legal requirments... like an extra lock... just incase...

3 months should not be that much of a bother

It does seem like a bit of a waste to do it that excessively, not so much for the gun owner but for the money you have to spend paying people to go around and do all this testing... surely for every gun owner in america doing that every 3 months would be a huge bill...

I suppose 5-10 could be excessive... how about yearly or every other year...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't know why you mention for them to see psychologist unless they have been through some trauma....

heh, I mean to assess thier mental state rather than try to work through thier issues with them...

I imagine most criminals would pass one i was just mainly thinking a physcologist may spot someone who is mentally unstable and so should own guns whereas they could met all the other legal requirments... like an extra lock... just incase...

3 months should not be that much of a bother

It does seem like a bit of a waste to do it that excessively, not so much for the gun owner but for the money you have to spend paying people to go around and do all this testing... surely for every gun owner in america doing that every 3 months would be a huge bill...

I suppose 5-10 could be excessive... how about yearly or every other year...

A year is a enough time to get sloppy at something. What about every six months? The goal is to keep the gun owning population accountable by making sure they are skilled with their weapons.

EDIT: Also I think the complete background check during the one day waiting period is where checking to see if customer is mentally unstable is put into the equation.

[LittleGrizzly]

LittleGrizzly, you're presuming things and creating strawmen. While they are plausible cases, they just don't hold up to facts in general (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706) - or if they do, they are minority cases that won't have any effect on the statistical outcomes.

I have to disagree. Your quoted bit talks about guns used in crime.. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. In Britian we have far less crimes commited with guns, this is partially because they don't need to worry about the average home owner packing so they don't bother packing themselves....

I don't have a paticular problem with conceal and carry... just guns in general ~;)

In the granny being mugged scenario, she broke the law by drawing her gun first. The law is fairly strict about when you are allowed to brandish your weapon. She had the freedom to not buy a gun, not carry a gun, and the poor decision was hers.

What? assuming in my secnario she knew she was about to be mugged she isn't allowed to brandish the weapon? learn something new every day!

The example still holds true as an example of escalation guns can cause... don't get me wrong knifes and other weapons can also cause escalation of the situation but guns being more effective killing tools escalate it more than knifes and the like...

I don't think the issue is how many scenarios are beneficial to the person vs how many are harmful.

I think this is where our different opnions come from... the reason im against private gun ownership is because i think in a majority of situations involving criminals your better off without guns about whereas for you it is more of a what if i need it type thinking... i think?

EDIT: Also I think the complete background check during the one day waiting period is where checking to see if customer is mentally unstable is put into the equation.

Isn't this simply a check to see if they have been declared mentally unstable... my point was they should be confirmed mentally stable rather than not have been declared stable... though that may be a little OTT it could stop someone unstable getting hold of weapons...

A year is a enough time to get sloppy at something. What about every six months? The goal is to keep the gun owning population accountable by making sure they are skilled with their weapons.

I would've thought it would be the type of skill that doesn't detoriate too quickly.. thats an assumption though... so if it is nessecary then every 6 months doesn't seem too bad... that would be hell of a workload though... how many gun owners in USA ?

anyway enough talk of guns... time to put the things to good use!

ETW here i come...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think the British should have learned their lesson about banning guns from Shawn of the Dead. They could only scrounge up the one gun from the Winchester and look what happened, all but two died including my favorite character. Just saying....

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sorry, but I can't be bothered to read more useless 'scenarios' devised by gun banners, especially those who have never touched a gun, to justify banning guns. The granny with the purse thing? The whole thing is implausible.


And why... well theres freedom to have and do things but theres also also the freedom to be free of certain things...

Like freedom to be free of other religions? Or people of different races? Or of ideas you don't like?


A safety test and accuracy test to pass before receiving a weapon, which must be passed again every 3 months since receiving the gun (in other words, 4 times a year). THIS MUST BE DONE FOR EACH GUN YOU BUY!

That's one of the most ridiculous gun-related proposals I've read. Even outright bans are straightforward.

This undermines the whole concept of having a right and freedom. It'd be a huge bureaucratic snarl. Have you ever used a gun?


In Britian we have far less crimes commited with guns, this is partially because they don't need to worry about the average home owner packing so they don't bother packing themselves....

No, it's because you have a fraction of the population. And even in the years after the handgun ban, injuries from firearms rose dramatically.

CR

[KukriKhan]

As a side note: in my town of 130,000 residents, City Council proposes to balance the budget by laying off Police Officers next month. Leaving on average, 8 cops on-duty at any given time, covering 37 square miles.

On Monday, the local newspaper reported that gun shops sales were up 62% over last year, and they had run out of .38, .45, 9mm & 30-06 ammunition.

Coincidence?

[Ironside]

As a side note: in my town of 130,000 residents, City Council proposes to balance the budget by laying off Police Officers next month. Leaving on average, 8 cops on-duty at any given time, covering 37 square miles.

On Monday, the local newspaper reported that gun shops sales were up 62% over last year, and they had run out of .38, .45, 9mm & 30-06 ammunition.

Coincidence?

Probably not, seems to fit one aspect of the US mentality to guns pretty well. The good question is if there's serious crimes in the area that would validate the increase or is it only the mental aspect of it that matter?

Anyway, time to make a serious post this thread:

It's a fact that gun related crimes are higher in the US compared to Europe per capita. The question is why and the answer is the culture. But that is a cheap answer, as it lacks the important depth. Anybody willing to tackle the issue?

Personally I would say that it's the gun culture, that guns are seen as a normal tool for self-defense. As a consequence, so does the criminals, creating an escalation of gun use. For some Americans it might very well be acceptable, but the perspective in Europe is very different.

Here, they idea of needing to use a gun for self-defense are a sign of either two things. A: either you're overly paraniod over something that are so unlikely to happen that a normal person won't bother (been suggested for the US in the "culture of fear" argument) or B: It sucks to be you. Simply put the conditions are so bad that it validates gun use. Most Europeans would put that close to the end of civilisation as we know it and want it on a scale.

Then there's another aspect of it. For some Americans it's the ultimate sign of self-reliance, that in turn are an epitome of the american dream. For a European it's a cool thingy on the shooting range.

And for some, that self-reliance seems to equal protection from the evil goverment and my guns are they only thing the keeps the goverment away (some consider this only valid the day the revolution comes. And it will come). Interestingly enough they mostly seem to rather isolate themself from society than trying to cure its ills. They are the gun owers that causes most "no compromise" issues in the US as any goverment regristration will be used against them later.

Back a bit on topic, would banning guns in the US make a difference? Alone, it would not and with very good actions to reduce the gun violence (that I don't know how exactly) it wouldn't really be needed. That's why IMHO the US doesn't deserve guns. It would probably be more effetive if combined with the unknown tactics though.

And back to some lesser stuff:

CR I would say that unless the admittably short summary on wiki is misssing a pretty big part, the book doesn't really cover my argument in the last post (that longer lasting rebellions makes the amount of weapons at the start an irrelevant issue for actual victory).


people shouldnt be afraid of their government-governments should be afraid of their people.
-V

Yes, and?

Yeah, yeah I'm just using one of my favorite counter arguments. Then again I'm not sure if hooahguy can spot the flaw.

[PowerWizard]

My statement was: "you cannot defend yourself as well without a gun" which is true. Whether you feel you are in danger is not the issue--neither do I. We are discussing a principle. If there was one murder a year in the US the principle would remain.

Violence leads to violence. If everyone carries a gun with himself/herself, the probability that gunfights are going to occur is higher, therefore boundless gun ownership doesn't lead to bigger safety, but to more violence and danger. The statistics also support the latter statement. The rate of homicides committed with firearms is the highest in the USA. That country is world-leader with 65%, followed by developing and too safe countries like South Africa (69%), Colombia (45%), Zimbabwe (39%). These are the dry statistical facts, good Sir, you can't argue with numbers.



You have the right to self defense, and that requires tools to be effective. If you give up tools, you cannot defend yourself as well, thus you are compromising one of your freedoms.

The issue with individual rights vs collective rights has been discussed before, so I'll just make a comparison.

1) People have the right to life
2) Alcohol being legal leads to drunk driving accidents
3) Therefore, alcohol should be banned

Do you agree with the conclusion?

And I will dismiss this faulty comparison again by pointing out that alcohol isn't specifically designed to kill people, meanwhile guns are.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and so do monkeys if they have a gun.

[KukriKhan]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and so do monkeys if they have a gun.

Bullets bouncing around inside bodies, kills people.

Just sayin'. :)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Violence leads to violence. If everyone carries a gun with himself/herself, the probability that gunfights are going to occur is higher, therefore boundless gun ownership doesn't lead to bigger safety, but to more violence and danger. The statistics also support the latter statement. The rate of homicides committed with firearms is the highest in the USA. That country is world-leader with 65%, followed by developing and too safe countries like South Africa (69%), Colombia (45%), Zimbabwe (39%). These are the dry statistical facts, good Sir, you can't argue with numbers.

Surely one can argue about the significance of numbers and the meaning of them? What is the murder rate in switzerland? In any case, this was not what we were discussing.



And I will dismiss this faulty comparison again by pointing out that alcohol isn't specifically designed to kill people, meanwhile guns are.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and so do monkeys if they have a gun.

Why do you think that makes it a faulty comparison? Your argument was that people have a right to life. Many, many people die from drunk driving accidents. If you argue that guns being legal infringes on the population's right to life, then you would have to argue that alcohol being legal infringes on the population's right to life. You can say the problem is people driving when they shouldn't, I can say that the problem is people shooting other people when they shouldn't.

As for design, if you insist on it, I would not that cars are design to travel at lethal speeds and alcohol is designed to make people into dangerous drivers. But again, the point isn't to compare alcohol and guns, but to use the same logic you did on a different scenario. What is your argument for keeping alcohol legal, regardless of whether you consider the comparison valid?

[Xiahou]

Violence leads to violence. If everyone carries a gun with himself/herself, the probability that gunfights are going to occur is higher, therefore boundless gun ownership doesn't lead to bigger safety, but to more violence and danger. The statistics also support the latter statement. The rate of homicides committed with firearms is the highest in the USA. That country is world-leader with 65%, followed by developing and too safe countries like South Africa (69%), Colombia (45%), Zimbabwe (39%). These are the dry statistical facts, good Sir, you can't argue with numbers.Source your statistics please. Also, 69% is more that 65% last I checked. :idea2:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Well, I think Assault weapons should be banned. I mean, these AK-47's and the variations of them out on the market. Don't hand me this BS "Well, People used them for Taget pratice and...."......

Come on people. You are A CIVLLIAN. Why the hell do you need a Ak-47? Please give me a logical reason beside the "Self-Defense" and "Taget Pratice" arguments. Those people typically can't give you one. I'm all for guns, Hell, I have a 16 gauge, and I used 16 gauges, .22 long rifles (bye bye groundhog heads :laugh4:!) and a .22 pistiol once before, so I'm all familiar with guns and I like using them for hunting and that. BUT, you don't need AK-47's.



Now, I think we need guns in general (exculding stupid assault weapons). Trust me, if I see a bunch of gang members walking at me, and I know I'm going to get gang beated, I prefer using a gun and not be the our British friends and just stand there and be stabbed or death or try to fist-fight with several gang members.

[scooter_the_shooter]

A 1 day background check and waiting period.
A safety test and accuracy test to pass before receiving a weapon, which must be passed again every 3 months since receiving the gun (in other words, 4 times a year). THIS MUST BE DONE FOR EACH GUN YOU BUY!(emphasis by me)
.

Two things

I am opposed to any waiting periods at all, Even if I wasn't it makes no sense to give somebody a waiting period for their next purchase if they already have a gun.


Also I've got over twenty different guns, that means I'd be taking over 60 test a year:thumbsdown: Which isn't going to happen.

Another thing, the four basic saftey rules are the same wether it's
a long gun or a hand gun. So why would you need to test for each gun?


The gun debate in this country is a joke, we've got people who know nothing guns; trying to set rules about them for people who do, its makes no sense.

Here's an example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo)


here's another one http:// (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ&feature=related)(there are no heat seaking bullets)



Come on people. You are A CIVLLIAN. Why the hell do you need a Ak-47? Please give me a logical reason beside the "Self-Defense" and "Taget Pratice" arguments. Those people typically can't give you one. Why do people need anything extravagant? Like mansions or cars that go over 120mph, Speakers that are loud enough to shake your neighbors house. No body ever "needs" that stuff but in a free country you should be able to obtain all of those things.

[Strike For The South]

Long time no see, sweetheart.

20 guns? All for hunting or do you have some collectables?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, I think Assault weapons should be banned. I mean, these AK-47's and the variations of them out on the market. Don't hand me this BS "Well, People used them for Taget pratice and...."......

Come on people. You are A CIVLLIAN. Why the hell do you need a Ak-47? Please give me a logical reason beside the "Self-Defense" and "Taget Pratice" arguments. Those people typically can't give you one. I'm all for guns, Hell, I have a 16 gauge, and I used 16 gauges, .22 long rifles (bye bye groundhog heads :laugh4:!) and a .22 pistiol once before, so I'm all familiar with guns and I like using them for hunting and that. BUT, you don't need AK-47's.



Now, I think we need guns in general (exculding stupid assault weapons). Trust me, if I see a bunch of gang members walking at me, and I know I'm going to get gang beated, I prefer using a gun and not be the our British friends and just stand there and be stabbed or death or try to fist-fight with several gang members.

Define an assault weapon. You are probably confused and mean assault rifle but you never know...

And I don't know about you, but I'd prefer the government not restrict ownership of anything based solely on need or we'd be on constant rationing.

[Kagemusha]

I dont think guns should be banned. My opinion is that gun ownership is not inheritently evil. Though i think that all guns should be registrated. I dont see a connection between gun crimes and legal ownership of guns. People were quite capable of killing each other before guns and i dont think restricting legal guns to authorities would stop people killing each other.

Here in Finland we have 3rd or 4th largest amount of guns per capita in the world, pending on what source is used. Only in 14% of homicides, guns are involved. Maybe we should outlaw knives because more people are killed with those over here?

[Reverend Joe]

I still have yet to see how banning guns would get rid of the problem of illegal gun ownership. People can and do smuggle them in illegally; in fact, if you are going to commit a crime it would be astoundingly stupid to use a legally-purchased gun.

So: how would making legal gun ownership protect law-abiding citizens against people who don't obey the law to begin with, and who will have a gun anyway?

[PowerWizard]

Surely one can argue about the significance of numbers and the meaning of them? What is the murder rate in switzerland? In any case, this was not what we were discussing.

How is that even remotely relevant to what I said? ˇˇ

Way too liberal gun control in the United States lead to the highest rate of homicides committed by firearms in the world. You either admit that or you ignore reality.


Why do you think that makes it a faulty comparison? Your argument was that people have a right to life. Many, many people die from drunk driving accidents. If you argue that guns being legal infringes on the population's right to life, then you would have to argue that alcohol being legal infringes on the population's right to life. You can say the problem is people driving when they shouldn't, I can say that the problem is people shooting other people when they shouldn't.

As for design, if you insist on it, I would not that cars are design to travel at lethal speeds and alcohol is designed to make people into dangerous drivers. But again, the point isn't to compare alcohol and guns, but to use the same logic you did on a different scenario. What is your argument for keeping alcohol legal, regardless of whether you consider the comparison valid?

So are you suggesting that cars are designed to kill people? Amazing.

[Strike For The South]

QUOTE=PowerWizard;2202561]How is that even remotely relevant to what I said? ˇˇ

Way too liberal gun control in the United States lead to the highest rate of homicides committed by firearms in the world. You either admit that or you ignore reality.



So are you suggesting that cars are designed to kill people? Amazing.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country"]And the truth shall set you free. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country)

[Reverend Joe]

Way too liberal gun control in the United States lead to the highest rate of homicides committed by firearms in the world. You either admit that or you ignore reality.

Actually, restriction of freedoms is a traditionally conservative viewpoint, which means that Liberals are Conservative on gun rights. How support for gun control ended up in their camp, I don't know; it must have something to do with protecting cute fuzzy animals.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And the truth shall set you free. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country)


“Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America's has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.”[19]


"20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population – New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C., and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns"[23] Detroit has 47.3 murders per every 100,000 residents.[24] In contrast to these areas, some areas have widespread gun ownership with low rates of homicide. In 2005, Wyoming had the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns, at 33% of all homes in the state, of any state in the United States[25] and had a homicide rate of 1.7/100,000.[26]

:yes:

[Fixiwee]

I wonder if there are any studies on the countries with the lowest homocide with guns rate. Why don't people shoot each other? Is the generell murder count lower or do they simply stab each other?

[Kagemusha]

Could it be that the high percentage of gun violence in US has nothing to do with gun laws, but rather it is a cultural thing. Please ´merican friends, enlighten me, but is it or is it not acceptable in American culture to defend yourself and your home or property with firearms? Thus the threshold to use guns in violent situations is rather low?

[Strike For The South]

Could it be that the high percentage of gun violence in US has nothing to do with gun laws, but rather it is a cultural thing. Please ´merican friends, enlighten me, but is it or is it not acceptable in American culture to defend yourself and your home or property with firearms? Thus the threshold to use guns in violent situations is rather low?

I would be flabbergasted if someone broke into one of my neighbors house and he didn't try to shoot them.

It's accepted practice.

[Spino]

Actually, restriction of freedoms is a traditionally conservative viewpoint, which means that Liberals are Conservative on gun rights. How support for gun control ended up in their camp, I don't know; it must have something to do with protecting cute fuzzy animals.

Yes but at some point in our country's history liberalism became conservatism (the new 'classical liberalism'). Don't ask me why or when.... :shrug:

Or maybe you can take the time to read this...

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism

These are good for the how and when.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf

[Crazed Rabbit]

Violence leads to violence. If everyone carries a gun with himself/herself, the probability that gunfights are going to occur is higher, therefore boundless gun ownership doesn't lead to bigger safety, but to more violence and danger.

I'm sorry*, but that is incorrect. Statistics show no rise in violence in a state after people have been able to carry a concealed gun in public. You've got no proof for that statement.


Come on people. You are A CIVLLIAN. Why the hell do you need a Ak-47? Please give me a logical reason beside the "Self-Defense" and "Taget Pratice" arguments.

Semi-auto rifles are more useful for self defense than shotguns. And in some cases (see 1992 LA Rodney King riots & Korean store owners) they are necessary for defense.

But that's tangential. The main reason to have such guns is to violently overthrow our government if it becomes necessary.

Also, need should never be part of the reasoning for banning things.


Could it be that the high percentage of gun violence in US has nothing to do with gun laws, but rather it is a cultural thing. Please ´merican friends, enlighten me, but is it or is it not acceptable in American culture to defend yourself and your home or property with firearms? Thus the threshold to use guns in violent situations is rather low?

A large percentage of crimes, especially homicides, have to do with gangs and drugs.

But yes, in most places it is socially acceptable to defend yourself and home with firearms. But that's different from using a gun in any potentially violent situation.


Actually, restriction of freedoms is a traditionally conservative viewpoint, which means that Liberals are Conservative on gun rights. How support for gun control ended up in their camp, I don't know; it must have something to do with protecting cute fuzzy animals.

Indeed. Rather odd. I suspect it may have to do with how the "liberals" in the US are more accurately "leftists" and as such they support gun control because it undermines individuality and self reliance - things you want to get rid of should you fancy more government control.

CR
*not really

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's one of the most ridiculous gun-related proposals I've read. Even outright bans are straightforward.

This undermines the whole concept of having a right and freedom. It'd be a huge bureaucratic snarl. Have you ever used a gun?

CR

With these rights, you need to be responsible for them. A baby is a human being, why don't we allow it to have a gun? It has the right to have one as a human. Because it is not developed enough to handle the responsibility of owning and handling a gun.
To argue that any and all restrictions on guns are stupid is to advocate an extreme that is as ridiculous as banning guns completely. I am open to suggestions, what do you want? Just one safety test and accuracy test every year no matter how many guns? Alright, present it to me. Don't whine about how nobody understands because they don't own guns and call them ridiculous for their suggestions. At least those proposing a ban on guns are mostly attempting to convince me with examples of other countries. Work with me man.



Two things

I am opposed to any waiting periods at all, Even if I wasn't it makes no sense to give somebody a waiting period for their next purchase if they already have a gun.


Also I've got over twenty different guns, that means I'd be taking over 60 test a year:thumbsdown: Which isn't going to happen.

Another thing, the four basic saftey rules are the same wether it's
a long gun or a hand gun. So why would you need to test for each gun?


The gun debate in this country is a joke, we've got people who know nothing guns; trying to set rules about them for people who do, its makes no sense.


Alright, bad idea about the each gun part. I forgot that some people do have guns upwards of 10+. My mistake. Like I said above, A yearly safety and accuracy test is more suitable and less absurd?

I am getting sick of gun owners turning me off from their side when they accuse me of ignorance because I'm not a gun owner. I know I am ignorant about guns, thats why I am trying to reach a middle, because even though I know nothing about them, I still think that people should have guns. but use them responsibly. To me responsible isn't buy as many guns with no restrictions and no accountability for whether or not it is being handled properly or not.

[Crazed Rabbit]

With these rights, you need to be responsible for them. A baby is a human being, why don't we allow it to have a gun? It has the right to have one as a human. Because it is not developed enough to handle the responsibility of owning and handling a gun.
To argue that any and all restrictions on guns are stupid is to advocate an extreme that is as ridiculous as banning guns completely. I am open to suggestions, what do you want? Just one safety test and accuracy test every year no matter how many guns? Alright, present it to me. Don't whine about how nobody understands because they don't own guns and call them ridiculous for their suggestions. At least those proposing a ban on guns are mostly attempting to convince me with examples of other countries. Work with me man.

No tests. You don't test for rights. If someone misuses a gun, then and only then do you punish them.

Upon reaching the age of majority (18 in this country) you can buy any gun you want, with an instant background check.

CR

[PowerWizard]

And the truth shall set you free. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country)

Thanks for the link that proves my point about the world's highest rate of homicide committed by firearms is the USA's. Plus the gun violence in the USA page describes a lot of problems caused by the gun control (actually the lack of it), also proving my point.

There are plenty of other creative ways to defend yourself than to carry a deadly weapon with you day and night and keep it under your pillow while you sleep. I wouldn't find it safe to live in a country where 40% of the population feel it inevitable to own a gun not to "compromise one of their basic freedoms". But I understand that carrying guns is somehow hard-wired in the American psyche. Perhaps it has something to do with the frontier mentality.


Hammerson: You know, Hertz, people love guns because America is a land of opportunity where a poor man can become rich and a PUSSY can become a tough guy, if he's got a gun in his hand. Now, I'm hopin' you're not just a pussy with a gun in your hand.
Mr. Hertz: Oh no sir, no, no I am not. I am a tough guy with a pussy in my hand.

[Xiahou]

Thanks for the link that proves my point about the world's highest rate of homicide committed by firearms is the USA's.No, it certainly doesn't. Better look again. :no:

[Strike For The South]

Thanks for the link that proves my point about the world's highest rate of homicide committed by firearms is the USA's. Plus the gun violence in the USA page describes a lot of problems caused by the gun control (actually the lack of it), also proving my point.

There are plenty of other creative ways to defend yourself than to carry a deadly weapon with you day and night and keep it under your pillow while you sleep. I wouldn't find it safe to live in a country where 40% of the population feel it inevitable to own a gun not to "compromise one of their basic freedoms". But I understand that carrying guns is somehow hard-wired in the American psyche. Perhaps it has something to do with the frontier mentality.

No it doesn't!

I don't want creative. I want dead. In fact I never want to have to use a gun to defend myself. Hunt/sport are much better uses for a firearm

Simply because a man has a gun does not mean he is lacking manhood, besides that would really suck if you got killed by him while doing your cool creative karate moves!

[a completely inoffensive name]

No tests. You don't test for rights. If someone misuses a gun, then and only then do you punish them.

Upon reaching the age of majority (18 in this country) you can buy any gun you want, with an instant background check.

CR

I understand that the concept of testing means that it is not really a right but a "privilege" technically. But a part of me wants to see at least some sort of preventive action taken. I mean, you work your *** off to make sure you don't get a heart attack in the first place, you don't want to wait until you get a heart attack before you start acting. The first time might be enough to be fatal, same thing with guns. You understand where I am coming from?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Asault rifles are needed for overthrowing governments CR. But WHY should people have them if they posed such a hazard to people. I understand you point but the same two points, defense and governament/constiual rights come up all the time. But people's lived should be put on the line because you want to have a AK-47 to "maybe" overthrowing the government.

[Strike For The South]

Asault rifles are needed for overthrowing governments CR. But WHY should people have them if they posed such a hazard to people. I understand you point but the same two points, defense and governament/constiual rights come up all the time. But people's lived should be put on the line because you want to have a AK-47 to "maybe" overthrowing the government.

Why do you need the internet? You "might" look up pedophila

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Why do you need the internet? You "might" look up pedophila


That's not the point. Assault rifles are used to kill people. Give me a good reason that saids otherwise.

I don't need one, I don't want one, and I will never get one. Only time I'll ever use one is if I join the Army.


I'll stay with a USEFUL muti-purpose gun, my trusty decades old 16 gauge my 90 year old grandfather gave me :clown: :crown:..

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That's not the point. Assault rifles are used to kill people. Give me a good reason that saids otherwise.

I don't need one, I don't want one, and I will never get one. Only time I'll ever use one is if I join the Army.


I'll stay with a USEFUL muti-purpose gun, my trusty decades old 16 gauge my 90 year old grandfather gave me :clown: :crown:..

On average, trusty shotguns kill more people than military rifles. Which you shouldn't own because it was designed to kill people. Murderer.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I understand that the concept of testing means that it is not really a right but a "privilege" technically. But a part of me wants to see at least some sort of preventive action taken. I mean, you work your *** off to make sure you don't get a heart attack in the first place, you don't want to wait until you get a heart attack before you start acting. The first time might be enough to be fatal, same thing with guns. You understand where I am coming from?

I understand - there might be some crazies, like that guy in Pittsburgh, who don't commit crimes that would bar them from gun ownership before they take their lawfully owned guns and attack people.

But its rare, and still no excuse to take my freedom.


Asault rifles are needed for overthrowing governments CR. But WHY should people have them if they posed such a hazard to people. I understand you point but the same two points, defense and governament/constiual rights come up all the time. But people's lived should be put on the line because you want to have a AK-47 to "maybe" overthrowing the government.

Liberty has nothing to do with being safe, and everything to do with being free. You either decide you want to go with the danger of liberty or the security of being a peasant.

And you already answered your question about why people should have them. Another reason is that people fancy them, and as long as those people who own them cause no harm, they should be allowed to do as they will.

Frankly, I think you're overcome by the 'hunter' mentality that those "evil black rifles" shouldn't be owned, and that most of your reasoning is emotional (they kill people!), and not based on a logical assessment.


Assault rifles are used to kill people.

SO?

More people have been killed by the .22, like in your rifle, than by assault rifles.

CR

[PowerWizard]

No it doesn't!

I don't want creative. I want dead. In fact I never want to have to use a gun to defend myself. Hunt/sport are much better uses for a firearm

Simply because a man has a gun does not mean he is lacking manhood, besides that would really suck if you got killed by him while doing your cool creative karate moves!

LOL, this nerve reminds me of a scene in the Raiders of the Lost Ark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiCVAkzTD3c

[Meneldil]

1) People have the right to life
2) Alcohol being legal leads to drunk driving accidents
3) Therefore, alcohol should be banned

Do you agree with the conclusion?

Driving while being intoxicated or drunk is indeed banned. Difference here is that neither alcohol nor car are designed to kill or hurt people/living beings.

Now you can argue that as much as you want, use the good old "Guns don't kill people, people do" or whatever. But guns are made to hurt and kill people, nothing else.

Then, you might feel you have an innate right to bear gun (lol), fair enough. To each his own. As I said, I couldn't give a damn about it.
My simple opinion is that:

tools specifically designed and produced to harm and kill people should not be widely available in a democracy.
the "it's to prevent tyranny" arguement is a flawed and ridiculous one, mostly made by people who were 100% behind Bush and his policy.



Yes but at some point in our country's history liberalism became conservatism (the new 'classical liberalism'). Don't ask me why or when....
Simply because liberalism is from the beginning a conservative idea. For a while it pretended to be progressive and modern ideology, but as soon as it had to face other modern ideologies such as Republicanism (not american republicanism, mind you, I'm talking about the philosophy), socialism and radicalism, it shown its true color.

Now, the question is, if you consider the democrats to be conservative, what are the conservatives/republican?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Driving while being intoxicated or drunk is indeed banned. Difference here is that neither alcohol nor car are designed to kill or hurt people/living beings.

Now you can argue that as much as you want, use the good old "Guns don't kill people, people do" or whatever. But guns are made to hurt and kill people, nothing else.
Not really. For starters, a large number (if not the majority, I don't know the percentage) of firearms are designed for hunting game, which are not humans. Secondly, does your statement mean the vast majority of guns that are not used to kill someone are being misused?

[Crazed Rabbit]

But guns are made to hurt and kill people, nothing else.

Then the vast, vast majority are ineffective.


There are plenty of other creative ways to defend yourself than to carry a deadly weapon with you day and night and keep it under your pillow while you sleep.

And not nearly as useful. A gun is simply the best option.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Driving while being intoxicated or drunk is indeed banned. Difference here is that neither alcohol nor car are designed to kill or hurt people/living beings.

Now you can argue that as much as you want, use the good old "Guns don't kill people, people do" or whatever. But guns are made to hurt and kill people, nothing else.



This design argument is often brought up, but I believe it is flawed.

First, you are dismissing the deaths of a huge number of innocent people simply because they died as a result of items that were not designed to kill. There are two problems with this.

1) Alcohol is poisonous, drink to much and you die, by "design". It could also be said to be designed to make you a dangerous driver. Cars are designed to go at lethal speeds (drunk driving is banned but so is killing people...).
2) The whole issue of what something was designed to do is fundamentally flawed. If a new cough syrup was designed to cure the cough, but instead killed people, would you say that it should be banned? Things are rightly banned for unintended side effects all the time. It's a false distinction.

-edit-

I should say, though I believe the design argument is flawed, I don't believe that alcohol being legal is an argument for guns being legal. I was using it as a means of persuasion. It is just as practical to say we should have extensive public transportation/mandatory biometric breathalyzer car ignitions as it is to say we should ban guns entirely. So when discussing it from a philosophical standpoint it isn't valid to say "alcohol is legal, therefore guns should be legal".


That's not the point. Assault rifles are used to kill people. Give me a good reason that saids otherwise.

I don't see why you would pick out assault rifles. If we were to ban a type of gun it should be handguns. They are the number one choice of criminals because they are concealable. I think I could be persuaded in favor of a theoretical (not saying it's practical) ban on handguns, because I can't think of a strong argument in favor of them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My simple opinion is that:

tools specifically designed and produced to harm and kill people should not be widely available in a democracy.
the "it's to prevent tyranny" arguement is a flawed and ridiculous one, mostly made by people who were 100% behind Bush and his policy.


1. While it's possible to argue whether or not a firearm's prime purpose is killing humans, it is inarguable that these projectile weapons are meant to be able to cause harm at a distance to the intended target of the shooter.

2. I disagree with you completely here. A significant portion of the founder's writings on the subject DO ascribe exactly this purpose to the 2nd ammendment. The argument predates Bush 43's presidency by more than 2 centuries. It is a continuing theme presented by firearms proponents and has been since the inception of the Republic.

You are perfectly entitled to believe the argument to be flawed and ridiculous (though I'd like to see you prove it! :inquisitive:), but please don't dismiss it as some trumped up idea by Bush adminstration apologists.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

hmm, I haven't made up my mind, but I can't come up with a good theoretical defense of hand gun legalization (ignoring practicality). You can defend your home without one, you can hunt without one, and when out and about it is mostly up to you whether to carry large amounts of money or to walk in deserted/dark places. With that considered, there are far fewer instances of self defense that require a concealed weapon, and the concealability is what makes it so attractive to criminals.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Because I want one and I am not a criminal.

Alternatively, let's ban handguns and any toy that children could choke on. Toys are unnecessary and therefore the choking hazard creates a moral imperative to remove these things from society.

I don't understand the "it's not necessary" argument. There are a myriad number of "unnecessary" items that remain legal in society today.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Because I want one and I am not a criminal.

Alternatively, let's ban handguns and any toy that children could choke on. Toys are unnecessary and therefore the choking hazard creates a moral imperative to remove these things from society.

I don't understand the "it's not necessary" argument. There are a myriad number of "unnecessary" items that remain legal in society today.

I agree, that's why I've said I'm against the assault weapon ban. But it seems to me that the presence of handguns is more than "not necessary" it greatly helps criminals commit crimes by allowing them to carry an easily concealable weapon. Isn't this the reason for the handgun ban in NYC?

[Reverend Joe]

hmm, I haven't made up my mind, but I can't come up with a good theoretical defense of hand gun legalization (ignoring practicality). You can defend your home without one, you can hunt without one, and when out and about it is mostly up to you whether to carry large amounts of money or to walk in deserted/dark places. With that considered, there are far fewer instances of self defense that require a concealed weapon, and the concealability is what makes it so attractive to criminals.

Basically, they're easy for women, children and the elderly to use, and so it provides them with the best possible option for home defense. I don't imagine a 10-year-old kid would be able to use a (relatively) gigantic shotgun as effectively as a handgun to ward off an intruder while at home alone.

@Mendelil: calling all gun rights supporters Bush Apologists is absurd; Bush is one of the primary reasons I turned over to the 2nd Amendment support camp. I don't know how anyone could go through the past eight years and not be permanently afraid of their government.

Edit: I also find it amusing that the majority of Non-US Citizens are calling for Americans to give up their gun rights... and here I thought we were supposed to be the bigoted World Police.

[rvg]

Because I want one and I am not a criminal.

Alternatively, let's ban handguns and any toy that children could choke on. Toys are unnecessary and therefore the choking hazard creates a moral imperative to remove these things from society.

I don't understand the "it's not necessary" argument. There are a myriad number of "unnecessary" items that remain legal in society today.

Don't forget the martial arts. Martial arts turn human limbs into deadly weapons, so lets ban martial arts. While we're at it, let's chop off those limbs as well. For safety reasons.

[LittleGrizzly]

Alternatively, let's ban handguns and any toy that children could choke on. Toys are unnecessary and therefore the choking hazard creates a moral imperative to remove these things from society.

The reason i don't like guns is not because you can kill yourself with them like a child with a toy, my problem is that other people can kill me far more effectively with a gun... sure they could try and choke me with a childs toy but im sure it would be far far more difficult than simply getting a gun and shooting me...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

And yet the numbers simply don't support that fear. You are far more likely to be killed by someone drunk driving.

If you live in fear of your neighbors, banning firearms won't change the situation. Especially if you live next to people bigger and stronger than you.

[LittleGrizzly]

And yet the numbers simply don't support that fear.

So are you trying to tell me childrens toys do make more effective killing tools ?

If so why don't we start arming our solidiers with them rather than these useless guns...

You are far more likely to be killed by someone drunk driving.

We need to clarify here between accidently killing someone and purposefully killing someone...

If you want to kill someone you don't get drunk and jump in the car... you grab your gun

If you live in fear of your neighbors, banning firearms won't change the situation.

I don't in fear, i would simply prefer people not to own firearms. If we had the same gun culture as America it wouldn't personally bother me i doubt...

Especially if you live next to people bigger and stronger than you.

He's bigger stronger fatter and slower... wouldn't be able to catch me to use his hands or a hand to hand weapon... if he had some kind of ranged weapon though... ~;)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Basically, they're easy for women, children and the elderly to use, and so it provides them with the best possible option for home defense. I don't imagine a 10-year-old kid would be able to use a (relatively) gigantic shotgun as effectively as a handgun to ward off an intruder while at home alone.


I think women and the elderly can learn to use a shotgun just fine. Most everyone can achieve a minimal level of fitness/strength if they choose. I don't believe 10 year old's stop many crimes.

So handguns greatly aid criminals and there are other options for home defense. Don't think handguns would be the weapon of choice for hunting or rebellion against tyranny either.

[rory_20_uk]

If you want to kill someone you don't get drunk and jump in the car... you grab your gun

In the UK, get behind the wheel. You'll get 3 points on the license.

~:smoking:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So are you trying to tell me childrens toys do make more effective killing tools ?

More children die in bicycling accidents than in firearms accidents every year. You have a fear of firearms, but you have nothing more than fear. You have scenarios, you have analogies, but you really don't have the facts on your side. The only reason I can see, from your previous posts, that you are on the side of gun control is that you are afraid.

You have no reason to be.

[LittleGrizzly]

More children die in bicycling accidents than in firearms accidents every year.

Like i said, in my previous post, it is there effectiveness as killings tools. I suppose i should clarify that i mean tools that you kill other people with... if you really want to kill yourself almost anything will do the job as theres no resistance... if you want to take someone else out a bicycle isn't going to do much good...

You have a fear of firearms

I do ?

Thats funny because i could swear i said just a few posts above... I don't in fear, i would simply prefer people not to own firearms. If we had the same gun culture as America it wouldn't personally bother me i doubt...


but you have nothing more than fear. You have scenarios, you have analogies, but you really don't have the facts on your side.

Well we have less guns in Britian so less criminals use guns in thier crimes...or am i wrong ?

The only reason I can see, from your previous posts, that you are on the side of gun control is that you are afraid.

As i specified once or twice... my problem is effective killing tools avilable to civilians... about the only thing i fear is hieghts...

In the UK, get behind the wheel. You'll get 3 points on the license.

Lol, i was thinking of that topic you opened as i wrote it, your right in that you would get away with less punishment my point is it will be a bit easier (dont need car access to them) with a gun...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Which is a bigger problem - accidental alcohol-related deaths, or sword-related murders? You seem to be saying if something is accidental, it isn't worth the comparison to intentional deaths. Should we ban swords (which have no purpose beyond killing to at least the same extent firearms do) because they might be used in a murder? Which is a bigger problem?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sasaki,
Practically, a handgun ban would do nothing, just as it has done nothing in NYC, Chicago, and D.C..

Right now there are tens of millions of handguns in this country. A ban is impractical and wouldn't stop criminals from carrying handguns.

Further, handguns are useful for protection when you're not at home. And studies have shown that crime doesn't increase in states that allow concealed carry of weapons.

And then, of course, the bill of rights specifically protects the right to a handgun.


1. tools specifically designed and produced to harm and kill people should not be widely available in a democracy.

Yet I guess that you still support the police having them. Outside of overthrowing tyranny, guns are useful in equalizing people. No longer can the strong run rod-shod over the weak.

You and others complain because these tools are designed to be effective at harming people - so what? It's the use of them that matters, what their effect is. In the US, far more people are killed by people driving cars than people using guns.

This sort of fear is simply irrational.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sasaki,
Practically, a handgun ban would do nothing, just as it has done nothing in NYC, Chicago, and D.C..

Right now there are tens of millions of handguns in this country. A ban is impractical and wouldn't stop criminals from carrying handguns.

Further, handguns are useful for protection when you're not at home. And studies have shown that crime doesn't increase in states that allow concealed carry of weapons.

And then, of course, the bill of rights specifically protects the right to a handgun.



Yes, I agree with all this. My question was fairly moot given the impractical nature of a ban, but I do think it is most accurate to say that handguns, if they could magically be banned, should.

[Reverend Joe]

I think women and the elderly can learn to use a shotgun just fine. Most everyone can achieve a minimal level of fitness/strength if they choose. I don't believe 10 year old's stop many crimes.

So handguns greatly aid criminals and there are other options for home defense. Don't think handguns would be the weapon of choice for hunting or rebellion against tyranny either.

I really have to disagree with you; a shotgun is much heavier than a handgun, which means it will be much harder to hold and aim than a small handgun. Granted, it also gives an almost guaranteed incapacitating shot, but what really matters in home defense is the fact that you have the gun and can kill the intruder if you so wish; that's enough to deter just about anybody. A shotgun is also much harder to load, so you either have to load it on the spot or keep a loaded gun around, and not everyone feels safe doing that.

And ten-year-olds may not stop a lot of crimes, but it would still be better to have them be able to protect themselves if the dire situation should arise. I imagine, for example, that the movie "Home Alone" would have been over within 30 minutes if that little kid had been able to brandish a loaded pistol.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Contrary to most threads in here, I am actually rethinking my opinion. Now I am more towards less gun control (still feel strongly that there should be at least some), because of CR's arguments. To balance this out with some left thinking, I propose that we all pay taxes to the government to give all U.S. citizens lots of guns and ammo. All kidding aside, the more gun control arguments just don't hold up in my opinion.

[Reverend Joe]

Contrary to most threads in here, I am actually rethinking my opinion. Now I am more towards less gun control (still feel strongly that there should be at least some), because of CR's arguments. To balance this out with some left thinking, I propose that we all pay taxes to the government to give all U.S. citizens lots of guns and ammo. All kidding aside, the more gun control arguments just don't hold up in my opinion.

Far out. ~D

You gotta love the marketplace of ideas.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Contrary to most threads in here, I am actually rethinking my opinion. Now I am more towards less gun control (still feel strongly that there should be at least some), because of CR's arguments. To balance this out with some left thinking, I propose that we all pay taxes to the government to give all U.S. citizens lots of guns and ammo. All kidding aside, the more gun control arguments just don't hold up in my opinion.

Probably the first time in the history of the Backroom that somebody has admitted to this.

[Proletariat]

I really have to disagree with you; a shotgun is much heavier than a handgun, which means it will be much harder to hold and aim than a small handgun. Granted, it also gives an almost guaranteed incapacitating shot, but what really matters in home defense is the fact that you have the gun and can kill the intruder if you so wish; that's enough to deter just about anybody. A shotgun is also much harder to load, so you either have to load it on the spot or keep a loaded gun around, and not everyone feels safe doing that.


There's no disputing what's most effective for home defense between a shotgun and a handgun. One of them has a pump action sound which sends invaders fleeing, and if for some reason they don't, leaves you with a blanket of buckshot that will cover any regular sized room or hallway in a typical home. The other has no intimidation factor during prep and makes a loud bang and is much more difficult to aim. Keep it simple, go with the shotgun at home.

[KukriKhan]

The answer is in the thread title:

Citizens right to own a firearm

Citizens do what they will.

Subjects do what their sorvereign will.

Americans are citizens. Many non-Americans are subjects. Some Americans wish to be subjects. Some non-Americans wish to be citizens.

Rights are either assumed, or taken. Not granted. Privileges are granted - to subjects, not citizens.

Ipso facto, after a declared right to life and liberty, citizens hold the right unalienably to use whatever means they think best to defend those rights against rights-takers - especially tyrannical rights-takers, even if they were elected.

BUT, as Sasaki Kojiro pointed out in his quotation from the US DoI, overthrowing gov'ts should never be done frivolously, or for transient purpose. It's too expensive in lives and treasure, to do except in extremis.

But, because it is sometimes necessary, no gov't should restrict the possession of use of the tools necessary to effect the change(s) those citizens deem best.



That said, I'm all for gun control; as long as I am the final decider of who gets to have guns.:)

[Reverend Joe]

There's no disputing what's most effective for home defense between a shotgun and a handgun. One of them has a pump action sound which sends invaders fleeing, and if for some reason they don't, leaves you with a blanket of buckshot that will cover any regular sized room or hallway in a typical home. The other has no intimidation factor during prep and makes a loud bang and is much more difficult to aim. Keep it simple, go with the shotgun at home.

Well, I'm afraid I can't argue with that logic.

Actually, that's good advice for me; I was thinking of buying a couple handguns for home defense, but your arguent for the shotgun sounds a lot more convincing.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, I'm afraid I can't argue with that logic.

Actually, that's good advice for me; I was thinking of buying a couple handguns for home defense, but your arguent for the shotgun sounds a lot more convincing.

Just buy autoturrets.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Probably the first time in the history of the Backroom that somebody has admitted to this.

Well, I have worked very hard to keep an open mind and consider both sides, otherwise I feel what is the point of even talking to either side if your opinion will not change.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, I have worked very hard to keep an open mind and consider both sides, otherwise I feel what is the point of even talking to either side if your opinion will not change.

I have always been of the opinion that we type short and sometimes rude essays on politics to relieve the anger we feel in our personal lives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I have always been of the opinion that we type short and sometimes rude essays on politics to relieve the anger we feel in our personal lives.

Do you feel this is bad or good? If this statement is indeed true, it makes me almost wish for many I know to feel some anger in their personal life, so that their apathy towards life and government and politics can be broken. Few things bother me more then willingly not caring about who or what is in charge of your life.

Personally, I think it is ignorance not anger that provides the fuel for rude and sometimes hate filled political essays. Maybe a combination of both ignorance and anger.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Contrary to most threads in here, I am actually rethinking my opinion. Now I am more towards less gun control (still feel strongly that there should be at least some), because of CR's arguments. To balance this out with some left thinking, I propose that we all pay taxes to the government to give all U.S. citizens lots of guns and ammo. All kidding aside, the more gun control arguments just don't hold up in my opinion.

:jawdrop: ~:dizzy: ...I changed someone's mind? On the internets? My life is now complete.


To balance this out with some left thinking, I propose that we all pay taxes to the government to give all U.S. citizens lots of guns and ammo.

Socialism...so tempting...must resist...


There's no disputing what's most effective for home defense between a shotgun and a handgun. One of them has a pump action sound which sends invaders fleeing, and if for some reason they don't, leaves you with a blanket of buckshot that will cover any regular sized room or hallway in a typical home. The other has no intimidation factor during prep and makes a loud bang and is much more difficult to aim. Keep it simple, go with the shotgun at home.

Well...
Generally handguns have more rounds in them. And racking the slide doesn't exactly sound like 'welcome home'.

I think the spread of shot at close range may be a tad exaggerated - they still require good aiming. Of course, in the end, it's whatever you feel most comfortable with.

And let's not forget the value of a good semi-auto rifle, should that be your fancy (though not really recommended in apartment buildings).

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

This isn't thread necromancy im just a bit busy to reply sooner...

You seem to be saying if something is accidental, it isn't worth the comparison to intentional deaths.

Someone taking thier own life accidently is tragic... purposefully taking someone else's life is worse...

In pure mathmatical terms i suppose thier both one life, but it is worse to have your life ended by another than through your own carelessness or stupidity...

Though i guess if your referring to person B accidently ending person's A life in an accident then thier probably pretty equal in tragedy...

TBH im not sure where i stated accidental deaths are worse than purposeful ones...?

Should we ban swords (which have no purpose beyond killing to at least the same extent firearms do) because they might be used in a murder? Which is a bigger problem?

Less sure on swords... don't really see much need for them outside of ornaments... they are a less effective tool for killing though so less of a problem...

Yet I guess that you still support the police having them.

Nope. Not outside of very specailised units...

Outside of overthrowing tyranny, guns are useful in equalizing people.

Well as i pointed out earlier it just leads to a different set of inequalitys...

No longer can the strong run rod-shod over the weak.


Sure they can, the young fit male who has purchased a highly effective gun can take out any old woman with her rusty old gun she can barely see wheres she's aiming with...

You and others complain because these tools are designed to be effective at harming people - so what?

so... it is better not to have them around to harm people...

It's the use of them that matters, what their effect is.

Well people shoot with them... and generally if thier aiming at a living thing the thing aint living for long...

In the US, far more people are killed by people driving cars than people using guns.

And as i have said quite a few times guns and cars are a silly comparison...

1) The vast majority of people use thier cars far more than thier guns, only the biggest gun nuts and those who don't drive will use thier gun more than thier car, and im pretty sure more people own a car than a gun...

2) Our western economys are very reliant on cars, almost everyone needs to have one and your practically considered a failure without one... even in america you need a car far more than a gun...

3) A cars purpose is to get you about quickly.... a guns purpose is to kill (be it animal or human)

Of course you could go on about drifting and target practice ect. but what i am referring to is thier main uses...

[Jolt]

More children die in bicycling accidents than in firearms accidents every year.

Now compare the number of kids using bicycles, with the number of kids using guns.
Now imagine that the kids used as many guns as they use bicycles.
Do you really think more children would still die from bicycles?

[Vuk]

Probably the first time in the history of the Backroom that somebody has admitted to this.

Nah, I have admitted to being wrong on torture before. :P Vuk has an open mind sometimes too. :P


Now imagine that the kids used as many guns as they use bicycles.
Do you really think more children would still die from bicycles?

Honestly, yes. :P If they are anything like me at least. :P Me and all my siblings were using firearms since we were 5 years old, and we have never had a gun stolen, never had an accident, and never had a gun misused. That is because we were taught to use guns responsibly (and we had a really great teacher :P). Bikes on the other hand, we used anything but responsibly. I have cracked my head three times, once with a helmet. I have broken my knee from biking, had the back of my ankle cut really deep and my achilles tendon damaged, been scuffed up a million times. :P My siblings and I used to looove to go cross-country biking anywhere on anything, and we got hurt a lot. :P More than once more than one of us came close to dying. :P I have also fallen into the way of an oncoming vehicle on my bicycle and almost gotten ran over.

Fact is, if something is done responsibly, people won't get hurt (often). If it is done irresponsibly, people will get hurt (often). With something like guns, I think there is a much greater motivation, and there for a much greater chance of people being taught to be responsible with them. Sure, responsible people may have accidents, I have been lucky not to have one yet though.

[Husar]

Our western economys are very reliant on cars, almost everyone needs to have one and your practically considered a failure without one...

~:pissed:

You forgot to mention that target practice is a preparation for actually killing people while driving practice has the goal to avoid killing people.

[Vuk]

~:pissed:

You forgot to mention that target practice is a preparation for actually killing people while driving practice has the goal to avoid killing people.

ummm...it is? Funny, thought it was a fun sport that I did on Sundays for fun... I am preparing to kill people? If only I knew all these years... I wonder who I am gonna kill... You are so smart Husar, maybe you know! Is it gonna be all those commies and socialist?! Or maybe I will raid an abortion clinic and kill people like I have been training all my life to do.

Sorry to be so sarcastic man, but that is a pretty grave thing you just said. Target practice does not have to be training to kill someone. Heck, I could take suicide bombers and say that driving practice is training to kill people. I think you should rethink your logic. Do you really think that regular gun owners target practice so they will be able to kill people?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's true though. Just like the total war games are preparation for slaughtering thousands of men in battle.

[Sheogorath]

~:pissed:

You forgot to mention that target practice is a preparation for actually killing people while driving practice has the goal to avoid killing people.

You're exactly right.

I plan to go on a rampage with my muzzle loading, black powder, blue light special. It may take a while, since it takes about a minute to reload.
I suppose I could do a series of drive-by shootings, since I could reload about as fast as somebody could drive me around a block.

EDIT FOR THE PARANOID:
The above is a sarcastic statement. If I was planning on shooting somebody I'd steal my dad's .44.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No longer can the strong run rod-shod over the weak.


Sure they can, the young fit male who has purchased a highly effective gun can take out any old woman with her rusty old gun she can barely see wheres she's aiming with...

Not necessarily. And anyways, the contest is much closer with guns than if you took the guns from them both.


You and others complain because these tools are designed to be effective at harming people - so what?

so... it is better not to have them around to harm people...

But they don't harm people. The vast majority of guns in this nation are never used or misused to cause injury. Just because they have the potential to harm does not mean they will.


It's the use of them that matters, what their effect is.

Well people shoot with them... and generally if thier aiming at a living thing the thing aint living for long...

Good grief. Yes, people shoot with guns. But considering the millions who own guns and the millions more guns owned 'they' simply do not shoot at people. I mean, really, just because a person has a gun doesn't mean they're going to go out and shoot at people. Shooting a person is absolutely nothing like shooting at a range. It baffles me as to how you seem to think one leads to the other.


In the US, far more people are killed by people driving cars than people using guns.

And as i have said quite a few times guns and cars are a silly comparison...
blah blah blah

It's a completely valid comparison. Unless, of course, your problem is not with people dying but with pushing a specific agenda. You see, to me, the important thing is reducing the overall amount of people who die. Cars kill more people. Hence, cars are a bigger problem. Your reasoning is inconsequential.

CR

[Husar]

Hey, that's interesting, so first you all prove to me how you need your guns to be able to kill people, self defense, against the government and all that and now you just need them for fun and never want to use them against people anyway? Maybe that's why your government isn't really afraid of you guys and your guns...

[Sheogorath]

Hey, that's interesting, so first you all prove to me how you need your guns to be able to kill people, self defense, against the government and all that and now you just need them for fun and never want to use them against people anyway? Maybe that's why your government isn't really afraid of you guys and your guns...

There's a difference between wanting to use a gun on people and being prepared to do so if necessary.

And 'when necessary' is an entirely different debate being taken care of in the 'death penalty' thread. So let's not get into that here.

[LittleGrizzly]

Not necessarily. And anyways, the contest is much closer with guns than if you took the guns from them both.

Sure the contest could be more equal it also could result in greater injuries or could allow someone to kill someone more easily.

But they don't harm people.

Guns don't harm people... I could have sworn...

The vast majority of guns in this nation are never used or misused to cause injury.

Its not those ones im worried about...

Good grief. Yes, people shoot with guns. But considering the millions who own guns and the millions more guns owned 'they' simply do not shoot at people. I mean, really, just because a person has a gun doesn't mean they're going to go out and shoot at people. Shooting a person is absolutely nothing like shooting at a range. It baffles me as to how you seem to think one leads to the other.

Errm, re read my post, do you think theres a specific reason why i said living thing instead of person, i was trying to include the uses of guns. Target practice, killing animal, killing people and the one i missed intimidation...

I did not say it inevitably leads to however... i was simply pointing out the uses of guns. Killing people is one of the uses of some weapons whether you like it or not...

It's a completely valid comparison. Unless, of course, your problem is not with people dying but with pushing a specific agenda. You see, to me, the important thing is reducing the overall amount of people who die. Cars kill more people. Hence, cars are a bigger problem. Your reasoning is inconsequential.

Or could it be that your the one pushing the agenda and thats how you strech some invalid comparisons out to make your point

Cars are nessecary for our economy, for our personal entertainment and are used far more than guns. They also give people alot more freedom of movement...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hey, that's interesting, so first you all prove to me how you need your guns to be able to kill people, self defense, against the government and all that and now you just need them for fun and never want to use them against people anyway? Maybe that's why your government isn't really afraid of you guys and your guns...

1) I never said I "just need[ed] them for fun".
2) Wanting the right to bare arms and never wanting to actually use a firearm against a person are not mutually exclusive. Really, what kind of shallow argument is that? Do you bug people who want safety features in their car but also say they don't want to crash?


could allow someone to kill someone more easily.

Yes, like the weak old woman taking out the young man.


Killing people is one of the uses of some weapons whether you like it or not...

Your anxiety over that danger in no way reflects the true danger of guns. Your fear is irrational, and based on emotion, not logic.

There are over 250 million guns in the USA.
There are less than 0.014 million murders by people using guns in the USA.

CR

[Husar]

2) Wanting the right to bare arms and never wanting to actually use a firearm against a person are not mutually exclusive. Really, what kind of shallow argument is that? Do you bug people who want safety features in their car but also say they don't want to crash?

No, the thing is if you aren't likely to use your guns then they will hardly help you defend yourself against the government. For example if guns are actually banned and you do not overthrow the government because of said ban then sooner or later you won't have many working guns anymore to overthrow the government, it will be too late...
Or maybe you think you can rectify this by legal means then maybe you can but then why do you need the guns in the first place? If they're really out to enslave you they will make sure the legal means won't work anyway so all you have left is to revolt around the time the ban comes into effect.

Cars are a necessity to move around for many people as you so often say, they are necessary to earn your family's food, I didn't know such necessities applied to guns when you just use them to waste some money at the range now and then. And I'm not even denying that shooting can be fun, I'd like to do it myself, but that doesn't mean I have to have a gun laying around at home.

[LittleGrizzly]

Yes, like the weak old woman taking out the young man.

Sure some weak old woman who has finally lost her marbles can go out and get revenge on that young lad across the road who is noisy and dangerous (in her opinion) with his car, he wont stand a chance...

Your anxiety over that danger in no way reflects the true danger of guns. Your fear is irrational, and based on emotion, not logic.

So my view that one of the uses of gun is to kill people is irrational and based on emotion...

No TBH i think its pretty damn accurate... there is a good reason why most solidiers (if not all) are equipped with guns... there is the intimidation factor as well... but the reason for thier intimidation is because they are so effective at killing pople...

So the primary reason for military's to equip thier solidiers with guns is because one of thier uses which they do most effectively is to kill people... or are the military being emotional and irrational about this as well ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, the thing is if you aren't likely to use your guns then they will hardly help you defend yourself against the government.

It's not likely that guns will be used for any revolution because the likelihood of the government banning all or a significant fraction of guns is low.


Or maybe you think you can rectify this by legal means then maybe you can but then why do you need the guns in the first place?

In case the legal means don't work. :wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:


If they're really out to enslave you they will make sure the legal means won't work anyway so all you have left is to revolt around the time the ban comes into effect.

Really? How will they ensure that? The legal means have slowly been working for gun rights.


Sure some weak old woman...

What's the point of this? Can you find any evidence that such an occurrence happens at anything approaching statistically significant?


So my view

No, your fear. The word fear is directly in that sentence of mine you quoted.

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

Europeans :rolleyes:

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

No, your fear. The word fear is directly in that sentence of mine you quoted.

So it is only my fear that one of the uses of guns is to kill people ?!

If thats the case then every military in the world has the same fear as they seem to think that guns are good for killing people to... and every police force... and every militia... and every organisation in history that has equipped itself with guns as they are good for killing people... they all share my same irrational fear...

ohh and every individual who got a gun for self defense or to help commit some crime... they share my irrational fear thats guns are useful for killing people... (or for the intimidation factor which comes from the fact that they are effective at killing people)

Come on seriously... ones of guns uses is to kill living things... im not even sure why your trying to deny this... its like me saying the toaster heats bread... common sense...

What's the point of this? Can you find any evidence that such an occurrence happens at anything approaching statistically significant?

Your point was the weak old woman can defend herself from strong attackers thanks to guns, my point was that thanks to guns any weak person can kill anyone...

[Crazed Rabbit]

So it is only my fear that one of the uses of guns is to kill people ?!

:wall::wall::wall::wall:

Let me just paste the frickin' sentence:

Your anxiety over that danger in no way reflects the true danger of guns. Your fear is irrational, and based on emotion, not logic.

There are over 250 million guns in the USA.
There are less than 0.014 million murders by people using guns in the USA.

Do try and read it.


Your point was the weak old woman can defend herself from strong attackers thanks to guns, my point was that thanks to guns any weak person can kill anyone...

CAN. Can, not will. I could dress up as a pirate and climb trees at the university in winter. But I don't.

Your whole argument is based on what people can do, not what people actually do.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

Let me just paste the frickin' sentence:

I read the sentence, it doesn't seem to disprove that one of the uses of guns is to kill people... it is something you'll find impossible to disprove... as killing is one of the uses of guns...

CAN. Can, not will. I could dress up as a pirate and climb trees at the university in winter. But I don't.

Your whole argument is based on what people can do, not what people actually do.

So weaker people never go and shoot people who are physically stronger than them ?

School kids never wander into a school and start picking off various pupils (both stronger and weaker than them) ?

I think you will find you are wrong and that people do use guns to kill people... its ok i was upset when i found out to...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

LittleGrizzly, you're doing it again. Using isolated incidents to make an argument for gun control can be a good way to rile up popular sentiment, but it is not the foundation of a logical debate.

[LittleGrizzly]

LittleGrizzly, you're doing it again. Using isolated incidents to make an argument for gun control can be a good way to rile up popular sentiment, but it is not the foundation of a logical debate.

If you referring to the one point i am making at CR he seems to disagree that one of the uses of guns it to kill people... this then went on for a bit back and forth until CR said Your whole argument is based on what people can do, not what people actually do.

What i then did was provide an example (or i just wrote of something most people know off) of where someone uses a gun to kill people physically stronger than them... which basically disproves his sentence...

That little comment isn't really part of my overall disagreement with guns just something i had to mention in my back and forth with CR if you disagree with any of my points pick them up and i will happily answer any questioning you have of them

[Crazed Rabbit]

Let me just paste the frickin' sentence:

I read the sentence, it doesn't seem to disprove that one of the uses of guns is to kill people... it is something you'll find impossible to disprove... as killing is one of the uses of guns...

:wall::wall:
I'm not trying to disprove it. I merely pointed out that:

Your anxiety over that danger in no way reflects the true danger of guns. Your fear is irrational, and based on emotion, not logic.


So weaker people never go and shoot people who are physically stronger than them ?

School kids never wander into a school and start picking off various pupils (both stronger and weaker than them) ?

I think you will find you are wrong and that people do use guns to kill people... its ok i was upset when i found out to...

Again, you miss the point. Yes, these things, very rarely, happen (and mass shootings almost always happen in 'gun free zones').

But the point I'm making is you don't base the entirety of law on a few crazy people's actions. Murder is already illegal. There's no reason to say to the 100 million plus people who legally and responsibly own guns that they must surrender their rights because of a couple whackos. Almost every single gun owner will be responsible - they simply won't attack people.

All your reasons and made up scenarios you use as support simply do not happen on a statistically significant level. A few isolated incidents are given great publicity because they are unusual and by people looking for political gain.

CR

[Ironside]

CR or anybody who are mainly interested in guns in thier use for self defense (I'm not interested in the defense against teh evil goverment argument here), would you trade your guns used for self defense, for not ever being in a situation where the gun would be needed?

This is purely a theoretical scenario of course.

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR or anybody who are mainly interested in guns in thier use for self defense (I'm not interested in the defense against teh evil goverment argument here), would you trade your guns used for self defense, for not ever being in a situation where the gun would be needed?

This is purely a theoretical scenario of course.

Interesting question. I'll get back to you.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

CR or anybody who are mainly interested in guns in thier use for self defense (I'm not interested in the defense against teh evil goverment argument here), would you trade your guns used for self defense, for not ever being in a situation where the gun would be needed?

This is purely a theoretical scenario of course.

If a gun would not be needed for self defence, then there would still be no reason to give up my firearm. I can keep it and use it to hunt or target shoot.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

CR...is your forehead sore?

:bounce:

[LittleGrizzly]

Your anxiety over that danger in no way reflects the true danger of guns. Your fear is irrational, and based on emotion, not logic.

And my point is that my fear/anxiety (its not a fear of anxiety really but for ease of contrusting this sentence lets call it so) is based on guns being an effective killing tool... which isn't irrational or emotional... its entirely true...

Lets put the gun debate to the side for the moment, what i am trying to say is that one of guns uses is as a killing tool and i really can't understand where your disagreement is with that... do you not think one of guns uses is to kill ?

Im getting the feeling with this little bit we have moved away from debating guns and might actually be arguing semantics...


But the point I'm making is you don't base the entirety of law on a few crazy people's actions.

We kind of do... only one country has ever launched nuclear weapons and any country that did so these days would have to be lead by the most craziest suicidal leader ever... but we ban nukes (or try to stop thier spread) despite the fact anyone would be insane to use one. Im less sure about America but it is the reason we ban things like rocket launchers (only a few crazy people would be insane enough to use it) and things like anthrax and the various other biological and chemical warfare methods you can use...

Probably lots more i can't think off...

There's no reason to say to the 100 million plus people who legally and responsibly own guns that they must surrender their rights because of a couple whackos. Almost every single gun owner will be responsible - they simply won't attack people.

My argument was more off a we don't need guns over here (uk)

But i think the US would be better off without guns, yes its a little loss for the lawful gun owners but a big gain for anyone who would have encountered gun violence...

Though im unsure if US would be as successful as UK at keeping guns out, US has huge land borders and even considering the population difference a far bigger coastline to defend...

All your reasons and made up scenarios you use as support simply do not happen on a statistically significant level.

My main reasons is because its an effective killing tool and unnessecary for your average citizen. That and as evidenced by arguments of 'the criminals will have guns so why shouldn't we' it encourages a kind of arming up mentality...



CR...is your forehead sore?

Lol

Edit: not sure how I managed this whole indent thing....

[Strike For The South]

My state kills 16 year old retards. What makes you think will give up our guns?

A gun here is used for sport. The self/government defense argument rarely comes up here. I use it here because thats what we talk about but to a Texan a gun may as well be a butter knife.

[LittleGrizzly]

What makes you think will give up our guns?

I don't for a second think you will... for me in these kinds of debates i sometimes imagine were discussing what policy a 3rd country (called the .org or something) should have. I don't really expect any of you Americans to turn round and decide you suddenly disagree with private gun ownership (it would be nice though ~;))

[Crazed Rabbit]

[INDENT]Your anxiety over that danger in no way reflects the true danger of guns. Your fear is irrational, and based on emotion, not logic.

And my point is that my fear/anxiety (its not a fear of anxiety really but for ease of contrusting this sentence lets call it so) is based on guns being an effective killing tool... which isn't irrational or emotional... its entirely true...

Yes, it's true guns are used by people to kill. BUT, your anxiety may be based on that truth, but it is still irrational. Just because guns may be used to kill doesn't mean they will be. Your anxiety doesn't reflect the actual, statistical danger, but emotion.


But the point I'm making is you don't base the entirety of law on a few crazy people's actions.

We kind of do... only one country has ever launched nuclear weapons and any country that did so these days would have to be lead by the most craziest suicidal leader ever... but we ban nukes (or try to stop thier spread) despite the fact anyone would be insane to use one. Im less sure about America but it is the reason we ban things like rocket launchers (only a few crazy people would be insane enough to use it) and things like anthrax and the various other biological and chemical warfare methods you can use...

Probably lots more i can't think off...

Wildly different, and here's why; those two nuclear bombings killed tens upon tens of thousands of people. Random gun shootings, the type that make the news, kill a handful of people in a country full of 300 million plus people. One had a major impact, and one does not.


There's no reason to say to the 100 million plus people who legally and responsibly own guns that they must surrender their rights because of a couple whackos. Almost every single gun owner will be responsible - they simply won't attack people.

My argument was more off a we don't need guns over here (uk)

But i think the US would be better off without guns, yes its a little loss for the lawful gun owners but a big gain for anyone who would have encountered gun violence...

A big gain? How? The guns used by criminals aren't causing violence - they are just used for violence. The criminals are the ones committing violence. Even if you did the impossible and actual got guns out of the hands of criminals in this country, the criminals simply use some other tool to commit violence.

And it would be no little loss - millions of people use a gun to legally defend themselves each and every year. Outlaw guns and you help the criminals who threaten them.


Though im unsure if US would be as successful as UK at keeping guns out, US has huge land borders and even considering the population difference a far bigger coastline to defend...

The UK, a small island surveillance state with far fewer guns to begin with, can't even keep out guns. It would be impossible for the US.


All your reasons and made up scenarios you use as support simply do not happen on a statistically significant level.

My main reasons is because its an effective killing tool and unnessecary for your average citizen. That and as evidenced by arguments of 'the criminals will have guns so why shouldn't we' it encourages a kind of arming up mentality...

Unnecessary? Because people are never attacked? Because governments never become oppressive?

So, what it boils down to is you don't have any logical, fact-supported reasons to ban guns, just your feeling that they are 'unnecessary'.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." - Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court

[LittleGrizzly]

Yes, it's true guns are used by people to kill. BUT, your anxiety may be based on that truth, but it is still irrational. Just because guns may be used to kill doesn't mean they will be. Your anxiety doesn't reflect the actual, statistical danger, but emotion.

If my anxiety is that one of the uses of guns is to kill people and that is true (i don't really see how its based on truth, it is true) then the anxiety is not irrationial. Like i said my anxiety (it isn't anxiety or fear but lets use the word anxiety for ease of use) is that they are effective killing tools, and that seems reflected that in the fact that armed forces arm thier solidiers with guns rather than knifes.. either that or me and the armed forces of many county's are idiots and don't realise that knifes are far more effective...

Wildly different, and here's why; those two nuclear bombings killed tens upon tens of thousands of people. Random gun shootings, the type that make the news, kill a handful of people in a country full of 300 million plus people. One had a major impact, and one does not.

For one nuclear weapons have killed far less Americans than guns ... but lets get away from this one as its the easiest of my examples for you to argue... what about rocket launchers and various biological agents (maybe some of the less harmful ones that you can't kill many people with)

A big gain? How? The guns used by criminals aren't causing violence - they are just used for violence. The criminals are the ones committing violence. Even if you did the impossible and actual got guns out of the hands of criminals in this country, the criminals simply use some other tool to commit violence.

Great, they can use a less effective killing tool instead...

And it would be no little loss - millions of people use a gun to legally defend themselves each and every year. Outlaw guns and you help the criminals who threaten them.

and they would be less likely to face a criminal with a gun, so both are disarmed to a point...

The UK, a small island surveillance state with far fewer guns to begin with, can't even keep out guns. It would be impossible for the US.

CCTV would hardly help the matter anyway, in my area we have 4 cameras in the town centre (one street about 1/2 a mile long) then various speed cameras (which don't help catch non speeding criminals) and the rest being inside private businesses, unless the criminal was the biggest idiot ever those camera's would not influence his capture...

But we do a good job of keeping guns out, of course the country isn't gun free but we don't have guns used in crime that often...

But as i said yes i do think the USA would have a harder time of it than the UK...

Unnecessary?

yes

Because people are never attacked?

I would rather the attacked and attacke didn't have a gun...

Because governments never become oppressive?

Well i didn't realise guns stopped dictators.... Iraq was a democracy right ?

In a modern country like America or the UK privately owned guns would make no difference to stopping an oppresive goverment the army would destroy any civilian force. I did see your thing about killing goverment officials, i don't think that would be effective anyway... im sure Stalin wouldnt give a damn about losng one of his juniour goverment ministers... or he wouldn't suddenly convert to democracy to try and stop it...

You could kill goverment officials without guns anyway... just makes it more difficult as you have a less effective killing tool...

So, what it boils down to is you don't have any logical, fact-supported reasons to ban guns, just your feeling that they are 'unnecessary'.

So what it boils down to is that you are in favour of private gun ownership so anyone who disagrees is automatically ignoring the facts and logic like you do...

hmm lets see shall we... go through my views again

Guns are effective killing tool... fact as confirmed (partially) by yourself
Arming up mentality... plenty of examples you can find of an arming up mentality, from geo politics (cold war ect.) to posters in the backroom who say they need a gun because the criminal will have one... tempted to call this a fact but its a bit more difficult as its a mentality rather than 1+1=?, but there are certainly plenty of examples of arming up mentality

and of course because they are unnessecary, you didn't insult this view so i don't feel the need to rehash it...

[seireikhaan]

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." - Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court
Do you think that such a government wouldn't just revoke gun rights anyways? If they've already abolished democracy, what would stop them from abolishing anything else that might be perceived as a threat to power? FURTHER, when they did ban guns, do you think that would stop a rebellion? Do you think that all the guns in the US would just vanish, or that nobody else would get their hands on a gun? There's all sorts of reasons to have less restrictions on guns- this isn't one of them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Do you think that such a government wouldn't just revoke gun rights anyways? If they've already abolished democracy, what would stop them from abolishing anything else that might be perceived as a threat to power? FURTHER, when they did ban guns, do you think that would stop a rebellion? Do you think that all the guns in the US would just vanish, or that nobody else would get their hands on a gun? There's all sorts of reasons to have less restrictions on guns- this isn't one of them.

Of course they would revoke such a right. However, to enforce it they would have to confiscate the weapons already in public hands as a consequence of it being an extant right. If insurrection had not occurred prior to this confiscation, the effort to confiscate WOULD be the flashpoint. That is what underlies Kosinki's point. The citizenry might still lose -- after all few individuals can afford true heavy weapons -- but an armed citizenry simply could not take such an effort "lying down."

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's interesting that even in this forum the nays have it.

[seireikhaan]

Of course they would revoke such a right. However, to enforce it they would have to confiscate the weapons already in public hands as a consequence of it being an extant right. If insurrection had not occurred prior to this confiscation, the effort to confiscate WOULD be the flashpoint. That is what underlies Kosinki's point. The citizenry might still lose -- after all few individuals can afford true heavy weapons -- but an armed citizenry simply could not take such an effort "lying down."
I must say- you've got me on that one. Although one would hope that the flashpoint would have occurred when they revoked democracy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I must say- you've got me on that one. Although one would hope that the flashpoint would have occurred when they revoked democracy.

As I would hope as well, friend.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I must say- you've got me on that one. Although one would hope that the flashpoint would have occurred when they revoked democracy.

They would be less liekly to "revoke democracy" before the people had their guns taken away. Yuo take away the guns FIRSt then revoke democracy

[LittleGrizzly]

I think a politician if he were to do it in a modern democracy would need to do it in small baby steps... any big step can quickly rise public opinion (though i do wonder how lazy and uncaring our western populations are, give us money and were good!) but small steps each with a seemingly good reason would create less backlash...

A much slower version of the transition Hitler carried out...

[drone]

I think a politician if he were to do it in a modern democracy would need to do it in small baby steps... any big step can quickly rise public opinion (though i do wonder how lazy and uncaring our western populations are, give us money and were good!) but small steps each with a seemingly good reason would create less backlash...

A much slower version of the transition Hitler carried out...

This is exactly why the NRA fights as hard as it does to shut down any gun control legislation, regardless of how sane the proposed law appears to be. It makes them look bad sometimes, but the thinking is "give them a step, and they will take a mile". Can't really say I blame them. I don't agree with their stance on every law (the gun show loopholes need to be closed), but I understand why they do it, and applaud their efforts.

[LittleGrizzly]

If they see guns as essential for freedom and they are worried any ground given will turn into a slippery slope i can understand thier principal i guess.

[Ironside]

If a gun would not be needed for self defence, then there would still be no reason to give up my firearm. I can keep it and use it to hunt or target shoot.

Ah, but the crux is that the guns use for self-defense (or rather self-offense) is the thing that hinders those uses, that most people don't have a problem with.

CR is your responce the same as EMFM or?


They would be less liekly to "revoke democracy" before the people had their guns taken away. Yuo take away the guns FIRSt then revoke democracy

Only if your dictator doing it poorly, doing it with style means that your rights disappeared long before you realized it (and if it ever happens in the US, the mind set that the first step to dictorship is taking away the guns may prove fatal if it is thought of too strongly. You may miss the real telling signs).

You take away their will and determination to fight you, that is all it takes, no matter how many guns they have. And you control the military of course.

BTW how do you do a backround check? Do you contact a goverment agency? Is it done often outside gun buying and employments? Can the nominal fee be trached back to you? Do you do search for a speccific name? Can this info be compared with the IRS data? Can more data be gathered together to ensure that most gun buyers are tracked?

Are you against backround checks before buying weapons?

[Che Roriniho]

Gosh, I don't know WHY the US doesn't follow the UK's example and ban guns. I mean, it was so terrible effective at reducing gun crime in the UK. Just like the knife ban! And no doubt the upcoming 'blunt object ban' will be just as successful.


I'm detecting sarcasm here, but I don't know why. How many people died in the UK as a result of Guns? For the year of 2004, there was 191 GCN (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm). The whole of the UK. In the Us, it is about 11,000 (apologies, the source I am using (Beurau of Justice Statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg)) doesn't give the exact number.
Given the fact that the population of the UK is about 60 million, and that of the US is about 300 million, I will times the UK number by 5 to get a comparitive size. So we arrive at 955. That is less than 10% of the US size. Oh, and the US data is just from Homicides. so that doesn't count accidental firearm deaths. The actual figure is probably MUCH higher.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

[drone]

I'm detecting sarcasm here, but I don't know why. How many people died in the UK as a result of Guns? For the year of 2004, there was 191 GCN (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm). The whole of the UK. In the Us, it is about 11,000 (apologies, the source I am using (Beurau of Justice Statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg)) doesn't give the exact number.
Given the fact that the population of the UK is about 60 million, and that of the US is about 300 million, I will times the UK number by 5 to get a comparitive size. So we arrive at 955. That is less than 10% of the US size. Oh, and the US data is just from Homicides. so that doesn't count accidental firearm deaths. The actual figure is probably MUCH higher.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

The place to go for real fatality stats in the US is the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), here is the complete death report for 2005 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf). Lies, damn lies, and statistics... ~D

So for 2005, we had 12,382 homicides from firearms, 789 accidental deaths from firearms, 221 firearm deaths due to undetermined intent, and 17,002 suicides via firearms (page 34 of the report). There are 414 deaths due to "legal intervention", not sure if this is only police shootings, or also shootings where self-defense is ruled. Accidental deaths do not increase the overall body count by that MUCH, I guess most rednecks are starting to remember to drop the magazine and empty the chamber before cleaning their guns.

Other fun stats: 45,343 motor accident fatalities, 15,635 suicides via other means, and 5,772 homicides sans firearms, 19,656 accidental deaths from falls. The world is a dangerous place.

Generally, most people in the US have come to the conclusion that what we have now is acceptable given the overall scheme of things, although tragic to those unfortunate few.

[Che Roriniho]

The place to go for real fatality stats in the US is the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), here is the complete death report for 2005 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf). Lies, damn lies, and statistics... ~D

So for 2005, we had 12,382 homicides from firearms, 789 accidental deaths from firearms, 221 firearm deaths due to undetermined intent, and 17,002 suicides via firearms (page 34 of the report). There are 414 deaths due to "legal intervention", not sure if this is only police shootings, or also shootings where self-defense is ruled. Accidental deaths do not increase the overall body count by that MUCH, I guess most rednecks are starting to remember to drop the magazine and empty the chamber before cleaning their guns.

Other fun stats: 45,343 motor accident fatalities, 15,635 suicides via other means, and 5,772 homicides sans firearms, 19,656 accidental deaths from falls. The world is a dangerous place.

Generally, most people in the US have come to the conclusion that what we have now is acceptable given the overall scheme of things, although tragic to those unfortunate few.

You had 12, 000 homicides from firearms. If the UK statistics from the same year are times by the relaytive population size (about 5), we havre the grand total of about 1,000. The statistics don't lie. I haven't put any spin on them, as there is none to put on.

Put simply, ban firearms or risk another TWELVE THOUSAND deaths a year from them. Perhaps more.

Also, am I the only one here who is completely sickened as regard to the number of firearm homicides in the US? Twelve thousand people are now dead who could have lived. That's 6 times the number killed in 9/11. And you don't even seem to care.