Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage

[Seppuku]

Consider: the UK gun laws have nothing to do with personal safety.  They were designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy.  They were not designed with your well being in mind at all.  Sure, there are a lot of "Liberty!" chanting fools out there (and I agree with your assessment of those particular fools who stretch it to far limits, thinking that a lack of government is good.)  But, your laws are specifically designed to keep you from complaining too much, and to keep you and your fellow citizens in line.

It's possible the law was conjured for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean they're invalid laws to keep. Right things can happen for the wrong reasons. As for keeping me and my fellow citizens in line and from complaining too much - that's far from the actual case. The government is very much under constant scrutiny, even with party supporters, the media loves government corruption stories because people don't like the government doing things they shouldn't be doing and people do stand up against the government with the power of democracy and it does work. The Labour government showed little regard for civil liberties in their bills, and they've found it difficult to pass such bills without amendments - I can probably talk all day about the 'Religious Hatred Bill' that was conjured to basically stop people from saying anything bad about Islam, which wasn't passed until Freedom of Expression was account for...basically making a law that says we can say what the hell we like about any religion just as long as we don't incite violence towards those who practice it - that amendment had occured because people bitched and moaned. This kind of thing is fairly common when the government is found to be doing something stupid. We don't need guns to keep our government in line - exercising democracy will do more to influence government than going in guns blazing or starting a civil war (even if the monarchy lost power because of a civil war). I don't see how I could use a gun to keep my government in line. I am sure it's a similar case in the US - even if the likes of Fox make up bullshit for scrutiny.

One could always reasonably ask why you in the UK, as a citizen in good standing, should not be able to defend yourself against a knife attacker with a gun.  Why not?  He would be out to kill you, after all.  It's not like you live in Japan, where it is safe and you don't need a weapon.  It is a fair argument for me to pose, saying that your government has decreed that it is far better for you to die from criminal attack, than for you to own a weapon to use.

Because I don't want to see guns on my street? Because I'm worried that guns would cause more murders in my society than without? Because I'd have more of a chance defending myself against a knife attacker than one wielding a gun, which it seems is more likely to happen in a country where they're legal and more widely available. Personally, I already know how to defend against a knife but I wouldn't use it if I was able to run away, after all, mistakes can happen. At least I'm not trying to defend against a bullet. In the situation I wouldn't think, "I could do with a gun" - I mean, what are the chances of me drawing a gun quick enough for him to not deal the damage to get me out of the situation? If he's quick, and people wielding knives are often quick and unpredictable, the time I'm reaching for my gun may be enough time for him to jam the knife into a vital organ where I might have been able to block it. As far as I can see, in said situation, I don't think a gun would be all that beneficial, unless I can anticipate his knife attack enough in advance or I'm at a far enough distance away, which is unlikely - if I'm at that kind of distance, if I'm not trapped, I can run away, only an idiot takes on their attacker when they can get away.

Now, as I said before, homicide and gun use are such a small thing, really.  The stats show it.  The real tasks that both our countries should be focused on are stemming suicide and automobile deaths and accidents.  Those issues are far more pressing.

This is fair and that might be worthy of a different discussion. As my town suffers quite badly for automobile deaths and accidents, there's plenty of rants on my part. My username means 'suicide', so maybe I'm a part of the cause? 

The other guy was pulling a gun in my example, not me. And sorry, but if someone decides that they're going to hurt me, they deserve whatever the f**k happens to them. If that's death, so be it. You want to stay alive, you should try not assaulting people.

And you were beating him up, he pulls the gun, no doubt if you had a gun too, you'd pull yours out too (you don't want to get yourself killed). Situation escalates because somebody responded to an act of assault with a gun. The situation goes from an ass-kicking to two people trying their best to not get shot. As for assault, I completely disagree that a person deserves to die for assaulting somebody. How is one deserving of the other? Yes, if you're assaulted there's a good chance you don't deserve it, there are other ways of stopping him from getting away with it without killing the fucker.

You have a cable on your keyboard? The 90s were over ten years ago.

It's my secret life, I work as an IT guy who goes around people's homes to 'fix' their computers, just be wary if I decide to use my own keyboard, the media calls me "The IT Strangler", hardly original or flashy, but then I think the media has lost their touch. I was hoping for something witty and clever.

This is exactly my point.

And it's one I've been trying to emphasise. Whilst banning guns in the US would be low on the list, I maintain the argument that in the UK legalising them is too.

[Str82Hell]

The US is one of the few countries in the world where people rationally argue that NOT having a deadly weapon makes them feel vulnerable. Like you need a gun just to feel a baseline level of safety. I think it is sadly ironic that gun ownership is a right in the US, but health care is not. Says someting about our priorities....

It's also not necessary to feel vulnerable. When I walk the street I don't feel unsafe. Of course I'm safer because I'm less vulnerable than a woman, but even then, I don't think the chances are big that you'll get a knife put on your throat. Of course it might happen, but I also might be struck by lightning and I'm not worried about that either. I think it's something you can control as well. If you know that you should avoid certain places during certain times of the day, don't go there. I've been taught to bring women home when it's late. You have to use common sense.

I think it's ridiculous to carry guns to a bar, just because you're allowed to. Some people become aggressive when they're drunk. I'd rather have my friends break their fists on the wall then having them shoot around at random because they drank too much.

[anthony_retford]

I just visited a friend in Southern Oregon. We went out to Walmart's and he wore his 45 pistol on his waist, with his shirt, which was not tucked in his jeans, tucked behind his gun. He deos not have a permit for a concealed weapon. I noticed that no one looked at him that would have indicated they objected to his pistol, and I looked. I did not see anyone else with an obvious weapon. I think it must be the Southern Oregon is and the people there mostly have guns.

[xphobe]

Oregon is an open carry state.

I've always sort of wondered what it would be like walking around with a pistol in plain sight, but Texas does not allow me to carry out that experiment.

[koberulz]

The US is one of the few countries in the world where people rationally argue that NOT having a deadly weapon makes them feel vulnerable. Like you need a gun just to feel a baseline level of safety. I think it is sadly ironic that gun ownership is a right in the US, but health care is not. Says someting about our priorities....

See 'Is it free will?' in the society section for why health care is a bad idea.

As for keeping me and my fellow citizens in line and from complaining too much - that's far from the actual case.

It's not about complaining, it's about overthrowing the government.

Because I don't want to see guns on my street?

I don't want to see fat people on my street. Let's ban fat people!

And you were beating him up, he pulls the gun, no doubt if you had a gun too, you'd pull yours out too (you don't want to get yourself killed).

No, I'd get the fuck out of there. He's got his gun out already, I'm not stupid enough to think I can get mine out before I'm dead.

As for assault, I completely disagree that a person deserves to die for assaulting somebody. How is one deserving of the other?

If you're putting my life in danger, why do you not deserve to have yours put in danger (not all shootings are fatal, after all). And if you continue to assault me after I pull a gun, you deserve to die.

Yes, if you're assaulted there's a good chance you don't deserve it, there are other ways of stopping him from getting away with it without killing the fucker.

Such as what? I'm 6'1", but I'm a rather pathetic 160 lbs or so. People half my size have no trouble pushing me around, and anyone who wanted to beat me to death with their bare hands could do so quite easily.

And it's one I've been trying to emphasise. Whilst banning guns in the US would be low on the list, I maintain the argument that in the UK legalising them is too.

...you've missed my point again. Making laws for no other purpose than the prevention of crime allows ridiculous infringements on freedom to occur, therefore it shouldn't be a justification for anything, regardless of its effectiveness.

[hickdive]

Consider: the UK gun laws have nothing to do with personal safety.  They were designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy. 

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licensing_and_legislation

[Seppuku]

If you're putting my life in danger, why do you not deserve to have yours put in danger

There's a difference between assaulting somebody and trying to kill them, otherwise assault statistics would be a lot lower and murder a lot higher.

It's not about complaining, it's about overthrowing the government.

We're a long way off from needing civil war to solve our problems, if we ever need a revolution, then guns can be smuggled - taking up guns against the government is illegal, so are people going to be bothered about breaking the law to smuggle? But we're talking about a pretty big if - it's still very difficult for a member of government to gain enough power to become a corrupt fascist dictator worthy of going in guns blazing at.

...you've missed my point again. Making laws for no other purpose than the prevention of crime allows ridiculous infringements on freedom to occur, therefore it shouldn't be a justification for anything, regardless of its effectivene

I argue it's not an infringement on your freedom, no more than not being allowed to drive a tank to work or riding a train with personal explosives. Sometimes freedoms clash you may have to make the difficult choice - after all, if you consider carrying a gun to be a freedom, then is it worth carrying if it increases the number of people being murdered each year? I mean, what happens to their freedom? If they're dead they can hardly exercise any of their civil rights.

Such as what? I'm 6'1", but I'm a rather pathetic 160 lbs or so. People half my size have no trouble pushing me around, and anyone who wanted to beat me to death with their bare hands could do so quite easily.

If you feel you're under threat from assault, there are still ways you can defend yourself, even as a weakling - my advice to you would be to learn self defense. Again, said assaulters may have weapons too, especially if everybody's packing, so who's to say they're not going to retaliate you waving a gun in their face?

[truehyuga]

This:

Quote from: koberulz
If you're putting my life in danger, why do you not deserve to have yours put in danger

There's a difference between assaulting somebody and trying to kill them, otherwise assault statistics would be a lot lower and murder a lot higher.

Again I'll say it. Rubber Bullets in firearms. Be strong enough to stun or knock out an assailant, but would not kill them (ok, maybe if you shot them in the eye at point blank once they are down, but still... if you're going to do that, the handle of the gun makes a perfectly good bludgeon).

[koberulz]

There's a difference between assaulting somebody and trying to kill them, otherwise assault statistics would be a lot lower and murder a lot higher.

The difference is whether or not the victim lives, which often has nothing to do with any choice on the part of the perpetrator. There were several occasions a couple of years ago in which people were killed after a single punch.

We're a long way off from needing civil war to solve our problems, if we ever need a revolution, then guns can be smuggled - taking up guns against the government is illegal, so are people going to be bothered about breaking the law to smuggle? But we're talking about a pretty big if - it's still very difficult for a member of government to gain enough power to become a corrupt fascist dictator worthy of going in guns blazing at.

Getting guns into the country illegally isn't that easy.

I argue it's not an infringement on your freedom

How? "You cannot possess X" is always "you do not have the freedom to possess X". Always. Not letting me kill people is an infringement on my freedom. The difference, however, is that the latter directly infringes upon the freedom of others, the former does not.

then is it worth carrying if it increases the number of people being murdered each year? I mean, what happens to their freedom? If they're dead they can hardly exercise any of their civil rights.

Nobody's suggesting legalising murder.

Again, said assaulters may have weapons too, especially if everybody's packing, so who's to say they're not going to retaliate you waving a gun in their face?

The fact that I have a gun, and have my finger on the trigger? Anyone who cannot pull the trigger of a gun before their attacker unholsters, aims, and fires his shouldn't be pulling one out in the first damn place.

[Jim]

Consider: the UK gun laws have nothing to do with personal safety.  They were designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy. 

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licensing_and_legislation

Try looking a little further, hickdive.  Thanks for the link, as I brushed up on some of the interesting details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#History_of_gun_control_in_the_United_Kingdom

The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of Common Law. These rights no longer exist in the UK, since the UK's doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty allows the repeal of previous laws with no enshrined exceptions such as contained within a codified constitution.

While it is mentioned in the section of the 1920's gun act that fears of crime may have played a part in the ban, working class unrest is also highlighted, as well as unrest in Ireland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#1920_Firearms_Act

The Firearms Act of 1920 was partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of guns available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period....Shootings of police by militant groups in Ireland may also have been a factor...

If one reads the history of the UK gun laws, for only one or two rulings is it mentioned that civilian shootings were on the rise, and so the laws restricted gun ownership on the grounds of safety.  Most of the time, it was to stem the caching of arms by soldiers returning from wars, or strictly as a means for raising revenue. 

Currently, the UK gun laws are so restrictive that their own Olympic shooting team cannot even practice target shooting in the UK legally, they must train in Switzerland.

I wonder is friend Seppuku would be able to obtain a gun license with the stated reason: "in case the government becomes tyrannical."  I am sure that he'd end up under close inspection by HM Police services.

[hickdive]

Jim

Did you find anything in there that supports the assertion " the UK gun laws have nothing to do with personal safety.  They were designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy."

No? I didn't think so.

Most Americans are blind to the fact that, by the time of their revolution, the British monarchy was entirely a constitutional one i.e. it was entirely powerless in the face of parliament. However, you don't want to be seen to be rebelling against the very form of parliamentary structure you intend instigating in your own country - so you create they myth of 'tyrannical monarchy'.

That myth leads to ludicrous assertions that UK firearms laws were "designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy" based on the assumption that the UK was subject to a monarchy it might need to rebel against.

You have correctly noted the 1920's legislation which was created at a time when the possibility of communist revolution was feared, along with the knowledge of the dreadful violence in Ireland. However, you failed to note that the first legislation dates from 1903.

In short, these laws, "designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy" took over 200 years to appear after the last vestiges of absolute monarchy were swept away. They didn't even appear after two Jacobite uprisings!

Americans have the right to arm themselves and I can see no benefit in attempting to restrict their rights. Firearms are so ubiquitous in the US that, as has been pointed out, such controls only criminalise the law-abiding. However, Americans insisting that other countries, where firearms are restricted, are somehow wrong and would benefit from a similarly unrestricted right are simply victims of the "America #1" syndrome. You keep your 30,000+ firearms deaths per annum to yourselves, thank you.

[Seppuku]

The difference is whether or not the victim lives, which often has nothing to do with any choice on the part of the perpetrator. There were several occasions a couple of years ago in which people were killed after a single punch.

Comparing assault and murder figures, it seems to be a big enough difference. UK and US stand similar on assault figures, but there's fewer murders in the UK. It'd appear fewer violent crimes end in death.

Getting guns into the country illegally isn't that easy.

Countries who end up in civil wars have managed to get an arsenal quite easily, usually from individuals keen to help their cause. The IRA didn't have much difficulty causing trouble for the British government, they had enough weapons to make their cause known, sadly, their method involved the murder of innocents to fight for their independence.

How? "You cannot possess X" is always "you do not have the freedom to possess X". Always. Not letting me kill people is an infringement on my freedom. The difference, however, is that the latter directly infringes upon the freedom of others, the former does not.

If possession of guns leads to more people being killed as a result, it becomes an infringement of the victims' freedom.

Nobody's suggesting legalising murder.

No, but what you're suggesting is very likely going to increase murders committed, it's giving more power to criminals over their victims.

The fact that I have a gun, and have my finger on the trigger? Anyone who cannot pull the trigger of a gun before their attacker unholsters, aims, and fires his shouldn't be pulling one out in the first damn place.

So if your attacker isn't only able to beat the crap out of you, but if he's good with a gun, then you should let him kick the crap out of you anyway? It sounds like you're better off not pulling your gun out unless you can sure it'll be effective, and what are the chances?

One thing we're taught with self defense is to NOT cause aggression or provoke the attacker, but get out of the situation as quickly as possible. If the attacker can cause damage to you, particularly if he's got a weapon, your chances are slimmed if they're provoked to use them.

[Jim]

Hickdive:

Thank you for the correction on the word "monarchy".  You are right in that the restrictive gun laws are not now in place to protect the monarchy from popular uprising, rather I should have said "government".  However, you came in late to the conversation, and do not seem to have been following the line of disscussion.  And, your implication that I think the citizens of the UK should arm themselves with firearms -- as if I am insisting that other countries do as America does -- is incorrect.

A large part of the conversation about US gun laws is usually about intent of the law.  As it has come up here, in this conversation.  It is clear from the history of weapons laws in the UK that personal protection from criminals wielding guns is a side note, or at best a supporting role in the creation of said laws in the UK.  In no small part, the UK laws are designed to stifle uprising, the opposite to the reason for the constitutional amendment in the US.  There is interesting history when comparing the two.

Additionally, in this conversation, and in some research done on the subject, it becomes apparent that the absence of guns does not equal absence of murders.  The UK's rate versus other European countries shows that quite clearly.  What cannot be accomplished with guns is accomplished with knives in Britain.  What is also clear is large number of murders in total in the US.  And, that at least one very populous and very dense country -- Japan -- makes even England look like a haven for murderous thugs.  I'd love to see a good, even handed analysis that covers the *why* of these differences.  I haven't had the time to look into it, yet.

What is also crystal clear is that homicide, as hot a topic as it is politically, is a minor issue compared to other much larger public health and safety issues.  Even in the US, everyone's least favorite gun-totin' land o' murder and mayhem.  For instance, some stats I have looked at show many countries have a suicide rate approximately double that of their own homicide rate, as a generalization.

[Seppuku]

And of course - it's not worth removing gun law in America or legalising them in the UK. It is clear that other measures ought to be taken to keep crime low. From what's apparent Japan isn't a gun-happy nation and the UK is still pretty violent compare to other nations. They're doing something right that neither the UK or US isn't. Maybe it's their bizarre game shows? Screw Who Wants to be a Millionaire, we all need a bit of Takeshi's Castle to keep us all from going mad and killing innocent bystanders...or Hard Gay...bizarre show.

[Agamemnon]

Getting guns into the country illegally isn't that easy.

I'll bet it would be a lot easier if there were a ban on guns and organized crime took over the firearms import business.

[koberulz]

Comparing assault and murder figures, it seems to be a big enough difference. UK and US stand similar on assault figures, but there's fewer murders in the UK. It'd appear fewer violent crimes end in death.

You walk down the street, and see one guy belting another. What would you look at to determine whether you are witnessing a murder or an assault?

If possession of guns leads to more people being killed as a result, it becomes an infringement of the victims' freedom.

No. Killing people is an infringement on their freedom. Possessing a gun is not. Again, the argument you're using can be used to justify banning photography at children's sporting events, censoring the internet, and all sorts of other freedom-inhibiting bullshit.

So if your attacker isn't only able to beat the crap out of you, but if he's good with a gun, then you should let him kick the crap out of you anyway?

What?

One thing we're taught with self defense is to NOT cause aggression or provoke the attacker, but get out of the situation as quickly as possible. If the attacker can cause damage to you, particularly if he's got a weapon, your chances are slimmed if they're provoked to use them.

If my choice is between dying and pulling a gun on the guy, I'll pull the gun every damn time.

[Seppuku]

You walk down the street, and see one guy belting another. What would you look at to determine whether you are witnessing a murder or an assault?

It'd be very difficult to tell. There are a lot of things you can't tell from such situations, for example, if the violence you see is a couple of guys having a falling out or if it's an example of gang-related violence. You might wish to get involved and stop them, even if you have a gun there's a level of risk involved - what if his mates are around the corner? What if the guy's a member of a gang and remembers your face? As much as I'd like to help a person in such a situation, whether there's a gun in my pocket or not, it's a risk to get involved and you don't know the situation - calling the authorities and hoping they get their in time would be my response. Heroes get killed, life isn't a movie.

No. Killing people is an infringement on their freedom. Possessing a gun is not. Again, the argument you're using can be used to justify banning photography at children's sporting events, censoring the internet, and all sorts of other freedom-inhibiting bullshit.

Not really. And I've explained exactly why that is. If having guns in a society causes an increase in murder or other violent crimes, then it's a problem, so if this is the case, they why allow them. Why can't a person drive a tank on the highway? Surely it ought to be in their right? It doesn't matter what dangers it causes, because it's our freedom.

Photography, last times I checked does not pose danger for children. Yes, paedophiles use them to take pictures of children, but changing photography laws isn't likely going to cull the problem, some argue that it does as certain events (where children are evolved), but I am unaware whether it has had an effect or not.

And yet again I'm repeating myself. Changing US or UK gun law I don't feel will improve things, but rather exacerbate things. You yanks are free to keep your guns because you need them more than we do. We're different societies, so what may work for you may not work for us. Considering the difference in gun-related murders, it strongly suggests that when you've got a society that so freely has access to guns, then it becomes more likely that a person is killed. America already has guns, so banning them won't do a thing to help and would make matters worse.

It's interesting that this discussion has turned into conjecture - are you really wanting the UK to increase its violent crime and murder because you feel gun ownership ought to be a civil right here? If that's the case, well, I'm going to petition for roads to be widened so they can fit the tank I'm going to save up for, just do it doesn't take up 2 lanes, after all, the government ought to protect my freedom to own and drive a tank.

[Ananukia]

Nothing sexier than a Damascus steel shotgun.

It's a work of art that lets me kill pheasants.

No painting can do that.

[koberulz]

It'd be very difficult to tell.

Exactly. The only difference between assault and murder is whether or not the victim lives. This is my point.

Not really. And I've explained exactly why that is. If having guns in a society causes an increase in murder or other violent crimes, then it's a problem, so if this is the case, they why allow them.

Why allow knives? They kill plenty of people.

Why can't a person drive a tank on the highway? Surely it ought to be in their right? It doesn't matter what dangers it causes, because it's our freedom.

There's a difference between driving a tank on the highway and owning a gun. Driving a tank on the highway is much more equivalent to firing a gun randomly into the air. If you just want to own a tank, go right the hell ahead. It's legal in the States. Just for you, some are even road-legal.

And yet again I'm repeating myself. Changing US or UK gun law I don't feel will improve things, but rather exacerbate things.

It's not about improving things, or exacerbating things. It's about rights and freedoms.

It's interesting that this discussion has turned into conjecture - are you really wanting the UK to increase its violent crime and murder because you feel gun ownership ought to be a civil right here?

No, it can keep its murder rate down if it likes, but owning a gun should be a right everywhere.

[Seppuku]

Why allow knives? They kill plenty of people.

Knives are already freely available, why do you think I've argued that it's a BAD idea for the US to ban guns?

There's a difference between driving a tank on the highway and owning a gun. Driving a tank on the highway is much more equivalent to firing a gun randomly into the air. If you just want to own a tank, go right the hell ahead. It's legal in the States. Just for you, some are even road-legal.

Why can't I even do that? Surely I have the freedom to do those things, what? Just because I might kill somebody? Surely that doesn't matter if I'm exercising my freedom?

It's not about improving things, or exacerbating things. It's about rights and freedoms.

And if those rights keep getting people killed...it's okay? How can dead people exercise their rights and freedoms?

No, it can keep its murder rate down if it likes, but owning a gun should be a right everywhere.

It shows that maybe it keeps murder down in the US when comparing states, but then guns in the US are widely available and most people own a firearm, so it's a different situation to that of the UK where firearms aren't so widely available, hence why the UK's gun-related murders are significantly lower than that of the US or South Africa. Murder in the US is 4 times that of the UK too, whilst assaults are around the same, so I'm not convinced making gun a right everywhere is going to make a country any safer, unless of course, the population is already carrying their own private arsenals, in the case of the UK, they aren't.

[koberulz]

How many times do I have to say it? Owning a gun doesn't hurt anyone, firing the gun does. Until you can learn that distinction this debate is pointless.

[Seppuku]

No, but if legalising them means more people die each year as a result then the legalisation of guns IS hurting somebody, likewise, if you can't understand that, then yes, this is utterly pointless.

[koberulz]

That doesn't suddenly make owning a gun an infringement on somebody's rights, though. Nor does it justify punishing people who haven't committed a crime.

[Str82Hell]

Owning a nuclear bomb does not hurt anybody, detonating does. Therefore I think we should sue people who detonate nuclear bombs, not people who possess. them.

[hickdive]

However, you came in late to the conversation, and do not seem to have been following the line of disscussion.

Actually Jim, I had been following the debate, lack of posting does not equate to lack of reading; I found it interesting but your (now corrected) assertion that British gun laws were designed to prevent rebellion against the monarchy was patently wrong, hence I pointed that out.

 And, your implication that I think the citizens of the UK should arm themselves with firearms -- as if I am insisting that other countries do as America does -- is incorrect.

I think you'll find I referred to 'Americans' Jim, not you specifically. Of course, you might take 'Americans' to imply yourself but I cannot control what implications people take from what I didn't write.

Anyway, I shall continue to read the debate with interest.

Carry on.

[Arakk]

Guns exist, making them legal or not regardless of caliber, size, range, rate of fire, etc will never change that fact. Its a fact I feel far too many anti-gun activists don't seem to understand which leads to their next misconception. Banning guns makes gun violence go away (or decrease for that matter), its a failure in logic. The reason why is simple.

The people that would not buy guns if it were illegal are not the people that are cause for concern, the people murdering, raping, robbing with the aid of a firearm won't care if they have to do an additional illegal thing to commit their crimes. Difference would be, now the innocent, the ones following gun regulations, would be completely unarmed. It would be so easy to be a criminal knowing no reasonable choice in victim would be carrying a weapon that could stop you from getting what you want, gun related crime would certainly rise.

As far as our "right to bear arms," that right does exist to defend ourselves, that's true, for the reason I already stated above. I think the media focuses far too much on that part of it and not the real reason we have that right. The right to bear arms was created for one reason, so the people have the capability to dismantle the government should it become too powerful and not be a gov't of the people.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

As an American (and a U.S. Marine) it looks like our government is going that direction doesn't it? Look at the ever increasing gun control laws all across the country, even if the 2nd Amendment isn't completely abolished, we're inching closer and closer to being so minimally armed we could never take our country back if we ever needed to. Even in the states that allow you to get an assault rifle or automatic weapon, you're usually registered as having it, so if there ever was a revolution finding and eliminating the few people with enough arms to pose a legitimate threat to fascism/dictatorship could be done almost instantly. Nevermind the fact that some of the military capable weapon systems that ARE available to the public, cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars, nevermind ammunition.

This idea that "guns kill people" and less legal guns = less gun violence that the media has so often fed to the public over the years has created a nation that is now completely incapable of taking this country back if...WHEN politicians take it from the people. If tomorrow the gov't took all your rights, started executing protesters on site, jailing people with no official charges (this is already happening) etc etc.... we would be screwed.

I think the 2nd amendment is flawed however, in that it only grants the people a RIGHT to bear arms, it should be a REQUIREMENT.

For the record, I'm not a firearm owner either.

[koberulz]

I think the 2nd amendment is flawed however, in that it only grants the people a RIGHT to bear arms, it should be a REQUIREMENT.

For the record, I'm not a firearm owner either.

That has to be a joke.

[Azdgari]

Why does it have to be a joke?

It is the logical extension of the "deterrance" argument for gun ownership.  If the prevalence of guns is being used to deter criminals from coming into conflict with armed citizens, then a universal prevalence of guns will make the deterrance far more effective.

That is, if you stand by the argument, anyway.  I don't think it holds water, but you supposedly do.

[koberulz]

He thinks the second amendment should REQUIRE guns, but doesn't own one himself? How is that not a joke? Even ignoring the fact that it completely misses the point about getting the government out of our lives.