The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?

[Daveman]

what a lovely analogy, again I continue to be shocked by americas total lack of faith in democratic process, I'm sure they'd all just prefer a dictatorship really

The point is that your coveted 'democratic process', which you probably cannot define without changing your language or your position, is the very tool by which dictators seize power. Gun control is usually a step on that road as well. You're not going to convince me there is no danger- Bush got reelected, for God's sake.

thanks for ignoring the analogy but it may be good to take a step down that road but then not go any further how about that.

Democratic process: the application of democracy
Democracy: a system of government in which either the actual governing is carried out by the people governed (direct democracy), or the power to do so is granted by them (as in representative democracy).

happy?

 

[Agrael]

To be honest, in America - the gun culture is messed up.
Getting a gun there, is easy as one, two, three.

I heard, that the NRA and some other organization are crying, that .50 CAL rifles aren't allowed to them. What ? Excuse me ? The .50 CAL sniper rifle was originally meant to shoot APCs, not humans.

But, I do believe in the right, that a person should be able to defend themselves, they just need to make guns and ammo more hardly obtainable.

Or join the army / national guard.

 

[Kair]

The right to bear arms is just a narrow-minded solution to a problem that is caused by itself.

Says the guy with the communist avatar, representative of an ideology so abusive and destructive it caused deaths of over 100 million people in the first five years of being implemented in China alone.

Says the guy who has no idea at all what Communism is.

It does not take half a blind eye to see that Capitalism is wrong, but 300 million narrow minds and 80 years of propaganda not to.

Which flavor of communism do you subscribe to, Kair?

Mostly original Marxism, but with reformist views. And before you ask; Marx always supported a democratic socialist state, not this guy:

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

what a lovely analogy, again I continue to be shocked by americas total lack of faith in democratic process, I'm sure they'd all just prefer a dictatorship really

The point is that your coveted 'democratic process', which you probably cannot define without changing your language or your position, is the very tool by which dictators seize power. Gun control is usually a step on that road as well. You're not going to convince me there is no danger- Bush got reelected, for God's sake.

thanks for ignoring the analogy but it may be good to take a step down that road but then not go any further how about that.

Democratic process: the application of democracy
Democracy: a system of government in which either the actual governing is carried out by the people governed (direct democracy), or the power to do so is granted by them (as in representative democracy).

happy?

Your statement of shock at American lack of faith in the democratic process and opinion that they probably prefer a dictatorship didn't appear to be contingent on your analogy in that context. As for your analogy, I'll just offer a counter. I think it's more like saying I don't want to fall half way down a cliff because I then I may also fall down the other half.

It's the "dictatorship" thing. It sounded like you were calling out Americans as a group and saying "I'm sure they'd all just prefer a dictatorship really". Them's fightin' words- of course Americans will protest.

 

[Thurmer]

The rest of the world lols at you guys and your obsession with killing each other.

 

[CaptainFatty]

Switzerland. Civilians MUST own a gun. Gun crime is lower than knife crime and most gun related crime is caused by an illegally obtained weapon.

 

[Arcanz]

Oh how i love to live in a country where guns are only legal if you're a cop.

In Norway the cops ain't allowed to wear guns either, no one is. If it is an armed robbery somewhere or something that could need guns, then it's allowed. But your average cop does not wear any guns at all. The only weapon the are allowed to carry are batons and stun guns, but the use of stun guns is very strict and for defense only I think.

 

[Daveman]

what a lovely analogy, again I continue to be shocked by americas total lack of faith in democratic process, I'm sure they'd all just prefer a dictatorship really

The point is that your coveted 'democratic process', which you probably cannot define without changing your language or your position, is the very tool by which dictators seize power. Gun control is usually a step on that road as well. You're not going to convince me there is no danger- Bush got reelected, for God's sake.

thanks for ignoring the analogy but it may be good to take a step down that road but then not go any further how about that.

Democratic process: the application of democracy
Democracy: a system of government in which either the actual governing is carried out by the people governed (direct democracy), or the power to do so is granted by them (as in representative democracy).

happy?

Your statement of shock at American lack of faith in the democratic process and opinion that they probably prefer a dictatorship didn't appear to be contingent on your analogy in that context. As for your analogy, I'll just offer a counter. I think it's more like saying I don't want to fall half way down a cliff because I then I may also fall down the other half.

It's the "dictatorship" thing. It sounded like you were calling out Americans as a group and saying "I'm sure they'd all just prefer a dictatorship really". Them's fightin' words- of course Americans will protest.

so I'm guessing you're not into bungee jumping then, lol

yeah, I was joking there, I doubt that americans in general would really want a dictatorship, but I am surprised how little control of their own lives they seem to think they have. again this is where I prefer my analogy because falling over a cliff, once you do that you don't really have any control, whereas what I'm saying is that just because gun control is imposed it doesn't mean it will lead to tyranny as surely as gravity will act on my body. there's no real comparison there.

and I don't want to start a fight, I don't have a gun

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

The right to bear arms is just a narrow-minded solution to a problem that is caused by itself.

Says the guy with the communist avatar, representative of an ideology so abusive and destructive it caused deaths of over 100 million people in the first five years of being implemented in China alone.

Says the guy who has no idea at all what Communism is.

It does not take half a blind eye to see that Capitalism is wrong, but 300 million narrow minds and 80 years of propaganda not to.

Which flavor of communism do you subscribe to, Kair?

Mostly original Marxism, but with reformist views. And before you ask; Marx always supported a democratic socialist state, not this guy:

Hehe. I'm an anarchist myself, but of the individualist variety. So I'm reasonably familiar with what you might call 'real' communism through my interactions with anarcho-communists and syndicalists, some of whom also describe themselves as left-Marxists. I've learned to sympathize with communists. Our ideologies are irreconcilable, but we usually agree on who we want to help and who the worst offenders are. The worst is that our means are polar opposites, except for the anarcho-communists of course.

I'm a left libertarian, so I obviously support the right to bear arms. But Kair, you didn't even state the Marxist position on the right to bear arms yet. I'd like to hear it. You just called it narrow minded. You're not going to educate that way, just find trouble. I suppose a forum is as good a place as any for opinions, though.

 

[Markness]

Hey Guys.

Today in my email I received this [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn17922] article.

You should have just posted the article ie

Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot ? and killed ? than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.

It would be impractical ? not to say unethical ? to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland, thinks it is near-sighted to consider only the safety of gun owners and not their communities. "It affects others a heck of a lot more," he says.

I apologise is someone has done this in the 11 page thread, but the article has information in it that you did not put in the original post. I noticed in the first page that someone said that it could of been because they lived in a bad neighborhood, but the study compared those who lived in the same area.

 

[ElTigreSantiago]

Um if a guy is willing to shoot somebody, I think he's going to be willing to break the law to obtain one. Am I the only one who knows this? I feel a lot safer in my home with firearms.

Naturally, all of you non gun owners think that we should get rid of the right our country was founded on. What if one day the government decided that the internet is illegal because of pirating and other things? Yes, it may be safer without the internet, but you would still want it.

 

[Downfall89]

Guns don't kill people.
I kill people.
With guns.

Guns are fine, (I'm brainwashed from Call of Duty) but I don't think that every civilian should have rights to bear arms. Like some other guy said, "A kind word with a gun is much stronger than just a kind word."

 

[TikiShades]

my response is "well duh?" to the article. Honestly, the best way to solve gun crime is to BAN GUNS. Learn from Britain, America, not even the police wear guns here! Instead we have knife crime... lots, and lots of knifing.

You're right! I was about to murder this guy with a gun, but of course I wouldn't if they were ILLEGAL! That would be WRONG!

*facepalm*

Banning something doesn't make it go away people. Marijuana is also banned, yet there's interestingly a lot lying around. Banning guns would simply lead to a false sense of security until Ricky pulls an assault rifle on a bank, and the cops hilariously try to whack him with their nightclubs. Even with cops allowed to have them, people could still be in danger before cops can (and if) arrive at the scene.

 

[patriklus]

Banning guns only stops law abiding citizens from owning one, criminals are already breaking the law anyway so what do they care?

I live in South Africa and the sad thing here is that if criminals rob your house while you're home more often than not they will either beat you to within an inch of your life, rape you, or kill you. Sometimes all three, in that order. They don't think "oh wait, these people don't have a gun, so we'll leave them alone and not shoot them anyway", they'll do that whether you have a gun or not. When situations like this happen a gun is a leveler. It doesn't matter if there are 4 guys and you're a woman at home alone, a gun is the difference between definately getting beaten, raped and killed, and maybe not getting beaten, raped and killed. When it comes down to them or me, I choose me.

Just this weekend someone I know took his girlfriend for a picnic on the beach. They were attacked by 4 guys. He was beaten beyond recognition and she was gang raped. Maybe if they had a gun with them the outcome would have been different. He is 20 and she is 21 and neither of their lives will ever be the same again. Tell me where the fairness is.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

so I'm guessing you're not into bungee jumping then, lol

yeah, I was joking there, I doubt that americans in general would really want a dictatorship, but I am surprised how little control of their own lives they seem to think they have. again this is where I prefer my analogy because falling over a cliff, once you do that you don't really have any control, whereas what I'm saying is that just because gun control is imposed it doesn't mean it will lead to tyranny as surely as gravity will act on my body. there's no real comparison there.

and I don't want to start a fight, I don't have a gun

There are shades of certainty in between, of course, and there is subjective preference for risk. I could critique your analogy as well, but we're just talking cliffs and foodstuffs. Your analogy implies that taking one step does nothing to increase the likelihood of taking the next step, and this has never been the case in American politics. Taking one step almost invariably leads to the next. I'll tell you what I mean as soon as I get my REAL ID. And last I checked, income tax was over 7%. Even our social security number is a case of "you're crazy- they would never do that!" They started banning automatics in during Prohibition, and now anything that looks scary has been banned before, and probably will be again. No, gun control isn't de facto tyranny by most people's standards, but I see absolutely no reason to take the matter lightly on that account, and I certainly want to discourage the mentality of authoritarianism.

You should get a gun- shooting is a great pastime!

 

[iJosh]

I have a gun. Well, a .308 for hunting. Gun and hunting safety courses too.

I didn't get shot yet?

 

[CheeseFlareUK]

What? B

my response is "well duh?" to the article. Honestly, the best way to solve gun crime is to BAN GUNS. Learn from Britain, America, not even the police wear guns here! Instead we have knife crime... lots, and lots of knifing.

Ban guns? Don't be an idiot. If we ban guns, that only keeps them out of the hands of honest people.

opposite way round! banning guns makes it harder for dishonest people to acquire them, since stores and whatnot don't sell them to the public in the first place.

Wrong. Where do you think criminals get their guns? The black market. If they bought them from stores then they would be traced.

 

[Repulsionary]

I find this whole 'right to bear arms' thing against the US Constitution to begin with, for those in America. The second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms for the defense of our homes in a state militia. There are no state militias, thus no one has the right to bear arms. But the Supreme Court, in their fantastic record of "WTF Were you THINKING?" stupid judgments, decided that it meant that people could bear arms for the defense of their homes. So thus, we have those morons who say that it's their right to own a semi-automatic weapon. Sorry, bro, but Bambi doesn't move that fast.

Although, I will make an exception for those who use the guns purely for sport, as in game hunting. However, at all other times, the weapons would have to be disarmed and locked away, stored with no ammunition, which would have to be stored somewhere else, etc.

There's just too much hoo-hah about guns nowadays. Guns are dangerous. Whether or not you mean for them to be for self-defense or for hunting, they will always have the potential to cause an accident. Be it kids accidentally finding the gun, or a kid going off the deep end and bringing it to school for revenge, or for it being stolen and sold on the black market, etc., etc. There's too much risk.

 

[Bob the Average]

I'd like to quote a little Gandhi to make my point "of all the ill deeds the English have done to the People of India history will remember depriving them of arms as the worst" I'd also like to point out that the study was funded by an anti-gun lobby and likely was cherry picked. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they only counted gun owners who had to fire. most criminals will change their mind when they find their would be victims can defend themselves.