Jump to content

Gun control


Coors

Recommended Posts

 

"As far as car and gun comparisons go, driving a car is a priviledge. Owning a gun is a right. Thats a pretty significant difference. More people are killed in car related accidents than firearm related accidents. It's really not even a close comparison.

 

I don't believe in removing guns ...not only that but I think they are too prelevant to remove now.

 

Though I do think we need to make it a priviledge.   People are too stupid to deserve this right.   Going to shooting range and seeing how many people have no fricken clue how to handle a gun is frightning.  Then realizing there is only a small bit of plastic between you and them is beyond scary!  Many people who own guns have no respect for them.  And saying it is a "right" gives these people no reason to respect them.   I think people need to earn the right to bear arms but I also think people are too stupid for many of the rights/luxuries we are able to take advantage of.  Speaking of driving.   Everytime I get on the road there are people I would never give a license to.   I think they need to be more strict on driving tests as well because I wouldn't trust many of the drivers I see with my hot wheels.

 

 

Very true, it would be next to impossible to remove all guns from people at this day in age. Even if there was a law passed banning ownership of firearms, people will not give up their guns and hide it.

 

 

I find it funny when ever there is a mass shooting the first thing they do is tout Gun Control....they blame the Guns for the incident and take away the blame from the person(s) responsible. Yet when a Drunk Driver kills someone we never hear them cry Car Control and try to ban automobiles. Just how ridiculous does that sound.

 

I feel bad and feel for the loss of all the innocent people who have died by the hands of someone using a weapon....but I also feel that same sadness of those that died by the hands of a drunk driver wielding a car...yet driving is a privilege...... ironic 

 

People do not take the blame away the responsible party, but rather voicing the fact that the tool that enabled those individuals to commit these massacres were firearms. People are not blaming guns, but rather, the policies allowing guns to be so prevalent.

 

Here's what I never did understand: Why do you need a Gun in the first place?

Coming from a nation where Guns are prohibited by law to be used by non-officials, I've never understand why you'd need a Gun..

To protect yourself? Sure, but when guns are banned, even those who'd mess with you won't have access to guns (well, not always true, but the majority won't).

 

So I'd like to ask those of you who do own a gun (or three): Why do you own them? (Keep in mind that I'm not, in anyway, accusing you of any wrong doings. I'm asking this just out of sheer curiousity and to understand better the mindset of people who purchase Guns)

 

May the victimns who were involved in the shootings earlier this week rest in peace. :RIP:

 

I could not have agreed more. Gun advocates always tout the argument that it is for self-defense and that only the bad people (AKA criminals) will have guns. Let us break down and examine these arguments. Before, we proceed let us note that regardless of whether you are a gun advocate or an anti-gun advocate, that criminals will always have the means to obtain firearms if they choose so. If that is the case then whether we [law abiding citizens] own firearms will not affect whether or not criminals can be in possession of guns.

 

Let us examine the first argument, that firearms are used for self-defense. First and foremost let us examine the wording of the argument, "firearms are used for self-defense." There have been many individuals who have argued that firearms were created with the intent to kill--whether it'd be killing animals or even humans--or rather and it's sole purpose is such. That statement is true to an extent, however, you must analyze the wording of the argument. What do people mean when they utter the word self-defense? At this point you may think it is a silly question, but does self-defense include eliminating any threats posed by a hostile being? If so then by no means are the gun advocates' argument invalid. If not, then at what point is it no longer self defense? Would it be at the point when the gun owner murders the criminal?

 

Now that we have addressed the wording of the argument, let us move on by reflecting on the real world. Take a moment and ask yourself this, "how often will you [generality] have your gun on you?" Let us suppose that you will always have--something is not too likely to be true for many people--the firearm on you, but how often is it uninhibited allowing you for a quick draw? Chances of that is not very likely. However, let us further suppose that you always have it uninhibited allowing for easy access. Now that we have supposed a scenario in which you will always have a firearm on you uninhibited, will you be able to respond in time if a criminal attacks or threatens you with a firearm in a public area? The chances of an individual being able to respond after being surprised by an assailant with a firearm is slim to none, as the assailant had the element of surprise and will be ready to pull the trigger at any moment, whereas the average person will not be in the proper state of mind to devise a plan of attack and will be at a slight disadvantage because of the extra action(s) that must be performed to shoot the assailant. What if the weapon was knife? If the assailant was carrying a knife as a weapon and it is reasonable to believe that one would be able to react in time to draw the gun before being immobilized, then would such a lethal weapon be necessary to disable the assailant, wouldn't other mechanisms such as bear mace be just as effective? What if this situation were to take place within one's home? If the assailant has the element of surprise on his side then the chances of a victim being able to use his firearm will be slim to none, as the assailant had the element of surprise and will be ready to pull the trigger at any moment, whereas the average person will not be in the proper state of mind to devise a plan of attack and will be at a slight disadvantage because of the extra action(s) that must be performed to shoot the assailant. However, there are many times where the assailant may alert the victim as the assailant is unfamiliar with the territory and may accidentally cause a noise alerting the victim that an unwanted presence is in the vicinity. At that moment, the possible victim could avoid harm by fleeing or using other means to disable the intruder. If however, the individual cannot flee then it is only in this type of situation would it even be reasonable to believe that the individual will be able to use the firearm to "protect" himself. And mind you these situations or circumstances do not occur too often either. 

 

Let us suppose that you [law abiding citizens] were not allowed to own guns, would any of the outcomes in the above situations drastically change? Would you not be able to defend yourself if you were mugged or held at gun point by surprise? And would you not be able to protect yourself if a situation occurred within your household by other means if you were alerted? 

 

Furthermore, it is ludicrous to believe that only the criminals will have firearms, considering the police and other government officials such as the FBI and CIA all have firearms. If the argument that "only bad people (AKA criminals) will have firearms" meant that law abiding citizens will have no means of protecting themselves, then it is even more absurd because as illustrated above, most of the time you will either not be able to use the firearm to defend yourself or you could defend yourself through other means. 

 

And regardless of whether a law abiding citizen own guns or not, he will not be safe considering criminals will not cease to obtain firearms whether the general populace owns guns or not, and most situations that can be argued for the use of guns will not allow for the use of it because of the circumstances. 

 

In my opinion the main concern here that most people have and what differentiates guns from other weapons is the amount of damage that could be done in a short period of time. If firearms were not able to inflict so much damage in such a short span of time and so easy to use, then I would like to believe that there wouldn't be so much objection to firearms.

 

And for those that claim that it is a second amendment right, I would advise you to read the Bill of Rights again, as it states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In the second amendment it addresses the right of the of the people who are part of the militia, and the founding fathers did not foresee and advised against having a standing army which is why they placed the second amendment, allowing citizens who were part of the militia to own guns, in order to protect the state. 

 

(In a bit of a rush towards the end, and I did not have as much time as I wanted to elaborate. I hope most will understand the gist of it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

People are going to want to kill other people. Plain and simple. Should guns be as available as they are now......no. When you can buy a gun at a place like walmart, it might be time to step it back a notch. Should people be able to buy guns that can pierce a tank....no.

 

Should people be able to buy a hand gun for protection and a rifle for hunting, sure. (please don't take the choice of guns out of context...they are a random choice)

 

I feel like the issue with gun control is kind of a joke though. It is one of those things where if you build a better mouse trap, they will find a smarter mouse. Except the cheese is actually a ar-15 : P . The more regulation the government forces, the more likely that illegal gun trade will go way up. But at the same times if you don't regulate it well enough, then some real shi!t heads will get their hands on them.

I disagree 100%.

 

 

Oh my god I am sooooooo surprised. I made one of the most neutral arguments possible and you have to disagree with it. In fact I am not so sure that you aren't making a joke. 

 

In fact, I have no freaking idea how you have evidence to refute my argument. All I am saying is that there is no clear cut way to solve the issue at hand. I didn't even take a side. The only point I make is that you shouldn't have weapons that you can use to start a war and fight off swat teams, and that you shouldn't be able to buy guns at walmart, kmart, and places like that.

 

On top of that you don't even make a real counter argument. Maybe you are trolling me  : P

 

So go ahead. I would love to hear what you have to say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going toread every single post, so I don't know if this has already been stated. The context in which the second amendment to the US Constituion is written, does not grant every citizen the right to own a gun. This is something created by the NRA, the Constitution has it under the context of a well-regulated militia. This simply does not translate to "everyone gets to own a gun", it's simply false. If the Constitution were strictly followed, only government agencies would be allowed to have guns; IE well-regulated militias.

 

At this point, the NRA does not represent responsible gun ownership either, they are group of lobbyists supporting gun manufacturers. They give untold amounts of money to politicians, in order to buy influence and stem any sort of reasonable gun control. To them, every idiot is a potential customer, whether they are fit to own and operate a gun safely or not.

 

Turned out to be a bit of a rant, f-it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going toread every single post, so I don't know if this has already been stated. The context in which the second amendment to the US Constituion is written, does not grant every citizen the right to own a gun. This is something created by the NRA, the Constitution has it under the context of a well-regulated militia. This simply does not translate to "everyone gets to own a gun", it's simply false. If the Constitution were strictly followed, only government agencies would be allowed to have guns; IE well-regulated militias.

 

At this point, the NRA does not represent responsible gun ownership either, they are group of lobbyists supporting gun manufacturers. They give untold amounts of money to politicians, in order to buy influence and stem any sort of reasonable gun control. To them, every idiot is a potential customer, whether they are fit to own and operate a gun safely or not.

 

Turned out to be a bit of a rant, f-it.

The Supreme Court disagrees.  "the right of the people shall not be infringed"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BAh, messed up my quotes and can't edit it. Could a mod please delete that first post.

 

Here's what I never did understand: Why do you need a Gun in the first place?

Coming from a nation where Guns are prohibited by law to be used by non-officials, I've never understand why you'd need a Gun..

To protect yourself? Sure, but when guns are banned, even those who'd mess with you won't have access to guns (well, not always true, but the majority won't).

 

So I'd like to ask those of you who do own a gun (or three): Why do you own them? (Keep in mind that I'm not, in anyway, accusing you of any wrong doings. I'm asking this just out of sheer curiousity and to understand better the mindset of people who purchase Guns)

 

May the victimns who were involved in the shootings earlier this week rest in peace. :RIP:

 

 

 

I could not have agreed more. Gun advocates always tout the argument that it is for self-defense and that only the bad people (AKA criminals) will have guns. Let us break down and examine these arguments. Before, we proceed let us note that regardless of whether you are a gun advocate or an anti-gun advocate, that criminals will always have the means to obtain firearms if they choose so. If that is the case then whether we [law abiding citizens] own firearms will not affect whether or not criminals can be in possession of guns.

 

That last statement is a reasonable one, and as it is the case i would argue that i also should be allowed access to guns in order to defend myself from said criminals with guns.

Let us examine the first argument, that firearms are used for self-defense. First and foremost let us examine the wording of the argument, "firearms are used for self-defense." There have been many individuals who have argued that firearms were created with the intent to kill--whether it'd be killing animals or even humans--or rather and it's sole purpose is such. That statement is true to an extent, however, you must analyze the wording of the argument. What do people mean when they utter the word self-defense? At this point you may think it is a silly question, but does self-defense include eliminating any threats posed by a hostile being? If so then by no means are the gun advocates' argument invalid. If not, then at what point is it no longer self defense? Would it be at the point when the gun owner murders the criminal?

Not sure what you are trying to achieve here, my self defense weapon is solely to eliminate a hostile threat to myself or those dear to me that cannot be otherwise avoided. If i can't run, can't talk my way out, then i will draw my weapon, it is the last resort. But again Im not sure what your getting at my "examining the wording of the argument".

Now that we have addressed the wording of the argument, let us move on by reflecting on the real world. Take a moment and ask yourself this, "how often will you [generality] have your gun on you?"

Every time i step out the door. And if i go somewhere that i can't carry it stays in the car and is re-holstered as soon as i leave said property.

Let us suppose that you will always have--something is not too likely to be true for many people--the firearm on you, but how often is it uninhibited allowing you for a quick draw? Chances of that is not very likely. However, let us further suppose that you always have it uninhibited allowing for easy access. Now that we have supposed a scenario in which you will always have a firearm on you uninhibited, will you be able to respond in time if a criminal attacks or threatens you with a firearm in a public area?

You would be surprised, a lot of the ccw holders i know take i very seriously, they practice their draw in every imaginable costume they might be wearing, also bear in mind in most cases firearms are used to scare you into doing what the criminal wants, he generally will not expect you too fight back. Plus a lot of the ccws i know are ex-military so they are trained to respond quickly in a firefight, though that is irrelevant as i would assume the vast majority of ccws are not ex-mil.

The chances of an individual being able to respond after being surprised by an assailant with a firearm is slim to none, as the assailant had the element of surprise and will be ready to pull the trigger at any moment, whereas the average person will not be in the proper state of mind to devise a plan of attack and will be at a slight disadvantage because of the extra action(s) that must be performed to shoot the assailant.

If he has pulled the trigger on me then i am out of luck yes, but otherwise i still ahve a chance. Now in the case of the massacres we are discussing, most people in the building had plenty of warning just no way to retaliate. If they had been armed they could have stopped it before it went so far. And an interesting side note: a lot of people i have spoken with have said that when they are carrying, that knowledge of a firearm on their person and the almost nervous energy that creates keeps them extra situationally aware. By acknowledging there may be a threat and preparing yourself for that threat you then are on the lookout for that threat.

What if the weapon was knife? If the assailant was carrying a knife as a weapon and it is reasonable to believe that one would be able to react in time to draw the gun before being immobilized, then would such a lethal weapon be necessary to disable the assailant, wouldn't other mechanisms such as bear mace be just as effective?

If all he has is a knife then yes my first course of action would be to try to escape, but that not being possible i would have no qualms about shooting him if he showed a reasonable amount of intent to do me bodily harm. And chances are most knife wielding assailants could be scared off by the drawing of a gun.

What if this situation were to take place within one's home? If the assailant has the element of surprise on his side then the chances of a victim being able to use his firearm will be slim to none, as the assailant had the element of surprise and will be ready to pull the trigger at any moment, whereas the average person will not be in the proper state of mind to devise a plan of attack and will be at a slight disadvantage because of the extra action(s) that must be performed to shoot the assailant. However, there are many times where the assailant may alert the victim as the assailant is unfamiliar with the territory and may accidentally cause a noise alerting the victim that an unwanted presence is in the vicinity. At that moment, the possible victim could avoid harm by fleeing or using other means to disable the intruder. If however, the individual cannot flee then it is only in this type of situation would it even be reasonable to believe that the individual will be able to use the firearm to "protect" himself. And mind you these situations or circumstances do not occur too often either.

1. Good luck getting into my house without letting me know you are there, alarms, dogs...

2. Even if he gets in unnoticed i know the layout and once he alerts me to his presence i will have the advantage. And remember he did not break in with the intent of killing me, he broke in with the intent of theft.(most likely) He is not going to go out of his way to come in contact with me. And i can be reasonably sure that i will be aware of his presence before he is in the same room as myself thereby allowing my time to arm myself.

3. Ever heard of castle doctrine. He is in my house, i have no responsibility to flee, it is my right to blow the sucker out of this world.

Let us suppose that you [law abiding citizens] were not allowed to own guns, would any of the outcomes in the above situations drastically change? Would you not be able to defend yourself if you were mugged or held at gun point by surprise? And would you not be able to protect yourself if a situation occurred within your household by other means if you were alerted?

As your analysis of the above situations is inaccurate this is a null point, those situations would change drastically.

Furthermore, it is ludicrous to believe that only the criminals will have firearms, considering the police and other government officials such as the FBI and CIA all have firearms. If the argument that "only bad people (AKA criminals) will have firearms" meant that law abiding citizens will have no means of protecting themselves, then it is even more absurd because as illustrated above, most of the time you will either not be able to use the firearm to defend yourself or you could defend yourself through other means.

Ludicrous? while your statement is true its is quite useless. I made the comment earlier "i carry a gun because i can't carry a policeman". Where i live it takes the police about 25 mins to get here. I don't like those odds so i prefer to even them up. Your last statement is equally invalid, as i already showed the arguments you are basing your statement on are invalid.

And regardless of whether a law abiding citizen own guns or not, he will not be safe considering criminals will not cease to obtain firearms whether the general populace owns guns or not, and most situations that can be argued for the use of guns will not allow for the use of it because of the circumstances.

 

In my opinion the main concern here that most people have and what differentiates guns from other weapons is the amount of damage that could be done in a short period of time. If firearms were not able to inflict so much damage in such a short span of time and so easy to use, then I would like to believe that there wouldn't be so much objection to firearms.

First paragraph is already disputed. That is the very reason firearms are used, because of the amount of damage they can do. Both from a defense perspective and an criminal perspective you want a gun cause it kills people effectively.

And for those that claim that it is a second amendment right, I would advise you to read the Bill of Rights again, as it states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In the second amendment it addresses the right of the of the people who are part of the militia, and the founding fathers did not foresee and advised against having a standing army which is why they placed the second amendment, allowing citizens who were part of the militia to own guns, in order to protect the state.

 

(In a bit of a rush towards the end, and I did not have as much time as I wanted to elaborate. I hope most will understand the gist of it.)

 

The supreme court disagrees. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

People are going to want to kill other people. Plain and simple. Should guns be as available as they are now......no. When you can buy a gun at a place like walmart, it might be time to step it back a notch. Should people be able to buy guns that can pierce a tank....no.

 

Should people be able to buy a hand gun for protection and a rifle for hunting, sure. (please don't take the choice of guns out of context...they are a random choice)

 

I feel like the issue with gun control is kind of a joke though. It is one of those things where if you build a better mouse trap, they will find a smarter mouse. Except the cheese is actually a ar-15 : P . The more regulation the government forces, the more likely that illegal gun trade will go way up. But at the same times if you don't regulate it well enough, then some real shi!t heads will get their hands on them.

I disagree 100%.

Oh my god I am sooooooo surprised. I made one of the most neutral arguments possible and you have to disagree with it. In fact I am not so sure that you aren't making a joke.

 

In fact, I have no freaking idea how you have evidence to refute my argument. All I am saying is that there is no clear cut way to solve the issue at hand. I didn't even take a side. The only point I make is that you shouldn't have weapons that you can use to start a war and fight off swat teams, and that you shouldn't be able to buy guns at walmart, kmart, and places like that.

 

On top of that you don't even make a real counter argument. Maybe you are trolling me : P

 

So go ahead. I would love to hear what you have to say.

I'm not going to write up a huge post on my phone. You say guns are too available even today. I disagree completely with that sentiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to be a real a**hat here - to the folks that think think they understand the explicit right, intent and wording of the second amendment.  You guys/gals really need to go study your American history.  The original militias were made up of every day men who had real full time jobs doing other things.  They were not full time soldiers and each colony (and even some individual towns) had their own private militia's consisting of regular citizens who lived in that particular colony or town.

 

You CANNOT say that the 2nd Amendment allowed only the Militia to own and use firearms, because the Militias were made up of everyday citizens who most often fought with their OWN firearms.  There is no question that the authors of our constitution understood the value of regular, fit and sane citizens having their own firearms.  It was a valid right when the constitution was forged, and it is a valid right today.  It is not a "privilege" to own a firearm, it is a right ceded to us by our forefathers.

 

And as others have already stated, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment grants private citizens the right to own firearms.  I can only assume that anyone who doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment grants private citizens the right to bear arms believes that they are more knowledgeable on the subject than the constitutional scholars that have already ruled otherwise.

 

And with all due respect to our esteemed members that live in countries that do not allow the same right - I'm sorry that puts you in a position where you probably do not understand the dynamics of "gun control" in the US.

 

And with all due respect to our esteemed members that live in the US but think that an outright ban of private firearm ownership is the solution - I invite you to move to a country where you can willingly give up that right.  You will never ever take my right to own guns.  You may attempt to legislate guns out of existence, but  you will never be able to legislate my right to own one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love my browning a bolt h&h .375 mag and have plenty of plinkin fun with my browning .380 auto...they are more than enough for me to take down any game in north America, and protect my home and family...i still love to target shooting occasionally at our local rifle range and know that there are other folks like me that enjoy the fun of popping caps and comparing marksmanship skills, but I have never seen these folk not being respectful and safety conscious of there weapons and others...these people are not the problem and do not deserve to be cut off from their hobby enjoyment because of the insanity of others...

there is always going to be insanity in the world, and random acts of violence caused by the few, but that doesn't make the many (the responsible majority) at fault and should not preclude them from enjoying life in the way they see fit...our current gun laws are plenty good enough IMHO, so why not put more time, money and energy into helping the mentally ill, and determining who are the few whom we should all be wary of...?

 

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may attempt to legislate guns out of existence, but  you will never be able to legislate my right to own one.

How would you own that which does not exist?

 

Gotcha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for those that claim that it is a second amendment right, I would advise you to read the Bill of Rights again, as it states

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

In the second amendment it addresses the right of the of the people who are part of the militia, and the founding fathers did not foresee and advised against having a standing army which is why they placed the second amendment, allowing citizens who were part of the militia to own guns, in order to protect the state.

 

I heard a good argument not too long ago, essentially the entirety of the constitution is written as they would in the 1700 so of course it will be a bit hard to completely understand as of now.

 

For instance if we re-write a different subject into the 2nd amendment, we get this:

 

"A well-educated electorate [those who can vote], being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed"

 

The last part enables the first (you are unfit for voting if you have not at least 'attempted' to educate yourself), but it doesn't depend on it, the only legitimate use of books is not to become an educated voter.

 

 

 

The way I've taken it is this:

"Being necessary to the security of a free state, a well regulated militia is a right of the people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...