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

[Rooster Cogburn]

At the time the distinction was very clear, and the original intention was that the government have no standing army, and that all wars would be fought by the militia, they pretty much underestimated the laziness that would come to america, or were naive.
Regardless, wisdom of the time said that a standing army was a bad thing, and was something an oppressive nation needed to keep the people down. Hence, the militia was given its place in the 2nd ammendment, because no matter how much the militia might suck compared to a professional soldier, militias of a nation will always outnumber the soldiers of a nation.

You have failed.

So you take an army of people who shoot in their spare time, who never engage in combat, and are using sub par weapons against an army who trains every day, is combat ready, and is using the top of weapons technology? Not to mention they have access to an amazing communications grid, smart targeted weapon systems, tanks, fighter jets, battleships, and generally a lot of weapons that a civilian weapon will never harm?

People here seem to be missing the point of the right to bear arms, and the reason it was included in the constitution in the first place.

To stop Britain from invading. It wasn't to act a pseudo police force. And read the above post and explain how an militia army would be effective against the US army.

I don't think the Founders considered tanks and airplanes, and I don't think that is what is being suggested. What they intended at the time and the application of their ideas to a modern context are different questions. I don't know what you mean by 'pseudo police force', but once again I don't think that is being suggested. An armed populace was considered a check on government usurpation, which was considered dangerous even by most federalists, and certainly the most prominent. If all they cared about was Britain invading, it seems to me they would have rejected the militia concept and embraced standing armies from the start.

 

[RelexCryo]

At the time the distinction was very clear, and the original intention was that the government have no standing army, and that all wars would be fought by the militia, they pretty much underestimated the laziness that would come to america, or were naive.
Regardless, wisdom of the time said that a standing army was a bad thing, and was something an oppressive nation needed to keep the people down. Hence, the militia was given its place in the 2nd ammendment, because no matter how much the militia might suck compared to a professional soldier, militias of a nation will always outnumber the soldiers of a nation.

You have failed.

So you take an army of people who shoot in their spare time, who never engage in combat, and are using sub par weapons against an army who trains every day, is combat ready, and is using the top of weapons technology? Not to mention they have access to an amazing communications grid, smart targeted weapon systems, tanks, fighter jets, battleships, and generally a lot of weapons that a civilian weapon will never harm?

People here seem to be missing the point of the right to bear arms, and the reason it was included in the constitution in the first place.

To stop Britain from invading. It wasn't to act a pseudo police force. And read the above post and explain how an militia army would be effective against the US army.

I don't think the Founders considered tanks and airplanes, and I don't think that is what is being suggested. What they intended at the time and the application of their ideas to a modern context are different questions. I don't know what you mean by 'pseudo police force', but once again I don't think that is being suggested. An armed populace was considered a check on government usurpation, which was considered dangerous even by most federalists, and certainly the most prominent. If all they cared about was Britain invading, it seems to me they would have rejected the militia concept and embraced standing armies from the start.

QFT

 

[KurtzGallahad]

I like australia, we don't do guns escept in the countryside, I am a very good shot, I stay out of the country side, for fear of what I might do if someone insulted my friends honour, I like australia

 

[Mathurin]

Ok. I'm tired of the expression "If you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns", as it's circular logic. The possession of a gun defines you as a criminal, therefore a gun owner = a criminal. The entire statement is redundant.

And on topic. No mugger would kill if he felt entirely secure. Muggers don't want to kill someone and end up with a lifetime in prison. They want 20$ to live for another day. But if you give everyone guns, guess what? Every mugger is simply not going to risk asking, and just blow your head off, kind of like whats happening in South Africa.

because thats the only difference between the US and south africa right?
We have better law enforcement and a more ordered society, if you kill someone in the US you have very good chances of being caught and going to jail, not so in many other nations.

The idea that more guns = safety, is essentially the MAD argument, where both sides pose equal threats towards each other, prevent either from making a move. But the flaw in MAD, is if one party (mugger) gets first strike (Pulls his gun first), then there's no reason for him not to shoot, because the threat of your gun doesn't exist yet, and if he waits, it will.

Except a professional mugger is a coward, he wont target someone he thinks is armed.
And few people who carry a gun are dumb enough to try quick draw with someone who already has the drop, if they are that dumb, let them die.

however, more importantly, the mugger will simply choose a new line of work because the old one became to dangerous, or a new victim, when florida because a concealed carry state they had to change the plates on rental cars, tourists were not allowed to carry concealed, they were safe targets for robbery.

As for disarming the gun, good luck. You literally need to be a Bruce Lee to move your hands to his gun, and point it away, before he tenses his finger. I've trained martial arts for over 6 years, and we are trained not to risk anything, unless he really does have the intent to kill. It's simply because even with the amount of training, it's still too big a risk to take.

I concur, armed or unarmed, unless you know they are going to shoot its useless to attack someone with the drop on you.

-snip-

You're hear an announcement come on. "Gunman in the school". You hear screams down the hall. He hear bullets flying through the hallways. Blood splatters on the window of your class. More gun shots. You're pissing your pants. You've never fired at a person, you've never seen someone get shot, except in movies. A man bursts in the room. You jump up, intending to point the gun at him. You're shaking. You're finger slips. An innocent man dies.

and I would go to jail, assuming I have placed my finger so stupidly/aimed the gun so poorly.

If I am that badly shaken, I would jump out the window instead of attempting to fire, call me selfish, but I would rather escape than face a significant chance of jail time.

Only an idiot jumps up when a potential target enters the room, brings you straight into their attention, no, you crouch behind concealment, they cant shoot at what they havent seen yet.

 

[Mathurin]

At the time the distinction was very clear, and the original intention was that the government have no standing army, and that all wars would be fought by the militia, they pretty much underestimated the laziness that would come to america, or were naive.
Regardless, wisdom of the time said that a standing army was a bad thing, and was something an oppressive nation needed to keep the people down. Hence, the militia was given its place in the 2nd ammendment, because no matter how much the militia might suck compared to a professional soldier, militias of a nation will always outnumber the soldiers of a nation.

You have failed.

So you take an army of people who shoot in their spare time, who never engage in combat, and are using sub par weapons against an army who trains every day, is combat ready, and is using the top of weapons technology? Not to mention they have access to an amazing communications grid, smart targeted weapon systems, tanks, fighter jets, battleships, and generally a lot of weapons that a civilian weapon will never harm?

Reposted from a page 10 post you prolly didnt see

"At this point it generally devolves into "Us military would pwn j00" and "no u" which I try not to get involved with, I just say that, win or lose, any even moderate attempt at a revolution would significantly damage the nation in multiple ways, enough that the threat of it is still a viable deterrent to bad politicians."

You dont have to win to be a check on power, you just have to mess things up.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Ok. I'm tired of the expression "If you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns", as it's circular logic. The possession of a gun defines you as a criminal, therefore a gun owner = a criminal. The entire statement is redundant.

If that is what the statement means, it is pretty absurd. But I don't think most people take it that way- the point is, those who intend violence will have access to guns while those who wish to prevent violence to themselves will not. The merits of that idea are another story.

And on topic. No mugger would kill if he felt entirely secure. Muggers don't want to kill someone and end up with a lifetime in prison. They want 20$ to live for another day. But if you give everyone guns, guess what? Every mugger is simply not going to risk asking, and just blow your head off, kind of like whats happening in South Africa.

The idea that more guns = safety, is essentially the MAD argument, where both sides pose equal threats towards each other, prevent either from making a move. But the flaw in MAD, is if one party (mugger) gets first strike (Pulls his gun first), then there's no reason for him not to shoot, because the threat of your gun doesn't exist yet, and if he waits, it will.

As for disarming the gun, good luck. You literally need to be a Bruce Lee to move your hands to his gun, and point it away, before he tenses his finger. I've trained martial arts for over 6 years, and we are trained not to risk anything, unless he really does have the intent to kill. It's simply because even with the amount of training, it's still too big a risk to take.

-snip-

You're hear an announcement come on. "Gunman in the school". You hear screams down the hall. He hear bullets flying through the hallways. Blood splatters on the window of your class. More gun shots. You're pissing your pants. You've never fired at a person, you've never seen someone get shot, except in movies. A man bursts in the room. You jump up, intending to point the gun at him. You're shaking. You're finger slips. An innocent man dies.

This is pointless. You disarm me. I get bludgeoned to death with a pipe. Or, She reaches for her gun- and remembers it's gone. She wonders what life will be like after rape. Her optimism is misplaced. It doesn't demonstrate anything about what is more or less likely to occur in reality.

Or how about this one? The stranger reveals a sub-machine gun and puts it to the first head in the line. You draw and fire- twelve innocents are saved. See how annoying this is? It's a useless scare tactic.

Your suggestion that "No mugger would kill" is absurd no matter how you qualify it. Killing in self defense is also not analogous to MAD. Although I agree about attempting to disarm someone. Only if certain death is the alternative.

 

[MasterSqueak]

This again? Oh alright.

*Puts on Ditto of +1 debating*

Okay, this study is NOT COMPLETE. They even say so!

And to people who support gun bans: good for you. But I think you're missing the point.

Banning guns in America won't work. Sure, civilians wouldn't be able to get them, but how are you going to take the guns from criminals? Or keep them from illegally getting them?

I suppose it could cut back "minor" crimes, but people would still be mugged and robbed with or without guns. Not every lawful citizen is adept in CQC and martial arts.

There's also the case of public backlash, and cultural stuff. The culture in the UK is more supportive of gun bans, but America's is not.

Banning guns just isn't a possible solution.

Personally, I think that gun laws should be tightened, and that the police should crack down on illegal gun sales.

 

[Daveman]

The stupidity in your post is almost unbearable.thanks

When will you people understand GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. How the hell can I make that any more clear?

A person could use a a hockey stick as a weapon to kill someone. Does that mean we ban hockey sticks? No one should have to suffer just because there are people who use guns to murder others.yes you could use a hockey stick to kill somebody, but you could also use it to play hockey, you aren't gonna use a gun as a can opener or something, you're probably going to use it to shoot somebody

not to mention how much more difficult it is to defend yourself from somebody with a gun than with a hockey stick

You say gun crimes are low in Britain yet I always hear how British people say knife crimes are high. That proves my point that people will find the next best thing.they're not that bad, it's mostly in shitty parts of london and again, knives are easier to defend yourself from

You think we need to sort ourselves out? What the hell is wrong with you? Do no know nothing of our history? We fought for our rights, we used guns, the most effective way of killing someone, to achieve those rights when all other options failed. Had something more effective been around today you all would be saying ban that. Ban ban ban, thats all I fucking hear. Banning is NEVER the solution. Criminals will still get them. Now where does that leave the defenseless law abiding citizen? What do they have to protect them? The police? HA! The response times are a joke. You're more likely to be killed waiting for the police then taking action. well maybe if you spent more money on taxes then you'd get better public services but then I guess that's just another step towards communism for you

When the day comes we the people need to replace our government by force when all other means have been exhausted, we will be glad we didn't give our guns to the government.i love seeing how much faith americans put in their political system, god what a shit democracy it must be

Here's a fun fact. When chicago banned guns crime rose. Now they believe if they lift the ban it will reduce it. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1799122,chicago-gun-ban-supreme-court-093009.article


I'm sure these people would also agree total gun control works.
[snipped image]i love this picture, it shows how even these crazy kooks thought total gun control was a good idea, along with pretty much everyone else, face it mate YOU'RE THE MINORITY

one more point to end with... if you just wanted to defend yourself why not just get a taser (one of the ones which shoots out)?

 

[klakkat]

First thought: correlation does not imply causation
Second thought: You try to take my fucking gun you'd better be prepared to fucking kill me. yes, I am American. And no, I don't own a gun just because guns are cool; I own a gun for a variety of philosophical and psychological reasons, the most prominent being that every person has a right to kill to protect themselves (keep this in mind, those of you who would try to rob a house in America)
Third thought: Oh, wait, there actually ISN'T a correlation between gun laws and violent crimes; as in, the lack of gun laws doesn't necessarily cause more violent crimes. The Cayman Islands is the poster child for this; guns are Illegal, and there is a LOT more violent crime than in the U.S.A.(much of which is unreported; I know several residents there, the criminal justice system is criminally lax on natives).

 

[Mathurin]

one more point to end with... if you just wanted to defend yourself why not just get a taser (one of the ones which shoots out)?

Thats great, maybe the British should do that......
Oh, wait, tasers and pepper spray are illegal in the UK, the propaganda spouted to make them illegal compares very closely with that to make guns illegal.

but no, gun control isnt a slippery slope, why would you ever think that?


To answer the question, tasers are one shot wonders, dont always work, and are defeated by heavy clothing like a leather jacket, plus it just doesnt convey the fear required to end an encounter without force.
Whereas a firearm is multi-shot, extremely effective and even when body armor is used will often provide some incapacitation (getting shot hurts, even through a vest) most notably it makes criminals one of 3 things, dead/injured, compliant, or fleeing with astonishing reliability.

The only thing a taser does that a gun doesnt is provide force that isnt considered lethal by the courts, but rubber bullets do that, so meh.

 

[Hedberger]

Right, ban guns so that the average person is helpless during a mugging.

Oh and a criminal TOTALLY won't shoot you if you just hand over you money.

Everyone submit to criminals peacefully now.

All this "Ban guns" nonsense is stupid, doesn't stop the wrong people from getting them.

You're right, because the police are omnipresent and are able to stop every rape, mugging, homicide, armed robbery in America.

I'll keep my guns, thanks.

Thank you.

Arms should only be given to thrustworthy people, no crimnal record, is 18 (or 21) and so on.

Exactly, people need to think a little thats all.

You have contradicted yourself. You say that banning guns doesn't stop bad people getting guns, and yet you support Diablini saying that guns should only be given to "trustworthy people".

And a mugger is not going to to fucking shoot you if you hand over your phone and cash, ffs.

I don't understand how people can make these abstract arguments about how you need a gun to protect you from criminals.

No. 1: Criminals are generally not out to kill someone. They want monies. All your monies. Or at least all the monies you have on you at the time. You give them to him and are out of pocket $50 or something, and he gets to get high! And no one gets shot!!

No 2: Unequivocal statistics show that less people from gunshot wounds in countries where the average citizen cannot own a gun. I don't understand how you can argue against such facts. Maybe you MIGHT get mugged, but less people would die. How can less people dying NOT be the desired outcome.
Really all you are doing is putting more value on you or your family's material goods than a stranger's life. Which might be understandable if you were a caveman. But you're not. At least, not physically.

No I didn't contradict myself, learn to read.

You idiotic gun bad will only keep innocent, responsible people from having them. It will not stop criminals from getting them. With a basic intelligence test and gun safety education there is no reason to keep guns away from responsible people.

The second some scumbag draws a weapon on me with the intent to steal or anything else I stop caring about his safety. You think they are entitled to my money just cause they have a weapon? If thats how you feel, be sure to bend over for him too.

You do know that once you get into that situation the mugger has already pulled a gun on you. That's the only way you know that he/she is a mugger and then it's too late to pull out your own gun. Actually the mugger will probably tell you to raise your hands slowly and then take your gun and sell to his friends. That's how criminals get's their hands on guns in the first place. At least the ordinary street mugger. So a gun is a very poor defense anyway and only serves to arm the criminals.

If you don't have a gun the mugger is less likely to get stressed and do something stupid, like shooting you. Just hand over the money and the insurance company pays.

Its very hard to get into that kind of situation. You would have to walk into a near deserted part of town, they don't try that where there are allot of other people around. If there are other people around, someone else can shoot him.

And no that is not how most criminals get guns, the black market on that is WAY more complicated. Besides, its allot easier to get a gun on the internet and runs a hell of allot less risk.

You are banking ENTIRELY on the fact that you "know" that most criminals won't kill you. You are banking entirely on the morality of a criminal. I don't have that kind of faith in a common criminal and I don't value their lives.

As I said, ordinary street muggers get hold of their guns that way. They don't buy them off a shelf and most of them doesn't have the resources to smuggle guns from other countries. They operate on a smaller part of the black market I.E. guns stolen from civilians such as yourself.

Secondly I don't bank on their morality I bank on their common sense. Unless i threaten them they have no reason to shoot me and in fact that would only draw attention to them.

 

[Daveman]

one more point to end with... if you just wanted to defend yourself why not just get a taser (one of the ones which shoots out)?

Thats great, maybe the British should do that......
Oh, wait, tasers and pepper spray are illegal in the UK, the propaganda spouted to make them illegal compares very closely with that to make guns illegal. yes, but I'm not likely to get shot!... and is that really true, I don't think pepper spray is... tasers might be... but yeah, not an issue for us because were all so bloody safe

but no, gun control isnt a slippery slope, why would you ever think that?are you... no... are you being sarcastic? *GASP*

heres the thing, I have a packet of biscuits in front of me, I could open them up and eat one or i could go down that "slippery slope" and eat the entire packet... but if I just leave them, than I don't get to enjoy any benefits of eating the biscuit...

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


To answer the question, tasers are one shot wonders(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQUrqLQfPME), dont always work, and are defeated by heavy clothing like a leather jacket, plus it just doesnt convey the fear required to end an encounter without force.
Whereas a firearm is multi-shot, extremely effective and even when body armor is used will often provide some incapacitation (getting shot hurts, even through a vest) most notably it makes criminals one of 3 things, dead/injured, compliant, or fleeing with astonishing reliability.all of which assumes you shoot first and the guy doesn't panic and shoot you as soon as he feels genuinely threatened or that he might be a better marksman than you... but I can't disagree with you that guns are highly effective at damaging people and often killing them

The only thing a taser does that a gun doesnt is provide force that isnt considered lethal by the courts, but rubber bullets do that, so meh....so use the non-lethal option surely

Also kids, it's time for quote of the day

I own a gun for a variety of philosophical and psychological reasons

brilliant, I can just imagine you musing while kneecapping somebody, I don't know why...

 

[Osloq]

(In all seriousness, shit like Columbine and V-tech couldn't happen if one of the places had guards with guns or if other responsible kids showed up with guns...)

Or, follow me here, if they didn't have guns to shoot other kids with. This is the exact same reasoning behind the Cold War. They've got 20 missiles so we'll build 30 missiles. Oh, they built 40 more missiles so we'll build 60 more. Until you've got this huge stockpile of military hardware that only leads to disaster.

I never knew that we nuked the world with piles of missiles? What happened to MAD and actual history?

At what point did I say that the world was nuked? The missiles created during the Cold War still exist and there is no way that they can ever be used in a positive fashion, which means there use would be a disaster. I apologise if I didn't make it clearer but the point I was trying to make is that trying to cancel out someone with a weapon, with a weapon of your own, isn't helping the situation.

Edited: Because my original response was illegible.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

As I said, ordinary street muggers get hold of their guns that way. They don't buy them off a shelf and most of them doesn't have the resources to smuggle guns from other countries. They operate on a smaller part of the black market I.E. guns stolen from civilians such as yourself.

Secondly I don't bank on their morality I bank on their common sense. Unless i threaten them they have no reason to shoot me and in fact that would only draw attention to them.

Where are you getting your facts, Hedberger? I've been mugged. The guys didn't have a gun, but their behavior wasn't at all consistent with your description of criminal motivations. It was beat-down first, then money. I don't think you're providing a realistic portrayal of how crimes play out. These guys had no reason I can fathom to beat me senseless, but they did it anyway.

 

[Daveman]

I've just had a thought... it's like in predator 2, on the train. that's why you guns are bad

 

[heyheysg]

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

I live in a country like that.

There are less than 20 gun related incidents in the past decade

None this year

One single case last year of a cop shooting a knife wielding attempted murderer.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?