A repeating rifle with a magazine predates the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by nearly a decade. Facts aside, you're repeating a subjective point and invoking your own judgment to conclude what the framers intent was. It says "arms", it does not say "until arms can shoot fast enough to commit mass murder".
It also doesn't seem to place a restriction on the type of arms, yet I'm pretty sure you'd not be comfortable with everyone owning nukes...
Yes, yes, I heard that SCOTUS ruled that Amendment II only covers small arms but I wonder why then it's still written in a way that's ambiguous and easily misinterpreted, especially since not everyone's a lawyer and may not even be aware of the ruling.
Point is, it's an amendment, not one of the fucking 10 commandments...
Barciad: Thankfully, I live in England. We (and not to mention many others) grew out of this particularly childish predilection many years ago. Thus it would be most satisfying to see you Americans join the rest of the civilised world on this certain topic. Who knows, in a few decades time you might start coming to agree with other basic principles. Like the fat that the earth is more than 6,000 years ago, or man-made global climate change is actually occurring before our very eyes. Here's hoping.
if growing up means becoming a society where a rape victim recieves more prison time for hitting her rapist than her rapist recieves for raping her, I'd like to stay developmentally stunted, thank you very much.
So, care to point out where that happens on the European side of the Atlantic Ocean? Cause, seriously, first time I hear that.
phreakdb: Looking through the thread, I see lots of speech about Americans objecting violently.
America is the only country in the western world that hasn't had truly violent protests about entitlements and money since the global depression began.
Funny how many of the countries that have had those violent protests seem to ignore that. The same countries that regularly look down on the USA and call it's citizens "violent, irrational idiots".
Higgs303: I would be pretty pissed off to see my collection of WW2 firearms thrown into the smelter. If such a law were passed there is no way anyone would be getting any compensation, I would expect $3000 alone. I would probably get them all deactivated before I would let the mounties take them, history deserves to be preserved. However, collecting these old relics would be far less interesting if I couldn't take them to range once in a while.
My Collection (Dear god 7 guns! I must be a sociopath...)
Lee Enfield No.4 Mk.1 Lee Enfield No.1 Mk.3 Mosin Nagant M91/30 Hexagonal Mosin Nagant M91/30 PU Sniper Mosin Nagant M44 Carbine SVT-40 M1 Carbine
Pff, you're speaking nonsense.
You're a gun owner. Clearly you're an uneducated, bigoted, violent psychopath whose only intention with those guns is to kill people.
Or so most of the people on this forum would have you believe. After all, why else would you possibly own a gun, right?
Your saying the average citizen cannot own a gun because they must first join a gun club. But the average citizen CAN join a gunclub.
The average citizen wants to own a gun. He/She:
Joins a gun club. Recieves two people to vouch for his responsibility. Can now get a gun for recreational use at home.
If you can point out what step is inaccessible to the average citizen tell me. Your argument makes as much sense as saying the average citizen cannot own a car since a test is required. We just have more Bureaucracy than you. The truth is the averge citizen in the UK does not own a gun because they do not want to. I personally DO since i have an interest in rifle shooting. Ive shot before and my gun lives down at the range. If the average citizen wanted a gun right now nothing would stop them following the above steps and getting one.
I still consider this an unnecessary restriction, since you shouldn't NEED a reason to own a firearm. It is on the same level as prescription medicine like Adderall in the US, or medical marijuana, where many doctors will sign off for anyone that vaguely fits one of the required symptoms, yet the standard citizen would not be able to purchase them without large (and as you said, bureaucratic) loopholes.
I'm only saying that guns in the UK are on the same level as prescription medicine, which the standard citizen cannot own "without reason," even if it's an arbitrarily small reason ("in a gun club," or "I'm having trouble focusing"/"my head hurts").
That's without even bringing into account how absolutely fucktarded it is that "defending my goddamned life" isn't considered a "valid" reason in the UK, and how, because of this, some 50% of robberies in the UK happen while the homeowner is present, compared to 13% of US robberies.
There was another eye-opening statistic on the chance of being harmed while having your home robbed: Unsurprisingly, you are far, far more likely to be hurt (specifically, stabbed) if you live in the UK and have your house burglarized than if you live in the US.
It is surprising. Nothing you stated suggests that introducing guns to our citizens would change this statistic.
Consider the following.
You stated that criminals do not fear their victims in the UK. Why would the introduction of guns change this dynamic? At the moment it works like this:
Criminals have knives - I have knives. And yet they dont fear me despite our potential fire power being the same.
If you change the situation to:
Criminals have guns - I have guns. What has changed in the power dynamic. Why would i be feared MORE now when relatively i have nothing over the burglar that i didnt before.
The real issue we are tackling now is to make our self defense laws FAR more generous to people defending their homes and to allow us to kill/wound invaders without fear of the law. THAT changes the power dynamic because now home owners have nothing to lose using lethal force. Criminals do not feel as if they cannot be stopped by the owner. Youve totally assumed correlation = causation and its not logical to do so. Especially when simply giving EVERYONE in the situation a more efficient weapon changes nothing in how much the criminal should fear me. Sure im armed better but so are they. Its the same amount of risk for both of us except with guns the shared risk is higher since its far far easier to kill eachother.
I didn't say that introducing guns would help the UK. I only pointed out that not having guns has made criminals far less fearful of losing their lives, enough that they have no issue breaking into a house while the homeowner is there.
Also, just because YOU could stand toe-to-toe with a knife-weilding criminal doesn't mean that the average citizen, let alone the weak ones most-likely to be victimized, would be able to.
Guns are an equalizer: It puts a frail woman on the same level as a strong thug, assuming both are armed with firearms, and puts her on a higher level if the thug is only armed with a knife.
With knives, the average victim is far worse off. Guns at *least* put them on level ground (likely higher, since those that own guns illegally tend to have very little practice with firearms for that very reason, while every responsible gun owner has at least a fair amount of practice with their weapon).
I agree that UK's self defence laws are the primary problem, but the introduction of guns in the home could (probably) further make criminals far less likely to invade homes while the homeowners are there, since they not only have to worry about the rare person that could take them in a knife/fist fight, but possibly ANY citizen whose home they are invading barring, say, quadriplegics. At the very least, you can see the effect that having a citizenry afraid of defending themselves has had.
This is not to say that everyone should own firearms. Of course not.
phreakdb: Looking through the thread, I see lots of speech about Americans objecting violently.
America is the only country in the western world that hasn't had truly violent protests about entitlements and money since the global depression began.
Vigormortis: Funny how many of the countries that have had those violent protests seem to ignore that. The same countries that regularly look down on the USA and call it's citizens "violent, irrational idiots".
I must have missed all those truly violent protests in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Canada...
Well considering one of those rifles is bolt action, I would say that it is considerably less dangerous then the more modern counterpart :p
I specifically said that modern guns are mostly made with those things out of convince. You can easily make a modern gun without either of those things, and it's lethality wouldn't have changed at all.
In case you failed to notice I was joking, I actually agree with you on this one, its stupid and doesn't really help anything.
Pest Control: Well this is an interesting reason, most people tend to hire an exterminator. I mean do you really need a 30 round magazine to kill a mouse when a mouse trap can do the job (and arguably better too) without giving your neighbors a heart attack?
You must live in the city. I was raised on a farm for most of my life. Foxes, Boars, Crocs; and a lot of other critters do a lot of damage to livestock and crops. Crocs are hard to put down, and Boars tend to be very aggressive (They can kill a human without too much difficulty) and travel in very large packs. Shoot at them, and they're just as likely to rush you as they are to flee. It's also against the law to create laws that only affect certain groups or areas; so making a different set of laws for rural and urban areas can't be done; nor would it be a good idea anyway.
Fair enough, still wouldn't it be better to just contact the humane society and have the animals relocated?
Well buddy, real life isn't like your cherry picked articles either. Hell, the article itself states its all blind luck anyways. For crying out loud, it ends with the doctor saying, and i quote, "anybody who survives being shot is lucky to be alive." And yet you attempt to pass that off as a valid claim to cover every single encounter. Just as more widespread firearms lead to more potential to save a life, they have just as much potential to end one. And going back to my taser argument, those things can incapacitate in one shot anywhere to the body. And you don't need to kill anyone, or waste money on ammunition to boot.
There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon. Tasers, rubber bullets, tear gas, etc can all kill. Additionally, I never said it happened with every encounter; nor did I say that a few bullets couldn't kill. I said they don't kill immediately, and someone who is shot with something that isn't a shotgun can generally continue to function for a while. Despite the fact that it seems really easy to kill them at times; humans are pretty durable.
So? let me ask you this, out of 100 people shot with a taser, how many die? Now out of 100 people shot with a gun, how many do you think will die? I'm just going off intuition at this point, but my guess is that the former will be significantly lower. Are these weapons perfect? No, but they are a hell of a lot better than shooting someone.
Isn't that last statement you just made contradictory to the two paragraphs where you preached how woefully inefficient guns are at killing? Oh the only high capacity mags can be allotted to .22, a caliber so under powered that it would actually require repeated follow up shots to reliably kill a man. Yet the more powerful rounds should be capped, you know the ones that are better at killing?
[quote]As mentioned above, I didn't say they're bad at killing. I said that they don't kill immediately; or even greatly inhibit someone who is hyped up on adrenaline or hard drugs. I also said it was a bad idea to restrict caliber.
Let's put it this way; "Are magazine sizes of 7 and under necessary?" Putting aside the arguments made so far; is it necessary for everyone to wear anything other than a cheap gray jumpsuit? Is a car an absolute necessity for most people as opposed to a convenience? Is alcohol absolutely necessary to drink, despite the fact that it kills 47,000-75,000 people a year and causes others serious injury compared to gun's 16,000?
If innocent deaths really bug you that much, push for more restrictions on alcohol.
And we did take action on drunk driving. We took on much stricter blood achohol limits, increased the drinking age, ramped up enforcement and penalty, charged bartenders who serve drunks, and launched massive public awareness campaigns. And guess what happened. In 1982 26,173 fatalities in the U.S were related to alcohol. As of 2009, the death toll stands at 12,744, a more than 50% reduction.
I still consider this an unnecessary restriction, since you shouldn't NEED a reason to own a firearm. It is on the same level as prescription medicine like Adderall in the US, or medical marijuana, where many doctors will sign off for anyone that vaguely fits one of the required symptoms, yet the standard citizen would not be able to purchase them without large (and as you said, bureaucratic) loopholes.
I'm only saying that guns in the UK are on the same level as prescription medicine, which the standard citizen cannot own "without reason," even if it's an arbitrarily small reason ("in a gun club," or "I'm having trouble focusing"/"my head hurts").
Joining a gun club isnt a loop hole. Its what youre meant to do much like the driving test. Ill concede its bureaucratic but to be honest control on who owns guns is good. You have it to. Ex cons cannot buy assault rifles one day out of prison. Bureaucracy is a little neccessary.
Guns are an equalizer
I agree that UK's self defence laws are the primary problem, but the introduction of guns in the home could (probably) further make criminals far less likely to invade homes while the homeowners are there, since they not only have to worry about the rare person that could take them in a knife/fist fight, but possibly ANY citizen whose home they are invading barring, say, quadriplegics. At the very least, you can see the effect that having a citizenry afraid of defending themselves has had.
This is not to say that everyone should own firearms. Of course not.
Ill concede guns are an equalizer, but the reasons we shouldnt get them here in England trump that to be totally honest.
Im afraid i cant when it comes to guns. When a person who is arguing FOR gun control cites England or Europe that person has committed a fallacy. You need to call them out on it. Britain is an Island. It is small. It has a wildly different gun culture. Controlling what comes into our country is relatively easy compared to you in the US. There are a LOT of differences. Dont sink to the level of fallacy that your opponent does. Those people are wrong. You cant force guns into our culture because we dont want them here. We are a democracy and the majority of our people do not want guns. Thats reason enough alone to keep them illegal because we the people. Do. Not. Want. Them. The fact you DO want guns as a majority is reason enough in a democracy to keep them. Shoe horning guns into our country when we just dont want them is silly. Most of us wont buy them and even if we do it will be because we are DAMN scared of all the guns we have in the country now.
We have a similar problem (crime) and two very different playing fields to fix it in. Our self defence laws are definitely a problem and we are fixing them, our prime minister immediately called them out as stupid. Your guns might be a problem too but there isnt a legitimate way to fix it to be honest that has anything to do with banning them. That isnt a solution to stopping gun massacres in YOUR nation. It definitely helped in OUR nation but to try and stamp solutions from one country to another just doesnt work.
Vegosiux: It also doesn't seem to place a restriction on the type of arms, yet I'm pretty sure you'd not be comfortable with everyone owning nukes...
You just gotta laugh at a statement like this, sad part is I see it all the time coming from these anti-gun folks. No one ever suggested that people should be allowed to own nukes or daisy cutters or surface to air missiles. Personally I don't think any person or government for that matter should be allowed to own nukes but it's far to late to put that genie back in the bottle. But anyway lets just say (for the lolz) that it was legal for anyone to buy a nuke, just who the hell is gonna be buying them? The only people that could afford them would be the ultra rich and pretty much as a rule the ultra rich don't go murder happy. Anyway back to reality, the founders believed that the people should be equally armed as the standing military because at the time when the need arose the people would join with the standing army (bringing along their own weapons in the process) to help combat a common enemy.
It was not at all uncommon in those days for citizens to own cannon's, mortars, crude hand grenades and even fully equipped naval vessels. And I would agree that that ideal does not fully translate to modern terms. I do however believe that if someone wants to own a tank or a fighter jet or a 55mm howitzer and they have the money to buy it and the know how to operate it in a safe manner they should be allowed too. And there are people in the US who do own things like that, I admit that I don't know the requirements and restrictions on owning things like that because I have never looked into it because they are waaaay out of my budget I can imagine however the requirements, restrictions and fee's are pretty steep. I believe they are also limited to items made before a certain time, for instance I haven't seen anyone that owns a modern tank but I have seen a number of people that own tanks built prior to 1960. And that's a shame I think if someone wants to own a Abrams or a Striker and they can find a company or a government willing to sell them one I am all for it. What I do believe need's regulation is already heavily regulated for obvious reasons and that's things like explosives, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
Lucky Godzilla: Best of luck in dealing with the professional soldiers
Those soldiers are gun owners, would be affected by flagrant violations of the Constitution. Military/LE are some of the strongest supporters of gun rights because they use them every day, unlike the vast majority of people who want them outlawed, who are completely ignorant and naive. They are as fed up with government as civilians.
Lucky Godzilla: it's called an AMENDMENT for a reason, almost as if it's not meant to be permanent or anything. I mean we got rid of the 14th amendment.
We got rid of Citizenship Rights? You're probably talking about 18 which 21 repealed. Want to know what that repealed amendment was? It BANNED something. The scary part is that it actually passed.
Liquor was banned. Citizens turned criminals and criminals turned kings. Many drugs are banned. The same thing has happened. Do you really want to try this with guns?
Lucky Godzilla: this is ignoring the fact that the second amendment was talking about muskets for crying out loud.
..AR-15 can hold dozens of rounds, fire at a rate of 60 rpm, and reload in a matter of seconds.
A repeating rifle with a magazine predates the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by nearly a decade. Facts aside, you're repeating a subjective point and invoking your own judgment to conclude what the framers intent was. It says "arms", it does not say "until arms can shoot fast enough to commit mass murder".
You don't get to make up the rules as you go, and if you believe rights just sit there collecting rust until we write a new Constitution, you better be careful because the next Constitution will guarantee half as much freedom as the current one does, 2700 pages long and would put any software agreement/patent law in history to shame. It will not empower the people and set up a government, it will be a list of rules we have to obey, written by them.
Welp here we go, Firstly I was poking fun of the notion of a violent seizure of guns by the Government, and looking back at my writing I feel as if I did not make that clear enough. All of what you said is true, and most people who believe that they will have to fight off soldiers one day are delusional. Secondly the 14th amendment, once again my bad meant to say we adopted the 14th amendment. Ok moving on to the meat of the argument. Do I want to ban guns? No, I want to regulate them, much in the same way we cracked down on alcoholism. We enacted much stricter blood achohol limits, increased the drinking age, ramped up enforcement and penalty, charged bartenders who serve drunks, and launched massive public awareness campaigns. And we did all that because, who knows it may actually improve the situation? And guess what happened, in 1982 26,173 fatalities in the U.S were related to alcohol. As of 2009, the death toll stands at 12,744, a more than 50% reduction. Drunk driving on the other hand has fallen by two thirds since 1973. Moral of the story, banning is idiotic, but regulation can work. Finally in regards to repeaters no. You are factually wrong my man, the first ever repeater, the Jennings magazine rifle was first introduced in 1849. The amendments on the other hand were ratified in 1791, a full 58 years beforehand. The only real change in firearms during the time was the limited introduction of rifling.
Vegosiux: It also doesn't seem to place a restriction on the type of arms, yet I'm pretty sure you'd not be comfortable with everyone owning nukes...
You just gotta laugh at a statement like this, sad part is I see it all the time coming from these anti-gun folks.
Well, instead of grabbing the first chance to ridicule someone on the internet, you could have also read the rest of my post, which I am pretty certain you did not do.
My point was that the amendment is both ambiguously worded for the context of modern times, and in its very nature not something permanent and absolute. So "you just gotta laugh at" how it's assumed to be sacrosanct by "these pro-gun folks" if I use your terminology.
I hardly think anyones going to start shooting up the streets because some people don't have guns. To be forward...I'm far more proficient with a knife than a gun...and I'd probably enjoy killing someone with some artistry to it instead of a gun :/ That said I'm also kind of a pacifist.
Vegosiux: It also doesn't seem to place a restriction on the type of arms, yet I'm pretty sure you'd not be comfortable with everyone owning nukes...
You just gotta laugh at a statement like this, sad part is I see it all the time coming from these anti-gun folks.
Well, instead of grabbing the first chance to ridicule someone on the internet, you could have also read the rest of my post, which I am pretty certain you did not do.
My point was that the amendment is both ambiguously worded for the context of modern times, and in its very nature not something permanent and absolute. So "you just gotta laugh at" how it's assumed to be sacrosanct by "these pro-gun folks" if I use your terminology.
Actually, the Bill of Rights is meant to be a list of unalienable rights; and the representatives absolutely refused to sign the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was created first. So those are not really ever meant to be changed, no. The non-Bill of Rights amendments are fair game though.
chadachada123: Even if gun manufacturers did push that image (and they don't appear to be), isn't the fact that gun crime has been going down while gun ownership is going up...show that more gun control isn't necessary at this point?
Not at all. I'd say the fact that murder sprees happen at all is a valid reason to regulate guns. But even if there weren't murder sprees, the fact that the American violent crime statistics are so absurdly high compared to other developed countries is a valid reason as well. Just because our crime rate is coming down from an even more absurdly high level doesn't mean the crime rate isn't still absurdly high.
Now I know at this point some NRA-fan is going to reflexively jump in and try that tired old straw man argument about how you can get blugeoned to death with a loaf of stale bread so we should ban stale bread, but let's dispense with the hysteria, shall we?
In order to have a free society, people should have the right not to get gunned down by some random over-armed maniac. Guns obviously make violence far more efficient than the other tools available to the public. That in and of itself is a valid reason to increase gun regulation.
That's without getting into the fact that gun owners (in Texas) who go through the Concealed Handgun Licensing process (with a training course and written test) and purchased their firearm legally are fourteen times less likely than the average citizen to commit a crime, and seven times less likely to commit a violent crime.
That's very interesting. It makes me wonder why the NRA hasn't engaged in a nation-wide campaign to promote mandatory gun licenses as a way to reduce gun violence. Well, it would make me wonder if I didn't know just how partisan the NRA is.
This is why I have no sympathy. Sensible industries self-regulate in order to ensure they're meeting the public good and to prevent a government need for regulation. The American gun industry has fought tooth-and-nail against any regulation and now they're facing the cost. I might be more sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that the gun industry's pig-headed insistence that "any regulation means they're takin' away ar gurnz!!!" is costing us lives. People are dying because the gun lobby has put ideology and profit ahead of basic, sensible regulation.
I simply wouldn't give up my guns if the law stated that I couldn't keep a firearm anymore. The reason why is because firearms are already deeply embedded in our society and to take away a law-abiding citizen's right to keep and maintain a firearm would result in a sharp increase in crime. The thing is, those who don't obey the law don't care if the law states that they can't have one. If a criminal truly wants to obtain a firearm, they can get one and the law would only hurt the people who obey it. It's as simple as that.
While I do not believe that this will ever happen, if it did I would not kill someone, unless they tried to use force against me, then I would stop them with whatever force I needed. Mostly because it's against the constitution and my personal liberties to own a pistol.
I don't like that this is being passed but I also do not like school shootings, however, if guns are banned, all that will be in the news will be mass stabbings or more shootings still. People who are dedicated to cause harm or do evil will always find a way to do it, look at the prohibition, not saying alcohol is evil or bad, people still found ways to circumvent the law with ease.
Hell, makeshift pistols can be made out of a steel rod, a firing mechanism and a few items from nature to make black powder.
Never underestimate people, they will go to any lengths to get rid of what they don't like, legally and otherwise.
Joining a gun club isnt a loop hole. Its what youre meant to do much like the driving test. Ill concede its bureaucratic but to be honest control on who owns guns is good. You have it to. Ex cons cannot buy assault rifles one day out of prison. Bureaucracy is a little neccessary.
To be fair, you don't need a driver's license to own a car in the US: Just to drive it on public roads. Similarly, in some states, you're required to have a license to carry a firearm (openly or concealed) in public, but many states don't require registration for certain weapons, and they can be carried on your property openly depending on the jurisdiction. As you brought up, though, the US is absolutely huge, and not that comparable to, say, the cities of England.
Guns are an equalizer
I agree that UK's self defence laws are the primary problem, but the introduction of guns in the home could (probably) further make criminals far less likely to invade homes while the homeowners are there, since they not only have to worry about the rare person that could take them in a knife/fist fight, but possibly ANY citizen whose home they are invading barring, say, quadriplegics. At the very least, you can see the effect that having a citizenry afraid of defending themselves has had.
This is not to say that everyone should own firearms. Of course not.
Ill concede guns are an equalizer, but the reasons we shouldnt get them here in England trump that to be totally honest.
Im afraid i cant when it comes to guns. When a person who is arguing FOR gun control cites England or Europe that person has committed a fallacy. You need to call them out on it. Britain is an Island. It is small. It has a wildly different gun culture. Controlling what comes into our country is relatively easy compared to you in the US. There are a LOT of differences. Dont sink to the level of fallacy that your opponent does. Those people are wrong. You cant force guns into our culture because we dont want them here. We are a democracy and the majority of our people do not want guns. Thats reason enough alone to keep them illegal because we the people. Do. Not. Want. Them. The fact you DO want guns as a majority is reason enough in a democracy to keep them. Shoe horning guns into our country when we just dont want them is silly. Most of us wont buy them and even if we do it will be because we are DAMN scared of all the guns we have in the country now.
We have a similar problem (crime) and two very different playing fields to fix it in. Our self defence laws are definitely a problem and we are fixing them, our prime minister immediately called them out as stupid. Your guns might be a problem too but there isnt a legitimate way to fix it to be honest that has anything to do with banning them. That isnt a solution to stopping gun massacres in YOUR nation. It definitely helped in OUR nation but to try and stamp solutions from one country to another just doesnt work.
I'm...not saying that the UK should legalize firearms. I agree with your post nearly completely.
IF you want to get rid of the "criminals attacking citizens in their own home" problem, the only real option outside of better locks is to make criminals afraid of invading a home, which is the reason while-at-home robberies are so rare in the US in comparison. You concede that this issue isn't important enough to warrant allowing your citizens to be armed for self defence. That's fine. I'm not disagreeing. Different strokes for different folks. I even concede that allowing your citizens to defend themselves (with firearms) may increase crime overall in your country, despite higher (legal) gun ownership equating to lower crime in the US. I was only talking specifically about home invasions.
A side note, but as far as the US goes, if we want to reduce gun deaths, the most effective solution is to attack the cause of the large majority of firearm murders: Gangs, especially city gangs. Where do these gangs get their money from? The black market, and, in particular, prostitution and drugs. 70% of murders in Detroit in 2009 were directly related to drug trading, half of them for marijuana alone. Decriminalize these, and inner-city thugs will lose their income (and their ability to bully/rob/extort druggies). This is something that many outsiders don't understand when hearing about US gun crime: Outside of cities, gun crime is virtually irrelevant and nonexistent, despite a far higher rate of legal gun ownership.
Vegosiux: Well, instead of grabbing the first chance to ridicule someone on the internet, you could have also read the rest of my post, which I am pretty certain you did not do.
It was not meant to be ridicule sorry if you took it that way I just used your line to make my point cause it was the first time I had seen it used on this thread. It's something that I see on a fairly regular basis it truthfully does make me chuckle every time I see someone say something ridicules like "Oh well you don't think there should be restriction's huh? well how about they just give everyone a nuke!" I saw Piers Morgan say something to that effect recently and I just had to lol. I know that's not what you said but it was close enough for my purpose, again not meant as ridicule it simply served my purpose.
chadachada123: Even if gun manufacturers did push that image (and they don't appear to be), isn't the fact that gun crime has been going down while gun ownership is going up...show that more gun control isn't necessary at this point?
Not at all. I'd say the fact that murder sprees happen at all is a valid reason to regulate guns. But even if there weren't murder sprees, the fact that the American violent crime statistics are so absurdly high compared to other developed countries is a valid reason as well. Just because our crime rate is coming down from an even more absurdly high level doesn't mean the crime rate isn't still absurdly high.
Now I know at this point some NRA-fan is going to reflexively jump in and try that tired old straw man argument about how you can get blugeoned to death with a loaf of stale bread so we should ban stale bread, but let's dispense with the hysteria, shall we?
In order to have a free society, people should have the right not to get gunned down by some random over-armed maniac. Guns obviously make violence far more efficient than the other tools available to the public. That in and of itself is a valid reason to increase gun regulation.
That's without getting into the fact that gun owners (in Texas) who go through the Concealed Handgun Licensing process (with a training course and written test) and purchased their firearm legally are fourteen times less likely than the average citizen to commit a crime, and seven times less likely to commit a violent crime.
That's very interesting. It makes me wonder why the NRA hasn't engaged in a nation-wide campaign to promote mandatory gun licenses as a way to reduce gun violence. Well, it would make me wonder if I didn't know just how partisan the NRA is.
This is why I have no sympathy. Sensible industries self-regulate in order to ensure they're meeting the public good and to prevent a government need for regulation. The American gun industry has fought tooth-and-nail against any regulation and now they're facing the cost. I might be more sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that the gun industry's pig-headed insistence that "any regulation means they're takin' away ar gurnz!!!" is costing us lives. People are dying because the gun lobby has put ideology and profit ahead of basic, sensible regulation.
The NRA doesn't represent me, nor does it represent a large minority of other gun owners. The NRA is absolutely fucking retarded, to say it nicely. Gun Owners of America does a far better job protecting the rights of Americans, and doesn't just push an agenda and give money to political candidates (or try to push blame onto video games, etc).
Regarding "right to not be shot by taking away arms from others," I disagree vehemently. Rights do not work that way. You have a right to defend yourself, not a right to control others based on what they *might* do.
Beyond this, instead of trusting that a criminal won't stab or shoot me, it is far more reassuring to be able to arm and defend myself, so that *I* am in control, or at fault, over whether I live or die, and not some thug. You'd like to tell people to be defenseless pigs, ripe for the slaughter, like all of the victims of most of the mass shootings of the past 20 years.
Protip: There's a very obvious, very much common sense reason that these shootings all happened at "gun-free zones": Because their victims were guaranteed to be unarmed and without resistance. Even the Aurora shooting (Dark Knight Rises Movie Theater shooting) happened at the ONE theater in the area that forbid firearms, and was not the closest one to his apartment, either, while the other six within a twenty minute drive were those where another patron could have been armed.
As far as self-regulation, you'll note that many gun owners, like I said, denounce the NRA, just as many gamers denounce EA and Activision. The media conveniently cherry-picks who they get to represent gun owners, like inviting a loud idiot like Alex Jones into a discussion with an equally-stupid but more-charismatic Piers Morgan.
Fuzzed: No guns to turn in over here. And I highly doubt anyone would start a friggin revolution if the government did take such measures. I mean, I love skateboarding. But if the government decided to ban those pieces of wood because they thought skateboards turned people into hooligans who beat up grandparents, I'm not all of a sudden going to turn Che on everybody's ass just to keep my skateboard. Heck, if it led to less grandparents getting the crap beat out of them then I'd feel like I did the right thing.
The significance of a skateboard to you is fun. The significance of guns to gun owners is protection of their homes and often insurance against a corrupt state.
If you view anything as the thing that maintains your rights, and that thing is also a deadly weapon, and millions of people in your country hold this same view, you can expect a revolt of some kind.
Regarding "right to not be shot by taking away arms from others," I disagree vehemently. Rights do not work that way. You have a right to defend yourself, not a right to control others based on what they *might* do.
Well there is the right to life, as set out by Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the U.S. is a party to.
You know, some things are actually black and white. Sorry about that. But it's the truth.
Denying the fact that anti-gunners want ALL guns taken away, and the government is more than happy to oblige, well, that's deceit. Every anti-gunner KNOWS as much. There is no thing is an anti-gun lobbyist who believes owning a gun is acceptable in any way.
Black and white. That simple.
Hang on a second, I'm anti-gun. I did rifle shooting in the Cadets when I was growing up and was quite good, my grandfather owned shot guns as he was a farmer. As an adult I have done pistol shooting abroad with magnums, glock's Beretta's etc and really enjoyed it. I enjoy using guns and the satisfaction of honing your skills can bring on the practice range.
But I am 100% against private gun ownership for 95% of individuals. Where there is a practical use for a lively hood like pest control, or safety from dangerous wildlife in rural areas, double barrel shot gun licenses should be allowed, but regulated and monitored. Want to do range shooting, no problem join a range club, leave your gun there under lock and key with all your ammunition.
So there you go I enjoy guns, I respect guns power, if I lived in a country that allowed gun ownership wide speard I would probably own one. But I recognize that my enjoyment and easy of access to a weapon would also allow dangerous individuals access to weapons. Thus my enjoyment of its use is not justified at the expense overall of people's safety.
I've stated what I would consider acceptable gun ownership and I'm anti-gun for private gun ownership, so congratulations on your sweeping statements.
Actually, after reading your post, my "sweeping statement" still stands. 95% percent of people shouldn't own guns, but it's okay as long as the people in "your circle" do, so you say. So you believe that people SHOULDN'T OWN GUNS FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE. You've proven nothing, here. You've just reinforced my argument. Anti-gunners believe that ordinary people have no right to bear the sort of weapons which ruling powers levy against them. Furthermore, you believe that ordinary people have no right to stand up to murderers, rapists, child-abductors, and muggers.
Anti-gunners WANT ALL GUNS BANNED. And then they pull the "legitimate hunters can own .22 bolt action pea shooters if they want" card.
My "enjoyment" of my gun's "use" on the range is secondary to its primary purpose: to kill those who deserve to die.
People who deserve to die are as follows:
- Those who put my family's safety and well-being into jeopardy, - Those who wish to use violence, deadly force, or wrongful persecution/imprisonment to achieve political goals.
And that's it. You want to try to join one of those two groups, you'd better be ready to face the consequences, because I know that not everyone in this country is a gutless, witless sheep and I'm not the only one who refuses to take it lying down.
It's not just about guns, junior. It doesn't end with peoples' right to gleefully shoot paper targets on the range, or to stop a human animal from savaging them in their own home, or even on the sidewalk. No, the enemy is real and his power is very real, indeed. The enemy is working to destroy every last vestige of freedom left to subjects of the "glorious" industrial age.
The enemy wishes to institute censorship policies on a massive scale, online and off. They wish to make children property of the state, and force parents to "medicate" youth so that they behave according to government standards. They wish to disarm the populace and simultaneously reinforce their domestic law enforcement organizations. This is no "conspiracy." A "conspiracy" by definition is a plan of action. The government of the United States of America is pushing these polices into action as we speak. These are FACTS. And you're trying to tell me that this is democracy, that people are ASKING to be silenced, punished, and brainwashed? Give. Me. A. Break.
Those who wish to cry foul and say, it's not the end of the world in countries which banned guns. Sure, it's not the end of the world. But it is the end of personal freedom. The people of the UK are free to go to work, get paid, and spend their money on getting plastered in bars all day every day. They are NOT free to stand up to the government, and they are NOT free to break out against established "norms" of social behavior. They are excessively monitored by their authoritarian government, and they don't even have a right to any form of self-defense. Some ****wit said that citizens of the UK are "protected" by UN law which stipulates that taking a life is illegal. Yes, the crime is illegal, but so to is the preservation of life. The law only stipulates that murderers are in violation - nothing allows private citizens to spare themselves from violence or death, and those who attempt are RUTHLESSLY persecuted by the state for being so bold as to display any sort of initiative.
Since so many ***hats here demand "proof" and are too lazy to do the freaking research themselves, AND everything in the media is taken as God's own gospel, here's a media exercept:
"By Huw Borland, Sky News Online
Celebrity mum Myleene Klass is "aghast" after being warned by police for waving a knife at teenagers who entered her garden.
The TV star and Marks & Spencer model was in her kitchen, with her daughter upstairs, when she spotted people peering into her window just after midnight on Friday.
She grabbed a knife and banged the windows before they ran away.
Hertfordshire Police officers warned Klass she should not have used a knife to scare off the teens because carrying an "offensive weapon" - even in her own home - was illegal.
Klass told Sky News in a statement: "My family are totally fine and I thank the police for being so re-assuring and comforting.
"However, I was left shocked and surprised to be told that a private individual in the privacy of their own home runs the risk of committing a criminal offence if, out of fear for their own safety and their loved ones, they grab something with which they could defend themselves if an intruder enters their home.
"I totally respect British law - but surely everyone has the right to self-defence in their own home if they are in danger?"
Her spokesman Jonathan Shalit said the former Hearsay singer was "utterly terrified" and was stepping up security at the property near Potters Bar.
He told the Sunday Telegraph: "Myleene was aghast when she was told that the law did not allow her to defend herself at home.
"All she did was scream loudly and wave the knife to try and frighten them off."
Klass' fiance Graham Quinn was away on business at the time of the scare.
It came amid calls for greater rights for people to defend themselves against intruders on their property.
In December, Munir Hussain was jailed for attacking a man who tied up his family in their home. He and his brother used a cricket bat to beat one of the intruders."
People are perfectly fine with guns "in the right hands," so they say. Well, regarding that argument, let's consider whose hands are the "right" ones. Two common answers are the police and the military.
Well, as for police, if in your utopian society violence disappears as soon as guns do and people are rendered perfectly helpless, let's get rid of guns in the hands of the police. Because, as it turns out, there are fewer armed police officers than there are armed civilians, and there are more cases of firearm misuse in the hands of crazy, trigger-happy, self-important police officers. Thousands of under-reported accidental or non-justifiable injuries and fatalities, and no one bats a ****ing eye.
But let's say police and military forces ARE entitled to carry weapons. Why? Police officers and soldiers are NO different from you and me. They are not genetically superior, they are not agents of God. They are people like the rest of us. The only difference is, they are contracted by the government for the purpose of killing the "right" people, which, by definition, are those deemed enemies of the state.
They are given overwhelming firepower, and granted every possible technology which would make them as invulnerable to resistance as can be. Means to resist them are blatantly illegal in the United States, and the government is strengthening their police and military forces all the time. The government is ordering special-purpose ammunition in RECORD quantities, ammunition designed to be effective specifically against those not protected by body armor. Citizens, so to speak. Domestic armed forces are at this very moment being equipped with and trained in the use of advanced military technologies, including aerial combat drones and, YES, infantry fighting vehicles. Yes, those are TANKS, complete with gunports, grenade launchers, and on some models fully-functional cannons.
The police are known to be savage, brutal, full of themselves, and publicly eager to "shoot some ****ers in the head (with this thing)" as I overheard a cop remark in a gun store. Many cops carry themselves in a manner which would imply serious psychological problems, and are encouraged by the government to do so because they "kill the right people." They're eager to intimidate, to bully, and to inflict physical harm. They're trained for it. They're conditioned for it. They're armed and equipped for it. And the people of this supposedly "free" society are absolutely okay with it.
Why? Well, they're terrified, of course. People cringe in fear when they see a police car roll by. I see it all the time. And they respond to this fear in the only way they can: absolute, enthusiastic support and respect. A kind of "please don't kill me" response. This is the origin of all this military and police wank. It's nothing more than a response to fear. The government has convinced the common man that it's okay that they're arming themselves to commit mass slaughter. It's for your own protection, after all.
If your system of democracy is so effective, if it's truly the "common will of the people" that the country becomes more and more like a totalitarian regime every day, why, then, is the government so terrified of a massive uprising? So afraid of their own citizens, who in fact are deeply frightened in turn?
These people are the people who want your guns. That's enough to make me pro-gun by default.
chadachada123: The NRA doesn't represent me, nor does it represent a large minority of other gun owners.
Unfortunately, the NRA thinks it does. So do the politicians it lobbies.
Regarding "right to not be shot by taking away arms from others," I disagree vehemently.
Whoops! You made the same error the NRA does. I said "regulate". Not "take away". Argue against the argument I'm making, not an irrelevant strawman, please.
it is far more reassuring to be able to arm and defend myself, so that *I* am in control, or at fault, over whether I live or die, and not some thug.
You don't have the right to have other Americans be put in danger just so you can feel "reassured".
You'd like to tell people to be defenseless pigs, ripe for the slaughter, like all of the victims of most of the mass shootings of the past 20 years.
*yawn* More NRA-style nonsense. I never said any such thing.
As far as self-regulation, you'll note that many gun owners, like I said, denounce the NRA,
Unfortunately, not enough gun owners denounce them loud enough. So once again, I feel zero sympathy.
"Regulation" is double speak for "Take Away" in Capital Hill. Don't want citizens with modern handguns and rifles? Regulate their magazine size so small that they can't function or fit in the weapon they are designed for. Or make it illegal for weapons to have certain furniture to such an extreme degree that no modern weapon is made that way to any functional degree.
My gun puts in danger only those who would do the same to me, "Katatori."
And by being anti-gun, you are pro-criminal. Make NO mistake. You are rendering people defenseless. You are making them ripe for slaughter. You are murdering innocent human beings. Get ****ed.
You mentioned somewhere back in that massive cluser-coitus that you're "anti-gun" but not pro-ban, and I cried foul when I said that you were. ORLY? So, tell me, are you willing to, despite your anti-gun mindset, respect and defend my ownership of guns, even though you don't want to own one? Don't even bother answering that. Of COURSE you would not. You would instead hop on the merry disarmament boat, just like I would vote to ban rap music if such an (illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral) vote were to appear on the docket.
EDIT: Damn straight, Tornado. ^^^^ That's exactly it. New York state has just reduced mag cap to 7 rounds. Guess what, if you own ANYTHING that's not a revolver? BAM, illegal, subject to confiscations and fines. They have, in essence, BANNED guns there. No two ways about it. That's HOW IT WORKS. Anti-gun regulations are efforts to disarm the populace, pure and simple.
EDIT EDIT: And in anticipation of the inevitable torrent of "well, our cops and soldiers are going to kill you when you resist" answers to my above statement: Yeah, that's right. My wife and I were murdered and our son abducted, IF not killed, because we valued our right to life. And that leaves you and your armed murderers you so heartily support holding the bag. You support it, you participated. Regular, harmless people made into criminals, then made into targets, then made into corpses, and you're all for it.
Well, if some day in the future a government like that is allowed to exist, I'm rooting for the inevitable nuclear holocaust they've earned.
Now I'm going to go play some Battlefield 3 and train up for my homicidal rampage so that I can abandon my son and the love of my life in favor of a ****ton of masturbatory media coverage.
Raytan941: words words words, something incorrect about rich people never going murder-happy words words words. the founders believed that the people should be equally armed as the standing military because at the time when the need arose the people would join with the standing army (bringing along their own weapons in the process) to help combat a common enemy.
It was not at all uncommon in those days for citizens to own cannon's, mortars, crude hand grenades and even fully equipped naval vessels. And I would agree that that ideal does not fully translate to modern terms. I do however believe that if someone wants to own a tank or a fighter jet or a 55mm howitzer and they have the money to buy it and the know how to operate it in a safe manner they should be allowed too. And there are people in the US who do own things like that, I admit that I don't know the requirements and restrictions on owning things like that because I have never looked into it because they are waaaay out of my budget I can imagine however the requirements, restrictions and fee's are pretty steep. I believe they are also limited to items made before a certain time, for instance I haven't seen anyone that owns a modern tank but I have seen a number of people that own tanks built prior to 1960. And that's a shame I think if someone wants to own a Abrams or a Striker and they can find a company or a government willing to sell them one I am all for it. What I do believe need's regulation is already heavily regulated for obvious reasons and that's things like explosives, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
You make good points. While i do not agree with you completely (I don't even want it to be a possibility for someone to own modern, functional tanks and fighters and the associated munitions, since thats just too dangerous for someone to own), I agree that these things should be available to those who can afford them, and are responsible enough to use them safely, if at all. However, there lies the problem; most people really aren't responsible enough, or educated enough, or both. Unfortunately, its too damn easy for those who are irresponsible or downright dangerous to get such things. That is why I say i give up my guns. If I ever even came into one, I don't trust myself to not make a mistake in the storage or usage of such a tool of destruction, and I know that eventually I will either break something, wound someone, or straight up kill someone when I had no intention to. Im clumsy, Im uneducated in gun safety. I know precisely one person who I trust with such weapons, because his family has long standing military ties, and it is a hobby of his, but he knows how to keep himself and others safe when his guns aren't unloaded and locked up.
This is the only person I met who I believe should be allowed to own a weapon. Not just a gun, a weapon. Because he knows his shit, and he knows and understands what these things can do, and he knows how to be DAMN sure these things don't happen accidently.
Also, what i fail to understand is why in these debates, when defense is mentioned, little mention is made of non-lethal weapons. You know, weapons that are actually for defense, and not counter-attack (which is a form of defense yes, but too lethal for my tastes, since my reason for being anti-gun is I want fewer people dying violently, and I know Im not alone in this).
I mean, yeah, a lot of those non-lethal options are notoriously short-ranged. However, in a city environment (where most of this violence takes place), if someone is so far that you cannot incapacitate them non-lethally with a ranged tazer (or are those publicly available? I can't remember), then it is fair to assume they are far enough away there is some kind of cover in the way you can duck behind until they bugger off, or get close enough for the non-lethal weapon to be effective. Because cities tend to have a lot of man-made structures and devices in them (and boxes), which tend to make it difficult to hit people with ranged attacks due to line of sight and material density stopping or misdirecting attacks.
And yeah, that doesn't apply to all situations, but until we get publicly-issued tactical dreadnaught armor, defenses will have situations in which they fail. Including the counter-attack defense
Yay, more NRA-style propaganda. Of course it's all rubbish. I spent most of my adult life in a country where guns are extremely heavily regulated, and crime in general is far lower there than in the US. And I have far more freedom there than I do in the US.
You are murdering innocent human beings. Get ****ed.
Reported for rampant hysteria and personal attack.
You mentioned somewhere back in that massive cluser-coitus that you're "anti-gun" but not pro-ban,
I did not. Read the words I wrote, not the words you wish I wrote.
Guess what, if you own ANYTHING that's not a revolver? BAM, illegal, subject to confiscations and fines. They have, in essence, BANNED guns there.
So, in essence they've banned guns. Except two sentences prior, you say that they haven't banned revolvers. So either revolvers aren't guns, or they didn't ban guns and you're making wild accusations to dramatize your empty rhetoric. Which is it?
The point i was making, which you happily ignored, that guns, guns dont have benefits, so the retrictions have nothing to outweigh. The same corelation with crime can be made with games. games got very popular during last 20 years too. does that mean games caused crime rate to drop? no. then how can you argue same correlation for guns? I agree that there is no easy answer to violence problem, but ignoring certain facts does not help. I agree that a better mental health system is needed in US, better education system is needed eveywhere, but trust me, try living here in Lithuania, youll beg to get back to american education, it is one of the best out there. We dont need more after school programs,we need after school programs not to imagine that we are living in 19th century. you know, do things that modern people do, instead of things like church music listening or reading some farmers thoughts. People who dont want guns already have them off their homes. There are plenty of people who already do education and prevention of obesity (admitedly, unsucesfully), we need people fighting with all problems, not just one thats causing most deaths atm. and please, your constitution does not allow any civilian to bear arms. it says militia there, clearly. are you militia? no? then constitution does not protect your arm rights.
Quazimofo: Also, what i fail to understand is why in these debates, when defense is mentioned, little mention is made of non-lethal weapons. You know, weapons that are actually for defense, and not counter-attack (which is a form of defense yes, but too lethal for my tastes, since my reason for being anti-gun is I want fewer people dying violently, and I know Im not alone in this).
Because the rights in question are those of owning a gun and not non-lethel defence weapons.
Take up as many sword/bladed weapon fighting styles as possible, fill house with swords and other various cool looking bladed weaponry(in cases, and sharpened)and hope I never have to use them, but be prepared to look stylish while using them.
I feel if we all just dropped guns altogether, and focused on swords/melee weapons we'd be a lot better off. 1.everyone would have to go face to face seeing the fear in their eyes, feel the blood coming down the blade, feel the blade cut through flesh, realizing that they too are fleshy mortals whose life can just as easily be ended, and most, save some psychos who would be killing people regardless,would be much more hesitant to kill folk willy nilly. 2.It would require a bit more skill which would mean more training, which would mean more time.(as opposed to guns which is essentially "point to kill") 3. It would be a lot harder to conceal effective killing weapons, smallest blade I can think of is a dagger which is generally used for parrying.
I'm sure I'm over simplifying it somewhat, but I thought I'd put in my entirely unhelpful two cents in.
TornadoADV: "Regulation" is double speak for "Take Away" in Capital Hill. Don't want citizens with modern handguns and rifles? Regulate their magazine size so small that they can't function or fit in the weapon they are designed for. Or make it illegal for weapons to have certain furniture to such an extreme degree that no modern weapon is made that way to any functional degree.
Here's a thought: you don't need a modern gun.
you don't need any gun, but that is besides the point. unless you live in a war torn country where violent raids occur on a daily basis with no semblance of authority, you have no need of a device that dispenses lethal rounds at 60 rpm, nor do you need to dispense 60 of them at a time.
when gangs of 60 criminals are involved in 1 burglary, then it will be a different story. when you are hunting animals that fight in packs and can kill you from 10 meters away, then it'll be a different story.
TornadoADV: "Regulation" is double speak for "Take Away" in Capital Hill. Don't want citizens with modern handguns and rifles? Regulate their magazine size so small that they can't function or fit in the weapon they are designed for. Or make it illegal for weapons to have certain furniture to such an extreme degree that no modern weapon is made that way to any functional degree.
Here's a thought: you don't need a modern gun.
you don't need any gun, but that is besides the point. unless you live in a war torn country where violent raids occur on a daily basis with no semblance of authority, you have no need of a device that dispenses lethal rounds at 60 rpm, nor do you need to dispense 60 of them at a time.
when gangs of 60 criminals are involved in 1 burglary, then it will be a different story. when you are hunting animals that fight in packs and can kill you from 10 meters away, then it'll be a different story.
I don't really care what you think, an armed populace keeps the government honest. Without weapons the people of the United States have no way of removing the government if the government oversteps it's bounds, because once the second is gone, you can bet that the first and the fifth are soon behind it.
Alfred P. Herman: Take up as many sword/bladed weapon fighting styles as possible, fill house with swords and other various cool looking bladed weaponry(in cases, and sharpened)and hope I never have to use them, but be prepared to look stylish while using them.
I feel if we all just dropped guns altogether, and focused on swords/melee weapons we'd be a lot better off. 1.everyone would have to go face to face seeing the fear in their eyes, feel the blood coming down the blade, feel the blade cut through flesh, realizing that they too are fleshy mortals whose life can just as easily be ended, and most, save some psychos who would be killing people regardless,would be much more hesitant to kill folk willy nilly. 2.It would require a bit more skill which would mean more training, which would mean more time.(as opposed to guns which is essentially "point to kill") 3. It would be a lot harder to conceal effective killing weapons, smallest blade I can think of is a dagger which is generally used for parrying.
I'm sure I'm over simplifying it somewhat, but I thought I'd put in my entirely unhelpful two cents in.
A bladed weapon does not make a 5'2", 90 lb woman equal to a 6'0", 200 lb man. Guns are the great equalizer.
So, in essence they've banned guns. Except two sentences prior, you say that they haven't banned revolvers. So either revolvers aren't guns, or they didn't ban guns and you're making wild accusations to dramatize your empty rhetoric. Which is it?
Revolvers have very poor performance against body armor and even with a speed loader, are cumbersome and slow to reload. Which means they are little good in protecting the populace from a government gone wrong.
Quazimofo: Also, what i fail to understand is why in these debates, when defense is mentioned, little mention is made of non-lethal weapons. You know, weapons that are actually for defense, and not counter-attack (which is a form of defense yes, but too lethal for my tastes, since my reason for being anti-gun is I want fewer people dying violently, and I know Im not alone in this).
I mean, yeah, a lot of those non-lethal options are notoriously short-ranged. However, in a city environment (where most of this violence takes place), if someone is so far that you cannot incapacitate them non-lethally with a ranged tazer (or are those publicly available? I can't remember), then it is fair to assume they are far enough away there is some kind of cover in the way you can duck behind until they bugger off, or get close enough for the non-lethal weapon to be effective. Because cities tend to have a lot of man-made structures and devices in them (and boxes), which tend to make it difficult to hit people with ranged attacks due to line of sight and material density stopping or misdirecting attacks.
And yeah, that doesn't apply to all situations, but until we get publicly-issued tactical dreadnaught armor, defenses will have situations in which they fail. Including the counter-attack defense
People can fight through MACE to the face and with Tazer Guns you have one shot to hit at very close range or you have to risk hand to hand combat if you have the old fashioned dual pronged contact Tazers. In the United States, with enough money, you can have a better weapon and better body armor then any Infantryman out in the field today.
The significance of a skateboard to you is fun. The significance of guns to gun owners is protection of their homes and often insurance against a corrupt state.
If you view anything as the thing that maintains your rights, and that thing is also a deadly weapon, and millions of people in your country hold this same view, you can expect a revolt of some kind.
You mean to tell me that gun owners also do view their guns as fun? Why do they take them hunting? Why do they take them to the gun range? Why do they show them off to their neighbors and friends? Why do they show their kids?
The percentage of people who just own one gun that they keep in their bedside table next to their box of condoms and bible (and never show another soul on this planet) for the purposes of protecting their home against a "corrupt state", against intruders (against zombies), and to protect this so-called rights your talking about is so low its fucking unbelievable.
You don't need a gun to be courageous. You don't need a gun to lead a revolt.
It also doesn't seem to place a restriction on the type of arms, yet I'm pretty sure you'd not be comfortable with everyone owning nukes...
Yes, yes, I heard that SCOTUS ruled that Amendment II only covers small arms but I wonder why then it's still written in a way that's ambiguous and easily misinterpreted, especially since not everyone's a lawyer and may not even be aware of the ruling.
Point is, it's an amendment, not one of the fucking 10 commandments...
So, care to point out where that happens on the European side of the Atlantic Ocean? Cause, seriously, first time I hear that.