Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 22 NEXT
 

the amount of ignorance in this thread just shows america has a long long way to go

Moth_Monk:
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.

The general response to this is two fold. First, while you have less gun-crime, your overall rate of violent crime is not significantly different. It doesn't really do a whole lot of good to remove guns from the equation when little Timmy will go into a blind rage, pick up a knife and stab someone 27 times.

Anything and everything can be a deadly weapon. The only way to stop that from being true is to lobotomize everyone at the moment of their birth, then remove all of their limbs.

Second, it's less about "everyone needs guns" and more "the government needs to shut the fuck up". The second amendment is explicitly about ensuring that the people would be able to stage a successful revolt against the established government, for the eventuality that it becomes corrupt, ineffectual, or tyrannical (which is arguably the case right now).

As such, most supporters of the second amendment are people who believe that the government does not have the right to dictate their life.

farson135:
How about because we do not want to end up like Australia?

Wild pigs in the US- 4,000,000
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5313597.pdf
Wild pigs in Australia- 23,000,000
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/3308375/Australia-has-more-wild-pigs-than-humans.html

Wild pigs already do billions of dollars in damage every year in the US and we hunters are the only thing that actually prevents them from taking over like they have in Australia (and that is not the only species that is breeding out of control in Australia). In addition to that is just general pest control.

Or how about because we still have dangerous (not just annoying) animals in the US like wild bear- http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Alaska-woman-recounts-terrifying-ordeal-with-bear-3707497.php#ixzz20eC0iwhF

Or how about because we feel the need to protect ourselves? A friend of mine lives on the border, you can literally see the border from his home (or at least the place where the sign that is supposed to mark the border is). Drug runners regularly use his property to smuggle drugs in. If he called the police it would take them 20 minutes or better to get to him. Do you think it is a good idea for him to be disarmed? And before anyone says it, he cannot move, his grandparents bought the property, he cannot afford to purchase a new home, and no one in their right minds would buy that property. Then you have a friend of mine who was raped. She carries a gun on her because she doesn't want it to happen again. And of course you have incidents like this- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31416285/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

There are other things but let us focus on the economics for a moment.

The basic fact is that attacking the gun industry is harmful to the world's economy. You may not realize this but your police force and military practices with ammunition. That ammunition is cheap because the US produces a tons of it and exports. Either practice goes down or costs go up.

Plus, you are talking about tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs. You have gun shop owners, ammunition manufacturers (both large companies and small businesses), unrefined resource providers, military contractors, etc. Where do you think the materials to make these firearms and ammunition come from? What about all of the leather used in holsters? Where do you think the computer chips used in gun owners tech comes from? And on.

Your attack on the gun industry would send shock waves throughout the entire economy. There is no major part of the US and world economy that is not somehow connected to the firearms industry. How many ranchers are going to lose money when the demand for leather goes down? How many businesses built around firearms companies are going to survive if the largest business in the area goes under? How many mining companies are going to feel the effects of a fall in the brass market? How many ranges are going to go under and thereby force Police Departments to build actual ranges and how much money will that cost? Etc.

Then, in addition to that, you are going to have to get rid of the firearms somehow. Ignoring the how for a moment, let us instead focus on the cost to do that. First you are going to destroy hundreds of multimillion dollar businesses directly unless you pay them off (lots of money there). Then you have the 80 million gun owners in the US. If ever gun owner owns $300 in guns and firearms accessories that equals $24,000,000,000 you have to pay them (unless you are just going to take the guns and say fuck you to every gun owner). Of course that number is vastly underestimated. I myself own several thousand dollars in firearms and accessories and I am rather young. Plus, most bolt action rifles cost over $300, most semis cost over $600, and most pistols cost over $400.

In other words, firearms are necessary in the US and it would cause a huge harm to get rid of them. Not to mention the basic fact that it is impossible to get rid of them. 300,000,000 guns do not just disappear because you want them to (not to mention all of the guns outside of the US and all of the illegal guns).

BTW guns are not illegal in the UK, just heavily regulated.

I was gonna give my two cents on the matter. Then I read this. Nuff said.

We have a lot heavier gang activity in the us, especially in the south, The island of England is really small when compared to the US, It's all easier to control what comes in and out. If I want a gun for the ability to protect myself I should have that option. If guns are made illegal criminals and wack-jobs will still access them by illegal means, and regular citizens will have no way to protect themselves. If a responsible gun owner is at the location of a violent crime they have the capability to prevent it from happening.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

cotss2012:
Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

LOL WTF?!?!

So if I came to america and massacred 100 people with a gun, I'm actually saving 200 lives and rpeventing 100 muggings and rapes.

I hope you were just trolling. Because I think your Math is flawed.

No, he's saying that, without guns, this crazy madman would have used a different but just-as-capable device for his killing. No legal restriction is ever going to stop an intelligent criminal from accomplishing his goal, especially if that goal is murder.

I need look no further than the Bath township elementary school bombing, which is still the worst mass murder at a school in US history. Ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Sacman:
Well on the one hand it's in our constitution...

On the other hand... guns are dangerous... and they're the cause of much more havoc and destruction than they can possibly make up for in self defense and generally positive stuff... honestly there is pretty much no situation that won't be made worse if everyone involved owned a gun... despite how much gun nuts like to talk up how they're taking away our ability to defend ourselves, it does little more than, in most cases, lower the casualty rate... the average citizen with a gun is no rambo and would only serve to stir up confusion and get himself killed in the grand scheme of things, whether by the police incapable of differentiating between the actual perpetrator and the guy with a gun or even possibly by someone completely unrelated...

My point is that the average American is a fickle and stupid beast, who left to his own devices with a weapon, of such magnitudes, would only serve to hurt himself or someone else, whether intentionally or not...<.<

As far as self defense arms are concerned... hunting arms... it's really a different conversation... and believe it or not I don't want to take away peoples guns... I would prefer to live in a country where everyone has enough confidence in their safety and enough trust in the general population for their not to be a need for guns... though this is 'Merica, so that won't happen...<.<

Oh shit new page, shits gettin real...<.<

Gun is a tool, people are dangerous. Sorry but no gun has fired itself at anyone. People choose to fire a gun.

When states have carry laws most people that actually carry (legally) are decently trained, we just don't give someone a carry license and say good luck out there.

Add that element of suprise, if you do not know which house is armed or not, which guy armed or not, criminals are sure as hell less detered than if they knew everyone on the block has nothing to defend themselves with vs their guns.

Heavily armed paramilitary psychos, or attention seekers, terrorist, or w/e he turns out to be today, are the exception not the norm, most crime is done by not the best and brightest nor the best armed less you are watching a hollywood movie.

We have gun laws, how many more laws do we need? How much gun control is enough? So one person gets through the system lets trash the whole system, enact all sorts of new laws.

Kinda what we did after 9/11 just signed our freedoms away over in the name of protecting ourselves.

After all i think it was dick morris used to tell bill clintion "never let a good crisis goto waste" in political terms use all your saber rattling, fear mongering, and outright explotation, to grab all the power you can as government.

Our founding fathers would be ashamed of alot of the things we let slide now days, after all these were guys that said. if you give up a measure of liberty, for a measure of security you lose both, and that government needed to be overthorwn every 30 years to insure liberty stands, these guys were radicals they would be the "loonies" of today, the teaparties some of them, militia, all people with a healthy or more dislike of our government.

But then again most americans hate our government, probably more so than foreigners do, just not to a full on degree to actually do something about it other than complain and not vote, politicans love it when people do not vote.

Nantucket:
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.

Absolutely wrecked this thread two posts in. Impressive.

Anyway I am pro-firearm, live in the U.S., have lived in crime infested areas, and I have never heard a live gun shot either. As for living in the UK, well you have closed circuit cameras everywhere, your courts don't subscribe to the presumption of innocence, and you're sort of an island. None of these is a bad thing, just saying there's a slim possibility what works in the UK might not work everywhere?

How come the UK policemen don't carry guns? If they have to respond to a 911 call and it escalates, wouldn't they need to be able to defend themselves and nearby civilians?

chadachada123:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

cotss2012:
Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

LOL WTF?!?!

So if I came to america and massacred 100 people with a gun, I'm actually saving 200 lives and rpeventing 100 muggings and rapes.

I hope you were just trolling. Because I think your Math is flawed.

No, he's saying that, without guns, this crazy madman would have used a different but just-as-capable device for his killing. No legal restriction is ever going to stop an intelligent criminal from accomplishing his goal, especially if that goal is murder.

I need look no further than the Bath township elementary school bombing, which is still the worst mass murder at a school in US history. Ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Yes, but you CAN stop a half-assed very stupid person from either making a huge mistake or from committing a crime.
With guns it's "Oh I can just go buy one and shoot this person".
Without a gun they need to think about much more and might change their mind in the process. Also with guns it's easier to be more detached. If you were to say, use a knife then things would be much more difficult.

matrix3509:
Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

Well, that's a pair of stupid arguments if ever I've read them. And I just have. From you.

Firstly, it isn't CRIMINALS who do most of the killing with guns in America. Angry, depressed teenagers massacring their classmates, lone psychos shooting up movie theatres, dumb kids accidentally blowing each others' -or their own- brains out "playing" with daddy's gun- that's the easy-to-prevent problem that you wring your hands over but apparently don't really CARE enough about to bother stopping. The pro-gun lobby make it EASY for people to be killed with guns -not necessarily by criminals, but by ANYONE- and then act surprised when people die.

Secondly, you just stated that the police are completely incompetant and can't be trusted while private citizens are completely trustworthy enough to be allowed to have their own gun based on... absolutely nothing except your own hyperbole. I'm not even going to bother arguing against that, I'm simply going to point out that you said it and hope you realise how moronic it was.

FFHAuthor:
and have legal traditions that include harsher sentencing, worse prison conditions, and less Civil Rights for the accused than the US. (people always forget that America is completely different from the rest of the world in many, many, MANY ways)

Where on earth did you get this from? Or did you just make it up as you went along. Firstly prison conditions in the UK are much, much milder. Inmates don't murder each other and the guards are not in fear for the lives. Typically inmates enjoy greater luxury's, in some prisons they can decorate their cells etc. Sentences in the UK are also much lighter, bordering on insufficient in fact.

Anyone sentenced to custody will only serve a portion of the sentence, usually half unless they misbehave inside and get added time. Murderers get on automatics life sentence, the judge will also impose a minimum term. If someone serving a life sentence is given a minimum term of 16 years that means in theory they could be released after 16 years. In the US most murders get life without parole, in the UK thats called a whole life order and is incredibly rare. There are less than 50 people with that sentence.

Civil rights are protected by law, in fact they where protected by law several hundred years before North America was even discovered by Europeans.

Platypus540:
How come the UK policemen don't carry guns? If they have to respond to a 911 call and it escalates, wouldn't they need to be able to defend themselves and nearby civilians?

We have Armed Response Vehicles containing the equivalent of SWAT teams on patrol in major cities. It's just the standard police constables and PCSOs that don't carry firearms. With the exception of Nottingham, where I believe the rank-and-file carry handguns due to gang violence.

Also OP: You are not making enough allowances for the cultural differences between us and the Traitorous Colonial Separatists.

Arcane Azmadi:

matrix3509:
Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

Well, that's a pair of stupid arguments if ever I've read them. And I just have. From you.

Firstly, it isn't CRIMINALS who do most of the killing with guns in America. Angry, depressed teenagers massacring their classmates, lone psychos shooting up movie theatres, dumb kids accidentally blowing each others' -or their own- brains out "playing" with daddy's gun- that's the easy-to-prevent problem that you wring your hands over but apparently don't really CARE enough about to bother stopping. The pro-gun lobby make it EASY for people to be killed with guns -not necessarily by criminals, but by ANYONE- and then act surprised when people die.

Secondly, you just stated that the police are completely incompetant and can't be trusted while private citizens are completely trustworthy enough to be allowed to have their own gun based on... absolutely nothing except your own hyperbole. I'm not even going to bother arguing against that, I'm simply going to point out that you said it and hope you realise how moronic it was.

First off, this argument is incredibly demeaning and hostile when it really didn't need to be. There is absolutely no reason to be a jerk, so cool it.

Secondly, speaking of making things up; I am willing to bet that you made up that assertion about dumb kids being the ones who do most gun related murder. Do you have a proven statistic to back up that statement? I doubt it, but if you can, feel free to prove me wrong. Furthermore, a kid getting a hold of daddy's gun is a problem with the father not adequately keeping his weapon locked up, not with the fact that he is allowed a weapon.

Moth_Monk:
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.

Your population is also much, MUCH smaller, as well as much MUCH more homogeneous. We have more cultures and races and ethnicities and socioeconomic groups than you could hope to count, and that's on just one city block. Whenever you cram that many different people in one place, you'll have more violent crime.

So, to assume that our crime rate could only be explained by the presence of guns would be silly. You'd do just as well to ask, in a country as unique as ours, how much worse crime would be if only the criminals were armed.

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?

1. Guns are already here. This isn't the same as preventing something from "getting out there." That alone makes it a very different issue than how most people frame it. You're not talking about keeping something out of someone's hands. You're talking about taking something out of their hands.

2. It's a bad thing to take away the handgun that I own, because I have not done anything even bordering on a suburb of a neighboring township in the same area code as Wrong with it. Basically, until I've committed a crime, I deserve not to be treated as a criminal or even a suspect of criminal behavior.

3. Yes, I have it because someday it's possible I'll need to "kill somebody for some reason." That reason being that it's entirely possible someone will try to kill or grievously harm me. And while I have intense respect for every single police officer, I don't take much comfort knowing that when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

4. Anytime, ANY time the government wants to impose a new limit on an old freedom, the burden of proof is on THEM. I don't have to prove it's a bad idea, THEY have to prove it isn't. I don't have to assume they have my best interests at heart, THEY have to prove they can enforce this new law without infringing on my existing rights. Because that is how a real government works.

The kind of government that, through its actions, demonstrates suspicion toward its law-abiding citizens has more than earned suspicion from its law-abiding citizens.

I agree with you. When fire arms are needed by the police (when criminals have illegally obtained the fire arms) they can use them. Until then there's no need for the police to carry fire arms either.

I live in Canada, after moving from the UK. It's certainly not as gun crazy as America but it's not unheard of for there to be gun crime.

The method clearly works for the UK (though it's more difficult to smuggle weaponry into the UK since it's an island). Unfortunately I think it's too late for the USA to change or other countries where fire arms are legal (when proper lisencing is aquired).

I think what we need is moderation.

Like, does farmer Bob or whoever REALLY need to own an M60? I shit you not, if I had the money and a place to keep it, I could legally own a tank! A TANK?! REALLY?! Is that not just a tad excessive?

Frankly as Dylan Moran once quiped: "Oh no, how could this have happened? Well you've all got guns... and tehy do have a limited number of houshold uses."

But as an Aussie I don't think making them illegal will help the yanks, because then only criminials with the resources will be able to get them, as they do in Aus. Frankly Mankind was buggered when he designed the thing.

I think feminist gun control is an issue that should definitely be in the spotlight. It's the only way to change mass effect 3's ending.

matrix3509:
Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

because you are obviously much more trustworthy with a firearm than the police force. i'm going to propose to you a situation that you may or may not have heard already: a man pulls out a gun and shoots someone in an alley. you, the armed vigilante, come running, you see the gun man and so you shoot him. now another vigilante comes around the corner after hearing gunshots, sees you standing over two bodies, so shoots you. another vigilante comes around the corner....
also, just as a side note, how did the right to bear arms help all those people who were watching the dark knight rises when a gunman opened fire, killing at least 12 and injuring 59 others

Arcane Azmadi:
Firstly, it isn't CRIMINALS who do most of the killing with guns in America. Angry, depressed teenagers massacring their classmates, lone psychos shooting up movie theatres, dumb kids accidentally blowing each others' -or their own- brains out "playing" with daddy's gun- that's the easy-to-prevent problem that you wring your hands over but apparently don't really CARE enough about to bother stopping. The pro-gun lobby make it EASY for people to be killed with guns -not necessarily by criminals, but by ANYONE- and then act surprised when people die.

Wait, what now?

Just how many massacres and firearm suicides do you think there are in America each day? It is in fact, "criminals who do most of the killing with guns." And not just because doing so makes them criminals. Most gun-related deaths, if you do your homework, happen during the commission of a crime. Robbery, carjacking, assault, etc.

And you want to talk prevention? Nearly all of the gun safety measures out there, including gun safety education, are put forth by "pro gun" advocates. They believe that human beings should be treated as responsible, free-thinking organisms, and that if you teach them how to safely use something, they can do that.

Basically, your "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" people are just like the "pro-sex-ed" and "anti-sex-ed" people out there. They're aware that you can't make sex (or guns) disappear, so it's better to teach people to use them responsibly... and the other side foolishly believes you can just will it all away.

That said, I firmly disagree with what that other guy said about the police. They're generally quite competent and willing to go above and beyond to help... it's just, with budget cuts, they're stretched too thin to handle everything as quickly as we need. The failure of the police to stop these crimes isn't the fault of the police officers -- it's the fault of the folks who don't give them the support they need to do the job.

MrHide-Patten:
Frankly as Dylan Moran once quiped: "Oh no, how could this have happened? Well you've all got guns... and tehy do have a limited number of houshold uses."

But as an Aussie I don't think making them illegal will help the yanks, because then only criminials with the resources will be able to get them, as they do in Aus. Frankly Mankind was buggered when he designed the thing.

Wish i lived in samurai times honestly, before guns had any part in combat.

OT Reminds me i want to rally for a sandbox samurai rpg/mod think that would be something nice to see. well other than counting that mod for mount and blade.

poodlenoodles:
i'm going to propose to you a situation that you may or may not have heard already: a man pulls out a gun and shoots someone in an alley. you, the armed vigilante, come running, you see the gun man and so you shoot him. now another vigilante comes around the corner after hearing gunshots, sees you standing over two bodies, so shoots you. another vigilante comes around the corner....

And you go to jail. Because the law already clearly, and in no uncertain terms, accounts for that. You weren't there for the initial shooting, so you don't have enough information to be "reasonably afraid for your life, or the lives of others." Basically, until that guy points the gun at YOU, or otherwise expresses the intent to harm you or someone else, no law gives you the go-ahead to fire.

What you think you understand about actual gun laws is basically just what you've gathered through hearsay, likely from sources slanted against responsible gun ownership and self-defense laws. Sorry, but even the Old West wasn't as "Old West" as people believe from movies.

Rule Britannia:
(though it's more difficult to smuggle weaponry into the UK since it's an island)

This is fallacy I'm afraid, border control is a nightmare when you have thousands upon thousands of small boats in the seas around the UK. Then you have thousands of shipping containers entering each day, only a fraction are ever searched. The cargo ships themselves are also almost impossible to search, it would take weeks to search once properly. Overall 2 billion tons of cargo hits UK ports each year. Good luck searching more than a few percent of that.

Finally you have all the ferry traffic and light aircraft. The UKs borders are as porous as they are anywhere else in the world.

I live in the Uk, I don't believe firearms should be outlawed, but the restrictions behind them should definitely be a lot stricter.For instance, that Assault weapons ban you guys had? Good idea. Bring that back. Who on earth needs an automatic weapon beyond the military? That said, with a bit of know-how and some kitchen supplies I could probably cobble together a STEN gun and well, perhaps properly made auto's are better.. (You do NOT want to drop one of those. It'll fire and spin round on the floor till the mag empties.)

If I lived in 'murica I probably would invest in a concealed carry license and a small revolver, because I'm not going to take the chance of being killed by someone else with a gun. Over here, I don't have to worry about much more than a knife, which I could probably knock out of their hands with a bit of luck.

Tightly controlled but available firearms, good. Loosely controlled/Outlawed, bad. Don't want untracked weapons knocking about the place.

Moth_Monk:

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.

And if you lived in Canadia, where guns are legal, you could say the same thing. It's almost like firearms don't have a direct correlation here.

cotss2012:
Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

Not sure if serious.

matrix3509:
Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

I'm curious as to how the option to make them widely available to criminals to easily attain is a better option here.

The thing is, firearm restrictions and bans can not stop all gun crime, no. But they do make it harder for the average joe to get a gun on a whim. If someone is dedicated enough, they will get their hands on one. But then again, if someone is dedicated enough, they will murder someone. We're not about to make murder legal just because "criminals will do it anyway," are we?

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

Mmmm...False dichotomy.

Dastardly:

poodlenoodles:
i'm going to propose to you a situation that you may or may not have heard already: a man pulls out a gun and shoots someone in an alley. you, the armed vigilante, come running, you see the gun man and so you shoot him. now another vigilante comes around the corner after hearing gunshots, sees you standing over two bodies, so shoots you. another vigilante comes around the corner....

And you go to jail. Because the law already clearly, and in no uncertain terms, accounts for that. You weren't there for the initial shooting, so you don't have enough information to be "reasonably afraid for your life, or the lives of others." Basically, until that guy points the gun at YOU, or otherwise expresses the intent to harm you or someone else, no law gives you the go-ahead to fire.

What you think you understand about actual gun laws is basically just what you've gathered through hearsay, likely from sources slanted against responsible gun ownership and self-defense laws. Sorry, but even the Old West wasn't as "Old West" as people believe from movies.

well, in my hypothetical situation, you are now dead, so you wouldn't go to jail.and i was saying that the law permits you to do that, i simply created a situation for all the people who think along the lines of,"how are we going to keep effective justice if we don't all have guns?"

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.

This is precisely why guns are needed - to kill people who are trying to deprive you of your rights to life, liberty, and property.

Honestly if you really want to talk about Guns you have to realize that you have to first acknowledge that most of what you see is the political theater that is the narrative which you will usually hear from the wingnuts. Once you realize to filter that out then you notice that the issue about guns isn't so bipolar from people who shout for gun control and those who to use your term because honestly there really isn't a buzz word "pro gun".

If there really is an issue with situations like these it is more about gun education or more specifically the lack thereof. Now this might be part of my bias but I grew up with my father whose career is that of a police officer. Now he certainly didn't make me a dead-eye or teach me the trade of guns but he certainly taught me proper handling of a gun and my time as a volunteer explorer scout also taught me how to tell the fake guns from the real ones including noise.

I know some people in the NRA are also more concerned about actually ensuring gun safety instead of just the rhetoric of 2nd amendment rights you hear from the leaders who are just trying to satisfy a base who honestly don't have to deal with the nuanced issues or tragedy.

For such a deadly weapon it is amazing how little people understand about firearms and that little bit of education from your local police officers when you are in school can go a long way instead of just talking about drugs all the time.

I will agree that some gun control laws make sense like limiting the size of ammo clips to consumers to conventional sized clips. And there are laws that restrict plenty of extremely deadly automatic guns that is basically for military grade use. But the problem is the rhetoric you hear from the political theater wants to ban guns and that doesn't actually solve the problem and in situations like at the movie theater you aren't dealing with a simple robber looking for money and doing what he wants isn't going to make him go away as fast as possible. No you have to understand that some people like this shooting can be mitigated with using proper judgement and utilizing that equal force rule.

Only problem that even if one of those citizens did have a gun on them it was a dark and crowded theater and a firefight would of caused more casualties than less. It was honestly a no win scenario.

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.

Criminals do not obtain guns in a way that is legal. Making them illegal would change nothing. Yes, it really is that simple. Ya know, crack is illegal too. So is downloading movies. So is pot. All of those things still happen.

Captcha: Big Brother

Thanks, Captcha.

If the UK decides to share a significant section of border with Mexico, then we can talk. I live in New Mexico and grew up in Arizona. The border is turning into a dangerous hellhole and I don't fault anyone who lives down there (including my parents) who wish to be armed for personal protection.

I am personally against owning a weapon, but I support the right to own a weapon for others (and reserve the option for myself should the need arise). Almost all gun owners I know are hunters and own weapons suited for hunting. The rest tend to be involved in security, law enforcement, or just plain old like having a firearm.

A side effect of accepting gun ownership is accepting responsibility for what that means. It's a problem I wrestle with; I favor a society where personal responsibility is understood and people can own guns because they can be trusted to be responsibile. Then there's the real world where plenty of people shouldn't be allowed access to a firearm for various reasons. I like the happy middle, where guns can be owned but you need to pass a background check and (ideally) not have some sort of borderline personality disorder or psychopathy. I think we're not quite there yet in the US in terms of regulations, obviously.

Britain doesn't have Mexican drug cartels next door. That's where the illegal guns come from. If we make guns illegal in the US then a HUGE black market will open up fueling the cartels more and more. Please tell me how that's a good idea.

the doom cannon:
Britain doesn't have Mexican drug cartels next door. That's where the illegal guns come from. If we make guns illegal in the US then a HUGE black market will open up fueling the cartels more and more. Please tell me how that's a good idea.

To be honest I often wonder why the US is still pouring resources into the war on terror when you have such a serious problem with gangs and cartels. Gang members need to classified as militias and forced to disarm for a start. Its gone way beyond a civil criminal issue.

It's a rather long and arduous point that rarely, if ever, gets across. I'll summarize.
I like guns.
But guns are dangerous.
Guns are only dangerous when used by irresponsible people.
So can we make laws and systems that make guns accessible only to responsible people?
No.
Why not?
Because a 236 year old document says we can have them.
... you realize the world was a different place then, right? British invasion was a very real threat. Ensuring that the citizenry was armed almost guaranteed defeat for anyone. Now, you don't need a gun.
Yes I do.
Why?
Because everyone has guns, even irresponsible people like criminals.
... so then can we make guns harder to access?
No.
Because of the document?
Yes.
You're not willing to concede anything, are you?
No.
Fuck.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked