Gun laws.

[Silver]

I suppose our core difference is that I don't think ANY fight is futile, or not worth waging, if it's against evil.

Like Beauty. Good and Evil are in the eye of the beholder.

I disagree. Good and Evil are in the eyes of G-d. How clearly the beholder distinguishes them is of course dependent on human failings - we have a disturbing tendency to attribute to G-d a desire for us to have our way.

Sure. But since no one can know what you're god wants or not, it's still subjective. Some people celebrate when homosexuals kill in Gods name, others kill in Gods name. I hope you don't. But still it shows that even God is subjective.

"Great Britain's empire was only marginally threatened, but it came to the aid of Poland, France, and Belgium and fought Germany and Italy largely by itself because it was the right thing to do. America came late - but we DID come, and took over a million casualties. Great Britain and the Commonwealth (primarily Canada, Australia, India, and Scotland) fought Germany almost to a standstill even when France and Belgium unexpectedly caved. Sweden was small, true - but more than twice the size of Denmark. Denmark fought its heart out, and in my opinion at least is a better country for it. Had Sweden - the source of much of Germany's weapons steel - and Norway and Finland stood with Great Britain, there would probably have been no need for American involvement in Europe at all, and certainly not if France and Belgium had had the guts to fight even knowing they might well lose.

My point is not particularly to condemn Sweden, but rather to point out that the policies you profess - non-violence, disarmament, unwillingness to address evil - are a microcosm of the same policies that led Sweden to its reality of becoming Germany's satellite state. Had Germany won the war, do you doubt Sweden would have been no more than a province of Germany? Similarly, a man who refuses to defend himself and his family to the best of his ability, to whom nothing is worth more than his own life and who looks to others for his protection, is a miserable creature. An armed society may be more dangerous than a completely disarmed society, if such can exist, but being armed allows a man (or woman) to be on roughly equal terms with a criminal. Put another way, the average man or woman armed with a baseball bat is easy prey to a dozen thugs with baseball bats, but the average man or woman armed with a 12 ga Remington 1100 is probably going to be left alone by a dozen thugs with 12 ga Remington 1100s. Guns are the great equalizer between criminal and victim."

No, but as I said, you would have no problem sacrificing others or have others suffer because of your fight against evil. I don't think Swedens maybe 1000 soldiers would have made any difference. The only difference it would have made would be a lot of Swedes killed, many of them not soldiers. A damn lot more of the jewish refugees killed, and Germany having even greater supplies of steel.

Your other example is just as wrong. "A man who refuses to defend himself and his family to the best of his ability, to whom nothing is worth more than his own life and who looks to others for his protection, is a miserable creature."

That I agree with, however I also think that a man who is willing to put his families lives on the line, who is willing to sacrifice his neighbours and risk their families is just as miserable.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not sure what bizzare equation people used to come to the conclusion that taking away guns will equate to more gun violence.

Well, the basic premise is that whilst Joe and Jane average would give up their guns because they're law abiding citizens, criminals are not, so they wouldn't walk into a police station and hand their gun over (big surprise).

People seem to think that police won't be able to do shit about armed criminals, so they think armed homicides will increase.

But people forget that if everyone doesn't have a gun, then no one has any real reason to actually shoot anyone, when they could just knock 'em out... because they won't be afriad of them having a gun.

Copter: there is no 'equation', there is cold reality. In the UK, banning handguns caused gun violence to double. Banning handguns in Jamaica led to out of control gun violence. Enacting more restrictive gun laws in Hawaii resulted in a sharp increase in violent crime.

Think about Prohibition or the War on Drugs. Now imagine that with handguns instead of alcohol or drugs.

I would like to see some evidence. In Australia, where we do have strict gun control, you rarely hear about violent shootouts.

Amazing what a few hundred kilometers of open ocean can do for the nanny state, isn't it? Here in the states we have lots of guns and porous borders. Every city or state that enacts stricter gun laws experiences an increase in violent crime or at least a lower decrease in the rate, where it is going down nationwide. The NRA has good stats if you want to go to their site.

Look at the criminal life.
Advantages: Good money with little effort. Lots of free time.
Disadvantages: Might get shot. Might go to prison.

To an honest citizen, gun banning laws present the choice of being unprotected or possibly going to prison. Since going to prison is not normally a hazard of being an honest citizen, gun banning laws increase the chance of negative consequences either way he acts. The only benefit to the honest citizen is if he is stupid enough to make shooting himself a possibility or if he is violent enough to shoot a loved one but too lazy to knife or club them.

By denying honest citizens the right to be armed, gun banning laws reduce the criminal's chance of being shot whilst not materially increasing his chance of going to prison, since criminal activities will send him to prison just like carrying a gun. He can even opt to carry a knife or club rather than a gun when committing crimes against people he's pretty sure can't physically hurt him, thereby lowering his potential prison time even further.

Gun bans are therefore a win-win for criminals, barring a convenient ocean barrier on all sides.

Booze Zombie - there are valid reasons to shoot someone other than fearing he has a gun. Women for instance are not particularly fond of being raped, neither sex is generally fond of being beaten or robbed, and being strangled, knifed, or set on fire is usually low on the list of preferences as well. Does it not occur to you that someone willing to rob or rape you might not mind killing you too? If that's your logic, you don't need to disarm the rest of society to keep yourself safe. Carry a blackjack and whenever you feel threatened, just piss your pants and knock yourself out. By your logic your assailant won't feel threatened and will have no reason to hurt you. You alone will be safe amid an army of walking dead men! All will marvel at your cleverness! (From upwind of course.)

As to police - if they can't stop violent crime now, why would they be able to to stop it if law-abiding citizens are disarmed? The idea of prohibiting something to me for fear someone else will steal it is rather foolish, for if you can't stop him from stealing it from me how can you stop him from obtaining it elsewhere? (Again, absent a convenient ocean barrier on all sides. In that case I suppose you could legitimately put yourself at the mercy of criminals and government in order to get a less well-armed criminal, although it still seems like a poor trade-off to me.)

 

[werepossum]

Sure. But since no one can know what you're god wants or not, it's still subjective. Some people celebrate when homosexuals kill in Gods name, others kill in Gods name. I hope you don't. But still it shows that even God is subjective.

Actually that proves man is subjective in his interpretation of G-d.

No, but as I said, you would have no problem sacrificing others or have others suffer because of your fight against evil. I don't think Swedens maybe 1000 soldiers would have made any difference. The only difference it would have made would be a lot of Swedes killed, many of them not soldiers. A damn lot more of the jewish refugees killed, and Germany having even greater supplies of steel.

Your other example is just as wrong. "A man who refuses to defend himself and his family to the best of his ability, to whom nothing is worth more than his own life and who looks to others for his protection, is a miserable creature."

That I agree with, however I also think that a man who is willing to put his families lives on the line, who is willing to sacrifice his neighbours and risk their families is just as miserable.

Sweden was no longer a great power, but certainly had more than 1,000 soldiers and could have easily raised more than 60,000 soldiers, enough to do a great deal of damage and delay to Germany. Sweden had itself learned with Finland and Norway that smaller armies on their own territory can have a disproportionate affect and can even prevail. Had it been only Sweden and Germany, then certainly Sweden would have had no chance, but Sweden would not have been fighting alone, and Germany could not have brought anything like its full strength against Sweden. And there's no reason Germany would have had more steel; had Sweden fought, Germany would have been forced to occupy it, tying up large numbers of soldiers, for at best no more steel than Sweden willingly gave. Certainly Denmark and Poland and the Netherlands never became net positives for the German war effort, they were always drains of men and effort for poor yields of materials. There's no reason that Sweden should have been any different. Denmark's 8,000 Jews would have had to flee in another direction, none of which were very hospitable, but they'd have had a lot more warning had Sweden fought than they did.

As to the other, I can't imagine throwing my family on the mercy of the nation that killed twenty million Jews, homosexuals, Slavs, Gypsies, and other persons they considered undesirable, nor on the mercy of criminals, on the grounds that they might be killed if I fight. We don't even have enough common ground to argue, so I think we shall have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[Oh-Wiseone]

You know all this talk about Sweeden and Germany is really a bit off...
All that matters to me is that my state isn't going to ban firearms till the 2nd coming of Christ, which means that no one is going to be taking my guns.

 

[hughball]

well lets face it no one should really be allowed fire arms until we evolve some form of defence against them.

 

[Ultrajoe]

I'm kinda surprised by many people's train of thought on this issue. Honestly, if I was going to kill someone, really gonna do it, then I would do it, with or out without a gun in my hand. It is just a tool and should not be viewed as anything more or less. To point the finger at guns is childish to say the least. If you fell down on the playground and hurt your knee on the slide, do you blame the slide? Children think like that because they cannot find the emotions or reason to blame themselves for messing up.


^_^

but isn't that subscribing to the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' mode of thought?

If guns are just a tool, surely its ok to give them to each and every person, criminals and psychopaths included?

Its all well and good to try and 'see past guns' but is that an example of wisdom or ignorance?

Your right in saying that people are the problem, but if they are the problem should we be outfitting said problem with firearms? thats like leaving oil in the path of a fire because you intend to let it burn its way through anything anyway. Leaving guns in the hands of potential killers is out of apathy or an intention not to try and stop those killings in the first place.

Im guessing your not murderous so apathy is the only logical conclusion.

 

[Oh-Wiseone]

well lets face it no one should really be allowed fire arms until we evolve some form of defence against them.

Its called another gun.

 

[wgreer25]

I must ask if I'm the only one that sees the difference here. I can't be. To me there is a huge difference between arming yourself with a non-lethal weapon (that yes, can prove deadly under the wrong circumstances) and confront criminals in your own home than to arm yourself with a lethal weapon (try to shoot someone with a bloody shotgun and make them survive if you're using live ammo) and walk out the door to confront criminals that were inside your neighbour's house after a police officer has told you repetitively to not to that. If no one agrees with me that the situation is completely different I will shut up about it (and probably be really fucking scared).

I have always said the situations were different, but where you see the atlantic ocean I see the english channels worth of difference.

Horn did not have less-than lethal ammunition available. I am fuzzy on american law in this respect but I think that the US law still considers a shotgun loaded with bean bags to be lethal force, so legally there would be no difference.
Ask the guy that Cheney shot how to survive a shotgun blast, with birdshot at least.


You place a great deal of weight on "other peoples house"


A criminal is engaged in a criminal activity, you have a safe place and have called the police, is exiting that safe place with a weapon in order to confront the criminal a bad thing to do?
Please answer this with some directness.

I believe this reasonably describes both situations, I am trying to discover what exactly about the difference you have a problem with.
If THOR had been forced to kill 2 of the criminals (who were apparently armed, even though the nation has gun control)would you still think his actions were justifiable.
Is a person only allowed to confront criminals on their own property, or in defense of their own property?

You say a law cannot grant someone right to live if you're not allowed to defend yourself. I have no problem with defending oneself for a legitimate reason. Running out the door to confront two criminals is in my eyes pushing it way beyond that. If someone tries to rob you on the street with a gun and you defend yourself, accidently killing that person in the process, if you're taken hostage and threatened to your life, sure. If someone pulls a gun on you inside your own house, yes. But when you put yourself at risk by getting involved in something that isn't your business (a police officer telling you to not getting involved several times makes it bloody well not your business) that's fucking pushing things.

A dispatcher told him, a dispatcher is a police officer in diapers, he was under no obligation to do what the dispatcher told him. He was watching a crime in progress, he confronted 2 criminals.
what should those criminals have done?
They should have run away, if he shoots them then it is a crime
they should have surrendered, if he shoots them it is a crime
Instead they attacked, allowing him to defend his own life, and while defending his life he killed them.

If he had hit one in the chest and he was still alive, yet horn walked over and blasted him again as he lay on the ground, that is illegal.

If a cop had behaved exactly as this person did, then you would think nothing of it
Why hold citizens to a higher standard

If I walked up and punched a person with a gun in the face I would fear for my life. Killing that person then still isn't right, even thought I'm technically defending myself (if my intent was to just punch that person and then walk away). Sure, I'm still in for assault, but the murder is okay, or what?

This is stretching
You created a situation.
Now, if you are in a fistfight and someone pulls a deadly weapon, then yeah, you can defend yourself with deadly force.
Nobody said it wouldnt be a hairy law, thats why we have courts, nothing is ever clear cut in the law.

I also think you misunderstood my take on liberty but that's not for this thread. It wouldn't give the government any obscene amounts of power.

Well, as far as i am concerned, most european government already have obscene power, their citizens have traded personal liberty for wealth, safety, and protection from commerce, they just havent noticed it yet.

The reason Sweden did this and people came running to America wasn't because of the views of the nations. It was because of their armies. America has always had a huge army, the last time Sweden had that was 300 years ago (or 500, I can't remember). If you're being attacked by a bully in a schoolyard you go talk to a teacher, even if that teacher isn't nice, you don't go to your five-year younger, disabled sister for help. The teacher has the power to stop the bully, hopefully. Your sister might want to help, but a bully would just turn over her wheelchair and keep stomping on your head.

uuuuhhhh

not sure what you are talking about here, but pre-WWII US military sucked, it was undermanned and under supplied, so unless the discussion is about the cold war then you are wrong.

To give some insight on American law. I can actually only speak for the state that I live in, so where this took place could be slightly different. I have a concealed weapons permit and in order to get that you are required to go through training, and that training includes and understanding of the law (of that state, and your premit is only good for your state and states that have reciprocity with that state... i.e. I can't carry in New York). Someone else on this post said that if a reasonable person would believe that their life is in danger, then lethal force may be used (my gun teacher used just about those exact same words). I would add this. The danger must be immediate. You can't shoot someone waving a knife at you from 50 yards away. You can save someone else it they are in immediate danger. You can make a citizens arrest.

These next two are where the situation in question becomes grey. In my state, you have a duty to retreat, unless the act of retreating will endanger your life. For example, if someone has a gun pointed at me, it would be too dangerous for me to run. But if someone comes to the window of my car, it would be very easy for me to drive away. You have no duty to retreat in your own home or place of buisness. In my classes I found if very hard to find a situation where the act of retreating was safe. Now from what I understand from this situation (forgot where I heard this so don't quote me on it) if a neighbor asks you to watch his house, legally, his house if your house.

Next grey one. You cannot be in any way at fault. To further describe this one. If you START a bar fight, someone in the bar fight pulls a gun, you pull your gun in self defense and kill him, you will be charged with murder because you started the fight (PS even with a carry permit you cannot take a gun into a place that serves alcohol). Know the reason I think this doesn't apply is because he is allowed to make a citizens arrest, he did not confront them to commit agresion. As I understand it, he confronted them to stop them and they attacked him. To give and example my teacher gave me. If I am in my house (no duty to retreat) and someone breaks in an has a TV in their hands. If I am standing between them and the door out with a gun, they have two choices. Carge me or surrender. If they charge and I shoot, it is legal. If they stand still and I shoot, it is illegal. A TV could be considered a weapon. Personally, I think the situation at hand is a little grey, but I also know that the media is not telling us the whole story and will twist it so that it looks like this guy is a raving madman. I agree with Silvertoung in that the situations are different (and I think the media is leaving out key details), but I will say that he does have the right to confront them to make an arrest. Would I? Probably not, I value my own life too much.

To UltraJoe: I see what you are trying to say, but it is a little to black and white. If you say a gun is a tool (and I think it is) you can also say a chainsaw is a tool. Do I think every person should be able to operate a chainsaw, no. A 2 year old should not operate a chainsaw. Nor should my wife. She has the upper body strength of a kitten (but the booty of a goddess, seriously she's got a great ass). A gun is a tool, but it is a dangerous tool. And as such, only law abiding people should be allow access to it. Likewise, a knife longer than 3" is considered a concealed weapon (I think it is 3"). To make another comparison, alcohol. Alcohol is something that requires adult decisions to use responsible. People abuse it all the time. Guns are also something that require adult decisions to use.

So yes a gun is a tool, but it is a dangerous tool and should be regualted as such. What my argument is, is that our government is doing more to keep guns out of the right hands, not the wrong hands. Passing more laws to keep people from getting a gun, means that only poeple who obey the law will be the one's without guns. Simple logic. Sure there are laws that say a criminal can't have a gun. But guess what, they are criminals, they don't care about the law. I don't know how they get their guns. Where I am from, a background check is performed to buy any gun. Someone had mentioned a gun show and not doing a background check. I have been to several gun shows and they all checked. Maybe is was a specific location that didn't require. My idea to fix the problem... Don't enfore more gun bans, the current rules are fine. Make punishment for crimes commited with a gun SEVERE! I'm talking 50+ years for armed robery. Or find out how criminals are getting their guns and attack that. But don't hurt the guy who obeys the rules and make him defenseless.

 

[wgreer25]

You know all this talk about Sweeden and Germany is really a bit off...
All that matters to me is that my state isn't going to ban firearms till the 2nd coming of Christ, which means that no one is going to be taking my guns.

You must be with me in the south. Ain't it great!

 

[wgreer25]

Look at the criminal life.
Advantages: Good money with little effort. Lots of free time.
Disadvantages: Might get shot. Might go to prison.

To an honest citizen, gun banning laws present the choice of being unprotected or possibly going to prison. Since going to prison is not normally a hazard of being an honest citizen, gun banning laws increase the chance of negative consequences either way he acts. The only benefit to the honest citizen is if he is stupid enough to make shooting himself a possibility or if he is violent enough to shoot a loved one but too lazy to knife or club them.

By denying honest citizens the right to be armed, gun banning laws reduce the criminal's chance of being shot whilst not materially increasing his chance of going to prison, since criminal activities will send him to prison just like carrying a gun. He can even opt to carry a knife or club rather than a gun when committing crimes against people he's pretty sure can't physically hurt him, thereby lowering his potential prison time even further.

Gun bans are therefore a win-win for criminals, barring a convenient ocean barrier on all sides.

*Golf Claps* Well said. Did you realize we are in the same city?

 

[AnGeL.SLayer]

I'm kinda surprised by many people's train of thought on this issue. Honestly, if I was going to kill someone, really gonna do it, then I would do it, with or out without a gun in my hand. It is just a tool and should not be viewed as anything more or less. To point the finger at guns is childish to say the least. If you fell down on the playground and hurt your knee on the slide, do you blame the slide? Children think like that because they cannot find the emotions or reason to blame themselves for messing up.


^_^

but isn't that subscribing to the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' mode of thought?

If guns are just a tool, surely its ok to give them to each and every person, criminals and psychopaths included?

Its all well and good to try and 'see past guns' but is that an example of wisdom or ignorance?

Your right in saying that people are the problem, but if they are the problem should we be outfitting said problem with firearms? thats like leaving oil in the path of a fire because you intend to let it burn its way through anything anyway. Leaving guns in the hands of potential killers is out of apathy or an intention not to try and stop those killings in the first place.

Im guessing your not murderous so apathy is the only logical conclusion.

lol I thought it was common sense that only adults should be given such a dangerous tool, though a tool it still is. I don't agree that to fix the 'gun problem' we should hand everyone a gun. Taking them away isn't the answer either. If a bad guy got his hands on a gun and was pointing it at me, I'd be wishing that guns where more common so I could at least perhaps level the playing field. I do admit that I shoot guns for sport and for fun. Theres nothing quite like the feeling of shooting a gun off, the level of power that comes with holding one in your hand. But you need to understand the ability to shoot someone at point blank range is not very common among most people, that is not the mentality people are born with. A bad guy is still a bad guy, with out with a gun. He can be just as deadly with a pillow if his intention where to harm you. Guns just make him being a bad guy a little easier, gives him an advantage. If he had a knife, he still has the advantage. The point you are missing is that even if you both have a gun and neither of you knew how to use it, you both are wasting your time praying for a lucky shot. You may think shooting a gun is easy and anyone can do it, but it is a skill one must acquire. You shouldn't own or even let alone hold a gun in less you have the intent to use it. Otherwise your giving your opponent the advantage. You cannot sit here and tell me guns are the problem, they are a main factor in the problem not the cause. People who misuse a tool for a deed that is less than noble is the cause.

There is no easy solution to this. You cannot simply take away guns and think that would be the end of it. That is a childish notion as well. They are too much ingrained into the world today. We need to either level the playing field or find another way to get an advantage on the bad guys who are using them. Taking them away isn't an option, nor is giving everyone one to run around with; might as well hand them flame throwers as well. If a group of bad guys got their hands on just a few high powered guns they could take over a small town. Perhaps not for long but the damage would horrifying if they had enough murderous intent. I'd rather have the option of having a gun at my disposal than not having it at all because the bad guys will ALWAYS find a way to get them. At least I can protect my family and friends as where you will already be among the dead.

I'm sorry but this world has no room for people who are all about world peace and not harming someone who is trying to harm you. You are holding man kind back. We are animals at the very core of our being and that should not be ignored. The need to fight and to control is part of our nature. There is a reason as to why the weaker animals die out. If they had the chance to rise up and out number the stronger then the way of life, the ability to survive, would be in serious danger. Ignorance comes with people who fear to fight for what they believe in and for what is right for the whole, not just themselves. People who can only point a finger at guns are among the weak. You don't know what else to do so you blame the tool instead of the person who's holding it. A childish notion indeed. It's society that you should be pointing your finger at.

And I know I'm gonna get dogged for the whole weakness/nature thing. So blah, it's just how I feel.


^_^

 

[bpm195]

I'll give pretty much my canned arguments for this as I don't particularly have the will to read the whole thread.

The only situation in which you'll be able to use a gun to defend yourself against an armed attack is if your weapon is already drawn, which in most circumstances is illegal. Firearms for self defense is utter bull. There is some value in using firearms to protect others, but if somebody is going to shoot you then you don't have time to draw your weapon. There is also some value in defending your property, but for one the law rarely supports this and sendondly it's unlikely you'll be successful. Worst of all is the massive issue of stolen guns, as if a gun owner is robbed then their guns are going into the wrong hands.

Laws surrounding stolen guns are further problematic. One of the common ways for a legal gun to fall into illegal possession is for a person that can buy a gun legally will do so, then sale it to a person that can't legally get a gun. The person retains their ability to legally posess weapons by claiming the gun has been stolen. Coupled with the ability to purchase guns in large numbers and the difficulty of proving somebody is distributing weapons, we have a legal system that sustains illegal gun trade.

Furthermore we have the so called "right to bear arms" which for some reason is used to defend only firearms. For whatever reason, there are plenty of laws preventing us from carrying melee weapons like Swords that few seem to fight against, while we have tons of special interest groups marching under the banner of "it's our constitutional right to bear arms," and fighting for the most dangerous of weapons to be allowed.

Then there is the issue of the inherent danger of guns compared to other weapons. When a bullet misses there is always the issue of where the bullet will land. Collateral damage from firearms is not infrequent and is often fatal. A gun in the hand of an unskilled user is extremely dangerous to all around them. Even shooting a gun into the air has proven many times to be inadvertently lethal, and countless bystanders have died in many attacks for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet there is a constant push to keep advances in firearm technology legal. Innocent people are killed by the absurd amount of stray fire produced in a gun fight*. Furthermore, there are assault weapons and vest piercing rounds that are legally available, but have no good reason to be in the hands of civilians. These only serve purpose of killing police officers.

Then there are the reasons for owning guns which strike me as trite. For one there is the idea of needing to be armed in case we need to overthrow the government; personally, i'm not paranoid enough to think this will happen, and I'm not naive enough to expect my countrymen to unite and protect our constitution. Then there's the notion of self defense, which is infrequent and rarely legal. There is the constitutional issue of the 2nd Amendment, which I don't believe entitles all citizens to firearms (particularly considering how if it does then every time a convicted murderer is denied a gun the law is behaving unconstitutionally).

*I'm not blaming guns for gun fights as it's more sociological, but not putting guns in the hands of criminals would help prevent them.

 

[Silver]

I'm pointing my finger at society as well. I don't think that guns would be a problem if people were mature enough to use them. However I don't think people should have guns until they were mature enough either.

To oversimplify, let's say we have a society where everyone thinks, respects human life, and can generally act mature. They can have as many guns as they like in my opinion. Their two-years old children can not. If their children has guns, I believe in taking those guns away until those children have grown up. Not blame the two-year old for the damage.

Edit: Yes, I'm comparing you to two-year olds. No offence intended.

 

[Vaudille]

I'll give pretty much my canned arguments for this as I don't particularly have the will to read the whole thread.

The only situation in which you'll be able to use a gun to defend yourself against an armed attack is if your weapon is already drawn, which in most circumstances is illegal. Firearms for self defense is utter bull. There is some value in using firearms to protect others, but if somebody is going to shoot you then you don't have time to draw your weapon. There is also some value in defending your property, but for one the law rarely supports this and sendondly it's unlikely you'll be successful. Worst of all is the massive issue of stolen guns, as if a gun owner is robbed then their guns are going into the wrong hands.

Laws surrounding stolen guns are further problematic. One of the common ways for a legal gun to fall into illegal possession is for a person that can buy a gun legally will do so, then sale it to a person that can't legally get a gun. The person retains their ability to legally posess weapons by claiming the gun has been stolen. Coupled with the ability to purchase guns in large numbers and the difficulty of proving somebody is distributing weapons, we have a legal system that sustains illegal gun trade.

Furthermore we have the so called "right to bear arms" which for some reason is used to defend only firearms. For whatever reason, there are plenty of laws preventing us from carrying melee weapons like Swords that few seem to fight against, while we have tons of special interest groups marching under the banner of "it's our constitutional right to bear arms," and fighting for the most dangerous of weapons to be allowed.

Then there is the issue of the inherent danger of guns compared to other weapons. When a bullet misses there is always the issue of where the bullet will land. Collateral damage from firearms is not infrequent and is often fatal. A gun in the hand of an unskilled user is extremely dangerous to all around them. Even shooting a gun into the air has proven many times to be inadvertently lethal, and countless bystanders have died in many attacks for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet there is a constant push to keep advances in firearm technology legal. Innocent people are killed by the absurd amount of stray fire produced in a gun fight*. Furthermore, there are assault weapons and vest piercing rounds that are legally available, but have no good reason to be in the hands of civilians. These only serve purpose of killing police officers.

Then there are the reasons for owning guns which strike me as trite. For one there is the idea of needing to be armed in case we need to overthrow the government; personally, i'm not paranoid enough to think this will happen, and I'm not naive enough to expect my countrymen to unite and protect our constitution. Then there's the notion of self defense, which is infrequent and rarely legal. There is the constitutional issue of the 2nd Amendment, which I don't believe entitles all citizens to firearms (particularly considering how if it does then every time a convicted murderer is denied a gun the law is behaving unconstitutionally).

*I'm not blaming guns for gun fights as it's more sociological, but not putting guns in the hands of criminals would help prevent them.

What troubles me as a gun-owning Montana-Living American Teen is that you think and express opinions not based on fact or experience. I could barely call the idea that "if somebody is going to shoot you then you have no time to draw your weapon" media-informed speculation.

You're under the impression that guns are turn-based weapons. Is drawing my Colt .38 a free action- do I need to wait another turn before the DM will let me fire it at the person aiming at me?

Too many people think that the only ones owning guns are crazed anti-homosexual rednecks who only use their weapons to shoot at the gay couple living in the trailer next door. I'm afraid this is less than the actual case.

Law abiding citizens like you and me buy and use guns. I do tournament-grade target shooting, hunt elk, and shoot trap. Pistol, Rifle, and Shotgun respectively. Too many people think that if you no longer made weapons readily available to the general populace (once again, law abiding citizens like you and I), criminals would all become saints and saviors and would no longer commit violent crimes.

Maybe I'm just "clinging to my guns and religion" here, but most people who wish guns banned are the ones who don't own them.

Creating mystical conspiracy theories as an arguement against the Constitution our forefathers created to uphold the sanctity of freedom in America is both disgusting and unnecessary.

I'm not going to create ludicrous examples here about fantastical situations where the improbably and unthinkable occurs, but if someone's broken into my home I'm going to have a gun under my bed and a safe full of weapons upstairs to stop them from stealing either my possessions or the lives of my family.

Some people need to shave their beards and stop teaching Political Science classes.

 

[Vaudille]

And a whole safe?? Isn't one gun enough, for god sakes?

My mom usually buys them. We've probably got a pistol for every limb of every person in our 4-person nuclear household.

Each one's got different accuracy, different sights, 1 has a scope, another has a targeting laser, etc.

EDIT: The trick to self defense is being a good shot and practicing with your weapon. That's what separates most criminals from most homeowners in my area, we've all done mandatory community watch training and are all fairly accurate.

 

[werepossum]

Maybe this is my natural British cowardice, but I'd much rather let the burglars steal my stuff, then get the police on them, rather than try and go all Clint Eastwood. I'm not a Hollywood hero, and I can accept that. Real life never plays out like the movies.

And a whole safe?? Isn't one gun enough, for god sakes?

The beauty of America is that you have that choice. It's your home, defend it or crawl out through a window, your choice. Best hope the intruder only wants your stuff, though. You can always choose not to shoot if you're armed. You can't choose to shoot if you're not armed.

And one gun is never enough unless you only want a gun for protection. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) You've got your quick and convenient pistols, your deer rifles, your squirrel rifles, muzzle loading rifle and shotgun... Having one gun would be like having one game. We look at those who think one gun (or no gun) should be enough for anyone like you would look at those who think one game (or no game) should be enough for you.

Of course, a game can't save your life. Or get lunch.

SNIP

There is the constitutional issue of the 2nd Amendment, which I don't believe entitles all citizens to firearms (particularly considering how if it does then every time a convicted murderer is denied a gun the law is behaving unconstitutionally).

Vaudille answered this quite well, but I'll point out that the Supreme Court of the USA just ruled that the Second Amendment does in fact guaranty an individual's right to bear arms. It isn't unconstitutional to restrict a right as lawful punishment; it's only unconstitutional to restrict a right because you think you know better how others should live their lives.

 

[Ultrajoe]

its odd how far a national divide goes between two countries that seemed so close.

Amercians deal with guns like a household item for the average suburban home.

To Australians like myself however, this concept is horrifying.

to me, thats what i take out of this thread, given that no-one is having their opinion swayed.

 

[Ultrajoe]

People who can only point a finger at guns are among the weak. You don't know what else to do so you blame the tool instead of the person who's holding it. A childish notion indeed.

sorry for the double post but i did notice this particular snippet.

I read your entire post but seeing as we seem to have polar mentalities i agree with everything you say but don't see it as a negative.

This bit i must address though;

Its a matter of options, we are not blaming the tool, but it is the only option we see available to us, does that make pursuing it the weak course? Until we can control the minds of criminals and potential criminals (everyone) what other option is there but to fight the symptoms?

Its not the best course, but just because you cant fell a man does not mean you should leave an axe in his hand if it is in your power to remove it. we cannot simply ignore this particularly deadly factor of the problem in the noble name of 'higher causes' whent he causes are so ground into society they are basic human traits. Yes weapons are a necessary evil in a human society but still that does not justify letting anyone waltz in and buy one.

I realize that because of said polar viewpoints this changes your opinion in no fashion, but to call the one truly currently possible option childish is simply unhelpful, if all you had to stop bleeding was pegs, would you scoff and bleed rather than resort to such foolishness? if so, i commend your huge balls and bravado.

 

[Vaudille]

Knives and bows, though bows are only effective to a certain range and knives are strictly close range, are still readily available to the public. Everyone acts like knives and whatnot are exempt from this argument even though it takes more skill to use a gun then a knife or bow.

Yes, people can waltz in and buy guns. But if the law-abiding citizen is not able to purchase a decent way to defend themselves then you might as well limit all the sales of everything that can be used to kill someone.

Heck, I can kill someone with my computer's keyboard. If they limited those, you people wouldn't be able to type up absurd arguments.

Where do you think criminals like to buy their weapons? Not at stores, those can be traced. And they only carry semi-automatic weapons.

When someone gets blown to pieces with an Uzi and ballistics can't match it to a registered weapon, some criminal somewhere is going to be laughing his head off.

I concede that criminals do use gun stores like Bob Wards or Yellowstone Sports to buy weapons and use them. But if you're really a criminal set out to rob someone of their possessions or their life- where crime is the only way you get paid- you're not going to hesitate to do MORE illegal things to acquire what you need to support your profession. It's bitter truth that even with gun restrictions criminals will be able to get weapons.