Gun rights/control/ownership

[TikindiDragon]

Collectors?

Deactivated. Display pieces for a collection do not need to be able to fire. You can own an assualt rifle in the UK if you have the paperwork to prove it's been properly deactivated, and can never again be used to fire live rounds.

[Red2111]

Again, that only works if the attacker thinks you'll use it, or doesn't want to be shot.

 

if you point a gun at someone, then you better be willing to use it and deal with the consequences both mentally and phsycially.

 

law abiding citizens own guns for two things, hunting/recreational activities and personal protection. your law abiding citizen is not goign to go around, pointing their gun at people and showing off, they'll only point the gun at someone if they feel threatened. discounting ofcourse crimes of passion, where judgement is overshadowed by a 'black out' to to extreme emotional diress. in which cases, depending on circumstances the person has been either convicted of their crime or absolved. and if you count instances of "crimes of passion" then you must equally recognize that these account for less than 10% of gun violence committed by law abiding citizens.

 

as i state, a law abiding citizen is only goign to point a gun at a person in an attempt to defend themselves (which is allowed by law) and when they intend to use it to prevent harm to themselves and/or their family as they know the weight of the decision and know that thise weapon is designed to take life, be it human or animal and care about the consequences of their actions.

 

 

 

It won't do anything for you if your attacker doesn't care if they're shot.  It also doesn't do anything for you if they decide to chance that you won't shoot.

 

and how many people do you know of that dont care about being shot?

 

as for if they decide you wont shoot, as i stated previously, the only reason a law abiding citizen poits a gun at a person in the first place is if they do intend to shoot to save their lives.

 

 

 

And if they have a gun...  Well, then you're both in the same position--you both have the means to injure or kill each other, it just comes down to who gets to do it first.

 

sure, but criminals are often cowards, this is why Burglaries happen when the home owner is not at home.

 

"Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]."

 

source - http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

 

 

the criminal wants the most rewards with the least amount of risk, they dont want to get shot. if faced with a "Mexican Stand-off" scenario, likely they will back away and only shoot if they see signs of agresson from you, the same signs that you look for in them (forward movement, ect). in most cases, seeing that they are dealing with an aremed citizen on equal footing rather than a helpless victim, they'll run because the rewards do not out weight the risks.

 

 

 

I wonder, though.  What good is a gun without the conviction to use it?  Using it merely as a deterrent can be good, yes.  But if your attacker is counting on you only planning to use it as a deterrent?  What then?

 

are you really arguing that, given the fact most criminals choose to pray on the weak; the fact that you are armed is a deterrent in itself.

 

let me ask you, if you were intent at robbing a person, but foudn out that they were armed woudl you still consider robbing them? if you borke into a home, and were faced witht he wrong end of a gun, would you continue into the house or try to escape the situation? if a person points a gun at you, are you goign to second guess whether they will use it; especially if yoru actiosn have them feeling backed into a corner?

 

as i stated, when your faced with a home invasion, which is different than a burglary. if a person commits a home invasion (breaks into a house while the home is occupied) you know that the criminal does intend you harm and therefore when you point that gun at them you do so with the intent to use as a means of protecting yourself.

 

 

 

If you plan to use it to attempt to intimidate your attacker, you have to be ready to make use of it for real.

 

and majority of law abiding citizens that do, are! otherwise they wouldn't draw the gun in the first place.

 

thsi isn't a wife pointing a gun at her abusive husband, this is a would be victim pointing a gun at a stranger that intends them or their children or their siginificant other harm.

 

when you pull a gun on an intruder the hope is that the gun is enough to intimidate them, but the actions itself indicates you are willing to pull that trigger to save your own life.

 

 

 

And, again, it also depends on the attacker.  What if they're counting on their victim hurting or killing them, such as those who try the "suicide by cop" routine?  Such a person won't care if they can get gunned down by other civvies before they finish their crime.

 

valid point, but in turn i ask. should my rights be infringed upon because we are not properly treating the mentally ill or dealing with the criminally insane?

 

why should someone elses lack of personal responsability inifringe on my god given rights? thsi is what i mean by sacrificing freedoms for security, and this is not a good practice to get into.

 

most people who committ violent crimes are also avid video game players; especially in the case of childdren and young adults. yet they only account for a small population of video game players. does this mean that i should give up my video games (as there have been crys for outlawing video games because of this) because parents aren't doing their job or becuase a person does not know the difference between fantasy and reality?

 

in your specific case, isn'tt he underlaying issue not that guns are invovled, but that a mentally ill perosn is not recieving the proper treatement they need?

 

 

 

 

And, just since you said you didn't read the entire thread--I'm not anti-gun.

 

i never stated you were. i'm not 100% pro-gun even though atm that is how i'm argueing. you rarley get a person that is 100% on any given issue.

 

 

 

I'm all for more restrictions and making people who own guns have continued checkups to ensure that they're mentally fit to continue owning their guns--and a way to remove their guns if they are no longer mentally stable enough to maintain them.

 

majority of States require steps to be taken before you can purchase a gun for a legal dealer; almost all of these States which have this requirement bar felons, mental illness, restraining orders, violent offenses, and alchol abuse as reasons to decline obtaining a gun.

 

imo, we shoudl instead examine the regulations currently in place in states and make a blanket federal regulation that requires key things we can all agree on. Background checks, waiting periods, disqualifications, saftey classes, ect. lets focus on usign the regulation already inplace and see if properly enforcing it works before we jump to increasing the regulation and issuing bans on certain weapons.

 

 

to the underlined - this is a slippery slope that needs to be addressed. the fear in this comes from future abuse in the law and the government using it as a back door means to attack the 2nd amendment. right now you suggest Metal illness as a reason for taking away a persons guns, first i ask what sort of mental illness are you referring to? depression? schzophrenia? psychosis? ADHD? there are millions of mental illness disorders, some harmless other not so much. how do we prevent the line from being stretched from psychosis to a harmless mental disorder like ADHD?

 

if you think ADHD shoudl be included, have you considered exactly how many people are diagnosed with this each year, you speak of mental illness, but do you also realize how many people are improperly diagnosed with illnesses each year. take me for instance, i was a hyper child that grew up in the 90's, where the fad in schools was started to "just say the kid is ADD, and shove a pill down their throat to make our job easier." i was one of the millions of children inncorrectly diagnosed, by my school, with this disorder. you may say "that was so long ago, what baring does it have on you now?"

 

i was mis diagnosed and forced on medicine (against my moms wishes i might add) at 7 years of age. when i turned 18, i went to enlist in the Navy and had to get a waiver from my doctor stating i was and had not been on ADD medicine for over 10 years.

 

 

which brings up another point, who gets to say a person is mentally ill? you are denying a person their constitutional based on factors, who then do we put in charge of deciding a perosn is denied? what do they use as their basis of judgement? many conservatives consider liberalism to be a mental disorder (and vice versus), how do we stop biasedness like this from leaking into a serious matter liek this?

 

furhter more, how do we prevent the list of exclusions from beign too discrimniatory to where they are used as a defacto gun ban and for furthering a political agenda. this fear i speak of is based in the actions of Nazi Germany and other historical referances where gun control and rights were used to disqualify an entire demograph of people whcih subsequently lead to genocide. it is an extreme fear, but a valid one to consider when talking abtou the removal of rights; laws have far reaching and unintended consequences and imo are often used in ways they originally were not devised for and as a means of control.

 

 

 

I'm not, however, for banning guns, nor am I for taking them away from fit, stable, law-abiding citizens because there are situations where guns do good.

 

but the point is, how do you prevent legislation which allows from gun removal to be applied to "fit, stable, law abiding citizens"?

 

you say you are nto for banning guns, yet a passing gun ban legislation s exactly what our politicans are currently discussing in Washington.

 

 

I just want to point out that guns are not a guarantee, and that there are many more factors than just "does the victim have a gun" that go into determining the outcome of any incident.  A lot of times I've seen pro-gun people simplify it to "if you have a gun, you're golden if you don't you're screwed", which simply is not a universal rule.

 

what do you mean by "guns are not a guarentee"?

 

are you talking about the right to bear arms? which i argue that SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) disagrees with you on this currently

 

whether they will always be present in society? which again i argue agaisnt this on the basis that gun will never go away, only be improved upon. prohibition agaisnt guns will work abotu as well as prohibition of Alcohol in the 20's did.

 

 

or whether they will always be a protection agaisnt violence? this i can agree with. just because you have a gun does not mean your "golden" as you said. this is why i all it a deterrent. its a tool used to deter crime from happening, not to stop crime. and it has been proven that armed citizens = decrease in crime rate; that crime rises when you take guns from law abiding citizens. and that it works at a faster rate and with better results than increased gun control. for me, its not about "what will stop the violence" becuase violence is human nature, you will never remove this aspect of human nature. for me, its more about what does more to postively change the situaiton in the long term and short term with the least amount of restrictions to my personal liberties.

 

 

 

I, also, am for much tighter regulation and not an outright ban. I will also note, Red, that you seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that everyone that thinks current policy needs changing wants an outright ban.

 

by saying "much tighter reg" you are implying that you want to change the current policy.

 

for me, like most, i agree that change is needed. but adding MORE gun control to what already exists is not the asnwer; yet this is the steps weare seeing taken in Washington by our repersentatives.

 

 

That said I admit that I don't think people should be carrying guns around with them on a daily basis,

 

yet there is research that show the increase of carry and conceal and carry permits havign a direct correlation in decreased crime and violence over many seperate areas.

 

 

and I also don't see a reasonable use for a handgun unless you belong to a pistol shooting club.

 

personal protection. while yo may personally not agree with it, it stands that Constitutionally we have a right to own a hand gun under our 2nd Amendment.

 

 

I can see no reason, whatsoever, for a civilian to own an assault rifle.

 

and yet the term Assault Rife, was made up by congress to allow for villifying certain guns to allow for illegalization of them (same with what teh gov did to weed when it passed legislation outlawing the drug).

 

you say no reason for a citizen to own an assualt rifle, i say whats to stop cognress from eventually calling ALL guns assault weapons to issue a defacto "gun ban"

 

 

 

I will note that the UK actually requires proof of 'reasonable use' before it issues a firearms liscence. This can include membership of a shooting club, a hunters permit, or employment where a gun is essential (including game keepers and, I believe, farmers).

 

yet the real threat within gov exists in the openended-ness of the term "reasonable use". right now, being a farmer or hunter maybe termed "reasonable use" in 20 years it may not be seen as "reasonable use"

 

 

I can see something similar benefiting people in the US - for instance registering at a gun club would show that you have undertaken some training in the use and safety of the weapon, and actually practise firing it.

 

why not just require safter certification instead of registering to a organization? after all, to practice firing in a shooting range, you dont have to be a member of a shooting club.

 

 

The countries with high-ownership but low gun crime are those where almost everyone undergoes military service - I'm not suggesting that for the US, but if everyone had to be a member of a club, and demonstrate a base level of proficiency, then I can only see that being beneficial.

 

i'm gonna as for proof on this. because i would argue

 

the USA has the guns per capita in the world. and out of the Countries which require Compulsionary Military Service two sites i have show 2 or more of thsoe countries as having a higher Gun Murder rate per capita Link #1 and Link #2

 

which says seeing how many more guns America owns per capita than other nations.

 

 

 

Likewise liscences are only issued in the UK once the police (who are the ones who issue the liscence) have been to your property to check you have safe storage for the firearm. The CT shootings may not have happened if the man involved had not been able to access his mother's guns - for instance if they were kept in a locked cabinet to which she was the sole key-holder (or with a combination lock only she knew the code to).

 

gun safes are good, i agree, but their not 100% pervention from preventing people of stealing guns. Safes can be broken into, keys can be stolen, finger can be cut off and used by the criminal.

 

i'm not arguing agaisnt proper gun storage, i agree that it shodul be required. i argue against the belief that proper gun storage will prevent crimes. accidental deaths, like this, is what proper gun storage is aimed after. and there are laws that exist in regaurds to this in most States. not to mention, of parents take those steps here in the states anyways because of instances like the linked article.

 

 

Or if, for example, the ammunition had been kept locked away seperate from the guns (assuming that one weanted to leave the unloaded guns available as a deterrant for intruders).

 

you are basically saying stuff that is already required by of States in concerns with gun storage. i suggesst you research before continueing on this opinon so you are better educated on the subject ad before you continue to use these points to justify increased gun regulation. i understand that you like in the UK, but this topic is centered around US gun control.

 

please note, i'm not being snarky, just offering up a suggesting that you might find both helpful and illuminating. i find that of peopel who dont live in the USA are very ignorant of the current regualtion and safety requirements that already exist in the USA.

 

 

Ammunition in the UK can only be purchased on production of the firearms liscence, and the type and quantity a person is allowed will be noted on said liscence. This would make it difficult to impossible for someone like the CT shooter to have bought ammunition for an unloaded gun, even had he been able to lay his hands on that gun in the first place.

 

restricting the freedom to purchase objects in the event that they might be used in a crime is not a good road to head down nor will i stand behind it.

 

you keep citing the CT shooter, if memory serves it was also foudn that this individual (liek most mass shooters) was mentlaly disturbed. woudlnt' the better focus and the real issue here be that, liek the Colorado Movie Theater shooting and the Conneticut School Shooting) had these peopel gotten the proper treatment for their mental illness they liekly woudl have never felt the impulse to commit the crime they did.

 

my point is you continue to focus on treating the sympotoms (ie: the weapon used) rather than treating the disease causeing the symptoms (ie: the human element)

 

 

Finally (and something that some states - I'm looking at you South Carolina! - are currently attempting to take *backwards* steps on) is keeping all guns registered.

 

are you talking abotu private citizen registration or gun dealer registration. because in order to be a Licensed Firearms dealer in the USA you must obtain an FFL (Federal Firearms Liscense) if you sell over a certain amount of weapons per year or manufacture weapons and ammo within the USA. this is a Federal Requirement enacted under the "Gun Control Act of 1986"

 

so all LEGALLY obtained guns ARE registered because manufactures and arms dealers are required by federal law to register them.

 

 

 

With a serial number, to the person in legal posession of them. This makes all legal guns fully traceable - from manufacture/import, through sale to owner.

 

and again i point out that this is already a requirement under the FFL; including the fact that licensed dealers must retain thier records for atleast 20 years after the sale.

 

what this doesnt protet agaisn tis the private dealer sales of fire arms; for instance you put your AR-15 in the local newspaper for sale or you own a private collection and sell from that. (basiclaly the equivalent of 'Yard Sales')

 

this i agree is a problem and imo is just a fancy name for "black market dealers".

 

i agree that only those that carry FFL's should be allowed to sell guns, and that if an individual wishes to sell their firearm, they should do so only to a liscened dealer. with one caviate, transfer of ownership of a weapon should be allowed (much akin to how you transfer the ownership of a car).

 

 

 

 

It would highlight legitimate dealers that haven't been following procedure, and it would mean the police only had to check a database to find out if a gun was legal, and if so who it was registered to and where it was purchased.

 

unless the serial number is scratched off, which is the case with of guns that are illeglaly obtained via theft.

 

 

I do not want to take everyones guns away. I'm a strong supporter of the hunting community here in the UK (note - not actually a popular position outside of rural areas). But the US *does* have some major issues with firearms, and that can only be begun to be adressed with tighter regulations - on who can own them, how they need to store them, and how guns are registered.

 

and your basing your judgemetn on 1 state out of fifty and applying that judgement to ALL 50 states.

 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/statel...ring_system.pdf

 

brady campaign (though in some things is too restrictive while in others is right on the nose) has a score card rating all 50 states on their gun control. Cali scored 81/100.

 

one interesting thing to do, take the states with the highest "Brady Rating" and compare them to which states have the highest gun crime violence. just an interesting correlation to once again back up my assertion that gun control =/= increased safety.

 

 

most of what your talking about is already regualted and already standard practice for law abiding citizens and legal gun dealers. which i once again implore you to research before taking a firm stance either way.

 

 

for me, the issue isn't about increased regulation; its abotu the fact that gun regulation is not a states issue (10th amendment right) but a fed issue. as such, like education or the minimum wage or commerace laws, there shoudl be one set standard that all sates must follow set by the Fed; with the caviate that States may issue their own legilsation to help the enforcement of Federal Regulation and Increase Regulation on guns if they wish (but never allowed to go below the minimum set by the federal standard).

 

afterall, the sellign and trading of guns is Commerace; which Constitutionally is an are the Federal gov is given authority over. Gun Safety and Regulation of the use of Fire Arms falls under National Defense, and is equally an area afford to by the Constitution to th authority of the Federal Gov.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kestra15]

Just remember that rights are not something that you are owed or entitled to; they are social constructs that can be removed.

[Red2111]

Just remember that rights are not something that you are owed or entitled to; they are social constructs that can be removed.

maybe in your country. but in my country

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." - Declaration of Independence 1778

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment 1778

 

"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." - Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment 1778

 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Bill of Rights, 4th Amendment 1778

 

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Bill of Rights, 5th Amendment 1778

 

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Bill of Rights, 6th Amendment 1778

 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Bill of Rights, 9th Amendment 1778

 

 

and i could continue to show you legal proof where you are factually wrong. there are certain Rights which we are endowed, not by society, but but our Creator (who ever you believe that Creator to be, whether it be God, Allah, Zeus, Earth, ect) that are beyond social construcs and which social constructs are not able to remove.

 

 

the right to bear arms, with a malitia and by an individual, agsint that which aims to inhibit my inalienable rights is one of those.

 

this point is not debatable, but clear cut fact.

 

 

edit - i am entitlited by my creator, whose law is higher than that of social law, certain rights. among these are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. so long as i express my rights in such a way in which i do not infringe on others inalienable rights; then my rights cannot be infringed upon.

 

a criminal that breaks into my home, threatens my right to life, and possible (depending ontheri intent) many of my other inalienable rights. so my right to protect my Rights superceeds his, as he is the agressor and the one infringing on my Rights.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Red2111

[Biohazard626]

snipped

Those were things written hundreds of years ago by people who saw nothing wrong with the mass murders and enslavement of non-caucasians and saw them as equal to or less than animals. Perhaps those laws are as outdated as the rest of them.

[philpot123]

Just remember that rights are not something that you are owed or entitled to; they are social constructs that can be removed.

In that case, it would be a privilege, not a right. A privilege can be taken away, but a right cannot. "Taking away rights" is merely a colloquial term for when the government ceases to recognize our human rights. If something is a true "right," the government can only affirm it and enforce it, not establish it or get rid of it. Example, black people have always had basic human rights, whether the US government said they did or not. The victims of the Holocaust had a right to life, whether the German government affirmed it or not. Whether or not bearing arms is a TRUE right is something to be debated, but I would argue that self-defense in some form or fashion is an absolute right.

[XxxAziexxX]

I am a proud resident of the United States and despite recent shootings sparking outrage over the right to bear arms, I stand behind the 2nd Amendment.

 

While ammo should be regulated just as guns are, I think the problem here is a people problem, not a gun problem. As the saying goes, guns don't shoot people, people shoot people.

 

Also, many forget that guns are useful for more than just violence. Protection is on use, but also for hunting.

 

I grew up in a lower-middle class home and food was always kind of slim. We could afford basic things, but my dad always loved to BBQ, so when we needed meat or needed to stockpile jerky for when money got tight, he hunted. That meant packing his rifle and spending a lot of time in gun stores.

 

I would not take that right away from anyone especially since it is a way of life for some people. Also, how are States supposed to hold a militia if no one has the right to carry a gun?

[KageSora]

if you point a gun at someone, then you better be willing to use it and deal with the consequences both mentally and psychically.

I agree. That's what I was saying. But some people I've seen argue that you don't need to be willing to shoot you just need to use it to deter them. Not here, thankfully, people around here seem more sensible than that silly argument.

 

and how many people do you know of that don't care about being shot?

 

Oh, I dunno, how about those people who shoot themselves after their rampages? Or who get themselves killed in what is an absolutely hopeless firefight with officers in a "suicide by cop" scenario? Generally speaking, I think it's a fairly safe bet that if somebody intends to die, they won't really care if you shoot them.

 

Sure, your average attacker probably isn't suicidal or past the point of caring. But you can't guarantee that your attacker isn't suicidal. Or they could be unhinged and not actually think about the consequences of being shot. It's not likely, but it's always possible. So, like I said, having the gun as a deterrent isn't a guarantee.

 

are you really arguing that, given the fact most criminals choose to pray on the weak; the fact that you are armed is a deterrent in itself.

 

I'm not arguing anything--I'm simply saying, if you have a gun, you better be damn well prepared to kill because threats without conviction to back them up can only keep you so safe. Believe it or not, there ARE people out there who would have a gun but not load it or who wouldn't have the conviction to kill, believing that just the threat of them having a gun will ensure their safety. I'm disapproving of this line of thinking.

 

 

let me ask you, if you were intent at robbing a person, but foudn out that they were armed woudl you still consider robbing them?  if you borke into a home, and were faced witht he wrong end of a gun, would you continue into the house or try to escape the situation?  if a person points a gun at you, are you goign to second guess whether they will use it; especially if yoru actiosn have them feeling backed into a corner?

 

If I robbed somebody and they were armed? Well, yes, I'd still consider robbing them. See, I'm not the type to just pray they're unarmed. I'd assume my victim was armed, and commit my crime accordingly. Same with home invasion--I'd plan for my victim to be armed and ready, and act accordingly.

 

I'm the kind of person who just assumes the worst-case scenario, so I try to plan for it. True, that's not the case with every criminal. But you can be sure that there ARE some people out there who do plan for such things. So, again, just having a gun as a deterrent can be helpful but it is NOT the guarantee that a lot of pro-gun people seem to make it out to be.

 

should my rights be infringed upon because we are not properly treating the mentally ill or dealing with the criminally insane?

 

Please, tell me. When the did I say anything about infringing on your rights? I want to prevent the people who are dangerous from having guns. Not law-abiding citizens. I never once said that people who are capable, reasonable, stable, and law-abiding should be prevented from owning guns.

 

why should someone elses lack of personal responsability inifringe on my god given rights?

Why should someone else's desire for a killing weapon infringe on my "god-given" right to live? Just sayin'.

 

Again, as long as you're capable and sane and rational, and can demonstrate such, then you have nothing to fear from the kind of changes to gun control I'd like to see. Unless you ARE unstable, in which case your instability forfeits your right to have a gun.

 

in your specific case, isn'tt he underlaying issue not that guns are invovled, but that a mentally ill perosn is not recieving the proper treatement they need?

 

Which is why I argue for a multi-level approach. Better regulation of guns combined with improving mental health awareness and treatment. The issue IS, though, that guns were involved--how was the mentally unhealthy person able to get their hands on the gun? What I argue for is better methods of keeping mentally unhealthy people from being able to obtain them, that's all.

 

to the underlined - this is a slippery slope that needs to be addressed. the fear in this comes from future abuse in the law and the government using it as a back door means to attack the 2nd amendment. right now you suggest Metal illness as a reason for taking away a persons guns, first i ask what sort of mental illness are you referring to? depression? schzophrenia? psychosis? ADHD? there are millions of mental illness disorders, some harmless other not so much. how do we prevent the line from being stretched from psychosis to a harmless mental disorder like ADHD?

 

I would argue that anybody who has a mental disorder that negatively alters their perception of reality or that interferes with making what "normal" people consider to be sound, rational judgement should be further evaluated to see if they're fit to own a gun.

 

We prevent it with careful legislation. It's not something that can come about right away, and will need very careful consideration. But I don't think it's impossible to find a way to prevent a person with a dangerous mental condition from owning a gun while allowing a person who has a mental deviation from the norm that is harmless from having one.

 

As for the other part I'm too lazy to quote...

 

I'm not arguing for an automatic declination based on mental condition. I do, however, think that if you have a mental condition that alters your perception of reality then you need to undergo additional evaluations to assess if you're safe to own a gun or not.

 

As for who decides... How about qualified medical professionals? As far as I'm aware, liberalism and conservatism are not medically recognized as actual mental disorders, so that sort of argument wouldn't fly.

 

Or are you supporting giving guns to a person who hates the world and has no regard for human life? Because that's just a recipe for disaster.

 

Also yay, Godwin's law. >_>

 

Easy--you do that by not having set list of things that qualify as automatically barring somebody from having a gun, but having each case handled on a case-by case scenario involving trained medical health experts.

 

 

but the point is, how do you prevent legislation which allows from gun removal to be applied to "fit, stable, law abiding citizens"?

 

you say you are nto for banning guns, yet a passing gun ban legislation s exactly what our politicans are currently discussing in Washington.

 

Well, with that logic, we might as well do away with all laws because somebody, somewhere, is going to use abuse them! :| You prevent it with careful wording, and you amend it if it is a problem. It's never going to be perfect--but something is better than nothing, IMO.

 

And who says that I'm happy about that? Just because they're discussing it doesn't mean I have to approve of it--isn't that why we contact our representatives and tell them we don't like it when they do something we don't approve of?

 

what do you mean by "guns are not a guarentee"?

 

I mean that having a gun does not guarantee your safety. I'm aware of the right to bear arms. Like I've said repeatedly, I don't want to deny people that right provided they prove they are fit to have that right.

 

Not being fit to wield a gun forfeits you that "right". I would argue that the "right" to bear arms is not absolute, but is a privilege not a right. Owning a weapon comes with certain responsibilities. If you are not fit to carry uphold those responsibilities, then you are not fit for that "right".

[Vhale]

law abiding citizens own guns for two things, hunting/recreational activities and personal protection

 

I own mine because I inherited it. It has some sentimental value. Though, I have used it for protection and for pest control. People also own them as part of their jobs

 

As far as knowing someone who wouldn't care if they got shot, I have known five people who have threatened, or planned to carry out shootings/killings. Two of which I'd say didn't care if it ended in their deaths. Four legally own guns or live in a home with guns. I don't worry much about a stranger in the mall. I worry about relatives or a coworker, heh.

 

I know for a fact I'm a better shot than 4 of them. But you can't predict when that switch will flip and they'll go on a rampage. Without knowing when it's coming, I've never taken for granted that I'd get them first.

[Red2111]

i'll get to the rest of the posts either tonight or tomorrow. staying up until 1 am writing my post last night is not kosher to havignto getup to occupy the workplace at 7am the same day

 

oh how i long for the days when i coudl do that and not feel the bite of old age on my body though.

 

 

Those were things written hundreds of years ago by people who saw nothing wrong with the mass murders and enslavement of non-caucasians and saw them as equal to or less than animals. Perhaps those laws are as outdated as the rest of them.

thats your opinion. i defend your rigth to express it, though you are factually incorrect and have no basis with which to factually back your accusations against the Founders with. still, you have your right to your opinion, afforded to you, ironically, by the same men and documents you appear to hold contempt towards.

 

personal question though, seeing your personal reason for the contempt that you hold towards the Founders and Constitution. Are you religous?

 

 

i further advise you, if you truely believe that about the Founders, to read the "Federalst Paper" and "Anti Federalst" papers as well as some of the auto biographies to see what the men truely thought.

 

Franklin for instance, did not believe or agree with Slavery and argued for the abolition of slavery to be written int othe Constitution. Washington also expressed his opinon against one man owning another.

 

the preamble "that all men are created equal" even implies thatthe Founders agreed that Slavery was wrong, was controdictory to what they were passing in terms of freedoms and bondage but also knew that the nation coudl not at that moment withstand the fight against slavery, as it was still weakened from the Revolutionary War and could not withstand another War so soon after the one tey had just fought.

 

 

 

also, another thing that the Foudners understood. every modernday civilization is built on the backs of slavery. it neither justifys the act nor argues for it, but points out the human error that exists within every civilization.

 

 

 

as for outdated laws, again you need to go back and study the times. back then, Social issues of Abortion, Seperation of Church and State and Equality amongst individuals existed just as prevalent as today. Politics were just as dirty, and politicans just as corrupt and the fear and outcry of an over reaching tyrannical central gov just as present within the communities.

 

did you know that Washington did not run for office but was a write in candidate? did you nwo that he was actually offered a Kingship by the populace and declined, as well as refused to hold the office for more than four years?

 

 

 

these men were not infallable, but they had a lot more courage, were a lot more educated, and were a lot more trustworthy (at least in terms of protecting my individual liberties) than the politicans of today. given the choice between the two, i side with the Founders in how this country should be ran and what the place of government truely stands.

[Kestra15]

Ren and Phil,

 

A right is a social construct. You cannot physically show me a 'right,' it is as nebulous a concept as 'justice,' 'truth,' and 'honour.' As thus it can be altered, adjusted and withdrawn.

 

I agree that certain rights should not be touched, but they are still artificial constructs, and regardless of country they can still be removed from a person. So argue all you want about "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights," but the truth is this; rights are alienable. They can be changed and altered.

 

Look at the history of your country and you will find rights are a shifting concept that will adapt and change over time. They always have and always will. So just because something is a right today doesn't mean it will be a right tomorrow.

[Kinosaurus]

Having a gun is okay, but letting kids have it is just wrong

[Mommy_Kitty]

i'm gonna as for proof on this. because i would argue

 

the USA has the guns per capita in the world. and out of the Countries which require Compulsionary Military Service two sites i have show 2 or more of thsoe countries as having a higher Gun Murder rate per capita Link #1 and Link #2

 

which says seeing how many more guns America owns per capita than other nations.

 

Out of all the links you provided i figured that US as a country with the most legaly owned guns has 1 kill out of roughly 23000 legaly owned guns and switcerland has 1 kill out of 83000 legaly owned guns, Finland has 1 kill out of 170000 legaly owned guns, Serbia has 1 kill out of 68000 legaly owned guns, and for Yemen there is no data of homicides so culd not do math.

Dont you think that it is and shuld be alarming that roughly every 23000th legaly owned gun in a country such as US kills another human being. And we are not talking about some 3rd world country, but Us that has, or shuld have higher standards, and is one of the leading countryes in the world.

And let me tell you for my home town, we hava a population of about 4000 and roughly 1/5 of them all are hunters that own hunting rifles, and lots of them have more than 1 rifle, so there is roughly 1000 rifles in a 60 square miles area populated with 4000 people, and in last 50 years we had 0 gun kills. Now show me an area in US that did not have a kill in last 50 years.

 

 

[ana3]

Before the er's of enlightment and the french Revolution the only ones in Europe who had Natural god given rights Where aristocrats and clergy. they Where Born with this rights.

 

The philisophy of enlightment and the Age of revolution are the Parents of the idea of Human rights. Rights you are Born with and that cant be taken from you without your Own guild.

 

A criminal may Loose this rights, and After the Revolution Woman Where Not granted These rights althought they seriously fought for them. Not everybody in the World Agrees about what These rights exactly are, they are clearly Western and Christian as a whole.

 

I am Not American but the fact that a Creator apears in your Deklaration is Kind of scarry from my point of view. The emperator was Born with a god given right to rule, today the Church is Not abäse of our Staate. Isnt that declaration a Violation of the Separation of Church and Staate? Doesnt that Take a religiouse paradigma for granted Thats clearly based upon a monotheistisch Fate?

 

There is a difference in this Debatte Thats Kind of funny, americans seem to think its their right to Own Weapons to defend themsfelves from their Own Staate if necesarry. Swiss People are drafted and store their weapons at home to defend their Staate from Outside enemies. Remember they are neutral.

 

I dont know anybody Here that is afraid of being robbed, it doesnt seem to happen very often. Criminals that do so are Not armed. Neither is the Majority of the citicens. the criminals do Not expect to be threatened with Gunst and so they dont have guns.

 

Oh and something Else I am over 30 i know a Lot of Hunters because of the Place i live in. I have Never been Allouwed to though their guns. Not once. Our boys are drafted so they know how to use them, but no hunter would give a gun to somebody without gun licence. When i Visited a Friend in the usa I was Allouwed to Fire One by two different People. They Said that they didnt violate a Law by giving them to me, giving guns to otherside didnt Bother them at all.

 

Interesting discussion

Edited December 21, 2012 by ana3

[Red2111]

Kage -

 

Oh, I dunno, how about those people who shoot themselves after their rampages?  Or who get themselves killed in what is an absolutely hopeless firefight with officers in a "suicide by cop" scenario?  Generally speaking, I think it's a fairly safe bet that if somebody intends to die, they won't really care if you shoot them.

 

valid arguement and again i argue, what is the root problem here? guns or that these people are mentally unstable and did not get the help they needed?

 

in each scenario i've seen where a person does not care if their life is taken, or takes their life; the are metnally disturbed, whether it is by depression or so other reason.

 

we've all agreed that people with mental illness shoudl not have access to weaponry, but is the real solution here to make it harder for mentally stable people to get guns, or to give those who are mentally unstable the help they need.

 

after all, in the scenario you pointed out; would those peopel still fill the need to take their own lives or commit "suicide by cop" if they recieved the proper care to help deal with their illness?

 

 

 

can't guarantee that your attacker isn't suicidal.  Or they could be unhinged and not actually think about the consequences of being shot.  It's not likely, but it's always possible.  So, like I said, having the gun as a deterrent isn't a guarantee.

 

no ones argueing that it is a gaurentee. what we're arguing here is the fallacy that

 

gun control = increased safety.

 

you're arguing the valid aspect of mentally unstable peopel having access to fire arms, which i counter with the arguement of treat their mental illness to solve the issue, not restrict everyones rights because they lack the treatement they need.

 

 

 

 

I'm not arguing anything

 

i use the word argue as a synonym of "debate" "discuss" "support your opinon". not to state that we're arguing as in getting mad and yelling you can argue a point without gettign emotional over it.

 

 

I'm simply saying, if you have a gun, you better be damn well prepared to kill because threats without conviction to back them up can only keep you so safe.  Believe it or not, there ARE people out there who would have a gun but not load it or who wouldn't have the conviction to kill, believing that just the threat of them having a gun will ensure their safety.  I'm disapproving of this line of thinking.

 

i agree. i also argue that if you have a gun, you should also be trained in how to properly use the gun.

 

but one caviate to thsi agreement is that i do think gun ownership acts as a deterrant to agression towards you in the form of crime. the pressence of that weapon in your house will off a minute amount of protection, not much, but some.

 

to frame this another way. if you place an ADT sign in your window or yard to advertise you have an alarm system, yet in reality you don't have an alarm system; wouldn't you agree that the sign would still act as a deterrent to a home break in, even though it is an empty threat?

 

 

 

but, of the protection of private citizen gun ownership in general comes from not knowing who has a gun and who doesnt; whcih is why there is a correlation between the increase of "Conceal and Carry permits" and a decrease in crime.

 

that said, for all of the arguement i give reguarding the merit of gun ownership, its the fact that criminals are armed that drives people to own them for protection. which is an interesting observation of how perception effects our lives.

 

 

If I robbed somebody and they were armed?  Well, yes, I'd still consider robbing them.  See, I'm not the type to just pray they're unarmed.  I'd assume my victim was armed, and commit my crime accordingly.  Same with home invasion--I'd plan for my victim to be armed and ready, and act accordingly.

 

and of criminals do, which is why the reverse has to be true in the case of self protection. we must assume the criminals are armed, if they come in with a pistol and all i have is an aluminum baseball bat i'm at a sever disadvantage.

 

this is partly why SCUTOS ruled the way they did in 2004.

 

 

 

I'm the kind of person who just assumes the worst-case scenario, so I try to plan for it.

 

lol i can relate. it drives my fiancee bonkers too. but i'd rather be prepared for the worst, then "disappointed" (ie: releaved) that i was over reacting rather than unprepared and the worst case actually happen.

 

and when thinking about the legislation that congress passes, i think worst case scenario "how can this be abused in the future to restrict personal freedom" and weight then if the cost is worth the gain. in the cases of increased gun control, patriot act and obamacare; the costs to our personal liberties greatly outweight the gains these pieces of legislation give society.

 

 

True, that's not the case with every criminal.  But you can be sure that there ARE some people out there who do plan for such things.  So, again, just having a gun as a deterrent can be helpful but it is NOT the guarantee that a lot of pro-gun people seem to make it out to be.

 

actually, most criminals observe their victims before attacking. with Rapes, the victim is stalked, her habits learned and her times where she is most weak learned before the culprit attacks. Burglaries, the criminals observe the house to learn the owners schedules for when the home owners are not there to ensure their not disturbed. Home Invasions, to learn the routine of the occupants to find when there targets are most weak to allow them the upper hand.

 

very rarely are crimes not premeditated; there have been many studies done on this.

 

 

 

Please, tell me.  When the did I say anything about infringing on your rights?

 

please refrain from using explict language, even in astrict form, to back your points. it not only causes things to generally escalate beyond civil discussion (as we are havign now) as it puts people on the definsive; but it also decreases the validity of your arguements.

 

that said, callign for increased gun control is infringing on my rights; because increased gun control beyond what we have now will make it harder for me, a law abiding citizen, to obtain a gun.

 

worst, soem are arguign for out right bans; which greatly infringes on my rights.

 

 

 

I want to prevent the people who are dangerous from having guns.  Not law-abiding citizens.  I never once said that people who are capable, reasonable, stable, and law-abiding should be prevented from owning guns.

 

Why should someone else's desire for a killing weapon infringe on my "god-given" right to live?  Just sayin'.

 

and yet gun control and gun laws ONLY effect law abiding citizens. i've already provided links to back this up.

 

 

 

 

Again, as long as you're capable and sane and rational, and can demonstrate such, then you have nothing to fear from the kind of changes to gun control I'd like to see.  Unless you ARE unstable, in which case your instability forfeits your right to have a gun.

 

and who decides what is "capable and sane and rational"? whats to change the current defanition of these things in the future to be used to enact a defacto gun ban on everyone?

 

you say demonstration, well what is an acceptable demonstration of being capable with a gun? being able to hit a target at center mass at 100 ft with a handgun?

 

 

what is sane and rational to one person, may not be sane and rational to another.

 

 

 

Which is why I argue for a multi-level approach.  Better regulation of guns combined with improving mental health awareness and treatment.  The issue IS, though, that guns were involved--how was the mentally unhealthy person able to get their hands on the gun?  What I argue for is better methods of keeping mentally unhealthy people from being able to obtain them, that's all.

 

and i argue for this as well, with an exception. instead of more regualtion, a levle regualtion minimum set across the board by the Fed to all the states with the options for states to individually increase that regulation is they feel it doesn't go far enough.

 

 

you mention multi-level approach, and i like that. many peopel however only acknowledge the gun aspect and see attacking only the guns as the solution. add onto this, aside from focusing on the mentally disturbed; the focus on the criminal element. obviously the law or increased laws will not deter criminals from gun ownership. as such, we must increase the penalty for abusing the right to own a gun. my fiancee came up with a great solution imo,

 

if you own a gun obtained through illegal means, have a standard sentance of 10 years per gun in possession with an extra year for each bullet in the gun. so if you have an illegal pistol with a 30 round clip and 1 in the chamber then your sentance would be 41 years.

 

 

I would argue that anybody who has a mental disorder that negatively alters their perception of reality or that interferes with making what "normal" people consider to be sound, rational judgement should be further evaluated to see if they're fit to own a gun.

 

who evaluates them and how and who do you allow to define as "normal". i get what your saying, and i agree. what we then have to discuss is three things, the boundaries and defanitions that will be set, who we will give this power over decision to, and ways to prevent this from being abused 20+ years down the road by the government as a way to get defacto gun bans.

 

also, your focus is only on taking rights away fromt eh mentally diseased. shoudln't there also be a process in which the mentally diseased can recieve those rights back? i say this because, Depression is a mental disease, but is curable. Many mental disorders are the same.

 

do you realize the "worst case scenario" in reguards of allowing a means for the gov to legally take away a persons 2nd amendment rights and no availability to get them back.

 

shall we treat this like the no fly list, where if your determined to have a mental disorder that you can no longer obtain guns for the rest of your life? and if this is the case, then what is to stop new "diseases" being invented by people with an agenda of banning guns for this expressed purpose. or from the gov (or another group) targetting a certain demograph and labling them as mentally diseased to revoke their 2nd amendment rights.

 

my focus is on the possible abuse, not whetheror not it is needed. if we cannot figure out a way to prevent future abuse liek this (and possibly worse) then we need to attack the issue of the mentallyu unstable in this equation in a different way.

 

 

 

As for who decides...  How about qualified medical professionals?  As far as I'm aware, liberalism and conservatism are not medically recognized as actual mental disorders, so that sort of argument wouldn't fly.

 

PTSD wasn't recognized as a legit disorder in Nam, yet it is today. ADHD and ADD were not always recognized as disorders, but they are today.

 

in the reverse, many "normal" things humans due used to be regaurded as mental disorders and were shunned. female masturbation and homosexuality used to be treated as mental disorders.

 

all it takes is for soemoen with an agenda and the right channels to enact the sort of abuse i'm afriad of.

 

my poitn is, if your goign to allow for a legal avenue wich resorts in a person having their constitutional rights revoked, then you can't entier into it lightly and you MUST consider all options (including the fact that some people have less than noble motives and will try to use that to suit their agenda).

 

 

Or are you supporting giving guns to a person who hates the world and has no regard for human life?  Because that's just a recipe for disaster.

 

no i'm supporting a discussion abotu this with emotion removed from it. especially if the discussion is about creating a way for the governmetn to deny a person their Constitutional Rights. it maybe aimed to just effect one group, and rightly so; but how can it be used to effet all of us.

 

 

Also yay, Godwin's law.  >_>

 

no i'm not making a comparison to Nazis.

 

i'm showing a historical occurance where gun control was abused by a tyrannical government.

 

history is a great teacher, humans are creatures of habit, and we can look to history to see how many things will occur. history as shown, from Stalin, to Hitler, to China, to Mongolia, to Korea to many other instances. Gun Control, when left unchecked and unchallenged, can lead to very bad things. in order to prevent these bad things from occuring, we must not only acknowledge that they did happen but also analyze them to make sure they do not happen again.

 

 

 

Easy--you do that by not having set list of things that qualify as automatically barring somebody from having a gun, but having each case handled on a case-by case scenario involving trained medical health experts.

 

and whose to stop the lsit from expanding? whose to stop absurd qualification from being added?

 

maybe its foudn that all criminals and mass shoorters who commit gun violence are below a certain IQ, or they all have blue eyes, or they all believe in Christianity, or the all wear levis jeans, or their all raised as an only child.

 

if you think absurd "laws" cannot be formed, then this site should Amuse you.

 

 

 

Well, with that logic, we might as well do away with all laws because somebody, somewhere, is going to use abuse them!  :|  You prevent it with careful wording, and you amend it if it is a problem.  It's never going to be perfect--but something is better than nothing, IMO.

 

this is different. you're giving the government ment a means to revoke 2nd amendment rights. a Right that the government has been after for many years.

 

 

 

 

And who says that I'm happy about that?  Just because they're discussing it doesn't mean I have to approve of it--isn't that why we contact our representatives and tell them we don't like it when they do something we don't approve of?

 

very true. but by the same point, you have people calling them up and telling them the opposite because they either

 

1. want guns banned

2. think it sounds good but are not thinking it through

3. are acting on emotion rather than logic

 

 

 

 

I mean that having a gun does not guarantee your safety.  I'm aware of the right to bear arms.  Like I've said repeatedly, I don't want to deny people that right provided they prove they are fit to have that right.

 

Not being fit to wield a gun forfeits you that "right".  I would argue that the "right" to bear arms is not absolute, but is a privilege not a right.  Owning a weapon comes with certain responsibilities.  If you are not fit to carry uphold those responsibilities, then you are not fit for that "right".

 

it is a Right and should not be termed different. i have a Right to proect my liberty and my property, and the law of equivalencys plays into this.

 

think of it in this way, as far as the consquences of terming the Right to bear arms as a privallege. what then is to stop the same logic from being applied to the 1st amendment rights?

 

if we term them privleges and not rights, then it gives the government more leway in enacting laws which infringe or out right ban those Freedoms and more justification in doign so. by terming them a Right, these things hold much more wieght than if they are termed privaleges and by this people are more protective of them and less likely to allow them to be taken away without a fight.

 

i speak not of our generation, who reguards these as Freedoms; but of generations 100s year from now who are taught that these are privelleges. it changes your protectiveness and perception of the Freedoms; as well as changes the perception of who grants you that Freedom. nad if people do not perceive these to be Rights granted to us, not by socity but by a law higher than the dictates of society; then we begin the steps towards losing those Freedoms.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Red2111

[digipup]

I'm not interested in arguing or debating, so I'm not even going to bother looking at this thread after this post...

 

But where do people get the idea that murderers get their guns legally?

The crime rate went down when people were allowed to own guns. Look it up.

Also, I'm pretty sure most of you would want to have one if someone put you at knifepoint on the street.

 

 

[Red2111]

cont from Kage -

 

As for who decides...  How about qualified medical professionals?  As far as I'm aware, liberalism and conservatism are not medically recognized as actual mental disorders, so that sort of argument wouldn't fly.

 

PTSD wasn't recognized as a legit disorder in Nam, yet it is today. ADHD and ADD were not always recognized as disorders, but they are today.

 

in the reverse, many "normal" things humans due used to be regaurded as mental disorders and were shunned. female masturbation and homosexuality used to be treated as mental disorders.

 

all it takes is for soemoen with an agenda and the right channels to enact the sort of abuse i'm afriad of.

 

my poitn is, if your goign to allow for a legal avenue wich resorts in a person having their constitutional rights revoked, then you can't entier into it lightly and you MUST consider all options (including the fact that some people have less than noble motives and will try to use that to suit their agenda).

 

 

Or are you supporting giving guns to a person who hates the world and has no regard for human life?  Because that's just a recipe for disaster.

 

no i'm supporting a discussion abotu this with emotion removed from it. especially if the discussion is about creating a way for the governmetn to deny a person their Constitutional Rights. it maybe aimed to just effect one group, and rightly so; but how can it be used to effet all of us.

 

 

Also yay, Godwin's law.  >_>

 

no i'm not making a comparison to Nazis.

 

i'm showing a historical occurance where gun control was abused by a tyrannical government.

 

history is a great teacher, humans are creatures of habit, and we can look to history to see how many things will occur. history as shown, from Stalin, to Hitler, to China, to Mongolia, to Korea to many other instances. Gun Control, when left unchecked and unchallenged, can lead to very bad things. in order to prevent these bad things from occuring, we must not only acknowledge that they did happen but also analyze them to make sure they do not happen again.

 

 

 

Easy--you do that by not having set list of things that qualify as automatically barring somebody from having a gun, but having each case handled on a case-by case scenario involving trained medical health experts.

 

and whose to stop the lsit from expanding? whose to stop absurd qualification from being added?

 

maybe its foudn that all criminals and mass shoorters who commit gun violence are below a certain IQ, or they all have blue eyes, or they all believe in Christianity, or the all wear levis jeans, or their all raised as an only child.

 

if you think absurd "laws" cannot be formed, then this site should Amuse you.

 

 

 

Well, with that logic, we might as well do away with all laws because somebody, somewhere, is going to use abuse them!  :|  You prevent it with careful wording, and you amend it if it is a problem.  It's never going to be perfect--but something is better than nothing, IMO.

 

this is different. you're giving the government ment a means to revoke 2nd amendment rights. a Right that the government has been after for many years.

 

 

 

 

And who says that I'm happy about that?  Just because they're discussing it doesn't mean I have to approve of it--isn't that why we contact our representatives and tell them we don't like it when they do something we don't approve of?

 

very true. but by the same point, you have people calling them up and telling them the opposite because they either

 

1. want guns banned

2. think it sounds good but are not thinking it through

3. are acting on emotion rather than logic

 

 

 

 

I mean that having a gun does not guarantee your safety.  I'm aware of the right to bear arms.  Like I've said repeatedly, I don't want to deny people that right provided they prove they are fit to have that right.

 

Not being fit to wield a gun forfeits you that "right".  I would argue that the "right" to bear arms is not absolute, but is a privilege not a right.  Owning a weapon comes with certain responsibilities.  If you are not fit to carry uphold those responsibilities, then you are not fit for that "right".

 

it is a Right and should not be termed different. i have a Right to proect my liberty and my property, and the law of equivalencys plays into this.

 

think of it in this way, as far as the consquences of terming the Right to bear arms as a privallege. what then is to stop the same logic from being applied to the 1st amendment rights?

 

if we term them privleges and not rights, then it gives the government more leway in enacting laws which infringe or out right ban those Freedoms and more justification in doign so. by terming them a Right, these things hold much more wieght than if they are termed privaleges and by this people are more protective of them and less likely to allow them to be taken away without a fight.

 

i speak not of our generation, who reguards these as Freedoms; but of generations 100s year from now who are taught that these are privelleges. it changes your protectiveness and perception of the Freedoms; as well as changes the perception of who grants you that Freedom. nad if people do not perceive these to be Rights granted to us, not by socity but by a law higher than the dictates of society; then we begin the steps towards losing those Freedoms.

 

 

Ren and Phil,

 

A right is a social construct. You cannot physically show me a 'right,' it is as nebulous a concept as 'justice,' 'truth,' and 'honour.' As thus it can be altered, adjusted and withdrawn.

 

certain rights are above social construct and therefor cannot be infringed upon by social construct without use givign up those freedoms. among them is the Right to bear arms.

 

that Right is granted to me, not by society, but by a higher law. scoiety cannot remove that Right unless i willingly allow them to do so. which is something i will nto allow them.

 

the difference between my country and yours, and what defines "American Exceptionalism" is the fact that the society i live in agrees that these rights transcend that of society of are granted by a higher authority.

 

my right to liberty CAN NOT be altered, adjusted or withdrawn. any more than my right to free speech, freedom of religion, right to peaceful protest, right to due process and right to personal protection.

 

and there is a difference between holding a person accountable for abuse of rights (ie: a felon cannot own a firearm, you cannot yell fire in a crowded enviroment) than out right denial of rights because you dictate it is so. if rights are lost, its done so on an individual bases due to holding a person accountable for their actions.

 

in my country, i am innocent until proven guilty. by restricting my freedoms on the bases of another actions you are treating me as if i'm already guilt and holding me responsible for anothers actions.

 

 

 

 

I agree that certain rights should not be touched, but they are still artificial constructs, and regardless of country they can still be removed from a person. So argue all you want about "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights," but the truth is this; rights are alienable. They can be changed and altered.

 

try to change or alter my right to liberty and see how far you get. the rights endowed by my creator are rights that i will and intend on defending with my life. you are nto my creator, no more than society is; you have no justification on denying me my rights.

 

 

 

Look at the history of your country and you will find rights are a shifting concept that will adapt and change over time. They always have and always will. So just because something is a right today doesn't mean it will be a right tomorrow.

 

i point out the same. in history those rights we're only taken away because the people allowed them to be taken away. we will not allow our rights to be taken away, atleast not without bloodshed.

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2012 by Red2111

[Red2111]

sorry abotu the third post, but the quotes wouldn't keep if i didn't so it this way.

 

I own mine because I inherited it. It has some sentimental value. Though, I have used it for protection and for pest control. People also own them as part of their jobs

 

As far as knowing someone who wouldn't care if they got shot, I have known five people who have threatened, or planned to carry out shootings/killings. Two of which I'd say didn't care if it ended in their deaths. Four legally own guns or live in a home with guns. I don't worry much about a stranger in the mall. I worry about relatives or a coworker, heh.

 

I know for a fact I'm a better shot than 4 of them. But you can't predict when that switch will flip and they'll go on a rampage. Without knowing when it's coming, I've never taken for granted that I'd get them first.

people who have guns for a profession, have them to provide security.

 

even still we are aguring the Individual Right to bear arms, not the Professional Right.

 

 

re-points. hence the term "goign postal" again i point out that Mental Illness is likely a factor in your examples. these people are mentlaly unstable.

 

but i agree that i am more concerned abotu a postal relative or co-worker than a criminal.

 

hence the root problem, gettign them the help they need (ie: cousling to talk over their issues and find avenues to express their anger in a safe and productive manner)

 

 

this also furthers showcases my main point. its nto a problem of guns, its a problem of people. you are not fearful of the guns, you are fearful of who has access to those guns.

 

the root issue here is not the guns, so they should not be the focus. the root issue is the People that have access to those guns. and preventing them access to the guns does not solve the issue, because those people are still a danger to both themselves and those aroudn them.

 

 

Out of all the links you provided i figured that US as a country with the most legaly owned guns has  1 kill out of roughly 23000 legaly owned guns and switcerland has 1 kill out of 83000 legaly owned guns, Finland has 1 kill out of 170000 legaly owned guns, Serbia has 1 kill out of 68000 legaly owned guns, and for Yemen there is no data of homicides so culd not do math.

Dont you think that it is and shuld be alarming that roughly every 23000th legaly owned gun in a country such as US kills another human being. And we are not talking about some 3rd world country, but Us that has, or shuld have higher standards, and is one of the leading countryes in the world.

And let me tell you for my home town, we hava a population of about 4000 and roughly 1/5 of them all are hunters that own hunting rifles, and lots of them have more than 1 rifle, so there is roughly 1000 rifles in a 60 square miles area populated with 4000 people, and in last 50 years we had 0 gun kills. Now show me an area in US that did not have a kill in last 50 years.

 

valid points, excepting in the fact that your assuming that all gun deaths are the result of legally obtained guns. whcih is innacurate unless you can give supporting evidence to back up this assumption

 

Before the er's of enlightment and the french Revolution the only ones in Europe who had Natural god given rights Where aristocrats and clergy. they Where Born with this rights.

 

and what makes America different is that "all men are created equal" was include as part of that. so those god given rights are not exclusive to one group, but to all humans (as later reaffirmed by SCOTUS for womens and blacks rights and the Civil War for freedom from bondage for blacks)

 

 

The philisophy of enlightment and the Age of revolution are the Parents of the idea of Human rights. Rights you are Born with and that cant be taken from you without your Own guild.

 

exactly!

 

 

A criminal may Loose this rights, and After the Revolution Woman Where Not granted These rights althought they seriously fought for them. Not everybody in the World Agrees about what These rights exactly are, they are clearly Western and Christian as a whole.

 

i live in America, so while it may sound conceited the only thing i really care abotu is how these Rights are treated and viewed within my own country. i pitty those who do not enjoy the same freedoms of my country and encourage them to immigrate to my country legally; but it is not my place, nor my countries place, to make sure the entire world holds the same views that we do.

 

 

I am Not American but the fact that a Creator apears in your Deklaration is Kind of scarry from my point of view. The emperator was Born with a god given right to rule, today the Church is Not abäse of our Staate. Isnt that declaration a Violation of the Separation of Church and Staate? Doesnt that Take a religiouse paradigma for granted Thats clearly based upon a monotheistisch Fate?

 

you misunderstand the usage of the word Creator. they chose this word specifically, if they used the word God then it could be argued thsoe who dont name their Diety "God" are not subject to those rights. which is wrong.

 

the usage of the word "Creator" is ambigous, to encompass all Dietys and non-dieties (as is the case in the people who dont subscribe to a religion or believe in a Diety)

 

Creator is used less to mean "Diety" or "God" and more to sybloize the fact that we are granted these Rights outside of societal constraints.

 

 

 

There is a difference in this Debatte Thats Kind of funny, americans seem to think its their right to Own Weapons to defend themsfelves from their Own Staate if necesarry. Swiss People are drafted and store their weapons at home to defend their Staate from Outside enemies. Remember they are neutral.

 

actually you are only partly right. we claim that it is a right to defend agaisnt Tyranny, whether that Tyranny is foriegn or domestic makes no difference and Tyranny trancends things like that.

 

the point is, its a means of defense to protect a Tryannical force from denying us our Freedoms which are allowed to us by the mere fact that we are human and granted to us by a force greater than society.

 

 

 

I dont know anybody Here that is afraid of being robbed, it doesnt seem to happen very often. Criminals that do so are Not armed.  Neither is the Majority of the citicens. the criminals do Not expect to be threatened with Gunst and so they dont have guns. 

 

and i, in some ways, envy you for that fact. though i woudl not choose to live anywhere but the USA even with all of her faults in areas such as crime.

 

with freedom comes great responsability; and personal responsability is a thing greatly lackign in todays society. even so, it does not justify the removal of rights.

 

 

Oh and something Else I am over 30 i know a Lot of Hunters because of the Place i live in. I have Never been Allouwed to though their guns. Not once. Our boys are drafted so they know how to use them, but no hunter would give a gun to somebody without gun licence. When i Visited a Friend in the usa I was Allouwed to Fire One by two different People. They Said that they didnt violate a Law by giving them to me, giving guns to otherside didnt Bother them at all.

 

there is a difference between giving you a weapon to possess for an indefanite amount of time; and allowing you to handle a weapon in a restricted area (be it a back yard wet up for target practice or a shooting range) under the express supervision and guidance of soemoen who knows how to handle the weapon.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Red2111

[KageSora]

we've all agreed that people with mental illness should not have access to weaponry, but is the real solution here to make it harder for mentally stable people to get guns, or to give those who are mentally unstable the help they need.

 

What we need is a multi-level solution. You cannot just attack one part of the issue. The issue is BOTH that they didn't receive the treatment they needed and that they were able to obtain a weapon they shouldn't be handling. It is very much a problem that these people are getting their hands on weapons. Yes, we need to get them help--but it can't hurt to also make it harder to keep them from hurting people.

 

no ones arguing that it is a guarantee. what we're arguing here is the fallacy that

 

gun control = increased safety.

 

you're arguing the valid aspect of mentally unstable people having access to fire arms, which i counter with the argument of treat their mental illness to solve the issue, not restrict everyone's rights because they lack the treatment they need.

 

I've seen too many pro-gun people argue as if guns are a guarantee, so I feel the need to make sure I point out they aren't.

 

Prove to me that it's a fallacy. Prove to me that it's a worse idea than loosening or removing gun control. Go on, I'd love to see absolute hard proof.

 

There is no way to tell, for sure, one way or the other unless you try it out.

 

And if it's done properly, then you won't have your rights restricted unless you're not fit to wield a gun. The trick is getting it done properly--this isn't a solution that can be solved overnight. It would take a lot of work to find a solution that restricts people who are potentially dangerous while not making it overly hard for people who have no problems.

 

You seem to keep missing that part of my stance on the matter.

 

 

but one caviate to this agreement is that i do think gun ownership acts as a deterrent to aggression towards you in the form of crime. the presence of that weapon in your house will off a minute amount of protection, not much, but some.

 

Again, I never said it wasn't a deterrent--just that it wasn't a guarantee. Of course, with an ADT sign that's a visible sign that you might have some form of protection.

 

If you have a concealed gun on your person... Well, your attacker won't have any idea--they'll either plan for you to have a gun and act accordingly, or they won't know until you pull it on them at which point you could already have been hurt. For breaking in... They'll either plan that you've got a gun in your home, or they'll not realize it until they've already broken in and caused damage and/or hurt somebody.

 

Just sayin'.

 

in the cases of increased gun control, patriot act and Bbamacare; the costs to our personal liberties greatly outweigh the gains these pieces of legislation give society.

 

That's fully a matter of perception. You don't have any absolute proof. For example, people who are alive today only because of Obamacare. I'd think that, for them, the fact that they're ALIVE kind of outweighs other costs as a result of it.

 

please refrain from using explicit language, even in abstract form, to back your points. it not only causes things to generally escalate beyond civil discussion (as we are having now) as it puts people on the defensive; but it also decreases the validity of your arguments.

 

That's a matter of perception. I don't view all profanity as degrading a conversation--to me, certain words used in certain places emphasize points.

 

that said, calling for increased gun control is infringing on my rights; because increased gun control beyond what we have now will make it harder for me, a law abiding citizen, to obtain a gun.

 

I could argue that not increasing security infringes on my right to live my life happily and feeling safe and secure, though. But I'm not saying make it impossible. It might take longer to obtain for a proper examination of your mental state to be conducted, your history, etc. But unless you actually have something seriously wrong with you, you'd be able to get your gun in the end. IF IT WAS DONE PROPERLY. Again, I'll repeat myself--I'm arguing for people to sit down and discuss the matter to find a solution that increases restrictions while not making it overly difficult for healthy, law abiding citizens to get a gun.

 

This is why the matter needs to be worked out very, very carefully.

 

worst, some are arguing for out right bans; which greatly infringes on my rights.

 

But I'm not one of them. Because I see no point to it.

 

 

and yet gun control and gun laws ONLY effect law abiding citizens. I've already provided links to back this up

 

Fun fact: Lots of mentally ill people are law-abiding citizens until they snap. So, these restrictions should be about preventing mentally ill law-abiding citizens from getting guns.

 

Criminals won't be bothered one way or another, that I'll agree with.

 

But not all people with mental disorders are criminals.

 

So gun control laws would effect mentally ill citizens that are law abiding citizens. So they would still be helpful.

 

I never, once, said that this was about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals--it's not. It's about keeping guns out of the hands of people who are absolutely not fit to use them.

 

and who decides what is "capable and sane and rational"? whats to change the current definition of these things in the future to be used to enact a defacto gun ban on everyone?

 

Trained medical professionals. As I've said. And that's what careful wording is for, that's what keeping a leash on our representatives is for. They're supposed to represent us, after all, but too many people are too lazy to let them know when they're doing something wrong. We need to fix that system, too.

 

But the government abuses laws and changes wording to infringe on rights all the time, the fear that they would with something like this is nothing new.

 

you say demonstration, well what is an acceptable demonstration of being capable with a gun? being able to hit a target at center mass at 100 ft with a handgun?

 

You'd need to show that you know how to load it, how to handle problems with it, how to safely clean it, how to fire it. You'd need to demonstrate that you know how to properly store both the weapon and the ammo. And that you have proper storage for both. You'd also need to prove your competency with firing it. So, y'know, basic stuff you should know if you're owning a gun anyway. If you can't do all that, I don't think you deserve a gun.

 

what is sane and rational to one person, may not be sane and rational to another.

 

Maybe not in terms of finer points, but there are some broad generalizations that can be used. Normal people would agree that if somebody messes up your order at a food place, the correct response is not to yell and scream and drag the person over the counter and start kicking them, for example.

 

who evaluates them and how and who do you allow to define as "normal". i get what your saying, and i agree. what we then have to discuss is three things, the boundaries and definitions that will be set, who we will give this power over decision to, and ways to prevent this from being abused 20+ years down the road by the government as a way to get defacto gun bans.

 

Again, I mean approved, recognized medial professionals. Ideally more than one, who aren't allowed to confer with each other initially to see if they say the same thing. Then allowed to confer with each other to see if any of them missed something another picked up on.

 

Personally, I'd also argue that we need to generally be better about wording our laws to avoid abuse because it happens too often with too many things.

 

also, your focus is only on taking rights away from the mentally diseased. shouldn't there also be a process in which the mentally diseased can receive those rights back? i say this because, Depression is a mental disease, but is curable. Many mental disorders are the same.

 

This, I'm hesitant about. If they can prove that they have moved past their illness, then yes, I would agree that they should get their rights back. However, this is also where my argument for yearly reevaluations comes in.

 

Depression might be able to be cured, but it is very easy to relapse. Take me, for example. I've been battling depression on and off for almost half my life now. I was actually going really well, I was off medication and my therapy sessions were really just general stress management to prevent a potential relapse. Then, this semester happened, and it's come back in full force. To the point where I was passively suicidal, which I hadn't been for quite some time prior to that.

 

So, provided they're given a clean bill of mental health, and can continue to prove that they're healthy in the future (just the same as everybody else, I argue that EVERYBODY needs to be reevaluated yearly)... Sure, let them have their guns back.

 

do you realize the "worst case scenario" in regards of allowing a means for the gov to legally take away a persons 2nd amendment rights and no availability to get them back.

 

Yes, I'm aware. Hence why I think the restriction should be a clean bill of mental health. If you have a history, yes, that should be taken into consideration. But it should not automatically guarantee you can't get a gun. Especially with, as you said in another post, people who are misdiagnosed with things they don't have and such.

 

shall we treat this like the no fly list, where if your determined to have a mental disorder that you can no longer obtain guns for the rest of your life? and if this is the case, then what is to stop new "diseases" being invented by people with an agenda of banning guns for this expressed purpose. or from the gov (or another group) targeting a certain demographic and labeling them as mentally diseased to revoke their 2nd amendment rights.

 

I would personally say that we should treat it as a list that expires every two years from the date they're put on. That gives a person two years to try and get help, and to be able to get reevaluated. If they can't get a clean bill of mental health, they again have two more years before they can apply again to try and continue to get help. I would say that you shouldn't be put on a perma-banned list unless you do something really bad, or have a proven medically incurable illness--and that, in such a situation, the list would need to be revised if medical advancements led to a cure.

 

It would be a complicated thing, because there is no such thing as a simple solution in this matter.

 

my focus is on the possible abuse, not whether or not it is needed. if we cannot figure out a way to prevent future abuse like this (and possibly worse) then we need to attack the issue of the mentally unstable in this equation in a different way.

 

I agree we need to prevent possible abuse. But we also need to realize that there will never be a way to prevent any abuse ever. We just need to find a way to minimize the damage such abuse could cause. Hence why I think that this really, really, really needs to be discussed both by those who are anti-gun and those who are pro-gun, as well as with many professionals and whatnot. This isn't something that can just be hammered out overnight, after all.

 

PTSD wasn't recognized as a legit disorder in Nam, yet it is today. ADHD and ADD were not always recognized as disorders, but they are today.

 

If medical professionals can prove, one way or another, that either view is a disorder... I will be rather surprised. To me, that'd be like classifying religion as a mental disorder.

 

in the reverse, many "normal" things humans due used to be regarded as mental disorders and were shunned. female masturbation and homosexuality used to be treated as mental disorders.

 

And this is why I argue for allowing continued reexaminations. Especially in light of new medical discoveries and changing views of what's normal and what isn't. I don't think it should be a hard, fast line drawn saying "If you have X, you will never have Y rights".

 

all it takes is for someone with an agenda and the right channels to enact the sort of abuse i'm afraid of

 

Same could be said for absolutely any law currently in existence, really. Should we, then, just not have laws because people can abuse them?

 

my point is, if your going to allow for a legal avenue which resorts in a person having their constitutional rights revoked, then you can't entire into it lightly and you MUST consider all options (including the fact that some people have less than noble motives and will try to use that to suit their agenda).

 

Where did I ever say that this should be done lightly? I could have sworn I said, multiple times, that this is something that needs careful work and consideration. It is absolutely not something that should be crapped out overnight.

 

Again, though, the "people will abuse it" argument doesn't really convince me it's bad--just that it needs careful consideration, and that the general public needs to be made aware of the wording of any legislation drafted up, because sometimes the public realizes something is vague and exploitable when the politicians don't (or don't want to admit that it is). The exact same thing could be said about pretty much any law.

 

Gun Control, when left unchecked and unchallenged, can lead to very bad things.

 

Again, please point out where, exactly, I said I thought it should be left unchecked and unchallenged. I don't believe I did. Anywhere. Ever. Which means bringing such up doesn't actually counter any points I made, so...

 

and whose to stop the list from expanding? whose to stop absurd qualification from being added?

 

Er, I said that you don't have a list. Not that you do. You stop absurd qualifications from being added by making sure that the process through which qualifications are added is one that requires proof of the reason they should be added, as well as requiring it to be approved by multiple professionals. You make it so that not just anybody can get requirements changed on a whim. You make it a thorough review process. Yes, it takes time. But it also would cut down on people just adding random crap to the list.

 

maybe its found that all criminals and mass shooters who commit gun violence are below a certain IQ, or they all have blue eyes, or they all believe in Christianity, or the all wear levis jeans, or their all raised as an only child.

 

Ah, but correlation does not always imply causation. You need to take into account the number of people who share such factors and did not become criminals. Hence why I don't think there should be a list of "Anyone with X should not be allowed Y".

 

Like I said, it's complex and should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

 

As for absurd laws... I never said I didn't think absurd laws could be formed. There are plenty of them on the books, there have been plenty of them proposed. We need to get better about making decent laws to prevent that.

 

this is different. you're giving the government meant a means to revoke 2nd amendment rights. a Right that the government has been after for many years.

 

A right ceases to be a right when it's abused. As I have said, repeatedly, I think that it needs to be handled carefully to prevent people who are "normal" from being denied their rights while allowing revocation of those rights only to occur in those who are not fit to shoulder the responsibilities that come with them.

 

very true. but by the same point, you have people calling them up and telling them the opposite because they either

 

1. want guns banned

2. think it sounds good but are not thinking it through

3. are acting on emotion rather than logic

 

So? I never said NOBODY wanted guns banned. I simply said I didn't support banning of guns. You don't want guns banned? Go take that up with somebody who DOES want them banned. Arguing it with me won't do anything to change the minds of the people who do want them banned. Go out there and argue it with the people who want them banned. Go call up your representatives and tell them what you think. Send them letters, send them e-mails.

 

But, they ARE allowed their opinion that guns should be banned. You cannot deny somebody the right to their opinion. You can disapprove of it, and argue with it, but you cannot deny them their right to have an opinion. Even if you feel it's the wrong one.

 

Re: Rights vs. Privileges.

 

Yes, you do have that right. But you do not have the right to go on a rampage in the name of "protecting" your liberty or anything.

 

With "rights" come responsibilities. If you are not fit to carry those out, then you do not deserve the rights. And rights can be lost, when you prove that you are not capable of handling them like a responsible person.

[ana3]

@red2111

 

I tried to Show by Exempel that the concept of what a right means changed a Lot with Time, and the eye of the beholder. I always thought ist was interesting that in Most Antique Societies a Person could sell his or her Personal Freedom, that was part of your personal responibility if you happened to be born free. That does Not Affekt or Limit others. Seen with the eyes of this Time we have given up this right by asuming Personal Freedom to be Universal.

 

I am Not going to Argue internal us politics in that Case because i Lack the Background Knowledge. Its realy interesting that the whole discussion is so right based.

 

There is a statistic i read Long ago Snowing that suicide Rates are stabile within a Society. Whats interesting about is that One of the Main reasons seemed to be the amount of Aggression Thats turned Inwards, Against Yourself and or your Closest Family. They Argued there was a correlation with suicide and violate-crimerates. A Society that turns Aggression Inwards is very Safe. One of the Exempels given was the fact that Woman in Vienna go for Walkes in Parks atome at Midnight. A Society with Löw suicide Rates seems to have higher Crime Rates.

 

So Maybe the whole Gun discussion is focussing on. Symptom and Not on the Source.

[Aynedraea]

For once people are actually bringing up actual facts and making this an interesting debate... I applaud those who have done their research before posting a comment.

I'll start off with a common phrase: Guns don't kill people, People kill people.

Being almost of age to legally own a firearm, I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I've grown up around guns my entire life, and have a healthy respect and fear of them. In my state, there are quite a few counties where everyone is highly encouraged to own firearms. Guess what? I've never heard of a mass shooting or murder by firearm in those counties. The criminals know that if they were to go in and open fire, there would be a very high chance that they would end up shot themselves.

If the US were to create stricter gun laws, or ban them altogether, the only people with access would be police, military, and the very criminals we don't want to have them.

Does that really seem like the best solution?

Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens who have gone through training and safety classes in order to prevent people from getting hurt. They wish to protect themselves and their families from others who would break in and cause them harm.

They are not these mentally deranged people that aspire to bring chaos into schools and homes.

 

If anyone disagrees with what I've said here, I would appreciate an explanation as to why.

[danegrrrl]

And half of the robbers wuld not even go and try to do such things if they wuld not have a gun.

Wrong.

 

http://www.optuszoo.com.au/news/top/herald...ifepoint/882025

 

http://shelby-utica.patch.com/articles/she...atm-on-van-dyke

 

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local...ve-in-englewood

 

http://midtown.news10.net/news/crime/10886...bbed-knifepoint

 

http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Man-robbed-...-184053041.html

 

http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/crime-c...lburn_1_1754345

 

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/12/21/3443...burg-store.html

 

http://www.macon.com/2012/12/18/2289659/ma...knifepoint.html

 

These are all results of a google search. First page of results, all within the last week to ten days. It's not new. Just look at OJ Simpson...he didn't need a gun to commit not one but two very violent, very heinous murders. No gun required.

 

If someone is bent on doing harm to others, gun or no gun, they will harm others. A gun does not make someone suddenly get the urge to kill, rob, maim, or otherwise cause harm or mayhem.

 

I am a gunowner. Last I checked, I had no desire to go out and suddenly become a killer, a robber, or a gangster.

 

I'll agree with what's been said already - it's not a gun problem, it's a people problem.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

There was recently a shooting in San Antonio. It started in a restaurant, but spilled over into a theater--much like the very awful shooting of a few months ago. However, in this story, a law enforcement officer who wasn't actually on-duty at the time shot the nutter before he could shoot up everyone in the theater.

 

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_new...ing-4122668.php

 

You will never be able to stop bad guys from getting guns. However, we can give good people the chance to get guns to defend themselves with--and then hopefully there'll be more heroic interventions like this, and less of the unstopped massive rampages.

 

I'm in support of doing background checks, mental health checks, registration and training and the whole nine yards on people who buy guns. I do not support preventing the public from ever being able to get them legally.

[shadowrose45]

Ah, Guns.

 

It's one of the most controversial topics going around. Right up there with religion and politics as one to cause arguments.

 

I was a cop--so I've had guns for years. I still have one, though I am no longer a police officer.

 

When my daughter was young, mine was always locked up so there could be no accidents. Once she was an adult, I taught her to shoot it.

 

Carrying weapons on the streets? Well, that depends. I feel we should have a right to protect ourselves, but ultimately, unless you really know what you're doing, it's going to be used against you. If you pull a gun--you better be willing to pull the trigger as well.

 

Now as to protecting my home. Years ago, my daughter was being stalked. I'd have shot the bas&&&d given half a chance. If he'd entered my home, instead of just sitting in front of the house, I'd have killed him without a qualm. Back then I lived in a small town that had never heard of anti-stalking laws, and the police would do nothing.

 

Generally, though, I don't own a thing worth killing someone over. If someone broke in the house, I'm not going to go looking to shoot them. I figure if they come into the bedroom, they are fair game, though.

 

Taking away guns from citizens will only make it easier for only criminals to have the weapons--and believe me, they would. Guns don't kill people--people do.

 

Almost any day on the news there is a new incident involving guns...the latest major incident being the school shooting. Of course this has started the whole 'outlaw guns' debate.

 

Someone determined will find a way.

 

Just my two cents.

[Mommy_Kitty]

Wrong.

 

http://www.optuszoo.com.au/news/top/herald...ifepoint/882025

 

http://shelby-utica.patch.com/articles/she...atm-on-van-dyke

 

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local...ve-in-englewood

 

http://midtown.news10.net/news/crime/10886...bbed-knifepoint

 

http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Man-robbed-...-184053041.html

 

http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/crime-c...lburn_1_1754345

 

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/12/21/3443...burg-store.html

 

http://www.macon.com/2012/12/18/2289659/ma...knifepoint.html

 

These are all results of a google search. First page of results, all within the last week to ten days. It's not new. Just look at OJ Simpson...he didn't need a gun to commit not one but two very violent, very heinous murders. No gun required.

 

If someone is bent on doing harm to others, gun or no gun, they will harm others. A gun does not make someone suddenly get the urge to kill, rob, maim, or otherwise cause harm or mayhem.

 

I am a gunowner. Last I checked, I had no desire to go out and suddenly become a killer, a robber, or a gangster.

 

I'll agree with what's been said already - it's not a gun problem, it's a people problem.

You are half right there, lots of murders happen without a gun, but the a lot of the morders that happen with guns if from a stupid yung lad that wuld soil his pants if he had no gun and wuld have to kill with a knife. And mass murders wuld defenitly be harder to do if guns wuld not be so easy to get.

 

And for the links you provided, wuld any of those have a diferent outcome if the attacked ones wuld have guns, i dont think so, as no one wuld try to act a hero if they had a knife on theyr neck.

And a big problem with guns is not that people can rob you with it, but that the attacker can kill a lot of people in short time easy, and that is with knifes and other such weapons imposible.

 

Taking away guns from citizens will only make it easier for only criminals to have the weapons--and believe me, they would. Guns don't kill people--people do.

 

Almost any day on the news there is a new incident involving guns...the latest major incident being the school shooting. Of course this has started the whole 'outlaw guns' debate.

 

Someone determined will find a way.

 

Lots of those criminals you are reffering to are litle girlyboys that wuld be to afraid to commit a crime if the guns wuld not be so easy to get, well most wuld not even have guts to get an ilegal gun if the law wuld be tighter, you as a police officer shuld know that most crimes are opurtunistic ones, and most all of them happen with guns, you dealth with lots of those brave lads that did such crimes, and when you take theyr guns away they are nothing but litle girls that want theyr mommies. They act tough becouse they have a gun, but if you take that gun away they are no longer brave, you still have those that dont care, but that is minorty compared to chickens that hide behind guns.

 

If the US were to create stricter gun laws, or ban them altogether, the only people with access would be police, military, and the very criminals we don't want to have them.

Does that really seem like the best solution?

Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens who have gone through training and safety classes in order to prevent people from getting hurt. They wish to protect themselves and their families from others who would break in and cause them harm.

They are not these mentally deranged people that aspire to bring chaos into schools and homes.

 

If anyone disagrees with what I've said here, I would appreciate an explanation as to why.

No one wants to ban guns alltogether, but make them that it wuld be harder to get a gun, and if you look at last mass murder in school, it was by a lanza lad that was not taged as a criminal, he might have been mentaly ill, but not taged as a criminal befor he killed all those children. And most of the mass killing are done by people that are not taged as criminals befor they kill a bunch of inocent people, And even if someone is law-abiding citizen it does not mean that his mental state culd snap one day and he/she will go on a rampage. And with proper laws you take guns away from such people and prevent mass murders on monthly basis, and if the guns are baned from streets small crimes drop in numbers too.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Mommy_Kitty