U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

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_L...nservatism.pdf

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scooter_the_shooter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

And the truth shall set you free.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|R|AntiWarmanCake88

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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:..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|R|AntiWarmanCake88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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:

1. tools specifically designed and produced to harm and kill people should not be widely available in a democracy.
2. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino"

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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?

Quote:

---

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

---

Then the vast, vast majority are ineffective.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by warman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

My simple opinion is that:

1. tools specifically designed and produced to harm and kill people should not be widely available in a democracy.
2. 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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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...

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.

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... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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.

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...

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Far out. ~D

You gotta love the marketplace of ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

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.

The answer is in the thread title:

Quote:

---

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.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

~: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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

~: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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.

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...

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

could allow someone to kill someone more easily.

---

Yes, like the weak old woman taking out the young man.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

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 ?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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...

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, 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

: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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Interesting question. I'll get back to you.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

CR...is your forehead sore?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:bounce:

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....

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.

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 ~;))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

[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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

"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

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

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."

It's interesting that even in this forum the nays have it.