U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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

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



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

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

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

[Kagemusha]

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

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

[Reverend Joe]

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

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

[PowerWizard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Strike For The South]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country"]QUOTE=PowerWizard;2202561]How is that even remotely relevant to what I said? ˇˇ

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



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

And the truth shall set you free.

[Reverend Joe]

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

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And the truth shall set you free.

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

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

[Fixiwee]

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

[Kagemusha]

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

It's accepted practice.

[Spino]

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

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

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CR
*not really

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

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

CR

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

Two things

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


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

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


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

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

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

CR

[PowerWizard]

And the truth shall set you free.

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

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

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

[Xiahou]

Thanks for the link that proves my point about the world's highest rate of homicide committed by firearms is the USA's.

No, it certainly doesn't. Better look again.

[Strike For The South]

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

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

No it doesn't!

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

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

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

CR

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

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

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

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

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


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

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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

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


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

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assault rifles are used to kill people.

SO?

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

CR

[PowerWizard]

No it doesn't!

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

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

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

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

[Meneldil]

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

Do you agree with the conclusion?

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

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

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

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.

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

Simply because liberalism is from the beginning a conservative idea. For a while it pretended to be progressive and modern ideology, but as soon as it had to face other modern ideologies such as Republicanism (not american republicanism, mind you, I'm talking about the philosophy), socialism and radicalism, it shown its true color.

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

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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

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

Not really. For starters, a large number (if not the majority, I don't know the percentage) of firearms are designed for hunting game, which are not humans. Secondly, does your statement mean the vast majority of guns that are not used to kill someone are being misused?

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

Then the vast, vast majority are ineffective.

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

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

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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

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

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

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

-edit-

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

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My simple opinion is that:

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! ), but please don't dismiss it as some trumped up idea by Bush adminstration apologists.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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