U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[Megalos]

Here. I support the right of American citizens to bear arms, and I would support a right to bear arms here in Germany as well.

That article was written in 2000.....

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That article was written in 2000.....

Which is completely irrelevant.

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

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

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

From WikiAnswers. It isn't as if more gun control would help these children. Regardless, even if it did help them, the Second Amendment needs to stay. Why? Here you go.

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

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

[Megalos]

Which is completely irrelevant.







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

From WikiAnswers. It isn't as if more gun control would help these children. Regardless, even if it did help them, the Second Amendment needs to stay. Why? Here you go.



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

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

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

[seireikhaan]

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

[Sheogorath]

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

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

Golly gee wilikers.

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

[Whacker]

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

I'd agree completely here. However...

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

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

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

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

[PowerWizard]

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

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

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Che Roriniho]

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

I'm detecting sarcasm here, but I don't know why. How many people died in the UK as a result of Guns? For the year of 2004, there was 191 GCN. The whole of the UK. In the Us, it is about 11,000 (apologies, the source I am using (Beurau of Justice Statistics) doesn't give the exact number.
Given the fact that the population of the UK is about 60 million, and that of the US is about 300 million, I will times the UK number by 5 to get a comparitive size. So we arrive at 955. That is less than 10% of the US size. Oh, and the US data is just from Homicides. so that doesn't count accidental firearm deaths. The actual figure is probably MUCH higher.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

[drone]

I'm detecting sarcasm here, but I don't know why. How many people died in the UK as a result of Guns? For the year of 2004, there was 191 GCN. The whole of the UK. In the Us, it is about 11,000 (apologies, the source I am using (Beurau of Justice Statistics) doesn't give the exact number.
Given the fact that the population of the UK is about 60 million, and that of the US is about 300 million, I will times the UK number by 5 to get a comparitive size. So we arrive at 955. That is less than 10% of the US size. Oh, and the US data is just from Homicides. so that doesn't count accidental firearm deaths. The actual figure is probably MUCH higher.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

The place to go for real fatality stats in the US is the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), here is the complete death report for 2005. Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

So for 2005, we had 12,382 homicides from firearms, 789 accidental deaths from firearms, 221 firearm deaths due to undetermined intent, and 17,002 suicides via firearms (page 34 of the report). There are 414 deaths due to "legal intervention", not sure if this is only police shootings, or also shootings where self-defense is ruled. Accidental deaths do not increase the overall body count by that MUCH, I guess most rednecks are starting to remember to drop the magazine and empty the chamber before cleaning their guns.

Other fun stats: 45,343 motor accident fatalities, 15,635 suicides via other means, and 5,772 homicides sans firearms, 19,656 accidental deaths from falls. The world is a dangerous place.

Generally, most people in the US have come to the conclusion that what we have now is acceptable given the overall scheme of things, although tragic to those unfortunate few.

[Che Roriniho]

The place to go for real fatality stats in the US is the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), here is the complete death report for 2005. Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

So for 2005, we had 12,382 homicides from firearms, 789 accidental deaths from firearms, 221 firearm deaths due to undetermined intent, and 17,002 suicides via firearms (page 34 of the report). There are 414 deaths due to "legal intervention", not sure if this is only police shootings, or also shootings where self-defense is ruled. Accidental deaths do not increase the overall body count by that MUCH, I guess most rednecks are starting to remember to drop the magazine and empty the chamber before cleaning their guns.

Other fun stats: 45,343 motor accident fatalities, 15,635 suicides via other means, and 5,772 homicides sans firearms, 19,656 accidental deaths from falls. The world is a dangerous place.

Generally, most people in the US have come to the conclusion that what we have now is acceptable given the overall scheme of things, although tragic to those unfortunate few.

You had 12, 000 homicides from firearms. If the UK statistics from the same year are times by the relaytive population size (about 5), we havre the grand total of about 1,000. The statistics don't lie. I haven't put any spin on them, as there is none to put on.

Put simply, ban firearms or risk another TWELVE THOUSAND deaths a year from them. Perhaps more.

Also, am I the only one here who is completely sickened as regard to the number of firearm homicides in the US? Twelve thousand people are now dead who could have lived. That's 6 times the number killed in 9/11. And you don't even seem to care.

[drone]

You had 12, 000 homicides from firearms. If the UK statistics from the same year are times by the relaytive population size (about 5), we havre the grand total of about 1,000. The statistics don't lie. I haven't put any spin on them, as there is none to put on.

Put simply, ban firearms or risk another TWELVE THOUSAND deaths a year from them. Perhaps more.

Also, am I the only one here who is completely sickened as regard to the number of firearm homicides in the US? Twelve thousand people are now dead who could have lived. That's 6 times the number killed in 9/11. And you don't even seem to care.

6 times the number killed in 9/11, which shows what amateurs AQ really are. Americans are way better at offing ourselves than a bunch of religious nuts from the Middle East. And yet we still gave away our civil liberties due to that little statistical blip back in 2001.

Considering how the UK government has been treating it's subjects over the past 20 years, I think we'll be more than happy to keep the implied threat of citizenry revolt going. Even if it's empty.

We care, we have just decided that it is an acceptable price of keeping our government officials on their toes. They are the ones failing in their duty anyway, if the existing guns laws were enforced properly the death toll would be significantly reduced.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I always get ignored here.

Fine, here you go.

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

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

[seireikhaan]

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

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

Awesome.

[Strike For The South]

Awesome.

Don't be such a drama queen.

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

[Hooahguy]

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

[seireikhaan]

Don't be such a drama queen.

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

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

Why?

[Strike For The South]

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


Why?

Thank you.

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

Awesome.

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

[seireikhaan]

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

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

Gov't = bad is a generalization.

[Hooahguy]

Gov't = bad is a generalization.

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

Gov't = bad is a generalization.

Not if you agree with Thomas Paine:

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