Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT
 

Moth_Monk:
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.

Uhh, no.
I own a shotgun, and am looking to increase my gun count with a nice lever action, as well as a bolt action, rifle. Why do I own these guns? Simple: I hunt.

I shoot and eat deer (Freaking delicious), and I shoot nuisance animals for my farmer friends. raccoons and beavers are extremely destructive, and the coyote population is exploding where I am. They kill pets, farm animals, and can even (If the situation is right) attack people. Though admittedly, the 'people attacking' is exceedingly rare. Will still gang up on and kill fido, though.

That's why I own guns. I would also not hesitate to use it for home defense if I felt my life was in danger. But that's an extreme 'last resort'.

I consider myself 'pro gun' for a few reasons, but I'm mostly anti-'anti gun'. What that means is I'm against ridiculous laws and legislation that makes responsible, legal gun owners (Like myself) feel like criminals and horrible people for just wanting to own a gun. People use them to hunt, for home defense, for shooting competitions, and even just to collect them. All of those things aren't unreasonable.

Are guns dangerous? Yes. But any tool used improperly is dangerous.

All that being said, I'm from Canada, and I actually like our current system of gun legislation. You have to apply for a gun license (Which includes an extensive background check), and take a course on gun use and safety before you're permitted to purchase and own a firearm and ammunition. I do think a lot of US states have extremely lax gun laws, but I'd hate to live in the UK or any other country that's the exact opposite of those lax US states.

I like my gun, and I want to own more. I hunt every year, and enjoy target shooting and clay pigeon shooting. I'm extremely responsible with my firearms, and I'm against any law or legislation or politician or person who wants to take them away from me because someone else used an illegally (Or legally) acquired firearm for illegal purposes.
Punish the criminals, not the responsible owners.

True, but the reason for the illegality of Handguns in the UK is rather dark.

Baby Tea:

Moth_Monk:
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.

Uhh, no.
I own a shotgun, and am looking to increase my gun count with a nice lever action, as well as a bolt action, rifle. Why do I own these guns? Simple: I hunt.

I shoot and eat deer (Freaking delicious), and I shoot nuisance animals for my farmer friends. raccoons and beavers are extremely destructive, and the coyote population is exploding where I am. They kill pets, farm animals, and can even (If the situation is right) attack people. Though admittedly, the 'people attacking' is exceedingly rare. Will still gang up on and kill fido, though.

That's why I own guns. I would also not hesitate to use it for home defense if I felt my life was in danger. But that's an extreme 'last resort'.

I consider myself 'pro gun' for a few reasons, but I'm mostly anti-'anti gun'. What that means is I'm against ridiculous laws and legislation that makes responsible, legal gun owners (Like myself) feel like criminals and horrible people for just wanting to own a gun. People use them to hunt, for home defense, for shooting competitions, and even just to collect them. All of those things aren't unreasonable.

Are guns dangerous? Yes. But any tool used improperly is dangerous.

All that being said, I'm from Canada, and I actually like our current system of gun legislation. You have to apply for a gun license (Which includes an extensive background check), and take a course on gun use and safety before you're permitted to purchase and own a firearm and ammunition. I do think a lot of US states have extremely lax gun laws, but I'd hate to live in the UK or any other country that's the exact opposite of those lax US states.

I like my gun, and I want to own more. I hunt every year, and enjoy target shooting and clay pigeon shooting. I'm extremely responsible with my firearms, and I'm against any law or legislation or politician or person who wants to take them away from me because someone else used an illegally (Or legally) acquired firearm for illegal purposes.
Punish the criminals, not the responsible owners.

one of the biggest differences between Canadian gun laws and US gun laws is we have the right to keep and bear arms and as far as i know you don't have that right in Canada. Would ask people to have a license to speak freely or practice a religion? Do people need a permit to have a civil trial by jury? No! Because these are RIGHTS of a us citizen but people would gladly require you to have one for a firearm.
One of the definitions of infringe is to act so as to limit or undermine a license infringes on the individuals right to keep and bear arms

gufftroad:
one of the biggest differences between Canadian gun laws and US gun laws is we have the right to keep and bear arms and as far as i know you don't have that right in Canada people would ask you to have a license to speak freely or practice a religion you wouldn't need a permit to have a civil trial by jury because these are RIGHTS of a us citizen but people would gladly require you to have one for a firearm one of the definitions of infringe is to act so as to limit or undermine a license infringes on the individuals right to keep and bear arms

It's actually hotly argued on both sides whether or not the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms includes a right to bear arms. But whether it does or does not, Canada certainly doesn't require you to have a 'permit' for speaking freely or to practice a religion. I certainly also don't need a permit for a civil trial by jury.

I'm not sure if I'm reading your comment correctly, though, since you used little to no punctuation.

This is all beside the fact, however, since the main point of the OP isn't discussing US or Canadian gun legislation, but rather the idea, act, and desire of owning firearms in the first place.

Baby Tea:

It's actually hotly argued on both sides whether or not the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms includes a right to bear arms. But whether it does or does not, Canada certainly doesn't require you to have a 'permit' for speaking freely or to practice a religion. I certainly also don't need a permit for a civil trial by jury.

I'm not sure if I'm reading your comment correctly, though, since you used little to no punctuation.

This is all beside the fact, however, since the main point of the OP isn't discussing US or Canadian gun legislation, but rather the idea, act, and desire of owning firearms in the first place.

i apologize for the poor structure i had just woken up i have since fixed a metric ton of my mistakes as for the talk of control it is what the thread has evolved/devolved into

gufftroad:

Baby Tea:

It's actually hotly argued on both sides whether or not the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms includes a right to bear arms. But whether it does or does not, Canada certainly doesn't require you to have a 'permit' for speaking freely or to practice a religion. I certainly also don't need a permit for a civil trial by jury.

I'm not sure if I'm reading your comment correctly, though, since you used little to no punctuation.

This is all beside the fact, however, since the main point of the OP isn't discussing US or Canadian gun legislation, but rather the idea, act, and desire of owning firearms in the first place.

i apologize for the poor structure i had just woken up i have since fixed a metric ton of my mistakes as for the talk of control it is what the thread has evolved/devolved into

Ahh yes, it makes much better sense now!
And no worries! Typing tired is a dangerous past-time, but a common one.

I own several firearms. I have, in the past, been forced to use them to defend myself from armed robbers (two of whom carried illegal weapons) until such time as the police arrived. A half hour later.

There are still to this day places in the United States where baring arms isn't a right, it's a necessity.

Micheal Moore, of all people, once pointed out that the idea that taking away guns would stop violent crime was incorrect, in that places with similar laws to the US do not have the same murder rates either.

If this is true, there is something fundamentally different in the US as far as the population goes.

Trippy Turtle:

senordesol:

Trippy Turtle:

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

Wouldn't you feel safer knowing the guy mugging you doesn't have a gun. I'd rather lose my wallet then risk getting shot for trying to shoot them.

How could I possibly know my mugger doesn't have a gun? Because it's illegal?

Mugging people is illegal, isn't it?

matrix3509:

Blablahb:

matrix3509:
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.

Yes because criminal really care about doing illegal things. I'm just going to assume you are being intentionally disingenuous here, its better for my own sanity that way. The fact here which you so willfully ignored is that if a criminal wants a gun badly enough a law isn't going to stop them. That you think criminals only care about money is as ludicrous as it is false.

What you seem to be ignoring is his point that, in making guns illegal, it vastly reduces the number of criminals who have them. Yes, some still will, but the average Joe Mugger won't be able to get his hands on one. Which is sort of the goal. It's not like you'd just be taking guns away from legal owners, it'd be taking them away from most criminals too, because they simply wouldn't have the means to get them.

Lucem712:
But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.

Or he could have been caught trying to buy the illegal gun, thus saving a dozen lives and nearly 60 injuries.

BaronIveagh:
If this is true, there is something fundamentally different in the US as far as the population goes.

While there are countries where it is nearly as easy to get guns, the United States has more guns per capita than anywhere else. In the United States, guns are more than a tool to hunt with or a weapon to defend yourself with. They are worshiped.

Interestingly, the states with stricter gun control laws have lower rates gun violence. So gun control laws do help.

C.S.Strowbridge:

Lucem712:
But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.

Or he could have been caught trying to buy the illegal gun, thus saving a dozen lives and nearly 60 injuries.

you seem to forget the 30+ bombs he had in his house made out of common materials.if he didnt have the gun he would have used a bomb. a bomb may not have injured as many people but it would have killed more

C.S.Strowbridge:

BaronIveagh:
If this is true, there is something fundamentally different in the US as far as the population goes.

While there are countries where it is nearly as easy to get guns, the United States has more guns per capita than anywhere else. In the United States, guns are more than a tool to hunt with or a weapon to defend yourself with. They are worshiped.

Interestingly, the states with stricter gun control laws have lower rates gun violence. So gun control laws do help.

lets look at Chicago shall we a city that outright BANNED pistols yet gun violence rose

Drago-Morph:

What you seem to be ignoring is his point that, in making guns illegal, it vastly reduces the number of criminals who have them. Yes, some still will, but the average Joe Mugger won't be able to get his hands on one. Which is sort of the goal. It's not like you'd just be taking guns away from legal owners, it'd be taking them away from most criminals too, because they simply wouldn't have the means to get them.

What you seem to be ignoring is that in a country of 200,000,000+ firearms; that notion is just plain false. That's 200,000,000+ chances for a firearm to slip through the government dragnet's gaps, and given the US government's track record, that's likely 2,000,000 (probably more) chances too many.

US government bans have historically done NOTHING to reduce the proliferation of contraband materials. Prohibition did NOTHING. The War on Drugs did NOTHING. The pistol bans in Chicago & DC actually made the problem WORSE (before they were overturned).

Our government is really bad at banning things. All a total gun ban would accomplish is a huge boom for the black market at least and a civil war at worst.

gufftroad:

C.S.Strowbridge:

Lucem712:
But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.

Or he could have been caught trying to buy the illegal gun, thus saving a dozen lives and nearly 60 injuries.

you seem to forget the 30+ bombs he had in his house made out of common materials.if he didnt have the gun he would have used a bomb. a bomb may not have injured as many people but it would have killed more

Not just bombs, but chemical devices as well! The fact is that tragic mass-murders can, and will happen ergardless of guns laws. Firearms are not the only tools that can be used to commit crime. I find it odd that people tend to forget that.

I would also argue that homemade bombs/grenades/chemical weapons could in fact be more devastating than a few hundred poorly-aimed shots. They tend to take out swaths of innocents (indescriminately) in less than a second. The worst part is that there is no way to regulate those!

BaronIveagh:
I own several firearms. I have, in the past, been forced to use them to defend myself from armed robbers (two of whom carried illegal weapons) until such time as the police arrived. A half hour later.

There are still to this day places in the United States where baring arms isn't a right, it's a necessity.

Micheal Moore, of all people, once pointed out that the idea that taking away guns would stop violent crime was incorrect, in that places with similar laws to the US do not have the same murder rates either.

If this is true, there is something fundamentally different in the US as far as the population goes.

You mentioned that the police took quite while to respond to your situation, and I think that is the key here. The police is too slow to respond which means that your safety falls right back in your lap during, say, a robbery or an assault. And that makes self-defense tools (whenether it is guns, tasers or steel batons) a necessity.

Most people who buy guns to protect themselves from crime aren't doing it to go all vigilante on criminals, they are doing it because they feel fundamentally threatened and unsafe. Because social safety is not ensured by the authorities.

And if you want to have less guns in society overall, you need to find ways to make people safer. You have to lessen (though not eradicate, that is not possible) the need to have a gun for safety measures. You have to combat the parts of the culture that breeds violent crime.

And you have to make sure that the police can handle people´s safety and maintain social order.

You DO NOT take people´s security out of their hands when the authorities are not able to handle it themselves.

senordesol:

Trippy Turtle:

senordesol:

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

Wouldn't you feel safer knowing the guy mugging you doesn't have a gun. I'd rather lose my wallet then risk getting shot for trying to shoot them.

How could I possibly know my mugger doesn't have a gun? Because it's illegal?

Mugging people is illegal, isn't it?

If guns were hard enough to get then someone who's biggest crime is mugging people is not likely to have one. This is of course guessing but I don't feel many people who could get a gun in a place with strict gun laws would spend there time mugging people.

Hjalmar Fryklund:

BaronIveagh:
I own several firearms. I have, in the past, been forced to use them to defend myself from armed robbers (two of whom carried illegal weapons) until such time as the police arrived. A half hour later.

There are still to this day places in the United States where baring arms isn't a right, it's a necessity.

Micheal Moore, of all people, once pointed out that the idea that taking away guns would stop violent crime was incorrect, in that places with similar laws to the US do not have the same murder rates either.

If this is true, there is something fundamentally different in the US as far as the population goes.

You mentioned that the police took quite while to respond to your situation, and I think that is the key here. The police is too slow to respond which means that your safety falls right back in your lap during, say, a robbery or an assault. And that makes self-defense tools (whenether it is guns, tasers or steel batons) a necessity.

Most people who buy guns to protect themselves from crime aren't doing it to go all vigilante on criminals, they are doing it because they feel fundamentally threatened and unsafe. Because social safety is not ensured by the authorities.

And if you want to have less guns in society overall, you need to find ways to make people safer. You have to lessen (though not eradicate, that is not possible) the need to have a gun for safety measures. You have to combat the parts of the culture that breeds violent crime.

And you have to make sure that the police can handle people´s safety and maintain social order.

You DO NOT take people´s security out of their hands when the authorities are not able to handle it themselves.

not only would we need to increase response time but we would have to change how the police function and make them required to protect us which they currently don't have to the police here in the united states are there to enforce the law not stop crime they are retribution not prevention

Trippy Turtle:

senordesol:

Trippy Turtle:
Wouldn't you feel safer knowing the guy mugging you doesn't have a gun. I'd rather lose my wallet then risk getting shot for trying to shoot them.

How could I possibly know my mugger doesn't have a gun? Because it's illegal?

Mugging people is illegal, isn't it?

If guns were hard enough to get then someone who's biggest crime is mugging people is not likely to have one. This is of course guessing but I don't feel many people who could get a gun in a place with strict gun laws would spend there time mugging people.

no ban has ever worked in the united states the problem is our HUGE borders look at prohibition alcohol was smuggled in from every side look at drugs they are smuggled in from every side if we banned guns guess what they would get smuggled in we don't have the luxury of living on an island we have huge borders that would be impossible to monitor all the time stuff slips through

Trippy Turtle:

senordesol:

Trippy Turtle:
Wouldn't you feel safer knowing the guy mugging you doesn't have a gun. I'd rather lose my wallet then risk getting shot for trying to shoot them.

How could I possibly know my mugger doesn't have a gun? Because it's illegal?

Mugging people is illegal, isn't it?

If guns were hard enough to get then someone who's biggest crime is mugging people is not likely to have one. This is of course guessing but I don't feel many people who could get a gun in a place with strict gun laws would spend there time mugging people.

Chicago and DC beg to differ: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-04/news/ct-oped-0304-chapman-20100304-column_1_legal-handguns-gun-violence-ban

gufftroad:
not only would we need to increase response time but we would have to change how the police function and make them required to protect us which they currently don't have to the police here in the united states are there to enforce the law not stop crime they are retribution not prevention

Which tells me that something in the police´s M.O. need to change.

But first, I think you need to elaborate your comment a bit.

senordesol:

Trippy Turtle:

senordesol:

How could I possibly know my mugger doesn't have a gun? Because it's illegal?

Mugging people is illegal, isn't it?

If guns were hard enough to get then someone who's biggest crime is mugging people is not likely to have one. This is of course guessing but I don't feel many people who could get a gun in a place with strict gun laws would spend there time mugging people.

Chicago and DC beg to differ: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-04/news/ct-oped-0304-chapman-20100304-column_1_legal-handguns-gun-violence-ban

Guns would not have been at all hard to get in that situation. If guns are already everywhere in the country its too late.

Is there any particular reason that this isn't in R&P? Because I'm pretty sure this is political.

Hjalmar Fryklund:

Which tells me that something in the police´s M.O. need to change.

But first, I think you need to elaborate your comment a bit.

all you have to do is look at a few supreme court cases like Riss V New York were it was ruled
the government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you, not one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand", wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."

there are many other cases like this one that ruled the same way
Hartzler v. City of San Jose
Warren v. District of Columbia
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department
the list goes on and on

Trippy Turtle:

senordesol:

Trippy Turtle:
If guns were hard enough to get then someone who's biggest crime is mugging people is not likely to have one. This is of course guessing but I don't feel many people who could get a gun in a place with strict gun laws would spend there time mugging people.

Chicago and DC beg to differ: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-04/news/ct-oped-0304-chapman-20100304-column_1_legal-handguns-gun-violence-ban

Guns would not have been at all hard to get in that situation. If guns are already everywhere in the country its too late.

Thank you! Finally, you've got it.

Guns. Are. EVERYWHERE in the US. There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of them, nearly one for every man, woman, and child (and those are just the ones we know about).

So to say a gun ban even on a national scale would be effective is hilariously naive, because that would mean there would be MILLIONS of illegal weapons flooding the market. In short: Christmas for the bad guys.

Where at first, a law-abiding might have stood a chance against an armed thug due to being legally armed himself, now the weapons are ONLY in the hands of the thugs.

Because when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

gufftroad:

Hjalmar Fryklund:

Which tells me that something in the police´s M.O. need to change.

But first, I think you need to elaborate your comment a bit.

all you have to do is look at a few supreme court cases like Riss V New York were it was ruled
the government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you, not one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand", wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."

there are namy other cases like this one that ruled the same way

By the sound of your comment it seems some legislation that would hold the government liable for this sort of rather alarming lapse of security is in order. Unless it already exists, but isn't properly enforced.

See, I did some quick reading up on Riss vs. New York and found this little extract:

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The court refused to hold the government liable, in the absence of legislation, or to carve out an area of tort liability for police protection to members of the public.

The case was held in 1995. Do you know if there has been made any legal progress here since then?

Source: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/governmental-entities-and-officers/riss-v-new-york/

Hjalmar Fryklund:

gufftroad:

Hjalmar Fryklund:

Which tells me that something in the police´s M.O. need to change.

But first, I think you need to elaborate your comment a bit.

all you have to do is look at a few supreme court cases like Riss V New York were it was ruled
the government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you, not one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand", wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."

there are namy other cases like this one that ruled the same way

By the sound of your comment it seems some legislation that would hold the government liable for this sort of rather alarming lapse of security is in order. Unless it already exists, but isn't properly enforced.

See, I did some quick reading up on Riss vs. New York and found this little extract:

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The court refused to hold the government liable, in the absence of legislation, or to carve out an area of tort liability for police protection to members of the public.

The case was held in 1995. Do you know if there has been made any legal progress here since then?

Source: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/governmental-entities-and-officers/riss-v-new-york/

as far as i can tell no and it probably wont happen thanks to Zinermon v. Burch which happened a few years before Riss changing the law would open them up to law suits that would quickly bankrupt local governments

other laws like California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." meaning the police only have to protect criminals or those in custody citizens have to fend for themselves

Buretsu:

easternflame:

Buretsu:

Most people who buy those types of weapons do so with the intent to never hit anything except paper targets placed downrange in a safe shooting environment. Or just because they're marvels of technology with historic importance and people want to collect that sort of thing with no intent to ever fire off a single round.

Unfortunately for those people, these things do happen every once in a while and I do not believe that lives should be at stake for the sake of collecting something.

Then we should probably ban any sort of knife or sword collection as well.

You can't bust open a door in the theater and kill 14 people and injure 38 with a sword.

gufftroad:

C.S.Strowbridge:

BaronIveagh:
If this is true, there is something fundamentally different in the US as far as the population goes.

While there are countries where it is nearly as easy to get guns, the United States has more guns per capita than anywhere else. In the United States, guns are more than a tool to hunt with or a weapon to defend yourself with. They are worshiped.

Interestingly, the states with stricter gun control laws have lower rates gun violence. So gun control laws do help.

lets look at Chicago shall we a city that outright BANNED pistols yet gun violence rose

Yes. Let's concentrate on one data point that agrees with you while ignoring all data that doesn't. That's how we will arrive as a smart solution.

gufftroad:

C.S.Strowbridge:

Lucem712:
But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.

Or he could have been caught trying to buy the illegal gun, thus saving a dozen lives and nearly 60 injuries.

you seem to forget the 30+ bombs he had in his house made out of common materials.if he didnt have the gun he would have used a bomb. a bomb may not have injured as many people but it would have killed more

Really? You know for a fact that he would have been able to carry those bombs into a crowded theatre? Home-made bombs tend not be very stable and transporting them is dangerous.

tsb247:

gufftroad:

C.S.Strowbridge:

Or he could have been caught trying to buy the illegal gun, thus saving a dozen lives and nearly 60 injuries.

you seem to forget the 30+ bombs he had in his house made out of common materials.if he didnt have the gun he would have used a bomb. a bomb may not have injured as many people but it would have killed more

Not just bombs, but chemical devices as well! The fact is that tragic mass-murders can, and will happen ergardless of guns laws. Firearms are not the only tools that can be used to commit crime. I find it odd that people tend to forget that.

I would also argue that homemade bombs/grenades/chemical weapons could in fact be more devastating than a few hundred poorly-aimed shots. They tend to take out swaths of innocents (indescriminately) in less than a second. The worst part is that there is no way to regulate those!

If that's true, why can't honest law-abiding citizens buy military bombs / grenades / chemical weapons. After all, if you outlaw sarin gas, only outlaws will have sarin gas.

Not being able to 100% stop something negative from happening doesn't mean you should not at least try to reduce the chances of it from happening.

maddawg IAJI:

Moth_Monk:

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. :-)

That's kinda WHY we have the 2nd Amendment. An Armed population exists to protect against the threat of military or governmental take over of the country (Keep in mind that, its really not uncommon for a military to take over a country that had recently gone through a revolution. Just look at Egypt)

What a lot of non-U.S. posters don't understand is that we cannot make firearms illegal. It is almost impossible for us to do so. We have a federal amendment in the bill of rights (2nd Amendment:Right to bear arms) and for those of you who don't know what the bill of rights is, its essentially the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights was created because anti-federalists (Those who opposed the drafting of the Constitution because they felt it gave the Federal Government too much power) pretty much demanded it before they would vote and pass the whole constitution (Which included the Branches of government and how the process would work.) We cannot repeal amendments. We can only add in another Amendment that repeals the previous one (For example, the 21st Amendment repealed 18th Amendment) and it requires a CRAZY AMOUNT of support to pass. It would be impossible to get all the support needed to stop the 2nd Amendment, let alone one attached to such an early document of the US. So for those of you preaching for making gun ownership in the US illegal, just stop. Its not gonna happen with the way the US government works right now and if it does happen, its gonna be because we decided to stop using the Constitution, and given how many people cling to that thing likes its their mother's tit, its not gonna happen for several generations.

So can we stop beating the dead horse?

I'm not being rude just stating an idea of history as I see it. Americans always say its our Constitutional right to bear arms but two little things bother me which alot of people never really give an answer to.

1) This.... Document was written in a time when all weapons were muskets and flintlock pistols? Has anyone considered not removing/repeal just revise it? i.e. Simply saying people don't have the right to a gun that can dispense 300 round a minute....or whatever.

2) The Document in question has a great gag line in it (no offence).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

At the time the definition of 'all men' didn't include so dubbed Negros, Orientals or Injuns. Only white man had a creator pretty much in the eyes of the major populace back then all the others evolved like beasts and merely mimicked white settlers apparently.

Once again Americans read this document as if it was written with this centuries capabilities and morals but in truth it came from a simpler time, and by continuing to try and run our now complex societies off a document from such a time it will continue to lead to needless bloodshed.

Though I do agree that it won't change anytime soon. Small minds form the largest most violent mobs.

gufftroad:
as far as i can tell no and it probably wont happen thanks to Zinermon v. Burch which happened a few years before Riss changing the law would open them up to law suits that would quickly bankrupt local governments

other laws like California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." meaning the police only have to protect criminals or those in custody citizens have to fend for themselves

Couldn't one just circumvent that risk by including a clause in the legislation that any case that was closed before the hypothetical new law becomes active are not able be sued for it?

KnightDragul:

maddawg IAJI:

Moth_Monk:

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. :-)

That's kinda WHY we have the 2nd Amendment. An Armed population exists to protect against the threat of military or governmental take over of the country (Keep in mind that, its really not uncommon for a military to take over a country that had recently gone through a revolution. Just look at Egypt)

What a lot of non-U.S. posters don't understand is that we cannot make firearms illegal. It is almost impossible for us to do so. We have a federal amendment in the bill of rights (2nd Amendment:Right to bear arms) and for those of you who don't know what the bill of rights is, its essentially the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights was created because anti-federalists (Those who opposed the drafting of the Constitution because they felt it gave the Federal Government too much power) pretty much demanded it before they would vote and pass the whole constitution (Which included the Branches of government and how the process would work.) We cannot repeal amendments. We can only add in another Amendment that repeals the previous one (For example, the 21st Amendment repealed 18th Amendment) and it requires a CRAZY AMOUNT of support to pass. It would be impossible to get all the support needed to stop the 2nd Amendment, let alone one attached to such an early document of the US. So for those of you preaching for making gun ownership in the US illegal, just stop. Its not gonna happen with the way the US government works right now and if it does happen, its gonna be because we decided to stop using the Constitution, and given how many people cling to that thing likes its their mother's tit, its not gonna happen for several generations.

So can we stop beating the dead horse?

I'm not being rude just stating an idea of history as I see it. Americans always say its our Constitutional right to bear arms but two little things bother me which alot of people never really give an answer to.

1) This.... Document was written in a time when all weapons were muskets and flintlock pistols? Has anyone considered not removing/repeal just revise it? i.e. Simply saying people don't have the right to a gun that can dispense 300 round a minute....or whatever.

2) The Document in question has a great gag line in it (no offence).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

At the time the definition of 'all men' didn't include so dubbed Negros, Orientals or Injuns. Only white man had a creator pretty much in the eyes of the major populace back then all the others evolved like beasts and merely mimicked white settlers apparently.

Once again Americans read this document as if it was written with this centuries capabilities and morals but in truth it came from a simpler time, and by continuing to try and run our now complex societies off a document from such a time it will continue to lead to needless bloodshed.

Though I do agree that it won't change anytime soon. Small minds form the largest most violent mobs.

in the times of our founding fathers people were allowed to own CANNONS they had the puckle gun people had privately owned warships

whats also forgotten about the second amendment is that it was intended to allow citizens to me well armed enough to overthrow the government should it overstep its boundaries

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here