Question for people Pro-guns....

[Jegsimmons]

I dont know if anyone has mentioned this before... but...

A big thing about America is about how we revolted from England, violently at that. So one of the big things about being able to bear arms is the right to revolt against the government if we don't like the way its going. Its not just to protect ourselves from criminals, but its also to protect us from the government. Also, the whole ability to have a militia thing would be kinda useless without firearms.

Not to burst your bubble, but it's kind of useless without tanks, carrier battle groups, and nuclear weapons too. It's a nice principle, which just doesn't hold up when you consider the modern military vs the equipment available to a citizen.

implying the military want revolt also, implying that you could pick out a militia men from a line up of citizens and implying these are perfect weapons that are all powerful even though we see them get beat by people 4,000 miles away.
revolutions are not one dimensional, during the civil war, the union lost HALF of its generals and half of their equipment.

also, 2 million military vs 300 million pissed offed armed citizens.
do thy math.

 

[Augustine]

I do not own a gun. I used to be anti-gun, anti-second amendment. Yet, arguments written by Founding Fathers and Adams' "Federalist Papers", coupled with some reflection and contemplation had changed my views on the issue.

The government's function is to use it's powers to serve the citizenry. But it's naive to think that governments cannot turn sour and use their considerable power to oppress those who they are meant to serve. And if that does happen, unarmed citizens are helpless.
American Founding Fathers were very pragmatic in that regard, and left the people with the right to own the means of defending their lives and property.

Gun is great equalizer. Unskilled man can take down a professional who dedicated his life to warfare. I dare say, guns have been a significant factor in the fall on feudal/monarchic systems and the rise of the rule by the people.

Having said that, I in no way imply that this right to bear arms should be flaunted lightly, but used only in the direst of circumstances. But it is a duty of each and every citizen to be ready to defend the idea of government by the people for the people.



GUN crime is lower on an island where nobody is allowed to have guns, as compared to a massive continent where guns are largely permitted? Well yeah. That's just common sense. I'm sure somewhere deep in the jungles of Amazon gun crimes are at zero, since any crime is committed with sharpened sticks and fists. That's beside the point.

Last time I've been to London, it had some pretty dangerous areas. Granted I may not get shot there, but there are other, worse possible outcomes than a gunshot wound.
Banning all guns in US is also impractical and dangerous, since there's large areas of wilderness, where many wild animals roam. I imagine there would be a some fatalities in areas like Alaska, where people would be forced to deal with bears with sticks and stones. Deep tradition of hunting is also very strong in US, taking that away will leave many people bitter and angry. Frankly, many of them will refuse to give them up.

Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

 

[suitepee7]

Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Because they're, you know, illegal. That means you can't buy them without the right underworld connections and a shitload of money.

Generally only the big criminals can afford firearms, and those that do don't use them against the public, because after that the entire police force will be after them, and they've just wasted something worth ? 3000+ on a lousy robbery that brings in ? 10-50. Criminals are commercially oriented people; if it's not profitable, they won't do it.

hyperbole much? seriously, i live in the UK and it isn't just big criminals who have guns. they are usually available for less than £500, and they will happily use them on the public just to scare them.

also criminals have different reasons for being criminal, it isn't necessarily for the money. not trying to be a dick, but you generalized a lot there

 

[JWAN]

Um... as somebody from the UK I have to say guns are not outright illegal.
Pheasant hunting is still a popular sport and guns are required obviously.

Now, a handgun or something along those lines are illegal because their sole purpose is to kill a human being as it would be bloody difficult to hunt Game with one of those.

I hunt deer with a handgun (.44 mag) and smaller game with smaller handguns (.357 and even a .40 cal glock). I also defend my family, my friends, and beneath those two things myself with one.I also carry when I go on backpacking trips if I'm going into areas with bears or large concentrations of wild boars and depending on the season Moose. Pepper spray works when the wind is going in the right direction and they are at the correct distance(2-8 yards), a .44 works within 100 yards and in the harshest weather conditions. (Its a revolver with a 5 inch barrel, its simple and reliable)
In Chicago they banned handguns and they have some of the strictest laws in the country surrounding guns/knives etc. but since the beginning of 2012 there have been more deaths in Chicago than in the last 10 years of US casualties in Afghanistan. All of those crimes were committed with illegally purchased firearms that were smuggled in.
Criminals don't give two shits about the law, that's why they are criminals. If guns are banned the only people that can't get a hold of guns are the ones who follow the law.
Norway also has strict gun laws but last year that didn't stop that guy from going and killing a bunch of unarmed citizens.
I would rather have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/aldi-customer-wont-be-charged-in-shooting-sk42et0-138688529.html
Wisconsin is my home state and Milwaukee is where I went to college for 4 years. We just passed our CC law that allows people with the proper training to CC. Its working here just fine.
Besides Chicago: Detroit, NY, and multiple cities in Southern California all have two things in common. They have the strictest gun laws and the highest concentrations of violence.

 

[RaNDM G]

It's simple really. Outlawing the carry of firearms leaves the common population vulnerable to attack, from common thugs to serial killing maniacs to invasion by a hostile army.

Outlawing the carry of firearms is ineffective. Any crook can acquire any firearm, either by robbing homes, borrowing from family or friends, or from gangs on the street. When the only men and women legally licensed to bear arms are police officers, military, and politicians, the common man is at a severe disadvantage.

The United States government serves to protect three basic principles: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. When a government takes away the people's right to protect their lives, that government is unjust. In the States, gun crime occurs everyday in every major city. Firearms simply cannot be avoided.

The United Kingdom is a different story. Firearms are difficult to acquire for anyone outside of military. There are some guns on the street and in the hands of hunters and collectors, but gun crime is pretty low outside of London and Manchester. Be thankful you live in a country where you can be more worried about being stabbed than shot.

If a government cannot remove firearms completely and effectively, it must do all it can to educate the people on firearm awareness, on the use of firearms, and how to counter a gunman to defend themselves.

I'm not here to debate on whether guns are beneficial or detrimental. That is completely subjective. OP asked for why many people support gun rights. This is why.

 

[J Tyran]

Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

 

[deth2munkies]

Preventing people from getting guns through legal means doesn't prevent people from getting guns through illegal means.

Guess which ones are more harmful?

 

[RaNDM G]

Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

In Switzerland, every male citizen is obligated to serve in militia, and nearly one of every two citizens owns a firearm.

It also happens to have the lowest rate of gun crime in any nation.

 

[spartan231490]

As an american who isn't particularly pro-gun, I have a few things to say; one is that the constitutional right to bear arms is as part of a well-regulated militia. It doesn't say that your average chap has the right to carry a gun, unless of course he wants to join the national guard or something.
That said, I can appreciate that some people may feel the need to have weapons for hunting or self-defense, but you shouldn't be able to just walk into a store and buy a gun (i.e. the way things are now in some states. Pretty sure Colorado is one of them) without a licence that requires some form of psych eval.

Finally, there should be either an outright ban or very heavy regulations on weapons like the AR-15 the shooter used on Friday. It's a semiautomatic assault rifle that takes 5.56 STANAG magazines; guns like that are neither hunting weapons nor something someone needs for self-defense. Guns like that are for shooting people. There is no reason your average citizen should be able to buy one without a lot of examinations and paperwork.

Sports shooters: I'm sorry about advocating taking away your toys. Try and find a hobby with less unfortunate corollaries.

No, the 2nd amendment does not say that only militiaman have the right to bear arms, it says "the people's right to have and bear arms shall not be infringed." the meaning is obvious because this same document uses "the people" to mean every citizen. "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union . . ."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
The second ammendment has upheld that the 2nd ammendment protects the individuals right to own a weapon regardless of militia involvement. I would have thought that obvious since none of the other ammendments in the bill of rights have a requirement for being eligible for it, and considering the wording of the declaration of independence: ". . . and are endowed by their creator with certaininalienable rights.

There was a federal ban on many "assault weapons" it didn't do a damn thing. More people in the US are killed by people using their hands and feet than with "assault weapons".

Further, guns like that are exactly the guns people need for self defense, and often hunting. Criminals carry weapons like this and even more dangerous fully automatic weapons, to try to stop them with a bolt action rifle is idiotic. Further, many dangerous game hunters like AR-15s because the quick follow up shots save their lives if they're charged by the bear/boar/moose/whatever they just shot. Also, the AR-15 is absolutely ideal for sport shooting because of the high accuracy, the massive selection of possible upgrades, and the extremely low recoil.

Try and find a hobby with less dangerous corollaries? What corollaries? There is no statistically significant link between gun control and reduced violent crime. Further, more children die in the US from playing school football than from guns. More people die of smoking, or obesity, or medical malpractice than from guns. Nearly as many people die in car crashes, and if you exclude suicides, cars kill almost 3 times as many people as guns. If you count just accidents, you get about 32,000 car deaths a year, compared to less than 1,000 gun deaths. Almost as many people are killed by drunk drivers as by gun crime. Even using anti-gun agenda estimates, guns are used for self defense almost 43 times more often than to take a life. The vast majority of gun crime is done using weapons that were not acquired legally. There is no reason to ban guns or to further restrict guns in the US, just scare tactics.

 

[spartan231490]

Yep this thread had to get posted.

Spoiler

Although it only occurred to me after reading some of the pro-gun Americans responses in comments sections/threads to you-know-what

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony.

I also live in England, and have been stabbed twice. It may be the case (I dont have any figures on any of this) that people are more likely to die in attacks in America as guns tend to do more damage, but I would put money (if I had any) on the proportion of violent crimes being higher here than in America. Or USA at least.

You're correct. Well, i don't know about the death tolls from violent crime, but despite having 1/5 the population of the US(about) the UK has more than 1/2 the violent crime that the US does.

Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

Oh really?:

Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

In Switzerland, every male citizen is obligated to serve in militia, and nearly one of every two citizens owns a firearm.

It also happens to have the lowest rate of gun crime in any nation.

Cuz that seems to indicate pretty heavily otherwise. As do many comprehensive studies.

I dont know if anyone has mentioned this before... but...

A big thing about America is about how we revolted from England, violently at that. So one of the big things about being able to bear arms is the right to revolt against the government if we don't like the way its going. Its not just to protect ourselves from criminals, but its also to protect us from the government. Also, the whole ability to have a militia thing would be kinda useless without firearms.

Not to burst your bubble, but it's kind of useless without tanks, carrier battle groups, and nuclear weapons too. It's a nice principle, which just doesn't hold up when you consider the modern military vs the equipment available to a citizen.

implying the military want revolt also, implying that you could pick out a militia men from a line up of citizens and implying these are perfect weapons that are all powerful even though we see them get beat by people 4,000 miles away.
revolutions are not one dimensional, during the civil war, the union lost HALF of its generals and half of their equipment.

also, 2 million military vs 300 million pissed offed armed citizens.
do thy math.

An estimated more than 70 million gun owners in the US owning an estimated 300+ million guns. yeah, people just don't seem to get this, don't know why? It's pretty simple.

 

[Weentastic]

Ugh, sadly, this topic just doesn't surprise me. I can't think of a single argument against to OT that hasn't already been stated in this thread and thousands of others. Well, I guess I haven't seen anything about the difference between changing a law in the US versus changing a law in the UK. People seem awfully willing to take two single data points and draw a cause and effect relation. I thought this site was supposed to be filled with objective sciencey people.

But against the idea itself are so many reasons not to. We banned drinking and driving and it hasn't exactly stopped drunk driving, something that kills a ton of people every year, so banning guns without taking some sort of martial action to confiscate every gun in America probably wouldn't go that well. And besides that, cars seem to be a pretty bad deal, they're dangerous, they pollute, and they get used far more regularly than guns, but no ones scrambling to get them banned. I know it isn't a perfect analogy, but the fact that people are a lot more attached and familiar with cars does give them a bias towards them. If they were raised bay a dad that took them out hunting or to the shooting range, or even by a cop who taught them proper use and respect for a firearm, they'd probably see it differently.

Also, stop saying that handguns are only meant to kill. You obviously haven't gone to a shooting range. Any guns purpose is to expel bullets at what the operator wants. Handguns offer a unique challenge, different styles of shooting, and different cost options for a shooter. Saying a handgun's only purpose is to kill is like saying a computer's only purpose is to develop atomic weapons.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/IMAGES/Pennsylvania/white_tailed_deer_buck2.jpg

http://www.shooterschoice.net/indoor_pistol_shooting.jpg

http://thedamienzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/old-lady-guns.jpg

There. Three more reasons why you might use a gun.

Hmm, thanks for the post, I hadn't thought about defending myself from an old lady carrying an arsenal

I presume you knew I meant "for self defense", and were being sarcastic?

D'oh you caught me out .

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Uh, eradicating a pest will lead to less economic losses (less damage done to crops by eating/treading on young plants etc), so money would actually be on the line.. And wild animals can be aggressive if you're sharing their territory..

The people that is a concern to, and hunters, do not necessarily overlap, though.

But one would recruit the other if the economics etc were right, no?

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Australia heavily outlawed firearms in the 90's and we aren't getting overrun by gun toting criminals.

How many massacres will it take for you guys to think "yeah, giving every one a gun is a REALLY bad idea"
Answer: A lot it seems.

how many borders does Australia share with neighbors? We outlawed drugs, guess what? they are still everywhere. Do you have ANY idea how broad our border with Canada is? Most of it is undefended too. Hell, drugs keep getting through from Mexico which is a much smaller border with significantly more forces.

Even if outlawing guns was a magic bullet (pardon the pun), which nearly every study has shown otherwise, we could not enforce it. And like i said, the deep south would go apeshit because guns are a large part of their culture.

But hey, im sure a CIVIL WAR would be preferable to a few crimes.....

So tell me, why should we outlaw firearms when it will be impossible to enforce AND has potentially harsh backlashes?

Not seeing the logic in it.

Why not stop outlawing drugs and educate people about their pros and cons then.. Isn't that comparable to guns, apart from not being in the constitution?

 

[Augustine]

Lastly, as Mr. R. Heinlein wrote:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Which is a stupid quote, the reality of it is "An armed society is a society where lots of people get shot"

Everything that needs to be said in response to this, had already been said.
One thing I'd like to point out is that out of a fairly lengthy post that I have written, you pick off the ONLY section that was neither thought of, nor written by me.

 

[Weentastic]

There was a federal ban on many "assault weapons" it didn't do a damn thing. More people in the US are killed by people using their hands and feet than with "assault weapons".

Oh geez, I just read this. The assault weapons ban is dumbest piece of legislation I have ever heard of. The ATF did a study during that period and found that the top ten guns used in shootings were Saturday night specials, aka: cheapo pistols with low ammo capacities and shoddy construction. The Democrats then spent all their time trying to ban high end pistols and rifles that almost no one uses domestically. The assault weapons ban is stupider than the idea of banning guns altogether. It's like banning spoilers and spinning rims to lower gang violence.