You opinion on gun ownership?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 19 NEXT
 

I personally am all for gun ownership.

But before people...*ahem*..."blow me away" with that logic, I make limitations. I support gun ownership for SPORTING AND SELF-DEFENSE ONLY!! Now granted, I may be a little biased on the subject, as the area I live in, the average person has more firepower than a small army. (my grandpa alone has like 20 different calibers of guns, mostly pistols/shotguns/Rifles) At my house, we keep a loaded shotgun under the bed in case the coyotes get to close. And my family are big sport hunters, and range shooters. So in keeping with the defense or sport purposes, I DO NOT think people need to own fully automatic weapons, have armor-piercing bullets, or own RPGs or other explosives. Because if you need that kind of firepower to defend yourself with, I think its time to consider moving.

Gun ownership is a classic case of "can ≠ should". Yes, you can own a gun. It does not follow that owning a gun is a good idea, or even that it's not an absolutely terrible idea. I sincerely hope I don't have to explain my reasoning here, this should be pretty basic stuff.

Considering I'm going to be a gun owner in about 8 days? Yeah. I'm in favor of it. It's a right specifically granted by my State Constitution.


Missouri Constitution
Article I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Actually, last week I took a safety course so I can apply for a CCW permit when I turn 21. Fun times, fun times.

So yes. I support lawful gun ownership.

Stagnant:
Gun ownership is a classic case of "can ≠ should". Yes, you can own a gun. It does not follow that owning a gun is a good idea, or even that it's not an absolutely terrible idea. I sincerely hope I don't have to explain my reasoning here, this should be pretty basic stuff.

Pretty much. I'll grudgingly accept that I can't do anything to abolish the second amendment, but I don't understand why everyone feels they need to own a gun just because they can. Even most people who get one for "self-defense" don't need one. And of course, this is compounded by my complete opposition to hunting for sport, which leaves very few reasons acceptable to me to own a gun.

The worst, though, are the people who insist on carrying publicly, and even on being allowed to enter public buildings while armed. That shit just isn't necessary.

BOOM headshot65:
I DO NOT think people need to own fully automatic weapons, have armor-piercing bullets

Between 1934 and 1986 there were exactly three crimes committed with legal full-auto weapons either made in the US or imported through official channels. Two of those incidents were law enforcement officers. The argument against full-auto weapons is at heart completely nonsensical. This is especially true as it is currently while not an order of magnitude cheaper to buy an illegal full auto weapon than a legal one, it's pretty fucking close. As for "armor piercing bullets" pretty much any rifle will penetrate class IIIa and below body armor, even with soft lead hollowpoints, and anything above .308 in FMJ will pass through even class IV without too much issue. Also, the cop killer bullet was a myth and brass/steel bullets never had a history of being used against police officers.

If you can be trusted by the state do operate a car, then you can be trusted to own a firearm.

To elaborate that example, if you are obviously a sane person, then yes you have the right to own simple firearms.
There has to be continous checkups and licensing, though. People can change at a fundamental level quickly.
And by simple firearms i mean that you need a really good reason to own such things as magazines that can hold dozens or hundreds of rounds, easily concealable firarms that are suitable for use as portable personal protection or explosives.

I am a bit.. dissatisfied at how easy it was to get permission to buy 4 hunting rifles here though. All i had to do was read a book, take a couple of hunting theory tests and demonstrate basic firearms safety and skill. Sounds harder than it was.

Zetion:
Snip

Word to the wise, my friend, you may wish to edit that in order to avoid mod-wrath. Just sayin'

everythingbeeps:

Stagnant:
Gun ownership is a classic case of "can ≠ should". Yes, you can own a gun. It does not follow that owning a gun is a good idea, or even that it's not an absolutely terrible idea. I sincerely hope I don't have to explain my reasoning here, this should be pretty basic stuff.

Pretty much. I'll grudgingly accept that I can't do anything to abolish the second amendment, but I don't understand why everyone feels they need to own a gun just because they can. Even most people who get one for "self-defense" don't need one. And of course, this is compounded by my complete opposition to hunting for sport, which leaves very few reasons acceptable to me to own a gun.

The worst, though, are the people who insist on carrying publicly, and even on being allowed to enter public buildings while armed. That shit just isn't necessary.

Just out of cursorily, how do you feel about concealed weapons?

ravenshrike:

BOOM headshot65:
I DO NOT think people need to own fully automatic weapons, have armor-piercing bullets

Between 1934 and 1986 there were exactly three crimes committed with legal full-auto weapons either made in the US or imported through official channels.

Source please? Also, you said LEGAL, how many with ILLEGAL were commited. Now granted, it still doesnt happen as much as with handguns, but where I am from, accuracy is everything. Full-auto just isnt accurate, so is useless for hunting. I make exceptions for self-defense, but again, If you need a full auto weapon to defend yourself, things have gone south fast.

ravenshrike:
As for "armor piercing bullets" pretty much any rifle will penetrate class IIIa and below body armor, even with soft lead hollowpoints, and anything above .308 in FMJ will pass through even class IV without too much issue. Also, the cop killer bullet was a myth and brass/steel bullets never had a history of being used against police officers.

I am more accepting of armor-piercing bullets just for the fact I know some bullets are inherently armor-piercing by design. I mean bullets that are made for taking down military grade body armor, which are illegal anyway.

BOOM headshot65:
Source please? Also, you said LEGAL, how many with ILLEGAL were commited. Now granted, it still doesnt happen as much as with handguns, but where I am from, accuracy is everything. Full-auto just isnt accurate, so is useless for hunting. I make exceptions for self-defense, but again, If you need a full auto weapon to defend yourself, things have gone south fast.

You mean the illegal full auto weapons brought in illegally from outside the country by drug runners because it's fucking cheaper to buy the pieces of shit that they used in the 70's and 80's in Mexico and Columbia; which are used by criminals who by definition are disobeying the law? Those illegal weapons? Which the 1986 Hughes amendment did EXACTLY zilch to stop? Why the fuck does it matter? Here's the thing, criminals outside of a very select subset don't use full-auto weapons because they burn through ammo and are inaccurate as fuck if you don't know how to use them, which is the vast majority of the population.

Addendum - That select subset will always be able to get their hands on such weapons. So restrictions on the civilian market will do nothing. At all. More importantly, the entire argument for banning full auto weapons is essentially because you think they're "unnecessary". Well this is America, and to that piece of statist bullshit I say fuck that noise.

CM156:

Zetion:
Snip

Word to the wise, my friend, you may wish to edit that in order to avoid mod-wrath. Just sayin'

everythingbeeps:

Stagnant:
Gun ownership is a classic case of "can ≠ should". Yes, you can own a gun. It does not follow that owning a gun is a good idea, or even that it's not an absolutely terrible idea. I sincerely hope I don't have to explain my reasoning here, this should be pretty basic stuff.

Pretty much. I'll grudgingly accept that I can't do anything to abolish the second amendment, but I don't understand why everyone feels they need to own a gun just because they can. Even most people who get one for "self-defense" don't need one. And of course, this is compounded by my complete opposition to hunting for sport, which leaves very few reasons acceptable to me to own a gun.

The worst, though, are the people who insist on carrying publicly, and even on being allowed to enter public buildings while armed. That shit just isn't necessary.

Just out of cursorily, how do you feel about concealed weapons?

Well once again, in most cases I would just ask "why?"

Unless you're hiking through sketchy parts of town (again: why?), I don't really see why most people would need to carry concealed weapons. I guess mostly it doesn't matter to me whether it's concealed or not...if you're walking around packing, you're either ultra paranoid or just want to show off.

everythingbeeps:

CM156:

Zetion:
Snip

Word to the wise, my friend, you may wish to edit that in order to avoid mod-wrath. Just sayin'

everythingbeeps:

Pretty much. I'll grudgingly accept that I can't do anything to abolish the second amendment, but I don't understand why everyone feels they need to own a gun just because they can. Even most people who get one for "self-defense" don't need one. And of course, this is compounded by my complete opposition to hunting for sport, which leaves very few reasons acceptable to me to own a gun.

The worst, though, are the people who insist on carrying publicly, and even on being allowed to enter public buildings while armed. That shit just isn't necessary.

Just out of cursorily, how do you feel about concealed weapons?

Well once again, in most cases I would just ask "why?"

Unless you're hiking through sketchy parts of town (again: why?), I don't really see why most people would need to carry concealed weapons. I guess mostly it doesn't matter to me whether it's concealed or not...if you're walking around packing, you're either ultra paranoid or just want to show off.

And I respond with "Why not?" There are a lot of things people don't "need" to do, but do anyways.

And there's nothing wrong with showing off, is there?

EDIT: And yes, I was being facetious there at the end.

I fully support people's right to own a gun, if it's allowed by their laws (such as the Constitution's 2nd Amendment in America) however I do have some limits in how far I support it:

1) Automatic assault rifles are one of the stupidest things you can want to own, as there is no logical reason to have one unless your home is invaded by people in fucking body armour. Since most robbers and/or any other criminals who would break into your house tend to wear perfectly normal clothes, a handgun is more than enough, a shotgun I can accept too.

2) Armour-piercing bullets. Same reason as above, they're just not fucking necessary.

3) I support your right to have a gun. I do not support people's rights to carry the fucking thing around with them in day-to-day life. A tense situation is tense enough without 5 or 6 panicky people with guns added to the mix, or without those kind of douches who think they're fucking Rambo whenever shit goes down.

4) The rule of can =/= should. Just because you can have a gun, doesn't mean people should.

This said, I am glad I live in a country where gun control laws are pretty strict.

CM156:

everythingbeeps:

CM156:

Word to the wise, my friend, you may wish to edit that in order to avoid mod-wrath. Just sayin'

Just out of cursorily, how do you feel about concealed weapons?

Well once again, in most cases I would just ask "why?"

Unless you're hiking through sketchy parts of town (again: why?), I don't really see why most people would need to carry concealed weapons. I guess mostly it doesn't matter to me whether it's concealed or not...if you're walking around packing, you're either ultra paranoid or just want to show off.

And I respond with "Why not?" There are a lot of things people don't "need" to do, but do anyways.

And there's nothing wrong with showing off, is there?

EDIT: And yes, I was being facetious there at the end.

"Why not" is never really a good reason to do anything. It may be enough for little things like "Why not get a pizza" or "why not go for a drive", but "why not carry around a deadly weapon" doesn't really do it for me. Especially because I don't believe that "why not" is the reason people who carry weapons around do so.

Like I said, I'm someone who needs to be convinced that there's a real reason why gun ownership is necessary, and so far nothing's really convinced me. Again, I only grudgingly accept the 2nd amendment. If there was a serious campaign to get rid of it, I'd support it. But for now, I'll tolerate it.

everythingbeeps:

CM156:

everythingbeeps:

Well once again, in most cases I would just ask "why?"

Unless you're hiking through sketchy parts of town (again: why?), I don't really see why most people would need to carry concealed weapons. I guess mostly it doesn't matter to me whether it's concealed or not...if you're walking around packing, you're either ultra paranoid or just want to show off.

And I respond with "Why not?" There are a lot of things people don't "need" to do, but do anyways.

And there's nothing wrong with showing off, is there?

EDIT: And yes, I was being facetious there at the end.

"Why not" is never really a good reason to do anything. It may be enough for little things like "Why not get a pizza" or "why not go for a drive", but "why not carry around a deadly weapon" doesn't really do it for me. Especially because I don't believe that "why not" is the reason people who carry weapons around do so.

Like I said, I'm someone who needs to be convinced that there's a real reason why gun ownership is necessary, and so far nothing's really convinced me. Again, I only grudgingly accept the 2nd amendment. If there was a serious campaign to get rid of it, I'd support it. But for now, I'll tolerate it.

Fair enough. It's just that the "Why?" argument is used all to easily in pretty much anything else. For example, I see no good reasons "why" someone should drink alcohol at all. Yet since it is widely accepted, I have to meet the burden of proof, not them.

There's the whole "Lawful self-defense" issue. That's why most people I know who CC do so.

EDIT: Also, I'd argue that a civil right is a good reason to do something.

CM156:

EDIT: Also, I'd argue that a civil right is a good reason to do something.

A civil right should be just that, a right. Never a "reason" for anything. But that may be just my hate for the "Because I can" attitude speaking.

Vegosiux:

CM156:

EDIT: Also, I'd argue that a civil right is a good reason to do something.

A civil right should be just that, a right. Never a "reason" for anything. But that may be just my hate for the "Because I can" attitude speaking.

Again, fair enough. But when someone has a constitutional right, getting upset at them for USING that right unless they use it for reasons you like is a tad bit... nutty.

CM156:

everythingbeeps:

CM156:

And I respond with "Why not?" There are a lot of things people don't "need" to do, but do anyways.

And there's nothing wrong with showing off, is there?

EDIT: And yes, I was being facetious there at the end.

"Why not" is never really a good reason to do anything. It may be enough for little things like "Why not get a pizza" or "why not go for a drive", but "why not carry around a deadly weapon" doesn't really do it for me. Especially because I don't believe that "why not" is the reason people who carry weapons around do so.

Like I said, I'm someone who needs to be convinced that there's a real reason why gun ownership is necessary, and so far nothing's really convinced me. Again, I only grudgingly accept the 2nd amendment. If there was a serious campaign to get rid of it, I'd support it. But for now, I'll tolerate it.

Fair enough. It's just that the "Why?" argument is used all to easily in pretty much anything else. For example, I see no good reasons "why" someone should drink alcohol at all. Yet since it is widely accepted, I have to meet the burden of proof, not them.

There's the whole "Lawful self-defense" issue. That's why most people I know who CC do so.

EDIT: Also, I'd argue that a civil right is a good reason to do something.

Well, 1.) like I said, self-defense, even "lawful self-defense" is one thing, but most of the people carrying guns are under no kind of threat at all. So it goes back to my point about paranoia. If you think you need a gun for self-defense, you're paranoid. And some people who carry guns are dangerously paranoid.

and 2.) But as has been said, just because it's a right doesn't mean you're obligated to do it. I need reasons on top of "because I can".

everythingbeeps:

CM156:

everythingbeeps:

"Why not" is never really a good reason to do anything. It may be enough for little things like "Why not get a pizza" or "why not go for a drive", but "why not carry around a deadly weapon" doesn't really do it for me. Especially because I don't believe that "why not" is the reason people who carry weapons around do so.

Like I said, I'm someone who needs to be convinced that there's a real reason why gun ownership is necessary, and so far nothing's really convinced me. Again, I only grudgingly accept the 2nd amendment. If there was a serious campaign to get rid of it, I'd support it. But for now, I'll tolerate it.

Fair enough. It's just that the "Why?" argument is used all to easily in pretty much anything else. For example, I see no good reasons "why" someone should drink alcohol at all. Yet since it is widely accepted, I have to meet the burden of proof, not them.

There's the whole "Lawful self-defense" issue. That's why most people I know who CC do so.

EDIT: Also, I'd argue that a civil right is a good reason to do something.

Well, 1.) like I said, self-defense, even "lawful self-defense" is one thing, but most of the people carrying guns are under no kind of threat at all. So it goes back to my point about paranoia. If you think you need a gun for self-defense, you're paranoid. And some people who carry guns are dangerously paranoid.

and 2.) But as has been said, just because it's a right doesn't mean you're obligated to do it. I need reasons on top of "because I can".

That's a bit of an ad hominem there calling people who carry guns for self defense "paranoid". I'd rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it. That's what they taught me in the scouts

Preparing for the possibility of danger is not being paranoid. It's just being prepared.

And again, what about if you live in a area with lots of wildlife. That's another reason my father CC'ed. He went hiking, so he brought along a Colt Python, in case of a attack by a wild animal.

I view it as this. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my knee. So I'm fine with it. I'm fine with a lot of things because of that reasoning.

I am totally fine with gun ownership... With some restrictions of course. I think that everyone who owns a gun should have a license and be required to take, and pass, a gun-safety course. The guns should not be used for anything other than hunting or self-defense. And nothing besides shotguns, hunting rifles, and the less powerful handguns (i.e. no magnums/desert eagles) should be allowed.

Over 31.000 people in the US every year can no longer give their opinion on this issue because they have been killed by firearms.

So what do you think my opinion is on the issue? There is no argument conceivable that would justify that kind of bloodshed.

Despite living in a region of the US where gun ownership is frowned on, I'm very pro gun. Not only are they very fun to shoot, but people have a right to protect themselves with deadly force in certain situations. Combine that with the fact that good people vastly outnumber the violent criminal types I have no problem with gun ownership in general.

Blablahb:
Over 31.000 people in the US every year can no longer give their opinion on this issue because they have been killed by firearms.

So what do you think my opinion is on the issue? There is no argument conceivable that would justify that kind of bloodshed.

Actually, that's a pretty low death rate, considering that alcohol kills around 75,000 a year, which is more than twice that of guns. And keep in mind, that is just gun death. It counts lawful self defense that results in the death of the attacker as a "gun death". The more accurate number of gun murders? Around 11,000, which even the Brady Campaign admits to. Which is slightly less than 7 times the death rate of alcohol.

JRslinger:
Not only are they very fun to shoot, but people have a right to protect themselves with deadly force in certain situations.

Only when a direct threat of deadly force is present.

CM156:

Blablahb:
Over 31.000 people in the US every year can no longer give their opinion on this issue because they have been killed by firearms.

So what do you think my opinion is on the issue? There is no argument conceivable that would justify that kind of bloodshed.

Actually, that's a pretty low death rate, considering that alcohol kills around 75,000 a year, which is more than twice that of guns. And keep in mind, that is just gun death. It counts lawful self defense that results in the death of the attacker as a "gun death". The more accurate number of gun murders? Around 11,000, which even the Brady Campaign admits to. Which is slightly less than 7 times the death rate of alcohol.

Which leads us to the analogy of prohibition. Alcohol prohibition was supported by a self righteous minority who thought they would make society "better" by banning something "bad" It was a failure that empowered mafia gangs that made huge profits(and murdered people). Now another minority wants to do the same thing with guns; convinced that this time prohibition will work.

JRslinger:

CM156:

Blablahb:
Over 31.000 people in the US every year can no longer give their opinion on this issue because they have been killed by firearms.

So what do you think my opinion is on the issue? There is no argument conceivable that would justify that kind of bloodshed.

Actually, that's a pretty low death rate, considering that alcohol kills around 75,000 a year, which is more than twice that of guns. And keep in mind, that is just gun death. It counts lawful self defense that results in the death of the attacker as a "gun death". The more accurate number of gun murders? Around 11,000, which even the Brady Campaign admits to. Which is slightly less than 7 times the death rate of alcohol.

Which leads us to the analogy of prohibition. Alcohol prohibition was supported by a self righteous minority who thought they would make society "better" by banning something "bad" It was a failure that empowered mafia gangs that made huge profits(and murdered people). Now another minority wants to do the same thing with guns; convinced that this time prohibition will work.

Uh, last time I checked, booze wasn't something you used with the intent to kill or destroy something.

Well, a false equivalency of alcohol has already been brought in, personally I'm waiting until the death rate by firearms is compared to the death rate by driving cars. Only then can we declare this party started.

I don't really like the second amendment, but since I'm not American I don't have to deal with it at all. So my opinion on gun ownership in the US is that they can do whatever they want with their guns as long as it's legal.

If the Australian rules suddenly changed and anyone could be armed as easily as in the US, I'd probably move.

So yeah I don't really like it at all, but since it has zero impact on my day to day life, I'm cool with it?

Hrm, sense make me good.

Blablahb:
Over 31.000 people in the US every year can no longer give their opinion on this issue because they have been killed by firearms.

So what do you think my opinion is on the issue? There is no argument conceivable that would justify that kind of bloodshed.

OK then, oh wise and erudite sage. Lay out a plan that would get rid of all the firearms in the land without irrevocably broaching the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments. Then lay out your plan to seal the borders so that the same people who get tens of thousands of tons of drugs across our borders every month don't do the same with guns. I'll wait.

Barring the elimination of all weapons, assuming you still want to exercise your statist prerogative, lay out a statistical analysis of gun control and show just how many lives it saves vs states with little to no gun control. Oh, and before I forget, gun availability has no effect upon suicide rates, so your 30,000 statistic is less than half that.

It's fine to own a firearm as long as you can prove you have a reason for one, hunting, sporting, etc. I don't really consider self-defense a valid reason though, I doubt it would make a difference in most situations. No matter how much of an action hero you think you are, you probably wouldn't be able to, or even think of using, your firearm if actually robbed by a couple of individuals in some dark alley.

I feel more safe knowing that no one around me has a gunn, than everyone around having a gun, including myself. But maybe that's just me.

Atrocious Joystick:
It's fine to own a firearm as long as you can prove you have a reason for one, hunting, sporting, etc.

Why should people need to prove that they want a gun for recreational purposes? How can they prove they want the gun for recreational purposes? If I say I want a gun for target shooting, how can anyone verify that this is true?

I don't really consider self-defense a valid reason though, I doubt it would make a difference in most situations.

Probably not, but there have been situations where having a gun did make a difference. So you can't rule this out in all cases--some people will be capable of using a gun competently while in a dangerous and stressful situation.

That aside, why should it matter if you consider it a good reason to own a gun? SO long as there's no reason to think the person is going to be attacking innocent people, who cares why they want the gun?

anyone who has read any similar thread would know my stance on gun control but il just sum it up

there is plenty of reason to believe reducing guns will reduce deaths, pro-gun supporters just choose to ignore it as correlation does not equal causation and the incomparability of america to other countries.

you are 3x more likely to be the victim of homicide in a house with a gun than one without.

gun deaths compared to cars and alcohol is a bad comparison. you use a car almost daily, a lot of people drink daily, most people do not use a gun daily. if gun deaths were compared with cars based on how often they are used, guns would win by miles.

the argument that criminals have guns so law abiding civilians need guns is a horrendous one. criminals use guns because civilians have guns.

self defense is a contradictory reason to have a gun. study after study has shown you are more at risk when owning a firearm. it should not be a valid reason to own a gun

everythingbeeps:
And of course, this is compounded by my complete opposition to hunting for sport, which leaves very few reasons acceptable to me to own a gun.

Stagnant:
Gun ownership is a classic case of "can ≠ should". Yes, you can own a gun. It does not follow that owning a gun is a good idea, or even that it's not an absolutely terrible idea. I sincerely hope I don't have to explain my reasoning here, this should be pretty basic stuff.

Sorry but I need you to. After all in rural settings firearms are a necessity (unless you want to try killing a wild pig, raccoon, etc with your bare hands). Also the military and police rely on civilians who know about guns to train their people and modify your equipment (when SEALs go into the field with m4s they typically use a sporterized version and colt does not sporterized their firearms well). Plus there is the basic fact that I have been shooting for years in both competitive and non-competitive events without any ill effect. So I am unsure what exactly the problem is. There are plenty more uses for firearm ownership but you get the idea.

Atrocious Joystick:
It's fine to own a firearm as long as you can prove you have a reason for one, hunting, sporting, etc. I don't really consider self-defense a valid reason though, I doubt it would make a difference in most situations. No matter how much of an action hero you think you are, you probably wouldn't be able to, or even think of using, your firearm if actually robbed by a couple of individuals in some dark alley.

It happens all the time. http://thearmedcitizen.com/wp/category/armed This sit has not been updated in a while but you get the picture. People effectively use their firearms for self defense on a regular basis. As for being an action hero you do not need to be an action hero to protect yourself. Frankly a gun is a great equalizer. I personally know a person in a wheel chair who has a CHL. He has it because no matter how strong he is he is still less able than your normal male. Would you deny him his right to self defense? What about this woman I know who was raped, would you deny her right to self defense?

Second I would like to know why I have to justify my purchase. If I want to use my shotgun for shooting clays, shooting bucks, or stopping a robbery what business is it to anyone?

OT- I completely support the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately there are far too many people in this world who think they can change human nature simply by removing a single tool.

reonhato:
you are 3x more likely to be the victim of homicide in a house with a gun than one without.

Are you going to keep ignoring the basic fact that few self defense occasions lead to a person's death? Or do you just not care about self defense at all?

gun deaths compared to cars and alcohol is a bad comparison. you use a car almost daily, a lot of people drink daily, most people do not use a gun daily. if gun deaths were compared with cars based on how often they are used, guns would win by miles.

Actually I carry a gun every day and I practice with it (ideally) at least an hour every day. That is a hell of a lot more time than I spend driving and considering that there are millions of people who carry every day during work, going to the grocery store, going to the movies, and even at home I am not alone.

the argument that criminals have guns so law abiding civilians need guns is a horrendous one. criminals use guns because civilians have guns.

Then what the hell is going on in Jamaica? Criminals have guns and civilians are mostly bared from having them.

self defense is a contradictory reason to have a gun. study after study has shown you are more at risk when owning a firearm. it should not be a valid reason to own a gun

Prove it.

I support legal firearm ownership, and firearm ownership in theory.

If people who own firearms for self defense are paranoid by definition, then so are people who build storm shelters. There are certainly paranoid gun owners, but being prepared is not, in and of itself, paranoia.

Reasons why I support private gun ownership:

1) It is an effective check on government power. Although civilians with rifles are no match for the military, it's a lot easier to oppress unarmed civilians than it is armed civilians. This isn't really a major issue today, but I'd rather maintain these checks against government power since it would be impossible to reinstate if the time arose when it was useful.

2) A police force is not a guarantee against crime. The police have no obligation to protect me, personally, or my loved ones. Furthermore, I can draw a firearm much faster than I can call 911 and wait for the cops to show up. Until a police force can protect me as effectively as I can protect myself, I appreciate my right to arm myself.

3) Overly restrictive gun laws impact responsible gun owners more than they do criminals. Therefore, I see little real point in overly restrictive gun laws. With that said, I support licensing, background, and safety course requirements, and I would support laws that imposed criminal liability on those whose negligent use or storage of firearms leads to accidental deaths (e.g., children playing with loaded guns they get out of Daddy's unlocked nightstand).

4) Firearms are fun and are central to a number of perfectly good traditions and pasttimes, such as hunting or sport shooting (I'm referring to target shooting, not sport hunting - I'm not such a big fan of sport hunting).

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked