Guns?

[stopharian]

SO the Supreme court is going to be considering the constitutionality of the hand gun ban in Washington DC. From what I understand, the issue is based upon 2 interpretations of the 2nd ammendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Some scholars view the first clause as a preamble to the second clause which does not modify it or place any conditions on the right to bear arms, but others say that the right to bear arms is conditional upon membership in a militia.

In a more casual light, what about you? Do you own guns? Are you adamant that you keep your guns, or are you willing to see more bans placed on gun ownership? Additionally, What is a militia? Are they supposed to protect our govenment from invaders or do they protect us from the government?

Poll to Follow

[eyebyte_atWork]

I dont own any guns but I feel that it should be a persons fundamental right to own them

[fresh]

Don't own a gun but do enjoy target shooting and used to hunt.

How would the founding fathers intend "the people" to be interpreted?

I prefer that all my friends and neighbors be armed to the teeth. It's a worthwhile economical pursuit.

If gun bans go much further I will give up all faith in the system.

[rhinosaur]

I don't own any, but I've considered buying them. I think that there are vastly more people who use them responsibly than there are people who use them irresponsibly. I don't think there should be a ban on guns; I don't think there should be a ban on anything.

[Swordguy]

I don't understand why anyone needs to own a gun. Is it for protection? I've met one American who was allowed to carry a concealed fire arm, and refused to leave the house without it. Even though he's never had to use it.

I appreciate guns as toys at the range. Not as any form of weapon (at home). Of course . . . I'm more of a sword guy.

[Anonymous]

Not sure where I stand on the issue. I don't own any guns, though, and I can say for certain that I don't like the idea of innocent people being shot.

[rawr]

Mac 11? It doesn't have an auto sear though, so it's not fully auto. It just looks like it's straight out of Compton.

[earwax]

Don't own any guns. Don't really mind if anyone else does.

[Eye-In-TiPi]

I have a rifle that I keep for those rare times when I go deer hunting. It's technically an assault rifle, (a Chinese made SKS) but with the 10-round clip that comes with it, it's just a huntin' rifle. I also have a small handgun that I keep in case a burglar breaks into my house. I believe that the founding fathers of our nation had the right idea giving the people the right to bear arms. I also checked that I live in a country that restricts gun ownership because there are laws in the U.S. that prevent some people from owning them. Felons, mentally ill people, and the young are not allowed to own firearms.

[Methofelis]

I only have one revolver at the moment, but plan on getting more in the near future, most likely a rifle or a Smith & Wesson .45

I was raised with guns and weapons, (military, rangers and police officers abound in my family) so I am at home with a gun and knives.

I don't think they're for everyone, but I feel more comfortable with one or more.

[Rhu]

In a more casual light, what about you? Do you own guns? Are you adamant that you keep your guns, or are you willing to see more bans placed on gun ownership?
Though the constitutionality of handgun ownership is an interesting question, the controls on it don't really make sense here in DC. The city itself sprawls out into Maryland--to the point that you don't really notice in some places that you're crossing a border into gun-enabled territory.

If you were in DC and wanted to bring guns of any sort into the city it's not like there's police checkpoints along the border to stop you.

If this ban gets overturned, would there be any change in my feeling of relative safety if I was walking around at two in the morning? Nope.

Additionally, What is a militia? Are they supposed to protect our government from invaders or do they protect us from the government?
Historically? Yes.

[Faust06]

I think they're fine for hunting. Otherwise, there's no valid reason to own one in my mind.

[hardkar]

I'm in favour of gun restrictions. I don't own any guns myself but my father has a couple of hunting rifles.
I don't think weapons like hand guns, machine guns, samurai swords whatever have anything to do in a civilised society. They bring more pain than gain.

[Oso Mocoso]

I think they're fine for hunting. Otherwise, there's no valid reason to own one in my mind.

Clearly you've never lived in an area where there are predatory animals who might become interested in eating your kids.

[stopharian]

I'm in favour of gun restrictions. I don't own any guns myself but my father has a couple of hunting rifles.
I don't think weapons like hand guns, machine guns, samurai swords whatever have anything to do in a civilised society. They bring more pain than gain.

So you're for anti knife laws as well.


I remember buying some hashish from some drug dealers in Florence once on the back steps of San Lorenzo. They all jumped back when I pulled out a folding pocket knife to help cut one of the blocks of hash. They told me I was risking problems by owning a knife whose blade was marginally longer than the width of my four fingers when held together( this was in like '97)

Somehow I felt the information was a bit ironic during a drug deal.

[jyakulis]

prohibition is worthless.

it kills the supply not the demand. criminals will have guns regardless. all it will do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. the second amendment wasn't put in place so you could go hunting.

[Utopmk]

prohibition is worthless.

it kills the supply not the demand. criminals will have guns regardless. all it will do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. the second amendment wasn't put in place so you could go hunting.

Quite.

I am not going to boast about the guns I have, mainly because I don't want anyone taking an inventory, but I have enough to form a small militia.

I completely object to gun control.

[Stoned_Rider]

I'm pretty sure it's illegal over here, except for shotguns used for hunting. I don't think guns have ever been an issue here, not even with criminals (except in some very rare cases of course, plus terrorists).

As for whether I think they should be prohibited - not at all. However I'm all for background checks and the like for potential buyers.

Moved from Philosophy & Spirituality.

[outmywindow]

Though technically they're my father's, I enjoy going to the range whenever I'm home, so I use and view firearms as if I were an owner. I do plan on procuring them in the future, but as I do not have a car, I'm not exactly interested in boarding the city bus with a rifle in hand, no matter how well secured and locked up it may be.

Oh, and for the record I chose both 'utilitarian' and 'hand.'

[Hayquipa]

I would like to own a handgun just in case. I don`t think one should prohibit gun ownership, because if you really want one you will get one anyway. If it is legal it is easier having control on who owns what.

[NoahFence]

While I support the founding father's intent and admire them for building in safeguards against corrupt politicians and military coups, I don't think anyone is really going to be defeating the US Military with a militia armed with rifles and pickup trucks.

It was easier back in the day, when all the British had were rifles and the occasional cannon. If we followed the founders' intent, we should all have access to antitank mines and SAM batteries. These popguns aren't going to do us much good if Bush pulls a Musharraf and we want to force him out. We need to bear us some REAL muthafukin arms!

[SensEye]

all it will do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.And we all know law abiding citizens never act stupid, lose their temper, get drunk or are otherwise careless around their firearms.

[rawr]

And we all know law abiding citizens never act stupid, lose their temper, get drunk or are otherwise careless around their firearms.

Technically if they did they wouldn't be law abiding citizens. So, no they dont:P

[Karl]

I honestly haven't made up my mind about this at all. I don't really care what the constitution says; that isn't a factor to me.

I see benefits both ways.

[jyakulis]

And we all know law abiding citizens never act stupid, lose their temper, get drunk or are otherwise careless around their firearms.

yeah so? the world isn't perfect. what are we going to bar free speech because somewhere down the line someone might say something stupid? are we going to start trying people and searching peoples houses without probable cause (wait we already do that). you're argument is based on what someone may or may not do in the future. this is the ultimate nanny state like the 2nd great teacher that doesn't let students have rubber bands because some bad apples shot them at some people.

i don't even own any guns. but why should i infringe on someone elses personal liberty just because i think they are unsafe. so, anything you don't agree with should be banned mmmkay.

[Karl]

yeah so? the world isn't perfect. what are we going to bar free speech because somewhere down the line someone might say something stupid? are we going to start trying people and searching peoples houses without probable cause (wait we already do that). you're argument is based on what someone may or may not do in the future. this is the ultimate nanny state like the 2nd great teacher that doesn't let students have rubber bands because some bad apples shot them at some people.

i don't even own any guns. but why should i infringe on someone elses personal liberty just because i think they are unsafe. so, anything you don't agree with should be banned mmmkay.

I don't believe in free speech. By that I mean I don't think it's real. I think we are censored, mass media is carefully controlled, and much of what people think is conditioned by education and the media. (often without them noticing) The internet is offering some new freedom in a way that wasn't available before, but even the internet is heavily censored. The US actually has a lot of influence over the .com domain and has been blocking and removing many sites from there. Obviously there's more they could remove that they're not, but they're essentially taking a step back from China and making sure most people don't notice what's being done.

So basically I don't like the way you're approaching it. It's a sort of linear freedom----less freedom, and linear thinking doesn't apply to instances like these. Better questions are:
Why do people need guns?
What historically has caused people to get guns?
What do most people use guns for?
What would be the result of removing guns?
These things considered, which outcome is the most preferable?

So here your goals come in... Simple example, if you want to lower suicides, gun control will do it. If you care about this more than the drawbacks, then you go with gun control.

Now, people want to portray gun control is part of some sort of government conspiracy to remove people's rights, or at least what amounts to a de facto attempt at setting a precedence with messing with people. The idea is that if we let the government institute gun control, then the government will worry less about internet censorship of individuals like "bloggers," etc, and it will have a sort of avalanche effect. The issue here is... our government is approaching the problem in a linear fashion too! So there's actually some partial logic to this view, but if we have a government that approaches issues in a scientific manner, the conspiracy idea falls on its face, and we can safely examine the effects and concrete connections (not superficially imposed connections) of gun control.

So to me a bigger issue is how we get governments to approach issues in a scientific manner.

[thod]

i don't even own any guns. but why should i infringe on someone elses personal liberty just because i think they are unsafe. so, anything you don't agree with should be banned mmmkay.


You can own a howitzer that can shell the white house from 30 miles off quite legally but you cant fill the shells with nerve gas. How is that reasonable? It every citizens right to own drums anthrax and other weapons of mass destruction too. I mean what is a man supposed to do if he is attacked by an enemy armored division. Its not like he is going to have enough bullets to defend his property. Are we supposed to just sit at home and shoot at bombers with hand guns. A missile battery in every home is an American right, granted by God. Hell, if the neighbor's kid strays onto my property he made that choice. Nobody forced him to do it and he knew the risks. There aint nothing like looking down the barrel of a gun to remind people to say please and thanks. Respect.

[Nighthawk]

How about "I'm not a gun nut, and I own assault weapons" as a category. I don't consider myself a gun nut, but I have an AK47.

[mgb]

yeah so? the world isn't perfect. what are we going to bar free speech because somewhere down the line someone might say something stupid? are we going to start trying people and searching peoples houses without probable cause (wait we already do that). you're argument is based on what someone may or may not do in the future. this is the ultimate nanny state like the 2nd great teacher that doesn't let students have rubber bands because some bad apples shot them at some people.

i don't even own any guns. but why should i infringe on someone elses personal liberty just because i think they are unsafe. so, anything you don't agree with should be banned mmmkay.

Sorry, but by in large, most laws are legislating morality and stupidity. It's just what they do. You can call it a nanny state, or just say that stupidity has to be legislated.

People are kind of dancing around something interesting here. How would you feel about gun ownership being more loosely restricted and heavier restrictions being placed on the manufacturers of firearms with regards to what they can produce and sell in the first place?

It's interesting seeing the arguments around gun control because they seem to be having two different discussions. One is about the guns themselves (pro-gun control) and the other one seems to be about the rights of people (anti-gun control). It seems like there is room to satisfy both of those things.

[Hustler]

I hate this poll because there's no "I have lived my entire life not caring about this issue and will continue to do so" option.

[stopharian]

How about "I'm not a gun nut, and I own assault weapons" as a category. I don't consider myself a gun nut, but I have an AK47.

Military Background Breeds familiarity and so we'll grant you a special dispensation to be an non gun nut assault rifle owner.

[jyakulis]

Sorry, but by in large, most laws are legislating morality and stupidity. It's just what they do. You can call it a nanny state, or just say that stupidity has to be legislated.

People are kind of dancing around something interesting here. How would you feel about gun ownership being more loosely restricted and heavier restrictions being placed on the manufacturers of firearms with regards to what they can produce and sell in the first place?

It's interesting seeing the arguments around gun control because they seem to be having two different discussions. One is about the guns themselves (pro-gun control) and the other one seems to be about the rights of people (anti-gun control). It seems like there is room to satisfy both of those things.

i don't understand what you mean by legislation for stupidity.

there already is gun control. the supreme court hearing is about prohibition. the plaintiff agreed that some control was ok as long as it was reasonable.

i personally think it is a slippery slope anytime you give the federal government the power to control anything because they clamp down more and more. first you have to get a liscence, which i generally agree with. then it's a waiting period. then a criminal background. then they are going to check your past medical history. then they'll check to see if you are in their terrorist database. and with things like mental illness how far are you planning on going.

i think the founders intent was pretty clear: http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/general/FoundersQuotes.htm

here are quotes from anti-gun founding fathers: http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/general/AntiGunFounders.htm

[stopharian]

What do most people use guns for?
What would be the result of removing guns?
These things considered, which outcome is the most preferable?

So here your goals come in... Simple example, if you want to lower suicides, gun control will do it. If you care about this more than the drawbacks, then you go with gun control.



Your simple example doesn't follow simply because the statistics don't bear it out. There are more than a handful of countries who don't allow firearms and yet have much higher suicide rates than countries that do. We're not talking about isolated instance here. 2 examples that have higher suicide rates than the US, would be China, the worlds largest country by population and Japan, the worlds second largest economy. At the same time another populous country , Brazil, has a suicide rate 1/4th as high as China and 1/6th as high as Japan, yet the populace there are allowed to own guns. Back to the drawing board.

[mgb]

i don't understand what you mean by legislation for stupidity.
I hope that's a joke.




there already is gun control. the supreme court hearing is about prohibition. the plaintiff agreed that some control was ok as long as it was reasonable.

i personally think it is a slippery slope anytime you give the federal government the power to control anything because they clamp down more and more. first you have to get a liscence, which i generally agree with. then it's a waiting period. then a criminal background. then they are going to check your past medical history. then they'll check to see if you are in their terrorist database. and with things like mental illness how far are you planning on going.

i think the founders intent was pretty clear: http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/general/FoundersQuotes.htm

here are quotes from anti-gun founding fathers: http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/general/AntiGunFounders.htm

Is there really gun control? I mean, I hear a lot of stuff about lawful citizens and right to bear arms and the right to protect yourself, but I'm pretty sure there isn't some sort of gang banger meth lab type place where they make guns instead of drugs.

Also, I'm pretty sure that gun availability and registration varies wildly from one jurisdiction to the next, not to mention the gun show loophole. It's not as strict as you are telling me it is.

I think it's pretty well understood that if someone wants a gun, they can probably get one within a few hours, except for maybe joft (and probably me).

The point being, if you restrict the types of guns being manufactured there is zero chance those guns will end up on the streets, no matter how they are gotten, or not gotten in this case. It puts prohibition on the corporations, not the people, which in this case, is probably where it should belong.

[Ellipsis]

I am kinda freaked out by how many INTPs own guns...sure I expected some but...I am never making fun of OMW until I get a P-90 or something. (Dam Canadian government...no guns for me :()

[jyakulis]

I hope that's a joke.



Is there really gun control?



not really. can i have some examples?

what do you think a license is?

[Rincon]

I own a rifle, a shotgun and a handgun.* My father and grandfather (late) are both hunters, and bought me the rifle and shotgun. I don't hunt, but the guns are pretty much considered a male Rite of Passage in that side of the family. But I do like target & trap/skeet shooting and am decent at it. I bought the handgun for myself (another semi-rite-of-passage) and also enjoy target shooting with it. When not in use they stay locked up and secure, and I don't plan on using them for home/urban self-defense (outside of some kind of doomsday/Red-Dawn type of scenario). I've taken safety and marksmanship courses, and can breakdown/clean/reassemble my guns reasonably well. As far as the 'cold-dead-hands' thing goes, I'm not sure exactly how far I would go to retain ownership of them, but in general I believe in the right to bear arms.

(*) Browning A-bolt .270win, Browning Citori 20ga, Glock 29 10mm

[Tiamat]

I wouldn't especially like having a gun in my house, but it's not my place to force responsible gun owners to follow my lead.

[Limey]

<kiss>
<kiss>
I'd like to see them control these guns.

[Makkis]

Your simple example doesn't follow simply because the statistics don't bear it out. There are more than a handful of countries who don't allow firearms and yet have much higher suicide rates than countries that do. We're not talking about isolated instance here. 2 examples that have higher suicide rates than the US, would be China, the worlds largest country by population and Japan, the worlds second largest economy. At the same time another populous country , Brazil, has a suicide rate 1/4th as high as China and 1/6th as high as Japan, yet the populace there are allowed to own guns. Back to the drawing board.

I've read a few studies that link access to a gun to higher rates of suicide. I'm not denying that it could be useful to make comparisons with other countries, but you need to take into account each country's unique cultural and social circumstances and the numerous factors that could induce suicide. Japan, for instance, has a long history of suicide being committed as part of a code of honour and the Japanese are also under far more pressure to perform well at work and conform to group norms than many other countries. If you reduced gun restrictions in Japan maybe it would further increase the suicide rate.

[Karl]

Your simple example doesn't follow simply because the statistics don't bear it out. There are more than a handful of countries who don't allow firearms and yet have much higher suicide rates than countries that do. We're not talking about isolated instance here. 2 examples that have higher suicide rates than the US, would be China, the worlds largest country by population and Japan, the worlds second largest economy. At the same time another populous country , Brazil, has a suicide rate 1/4th as high as China and 1/6th as high as Japan, yet the populace there are allowed to own guns. Back to the drawing board.

"Your simple example doesn't follow because it doesn't take all the complex factors into account." That's what I'm hearing. However it wouldn't be simple otherwise, would it?

I'm simply proposing another way of looking at things. The suicide rates themselves are not integral to what I was saying, but rather something meant to elaborate on my reasoning. Pretend that it is true everywhere, just for the purposes of my lats post, if you must.

[jyakulis]

I've read a few studies that link access to a gun to higher rates of suicide. I'm not denying that it could be useful to make comparisons with other countries, but you need to take into account each country's unique cultural and social circumstances and the numerous factors that could induce suicide. Japan, for instance, has a long history of suicide being committed as part of a code of honour and the Japanese are also under far more pressure to perform well at work and conform to group norms than many other countries. If you reduced gun restrictions in Japan maybe it would further increase the suicide rate.

maybe they are committing suicide because they are upset the government won't let them have guns.

[fripping]

my assault weapon doesn't have a full auto sear either. but i've read if you just zip tie down a certain trigger sear and file down the firing pin you're good to go. . . although i'd probably have my local gunsmith do it.

i don't know if it's right or wrong but it's fun as hell and i'll take advantage of the opportunity since it's there.

[Noses]

I have a fondness for antique firearms, that likely would never come to anything. Not that I would fire them or even have bullets for them, but you have to admit some are pretty dang pretty.

I was raised by a gun nut, and thus know all the basic rules for gun care and safety, and if I had these guns, you can rest assured that they are under lock and key in a gunsafe when I'm not looking at them.

[Rincon]

I have a fondness for antique firearms, that likely would never come to anything. Not that I would fire them or even have bullets for them, but you have to admit some are pretty dang pretty.

I was raised by a gun nut, and thus know all the basic rules for gun care and safety, and if I had these guns, you can rest assured that they are under lock and key in a gunsafe when I'm not looking at them.

Really? :wub:

I'm not a gun nut. But I might be a gun nerd...

[colormegone]

I don't think anyone is really going to be defeating the US Military with a militia armed with rifles and pickup trucks.

That's why we should be allowed more effective weapons than rifles and pickup trucks.

[cripple]

If you reduced gun restrictions in Japan maybe it would further increase the suicide rate.
Doesn't the Japanese use swords?

Gun restrictions is mostly because if the police needs to suppress the people, it makes it easier if there is as little resistance as possible. Makes sense, If I was holding the gun in the street, I would like as few other people as possible to carry guns.

Personally I have a good number of guns, I wouldn't be happy if police came to collect them. But as I have a backup set (of the charts) it wouldn't freak me out so much so they had to pry them out of dead cold fingers.

[charred_heart]

I usually don't find Chris Rock very funny, but he had the right idea about gun control
bullet control (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE)

[Sokkorobo]

Own 5 guns and feel relatively prepared for a zombie incident. I view these weapons a precision machined tools. Tools that have a narrow field of use. If only I had a legitimate reason to carry them everywhere. Such as dog sized tarantulas. Well maybe not. Plinking is fun.

[Makkis]

Doesn't the Japanese use swords?

Maybe. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the point I was making. I was trying to say that just because countries with gun restrictions like China and Japan had higher rates of suicide than countries without gun restrictions doesn't neccessarily prove there is no link between guns and higher rates of suicide.



Gun restrictions is mostly because if the police needs to suppress the people, it makes it easier if there is as little resistance as possible. Makes sense, If I was holding the gun in the street, I would like as few other people as possible to carry guns.

That might be true in some places, but there are many reasons why gun restrictions might be introduced. In Australia the government toughened gun laws because it was believed that there was a connection between higher rates of homicide and access to a gun. The Port Arthur massacre that occured at the time also greatly influenced the decision.

[Makkis]

maybe they are committing suicide because they are upset the government won't let them have guns.

That must be it. I think you've hit the nail on the head :p

[thod]

Clearly when the term was written into the constitution it was not referring to machine guns and grenade launchers since they were not invented and therefore couldn't have been a consideration in the draft.

Therefore the term is clearly referring to the weapons available at the time. The solution is therefore simple. You meet the term by restricting firearms to those that were available at the time. You can own a gun provided it is a long barrel muzzle loading musket.

[Karl]

Oh, I DON'T mean to be saying that your points aren't worth thinking about Stophorian. It's just not what I was talking about, because I'm not really educated enough on that subject to talk about gun ownership and suicide correlation in a useful way.

[NoahFence]

Clearly when the term was written into the constitution it was not referring to machine guns and grenade launchers since they were not invented and therefore couldn't have been a consideration in the draft.

Note that they did not say "The right to wield guns". It is "the right to bear arms." Stripping the people of their weapons is a primary strategy of any ruler wishing to hijack the government and become an absolute dictator, which the founders wanted to avoid.

"They got the guns but we got the numbers" doesn't mean quite so much when the guns they got can chew through the numbers in seconds.

[charred_heart]

"They got the guns but we got the numbers" doesn't mean quite so much when the guns they got can chew through the numbers in seconds.

BONSAI!!!

http://flakmag.com/film/images/samurai.jpg

[cripple]

Maybe. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the point I was making. I was trying to say that just because countries with gun restrictions like China and Japan had higher rates of suicide than countries without gun restrictions doesn't neccessarily prove there is no link between guns and higher rates of suicide.
Indeed, I can see there might be a link by not being able to own a gun and higher rates of suicide. I know for me I would get very depressed if I wasn't allowed to own a gun. As to owning a gun and linking it to higher rates of suicide, no, that doesn't make sense. Having freedom doesn't lead to suicide., there will be higher level issues triggering the event, making the gun irrelevant. As one can see, the Japanese doesn't loose focus by a small detail like that.


That might be true in some places, but there are many reasons why gun restrictions might be introduced. In Australia the government toughened gun laws because it was believed that there was a connection between higher rates of homicide and access to a gun. The Port Arthur massacre that occured at the time also greatly influenced the decision.
What connections where those?

[Makkis]

Indeed, I can see there might be a link by not being able to own a gun and higher rates of suicide. I know for me I would get very depressed if I wasn't allowed to own a gun. As to owning a gun and linking it to higher rates of suicide, no, that doesn't make sense. Having freedom doesn't lead to suicide., there will be higher level issues triggering the event, making the gun irrelevant. As one can see, the Japanese doesn't loose focus by a small detail like that.

According to some arguments that I've read a person who is depressed and having suicidal thoughts is more likely to go through with killing themselves if its easy for them to access a gun, whereas if getting a gun was more difficult they would have more time to reconsider what they were doing, seek other forms of professional help, etc.

Please note that even though I have a personal inclination towards gun restrictions I haven't really been arguing either for or against them. I was just saying that the cross country comparisons given weren't enough proof in themselves to exclude the possibility that easier access to guns may increase suicide rates.



What connections where those?

Contentious ones.

[thod]

Note that they did not say "The right to wield guns". It is "the right to bear arms." Stripping the people of their weapons is a primary strategy of any ruler wishing to hijack the government and become an absolute dictator, which the founders wanted to avoid.

"They got the guns but we got the numbers" doesn't mean quite so much when the guns they got can chew through the numbers in seconds.

So the basis of the argument is the to form a militia to defend against tyrants or invaders. Yet the possession of a hand gun would be of little use in a military firefight. Assualt weapons are the lightest of arms you would be up against. I don't see anything you can buy scratching an M1 Abrams. Thus we have to conclude that the armed populace is not working. To meet the criteria for a resisting militia the weapons would need severe upgrades. Since the weapons are not functioning in this role there is little reason to support light weapons. It would have to military grade weapons or nothing.

The idea that has been introduced is "self defense". Almost everyone that owns a gun wishes to do so for this reason and not to fight the military. This is outside the scope of the amendment which is framed in the context of forming militias.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There is no mention of any rights to self defense. Thus the weapons allowed should be in keeping with that. Since you may face a nuclear armed opposition the logical move would be for individuals to have nukes stashed in the basement too. Then there is the interpretation of "the people" one could argue that refers to the current military as the representatives of the people. The widest interpretation would mean prisoners and the mental cases are the people too. In denying the prisoner his right to an AK47 you are infringing his rights, whatever the guards may say.

[C.J.Woolf]

Contrast

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

with the European model of the time,

"A standing army, being necessary to the security of the State and its Monarch..."

The Framers wanted a citizen army a la Greece or Republican Rome because citizen soldiers do not owe their loyalty (or their living) to a tyrant like professional soldiers. The presence of AK-47s in people's homes is not really an effective check on tyranny. Citizens in M-1s and F-16s, and not mercenaries, is.

[weebolj]

I can't vote I started hating this poll after seeing the results. This is one issue I can't shove into my box of who-cares. I'm surprised of the results, even though this is a forum mostly dwelled by Americans (see, you're reinforcing the stereotype). Even INTPs are hanging onto their individual rights on this instead of looking at the whole.

This poll made me sad and appalled, and skew a little more towards the conclusion of mankind destroying itself. :sobs: :boohoo: :dieemo:

Even if such hasty conclusions can't really be drawn from a multiple choice poll such as this. I'm still in with my emo reply.

This reply was written oblivious of the on-going discussion

[thod]

Waco TX. Small arms v Tanks.

http://wiki.freetalklive.com/images/9/94/Branch_davidian_compound_with_tanks.jpg

You see a tank, find a hole and hide. Your assault rifle may as well be a bow and arrow.

[rhinosaur]

You see a tank, find a hole and hide. Your assault rifle may as well be a bow and arrow.

I've got an arrow. (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/arrow/index.html) Do you have a bow? :bigguns:

[jyakulis]

I can't vote I started hating this poll after seeing the results. This is one issue I can't shove into my box of who-cares. I'm surprised of the results, even though this is a forum mostly dwelled by Americans (see, you're reinforcing the stereotype). Even INTPs are hanging onto their individual rights on this instead of looking at the whole.

This poll made me sad and appalled, and skew a little more towards the conclusion of mankind destroying itself. :sobs: :boohoo: :dieemo:

Even if such hasty conclusions can't really be drawn from a multiple choice poll such as this. I'm still in with my emo reply.

This reply was written oblivious of the on-going discussion

i say no to all forms of collectivism. this ain't soviet russia brah. not yet at least. the gun debate is really just a small part in a philosophical battle of individualism vs. collectivism. will we favor the individual rights of every person or is the 2nd amendment geared toward a collective right for militia.

stopandlook does a great series based on g edward griffin's research: invidiualism vs. collectivism
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BOUS6OalV2I&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_AgcVNzObWE&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VKPPe78pX5w&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=F5_N86Pblj0&feature=related

g edward griffin
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bys8CLAFhUs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KEVzPqc1j18&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=S5ubJKfhD7Q&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JFP8hsWh8dA&feature=related

[charred_heart]

Waco TX. Small arms v Tanks.

http://wiki.freetalklive.com/images/9/94/Branch_davidian_compound_with_tanks.jpg

You see a tank, find a hole and hide. Your assault rifle may as well be a bow and arrow.not if you have a couple of these:


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/25/xin_42020225085346815661.jpg

[thod]

not if you have a couple of these:

Against light armor maybe. There is a list of how M1s were damaged in desert storm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams. Depleted uranium rounds would seem best.

Only one British Challenger 2 tank has ever been destroyed and that by another Challenger 2 in friendly fire.


In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The drivers sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by eight rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after the repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.

[The Concertinist]

There is no mention of any rights to self defense.

Because our constitution is a document that limits government power, absence is consent. See the 9th and 10th amendments below. This is why so many founders didn't want a Bill of Rights at all, because they were worried that people would misinterpret them to mean they were the ONLY rights citizens had.

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Edit: Furthermore, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If we have the right to life, how can we not also have the right to protect that life?

[thod]

Aye it says every citizen has the right to free speech. Yet set up your sound system at 2am and tell your neighbours what you think they come and arrest you. How that? It explicitly says I am allowed to do it.

[charred_heart]

Against light armor maybe. There is a list of how M1s were damaged in desert storm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams.

oh right, wrong hardware.

correction - not if you have a lot of these:

http://www.fdny.net/winter2006/images/bucca1.jpg

[Shoot!]

Aye it says every citizen has the right to free speech. Yet set up your sound system at 2am and tell your neighbours what you think they come and arrest you. How that? It explicitly says I am allowed to do it.

That's idiocy, not free speech. Free speech, in all sense of the term, is referring to the ability to criticize the government and not be imprisoned for doing such. That doesn't mean you can get away with something as stupid as that.

[Deathdust]

For my two cents, general police and the public in Australia aren't allowed to own or carry guns without a licence.. as far as I'm aware, without being a member of a gun club. A farmer can own a rifle with a licence.

I've never had a gun and would never buy one. Having grown up in a country where the average guy can't run around with a pistol, I don't see the need. That said, I'd say our government keeps things fairly open, they don't have the liberty to fuck the public around as much - we don't need to protect ourselves from them. And I'm comfortable walking around in the middle of the night without any protection. I don't have a lot of confidence that I'd win a fight if it came to it, I guess I just live in a safe community. Safe enough.

Anyway, I say this because I always run into Americans on the internet saying they *need* their guns and theres "no evidence" that getting rid of them makes anybody safer. I can tell you, that Bowling for Columbine documentary? Its right. Get rid of your guns and stop running around like terrified headless chickens.

[SensEye]

i don't even own any guns. but why should i infringe on someone elses personal liberty just because i think they are unsafe. so, anything you don't agree with should be banned mmmkay.I made no such claim, I was just pointing out liberal gun laws are likely to result in more people getting shot rather than less.

I'm generally very libertarian overall, and would like to see all sorts of things legallized. Especially those things that result in stupid people killing themselves.

I'm a little more nervous about legalizing things that allow stupid people to kill me.

I don't really care much about this issue. I'm surprised Americans get so worked up about it. A handgun ban/restriction would probably make absolutely no difference to anybody in the long run. Sure, you'd lose the odd feel good news story about how granny blew some punk theif's brains out, but it's not much in the big scheme of things.

[mgb]

I made no such claim, I was just pointing out liberal gun laws are likely to result in more people getting shot rather than less.



Reading this thread, I'm starting to be inclined to let them have their guns, if you think about it, it's kind of funny for the rest of the world to sit back and watch.

[NoahFence]

Aye it says every citizen has the right to free speech. Yet set up your sound system at 2am and tell your neighbours what you think they come and arrest you. How that? It explicitly says I am allowed to do it.

You're being arrested for volume, not content. If you can quiet down a bit so you don't wake my kids, you can say whatever you want. THAT is your right. Forcing me to listen to it in my own home is NOT.

[thod]

You're being arrested for volume, not content. If you can quiet down a bit so you don't wake my kids, you can say whatever you want. THAT is your right. Forcing me to listen to it in my own home is NOT.


In the same way it says you have the right to own a gun, but it says nothing about your rights to own ammunition or your right to fire the said weapon. Problem solved, simply declare ammunition illegal and you have satisfied the constitution.

[cripple]

I made no such claim, I was just pointing out liberal gun laws are likely to result in more people getting shot rather than less.
You know, there are other ways to kill someone then just shoot them


I'm generally very libertarian overall, and would like to see all sorts of things legallized. Especially those things that result in stupid people killing themselves.

I'm a little more nervous about legalizing things that allow stupid people to kill me.
Oh man....I feel for you.


I don't really care much about this issue.
Oh, you care...

A handgun ban/restriction would probably make absolutely no difference to anybody in the long run.
:wtf:

Sure, you'd lose the odd feel good news story about how granny blew some punk theif's brains out, but it's not much in the big scheme of things.
Congratulations, you have just won a prize.

Just for your information, guns are only some simple metal pieces put together. It is incredible what people will make up and do if their security is *imaginary* threatened.

Guns are beautiful, it's the people that are ugly.

[NoahFence]

In the same way it says you have the right to own a gun, but it says nothing about your rights to own ammunition or your right to fire the said weapon. Problem solved, simply declare ammunition illegal and you have satisfied the constitution.

It says nothing about "guns". It says "arms". I'm pretty sure you can consider ammunition "arms".

Also, firing a weapon is already illegal in most cities. This is somewhat ineffective for preventing violent crimes, you must admit.

[NoahFence]

You know, there are other ways to kill someone then just shoot them

Sure, but when was the last time you heard of a drive-by-knifing? Or a liquor store held up at shurriken-point?


Just for your information, guns are only some simple metal pieces put together. It is incredible what people will make up and do if their security is *imaginary* threatened.

So you're saying that if Smith and Wesson didn't put it together for them, they would build a gun in their basement using old pipes and soldering wire when they start feeling threatened?


Guns are beautiful, it's the people that are ugly.

And with a gun in their hand, pointed at you, you'll never know if they're ugly or beautiful...all you'll see is the exquisite craftsmanship of the weapon.

[cripple]

Sure, but when was the last time you heard of a drive-by-knifing? Or a liquor store held up at shurriken-point?
So this is why YOU want to restrict guns?



So you're saying that if Smith and Wesson didn't put it together for them, they would build a gun in their basement using old pipes and soldering wire when they start feeling threatened?
No, that was not what I was saying at all.
Btw-why would they need to build a gun themselves only because it has become restricted?


And with a gun in their hand, pointed at you, you'll never know if they're ugly or beautiful...all you'll see is the exquisite craftsmanship of the weapon.
Sorry, SensEye still keeps the prize. Good try though.

[NoahFence]

So this is why YOU want to restrict guns?

Among other things, yes. There is more than one way to kill someone, but nothing even comes close to being as easy as a gun.

Except maybe grenades. I want those restricted also.


No, that was not what I was saying at all.
Btw-why would they need to build a gun themselves only because it has become restricted?

Apparently you don't understand how restricted I want them.

Sure, you could still steal them from cops, soldiers, secret service, what have you. But that's a lot harder than stealing them from "four homes out of ten".


Sorry, SensEye still keeps the prize. Good try though.

I think I'll have to start calling you Salieri...you can judge witty quips, but apparently can't make them yourself.

[MacGuffin]

The Framers wanted a citizen army a la Greece or Republican Rome because citizen soldiers do not owe their loyalty (or their living) to a tyrant like professional soldiers. The presence of AK-47s in people's homes is not really an effective check on tyranny. Citizens in M-1s and F-16s, and not mercenaries, is.

That explains why we won the Vietnam War in four months! :highfive:

[Ferrus]

I own no gun for the simple reason they are forbidden, and I can't for the life of me think why anyone would want one.

[Makkis]

i say no to all forms of collectivism. this ain't soviet russia brah. not yet at least. the gun debate is really just a small part in a philosophical battle of individualism vs. collectivism. will we favor the individual rights of every person or is the 2nd amendment geared toward a collective right for militia.

I don't really think things are ever as simple as individualism vs collectivism. Even the the most individualistic society has and requires collective elements.

[MacGuffin]

I own no gun for the simple reason they are forbidden, and I can't for the life of me think why anyone would want one.

You SJ sheep!

[Ferrus]

You SJ sheep!
SJ? I see no logical reason to use or carry guns outside of specific pursuits such as hunting.

Yes, yes, in the US the gun ownership rate has gone so out of control now that it is probably necessary for everyone to keep on owning them henceforth, but it is by no means the optimal situation.

[jyakulis]

I don't really think things are ever as simple as individualism vs collectivism. Even the the most individualistic society has and requires collective elements.

i respectfully disagree.

i think that stopandlook production video i posted should be required for everyone in this country. though i guess forcing people to watch it would be a collectivist approach ;)

[quantumzero]

There is no such thing as gun control in the real world. Restrictive gun laws that ban guns only elevate homicides and armed robery wherever they are in place. Thats not my opinion, thats a fact. Im all for peace and love and such but unfortunatly, the rest of world isnt there yet.

[Makkis]

There is no such thing as gun control in the real world. Restrictive gun laws that ban guns only elevate homicides and armed robery wherever they are in place. Thats not my opinion, thats a fact. Im all for peace and love and such but unfortunatly, the rest of world isnt there yet.

Where are you getting such "facts" from?

[Makkis]

i respectfully disagree.

i think that stopandlook production video i posted should be required for everyone in this country. though i guess forcing people to watch it would be a collectivist approach ;)

Do you have any links to or could you summarise some of the arguments he was making. I don't have time to watch all those videos and my internet connection sucks.

[Titania]

Little torn. I want the government to fear it's citizens. I don't want citizens to fear each other, though.

So, maybe we could all like form militias and have them own the guns, and require membership in one to own one...? I guess that'd get me stoned from both sides. Bleh.

[TryIt]

Where are you getting such "facts" from?

Well, this whole debate spurred from the Washington DC case. They banned handgun possession there in 1976. Homicides proceeded to triple from 1985 to 1990. Basically, the gun control laws have done little/nothing to stop violent crimes. The availability of guns does not incite violent crime. Pissed off people do.

To me, it's much like the (wasteful) "War on Drugs." Politicians and myopic people just think from the supply side. "Let's decrease the supply of drugs/guns"...as if that will somehow immediately solve the problem. But hey, it sounds good, like you're really making a dent in crime. In politics that's really all that matters. "Does the populace think we're getting something done? Ok, we're good."

Get a clue. It doesn't work. People that want them, will get the drugs/guns. You just made it a little more challenging/expensive. You've stopped nothing.

How about working on the DEMAND side of the equation. Limiting the supply just makes the drugs more expensive. Limiting the supply of guns would do the same, while creating a lucrative black market. It does not solve the underlying problem.

(And the underlying problem is, in my view, we have way too many people living at or near the poverty line. We need a massive movement into the middle class again. With a better education and better paying jobs, the demand for crime should decrease. Who do you think is doing all the drugs and/or killing people? Mostly not the guy/gal with a good degree and a $62K/year job. They are mainly contributing to a productive society.)

I studied the "war on drugs" in an economics class once...that's where the supply/demand terms come in. But it's really just common sense -- you know, something society and government sorely lacks.

[jyakulis]

Do you have any links to or could you summarise some of the arguments he was making. I don't have time to watch all those videos and my internet connection sucks.

http://www.softsphereconsulting.com/gselzler/blog/Freedom.aspx

this guy sums it up somewhat.

http://freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=home

that's edward griffin's organization. it has a lot of info.

[cripple]

Among other things, yes. There is more than one way to kill someone, but nothing even comes close to being as easy as a gun.

Except maybe grenades. I want those restricted also.
I can think of guns where the executioner would be better of with a knife, or just use poison. Why the focus on guns making it easy to kill, I think the media and anti propaganda is getting to you. Guns don't make it easy to kill. The random killing sprees are bad advocacy for gun owners. But still, the guns are only a minor detail. Country's who have problems with this should look inward and try to solve what is wrong with them instead of pushing the problems over on dead material.


Apparently you don't understand how restricted I want them.

Sure, you could still steal them from cops, soldiers, secret service, what have you. But that's a lot harder than stealing them from "four homes out of ten".
Why steal? why not just buy it from a craftsman, yeah, if you got some basic machine tools and skills it is fairly easy to make, and no hassle for a metalsmith. You want to ban lathes, mills, metal also?

Or one can just go to the neighbor country and buy, or from the criminals. My backup guns are older guns without restriction, but fully functional. Hell, one of them I even bought from a police officer, that didn't take the chance on having it in his collection.


I think I'll have to start calling you Salieri...you can judge witty quips, but apparently can't make them yourself.
What is Salieri? Probably you are right, but I was a bit torn about how funny I wanted to try to be, as I think the OP raises a valid question.

It has always been a problem for the gun owners with opinions based on incompetence from non gun owners. I think police(a lot of them have no near the required training necessary to handle a gun) would in many cases more benefit from a restriction then the general public. In our country the Police isn't allowed to carry, unless in special circumstances. And I think this is something all country's should implement. I always get a chill in foreign country's where I see the Ninja like people walking around in airports etc loaded to the teeth. For me I use guns for FUN(yeah, thats right), art and hunting. I never carry in normal life, I don't even walk around with a knife. And my guns stay at home in the countryside, I dont bring it with me to the city where I stay in the winter.

Like in Mexico, the police looks like they come straight out of a Rambo movie. And walking around in Mexico City there is armed security all over the place, even in front of grocery shops. Like wtf, not arming the public in country's like this is way past my tolerance level of suppressing and restricting peoples right and ability to take care of them self. To solve the problems, you need to look elsewhere then to the guns...And in the end this is what it is about.

When people implemented the bible, they did a through process of burning everything hedonistic. It's the same mental model that drives the non gun activists.

[Thor]

Most people have zero concept of what it's like to actually NEED a firearm for personal safety reasons or as a survival tool. I, and a good half of the other Alaskans, live in places where you can be mauled by a 1000+ lb Grizzly just by stepping into your front yard. Black Bears come right into Anchorage and kill dogs in suburban back yards all the time. And for those of you who have never seen a pissed off moose, I can tell you that facing an angry Grizz might be preferable.

A great many other people in this state live in places that do not have ANY modern conveniences. None. There are no roads, no residential services, heating oil is $10 a gallon, as is milk... if you can get it flown in. These people feed their families by what they catch in the rivers and by what they can hunt for. Many have done so for thousands of years.

With the remote field work that I do, there are no police, there is no animal control, there are no paramedics, and there is no 911. I carry my 12 gauge as a last resort, I have not had to use it because it IS a last resort and because I've been lucky. Having said that, I know plenty of people who have had to use one.

Firearms are not just a right or a tradition here, they're in integral part of coping with the environment. For any law to be fair, if you disarm any law abiding US citizen, you have to disarm every last one of us as well and that is unreasonable given the challenges we face every day.

I don't know that an apartment dweller in Manhattan "needs" a 12 gauge shotgun, but people here certainly do. A person gets onto shaky ground when it becomes alright to allow one group to have a right that is denied to another. For any reason. If I have the right to defend myself from a hostile environment by use and ownership of a firearm, that right should extend to others if we actually believe in equal rights for all involved.

[stopharian]

What is Salieri?


Salieri was a composer who was a contemporary of Mozart and was incredibly jealous of Mozarts talent which he was able to recognize but not equal.

[C.J.Woolf]

You SJ sheep!
If you wanted a gun for the simple reason that they are forbidden, then what would that make you? An SP Rebel Without a Clue?


There is no such thing as gun control in the real world. Restrictive gun laws that ban guns only elevate homicides and armed robery wherever they are in place. Thats not my opinion, thats a fact. Im all for peace and love and such but unfortunatly, the rest of world isnt there yet.
A key factor is how many guns are in private hands before gun control is enacted. In the US, the genie is out of the bottle -- we're like Afghanistan only with more law and order and infrastructure -- but that's less true in other countries.


Little torn. I want the government to fear it's citizens. I don't want citizens to fear each other, though.

So, maybe we could all like form militias and have them own the guns, and require membership in one to own one...? I guess that'd get me stoned from both sides. Bleh.
I won't stone you. I kinda like the idea that if you want to own a gun you must enroll in the National Guard. Soldiers in Iraq, relief is on its way! :devil:

[Titania]

I won't stone you. I kinda like the idea that if you want to own a gun you must enroll in the National Guard. Soldiers in Iraq, relief is on its way! :devil:1) The military is not a private militia.

2) How would making everyone who wanted to be a member of the government make the government more afraid of its citizens? If anything, it'd, as in your example, make them far more exploitable.

[Titania]

Salieri was a composer who was a contemporary of Mozart and was incredibly jealous of Mozarts talent which he was able to recognize but not equal.Only in the movie. In life, they were actually friendly rivals. :)

[MacGuffin]

If you wanted a gun for the simple reason that they are forbidden, then what would that make you? An SP Rebel Without a Clue?

Yes! You say I can't have it, I want it!

And Titania is right, you can't construe the "militia" in the 2nd Amendment to mean the National Guard.

Now about that wtfpwning of the Viet Cong...

[C.J.Woolf]

1) The military is not a private militia.

2) How would making everyone who wanted to be a member of the government make the government more afraid of its citizens? If anything, it'd, as in your example, make them far more exploitable.
In a pure democracy the citizens are the government, and the army. In such a setup where can tyranny come from? Other than the majority. But the minority is armed too.

[Makkis]

http://www.softsphereconsulting.com/gselzler/blog/Freedom.aspx

this guy sums it up somewhat.

http://freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=home

that's edward griffin's organization. it has a lot of info.


I still stand by what I said. Even though I agree with a lot of the points made in the first article, for instance that it's not "acceptable to sacrifice individuals if necessary for "the greater good of the greater number" there's still a lot I disagree with. I don't know if we have the same understanding of collectivism either.


The solution is simple. It is to take back control of the power centers of society, one-by-one, just the way they were captured in the first place, and put them into the hands of people who have no personal agendas except to defend freedom. This will unleash the vast human potential for prosperity and happiness that can be realized only in the absence of government oppression.

Although I generally advocate "freedom" of the market and personal "freedom" I believe government is necessary to do such things as redistribute wealth, provide certain social goods for the community, etc, etc. Sometimes certain "freedoms" need to be curbed. Taking taxes from people, for instance for the greater public good. America is one of the biggest advocates of so-called "freedom" yet their poor are among the worst off in the developed world. IMO it's not about either the rights of the individual vs government control. It's about compromise and taking into consideration what's best for the people.


Individualists on the other hand say, "Wait a minute. Group? What is group" That's just a word. You can't touch a group. You can't see a group. All you can touch and see are individuals. The word group is an abstraction and doesn't exist as a tangible reality. It's like the abstraction called forest. Forest doesn?t exist. Only trees exist. Forest is the concept of many trees. Likewise, the word group merely describes the abstract concept of many individuals. Only individuals are real and, therefore, there is no such thing as group rights. Only individuals have rights.

I don't really understand these sorts of arguments. It seems to me just as plausible to say there's no such thing as trees. Trees are made up of other components like water, nutrients from the earth, energy from the sun, bark, sap, etc. Or there's no such thing as individuals only collections of individual subatomic particles.

Sorry I'm going off on a bit of a tangent from guns.

[cripple]

Salieri was a composer who was a contemporary of Mozart and was incredibly jealous of Mozarts talent which he was able to recognize but not equal.


Only in the movie. In life, they were actually friendly rivals. :)

Who knows what reference was meant. I was thinking it was the Salieri project
http://www.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/AFS/SAL/about.html

various prototypes of the SALIERI System have been used as the principal tool for research and educational purposes within this project

[SensEye]

I'm being dissed here, so I guess I should respond.



You know, there are other ways to kill someone then just shoot them

No shit, and the more convenient you make it, the more they will do it. Start selling hand grenades at sporting good shops and see what comes of it.



Oh man....I feel for you.
Well, that's a bit too vague for me to comment on.



Oh, you care...No I don't. I'm from Canada. You won't know this, but over the last few years the government has wasted a couple of billion on a national gun registry. It is a total waste of money (I care about that) but it's totally useless otherwise. I would have much prefered just sticking with the status quo. I suppose I might care about liberalizing hand gun laws, because, as I said earlier, it would increase my chances of being shot by a dumbass. I believe my chances of being shot by a criminal would remain largely unchanged.



:wtf: Another enlightening remark. However, I think I get the gist of what you mean. Gun buffs appear to operate under the delusion that innocent citizens are constantly fending off vicious armed attackers thanks to the trusty .45 they are packing. While you read the odd news story about this happening (some guy shoots a theif who broke into his house or something like that), it's pretty rare. I'm pretty sure if you added up gun accidents + rage fueled shootings that would probably have just been fist fights if guns weren't handy would they outnumber self defence episodes by quite a margin.



Just for your information, guns are only some simple metal pieces put together. It is incredible what people will make up and do if their security is *imaginary* threatened.

Guns are beautiful, it's the people that are ugly.I find it even more incredible what NRA types will make up when loosing their beautiful pieces of metal might be threatened. Oh no, you mean I might lose my gun collection! The horror! Try stamps or baseball cards or something if collecting is that big a thing to you. Maybe autographed photos of Charlton Heston could fill the void.

[Methofelis]

I find it even more incredible what NRA types will make up when loosing their beautiful pieces of metal might be threatened. Oh no, you mean I might lose my gun collection! The horror! Try stamps or baseball cards or something if collecting is that big a thing to you. Maybe autographed photos of Charlton Heston could fill the void.

Have you ever been in a situation that was life-threatening and having a gun would have been pretty damned handy at that moment?

I have taken out and loaded my gun only three times (not including at the range) and those three were times when I either had someone actively attempting to enter my home while armed, when someone threatened to come to my home and cause me harm, and when the power went out in my neighborhood for three weeks after a hurricane and people began looting and fighting.

Sometimes, where you live and certain situations call for protection. I don't trust the idiots wandering around with a hand gun tucked into their pants -- but I'm damned sure that if they came after me, I'd fire first -- with dead accuracy.
My gun is there to keep my property, my self, and my family safe. Calling the police or relying on the dog barking doesn't always cut it.

[Titania]

In a pure democracy the citizens are the government, and the army. In such a setup where can tyranny come from? Other than the majority. But the minority is armed too.We aren't a pure one, nor should we be, I believe. Making nearly everyone into members of the executive branch just reeks of perverse incentives

[lowtech redneck]

Gun buffs appear to operate under the delusion that innocent citizens are constantly fending off vicious armed attackers thanks to the trusty .45 they are packing. While you read the odd news story about this happening (some guy shoots a theif who broke into his house or something like that), it's pretty rare. I'm pretty sure if you added up gun accidents + rage fueled shootings that would probably have just been fist fights if guns weren't handy would they outnumber self defence episodes by quite a margin.


It happens up to 2.5 million times annually, between three and five times more often the the annual number of violent crimes committed with firearms. Usually, no shot is fired.

Despite having the same internet handle as some guy who sells hunting equipment, I'm not all that into guns, and only own a couple of hunting rifles that I inherited from my grandmother (you might be a redneck if...). However, I firmly support the right of individual citizens to own handguns, rifles, and shotguns without being put on a government list.

[thod]

Yet the fact remains there are house break ins in non gun countries too. The owners don't get murdered. You can always pick up a knife or club if you want. The burglars don't have guns since to have one turns a simple robbery into an armed robbery with greater penalty. Petty criminals just don't have guns. To obtain one is going to be expensive and of no use to them. Organized criminals will always have guns but then your gun is not much good if the mafia decides to get you. Its not about keeping guns out of the hands of the big criminals but rather ensuring the street punk does not get hold of them. The police do not carry guns. If they need to they can call in an armed unit like the SWAT teams. The way some posters talk you think they would be fending of gunmen every day. I would suspect that most US policemen have never shot anyone let alone the average householder. All the countries where guns are banned do provide a compelling case against guns. You don't get more robberies but you do get less people shot. If you disturb a burglar he is going to run and not feel he has to shoot you.

[The Concertinist]

If guns aren't useful or needed, then why do police have them? Well that's obvious, because they ARE useful, and they ARE needed...in certain circumstances. So how come some people believe that police can have guns but I can't? Is it because they're trained to use them properly and in a disciplined manner? Okay that's reasonable, but what if I train myself to at least the level of police? There are myriad training schools around the country where I can get hundreds of hours of training in the responsible and disciplined use of firearms. If I do that, would you then trust me with a gun the same way you would trust the police with a gun? If not, why not?

[dubbeltop]

If guns aren't useful or needed, then why do police have them? Well that's obvious, because they ARE useful, and they ARE needed...in certain circumstances. So how come some people believe that police can have guns but I can't? Is it because they're trained to use them properly and in a disciplined manner? Okay that's reasonable, but what if I train myself to at least the level of police? There are myriad training schools around the country where I can get hundreds of hours of training in the responsible and disciplined use of firearms. If I do that, would you then trust me with a gun the same way you would trust the police with a gun? If not, why not?

Cause the police enforces the law and have a need of firearms ...because the culture dictates a displayed amount of lethal force....

Actually movies and film and the portrayal of violence and guns have a big influence on the acceptance of violence and guns in everyday life...

[Limey]

If Terrorists aren't useful, or needed, then why does the world have them?

[The Concertinist]

Cause the police enforces the law and have a need of firearms

Okay, so enforcing law creates the need for a firearm. That's reasonable, but it would be more accurate to say that police enforce the punishment, not the actual law. Otherwise, they could be held legally accountable whenever a crime was committed.

If it's morally okay to have, and possibly use, a gun to enforce punishment upon law breakers, is it also morally okay to have, and possibly use, a gun to prevent breaking the law in the first place? If not, why not?

[The Concertinist]

If Terrorists aren't useful, or needed, then why does the world have them?

But terrorists ARE useful...otherwise they wouldn't exist. What's your point?

[Limey]

But terrorists ARE useful...otherwise they wouldn't exist. What's your point?

Guns don't kill people, people's fingers kill people.

[C.J.Woolf]

Guns don't kill people, people's fingers kill people.
That would make a detached finger the ultimate stealth assassin. :ph34r:

[Methofelis]

Yet the fact remains there are house break ins in non gun countries too. The owners don't get murdered. You can always pick up a knife or club if you want. The burglars don't have guns since to have one turns a simple robbery into an armed robbery with greater penalty. Petty criminals just don't have guns. To obtain one is going to be expensive and of no use to them. Organized criminals will always have guns but then your gun is not much good if the mafia decides to get you. Its not about keeping guns out of the hands of the big criminals but rather ensuring the street punk does not get hold of them. The police do not carry guns. If they need to they can call in an armed unit like the SWAT teams. The way some posters talk you think they would be fending of gunmen every day. I would suspect that most US policemen have never shot anyone let alone the average householder. All the countries where guns are banned do provide a compelling case against guns. You don't get more robberies but you do get less people shot. If you disturb a burglar he is going to run and not feel he has to shoot you.

You'd be surprised just how often those burglars you think will just run don't. Some have a serious egotistical need to prove that they will not run from some small chick trying to scare them off.

For many years I did live in a place where the threat of violent crime was exceptionally high. Any moron with $5 could get a weapon; they were high on PCP and crack, perhaps even both. You couldn't trust walking down to the corner store as a safe endeavor. That neighborhood is why I had two protection trained dogs.

And please do not say "so why didn't you move if it was so bad?" ... It doesn't always work that way.





If guns aren't useful or needed, then why do police have them? Well that's obvious, because they ARE useful, and they ARE needed...in certain circumstances. So how come some people believe that police can have guns but I can't? Is it because they're trained to use them properly and in a disciplined manner? Okay that's reasonable, but what if I train myself to at least the level of police? There are myriad training schools around the country where I can get hundreds of hours of training in the responsible and disciplined use of firearms. If I do that, would you then trust me with a gun the same way you would trust the police with a gun? If not, why not?

Thank you.

I have spent plenty of time (both as a child and on my own) being taught what to do/how to handle guns. I think that if people are willing to put forth the time, effort and money to know how to be a responsible gun owner, this shouldn't even be an issue.

[The Concertinist]

A friend of mine knows a cop, and I was talking to this cop one day, and the subject of firearms training came up. I was surprised to hear him say that cops receive very little training in the proper use of a firearm. "Little" is subjective of course, but he did say that, in his experience, to get any really meaningful training, you had to do it on your own time. So all this trust we put into cops with guns might not be well founded.

[V Profane]

Guns don't kill people, people's fingers kill people.

Guns don't kill people, rappers do (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv-2XYOtgCg).