U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

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.