For or against?

Quote:

On a serious note, all most gun control does is limit lawful citizens from obtaining weapons. Criminals will get theirs like they usually do, illegally.

My thoughts exactly.

In fact, they wouldn't even need to steal them or smuggle them in, they could just make their own if they really wanted to. It's not that difficult to make a firearm, some in fact are VERY simple (single-shot weapons for example).

Quote:

And those illegally obtained weapons wouldn't have been so readily available if they weren't bought and sold by people as a hobby.

See above. If somebody wants a gun badly enough, they can get one, illegal or not...

Quote:

I have no problem with firearms, but I don't see any sense in having one for 'protection' either. If you want to hunt, then fine. If you want to feel badass and know that you can shoot a burglar and have delusions about being a hero-in-waiting, then that's something I don't relate to.

It has nothing to do with being a "hero". Simple fact is, when you call the cops, it takes them time to get to you. It maybe be 5 or 10 min before the police arrive. Alot of shit can go down in that time. I for one don't want to be left helpless while I await the arrival of law enforcement...

Quote:

If I'm not pro-gun, then it's really just that I want to endanger your family and infringe on your rights.

Isn't that the case though?

Quote:

I personally can not think of many situations where having a gun is necessary or safe. Can someone enlighten me?

Guns are no more dangerous than anything else in these modern times. Cars are a great example. They're big and dangerous, yet everyone has them and 99% of the people who drive them manage not to kill anyone. It's the same with firearms, yes bad things can happen if you're stupid with them, but 99% of gun owners are very safe, responsible people.

As far as necessity, well the odds of someone ever having to use their gun are pretty small (maybe 1 in 500?). However, you don't know if you'll be that one guy that needs it untill the shit hits the fan. Therefore I argue it's better to have one, just to be prepared. It's like having airbags in your car... you'll probably never need them, but if you ever do you'll be glad they are there...

Quote:

I don't think "freedom" counts as a valid argument. If I had true freedom I could smoke a burner at the bus stop while fucking a girl in the face in front of a cop, but I can't do that! Well, I can, if I want to go to jail.

True, and thats why I think drugs should be legalized (maybe not the really hardcore drugs). It's not fair to punish everyone because a few people do stupid things. I think it's very hypocritcal (spelling?) that we as a society say it's okay to get drunk but it's not ok to get high. This is, however, a totally different subject...

Quote:

That said, any given right can begin or end where a law does. Because of that, there at least should be more reasoning to behind why one does have the right to own a lethal weapon besides, "because of freedom".

There are plenty of reasons why a responsible citizen would want a firearm. Self defense and hunting being the main ones, but there are others, such as collecting historic firearms or target shooting...

Quote:

Me owning a firearm does not in any way, shape, or form infringe upon your rights or freedoms. Unless I use that firearm against you, it likely never will.

Very good point. How does my owning a gun harm you? It doesn't...

EDIT:

About the question "why is there so much crime in the US"... Before you open that can of worms, you might want to do some research... the US crime rate has been going steadily DOWN for many years now... while it remains high in countrys where firearms are illegal (such as the UK)...

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Some interesting facts I found in about 30 seconds by doing a google search of "US crime rate":

From the Department of Justice:

Quote:

Violent crime rates declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2004.

From the FBI:

Quote:

As a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 0.5 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention in the first half of 2005 when compared to figures reported for the first six months of 2004. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2005 decreased 2.8 percent when compared to data from the same time period in 2004. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for the first half of 2005 indicated that arson decreased 5.6 percent when compared to 2004 figures.

Yet, when I do another search of "UK crime rate", I see things like this:

From the BBC:

Quote:

Official figures to be published next month will show an estimated 6% national rise.

A survey by The Sunday Times found that the vast majority of police forces in England and Wales say crime rates have gone up in the year to March.

I actually had a hard time finding any offical data on the UKs crime rate... the best I could come up with were newspaper articals like the one I quoted above.

So what is my point in all this? My point is that banning guns isn't going to prevent crime. The reverse is also true, legal gun ownership isn't going to increase crime. Therefore, if you're arugment is "baning guns will stop crime", I'd say it's a weak argument...

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

The following two paragraphs came first and second in the "worst analogy of all time" contest I've been running.

Actually I think the analogy is near perfect. Both Cars and Guns are mechanical devices that when used improperly or not treated with respect can become VERY deadly. There are millions of guns in this country. There are also millions of cars in this country. The funny thing is that more people die in car wrecks than in gun fights... so maybe we should outlaw private ownership of motor vehicles?

The airbag/handgun analogy isn't quite as good, but it's still works. Both can be life savers in an emergancy situation, both are something you hope you'll never need to use, but both are something good to have, just in case the worst should happen...

Quote:

Gun are also built for a primary purpose: killing humans! Other uses since discrovered include: oh wait none, guns are only good at destroying life.

Thats funny, I use my guns for lots of things, other than killing people...

Quote:

News: unarmed people don't get shot at.

I call bullshit on this one.

Quote:

So people come invade your home, big deal. they take your stuff, you call the cops, the cops catch them and insurance replaces all your valubles. Drama over. Would you prefer to have a leathal gun battle in your own home? Fuck your pride.

Pride has nothing to do with it. What if Mr. Bad Guy wants more than just your TV? What if he wants to rape your girlfriend/wife/mom/sister/daughter? You have no idea why he's in your house, and giving him the benifit of the dout isn't too smart if you ask me...

I mentioned this in the firearms topic in general disscussion, but I'll say it again here. When you're out on the streets, using a gun to defend yourself should be your VERY LAST RESORT. You should run if possible and avoid confrontation. BUT, when someone breaks into your home, things change. You have to assume that the invader is out to harm you and your family. I wouldn't hesitate to kill a home invader, not for one second.

Quote:

owever I don't think you should be allowed to buy assault rifles such as an AK-47 publicly without at the very least a through background check.

I think the AK-47 argument is a weak one. As others have pointed out, I can kill you just as dead with a pistol or a shotgun, so what differance does it make?

As for the background check, I agree with you, and in fact, to buy ANY gun, you do have to have a background check. There is a loop-hole in the law however that I feel needs to be closed: Used Guns. If I buy a gun, I have to have a background check. But say after a few years I decide to sell that gun, I can sell it to anyone without doing a backgrond check on them. I think you should have to prefrom a background check anytime a firearm changes ownership, not just when you buy one new from the dealers...

Quote:

Just who are you "protecting" yourself from that requires that much firepower?

The goverment. I bet the Jews would have loved to have had AKs when the Nazis came knocking on their doors...

Quote:

Why is everyone so damn paranoid about being maimed/shot/killed anyway?

Because, sadly, in the real world bad things can happen to good people.

Quote:

Ok, first of all, knowing that one crime rate is going down, and the other going up doesn't say anything about how big they are in relationship to each other. Also, try to do some more research on what kind of crimes you are talking about, not all involve guns.

I'm talking about violent crime rate, that includes murder, assualt, and rape.

Also, I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying that a crime has to involve a gun to be considered a crime? So it's okay if I kill you with bow or sword, but not a gun?

Quote:

There's a good chance that the guy who is stealing your stuff has a hard time getting by in life and just needs to make a quick buck for whatever reason.

So what? Alot of people have a hard time, that doesn't mean it's okay to break into someones house.

Minion, you seem that think that criminals are really a bunch of nice guys at heart, that they're simply mis-understood. I don't buy that...

Quote:

The point is, yes, all this stuff happens. But then, a lot of things that we never prepare for are possible. What's the number 1 killer in this country? It's not thieves or rapists; it's heart failure. How many people (espeically in the South) do anything to prevent that? It's just a question of values. These people allegedly care so much about taking care of themselves, but ironically ignore the things that are most likely to kill them, like poor dieting and lack of exercise and smoking.

What are you trying to say here, that all gun owners are fat chain-smokers? LOL...

Quote:

Yeah well, Devolution, I am well aware of the fact that in total numbers, the United States of America has - surprisingly enough - a higher crime rate than the Vatican or Vanuatu... I was talking about the amount of crime per inhabitant, and that's a statistic you guys still rock.

I'd like to see some actual numbers here. I don't think that the US has as high a crime rate per person as what most people seem to think it does...

Quote:

Instead of a background check on a gun buyer, it would sure be nice if there could be a test to determine the buyers dumbass quotion. No, I'm sorry, you are way to stupid to be buying a gun.

I wish there were some sort of "gun education" in public schools. We teach kids how to be safe with sex, but not with guns... whats up with that?

Quote:

Because without guns people basically could not kill each other and would have no desire to do so anyway.

I can only assume that you're joking... crime (including murder) has been around long before firearms...

Quote:

I'm still going by the logic that less guns mean less crime. How can you even refute this?

I can refute that. It's simple. Guns don't cause crime. They are simple objects. Sometimes guns are used in crimes, but they are never the cause of the crime. I'm suprized that more people don't understand this...

Quote:

What kind of a stupid argument is saying that "criminals" will be getting their guns illegally nonetheless!?

Criminals, by definiton, don't obey the law. So what makes you think that they'll obey gun laws?

Quote:

"A gun is a coward's weapon, a liar's weapon. We kill too often because we made it too easy, sparing ourselves the mess and the work."

I believe that you are either justified in killing someone, or you aren't. The weapon that you use is irrelavlent...

Again, I don't understand this line of thought, that it's "honorable" to kill someone with a blade, but "cowardly" to do the same thing with a bullet... the end result is the same, so what differance does it make?

Quote:

Then again, I believe that criminalizing the possession of anything is ridiculous, since it's impossible to determine intent until use. I am, after all, some dumb Libertarian.

I agree, and I'm actually thinking about changing my offical political party to Libertarian myself, LOL...

Quote:

Finally, if you're caught in that situation don't scream "RAPE!" scream "FIRE!!!!" Somebody's more likely to come assist.

I'm not sure if thats true or not, but if it is, it's very sad...

Most amazing jew boots

It is a bad thing. It's bad because kids that have no fucking idea what they're doing sometimes get their hands on guns. There'd be fewer "accidents" if kids were told how to properly handle a firearm...

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

On the subject of killing intruders because they are 'the bad guys': There are degrees to being a bad person or criminal. I think Minion's point is that just because someone will steal (bad), does not mean that they will rape/murder (more bad).

That is correct, however, how is the home owner suposed to be able to sort the semi-bad guys from the really nasty bad guys at 3am in the dark?

Quote:

On the subject of availability of firearms: Yeah, weapons are easily bought illegaly. My argument against this, is that if every joe sixpack didn't buy gun(s), then there would be a whole hell of a lot less made. A whole hell of a lot less stolen/lost/resold illegaly. Those illegaly obtained weapons have to come from somewhere, and they are only made because there is a legal demand for them.

I don't think so. Take weed for example, there is no legal demand for it, but it's still easy to find. Also, prohibition was another example of this. It would be the same with firearms...

Quote:

On the subject of 'guns don't kill people': If you are in a confrontation, and someone pulls a weapon it escalates to situation. What might have been a fist fight turns into a killing.

You are 100% correct. The ONLY time it's okay to "shoot first, ask questions later" is in the event of a home invasion. As I said before, when you're out on the streets, your gun is your very last resort, you don't pull your gun unless you're going to die if you don't shoot. In reality, carrying a gun is only a tiny part of the "self-defense" puzzle. There's alot more to being safe than just having a pistol. Its a good idea to carry things like a cell phone or flashlight. Learning a martial art is also a great idea. I've been practicing TaeKwonDo for a few years now, and I hope that if I ever have to defend myself, I can use my fist instead of my pistol. The problem with relying on the gun alone, is that if your only tool is a hammer, all your problems will start looking like nails...

Quote:

I hear an awful lot of excuses about owning them, maybe instead of excusing the behaviour you might examine for yourself why you 'need' them.

What does 'need' have to do with it? I hear this alot "you don't NEED a gun"...

I hope I never NEED one. However, it is possible that I will one day, and if that day comes I want to be prepared. Also, there are many reasons why I WANT but don't NEED one. Target shooting and hunting mainly. Isn't that enough reason?

Quote:

Also, what other uses for your guns have you found?

I've listed "other uses" already many times in this thread... but here goes:

Hunting
Target Shooting
Collecting
Self Defense

Quote:

Because kids should have access to guns! Okay!

When did I say that? They shouldn't, however the fact of the matter is that sometimes they do, and then bad things happen because they don't know what to do in that kind of situation. I like the way that Bradylama puts it, they need someone to teach them that firearms are NOT toys...

Quote:

And the whole fact that guns don't offer a lot of option on how lethal the force is you use. I mean there's really only one option if things have escalated to the point of gun drawing as you can't really just knock someoen out with one.

Once again I agree. As I said, having a gun is only a small part of being able to protect yourself... if you're only tool is a gun you're very limited in what you can do...

Quote:

I still disagree that it'sa great idea to be gung ho about teaching kids how to use guns, but thetn maybe I have a different idea of what age group 'kids' encompasses.

When I say teach kids about guns, I don't mean take them down to the range and have them fire off a few rounds, I mean teach them the saftey basics like "don't point a gun at people"...

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Collecting isn't a use.

What about other forms of collecting? Like Coin collecting or stamp collecting? Sometimes people just want to have something for a collection, without any intention of acutally "using" it...

Quote:

Funny thing is that more people drive a car then own a gun too, but please keep doing your number spinning...

Actually, you'd be suprised... I think something like 50% of the US population are gun owners...

Quote:

Seriously what other use do they have other than killing? Hunting is killing, target practice is just that, practicing for killinga target. And if, as you say, very few guns are used in violent crimes, the simple fact is they are not being used. Guns can't be used in a non-violent manner.

I dis-agree, but I don't think I'm going to be able to change your mind on this one...

And Gumby, you CAN hunt with a sword. I think I read someplace that in the old days africans would hunt lions with swords as a "right of passage". Basicly, if you can kill a big ass lion with a sword, then you're badass enough to be called a "man", LOL...

Skexis, I think you have the wrong idea. I've said this already, but when I'm talking about "gun ed" I don't mean taking kids out the the range and showing them how to shoot...

I would however like to point out that I've been shooting since I was about 5 or 6, and I didn't turn out to be a violent killer. Therefore I think there is something wrong with your argument...

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I know what you mean about not changing anyone's mind. However, it's still interesting to hear what people have to say. This is an important issue to me, and so I hope that the thread remains open...

I believe that a someones views on this issue say alot about what kind of person they are.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Except that it is common sense, at least intelectually that it would result in people getting hurt less often.

I don't see how it is "common sense". The presance of a firearm is not was causes people to get hurt. It's people who do stupid things with firearms, for example leaving a loaded pistol within reach of a small child...

Quote:

I might also add that "criminals" are usually kept in prisons and don't even have a chance to fire a gun in the first place.

Well, here in the real world, the police don't actually catch all the bad guys. And even when they do, the bad guys don't go off to jail forever, they get let out sooner or later...

Quote:

The shoot-first law in Florida is just creepy… real criminals now have a easy loop hole to jump through to get out of jail time, they can shoot a random person and say that he/she where attacking or threatening them.

Actually it's not a "shoot first" law, it's a "stand your ground" law.

Quote:

The Florida measure says any person "has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."

All that really means is that if you REASONABLY feel someone is about to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself. That doesn't sound so bad to me...

Quote:

I mean, are you nuts? Nearly everyone is a criminal of some kind. Police departments wouldn't be able to get their funding without the guarantee that most people will try to bypass the speed limit. All you're doing is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand regarding which forms of criminality are more icky than others.

Actually, I believe that the word "criminal" refers to people of commit felonys. I don't think of someone who gets a parking ticket as a "criminal"...

Quote:

Cars have an intended nondangerous purpose. And do strings, and knives, and red balloons, and cuckoo clocks. The only nondangerous functions of a gun are "sport shooting" (AKA killing things you probably don't intend to eat, you know, for kicks) and target shooting, which is hard to fathom as anything beyond a kind of frustrated practice for the "real thing". I mean, if you guys really think it's so hot to make holes in things, I have this awesome new invention to show you! It's called the electric drill, and—

I find this whole "cars have a nondangerous purpose" argument laughable. To those of you who are in favor of banning guns: why do you want them banned? I'm sure most of you would say "because they hurt/kill people", and that "fewer people would be hurt/killed if guns were banned". If your goal is to save lives by banning dangerous machines, then logically you MUST be in favor of banning cars. So why arn't you in favor of banning cars? You then use the "you can do things with them that don't involve anyone dying" argument. Again, guns are the same way, there are alot of things you can do with firearms that won't kill anyone. So please explain to me how they are different?

Quote:

How many kids shoot themselves or someone else by accident each year, using a firearm which is owned by their upstanding citizen parent?

Thats exactly why they should teach kids NOT to shoot themselves in schools.

Quote:

That's what I found to be so hilarious in "Bowling For Columbine", you Canadians being armed to the teeth as well but with far less gun related crime. It has to come down to an attitude problem on the (US) Amercians' part, doesen't it?

Why do people assume that the US is such a violent place? I don't believe that we are somehow more violent by nature than people from other nations. I'd still love to see those crime rate numbers... I could be wrong but I have a feeling that the numbers will back me up on this one...

Quote:

I get the feeling you care more about reducing criminal violence figures than actually bringing about a further degree of community safety.

You can't legislate saftey. Either people will be smart (and therefore safe) or they won't. Stupid people can find all sorts of ways to hurt themselves or others, with or without guns.

Quote:

Either that or you're merely pissed you mightn't be able to go quail hunting with an M60 because democracies have this niggly habit of legislating for majorities.

First off, the majority are gun owners (at least in the US).

Secondly, wouldn't you be pissed too if someone told you that you can't have something because you MIGHT do something bad with it? That would be like me saying that you shouldn't be allowed to own a computer, because you might use it pirate movies or music. Nevermind the fact that you've owned computers for X number of years and never done anything illegal with them. You MIGHT do something bad in the future, therefore you have no right to own a computer...

I've been shooting for nearly 20 years now. I've never once shot anyone or held up a bank or anything of the sort. Explain to me how taking away my firearms will make the world a safer place?

Quote:

I don't particularly care myself whether my neighbor owns a gun or not. As long as he doesn't point it at me.

My point exactly. As long as people are responsible with them, why should anyone care if they have guns?

Quote:

To be honest, I don't really see why you need fully automatic weapons for home defense. If you lay down that much firepower, inside of your home, or on your property, there isn't going to be much left assuming you're successful in stopping the intrusion.

I don't recall anyone sujesting the use of a full auto for home defense... thats just plain stupid, as you've pointed out...

Quote:

Dead Horse, how can there be required classes for all prospective and current gun owners if there is no structure with which to know who has, and does not have one? Without any kind of registry, there can be no way to enforce the course you suggest.

Again, all the more reason to have saftey classes in schools...

Quote:

From the eighteenth century. When one of the wonders of the modern world was a shitting mechanical duck. Times change. You don't write with a quill anymore. And you don't need a gun to defend your house from King George.

While technology has changed, human nature has not. I believe that the founders wisdom is just as valid today as it was 200 years ago...

Quote:

My "Times Change" argument is pointed DIRECTLY at the "national defense" argument. It's just stupid. NEWS FLASH: America is the world's greatest superpower and has the world's most powerful military. Individual citizens DO NOT need weapons for national defense.

Actually, I believe on of the reasons that the Japanese didn't invade hawaii or the west coast in WWII was because they knew that the citizens were well armed...

Quote:

As for home defense, well you don't need a gun to protect your home in a country where the government doesn't allow the meth-head who's breaking in to buy a gun.

What if that same meth-head has a knife or bat? And what if I'm a 75 year old granny? Are you saying that a gun wouldn't be a good thing to have in that situation?

Also, the Meth-head is already breaking the law. What makes you think he (or she?) would obey a gun law when they won't obey other laws?

Quote:

The Union which they were creating. Well it has been a long time now and anybody who isn't buying into a dozen conspiracies will tell you that there is no need to arm yourself against the federal government.

I think the goverment is more dangerous now than ever before. The current leadership seems determined to take away as many rights as possible in the name of "protecting" us from terrorists...

Quote:

This is a more complex issue than a show of force. In terms of numbers, we have the army beat. But we're not mobilized, and we're certainly not equipped and trained to try to fight anyone, even if it is on our own ground. Hell, a single tear gas shell into your home and you'd be ready to call it quits.

Not if you have a gas mask

Quote:

Guns are fine. I'm not trying to pry them from your soon to be cold dead fingers. But the argument that you need guns to protect yourself from big brother is ludicrous.

I think I said this before, but I'll say it again: I bet the Jews would have fared better in Nazi Germany had they been armed...

Quote:

Okay, are you comfortable with the idea of practicality? Who's going to feed clothe and supply these one million angry homeowners? Who will lead them? Who will ensure they don't break and scatter at the first sight of a column of U.S. trained troops with a tank at their head?

There are many examples of powerful, organized armys being defeated by untrained locals with guns. Two that come to mind very quickly are the amerian war for independance, and the veitnam war...

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

Stupid people will always be there. The entire point about considering the consequences of gun ownership is to reduce the means they have of amplifying their stupidity. They would have done something stupid yes, but the odds of it being a fatal stupid, would be reduced.

Again, by that logic we should also ban power tools and automobiles...

The reason that we don't is because the VAST majority of people are smart enough and safe enough that it's not really a concern...

Quote:

And I'm not promoting banning guns, only promoting people properly think about things before they do them.

Agreed... thinking is normally a good thing after all.

Quote:

There are a precious few reasons to have a gun. There are piles upon piles of excuses to have them though.

Again, this question of "reason" or "need" pops up. Why should it matter? I want a gun, and I'm not going to do anything dangerous with it, so why should it matter?

Quote:

Also, the issue with the 'stand your ground' law, is that there is are no ground rules as to what is reasonable. It's written in a manner to leave that up to the sole discretion of the court.

I fail to see the problem with that. The whole reason we have trials is to determine if someone is guilty or not. The court will decide if you acted reasonably or if you killed someone in cold blood. This is actualy the way the law works in many states, it's nothing new. I'm suprised that this Florida law was made into such a big deal by the media...

Quote:

Criminals are those who have comited a crime. Just because you don't count some crimes, doesn't make it any less so.

It's not that I personally don't count them. There is a distinction between felonys and lesser crimes that the law makes, not me. If it still bothers you, replace the word "criminal" with "felon"...

Quote:

You can legislate safety, traffic laws would be an example.

Then why do car accidents still happen? Trust me on this one, you can't legislate saftey...

Quote:

People AREN'T responsible with them. Some are, some aren't. It's those that aren't responsible, that are a concern. Just because you may be trusted with a death dealing boomstick, doesn't mean that everyone will make choices as to it's use as well as you have.

Again, the VAST majority of people ARE responsible with them. If you take into accont the number of guns and gun owners in the US, the number of gun accidents or crimes commited with a gun are very low in comparison.

Quote:

Rikimaru, no one is suggesting that your constitution be abandoned. What I personally suggest, is that whenever one consults a source, they should re-examine how appropriate it is today. To quote an old source, or a well respected source is nice, but shouldn't be the end. Otherwise it's blind faith that those that came before know better than those that are here now. Sometimes true, sometimes not.

I'm not Rikimaru, but I would like to say that I trust guys like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, etc... more than I do Bill Clinton or George Bush.

Quote:

Track records? There you go into history which is largely irrelevant.

How is history irrelevant? Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it after all...

Quote:

Because, again, this isn't the XVIIIth century anymore. Guns or no guns, people in democratic nations are not afraid of their governments nor do they have reason to be.

Again, I point to the example of the Nazis...

Quote:

Replace the loaded pistol with a cauliflower sprout and the child isn't in danger now is he? Guns are very dangerous.

What if the poor kid chocked on the cauliflower? Almost anything can be dangerous if used improperly...

Quote:

Semantics. Thanks to that law, it is no longer the judge and jury that decide whether the shooter's life was in danger if he/she pleads "self defense". Now all the shooter has to do is claim that he/she felt his/her life was in danger without any solid reason, e.g. the commission of a felony. In my opinion, that's just completely unacceptable.

Actually it's just the oposite. Now you have to prove to the judge and jury that you acted REASONABLY. If you can't prove that, then you're in deep doo-doo

Quote:

Because their SOLE purpose is to hurt/kill people.

We've been over this one before... I've personally used my firearms many times, but never once have I hurt/killed anyone. Therefore I'd say you need to re-evaluate your thinking on this one...

Quote:

Because none of these "a lot of things you can do with firearms" are necessary parts of life by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, what you do with a car is very much necessary.

I think not. There are plenty of people who get by just fine without a car. Owning a car is far from being a "necessary part of life"...

Quote:

Computers have thousands of uses. Guns are made specifically with the intent of doing harm.

The object itself has nothing to do with intent, only the person using it can have any intention to do anything.

Quote:

And I'd love to see you try to kill somebody with your computer.

It wouldnt' be easy, but I'm sure it's possible... whats your point though?

Quote:

Because the firearms are made to do harm. Because you can very easily accidentally injure/kill someone with them. Because somebody can steal your firearms from your house when you are away and hurt/kill with them. Because neighbourhood children may get a hold of one of your firearms and hurt/kill someone while playing with them.

There are all "what ifs". I can use "what if" arugments for banning just about anything. I can also use "what if" arugments to support almost any position.

I think that, what this whole debate boils down to, is that you personally don't like the idea of me having access to firearms. That isn't enough to convince me that I'm wrong. I'll use the computer example again. If I personally had a problem with you having access to computers, would you care? No, you'd say "I'm not doing anything wrong, therefore you have no right to bitch". It's the same with me and my firearms. I'm not doing anything wrong, so what gives you the right to take them away from me? If you can somehow convince me that the world would be a better place if I didn't have any firearms, I'd change my stance on this issue.

Quote:

So I suppose you could at least admit that there's no point for a private citizen to own a fully automatic weapon, then? And no I wouldn't take that as your stance slipping.

I have no problem with private citizens owning full autos. I personally don't want one, but I can see why someone else might. After all, they're really cool, and alot of fun...

Quote:

And you have nothing to back it up, so it remains just that: a belief.

Actually, I read an article about this once, I just can't find the source. It was a well-know Japanese millitary leader, I forget who exactly (Admiril Yamamoto maybe?) who said that they wouldn't be able to occupy the US because there would be "a rifle behind every bush" or something like that...

Quote:

How many 75 year old grannies do you know who are gun owners?

2

Quote:

If the Meth-head has a gun, then for crying out loud don't put up a fight. You'll only get your dumb ass shot.

Not if you shoot them first. Besides, what if their intention is to kill you anyway?

Quote:

The government will be replaced in two years, so keep your safety on.

True, but how do we know that it will be an improvement? Maybe in 2 years we'll be even worse off... what if Hillary becomes the next president?

Quote:

That's an interesting bit of "what if".

Hey, if your arguments are based on "what ifs", then mine can be too

Quote:

See, the problem I'm having with this argument is the concept of a "law-abiding citizen". I've already elaborated on it in this thread. There's no common definition of a "law-abiding citizen" and nobody can tell a criminal from a law-abiding citizen before they have actually committed a crime.

So people should be considered guilty untill proven innocent? I thought it was suposed to be the other way around...

Quote:

I don't know how you feel about this, but I just couldn't entrust a person with a gun just because they claim to be "law-abiding citizens". There is no scientific way to even prove this, so you're basically argueing to trust random with deadly weapons.

I know the car example is being used alot, but I'll use it once again: You trust random people with cars, why not guns? Cars kill more people than guns do after all...

Quote:

As an example, I wouldn't want to live in a neighbourhood with the thought of guns being stored in every household - no matter how peaceful and trustful this neighbourhood might be.

You guys say that us pro second amendment types are paranoid...

Quote:

Maybe it's just a matter of trust and I don't feel like taking unnecessary risks.

Life is about taking risks. You take a risk just by getting out of bed each morning. You take a risk every time you step out side...

Quote:

No. You have been shown the reasons and you refuse to accept any of them.

And what reasons might those be? Because they make you feel uncomfortable? Thats not much of a reason if you ask me...

Quote:

Does it not strike you as even remotely possible that others do not act as responsibly and downright awesome as yourself or the other gun owners in this thread?

Of course there are some people out there who really shouldn't have access to firearms. However, they are in a very small minority. Again, if you look at the number of accidents compared to the number of guns, it's a very small precentage...

Quote:

Australia initiated a voluntary gun buy-back program, and as a result, in only one year, gun-related crime and death stats dropped significantly.

I think someone else has already said this, but here in the US crime rates dropped as well, without any change in gun laws. Therefore I'd argue that it wasn't nessisarily the buy-back program that caused Australia's drop in crime...

Jam it back in, in the dark.

whoa... I hadn't really noticed, but you're right, I went overboard with the quotes there...

I'll keep the quotes to a minimum this time...

Quote:

That is all I wanted to hear. You notice it took eight (8!) pages before someone in the pro firearm camp admited that the availability of firearms does present a risk, however minor.

My argument hasn't changed. Not once did I say EVERYONE should have a gun. People who have been convicted of felonys for example should not be permitted to own firearms (and they aren't). And there are some people who are just too stupid to use one safely. You can't really weed out the stupid ones though, so that will always be a "risk" as you put it. However, this risk is very small compared to the overall population.

Quote:

Could you stop trying to discount foreign sensibility with bullshit arguments and irrelevant US statistics?

Australian statistics are ok, but US statistics are irrelevant? Why is that?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Oregonians Unite!

We're the best state in the union, because we don't have sales tax, and we don't have to pump our own gas

Anyways, I finally found some info. It would seem that the per-capita crime rate in the US isn't as high as it is in the UK, however the actual homicide rate is higher here. So you're less likely to be the victum of crime in general in the US, but if you are one of those few, you're more likely to die. I found this very interesting...

Quote:

I have to admit, though, that comparing these numbers isn't the ultimate solution. It's been pointed out that there are countries with widespread gun ownership and incredibly low firearm homicide rates (Switzerland, Norway).

I feel we are actually close to some sort of compromise on this issue... at the very least the two sides seem to be considering the others point of view. This must be a first for PP...

Quote:

Stricter gun control isn't the same thing as forbidding any citizen to own a gun, ever.

True. I don't have a problem with things like background checks for example. What concerns me is that one day the goverment might come knocking on my door and demand I turn over my firearms... and that is what some of you are proposing...

Bradylama, I think you're confusing the brady bill with the AWB (assualt weapon ban)

Quote:

I'd rather have the infinitessimal drop in guaranteedness of my freedoms than the burden of responsibility of owning a firearm, thanks.

No one is trying to force that responsiblity upon you. As for the proof you're looking for, I posted links to the FBI website showing crime rates at an all time low. You should read the thread before you assume that we're just making stuff up.

Edit: oops I missed your most recent post there. Seems that you found the numbers you were looking for, so nevermind.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Well, the beauty of freedoms and rights is that you don't have to excercize them. What you're really looking for is a false sense of security stemming from the lack of trust in your neighbors.

Exactly...

But then again, the same could be said of the pro-gun side... just replace the word "neighbor" with "goverment"...

Quote:

The idea of the bill is to crack down on gun show salesmen who sell off their merchandise without going through the proper channels. If the firearm gets tied back to Mountain Joe at the Farris County Gun Show, he should be held accountable for any crimes commited with said weapon.

This is why I am very much in favor of laws that will help keep guns out of the hands of the "bad guys". I'm just opposed to laws that would also keep them out of the hands of upstanding citizens...

Quote:

I think it's ironic that the argument that anti-gun control people are using is that they need their guns for protection when the lack of gun control is what is causing the need for protection in the first place.

It's not just about protecting yourself from gun-toting crooks. I'd still use a gun if someone came at with with a knife or bat. And don't forget the big, bad goverment...

Also, it's about fun. I enjoy hunting and target shooting, and see no reason why I shouldn't be able to continue to do so...

How ya doing, buddy?