Gun Rights

[poker king46]

yet why do you think that there hasn't been an invasion in the us for quite some time if ever(I'm too sure on that topic)i can assure you that one of the reasons is that there are QUITE a few American citizens that own a gun so it'd be extreamly stupid.as for those of you who think that more guns=more crime you would then need to insure that no gun what so ever can be brought into the country,because a good portion if not most of the crimes committed in America are done with guns that are obtained illegaly.

 

[MasterX]

Hmm, maybe giving guns to skilled people is for the better, but how do we distinguish the "deserving" and the "reckless". Mere licenses will not work; we need to make sure they realize and understand the importance of "protecting" oneself and the value of human life.

Personally, I think the gun-wielding idiots who glorify the "almightiness" of the gun should kill each other off, that'll prolly fix itself, but innocents always get involved, so guns should be provided only at time of war.

 

[poker king46]

you still haven't fix the "guns can be obtained illeagaly" thing.
and either way you have it i dissagree with your belief that guns should be provided only in a time of war.i know that what i'm about/have say/said is highly unlikely but suppose that we go with only having guns in a time of war,if we are invaded how do we know that we won't be entirely F***ed by time guns are started to be distributed?

 

[SOLDIERis1337]

Guns aren't the problem, stupid people are. America has a lot of guns and higher gun crime, but correlation is not proof in any way. Loot at Switzerland, every eligible home is required to keep a military grade firearm for national defense, and they aren't shooting each other up left and right.

Getting rid of guns won;t solve anything, if you ban weapons people will just beat each other to death with rocks. You have to solve the underlying issues to stop violent crime, things like curbing drug trafficking and other organized crime.

I'm all for common sense legislation like no one with a history of violent crime or mental illness, but to prevent law abiding citizens from engaging in a national past time and defending themselves is asinine.

Penn & Teller make some great points on this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfObDFVnfp0

 

[Sealer]

It's easier to shoot and kill someone, than to beat him to death. You need to be a bigger son of a puta to look at your offer and beat him/her senseless, till it's over. It's easier to pull a trigger and end a life, than do it in another manner. You don't need to be in close range of the other person, you don't need to look at her scared to death for a long time, it's just plain easy.

You're absolutely right, that there will be crimes no matter if people get a hold on guns, or not. But I believe it's easier to spare lives if people didn't have guns, then if they did.

Anyway it's a lose-lose situation. The criminals will probably get their hands on a weapon of sort anyway. I don't think I would feel safer if I had a gun in my pocket. Either you both have guns and someone is gonna die, or just 1 person has a gun, and there's still a chance the other person will die.

 

[Vladislak]

Wait, doesn't Japan have an amazingly low gun crime rate? And don't they have excessively strict gun control rules?

Shouldn't we put two and two together and say that it certainly wouldn't hurt to mimic this?

According to my source, the vast majority of remaining gun crimes in Japan are done by organized crime groups, which generally get their guns by smuggling them from places like the Philippines and, of course, America.
So technically we're partly at fault for Japan having any gun crimes at all. >_>

Here, lemme post some quotes and paragraphs from my source:

"Because gun crime still exists in tiny numbers, the police make gun licenses increasingly difficult to obtain. The test and all-day lecture are held once a month. The lecture almost always requires that the licensee take a full day off from work--not a highly regarded activity by Japanese employers. An annual gun inspection is scheduled at the convenience of the police, and also requires time off from work. Licenses must be renewed every three years, with another all-day safety lecture and examination at police headquarters."

"Tokyo is the safest major city in the world. Only 59,000 licensed gun owners live in Tokyo. Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000. The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan."

"Robbery is almost as rare as murder. Indeed, armed robbery and murder are both so rare that they usually make the national news, regardless of where they occur. Japan's robbery rate is 1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported American rate is 220.9. People walk anywhere in Japan at night, and carry large sums of cash."

Source

 

[charms]

I thought I'd add to the thread in light of today's news- 2 killing sprees, one in Alabama, one in Germany. The Germany one disturbs me the most- the guy was just 17, and reports claim he targeted females. He shot dead 15 people, then killed himself. The news report said his Father was a member of some gun club, so that's how he got hold of a gun. This scares me a great deal- I don't think there should be 'gun clubs,' nor do I think ANYONE should be allowed to own a gun. Only people like policemen, the Army etc should be entitled to own a gun, as they are law enforcers and therefore shouldn't abuse the weapon (in theory).

It saddens me that cases like these will keep occuring because there are a lot of mentally unstable people in the world who will suddenly flip and harm others. Guns are dangerous- all it takes is one shot and a life can be wiped out. There is no defence against it. I know there are a lot of sensible, responsible gun owners out there, but there are also sick people out there too; this threat is too great, so the right thing to do in my opinion is to ban all guns, stop them being sold etc.

As I cannot see this ever happening, the other solution is for people to wear bullet proof armour, but this is obviously very impractical and ridiculous. It makes me depressed living in such a violent world :-(

 

[Assassin Baby]

To tell the truth gun control would not matter if it was implemented at all. For one look at drugs. Illegal as hell. And yet any person with a brain can find a dealer and get some paraphernalia and it exactly expensive either. So what would exactly stop gun laundering? Sure make it illegal, but then what happens? Piss a lotta people off and just make another money makin business for criminals. So really it would just be a waste of time. But I am not without my biases. I for one own a silver 9mm and not for protection. I just enjoy going to the shooting range and squeeze off a few clips for an hour or so to pass sometime. I also quite love weapons. But then again I am in school for Criminal Justice, am a certified licensed armed guard, going to be a cop when I turn 21 and want to be a DEA agent. I just don't think gun control would work at all. At least it would not create the desired effect.

 

[Vladislak]

To tell the truth gun control would not matter if it was implemented at all. For one look at drugs. Illegal as hell. And yet any person with a brain can find a dealer and get some paraphernalia and it exactly expensive either.

True, but if drugs weren't illegal it would probably be much worse. Drugs would be much more widespread, I wouldn't be surprised if it became a commonplace in every household.

So you can't deny that making it illegal helps.

 

[blakstang98]

Well, I know this thread would be fallen into the forums if it weren't stickied, and I apologize in advance if I shouldn't have commented on it further.

The 2nd Amendment in the Constitution gives Americans the Right to Bear Arms. Granted this has been debated in the past and it's the only Amendment that sort of gets disregarded, it still exists. Our current government wants to get rid of the 1st Amendment as well, but thats an issue for another thread. So it is the people's right to own a gun, so long as it's a legal gun and the necessary actions were taken to register it.

From my realistic viewpoint, taking guns away from people will only get them hurt more. If a burglar breaks into your house and threatens to shoot you, you can't defend yourself. I think the biggest misconception comes when people don't realize that if guns are illegal, burglars (and other criminals) will still have them. They are criminals, what stops them from getting a gun, they already do illegal things. But the honest, law-abiding citizen will take the law seriously and never think twice about buying one. I don't own a gun myself, but if I felt like a really dangerous situation could occur in my life, I'd like to have the assurance that I could buy one if need be. Hence making them illegal will only take the lives of those that are innocent to begin with.

 

[SABR]

Yes, outlawing guns would not prevent serial killers from getting them anyways, and going on killing sprees. And at the same time, it would prevent good people from getting guns without having to break the law. If bad people will use guns, and good people won't use them because they think guns are bad, then the good people are all screwed.

In a world where people cannot use guns, they have no practical means of hunting animals or defending themselves. You might say, "well hunting is wrong." Not if you're out in the country. If someone breaks into your house, you should have the right to pull a shotgun out from somewhere and stop them.

 

[Donald Trump]

In a world where people cannot use guns, they have no practical means of hunting animals or defending themselves. You might say, "well hunting is wrong." Not if you're out in the country. If someone breaks into your house, you should have the right to pull a shotgun out from somewhere and stop them.

Why should we have the right to execute a burgular?
Also how is being in the country a reason for hunting? Are there other things that are justified because you live in the country? No. Also there's a difference between a bolt action hunting rifle and a pistol. One is used to kill animals, the other people.
There's a reason why vigilantism is illegal. It's dangerous.

The 2nd Amendment in the Constitution gives Americans the Right to Bear Arms. Granted this has been debated in the past and it's the only Amendment that sort of gets disregarded, it still exists

It's an archaic piece of legislature, made when people were expecting to be attacked by Native Americans or whoever else's land they had taken. Why don't we legalise grenades too, they'd be more fun right?
Having a gun increases the risk of getting shot and it increases the risk of people around you getting shot. It doesn't make anyone safer, it's just a status symbol, so that if someone pulls a gun that you don't feel powerless, it's not going to help, you cab be buried knowing that you didn't bend over like those unarmed and unharmed civilians.

There is no justification for gun ownership. Do you need to own a gun to go hunting? No.

 

[SABR]

Why should we have the right to execute a burgular?
Also how is being in the country a reason for hunting? Are there other things that are justified because you live in the country? No. Also there's a difference between a bolt action hunting rifle and a pistol. One is used to kill animals, the other people.
There's a reason why vigilantism is illegal. It's dangerous.

We, as people, have a right to a home of our own. When someone breaks into your home, they're putting their life in your hands. They have no right to be in your house, and you have every right to do whatever you need to do in order to stop them. It's not illegal to shoot a burglar that is breaking into your own home.

The country thing was sort of a joke. But yeah, if you happen to live far away from civilization or pre-packaged meat or anything like that, and all there is to eat is the local plants, you just might want to get some fresh meat. We're humans. We eat animals. It's healthy.

Now that we're getting semantic, bolt action rifles have been used to shoot people, lots of times. Those came long before pistols were ever around. Similarly, a pistol can easily be used to shoot wildlife (although a rifle is a lot more practical). Guns are weapons, their uses aren't set-in-stone.

It's an archaic piece of legislature, made when people were expecting to be attacked by Native Americans or whoever else's land they had taken. Why don't we legalise grenades too, they'd be more fun right?
Having a gun increases the risk of getting shot and it increases the risk of people around you getting shot. It doesn't make anyone safer, it's just a status symbol, so that if someone pulls a gun that you don't feel powerless, it's not going to help, you cab be buried knowing that you didn't bend over like those unarmed and unharmed civilians.

There is no justification for gun ownership. Do you need to own a gun to go hunting? No.

Are you trying to tell me that the Bill of Rights is not to be honored and appreciated? The reason it was written was *because* there was no freedom in Europe. The governments would censor free speech, execute people who might offend their big ego, and force their own biased will on everyone else. America wanted freedom. So much that they wrote a long series of documents to make it official, and fought a war to preserve it.

Anyone who is old enough has the right to own a weapon. That's America, where people fought for years and years, just so you could have the free speech to say what you want, even if it does go against our *fundamental beliefs in freedom.*

 

[SOLDIERis1337]

Why should we have the right to execute a burgular?

Because not only do you have a duty to protect yourself and family from harm, the law says you have the right to do it. The majority of States have laws that give you the right to kill an intruder to your home with no obligation to retreat, even the States without Castle Doctrines. the so called "make my day" laws, you have a right to use lethal force on an attacker in your home if you have retreated from the intruder yet he still threatens you after showing your intention to avoid a conflict.

It's an archaic piece of legislature, made when people were expecting to be attacked by Native Americans or whoever else's land they had taken.

Really? You actually think the US Constitution is an "archaic piece of legislature?" I suppose that the first amendment is a relic needed only when the British monarch's could pass unfair laws prohibiting freedoms of speech assembly the press and free exercise of religion. The third amendment is laughable, red coats no longer order citizens to house them in their homes. The fourth amendment is unnecessary too, nowadays there are no British soldiers who could needlessly search you or seize your property. Do you see where I'm going with this? You might want to take a High School level US History course, as you're extremely misguided in your views on the Bill of Rights.

 

[Donald Trump]

Now that we're getting semantic, bolt action rifles have been used to shoot people, lots of times. Those came long before pistols were ever around. Similarly, a pistol can easily be used to shoot wildlife (although a rifle is a lot more practical). Guns are weapons, their uses aren't set-in-stone.

The difference isn't semantic, you can't go hunting with a pistol. Unless you think that whatever you're hunting is going to let you get that close.
Though that's a moot point, the point is, a pistol is semi-automatic, so that's at least 9 shots, at least, before you have to reload. Compared to a bolt-action, which is one. If you want to kill one person that's not going to make a difference, but then again, it wouldn't really matter what you used.

Are you trying to tell me that the Bill of Rights is not to be honored and appreciated? The reason it was written was *because* there was no freedom in Europe. The governments would censor free speech, execute people who might offend their big ego, and force their own biased will on everyone else. America wanted freedom. So much that they wrote a long series of documents to make it official, and fought a war to preserve it.

Anyone who is old enough has the right to own a weapon. That's America, where people fought for years and years, just so you could have the free speech to say what you want, even if it does go against our *fundamental beliefs in freedom.*

Which is great, that was 300 hundred years ago. The right to bear arms was for protection against native americans amongst others. They aren't necessary anymore. It's natural for laws to change over time, a good example being laws against homosexuality. There's no good reason for gun ownership, the fact that it's in the bill of rights isn't a good reason.

Because not only do you have a duty to protect yourself and family from harm, the law says you have the right to do it. The majority of States have laws that give you the right to kill an intruder to your home with no obligation to retreat, even the States without Castle Doctrines. the so called "make my day" laws, you have a right to use lethal force on an attacker in your home if you have retreated from the intruder yet he still threatens you after showing your intention to avoid a conflict.

Morally.
Just because someone has broken into your house doesn't give you justification to kill them.

Really? You actually think the US Constitution is an "archaic piece of legislature?" I suppose that the first amendment is a relic needed only when the British monarch's could pass unfair laws prohibiting freedoms of speech assembly the press and free exercise of religion. The third amendment is laughable, red coats no longer order citizens to house them in their homes. The fourth amendment is unnecessary too, nowadays there are no British soldiers who could needlessly search you or seize your property. Do you see where I'm going with this? You might want to take a High School level US History course, as you're extremely misguided in your views on the Bill of Rights.

"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"
Sounds up to date huh? Since gun ownership results in death, it makes it, wrong. It's not 1791, more up to date laws should be made.

 

[SABR]

but then again, it wouldn't really matter what you used.

Thank you.

Which is great, that was 300 hundred years ago. The right to bear arms was for protection against native americans amongst others. They aren't necessary anymore. It's natural for laws to change over time, a good example being laws against homosexuality. There's no good reason for gun ownership, the fact that it's in the bill of rights isn't a good reason.

Again, it's in the Bill of Rights. Nothing about homosexuality was ever mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, both of which will never become "archaic," so long as the country is still called the "United States of America," and we are still a "free people."

Morally.

Just because someone has broken into your house doesn't give you justification to kill them.

Say that when somebody's ripping your house apart and pointing a gun at you.

"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"
Sounds up to date huh? Since gun ownership results in death, it makes it, wrong. It's not 1791, more up to date laws should be made.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Yep, the Bill of Rights sounds pretty up-to-date to me.

Gun ownership does not "result in death." Jumping off a cliff results in death. Taking rat poison results in death. Gun ownership does not result in death. Irresponsible use of guns results in death. Similarly, irresponsible use of baseball bats, shoelaces, and crowbars results in death. Does that mean we can't have these things for practical use?

 

[SOLDIERis1337]

Morally.
Just because someone has broken into your house doesn't give you justification to kill them.

Yes it does, the law explicitly states this. Besides which, self defense is morally right. Most major religions teach this, even the pacifist ones. Why do you think Buddhist monks have mastered martial arts for so many centuries? They did this to defend their temples from raiders. Why do you think Christ told his disciples that, "he who has no sword should sell his cloak and buy one."? There is nothing wrong with defending yourself from someone murdering you, even if you use lethal force.

"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"
Sounds up to date huh?

Yeah, and the concept of the free exercise of religion is so out of date its not even funny. It's not like the country is controlled by a bunch of different Christian denominations who would oppress any minority faiths in their area anymore like their were in late 16th century, so we never have to worry about the government taking that right away. You really, really, really need to wait until you've had at least one High School level class on US history before you speak.

Since gun ownership results in death, it makes it, wrong.

I'm sorry, but this is the most incredibly ignorant statement I've ever seen. Gun ownership does not result in death. My father and grandfather have both owned and used guns since they were very young, they've never killed anyone. I've owned guns since I was an adolescent boy, I've never killed anyone. I know countless numbers of people who own not just one, but many guns, and none of them have ever taken a life. Insane people doing insane things results in death.

Ted Bundy didn't kill any of his victims with a firearm, so I suppose owing a hammer or rope or anything that can be used to bludgeon or strangle is morally wrong as well, because they result in death. Give me a break.

 

[Bun]

Since gun ownership results in death, it makes it, wrong.

I'm sorry, but this is the most incredibly ignorant statement I've ever seen. Gun ownership does not result in death. My father and grandfather have both owned and used guns since they were very young, they've never killed anyone. I've owned guns since I was an adolescent boy, I've never killed anyone. I know countless numbers of people who own not just one, but many guns, and none of them have ever taken a life. Insane people doing insane things results in death.

Ted Bundy didn't kill any of his victims with a firearm, so I suppose owing a hammer or rope or anything that can be used to bludgeon or strangle is morally wrong as well, because they result in death. Give me a break.

Agreed. Owning a gun does not automatically mean someone is going to die because of it. They are dangerous weapons, yes, but when properly handled, cared for and stored, they can be just as nonthreatening. It's fine not to think highly of guns because they are generally used to kill things, but going so far as to assume something like that is just pure ignorance.

Guns are most certainly not toys and should not be taken lightly. Whoever owns a gun should be required to learn how to use it first, but before that, there should be a rigorous process to determine who gets one and who does not. Stricter gun laws can help reduce the amount of individuals being handed one legally, and help regulate (though not completely eliminate) those who should never even be able to look at one.

 

[Donald Trump]

Again, it's in the Bill of Rights. Nothing about homosexuality was ever mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, both of which will never become "archaic," so long as the country is still called the "United States of America," and we are still a "free people."

You're missing the point. Laws are made to reflect the social views of the time. Ergo since it's no longer 1791 the laws are no longer relevant, make new ones. There is no need for gun ownership anymore.

Say that when somebody's ripping your house apart and pointing a gun at you.

A gun? If only there was gun control right?
People seem to think that having gun control in place will only effect people buying guns legally.
First rule of economics = Scarcity, this effects everyone.
Also if there is a person pointing a gun at me, me owning a gun isn't going to help, unless when he leaves, I take the gun from under my pillow and shoot him in the back?

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Yep, the Bill of Rights sounds pretty up-to-date to me.

Does it mention torture in there anywhere?

Gun ownership does not "result in death." Jumping off a cliff results in death. Taking rat poison results in death. Gun ownership does not result in death. Irresponsible use of guns results in death. Similarly, irresponsible use of baseball bats, shoelaces, and crowbars results in death. Does that mean we can't have these things for practical use?

I get it, things can be deadly, which is why sales of poison are restricted. How many deaths occur from baseball bats, shoelaces and crowbars? Not as many as from guns.

Agreed. Owning a gun does not automatically mean someone is going to die because of it. They are dangerous weapons, yes, but when properly handled, cared for and stored, they can be just as nonthreatening. It's fine not to think highly of guns because they are generally used to kill things, but going so far as to assume something like that is just pure ignorance.

No, they aren't non threatning, they're designed to kill, that's like saying that a katana is non threatning in the hands of an expert, it's still a deadly weapon. The sole purpose of a gun is to cause death. Also when did I say gun ownership automaticallu causes death for everyone?
Anyway the idea of a gun being non threatning is ludicrous.

Guns are most certainly not toys and should not be taken lightly. Whoever owns a gun should be required to learn how to use it first, but before that, there should be a rigorous process to determine who gets one and who does not. Stricter gun laws can help reduce the amount of individuals being handed one legally, and help regulate (though not completely eliminate) those who should never even be able to look at one.

Don't move to far to the left or the right or you'll be hit by a car. That's not a solution to anything. Cho legally bought his guns.

Yes it does, the law explicitly states this. Besides which, self defense is morally right. Most major religions teach this, even the pacifist ones. Why do you think Buddhist monks have mastered martial arts for so many centuries? They did this to defend their temples from raiders. Why do you think Christ told his disciples that, "he who has no sword should sell his cloak and buy one."? There is nothing wrong with defending yourself from someone murdering you, even if you use lethal force.

Ahh the bible, the right's conscience. I really like the bit where he kills all the gay people. As well as what he did to Onan.
The Buddhists too, who have been reformed by the west. Expert Genocider Pol Pot was a Buddhist.

Yeah, and the concept of the free exercise of religion is so out of date its not even funny. It's not like the country is controlled by a bunch of different Christian denominations who would oppress any minority faiths in their area anymore like their were in late 16th century, so we never have to worry about the government taking that right away. You really, really, really need to wait until you've had at least one High School level class on US history before you speak.

Slightly ironic, considering I should keep doing all these things before I speak. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
Also wake me up when you get to the bit about gun control, I know the you want to give me the benefit of your US history class education so that I have the right to speak, but considering it's irrelevant. Oh well.

I'm sorry, but this is the most incredibly ignorant statement I've ever seen. Gun ownership does not result in death. My father and grandfather have both owned and used guns since they were very young, they've never killed anyone. I've owned guns since I was an adolescent boy, I've never killed anyone. I know countless numbers of people who own not just one, but many guns, and none of them have ever taken a life. Insane people doing insane things results in death.

Ted Bundy didn't kill any of his victims with a firearm, so I suppose owing a hammer or rope or anything that can be used to bludgeon or strangle is morally wrong as well, because they result in death. Give me a break.

Well good for grandparents, mine have, but ya know someone had to defeat Facism.
Are we basing this debate on people you've met, because if so, you've got a massive advantage, plus the benefir of a US history class education, lest we forget. I've also not met a serial killer.
However let's move away from the subject of people that you know who didn't kill people with guns to the irrational basis of your argument. People that haven't killed people obviously means that no one has killed people. You've got sane people wth guns covered, I've met a madman who owns a gun, and he hasn't killed someone yet. Therefore we can extrapolate and conclude that no one, sane or insane has ever killed anyone with a gun.
Though that obviously takes the some of the sting out of my following comments on the sheer ridiculousness of comparing guns to hammers.
There was this thing that made the news world wide, some crazy kid called Cho grabbed a hammer and smshed 32 people to death with his hammer.
Also do you remember the Columbine School Rope Strangling massacre?
Wait, they used guns didn't they?
I wonder why this was, because according to you, hammers and rope are equally deadly. Come to think of it, why even own guns when hammers are just as deadly. Boy I bet that you're wishing that instead of spending all that money on guns and ammo you could have a bought a hammer instead and bought some McDonalds with your change.
Infact, those troops in Iraq should be given hammer not guns.

 

[Bun]

Don't move to far to the left or the right or you'll be hit by a car. That's not a solution to anything. Cho legally bought his guns.

I think you're taking what is being said a little too literally. It was never explicitly stated that stricter obtainment processes would thoroughly eliminate anyone getting their hands on a gun, but rather, it would help. I understand what you're trying to say here is that we don't need laws to help cut down on who gets guns, but rather, banish them completely. But that is obviously not the case in many places and will most likely never be. As nice as it would be to live in a world where humans did not feel the need to possess a deadly weapon, it is certainly not feasible regardless of what YOU may dream of.

And about the car statement. You're completely right. There are people who shouldn't be able to own or get behind the wheel of a car, ever. And something needs to be done about that passing score/training to obtain a license. Cars were not made with the intention of being a deadly weapon, but can be used as such when handled improperly (or intentionally for that matter). That's no reason to go abolishing them entirely simply because some people can't take the responsibility of driving one, however.