FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Is it time the USA gave up its right to bear arms.






Is it time the USA gave up its right to bear arms.?
Yes
46%
 46%  [ 29 ]
No
53%
 53%  [ 33 ]
Undecided
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 62

truespeed
In light of what happened in Virginia,should america now change its constitution and give up its right to bear arms.

food for thought.

In the UK 82 people get killed with guns every year,in the USA the same number of people get killed every single day.
psycosquirrel
No.

I live in Atlanta. Luckily, my dorm is in a nice area of town. Next semester, I may be living in a house off-campus, in a bad area of town. I value my life over anyone's life who threatens mine. If someone tries to mug me, break into the house, or risk my life in any way, I will not hesitate to protect myself or those around me. "Violence breeds violence," so I would never even touch a gun unless it came to a life or death scenario.

Not to mention gun control is terrible in democracy. If only the party in power has weaponry, then it can take over its civilians without resistance. In case of anarchy, disaster, or dangerous situations, I need to be able to protect myself. Until the world changes, and there is no war or crime, I will have a gun to prepare for the worst.
Animal
psycosquirrel wrote:
Next semester, I may be living in a house off-campus, in a bad area of town. I value my life over anyone's life who threatens mine. If someone tries to mug me, break into the house, or risk my life in any way, I will not hesitate to protect myself or those around me.

But if the right to bear arms is revoked, the likelihood of gun violence being a problem is far lower. Yes, you would need to give up your gun, but others would also need to give up their guns. By your own statement:
psycosquirrel wrote:
"Violence breeds violence,"

so it's clear that guns simply being available means that they are used. To protect themselves from potential gun violence, people buy (and use) guns. The more guns there are, the more gun violence there is - it strikes me as being a fairly simple equation.

psycosquirrel wrote:
Not to mention gun control is terrible in democracy. If only the party in power has weaponry, then it can take over its civilians without resistance. In case of anarchy, disaster, or dangerous situations, I need to be able to protect myself. Until the world changes, and there is no war or crime, I will have a gun to prepare for the worst.

You raise an interesting point with this statement. However, should those in power try to "take you over" with gun violence, you with a single firearm would stand no chance against armed servants of whichever power is in charge, so you may say that resistance is futile (if you were to shoot at a group of "law-makers", several of them would shoot at you. Result = death. This leads back to your previous statement that "Violence breeds violence".

I understand that this may be an idealistic viewpoint on the issue of gun violence, but it is clear that there is a serious problem caused by gun violence and misuse in the USA, and it really will need to be tackled.
reddishblue
It would never work anyway, there are just too many guns in possession of privet people, even if they became illegal they would never manage to free the population of their firearms, even if they implemented a reward for each gun, fortunately I don't live in America, In Australia very few people own firearms and I am in little danger.

However if it was actually possible to free the population of the USA of guns then I'm all for it.
psycosquirrel
Good points! I do have a few responses though...
Animal wrote:
psycosquirrel wrote:
Next semester, I may be living in a house off-campus, in a bad area of town. I value my life over anyone's life who threatens mine. If someone tries to mug me, break into the house, or risk my life in any way, I will not hesitate to protect myself or those around me.

But if the right to bear arms is revoked, the likelihood of gun violence being a problem is far lower. Yes, you would need to give up your gun, but others would also need to give up their guns. By your own statement:
psycosquirrel wrote:
"Violence breeds violence,"

so it's clear that guns simply being available means that they are used. To protect themselves from potential gun violence, people buy (and use) guns. The more guns there are, the more gun violence there is - it strikes me as being a fairly simple equation.

Gun violence, unfortunately, is not the only form of violence. If someone comes at me with a knife, and I am forced to fight back, I will clearly get killed. I don't know how to fight with a knife, nor do I wish to learn. Shooting a gun is simple, straightforward, and allows me to defend myself without risking my own life by getting dangerously close to any threats. While your statement refutes mine mostly, I still insist that it is necessary to have protection for extreme circumstances.

Animal wrote:
psycosquirrel wrote:
Not to mention gun control is terrible in democracy. If only the party in power has weaponry, then it can take over its civilians without resistance. In case of anarchy, disaster, or dangerous situations, I need to be able to protect myself. Until the world changes, and there is no war or crime, I will have a gun to prepare for the worst.

You raise an interesting point with this statement. However, should those in power try to "take you over" with gun violence, you with a single firearm would stand no chance against armed servants of whichever power is in charge, so you may say that resistance is futile (if you were to shoot at a group of "law-makers", several of them would shoot at you. Result = death. This leads back to your previous statement that "Violence breeds violence".

By myself, yes. Think about how many civilians own guns. Many that do own many, so it would be quite easy to find several other individuals to, at least, establish enough of a defense to get ourselves and those we love out of an anarchy or a chaotic circumstance alive.

Animal wrote:
I understand that this may be an idealistic viewpoint on the issue of gun violence, but it is clear that there is a serious problem caused by gun violence and misuse in the USA, and it really will need to be tackled.

I don't think it is idealistic, I think it is realistic. There is a problem with gun violence, but unfortunately, there is no good solution. Events like those in Virginia can be prevented by using common sense. No offense to the victims, but if someone told me to kneel down in a line with several others, and then started executing us, I know that I would at least fight back. People should be afraid of guns-- they kill. But that is NO reason to not fight back or feel hopeless if you are faced with a life or death scenario.

Guns and violence are here to stay. It is sad, but there is nothing we can do. So for now, I want to keep a gun. Prepare for the worst, but hope it never happens.
Hobbit
Buy a tazer, or whatever those things are called. I just know they shock people. Some reach as far as a few feet. You could easily get someone if he breaks in. You will just stun him and you can call the cops, instead of killing him and calling the cops.

I see no reason for guns, but I do agree that many people will have them illegaly anyways. Plus, what about all those people that already own one? Neutral
GSIS
We have very strict gun laws and, supposedly, very strict gun control here in the UK.

As a result there's a healthy black market in firearms. Relatively few guns are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Most are in the hands of criminals and gang members.

I think that, here in the UK, we need a zero-tolerance approach to misuse and illegal possession of firearms. I'm not so sure about the US, though.

Just a few OTOH ideas ... My belief is that all guns should be strictly controlled:

- ownership and use of guns restricted to rifle/small-arms clubs and licensed users (farmers, pest-control etc),

- ammo and the weapon being stored at two separate locations - no gun kept in the same location as any ammo for that weapon,

- ammo and the weapon transported in separate vehicles to the club/area they will be used,

- all public handling of loaded weapons to require the presence of two or more handlers,

- illegal possession, or inappropriate storage/transportation of any weapon (loaded or not) to carry a mandatory 10 years in jail. No possibility of parole.

- illegal use of any weapon to carry a mandatory life sentence (life meaning 'until death'). No possibility of parole.

- the same rules to apply to replicas,

- toy guns to be outlawed.

Obviously the US gun lobby would not approve but this might be a way forward for the UK.
Aless
I don't think outlawing all guns is going to solve any problems (in fact, it might create a few), but I still find it absurb that things like automatic guns and gigantic bazooka shooters (okay, not really, but you know the type I mean) are legal. Only handguns & hunting rifles are the guns that can even FEASIBLY be legal or practical or in the spirit of the constitution!
truespeed
When 30.000 people in the USA are dying of gun related crimes every year and If they arent willing to give up their guns,then there obviously needs to be tighter controls,nobody should be able to walk into a shop buy an automatic pistol and walk out like Cho Seung-Hui did,for me the mere statistics speak for themselves and guns in the USA should be outlawed,a complete ban,but that will never happen ,so maybe tighter controls as a starting point for change, will be a good first step.
Rako
since we are talking about the recent shooting. on the news i see he was meant to be a loner with no friends so he could not get a gun if they were outlawed and even though people are allowed guns no one there manged to use their gun to save themselves. might point is less sickos would get guns if they were outlawed. and even though gangs would still get illegal guns they are more likely to use them against each other than law abiding citizens. well i live in australia so guns were serverly cracked down on after a smiler shooting and it seems to be working.
Srs2388
If you wanted a gun and you didn't have the right to bare arms I am sure that you could still get the weapons you want on the black market. If the people are willing to kill someone then they aren't going to have any morality anyways so they are going to buy one off the black market.
just my two cents.
truespeed
Srs2388 wrote:
If you wanted a gun and you didn't have the right to bare arms I am sure that you could still get the weapons you want on the black market. If the people are willing to kill someone then they aren't going to have any morality anyways so they are going to buy one off the black market.
just my two cents.


Thats true,but it makes the acquisition of guns a lot more difficult,and for most people that hurdle ,will stop them getting one at all.

I just saw on the news,in Virginia, you can buy a gun at 18 yet you cant buy alcohol,what kind of backward law is that.
snowboardalliance
Even if they don't ban guns yet, I think all states need to have better restrictions. Did Virginia even have a waiting period? Things like that are at practical.
Q5U8
The answer is no.

US must have a better control of guns, but ban the right is against the US Constitution.

Why is more important to have a lot of test before you get a driver license, and they don't have an according procedure to give a citizen the gun license?

More control, yes. Ban or restrict the right to have guns, no.
xalophus
I feel I need several installations of inter-continental ballistic missiles with tactical nuclear warheads in my backyard for my personal protection.

In case any commie nation ever decides to attack me.
Besides, it's my constitutional right.

Who else here thinks some of those should be made available at K-Mart ?
truespeed
Q5U8 wrote:
The answer is no.

US must have a better control of guns, but ban the right is against the US Constitution.


Why cant the constitution be changed? it was written in 1787,automatic weapons weren't even invented then,im sure if washington knew what kind of weaponary we have today, he would of removed it from the constitution.
DeFwh
I feel that the right to bear arms should stay intact but I believe better laws should be in place to restrict bearers to a limited number of firearms in each class of weapon. Also that bearing arms in public should be prohibited in all states. Anyone bearing arms in public should be fined $500 and the weapon should be permantely be confiscated + the owner should not be able to purchase another firearm for a period of 1 year.

All gun owners should also be required to purchase a locking box or rack to keep the gun from getting into the hands of a child.
Agent ME
Maybe stricter laws on handguns, and maybe some liscensing database on handguns and such weapons, but I don't believe guns should be outlawed completely.
HollyChris
GSIS wrote:
We have very strict gun laws and, supposedly, very strict gun control here in the UK.

As a result there's a healthy black market in firearms. Relatively few guns are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Most are in the hands of criminals and gang members.

I think that, here in the UK, we need a zero-tolerance approach to misuse and illegal possession of firearms. I'm not so sure about the US, though.

Just a few OTOH ideas ... My belief is that all guns should be strictly controlled:

- ownership and use of guns restricted to rifle/small-arms clubs and licensed users (farmers, pest-control etc),

- ammo and the weapon being stored at two separate locations - no gun kept in the same location as any ammo for that weapon,

- ammo and the weapon transported in separate vehicles to the club/area they will be used,

- all public handling of loaded weapons to require the presence of two or more handlers,

- illegal possession, or inappropriate storage/transportation of any weapon (loaded or not) to carry a mandatory 10 years in jail. No possibility of parole.

- illegal use of any weapon to carry a mandatory life sentence (life meaning 'until death'). No possibility of parole.

- the same rules to apply to replicas,

- toy guns to be outlawed.

Obviously the US gun lobby would not approve but this might be a way forward for the UK.


While these seam to be good ideas, California has some of the strickest gun laws in the country. And crime isn't any lower there than in the rest of the county.

You talk about making certin kinds of weapons illegal, what good do you think that would do? The responsible gun owner wouldn't be doing anything that they shouldn't with them. However even if they were outlawed, that wouldn't stop the criminals from using them.
scotty
Criminals will always have guns. The only thing that will be achieved by outlawing guns in america would be domestic disputes that escalate to gun fire.

The problem is the USA is a gun culture. Guns aren't treated with the same respect as in other countries and the mere fact that there are ~300 million people in the USA means there's definitely going to be a few more nutcases in the population than smaller countries.

I don't know what the solution is but I must say if everybody in that university had a gun the nutcase would have got to maybe 3 or 4 people before someone popped a cap in his arse. I can tell you I'd only need to see him pull a gun on someone before I shot him obviously I wouldn't want to kill him but yeah you get the point this massacre would have been a multiple murder and nothing else if everyone there had a gun.
truespeed
scotty wrote:
Criminals will always have guns. The only thing that will be achieved by outlawing guns in america would be domestic disputes that escalate to gun fire.

The problem is the USA is a gun culture. Guns aren't treated with the same respect as in other countries and the mere fact that there are ~300 million people in the USA means there's definitely going to be a few more nutcases in the population than smaller countries.

I don't know what the solution is but I must say if everybody in that university had a gun the nutcase would have got to maybe 3 or 4 people before someone popped a cap in his arse. I can tell you I'd only need to see him pull a gun on someone before I shot him obviously I wouldn't want to kill him but yeah you get the point this massacre would have been a multiple murder and nothing else if everyone there had a gun.


If everyone carried guns all of the time,the 30.000 a year that get killed now in the USA would probably increase ten fold,every drunken argument outside of bars would be settled with guns rather than words or fists.

Yes criminals will always have access to guns wether they are legal or not,but criminals generally shoot each other,rather than members of the public,as i said earlier ,guns in the UK are illegal and only 82 people a year get killed with guns,whatever anyones opinion is on this subject,you cant argue with the math.
Pilgrymm
i dont think guns should be outlawed. primarily because of the reason that scotty wrote. guns can be very beneficial in the right hands.

besides, i like hunting my tasty tasty pheasants. mmmm
furtasacra
This is always an interesting debate. I personally, dislike guns, even though I own one. It's over 60 years old, packed up in a box of full of grease, and can't be conveniently used, but it's something of a family heirloom and I won't willingly give it up.

The problem with taking guns away from people is that only honest, law-abiding people with give them up. Criminals will always find a way to obtain them.

And what about hunting rifles? Nearly every man I know goes hunting, at least occasionally. I live in the US, in the South. Folks around here love to eat game. I have venison in my freezer right this minute. I personally don't have any interest in shooting deer, rabbits, or quail, but I still like to eat them. And taking away ALL guns would seriously screw up some long-cherished traditions in my region, leading to a lot of extremely angry people. (People with guns.) We don't need another civil war.

Personally, I feel that if you don't hate a person enough or feel threatened by them enough to kill them face-to-face, in hand-to-hand combat, you shouldn't. But that's basically the only argument I have for strict gun control.

Goodness knows I've occasionally wanted to strangle people, but I've managed to control myself and not do it, because I felt it would be ill-mannered, not to mention I'd really rather not wind up in prison.

The whole reason for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the right to bear arms, is so that the people have the firepower to overthrow the government if it becomes despotic and/or abusive. If we do not retain that right, then George W. Bush would probably try to declare himself King of the World and destroy everything America is supposed to stand for. Freedom, liberty and justice are at stake here. Literally at the point of a gun.

Scary thought, I know, but what happens if nobody but criminals and the government are armed and able to defend themselves?

And what comes after they take guns away? Will I be divested of my baseball bat, screwdrivers, hammer, and cooking knives because I could use them to hurt someone? Where does it end?

Anyone?

(edit) oh, yeah, I have a chainsaw, too.
Fake
I think it is time. With another person dying by the hands of the killer today at nasa, it is ABOUT time!
achowles
I voted no for the simple reason that the people that would surrender their arms to the bill would be the same ones who are least likely to commit criminal acts using them.

Tougher legislation and bans on certain types of firearms? Fine. Good. Do it.

Cracking down on illegal arms dealers and owners? Great.

Just passing a law is going to mean nothing to those already breaking the ones the US does have. Just passing a law is going to empower the criminals as it strips law abiding people of their ability to defend themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-guns at all. But I'm logical about it in recognising the situation for what it is rather than adopting a standpoint that is both redundant and harmful in this case.
Nameless
YES. They never should have had that 'right' in the first place. Suddenly making firearm ownership illegal would be impossible, but the first steps need to be taken (eg. banning new ownership, paying cash for returned and destroyed weapons, guns destroyed on the owner's death etc.). It would take some time, and probably need a significant cultural change, but it would worth it in the long run. It's all fine to argue that criminals will get guns anyway, but it takes about two seconds to realise that if in 100 years time guns were 100% illegal, it would be considerably harder for them to do so. And hey, people are going to kill each other anyway, but you don't make murder legal.

When it comes down to it, guns are designed for one thing and one thing only: Killing things. You cut vegetables with knives, you play baseball with a baseball bat, you can cut down trees with an axe but the only thing gun's are for is killing. Death machines should not be legal on so many levels it's not funny.

(You do not want to sell American citizens a death stick.)
poiko123
I believe extensive tests and a select few should be allowed to bear arms. They need stiffer tests to prove themselves competent and worthy to own a weapon, as well as, demonstrating a need for such.
standready
Everyone should have and carry guns like old west days. Seriously, would you shoot at someone knowing they and anyone else around you can return fire. Even up the playing field.
(putting on my flame suit now)
Nameless
standready wrote:
Everyone should have and carry guns like old west days. Seriously, would you shoot at someone knowing they and anyone else around you can return fire. Even up the playing field.
(putting on my flame suit now)


Yeah, but by your logic there would be no such things as bar fights. I mean, imagine punching a guy knowing they and anyone else around you could punch you back. I mean, why does anybody risk insulting somebody, knowing that they and anybody else around them could insult them back? Surprised
rightclickscott
Anyone with a will to kill will find some way of doing it. Whether it be by a gun or a molotov cocktail, it will happen. You can't outlaw a right we've had just because lunatics have been using them for the wrong purposes. Guns are only deadly in the wrong hands. Besides, if someone really wanted a gun, they'd find a way to get it. It's not about the number of guns, it's about the number of murderous lunatics.
truespeed
rightclickscott wrote:
. Guns are only deadly in the wrong hands. .


I dont believe for a second that the 30.000 people a year who get killed in the USA are killed by either A: nutters or B: criminals.. i would hazzard a guess that a lot of them if not the majority, are personal disputes or domestic arguments or suicides.

Apart from people who go hunting (which i dont agree with either but thats another subject) theres no real reason for someone to own a gun,guns are for killing and nothing else.

3000 people were killed in the twin towers and the whole of the country was in shock and rightly so,but that same year 30.000 people died from guns,and nobody bats an eyelid.
Scott
I can't see how being able to carry a gun is beneficial. All it takes is someone to snap, and to pull that trigger. Fist fights turn into gun fights.
exarkun
iI can't agree more with you. In my country, having a gun is absolutely illegal, but imagine what would happen if everyone has a gun. It is like they can do anything they want, anytime. When that happens, the society will definitely be in chaos and disorder. Everyone would be cautious and suspicious of one another. And usually it will become worse and worse, so I think the best think USA can do at the moment is to take back the rights for arms, as they wouldn't know if people will abuse the right.
Vrythramax
I have a licsense to carry a concealed weapon, I do not choose to excersize that right for some of the reasons already stated, but as long as there is a thriving black market in gun sales, I will not give up my right to own....or carry.

IF it were possible to eliminate all guns, with the exception of law enforcement and the military, I would gladly follow along.

The figures about the deaths attributed to cigarette smoking are approx. 10 times larger yearly, car accidents about 5 times larger and alcohol related about 7 times larger.....should all these things be banned also?

The acts of single people should not make policy for the remaining people. More gun control yes, abolish the right....absolutly not.
Coclus
truespeed wrote:
In light of what happened in Virginia,should america now change its constitution and give up its right to bear arms.

food for thought.

In the UK 82 people get killed with guns every year,in the USA the same number of people get killed every single day.


I agree with you but I doubt that it is gonna happen..
arkebuzer
Of course you cant blame it all on the right to use arms, and so on. But it´s a fact it does make this kind of violence more likely.

I live in sweden, where the regulations/laws are really hard on handguns.

I´m sure there are just as many gun crazy kids that would like to end their life by making a massacre in a school here, as in US. We watch the same movies, play the same games, and most likely we give birth to just as many psychos as in US (if you count in % ofc).
The difference is just that in sweden you cant get a gun as easy wich stops a lot these retards.
Still it´s just a matter of time before it happends here, but the fact remains - harder to get a gun makes it harder for a psycho to make a massacre with guns.

So my point is that it would probably be a good idea to make the rules a lot harder in US.

Best Regards
starfish2007
I think it is time they did just that. but I think serten groups of people should be allowed touse them but willhave to register every fier arm they own and only be able touse it for things like hunting or life ore dife sittuations.
truespeed
Vrythramax wrote:

The figures about the deaths attributed to cigarette smoking are approx. 10 times larger yearly, car accidents about 5 times larger and alcohol related about 7 times larger.....should all these things be banned also?

The acts of single people should not make policy for the remaining people. More gun control yes, abolish the right....absolutly not.


Thats a nonesense argument to keep guns,neither cigarettes,cars or alcohol were designed to kill,guns are,if your going to go down that line of debate ,lets ban mcdonalds and burger king for producing a nation of fatties who die every year.

When cigarettes were first produced nobody knew of the health hazards to either the person smoking or the people around them through secondary smoke,now we are all more aware,steps are being taken (in the uk anyway) so that nobody is allowed to smoke in any public place,hopefully over time less and less people will want to take up smoking.

Alcohol related deaths are primarily health issues again,and again this is an education thing,mostly though these are self inflicted deaths and other than in circumstances of drink drivers only really affect the person themselves.

Cars were designed to get a person from A - B, while death tolls are high in the USA they could be greatly reduced by overhauling their appoach to road safety, and could reduce the death toll by as much as 10.000 a year.

Source


Overall i think the general consensus about gun ownership is there needs to be more control as your average american is unwilling to give up his right to bear arms,so maybe in the short term thats the way to go.
Vrythramax
My arguement was assuredly absurd at the very least, but so is using the insane act of one person as a reason to limit the rights of all others.

Guns are a tool, just as a hammer is, people will continue to kill other people regardless of what tool they happen to feel they need at the given time.

An old adage goes "Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns".
truespeed
Vrythramax wrote:
My arguement was assuredly absurd at the very least, but so is using the insane act of one person as a reason to limit the rights of all others.


And this one person quote as a reason to limit the rights of others,isnt true as there have been 19 such incidents on american campuses in the past 10 years (i dont have the source,i heard the stat on the news the other day)

Vrythramax wrote:

Guns are a tool, just as a hammer is, people will continue to kill other people regardless of what tool they happen to feel they need at the given time.


A gun is a tool? ,perhaps if you live off the land then yeah its a tool,but to most people who get their food from supermarkets, what use do they have for this tool?

Vrythramax wrote:

An old adage goes "Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns".


The police will still have guns,so the "outlaws " wont be the only ones with guns.
coolclay
Thats a great idea, let only law enforcement and the government have guns. That way they can make all the rest of us "gunless" cattle do whatever they want.
I'm sorry but a nation (USA) that was founded and created with guns, must always retain the right to guns, or how do we revolt, when (not if) the government oversteps its boundaries. No great society will last forever, that has been demonstrated by the Romans, the Aztecs, and all other great societies of the past. When that day comes when A. Our country oversteps its boundarys, B. Our country can no longer protect itself or C. Our country no longer exists, I will be prepared, and there is no one beyond God him/herself that can take the right for me to be prepared away.

We'll be laughing while the rest of the gunless world is enslaved, and forced to do whatever the gun owners want.

Back to the Virginia Tech tragedy. If any one of the many students in any of the classrooms that the gunman visited was armed, do you think this tragedy would have occured at the scale that it did. Of course not. In the sick twisted world where killing is made to out to look like fun does anyone really feel safe. I know I feel safe A. because I know where I am going if I die, and B. I know I have a weapon nearby to protect myself and others with.
BugBear
It wouldn't work because the people using them for protection would have to give them up and probablyl would give them up but the criminals will still have the guns, in otherwords you just made the situation even worse.
Hunterseaker
Of cource guns must be forbidden for everyone, as you see how many people get killed/murdered by a gun.
the argument of many Americans that they want to protect themselves against criminals or burglars is irrelevant, burglars don't kill you in 99.9%.
When you have a gun, you always have the possibility to use the gun, so when you're drunk or extremely mad/angry you might tend to use your gun. And that's what happens in the US way to much.

Also the argument, that people should have weapons to protect the democracy is rubbish, here in Holland we are not allowed to have gun's and the democracy is working fine, and the amount of people who are shot is relatively low. When you have weapons it is easier to destroy democracy, not to maintain democracy.

Weapons don't have any use for the normal people at all, weapons make all people in the US more dangerous......
coolclay
Quote:
weapons make all people in the US more dangerous......
Yea kinda like living in Holland makes everyone a Pothead.

So your trying to tell me the US would still exist if it wasn't for rifles, and the militia that used them to fight against the tyranny of Britian. Do you remember who also was for strict gun control? Hitler, so that he could use his army to squash all who opposed him including Holland. I am sure if we didn't have guns to fight Hitler, all of Europe would very nicely be in Hitlers control even today.
coolclay
Quote:
when you're drunk or extremely mad/angry

What??? Everyone with any common sense knows that is the worst time you want to have or use a gun. Part of gun ownership is having respect for the gun and knowing what it is capable of. I agree some people that have guns are stupid, and don't have common sense. I would be for gun education before someone is allowed to own a gun. But I don't believe gun control is the answer, as many people have said, it only makes things worse.

You can't compare 2 different countries either. You can't say since gun control works in this country then it would work in this other country. Thats like comparing apples, and oranges, they are both fruit but they are completely different fruit. All countries are different and have completely different societies.
truespeed
Questions for the american gun owners who have voted to keep their guns.

Q: how long have you owned a gun?
Q: how many guns do you have and what kind of guns do you have?
Q: do you carry a gun everywhere you go,even to walmart?
Q: how many times have you been in a situation where you have fired your gun to protect yourself?
ocalhoun
truespeed wrote:
In light of what happened in Virginia,should america now change its constitution and give up its right to bear arms.


Sure, and while we're at it, let's give up our right to free speech as well.

Anyway, how would you stop people from owning guns? You could keep people from buying new ones, but would you like to be the one in charge of taking away the guns already owned by civilians?

Personally, I would get a nice, airtight case and bury my gun in the backyard if I thought the government wanted to take it away.
"Oh, no guns here: it stopped working, so I threw it away..."

truespeed wrote:

In the UK 82 people get killed with guns every year,in the USA the same number of people get killed every single day.


First of all, you have to allow for the fact that the USA's larger population will mean more crimes of all types will be committed:
Population of UK: 60,609,153
Population of USA: 298,444,215

Your estimate of gun-related killings in the USA: 82 x 365 = 29,930
Actual number of gun-related killings in USA in 2004 (most recent year) (from FBI statistics): 10,654

Let's review that for a moment:
Your estimate: 29,930
Real data: 10,654
Now, I think somebody has been exaggerating.

[url]
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.gif
[/url]
Anyway, from this graph, you would think that the time for this would have been 1993...
Srs2388
I would have to agree with truespeed you can buy alcohol at 21... you can buy a gun at 18. A gun is more dangerous of mishandled than alcohol.
ocalhoun
Srs2388 wrote:
I would have to agree with truespeed you can buy alcohol at 21... you can buy a gun at 18. A gun is more dangerous of mishandled than alcohol.


ORLY?

Gun related deaths in US: 10,654
Alcohol related motor vehicle deaths in US: 16,885
(Not counting all other alcohol-related deaths, some of which would probably qualify for both categories.)

Also one could argue that alcohol is more likely to be 'mishandled' than firearms are, because of the effect it has on the person using it.

True, more people have alcohol than have guns, which may be partly responsible for the statistics, but there are many more ways alcohol can harm people without killing them.
truespeed
ocalhoun wrote:

Sure, and while we're at it, let's give up our right to free speech as well.

Anyway, how would you stop people from owning guns? You could keep people from buying new ones, but would you like to be the one in charge of taking away the guns already owned by civilians?

Personally, I would get a nice, airtight case and bury my gun in the backyard if I thought the government wanted to take it away.
"Oh, no guns here: it stopped working, so I threw it away..."

truespeed wrote:

In the UK 82 people get killed with guns every year,in the USA the same number of people get killed every single day.


First of all, you have to allow for the fact that the USA's larger population will mean more crimes of all types will be committed:
Population of UK: 60,609,153
Population of USA: 298,444,215

Your estimate of gun-related killings in the USA: 82 x 365 = 29,930
Actual number of gun-related killings in USA in 2004 (most recent year) (from FBI statistics): 10,654

Let's review that for a moment:
Your estimate: 29,930
Real data: 10,654
Now, I think somebody has been exaggerating.

[url]
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.gif
[/url]
Anyway, from this graph, you would think that the time for this would have been 1993...


Even given your stats,of 10.000 a year thats still a lot compared to the UK,and taking into account their relative populations,the USA has a x5 population over the UK,so 82x5 would only = 410 deaths a year,compared to your 10.000.

On the subject of americans giving up their guns,i dont think short term thats the answer,as americans view gun ownership as a god given right so maybe changing this viewpoint will take a long time,so perhaps in the short term,gun control needs to be looked at.
ocalhoun
truespeed wrote:
,as americans view gun ownership as a god given right so maybe changing this viewpoint will take a long time,so perhaps in the short term,gun control needs to be looked at.

Gun ownership a God-given right? The constitution just about spells it out that way.

As for gun control, in my opinion the government is too inept to try such things. (In my experience the government is inept at most things, so I figure it should exert the least control possible.)

As for things like school shootings, would there have been as many deaths if many of the other students (or perhaps, teachers) had guns (and knew how to use them)? Very bad situations like that only happen when only the 'bad guys' (for lack of a better term) have guns.

Also, banning anything would be a first step into more and more governmental control. How long till large knives are banned? How long till small knives are? Cars? Fireworks? If the government banned everything that could harm people, we'd end up in little plastic bubbles.
And what about hunters, collectors, and sportsmen (such sports as rifle markmanship, skeet shooting et cetera)?

Anyway, I think guns get an undeserved bad reputation, and that homicide rates have more to do with the society people live in, rather than the weapons they have access to. As the saying goes: 'Guns don't kill people. People kill people.' Perhaps if they couldn't get guns, those kids would have made bombs instead.
Really, this reminds me of the Catholic church's efforts to ban the crossbow when it was first invented.
truespeed
ocalhoun wrote:

Gun ownership a God-given right? The constitution just about spells it out that way.


The constitution isnt the ten comandments,it can be changed,as ive said it was written 300 years ago,anything that isnt relevant today should be changed,and this so called right to bear arms should be one of them.

ocalhoun wrote:

As for things like school shootings, would there have been as many deaths if many of the other students (or perhaps, teachers) had guns (and knew how to use them)? Very bad situations like that only happen when only the 'bad guys' (for lack of a better term) have guns.


So your argument for less deaths is more guns,that doesnt add up,even if you know how to use a gun,how many people in a classroom situation where bullets are flying everywhere would have the composure to pick out the shooter.

ultimately if everybodys armed all of the time,then the death figures that you quoted in my opinion would go up tenfold.

ocalhoun wrote:

Also, banning anything would be a first step into more and more governmental control. How long till large knives are banned? How long till small knives are? Cars? Fireworks? If the government banned everything that could harm people, we'd end up in little plastic bubbles.
And what about hunters, collectors, and sportsmen (such sports as rifle markmanship, skeet shooting et cetera)?



If someone comes at you with a knife you have the option of running,if someone has a gun you dont have that option,well you do but its unlikely you will get very far.

ocalhoun wrote:

'Guns don't kill people. People kill people.'


People with guns kill people,and if them same people didnt have guns then there would be less killing.
Animal
ocalhoun wrote:
Also, banning anything would be a first step into more and more governmental control. How long till large knives are banned? How long till small knives are? Cars? Fireworks? If the government banned everything that could harm people, we'd end up in little plastic bubbles.

Guns have never been legal in a number of countries - does that mean that all countries other than the United States are running under oppressive martial law? I think the real problem is that Americans wouldn't react well to having one of their rights taken away from them - if they didn't have the right in the first place, it wouldn't be a problem. However, the number of lives that would be saved by a new amendment to remove the right to bear arms would most likely be well worth a few hurt feelings IMO.
ocalhoun
^And how many deaths could be prevented by banning cars?

If preventing death is the goal, then the best way would be to sterilize every human. Let them die off by natural causes (which seems to be by the way this thread is going, a preferable way to die), after that no more deaths.

Really, the part of this I'm not really understanding is how people possessing guns causes people to commit homicide.

I suppose the real problem is that mankind is not (and may never be) ready to have such power available to it.
I do not, however, think it is worthwhile to take away a right of many people because of the actions of a few, in order to save a few worthless human lives.

BTW,
Blaster
I don't feel like getting banned or i would really release my mind. But i do have to say no not at all. It will never work anyway. Hunting is a big thing over here. Its something a lot of people like to do. If you where to take it away it would anger a bunch of people. So that would just cause more problems. Then people still have other weapons to kill people. So they would just kill them that way. We enjoy also just shooting guns. We enjoy getting away and going up the mountains and shooting just different kinds of guns.

Now see what happened in virgina is that the kid bought the gun from some store and either they didn't follow the gun rules or Virgina's laws are bad. You are suppose to do a background check on the person. Now if they would have done that then the person wouldn't have gotten one because he was mentally ill.
ThornsOfSorrow
I'm sure all of this has been said before, but here's my opinion on this matter:

Although it can't hurt to make gun laws a bit more strict, there's no point in banning guns altogether. There are so many things in this country that are illegal, but people still get away with disobeying the law. If people still drink and drive, then why would they avoid gaining access to a weapon simply because the law says they can't? Besides, there are so many weapons besides guns; a homemade bomb can probably be just as devastating as a gun, if it's made correctly.

Rather than change gun laws, we should change school security. That school should have been locked down, but for some reason it wasn't. It would have been a lot easier to find the shooter if the entire student body wasn't running through the campus. Hopefully other schools (colleges and others) will learn from this tragedy and actually develop a plan for this type of situation. Right now, my school is planning to send all the students a text message if there is a threat, which I think is a horrible plan, but at least it's something.
ocalhoun
Blaster wrote:
Now if they would have done that then the person wouldn't have gotten one because he was mentally ill.

One good reason to stay away from psychologists.

Background checks might help, but there's a first time for everything. Also, it is quite possible to buy a gun from somebody without any paperwork whatsoever. (One example is a yard sale I went to recently had, among other things, two .22 rifles for sale. I would presume I could have paid cash for them and walked away with them 5 minutes later without the person I bought them from even knowing my name.)
{name here}
There really isn't a reason for the US to give up its right to bear arms. If stupid people really wanted to harm other people, lack of a gun would be of no consequence because they'd just move to clandestine weapons easy to manufacture like Molotov cocktails, butcher knives, or aerosol flamethrowers. If anything the ability for these people to have weapons is better than if they were deprived of them; instead of 32 people dead there could have been entire buildings burning down, with students trapped inside.
BosLady
Srs2388 wrote:
If you wanted a gun and you didn't have the right to bare arms I am sure that you could still get the weapons you want on the black market. If the people are willing to kill someone then they aren't going to have any morality anyways so they are going to buy one off the black market.
just my two cents.


I totally agree, outlawing guns will solve nothing. We have had enough rights taken away from us in little bits and pieces. I will not give up my right, if they outlaw firearms, I will not stop owning or carrying. In our state you have to go through a training course to get a permit to carry. If someone wants a gun bad enough, they will find a way to get one. I think by outlawing them, the money from purchase will go to criminals rather than back into our communities.
truespeed
If Cho Seung-Hui had walked into that classroom with a molotov cocktail he may of got to throw 2,at most before he was pounced upon,he wouldnt have time to light up another,and i think the most damage he would of caused would be a few burns.

As for home made bombs,like its that easy to do,yes if he managed it he could of caused a lot of deaths ,but he would be just as likely to kill himself in the process of making it.

And all this, if he couldnt get one legally he would of got one illegally,i doubt he would have the connections,if guns were illegal they wouldnt be selling them in yard sales,so where would he get one from,in a small town like blacksburg,i think he would find it difficult.
fx-trading-education
coolclay wrote:

Back to the Virginia Tech tragedy. If any one of the many students in any of the classrooms that the gunman visited was armed, do you think this tragedy would have occured at the scale that it did. Of course not. In the sick twisted world where killing is made to out to look like fun does anyone really feel safe. I know I feel safe A. because I know where I am going if I die, and B. I know I have a weapon nearby to protect myself and others with.


This one is pretty funny (to the second degree only of course, first degree it is pretty sad)
So if everybody has a gun and is ready to kill anybody, then no more problems? The peace by the terror ! nice project !

With this kind of project I am afraid that you could be very much surprised / disappointed with your point A "because I know where I am going if I die". You could end up in a pretty hot place Razz
Vrythramax
fx-trading-education wrote:
This one is pretty funny (to the second degree only of course, first degree it is pretty sad)
So if everybody has a gun and is ready to kill anybody, then no more problems? The peace by the terror ! nice project !

With this kind of project I am afraid that you could be very much surprised / disappointed with your point A "because I know where I am going if I die". You could end up in a pretty hot place Razz


Not everyone (in the US anyway) owns guns, not do they have the right to own guns. The majority of gun owners are by and large a reasonsible group of people...not all mind you....but the majority of owners of firearms.

Your argument is seriously flawed.
Animal
ocalhoun wrote:
^And how many deaths could be prevented by banning cars?

<snip>

Really, the part of this I'm not really understanding is how people possessing guns causes people to commit homicide.

You're right - banning cars would probably save many more lives, but there's a fundamental difference between a gun and a car. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill people and animals. You can argue about recreation and target sports as much as you like, but the gun is there to kill people. If you're not legally allowed to kill people, why are you allowed to own a gun? Farmers can argue about pest control, and that's a fair enough comment, but I somewhat doubt that people living in large cities have a pest problem that they can deal with by using firearms.

There is obviously something wrong with those who commit homicide, and this is not linked directly to the fact they own a gun. But by owning a gun, they have been able to commit homicide easily and efficiently. Without guns, any homicide would have to be committed "up-close and personal", and research shows (can't find the link right now... gimme a minute or ten) that it is much harder for people to commit murder from close-range because their humanitarian instinct tries to stop them. The larger the distance between you and your target, the easier it is to commit murder - guns allow you to commit murder (and other injuries) from massive distances, "de-personalising" the attack and making more people more capable of murder. I agree that gun ownership isn't even almost the only issue, but I still think it's a pretty big one!
Vrythramax
reddishblue wrote:
It would never work anyway, there are just too many guns in possession of privet people, even if they became illegal they would never manage to free the population of their firearms, even if they implemented a reward for each gun, fortunately I don't live in America, In Australia very few people own firearms and I am in little danger.

However if it was actually possible to free the population of the USA of guns then I'm all for it.


I agree with your sentiments, but this is about you sig:

Currently I (Vrythramax) am the 10 highest in total posts,
and the 3rd Richest in FRIH$.

That does not need to be in my sigline as it only intimidates new users. Direct them to the Membership link at the top of the page. Unless you are trying to intimidate. Wink
fx-trading-education
Vrythramax wrote:
fx-trading-education wrote:
This one is pretty funny (to the second degree only of course, first degree it is pretty sad)
So if everybody has a gun and is ready to kill anybody, then no more problems? The peace by the terror ! nice project !

With this kind of project I am afraid that you could be very much surprised / disappointed with your point A "because I know where I am going if I die". You could end up in a pretty hot place Razz


Not everyone (in the US anyway) owns guns, not do they have the right to own guns. The majority of gun owners are by and large a reasonsible group of people...not all mind you....but the majority of owners of firearms.

Your argument is seriously flawed.


I don't understand your anwer. It is completely not related to the answer I made to the original post. It doesn't have to do anything with the fact if gun owners are reasonable or not (anyway even if very few are unreasonable it is still very scary).
My answer was to somebody claiming that the world would be safer if everybody would have a gun Laughing
ocalhoun
fx-trading-education wrote:

My answer was to somebody claiming that the world would be safer if everybody would have a gun Laughing

And it wouldn't be?
If all of the victims of that school shooting had guns, how many would have been killed? My guess is around 5 or 6, not 30+.
Unfortunately, guns and gun training are too expensive to provide to everybody so this is not possible. (Also, it would put guns into the hands of people that really shouldn't have them. I'll admit that there are such people.)
fx-trading-education
ocalhoun wrote:
fx-trading-education wrote:

My answer was to somebody claiming that the world would be safer if everybody would have a gun Laughing

And it wouldn't be?
If all of the victims of that school shooting had guns, how many would have been killed? My guess is around 5 or 6, not 30+.
Unfortunately, guns and gun training are too expensive to provide to everybody so this is not possible. (Also, it would put guns into the hands of people that really shouldn't have them. I'll admit that there are such people.)

No it wouldn't be. Maybe in this specific case you can argue that maybe "only" 5-6 people would have been killed but this kind of thngs would happen more often.
Imagine if every pupil has a gun on his table: the teacher gives him a bad appreciation, he is mad, he kills him. An other pupil makes fun of him, he doesn't like that, he kills him...
And in this case why stop with guns you can just escalate, some will bring grenades, bazookas...
What a beautiful world !
reddishblue
Vrythramax wrote:
reddishblue wrote:
It would never work anyway, there are just too many guns in possession of privet people, even if they became illegal they would never manage to free the population of their firearms, even if they implemented a reward for each gun, fortunately I don't live in America, In Australia very few people own firearms and I am in little danger.

However if it was actually possible to free the population of the USA of guns then I'm all for it.


I agree with your sentiments, but this is about you sig:

Currently I (Vrythramax) am the 10 highest in total posts,
and the 3rd Richest in FRIH$.

That does not need to be in my sigline as it only intimidates new users. Direct them to the Membership link at the top of the page. Unless you are trying to intimidate. Wink

Call it a...social experiment Cool. I am not trying to intimidate, I just want something in my sig that isn't a quote. Embarassed
LostOverThere
reddishblue wrote:
It would never work anyway

Well, it kind of would. Put it this way, if they banned Family Guy, about 1% of viewers would probably get it illegally, but the other 99% wouldn't.

Animal wrote:
The sole purpose of a gun is to kill people and animals

Exactly.


I live in Australia - all automatic weapons are now banned here after Martin Briant killed 35 people and injured 37 (He received 35 Life Sentences).
reddishblue
LostOverThere wrote:
reddishblue wrote:
It would never work anyway

Well, it kind of would. Put it this way, if they banned Family Guy, about 1% of viewers would probably get it illegally, but the other 99% wouldn't.

Excuse me, did you read any other part to my post, I explain very clearly that it would be near impossible to take away guns, people will hide them and lie and everything, don't forget that the U.S actually LOVE their guns, they see them as prizes, not as killing machines.
coolclay
Ok why are people so freakin concerned about saving lives! It seems the liberals (mostly anti-gun, pro-population control) seem that by using the loss of life caused by guns as an excuse to get rid of them. Ask them about population control, and they want abortions, and are throwing millions of dollars for population control. This is one of the most contradictory things I have ever heard! Lets ban guns so people don't get killed, but let's put millions of dollars towards abortions and population control, um yea that makes perfect sense. Guess what, every person that gets killed by a gun helps to control the population! That includes wars, so you pansy @ss anti-war, anti-gun, pro-abortion/population control people are contradicting yourself to an insurmountable position.
Nameless
coolclay wrote:
Ok why are people so freakin concerned about saving lives! It seems the liberals (mostly anti-gun, pro-population control) seem that by using the loss of life caused by guns as an excuse to get rid of them. Ask them about population control, and they want abortions, and are throwing millions of dollars for population control. This is one of the most contradictory things I have ever heard! Lets ban guns so people don't get killed, but let's put millions of dollars towards abortions and population control, um yea that makes perfect sense. Guess what, every person that gets killed by a gun helps to control the population! That includes wars, so you pansy @ss anti-war, anti-gun, pro-abortion/population control people are contradicting yourself to an insurmountable position.


I really hope that post is supposed to be sarcastic. -_-

It's actually pretty sad when you can read something like that and not be sure.
fx-trading-education
Nameless wrote:
coolclay wrote:
Ok why are people so freakin concerned about saving lives! It seems the liberals (mostly anti-gun, pro-population control) seem that by using the loss of life caused by guns as an excuse to get rid of them. Ask them about population control, and they want abortions, and are throwing millions of dollars for population control. This is one of the most contradictory things I have ever heard! Lets ban guns so people don't get killed, but let's put millions of dollars towards abortions and population control, um yea that makes perfect sense. Guess what, every person that gets killed by a gun helps to control the population! That includes wars, so you pansy @ss anti-war, anti-gun, pro-abortion/population control people are contradicting yourself to an insurmountable position.


I really hope that post is supposed to be sarcastic. -_-

It's actually pretty sad when you can read something like that and not be sure.

I agree with you, and I think that the worst was that this post was not intended to be a bad joke...
zichlone
I do not belive we should lose our right to bear arms. I agree if you have the will to kill someone you will find a way regardless. I belive there should be greater restrictions on guns and purchases of ammo, but i mean if you htink about it how many guns are already owned illegaly in the u.s.? would it really deter the shooters? I belive al that would happen is that the black market for illegal weapons would grow. and plus think of it our founding fathers said that we deserved the right to bear arms and they apparently knew what they were doing back then. i also understand they had just come out of a war but a mans need to protect his homestead has never diminished. anyways you always hear about how many lives are taken by guns and not how many are saved by the presence of the weapon either detering someone from commiting a crime or stopping someone with force.
truespeed
zichlone wrote:
and plus think of it our founding fathers said that we deserved the right to bear arms and they apparently knew what they were doing back then. i also understand they had just come out of a war but a mans need to protect his homestead has never diminished. anyways you always hear about how many lives are taken by guns and not how many are saved by the presence of the weapon either detering someone from commiting a crime or stopping someone with force.


If you look at countries where guns are illegal,gun crime is very low.

You deserve the right to bear arms? you could say the same about iraq and iran,you could argue they deserve the right to have nuclear weapons,but america in particular seems very adamant that they dont have them.

When the founding fathers made the right to bear arms like you say they had not long come out of a war and your country was still very unstable and finding its feet,but now thats not the case,now america is an established democracy,and this whole idea of the citizens needing to have arms to defend themselves against a rogue goverment is stupid,its not gonna happen.
coolclay
Quote:
a rogue goverment is stupid,its not gonna happen.

Why is that? Countries, and governments are very short term in the scheme of things, rarely has any society or government lasted more then 500 years. And who knows when a civil war may start.
truespeed
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
a rogue goverment is stupid,its not gonna happen.

Why is that? Countries, and governments are very short term in the scheme of things, rarely has any society or government lasted more then 500 years. And who knows when a civil war may start.


Lets just agree on the fact that it wont happen in your or my lifetime.
skygaia
Yes, I think so..
It's time for the USA to give up its right to bear arms.
As you know, any one could make a mistake or think someting wrong.
dkelite
if the weapons get ilegal, then will the police have a rescource problem.

I live in Denmark, and honesty, i know how i can get one ilegal, i think people have the right to protect them self. even against the police. yeah excuse me, i wont take america in priticulair, but in denmark, they are starting to shoot, before they talk. and by the way. "police" is on my ban list
coolclay
Quote:
Lets just agree on the fact that it wont happen in your or my lifetime.
Wanna place a bet? I bet 100frih$ that some country will have a civil war, and a government will fall, in the next 10 years. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if it is the US either, especially considering the REAL id issue coming up next year (read the real id topic if you have ?).

And thank you dkelite for giving a view seldom heard.
truespeed
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
Lets just agree on the fact that it wont happen in your or my lifetime.
Wanna place a bet? I bet 100frih$ that some country will have a civil war, and a government will fall, in the next 10 years. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if it is the US either, especially considering the REAL id issue coming up next year (read the real id topic if you have ?).


Perhaps in another country,but not the USA,as for the real ID they have been talking about introducing something similar here in the UK,but if it aint a vote winner neither of your political parties will introduce it,if it is a vote winner then the rest of you will just have to get used to it.
ocalhoun
truespeed wrote:
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
a rogue goverment is stupid,its not gonna happen.

Why is that? Countries, and governments are very short term in the scheme of things, rarely has any society or government lasted more then 500 years. And who knows when a civil war may start.


Lets just agree on the fact that it wont happen in your or my lifetime.


What you don't understand is that the removal of freedoms from the populous (such as, and especially, freedom to bear arms) is the first step of that war.

Look it up in history; how did Hitler gain total control over the populous? He arranged for a government building to be burned, then convinced the people that they needed to give up a few freedoms temporarily in order to be able to reveal and remove the terrible threat against Germany. History shows how well he could be trusted with such powers.

Whether the threat against the nation is genuine or manufactured, the same thing can happen. Suppose the US government convinced everyone that they needed to give up their rights to firearms in order to prevent things like this. Then suppose they need to give up their right to privacy to combat terrorism. Then suppose we need to curtail our freedoms of speech to make it possible to arrest people for talking about the failures of the government (which could be accomplished by having a couple of undercover federal agents talking about such things, being overheard by an undercover agent that will be revealed to the people, but who does not know the other two are agents as well, then committing some heinous terrorist act)... Once you start down that road, it isn't long until the government has absolute control over the people. No government (not even the US government (especially not the US government)) is benign enough to have that much power.
zichlone
truespeed wrote:
zichlone wrote:
and plus think of it our founding fathers said that we deserved the right to bear arms and they apparently knew what they were doing back then. i also understand they had just come out of a war but a mans need to protect his homestead has never diminished. anyways you always hear about how many lives are taken by guns and not how many are saved by the presence of the weapon either detering someone from commiting a crime or stopping someone with force.


If you look at countries where guns are illegal,gun crime is very low.

You deserve the right to bear arms? you could say the same about iraq and iran,you could argue they deserve the right to have nuclear weapons,but america in particular seems very adamant that they dont have them.

When the founding fathers made the right to bear arms like you say they had not long come out of a war and your country was still very unstable and finding its feet,but now thats not the case,now america is an established democracy,and this whole idea of the citizens needing to have arms to defend themselves against a rogue goverment is stupid,its not gonna happen.



I agree we will never have to defend ourselves from a rogue governemnt but think about the other uses i know and LAPD officer (with a permit to carry a concealed weapon) who saved a mans life from a man with a knife while he was off duty because of his right to bear arms. without the gun think of the things that could have happened. such as if he tried to lunge at him the man could have time to stab the man he was robbing and then bring the weapon around to endanger the officer.

The whole iran iraq nuclear missle thing is way out of proportions compared to guns, i can understand the basic principal behind what your saying but millions more would die because of middle eastern countries having nuclear weapons. i mean if you think about it would they really hesitate to use one on there most hated enemies? Nuclear weapons are more or less designed as a preventitive measure (excluding their use in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) i mean a nuclear weapon can kill 1000'sin seconds from a place over 200 miles away a gun can kill 32 over a period of hours
KHO
psychiatric analysis should be partook before the license to bear arms should be given. That's my take.
Soulfire
So the actions of one derranged lunatic are to overturn 200+ years of our right to bear arms? I think not. Gun control is just another step towards communism, albeit small.
Vrythramax
KHO wrote:
psychiatric analysis should be partook before the license to bear arms should be given. That's my take.


That would be difficult to achieve, but I do know that in the state where I live (I'm in the US), when the do thier background check on you for a firearm permit, if they find you have been treated for any type ofmental (for lack of a better word) illness, including eating disorders or depression, your application is automatically denied.
truespeed
Soulfire wrote:
So the actions of one derranged lunatic are to overturn 200+ years of our right to bear arms? I think not. Gun control is just another step towards communism, albeit small.


Guns and god do they go together?
ocalhoun
truespeed wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
So the actions of one derranged lunatic are to overturn 200+ years of our right to bear arms? I think not. Gun control is just another step towards communism, albeit small.


Guns and god do they go together?

Why not? Because guns are only used for killing people?

News Flash:
Very few people who own guns have ever killed anyone with them. There are many reasons one might own a gun besides wanting to commit murder:
-Hunting
-Sport shooting
-Shooting for fun
-Collecting rare guns
-Ceremonial use
-Use as a deterrent (A mugger will think twice about choosing you for a target if you are obviously wearing a gun, and probably choose to attack somebody who isn't armed instead.)

Take my uncle for example; he's a devout Christian, and has the largest gun collection I've ever seen: everything from revolutionary war era muskets to mp-5 submachine guns. Sometimes when I visit him, we go target shooting for fun, using a wide variety of these guns.
eday2010
coolclay wrote:
That includes wars, so you pansy @ss anti-war, anti-gun, pro-abortion/population control people are contradicting yourself to an insurmountable position.


But that is what Liberals are best known for! They talk out of both sides of their mouths while not saying anything of real use!
Vrythramax
truespeed wrote:
Guns and god do they go together?


I take it you have never heard the phrase "Praise the Lord, and pass the ammo".

Bring on the abuse...I need the distraction.
ocalhoun
truespeed wrote:


Guns and god do they go together?


Just ask any Muslim extremist.
Futile
truespeed wrote:
Questions for the american gun owners who have voted to keep their guns.

Q: how long have you owned a gun?
Q: how many guns do you have and what kind of guns do you have?
Q: do you carry a gun everywhere you go,even to walmart?
Q: how many times have you been in a situation where you have fired your gun to protect yourself?


I just found this thread and I am going to put my 2 cents in and answer your questions and then elaborate on a few.

How long have you owned a gun?
I am forty years old. I have owned a firearm since I was 18. I have been handling and using firearms since I was eight.

How many guns do you have and what kind of guns do you have?
I have four total, three handguns and 1 one shotgun.

Smith & Wesson M&P- Military Police 9mm
Glock PI-37502 .45
Taurus 85 Ultra Lite 38SP
Remington 870 Express Synthetic 20 Gauge

Do you carry a gun everywhere you go, even to Walmart?
I live in Texas, but please dismiss the conception that I wear boots, a large cowboy hat, carry a six-shooter on my hip and ride a horse. There is a concealed weapon law in Texas and I am a licensed concealed weapons carrier. You can view the information here: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf. And you make up your mind whether or not I carry my gun with me in Walmart?

How many times have you been in a situation where you have fired your gun to protect yourself?
I am a former Marine. I was in Kuwait and Desert Strom the first time, Somalia and in Burundi/Rwanda during the Hutus and Tutus genocide civil war. So in some circumstances the answer to this question is yes. On the other hand have I fired any of my weapons to protect myself since I have been out? The answer to that is no.

I believe that someone mention that a gun is a tool in an earlier post. That is a correct statement. Last time I checked the news there was no report of a “gun” killing someone. Guns just don’t load themselves jump up and shoot themselves. Someone has to point that weapon at someone and squeeze the trigger. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people and guns are the “tools”, vice or method that people chose to kill others by.

Just a quick lesson in the US government, any major federal law that has taken place or that is started springs from State legislature first. Every State has different laws and statutes ranging from insurance to taxes to holidays. Gun laws also happen to be one of them. Here in Texas if you are a felon, have a domestic dispute or violence case, or restraining order against you. You can not “legally” purchase a firearm. An 18 year old may purchase a rifle or shotgun but not a handgun, because handguns can be concealed. There is no “cooling off” period here like in California. You fill out the paperwork. There is a background check, which is done by the federal government, and you are either approved, denied or have to wait for further background information to be verified. People seem to overlook the fact that idiot boy in Virginia legally acquired those weapons. They were not brought on the street corner or out the back of someone’s car trunk. Bottom line is some states gun laws are too lenient on the purchase and selling or firearms. And there needs to be better regulations. But banning them all together will never happen.

The best form of firearm control is education. I have two daughters, 11 and 4 and both of them know about firearms and the correct handling and safety of such. I am not some sadistic, gun toting vigilante out to shoot anything and everything that gets in my way or pisses me off. People make conscientious choices to kill other people. True there have been a lot of campuses shooting here in America, but those were acts that were performed by mentally sick individuals. My point is that for every idiot that has misused a firearm there are hundreds more people who don’t misuse them. Why should we be punished because someone else is having a bad day or feels that everyone in the world hates them and they are alone?

What happened in Virginia and at Columbine were tragedies and human lives were lose for no reason but do not make it into a crusade to rid the good people of their rights to bear arms. It just pains me to see the uproar that this whole issue has caused because it happened on American soil. I don’t see the same out cries of rage and inhumanity when there are suicide bombers killing 30 or 40 innocent people a day in Iraqi. What about that senseless violence? Why don’t you get on your soap box about that?
fhrr5
For as long as I have been politically aware, the same debates have been rehashed over and over every night at 9:00 by the talking heads of the news, and then the next morning around the water cooler, by legions of self-proclaimed pundits like you and me.

The top three have always been abortion, gay rights and gun control. Illegal immigration has also been on the radar screen for the last five years, and may soon vie for a top three spot. Threats to national security from forces abroad is a big one too. If it's not Germany and Japan it's Russia, and if it's not Russia it's Korea, if it's not Korea it's Vietnam, and if it's not Vietnam it's Iran, and if it's not Iran it's Iraq, and if it's not Iraq it's Afghanistan, and if it's not Afghanistan maybe it's Iraq after all.

In the 1980s, the hot button issue was Rowe v. Wade. I'm not going to touch this one.

The topic du jour of the X generation has been gay rights, which again, I'm not that interested in fighting about today either.

But whichever side of the fence you're shouting from, at the end of the day these are moral issues. Gun control, because it deals with the practical matter of public safety, rather than morality, only sells ad space well in the wake of a school shooting like aColumbine or a VA Tech.

Since it's hot in the news for the moment, I'm glad we're chatting about it.

There have been people that have hated other people for a long, long time. For as long as we've hated each other we've quarreled, and for as long as we've quarreled we've wanted to hurt each other. The necessity of hurting our fellow men has probably been the greatest mother of invention in the history of the human race.

The shove gave way to the closed fisted punch, the kick, the bite, the scratch, the stab, the rock throw, the sword, the arrow shot, and flashing forward a few thousand years, in more modern times, the cannonade, the gun, and legions of other inventions of death and destruction.

When the founders of the United States were trying to come up with a body of rules that would keep their germinal nation running in smooth order, they realized a need to balance the opposing needs of freedom and security. According to Benjamin Franklin,

Quote:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


And this attitude is fairly indicative of that of the fathers of the U.S.

Let me post the text of the second amendment in case anyone is curious as to how it reads and doesn't know how to reference it:

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.

To be continued... maybe.

Hey, does anybody around here know what a person has to do to get a hosting account here? Some stooge denied my first application for an account for no reason, and now the second one has been sitting pending for days.

What gives? What kind of a ship are the people around here running?
PatTheGreat42
We should never have to give up our guns. What happened in Virginia is tragic. But if someone wants to kill someone, it's still possible without guns.

Yeah, it's passe, but guns don't kill people, people do.
Related topics
Democrat's dream of a new bill of rights
Can anyone (preferrably a Republican fan-boy) splane this?
What's great about your country?
What Are Your Thoughts On The Death Penalty?
Virginia Tech, We are with you.
2 to 7 crimes stopped by guns for every crime using guns.
Dozens die in Turkey border clash
Megaman Phoenix
The "right" to bear arms
Crime and punishment
What Bush Has Done Right???
A proposition for you, about rights, and who has them.
Things only a Republican could believe
If you were told to choose...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.