Poll: Do you believe in the Second Amendment?

[Thaluikhain]

there is no real source for that its just a fact, cuz a dead soldier you fly the body home, a wounded one you have medical costs and it takes on battlefield resources to attemt to treat him

Oh, yeah, I understand that, I was just wondering if it was anyone's official policy to try and deliberately reduce the damage when shooting someone, which seems unlikely.

With modern firearms, a woman is still at a disadvantage when it comes to pure deadliness

Hey? Why is that?

Whether the story is true or not (I can't remember where I found it, either a book or a website somewhere), it illustrates a point; before the invention of the Atomic Bomb, it would be crazy to invade America because you would not only be facing a well armed and organized military, but also a well armed and near-fanatical civilian base. It would be an army of a couple hundred thousand at the very most versus an army of similar sized plus a militia numbering in the millions. Suicide. And, in truth, the invention of atomic weapons hasn't changed that fact much, simply due to M.A.D.; any use of nuclear weaponry will likely result in a nuclear response, which would devastate the world. The only logical course of action would be a ground invasion, and if that were to happen, again, it would be a force of a few hundred thousand at the very most versus a similar force plus an extremely large militia. Again, suicide.

Er...firstly, an invasion of the US is going to lead to a nuclear response, whether the attackers use nuclear weapons or not. T

Anyway, I'm not sure of the benefit of private gun ownership in the case of an invasion, as opposed to a state mobilisation and arming of the populace. We've seen that sort of thing, in WW2, formation of Home Guard and Home Guard reserves and so on, but under state control, and with state owned weapons, which has obvious benefits with regards to standardisation and so on.

 

[AtheistConservative]

Snip

With modern firearms, a woman is still at a disadvantage when it comes to pure deadliness

Hey? Why is that?

There are a couple reasons, the main and most important one is that women tend to have less muscle mass in their upper bodies compared to men. This means that allowing everything else to be equal, a woman firing the same weapon with the same ammunition is going to notice more recoil and therefor, greater point of aim disruption. This a problem that everyone who intends to use a firearm for self defense must face is: the trade off between the damage done and point of aim disruption. While men face this too, they simply have the advantage of having their trade off curve be further out.
To better explain the above statement: Essentially everyone could use a pistol chambered in .22 LR and be able to fire it without the gun moving to such a degree that it needs to be re-aimed.
However as the power of the cartridge increases, the gun will move more after each shot, which makes it less and less effective to shoot in combat. That said, the weaker a cartridge the less effective they are at stopping an attack.

That's the main reason, there are cultural as well. Many kids in general aren't raised around guns, and if your not raised around them, the chances of you really/intelligently considering firearms as a viable method of self defense are rather low. Even among girls that grow up around guns, interest is rather low in learning about guns for any purpose. As to why that is, you'd have to ask a girl from that background.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Spoiler: snip

There are a couple reasons, the main and most important one is that women tend to have less muscle mass in their upper bodies compared to men. This means that allowing everything else to be equal, a woman firing the same weapon with the same ammunition is going to notice more recoil and therefor, greater point of aim disruption. This a problem that everyone who intends to use a firearm for self defense must face is: the trade off between the damage done and point of aim disruption. While men face this too, they simply have the advantage of having their trade off curve be further out.
To better explain the above statement: Essentially everyone could use a pistol chambered in .22 LR and be able to fire it without the gun moving to such a degree that it needs to be re-aimed.
However as the power of the cartridge increases, the gun will move more after each shot, which makes it less and less effective to shoot in combat. That said, the weaker a cartridge the less effective they are at stopping an attack.

Ah, ok. I've never been too convinced about the necessity for a large calibre weapon myself (in part because the 9mm round is popular worldwide), but I'd be the first to admit I'm not an expert.

Oh...as an aside, that thing when the recoil moves the hand backwards, instead of the moving parts of the weapon, so another round isn't chambered (limp wristing, is it called?), is that greatly affect by strength, or is that a matter of psychology and training?

 

[MorganL4]

I don't think we need to outlaw the ownership of guns by civilians. However, we do need MUCH stricter background checks in the US in regards to gun sales. I do not beleave you should be able to purchase a firearm at a gun show, and walk out of the room with it the same day. There need to be prison record checks metal health checks and a number of other verifications that I cant come up with right now, because we have serious problems with people that SHOULD NOT have fire arms getting a hold of them.

I don't need to remind everyone about the issue with Congresswoman Giffords:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/22/forcible-medication-of-ja_n_906591.html

and then there is this:

 

[Esotera]

Why is it even necessary to own a gun? Practically no-one apart from farmers own guns in the UK, and we seem to be doing ok. If there's a single good argument in favour of the average American having the right to buy pretty much whatever weapon they want, I'm yet to hear it. The fact is most people do not need guns in their daily life, and having a weapon like that lying round the house will always introduce an element of risk, which shouldn't be introduced for no reason?

Having said that, there's no feasible way of banning it overnight. And for professions such as farming, guns are totally ok (as long as it's a rifle, not an SMG or something ridiculous).

 

[Veylon]

Logically, if the point of the Second Amendment was to ensure an effective militia, then not only assault weapons, but also RPGs, Stinger missiles, and equipment to make IEDs ought to be included as well. Saying that they shouldn't because they didn't exist in 1800 is as silly as saying there shouldn't be freedom of speech online or on the airwaves because those didn't exist back then. A militia isn't going to be very effective if it's limited to weaponry a century old.

As regards to crime, criminals don't mug people who are obviously carrying firearms, regardless of caliber. Too much can go wrong when confronting an unknown person who's packing. Like anyone, they prefer a situation they can control, ideally having superior numbers against a lone, defenseless target. Which is why they tend to target little old ladies at the ATM.

I don't really understand the purpose of a concealed weapon. If you've got the weapon to keep criminals away, wouldn't you want to advertise so they know to leave you alone? One would think an AK-47 slung over the shoulder would make the message clear.

 

[Gaiseric]

I'm an NRA Life Member and a CRPA member. What do you think?

I do believe in some regulations though. Permits for concealed carry, automatic weapons, and handgun safety certificates.

 

[Esotera]

Why is it even necessary to own a gun? Practically no-one apart from farmers own guns in the UK, and we seem to be doing ok. If there's a single good argument in favour of the average American having the right to buy pretty much whatever weapon they want, I'm yet to hear it. The fact is most people do not need guns in their daily life, and having a weapon like that lying round the house will always introduce an element of risk, which shouldn't be introduced for no reason?

Having said that, there's no feasible way of banning it overnight. And for professions such as farming, guns are totally ok (as long as it's a rifle, not an SMG or something ridiculous).

You seem to forget that Britain doesn't need to deal with what the US deals with. America is not Europe, and it never will be.

I was assuming that the countries were not that different from each other, and using the UK as an example of what America might look like without as many guns. What does the US need to deal with that Britain doesn't? And why does that make it necessary for the majority of its citizens to be armed?

 

[AtheistConservative]

Snip

Ah, ok. I've never been too convinced about the necessity for a large calibre weapon myself (in part because the 9mm round is popular worldwide), but I'd be the first to admit I'm not an expert.

Oh...as an aside, that thing when the recoil moves the hand backwards, instead of the moving parts of the weapon, so another round isn't chambered (limp wristing, is it called?), is that greatly affect by strength, or is that a matter of psychology and training?

For your first point, this is somewhat a matter of opinion. First and foremost, the chances that you will need to even draw a gun to defend yourself is slim. Secondly, no two defensive uses of guns are exactly the same and there are many variables that can't be measured. Also it really depends on your personal ranking of other considerations such as the size of your gun, cost, magazine capacity and so forth. However, there are way to many reports of people being shot with .38 Special or 9mm Parabellum and shooting the person that shot them for me to feel comfortable using something that weak. Additionally the fact that many armed forces (police and military) having started moving towards a minimum of 9mm Parabellum +P which is a more powerful version of the traditional 9mm Parabellum, says something. And remember just because something is popular doesn't mean its a good idea.

While the relation between bullet momentum and stopping power is fairly linear, at a certain point (researchers disagree exactly where this is) remote wounding becomes a real possibility. Remote wounding works when a bullet strikes soft tissue and sends a pressure wave through the blood vessels and causes capillaries to rupture in sensitive locations.

There's a Jeff Cooper quote that I really like that goes "a gun is designed to be comforting, not comfortable"


As to your aside, yes that is called limp wristing and it happens exactly as you describe it. Psych doesn't really have anything to do with it, training will fix it. If your self defense gun is so powerful that when your completely bracing and you still limp wrist, you need to drop down in power. Think about this way, in the different youtube videos of women getting set up some asshat, and shooting a way too powerful gun, it still ejects the empty.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Fun Fact: Russia didn't invade America during the cold war because every household held a gun during the cold war. The Russian military couldn't afford killing a whole country.

Um...the US having a mighty military force, including a large nuclear arsenal and a powerful second strike capability might have had a bit more to do with it.

However, there are way to many reports of people being shot with .38 Special or 9mm Parabellum and shooting the person that shot them for me to feel comfortable using something that weak.

I can see your point, but according to an FBI report I read, a person can have voluntary movement for up to 10 seconds even if their heart is totally destroyed. I'm not sure how important the bullet is because of this.

Additionally the fact that many armed forces (police and military) having started moving towards a minimum of 9mm Parabellum +P which is a more powerful version of the traditional 9mm Parabellum, says something.

They have? I thought the benefits of overpressure rounds had been exagerated and they hadn't really caught on.

While the relation between bullet momentum and stopping power is fairly linear, at a certain point (researchers disagree exactly where this is) remote wounding becomes a real possibility. Remote wounding works when a bullet strikes soft tissue and sends a pressure wave through the blood vessels and causes capillaries to rupture in sensitive locations.

Hydrostatic shock? Isn't that a myth? I thought penetration was the only reliable way of determining damage (with higher calibres being preferable), again, going by FBI reports I read.

 

[jedizero]

in the U.K. you're on an island. Its pretty damn easy to patrol your borders, and ensure nobody brings in any guns to sell on the streets.

Here? Hey, look at that. We have Mexico right to the south of us, and Canada to the north of us. And if not there, we've those *HUGE* sea borders where just about anyone can get a small ship in loaded with weaponry. Its incredibly easy to smuggle in guns.

If its so easy, apparently, to smuggle in illegal immigrants, living people, how hard is it to do the same to inanimate objects you can pack in boxes?

The only reason the U.K. isn't still covered by illegal weapons is the fact that its too expensive to do so, because its on an island, and a much smaller shoreline than the U.S.

This is only one reason we need to keep guns legal, because the U.K. is not the U.S. and the U.S. is not the U.K. What works for you, might not work for us. I don't get why everyone in the U.K. seems intent on thumbing their noses and saying haughtily 'Only if those filthy ex-colonists would do what we say, all their problems would be over!'

Another reason! What happens when you outlaw guns? Only those who don't follow the law have them.

If its made a crime to own a gun, and someone's already a criminal, or has criminal tendencies, or whatthehellEVER, why would he follow *this* law, out of all the others he has/will/plans on breaking?

Fun Fact: Russia didn't invade America during the cold war because every household held a gun during the cold war. The Russian military couldn't afford killing a whole country.

....Really? I'm on your side and I can say right now that's crazy. The reason Russia didn't invade was the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction. Russia knew that if they attacked, if they stepped one foot on American Soil, Nukes would be flying all over the goddamn place.

 

[JediMB]

I could support a right to own and keep a basic hunting rifle, both for hunting and home protection.

No handguns. Nothing fully or semi-automatic. Nothing too powerful.

 

[theriddlen]

I believe deeply in right to bear arms. People should be able to defend themselves and their homes by any means necessary.

 

[jedizero]

Why should the government tell me I can't enjoy safely shooting tin cans and beer bottles in my back yard because someone else can't control themselves?

This too. Why does everyone seem to believe that upon buying a gun, everyone is going to go mad with power and start a massacre? Cross Country Skiing has a gun in its competition, and yet nobody is bitching about that.