U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[Vuk]

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

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

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

[Sheogorath]

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

You're exactly right.

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

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CR

[Husar]

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

[Sheogorath]

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

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

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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

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

But they don't harm people.

Guns don't harm people... I could have sworn...

The vast majority of guns in this nation are never used or misused to cause injury.

Its not those ones im worried about...

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

Errm, re read my post, do you think theres a specific reason why i said living thing instead of person, i was trying to include the uses of guns. Target practice, killing animal, killing people and the one i missed intimidation...

I did not say it inevitably leads to however... i was simply pointing out the uses of guns. Killing people is one of the uses of some weapons whether you like it or not...

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

Or could it be that your the one pushing the agenda and thats how you strech some invalid comparisons out to make your point

Cars are nessecary for our economy, for our personal entertainment and are used far more than guns. They also give people alot more freedom of movement...

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

1) I never said I "just need[ed] them for fun".
2) Wanting the right to bare arms and never wanting to actually use a firearm against a person are not mutually exclusive. Really, what kind of shallow argument is that? Do you bug people who want safety features in their car but also say they don't want to crash?

could allow someone to kill someone more easily.

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

Killing people is one of the uses of some weapons whether you like it or not...

Your anxiety over that danger in no way reflects the true danger of guns. Your fear is irrational, and based on emotion, not logic.

There are over 250 million guns in the USA.
There are less than 0.014 million murders by people using guns in the USA.

CR

[Husar]

2) Wanting the right to bare arms and never wanting to actually use a firearm against a person are not mutually exclusive. Really, what kind of shallow argument is that? Do you bug people who want safety features in their car but also say they don't want to crash?

No, the thing is if you aren't likely to use your guns then they will hardly help you defend yourself against the government. For example if guns are actually banned and you do not overthrow the government because of said ban then sooner or later you won't have many working guns anymore to overthrow the government, it will be too late...
Or maybe you think you can rectify this by legal means then maybe you can but then why do you need the guns in the first place? If they're really out to enslave you they will make sure the legal means won't work anyway so all you have left is to revolt around the time the ban comes into effect.

Cars are a necessity to move around for many people as you so often say, they are necessary to earn your family's food, I didn't know such necessities applied to guns when you just use them to waste some money at the range now and then. And I'm not even denying that shooting can be fun, I'd like to do it myself, but that doesn't mean I have to have a gun laying around at home.

[LittleGrizzly]

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

Sure some weak old woman who has finally lost her marbles can go out and get revenge on that young lad across the road who is noisy and dangerous (in her opinion) with his car, he wont stand a chance...

Your anxiety over that danger in no way reflects the true danger of guns. Your fear is irrational, and based on emotion, not logic.

So my view that one of the uses of gun is to kill people is irrational and based on emotion...

No TBH i think its pretty damn accurate... there is a good reason why most solidiers (if not all) are equipped with guns... there is the intimidation factor as well... but the reason for thier intimidation is because they are so effective at killing pople...

So the primary reason for military's to equip thier solidiers with guns is because one of thier uses which they do most effectively is to kill people... or are the military being emotional and irrational about this as well ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, the thing is if you aren't likely to use your guns then they will hardly help you defend yourself against the government.

It's not likely that guns will be used for any revolution because the likelihood of the government banning all or a significant fraction of guns is low.

Or maybe you think you can rectify this by legal means then maybe you can but then why do you need the guns in the first place?

In case the legal means don't work.

If they're really out to enslave you they will make sure the legal means won't work anyway so all you have left is to revolt around the time the ban comes into effect.

Really? How will they ensure that? The legal means have slowly been working for gun rights.

Sure some weak old woman...

What's the point of this? Can you find any evidence that such an occurrence happens at anything approaching statistically significant?

So my view

No, your fear. The word fear is directly in that sentence of mine you quoted.



Europeans



CR

[LittleGrizzly]

No, your fear. The word fear is directly in that sentence of mine you quoted.

So it is only my fear that one of the uses of guns is to kill people ?!

If thats the case then every military in the world has the same fear as they seem to think that guns are good for killing people to... and every police force... and every militia... and every organisation in history that has equipped itself with guns as they are good for killing people... they all share my same irrational fear...

ohh and every individual who got a gun for self defense or to help commit some crime... they share my irrational fear thats guns are useful for killing people... (or for the intimidation factor which comes from the fact that they are effective at killing people)

Come on seriously... ones of guns uses is to kill living things... im not even sure why your trying to deny this... its like me saying the toaster heats bread... common sense...

What's the point of this? Can you find any evidence that such an occurrence happens at anything approaching statistically significant?

Your point was the weak old woman can defend herself from strong attackers thanks to guns, my point was that thanks to guns any weak person can kill anyone...

[Crazed Rabbit]

So it is only my fear that one of the uses of guns is to kill people ?!

Let me just paste the frickin' sentence:

Your anxiety over that danger in no way reflects the true danger of guns. Your fear is irrational, and based on emotion, not logic.

There are over 250 million guns in the USA.
There are less than 0.014 million murders by people using guns in the USA.

Do try and read it.

Your point was the weak old woman can defend herself from strong attackers thanks to guns, my point was that thanks to guns any weak person can kill anyone...

CAN. Can, not will. I could dress up as a pirate and climb trees at the university in winter. But I don't.

Your whole argument is based on what people can do, not what people actually do.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

Let me just paste the frickin' sentence:

I read the sentence, it doesn't seem to disprove that one of the uses of guns is to kill people... it is something you'll find impossible to disprove... as killing is one of the uses of guns...

CAN. Can, not will. I could dress up as a pirate and climb trees at the university in winter. But I don't.

Your whole argument is based on what people can do, not what people actually do.

So weaker people never go and shoot people who are physically stronger than them ?

School kids never wander into a school and start picking off various pupils (both stronger and weaker than them) ?

I think you will find you are wrong and that people do use guns to kill people... its ok i was upset when i found out to...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

LittleGrizzly, you're doing it again. Using isolated incidents to make an argument for gun control can be a good way to rile up popular sentiment, but it is not the foundation of a logical debate.

[LittleGrizzly]

LittleGrizzly, you're doing it again. Using isolated incidents to make an argument for gun control can be a good way to rile up popular sentiment, but it is not the foundation of a logical debate.

If you referring to the one point i am making at CR he seems to disagree that one of the uses of guns it to kill people... this then went on for a bit back and forth until CR said Your whole argument is based on what people can do, not what people actually do.

What i then did was provide an example (or i just wrote of something most people know off) of where someone uses a gun to kill people physically stronger than them... which basically disproves his sentence...

That little comment isn't really part of my overall disagreement with guns just something i had to mention in my back and forth with CR if you disagree with any of my points pick them up and i will happily answer any questioning you have of them

[Crazed Rabbit]

Let me just paste the frickin' sentence:

I read the sentence, it doesn't seem to disprove that one of the uses of guns is to kill people... it is something you'll find impossible to disprove... as killing is one of the uses of guns...

I'm not trying to disprove it. I merely pointed out that:

Your anxiety over that danger in no way reflects the true danger of guns. Your fear is irrational, and based on emotion, not logic.

So weaker people never go and shoot people who are physically stronger than them ?

School kids never wander into a school and start picking off various pupils (both stronger and weaker than them) ?

I think you will find you are wrong and that people do use guns to kill people... its ok i was upset when i found out to...

Again, you miss the point. Yes, these things, very rarely, happen (and mass shootings almost always happen in 'gun free zones').

But the point I'm making is you don't base the entirety of law on a few crazy people's actions. Murder is already illegal. There's no reason to say to the 100 million plus people who legally and responsibly own guns that they must surrender their rights because of a couple whackos. Almost every single gun owner will be responsible - they simply won't attack people.

All your reasons and made up scenarios you use as support simply do not happen on a statistically significant level. A few isolated incidents are given great publicity because they are unusual and by people looking for political gain.

CR

[Ironside]

CR or anybody who are mainly interested in guns in thier use for self defense (I'm not interested in the defense against teh evil goverment argument here), would you trade your guns used for self defense, for not ever being in a situation where the gun would be needed?

This is purely a theoretical scenario of course.

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR or anybody who are mainly interested in guns in thier use for self defense (I'm not interested in the defense against teh evil goverment argument here), would you trade your guns used for self defense, for not ever being in a situation where the gun would be needed?

This is purely a theoretical scenario of course.

Interesting question. I'll get back to you.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

CR or anybody who are mainly interested in guns in thier use for self defense (I'm not interested in the defense against teh evil goverment argument here), would you trade your guns used for self defense, for not ever being in a situation where the gun would be needed?

This is purely a theoretical scenario of course.

If a gun would not be needed for self defence, then there would still be no reason to give up my firearm. I can keep it and use it to hunt or target shoot.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

CR...is your forehead sore?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[LittleGrizzly]

Your anxiety over that danger in no way reflects the true danger of guns. Your fear is irrational, and based on emotion, not logic.

And my point is that my fear/anxiety (its not a fear of anxiety really but for ease of contrusting this sentence lets call it so) is based on guns being an effective killing tool... which isn't irrational or emotional... its entirely true...

Lets put the gun debate to the side for the moment, what i am trying to say is that one of guns uses is as a killing tool and i really can't understand where your disagreement is with that... do you not think one of guns uses is to kill ?

Im getting the feeling with this little bit we have moved away from debating guns and might actually be arguing semantics...


But the point I'm making is you don't base the entirety of law on a few crazy people's actions.

We kind of do... only one country has ever launched nuclear weapons and any country that did so these days would have to be lead by the most craziest suicidal leader ever... but we ban nukes (or try to stop thier spread) despite the fact anyone would be insane to use one. Im less sure about America but it is the reason we ban things like rocket launchers (only a few crazy people would be insane enough to use it) and things like anthrax and the various other biological and chemical warfare methods you can use...

Probably lots more i can't think off...

There's no reason to say to the 100 million plus people who legally and responsibly own guns that they must surrender their rights because of a couple whackos. Almost every single gun owner will be responsible - they simply won't attack people.

My argument was more off a we don't need guns over here (uk)

But i think the US would be better off without guns, yes its a little loss for the lawful gun owners but a big gain for anyone who would have encountered gun violence...

Though im unsure if US would be as successful as UK at keeping guns out, US has huge land borders and even considering the population difference a far bigger coastline to defend...

All your reasons and made up scenarios you use as support simply do not happen on a statistically significant level.

My main reasons is because its an effective killing tool and unnessecary for your average citizen. That and as evidenced by arguments of 'the criminals will have guns so why shouldn't we' it encourages a kind of arming up mentality...

CR...is your forehead sore?

Lol

Edit: not sure how I managed this whole indent thing....

[Strike For The South]

My state kills 16 year old retards. What makes you think will give up our guns?

A gun here is used for sport. The self/government defense argument rarely comes up here. I use it here because thats what we talk about but to a Texan a gun may as well be a butter knife.

[LittleGrizzly]

What makes you think will give up our guns?

I don't for a second think you will... for me in these kinds of debates i sometimes imagine were discussing what policy a 3rd country (called the .org or something) should have. I don't really expect any of you Americans to turn round and decide you suddenly disagree with private gun ownership (it would be nice though )

[Crazed Rabbit]

[INDENT]Your anxiety over that danger in no way reflects the true danger of guns. Your fear is irrational, and based on emotion, not logic.

And my point is that my fear/anxiety (its not a fear of anxiety really but for ease of contrusting this sentence lets call it so) is based on guns being an effective killing tool... which isn't irrational or emotional... its entirely true...

Yes, it's true guns are used by people to kill. BUT, your anxiety may be based on that truth, but it is still irrational. Just because guns may be used to kill doesn't mean they will be. Your anxiety doesn't reflect the actual, statistical danger, but emotion.

But the point I'm making is you don't base the entirety of law on a few crazy people's actions.

We kind of do... only one country has ever launched nuclear weapons and any country that did so these days would have to be lead by the most craziest suicidal leader ever... but we ban nukes (or try to stop thier spread) despite the fact anyone would be insane to use one. Im less sure about America but it is the reason we ban things like rocket launchers (only a few crazy people would be insane enough to use it) and things like anthrax and the various other biological and chemical warfare methods you can use...

Probably lots more i can't think off...

Wildly different, and here's why; those two nuclear bombings killed tens upon tens of thousands of people. Random gun shootings, the type that make the news, kill a handful of people in a country full of 300 million plus people. One had a major impact, and one does not.

There's no reason to say to the 100 million plus people who legally and responsibly own guns that they must surrender their rights because of a couple whackos. Almost every single gun owner will be responsible - they simply won't attack people.

My argument was more off a we don't need guns over here (uk)

But i think the US would be better off without guns, yes its a little loss for the lawful gun owners but a big gain for anyone who would have encountered gun violence...

A big gain? How? The guns used by criminals aren't causing violence - they are just used for violence. The criminals are the ones committing violence. Even if you did the impossible and actual got guns out of the hands of criminals in this country, the criminals simply use some other tool to commit violence.

And it would be no little loss - millions of people use a gun to legally defend themselves each and every year. Outlaw guns and you help the criminals who threaten them.

Though im unsure if US would be as successful as UK at keeping guns out, US has huge land borders and even considering the population difference a far bigger coastline to defend...

The UK, a small island surveillance state with far fewer guns to begin with, can't even keep out guns. It would be impossible for the US.

All your reasons and made up scenarios you use as support simply do not happen on a statistically significant level.

My main reasons is because its an effective killing tool and unnessecary for your average citizen. That and as evidenced by arguments of 'the criminals will have guns so why shouldn't we' it encourages a kind of arming up mentality...

Unnecessary? Because people are never attacked? Because governments never become oppressive?

So, what it boils down to is you don't have any logical, fact-supported reasons to ban guns, just your feeling that they are 'unnecessary'.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." - Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court

[LittleGrizzly]

Yes, it's true guns are used by people to kill. BUT, your anxiety may be based on that truth, but it is still irrational. Just because guns may be used to kill doesn't mean they will be. Your anxiety doesn't reflect the actual, statistical danger, but emotion.

If my anxiety is that one of the uses of guns is to kill people and that is true (i don't really see how its based on truth, it is true) then the anxiety is not irrationial. Like i said my anxiety (it isn't anxiety or fear but lets use the word anxiety for ease of use) is that they are effective killing tools, and that seems reflected that in the fact that armed forces arm thier solidiers with guns rather than knifes.. either that or me and the armed forces of many county's are idiots and don't realise that knifes are far more effective...

Wildly different, and here's why; those two nuclear bombings killed tens upon tens of thousands of people. Random gun shootings, the type that make the news, kill a handful of people in a country full of 300 million plus people. One had a major impact, and one does not.

For one nuclear weapons have killed far less Americans than guns ... but lets get away from this one as its the easiest of my examples for you to argue... what about rocket launchers and various biological agents (maybe some of the less harmful ones that you can't kill many people with)

A big gain? How? The guns used by criminals aren't causing violence - they are just used for violence. The criminals are the ones committing violence. Even if you did the impossible and actual got guns out of the hands of criminals in this country, the criminals simply use some other tool to commit violence.

Great, they can use a less effective killing tool instead...

And it would be no little loss - millions of people use a gun to legally defend themselves each and every year. Outlaw guns and you help the criminals who threaten them.

and they would be less likely to face a criminal with a gun, so both are disarmed to a point...

The UK, a small island surveillance state with far fewer guns to begin with, can't even keep out guns. It would be impossible for the US.

CCTV would hardly help the matter anyway, in my area we have 4 cameras in the town centre (one street about 1/2 a mile long) then various speed cameras (which don't help catch non speeding criminals) and the rest being inside private businesses, unless the criminal was the biggest idiot ever those camera's would not influence his capture...

But we do a good job of keeping guns out, of course the country isn't gun free but we don't have guns used in crime that often...

But as i said yes i do think the USA would have a harder time of it than the UK...

Unnecessary?

yes

Because people are never attacked?

I would rather the attacked and attacke didn't have a gun...

Because governments never become oppressive?

Well i didn't realise guns stopped dictators.... Iraq was a democracy right ?

In a modern country like America or the UK privately owned guns would make no difference to stopping an oppresive goverment the army would destroy any civilian force. I did see your thing about killing goverment officials, i don't think that would be effective anyway... im sure Stalin wouldnt give a damn about losng one of his juniour goverment ministers... or he wouldn't suddenly convert to democracy to try and stop it...

You could kill goverment officials without guns anyway... just makes it more difficult as you have a less effective killing tool...

So, what it boils down to is you don't have any logical, fact-supported reasons to ban guns, just your feeling that they are 'unnecessary'.

So what it boils down to is that you are in favour of private gun ownership so anyone who disagrees is automatically ignoring the facts and logic like you do...

hmm lets see shall we... go through my views again

Guns are effective killing tool... fact as confirmed (partially) by yourself
Arming up mentality... plenty of examples you can find of an arming up mentality, from geo politics (cold war ect.) to posters in the backroom who say they need a gun because the criminal will have one... tempted to call this a fact but its a bit more difficult as its a mentality rather than 1+1=?, but there are certainly plenty of examples of arming up mentality

and of course because they are unnessecary, you didn't insult this view so i don't feel the need to rehash it...

[seireikhaan]

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." - Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court

Do you think that such a government wouldn't just revoke gun rights anyways? If they've already abolished democracy, what would stop them from abolishing anything else that might be perceived as a threat to power? FURTHER, when they did ban guns, do you think that would stop a rebellion? Do you think that all the guns in the US would just vanish, or that nobody else would get their hands on a gun? There's all sorts of reasons to have less restrictions on guns- this isn't one of them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Do you think that such a government wouldn't just revoke gun rights anyways? If they've already abolished democracy, what would stop them from abolishing anything else that might be perceived as a threat to power? FURTHER, when they did ban guns, do you think that would stop a rebellion? Do you think that all the guns in the US would just vanish, or that nobody else would get their hands on a gun? There's all sorts of reasons to have less restrictions on guns- this isn't one of them.

Of course they would revoke such a right. However, to enforce it they would have to confiscate the weapons already in public hands as a consequence of it being an extant right. If insurrection had not occurred prior to this confiscation, the effort to confiscate WOULD be the flashpoint. That is what underlies Kosinki's point. The citizenry might still lose -- after all few individuals can afford true heavy weapons -- but an armed citizenry simply could not take such an effort "lying down."

[ICantSpellDawg]

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