Guns

maillemaker

Your logic is seriously flawed. Obviously it makes you feel more comfortable to have the gun, but there's no logic behind that feeling. I'm not saying you're wrong to feel that way, because emotions aren't about right or wrong- but the fact is that not only is there a huge different between a gun and all those other tools you listed, there is also a much greater chance that your gun will be used to harm you or someone you care about than that it will be used to protect anyone. These are the facts.

But many people are willing to take on the risks associated with firearm ownership so that they can be prepared for the eventuality that they might need one.

I'm far more likely to be killed or injured in a car accident than I am from firearms. Yet I still see the benefits of owning and driving a car as an acceptable tradeoff.

Also you can mitigate many of the risks of owning a firearm through safe storage.

dbmata

We weak are at the mercy of the strong.

... and that is exactly how many like it to be. Anyone who wants to control your access to gun ownership is one of those many.

twinketta

Can I give you a whole different scenario?

Here in the UK guns are outlawed, we are not sold them, they are not for sale, unless you are in with a `bad crowd` where you may be able to source them for bank robberies, shooting security guards, or just some sort of gang warfare.

If your neighbor or a stranger got into a fight, let us suggest they did not have a gun and you did not have a gun, how would you settle it?

I totally understand that people want to be one step ahead with weapons, but how far will it go for personal protection?

But then we'd have to ask how frequently a fight in the US resorted to weapons and / or gunfire. Some fights stop at shouting. Some stop at punching and kicking. Some go on a tangent towards destruction of property.

Not every fight leads to guns, even if they're present, and there are very particular circumstances that must be met for someone to legally introduce deadly force into a fight.

Of course, not every fight does not need to involve a gun. Which, is the point I am trying to get across.

SpeSHul_SnoflEHk

Only in some states you can open carry. Most pics you see are of people in their backyard or at a range.

You're safe coming to the Maryland/DC area, we can't open carry.

LOL!!!!
Yeah, there are NEVER any shootings in DC.

Chicago too. I've seen articles that I can't verify their authenticity of the facts that say teh gun related homicide rate in Chicago has increased since the ban on guns.

Actually, I believe it is a fairly well accepted fact that the gun-related homicide rate in Chicago has gone up in recent years because they closed the huge housing projects and moved all the residents throughout the city. As a result, a whole bunch of gang-bangers moved out into other gangs territories.
Has nothing to do with the ban on guns. How would that work anyway? It makes absolutely no sense to suggest that.
On the contrary, the fact that guns are in the hands of gang-bangers and crazies is probably due to the fact that guns are readily available, at shows, at sport shops, etc. It is not too hard to find a gun when there are that many around. Currently, one-third of households have a gun. It used to be 50 percent. Most of those people are law abiding. But, what happens when they do not want it anymore? Or they forget it someplace? Or they dispose of it inadequately?
Guns do not just disappear, and if tens of thousands are being sold every few months . . .ban in one city or no ban.

That was part of my point. The fact that these are gun related deaths and there is a gun ban. The guns still make it in. I wasn't saying the gun ban caused the increase in gun crime. Just that it is a very unenforcable law without banning guns everywhere.

maillemaker

I'd love to hear how our right to bear arms is being eroded away. Nobody can ever tell me. In the past 6 years gun rights have actually INCREASED in this country. Seriously. Look it up. This thing about our rights being eroded away? Sure, it's happening- there's the Patriot Act, and Citizens United, and the gutting of the voting act, and a hundred more I could name- but gun rights? No, those are actually increasing. Not even kidding. I dare you to prove me wrong.

OK: New York and Colorado, have both had serious reverses in the right to keep and bear arms. You can google the details.

Yes, we have enjoyed many successes in the right to keep and bear arms over the last 20 years. Now every state in the Union permits concealed carry. But you have not been paying attention if you don't think there was not a big change after Newtown.

dbmata

I almost threw up on her floor because I was so freaked out even being in the same room as a gun. :frown: I'm sure I'm in the same room as guns all the time but they're concealed so I just don't think about it.

Are you prone to fits of drama?

BeachIron

Can I give you a whole different scenario?

Here in the UK guns are outlawed, we are not sold them, they are not for sale, unless you are in with a `bad crowd` where you may be able to source them for bank robberies, shooting security guards, or just some sort of gang warfare.

If your neighbor or a stranger got into a fight, let us suggest they did not have a gun and you did not have a gun, how would you settle it?

I totally understand that people want to be one step ahead with weapons, but how far will it go for personal protection?

But then we'd have to ask how frequently a fight in the US resorted to weapons and / or gunfire. Some fights stop at shouting. Some stop at punching and kicking. Some go on a tangent towards destruction of property.

Not every fight leads to guns, even if they're present, and there are very particular circumstances that must be met for someone to legally introduce deadly force into a fight.

Of course, not every fight does not need to involve a gun. Which, is the point I am trying to get across.

So you have a flair for the obvious? Haven't a clue about the subject matter but enjoy an occasional non sequitur?

dbmata

No one has mentioned that shooting is fun. And it's a lot harder to hit the target than a non-shooter thinks it is.

It's a lot like golf in that respect. Until you try to send that ball to the pin, yourself, it's difficult to understand what it's like.

pfffft. I only play GTA and Black Ops and I'm lethal out to 3km, which is like what... 45 feet american, right?

You realize they are just games right?

A real gun is a lethal weapon and it can kill real people

You realize you answered a honey pot, right?

calibriintx

I am not scared enough to feel that I require a gun.

Right!? Why would I ever need a gun, other than a hunting riffle if I hunted, I just don't get the point of owning guns(other than hunting riffles). It must be the Canadian in me

Generally, the response from many permitholders is that they're not scared, either.

Some are. I can't deny that.

But there are many who simply look around, see that there are potential threats, and simply wish to have a means of dealing with them on the off-chance one of those threats presents itself.

It's the same reason I have a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit with Quik Clot and a tourniquet in my car. I'm not EXPECTING to get into or pass by a major accident, but I know they happen. So I like to think that if my or someone elses' car catches fire, I've got the extinguisher. If there's an accident where someone's bleeding severely, I've got equipment to help deal with it.

So are the odds of me facing a deadly threat great? Not really. I tend to avoid high-threat environments. But I think I can speak for the majority of us when I say that, if we knew we were going to be attacked at a given time and place, we'd avoid it.

i try to stay out of politics on here, but i will say the following for those that do not understand why Americans feel strongly about gun rights.

the American Revolution started when King George III sent his troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the arms of the citizenry (militia). he sent his armed surrogates (soldiers of the British army) to disarm the colonists so that he could impose his political will on them through force. that's why the founding fathers enshrined the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights. it's not about hunting. it's not about sport. it's not even about self-defense against criminals... it's about an armed citizenry being the only thing that stands between foreign or domestic tyranny and freedom. that's why gun control laws are ultimately viewed by the majority of Americans as an assault on their freedoms and that's why so many of those outside of the USA do not and cannot understand our mindset.

While true, though simplified, you must also know that this right to bear arms in a regulated militia also requires members of this militia to fall under the command of the President in Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the Constitution. Also, that the reason that militias were included in the Constitution was because of an understandable distrust of standing armies during peacetime. When the Second Amendment was finally ratified, it still contained the right to bear arms within the context of a militia. Therefore, your write to bear arms is actually in order to be of service of your state's governor and then the Federal government.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller case decide otherwise? Heller ruling established that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

So despite what you, or I or anyone else thinks the framers intended, ^that is the current interpretation, no?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

maillemaker

While true, though simplified, you must also know that this right to bear arms in a regulated militia also requires members of this militia to fall under the command of the President in Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the Constitution. Also, that the reason that militias were included in the Constitution was because of an understandable distrust of standing armies during peacetime. When the Second Amendment was finally ratified, it still contained the right to bear arms within the context of a militia. Therefore, your write to bear arms is actually in order to be of service of your state's governor and then the Federal government.

All of this is absolutely true, though functionally irrelevant, which is why the Supreme Court has ruled that you do not have to belong to a militia right now in order to keep and bear arms.

Militias were not a permanent fixture. They were called up when needed. So you would keep and bear an arm suitable for military use in the infantry so that when and if you were called up, you could respond.

The second amendment simply says that the people have the right, to keep and bear military-grade small arms suitable for infantry use so that the people can serve as troops in an emergency. It does not say that you have to be active in the militia right now in order to keep and bear arms so that you can serve in the militia tomorrow, if necessary.

exmsde

First of all, hobbies are hobbies.

You rarely see a gun in public unless the person is a law enforcement officer, or military.

Or its hunting season. Or you are at a range. Or if you want to swing by my place on Sunday my wife wants to do some shooting. We haven't decided if we're shooting steel targets with a handgun or clay targets with a shotgun, but I assure you lead will fly.

As others have said, guns are tools. Fear of guns is a phobia. Respect for guns, like respect for other dangerous tools, is just common sense. Personally, I am far more scared of chain saws or a hundred other common items then I am of guns.

dirty_dirty_eater

dcarr67

I am 100% for our right to bare arms. I find it funny I was warned about starting a thread about the government shutdown yet this one is ok.

Gun laws only restrict law abiding citizens right to defend themselves. Criminals do not follow the law, hence the name. If a crazed idiot wants to murder innocent people, they will find a way. It is the person not the gun!!!

maillemaker

If your neighbor or a stranger got into a fight, let us suggest they did not have a gun and you did not have a gun, how would you settle it?

I totally understand that people want to be one step ahead with weapons, but how far will it go for personal protection?

There is no doubt that if you can effectively remove guns, then gun crime goes down. Australia did this - they banned the guns and then paid people to turn them in, so most people did.

The trade off is that now any victim of any other kind of violence is at the mercy of anyone stronger than they are.

I don't think that is an acceptable trade off.

BeachIron

I am not scared enough to feel that I require a gun.

Right!? Why would I ever need a gun, other than a hunting riffle if I hunted, I just don't get the point of owning guns(other than hunting riffles). It must be the Canadian in me

Generally, the response from many permitholders is that they're not scared, either.

Some are. I can't deny that.

But there are many who simply look around, see that there are potential threats, and simply wish to have a means of dealing with them on the off-chance one of those threats presents itself.

It's the same reason I have a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit with Quik Clot and a tourniquet in my car. I'm not EXPECTING to get into or pass by a major accident, but I know they happen. So I like to think that if my or someone elses' car catches fire, I've got the extinguisher. If there's an accident where someone's bleeding severely, I've got equipment to help deal with it.

So are the odds of me facing a deadly threat great? Not really. I tend to avoid high-threat environments. But I think I can speak for the majority of us when I say that, if we knew we were going to be attacked at a given time and place, we'd avoid it.

i try to stay out of politics on here, but i will say the following for those that do not understand why Americans feel strongly about gun rights.

the American Revolution started when King George III sent his troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the arms of the citizenry (militia). he sent his armed surrogates (soldiers of the British army) to disarm the colonists so that he could impose his political will on them through force. that's why the founding fathers enshrined the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights. it's not about hunting. it's not about sport. it's not even about self-defense against criminals... it's about an armed citizenry being the only thing that stands between foreign or domestic tyranny and freedom. that's why gun control laws are ultimately viewed by the majority of Americans as an assault on their freedoms and that's why so many of those outside of the USA do not and cannot understand our mindset.

While true, though simplified, you must also know that this right to bear arms in a regulated militia also requires members of this militia to fall under the command of the President in Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the Constitution. Also, that the reason that militias were included in the Constitution was because of an understandable distrust of standing armies during peacetime. When the Second Amendment was finally ratified, it still contained the right to bear arms within the context of a militia. Therefore, your write to bear arms is actually in order to be of service of your state's governor and then the Federal government.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller case decide otherwise? Heller ruling established that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

So despite what you, or I or anyone else thinks the framers intended, ^that is the current interpretation, no?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Hey!!! Look at that. A SCOTUS ruling cited in a discussion about the Constitution. *mind blown*

CookNLift

why argue. just shoot at each other and get it over with.

Alluminati

I am 100% for our right to bare arms. I find it funny I was warned about starting a thread about the government shutdown yet this one is ok.

Gun laws only restrict law abiding citizens right to defend themselves. Criminals do not follow the law, hence the name. If a crazed idiot wants to murder innocent people, they will find a way. It is the person not the gun!!!

Don't worry. Someone will fire a shot and the thread will be shut down. Surprised it's still up, actually.

Pun intended.

dbmata

Militias were not a permanent fixture. They were called up when needed. So you would keep and bear an arm suitable for military use in the infantry so that when and if you were called up, you could respond.

That's true, then add in the fact that all males are required to register for the selective service from the age of 18 to 25, which is an unregulated militia, and a lot of the arguments are torn asunder, if it weren't for the Heller case that disconnected militia need from 2nd amendment ownership and use of common use arms. (Read in: Military "type/grade")

csuhar

[While true, though simplified, you must also know that this right to bear arms in a regulated militia also requires members of this militia to fall under the command of the President in Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the Constitution. Also, that the reason that militias were included in the Constitution was because of an understandable distrust of standing armies during peacetime. When the Second Amendment was finally ratified, it still contained the right to bear arms within the context of a militia. Therefore, your write to bear arms is actually in order to be of service of your state's governor and then the Federal government.

In a sense, it could be argued the 2nd Amendment does a lot to legitimize the secession of the Confederate states and their armed opposition to the Federal government (Fort Sumter).

Something that tends to be missed is the point that, when the Constituion was drafted, a lot of people really saw the "United States" as something more like the United Nations- an assembly where you came together for various benefits but had a notional right to leave if that association. After all, when we call a froeign individual a "Head of State", we're talking about the head of a country. So, many saw the United States as a group of independent governments that came together for the greater good. They didnt' have the mindset of the "United States" as ONE, SINGLE, MONOLITHIC country.

The Bill of Rights was actually an important player in the Constitution being ratified because there were a number of anti-federalists who were worried the federal government would be too strong or abuse its powers. So the Bill of Rights was drafted and tacked onto it as something of an assurance so that these individuals would sign. Additionally, this was a time where every able-bodied man was expected to participate in the militia as well as own his own firearms.

Then, when 1860 came around, the states that eventually formed the Confedracy said "the federal government that governs this assembly is making laws and acting in a way we don't like, so we're leaving". They formed their militias, which the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution said were "necessary to the security of a free State", and over the next few years, fought the Union, whose argument was "no, you can't leave because we're all one country". It was the Union victory at the end of the war that solidified the idea that, while the word "state" might refer to an independent country, the states that made up the "United States" were not truly independent, but rather subdivisions of a single country under the federal government.

GTAFrank

I am 100% for our right to bare arms. I find it funny I was warned about starting a thread about the government shutdown yet this one is ok.

Gun laws only restrict law abiding citizens right to defend themselves. Criminals do not follow the law, hence the name. If a crazed idiot wants to murder innocent people, they will find a way. It is the person not the gun!!!

Don't worry. Someone will fire a shot and the thread will be shut down. Surprised it's still up, actually.

Pun intended.

Yep we are on borrowed time here.