The right to bear arms

[Alpha]

Because we're all sick of people talking about how Issue X belongs in Thread Y, not Thread Z, and I'm all about action and getting people to post in this subforum.

What are your views on gun rights?

Now, it's a contentious issue, and if you're not one to get a kick out of long multi-quoted posts and subtle keyboard warriorishness, then how about you disregard all of the posts in this thread, and offer simple, to-the-point responses to the following (underlined) questions, which can also operate for getting the familiar discussion going:

Do you believe that people have the right to bear arms? (Bonus questions: Which kind of arms (handguns, concealed, full-auto, hunting only, bazookas, tanks...)? Which people (licensed, drug-free, no criminal records...)? How many? For what purpose do these rights exist? (Is it Constiutional, and if so, again, for what purpose?))

Do you think crime is positively or negatively associated with rates of gun ownership? (If people own guns, are they more likely to use them in crimes, or; if people own guns, the good guys are empowered to beat the bad guys in their lairs?)

How do we stop evil dudes from obtaining guns? (Do you support some kind of arms amnesty, and would this only serve to dis-arm responsible owners? Are guns a Pandora's box of no return?)

Do you own (or do you want to own) a gun? (What kind?)

If you own a gun, have you ever used it to defend yourself (or someone else)? (If you do not own a gun, would you ever use one to defend yourself at another's expense?)

Should ordinary police persons have access to guns? (This might be a weird question to some, but they don't here, and the thought that they could actually scares me a lot.) (In holsters or in their cars?)

I'll post my own responses at a later date, because I think my dinner is burning. Have at it!

[Hobaginator]

First off, I'm not attacking you, so don't get all sensitive.

if you're not one to get a kick out of long multi-quoted posts and subtle keyboard warriorishness, then how about you disregard all of the posts in this thread, and offer simple, to-the-point responses to the following (underlined) questions

That's a weird way to subtly insult anyone who does not follow your template. You have laid out a very specific outline that you'd like us to follow. You asked us a series of questions about gun control, and you'd like answers to said questions. It's all very structured, yes, but I think without the Hobag, no serious discussion can be sparked with such a controlled environment. Freedom of speech requires a little wiggle-room to get around in.

That being said, allow me to bite the line.

Do you believe that people have the right to bear arms? (Bonus questions: Which kind of arms (handguns, concealed, full-auto, hunting only, bazookas, tanks...)? Which people (licensed, drug-free, no criminal records...)? How many? For what purpose do these rights exist? (Is it Constiutional, and if so, again, for what purpose?))

I believe that non-criminal citizens have a right to bear small arms. With proper training, background investigation and liscencing citizens should be allowed to own up to fully automatic light machineguns. My reasoning for this is that to this day there has never been a weapon to replace the rifle for basic infanry, and all citizens should have the capability to defend their rights on the infantry level if need be. Explosives should be limited because if the day came that there was open war in the states, it's really not all that hard to just manufacture home-made bombs and grenades. I'm not a warmonger, I'm just prepared for anything.

Do you think crime is positively or negatively associated with rates of gun ownership? (If people own guns, are they more likely to use them in crimes, or; if people own guns, the good guys are empowered to beat the bad guys in their lairs?)

Crime and gun ownership are always a touchy subject. Truth is, there's always negroes to steal guns and scratch off the serial number to be then used in committing crimes. The best way to defend ourselves is to shoot criminals on sight during the commission of crimes, but that's generally illegal.

How do we stop evil dudes from obtaining guns? (Do you support some kind of arms amnesty, and would this only serve to dis-arm responsible owners? Are guns a Pandora's box of no return?)

Shoot em, just like Treyvon Martin. But once again, that's apparently illegal.

Do you own (or do you want to own) a gun? (What kind?)

I own a Remington 03A3 30.06 battle rifle, a .22 caliber small game rifle and a 20 ga shotgun. I used to own a Glock model 36 subcompact .45 ACP but I went to a beer pong party, got drunk and a pot smoking negro the host allowed in the house stole it from me. True story.

If you own a gun, have you ever used it to defend yourself (or someone else)? (If you do not own a gun, would you ever use one to defend yourself at another's expense?)

I've actually drawn my gun and set it on the ground to duke it out with my fists with a high negro who thought he was the toughest thing ever to walk through the hood. Sure, I could have Treyvon Martin'd him and probably would have faced no consequences because he threw the first punch, but I thought it would be more fun to prove to him that he's a little punk byach and he punches like a girl. Would I shoot somebody if I had to? You bet your ass. Did I have to that time? No, dude wasn't even a threat to me. Most negroes can't fight worth a damn. Him included.

Should ordinary police persons have access to guns? (This might be a weird question to some, but they don't here, and the thought that they could actually scares me a lot.) (In holsters or in their cars?)

They should have semi-auto assault rifles in addition to their current beat load. Send criminals to hell with my blessing, PD.

My suggestion is if you think U.S. citizens shouldn't own guns... go live in the inner-city "hood" for a month. Even a week. You will change your mind. Unless of course you have nothing the dirtbags want, then they'll leave you alone. If you're a good looking white girl, or a man with money and possessions, you're a target and there's no two ways about it. Best way to protect yourself is to live in a nice white community... if that's not possible then you'd better have a gun at least in your car and a knife in your pocket.

[Alpha]

if you're not one to get a kick out of long multi-quoted posts and subtle keyboard warriorishness, then how about you disregard all of the posts in this thread, and offer simple, to-the-point responses to the following (underlined) questions
That's a weird way to subtly insult anyone who does not follow your template. You have laid out a very specific outline that you'd like us to follow. You asked us a series of questions about gun control, and you'd like answers to said questions. It's all very structured, yes, but I think without the Hobag, no serious discussion can be sparked with such a controlled environment. Freedom of speech requires a little wiggle-room to get around in.

No, it wasn't addressed at you. It's because it is self-evident that most members of this forum dislike entering threads where they get attacked and ripped apart. Some people (you and I included, actually) somehow get enjoyment from it. You don't have to follow my template; I just wanted to make a point of entry for anyone who did.

I believe that non-criminal citizens have a right to bear small arms. With proper training, background investigation and liscencing citizens should be allowed to own up to fully automatic light machineguns. My reasoning for this is that to this day there has never been a weapon to replace the rifle for basic infanry, and all citizens should have the capability to defend their rights on the infantry level if need be. Explosives should be limited because if the day came that there was open war in the states, it's really not all that hard to just manufacture home-made bombs and grenades. I'm not a warmonger, I'm just prepared for anything.

Crime and gun ownership are always a touchy subject. Truth is, there's always negroes to steal guns and scratch off the serial number to be then used in committing crimes. The best way to defend ourselves is to shoot criminals on sight during the commission of crimes, but that's generally illegal.

Shoot em, just like Treyvon Martin. But once again, that's apparently illegal.

I own a Remington 03A3 30.06 battle rifle, a .22 caliber small game rifle and a 20 ga shotgun. I used to own a Glock model 36 subcompact .45 ACP but I went to a beer pong party, got drunk and a pot smoking negro the host allowed in the house stole it from me. True story.

I've actually drawn my gun and set it on the ground to duke it out with my fists with a high negro who thought he was the toughest thing ever to walk through the hood. Sure, I could have Treyvon Martin'd him and probably would have faced no consequences because he threw the first punch, but I thought it would be more fun to prove to him that he's a little punk byach and he punches like a girl. Would I shoot somebody if I had to? You bet your ass. Did I have to that time? No, dude wasn't even a threat to me. Most negroes can't fight worth a damn. Him included

My suggestion is if you think U.S. citizens shouldn't own guns... go live in the inner-city "hood" for a month. Even a week. You will change your mind. Unless of course you have nothing the dirtbags want, then they'll leave you alone. If you're a good looking white girl, or a man with money and possessions, you're a target and there's no two ways about it. Best way to protect yourself is to live in a nice white community... if that's not possible then you'd better have a gun at least in your car and a knife in your pocket.

If you continue to be racist (and sexist), I will warn you. You cannot afford another warning.

But onto your actual argument. Do you really see the Federal government as such a threat that it is likely to unleash the military against its own citizens--against the brothers and sisters of the people who are actually serving in the military? How paranoid can you be?

A) It's not going to happen, ever.

B) Even if it did, what use is a semi-automatic machine-gun against tanks, fighter jets, a navy frigate, stealth bombers, Navy Seals...? A hand gun is only really a great deal of use against a person who is equally- or less-well-equipped as you are.

They should have semi-auto assault rifles in addition to their current beat load. Send criminals to hell with my blessing, PD.

So the Police should be able to kill people extra-judicially? You know what is not constitutional? Killing citizens without just cause or trial by a jury of their peers.

Here's the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

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.

Allowing the Police (or, more accurately, enabling them) to kill 'criminals' before they are proven to be such (by a speedy trial with a jury of their peers) is Unconstitutional. And that is a far more important right than your right to bear arms, as evidenced by its far greater universiality globally.

[Hobaginator]

If you continue to be racist (and sexist), I will warn you. You cannot afford another warning.

I will continue to be racist, but I'll leave it out of my future discussion, just for you buddy. Thanks for the pre-warning warning. Although I could afford one more as long as it wasn't over 5 points. I always get the 34 pt ones.

Do you really see the Federal government as such a threat that it is likely to unleash the military against its own citizens--against the brothers and sisters of the people who are actually serving in the military? How paranoid can you be?

A) It's not going to happen, ever.

Not the military... I'd more expect it to be the mercenary PMCs that are corporation-driven merchants of war. I don't expect it to happen until about 2035. Please refer to "MIT predicts Global Economic Collapse 2030" in google.
If you'd like to learn more about Private Military Corporations here's a good link for you:
List / Directory of Private Military Companies (Contractors) or PMCs, Corporate Profiles, Lists of Services, Locations
-- And that's just the start of it. There are hundreds of these companies that operate worldwide. If anybody was going to do it, it would be something like this. That's not paranoia, that's preparation.

As far as the police carrying semi-auto assault rifles... that's so that they can shoot people caught during the commision of violent crimes easier. That's legal.

[Sasquatch]

It's all very structured, yes, but I think without the Hobag, no serious discussion can be sparked with such a controlled environment.

Get over yourself, kid.

Freedom of speech requires a little wiggle-room to get around in.

This is a forum controlled by a private entity. You don't have freedom of speech here. You don't have the right to say whatever you want, and your "rights" wouldn't be "violated" if you broke the rules of the forum and were warned or banned for it.

With proper training, background investigation and liscencing citizens should be allowed to own up to fully automatic light machineguns.

I didn't realize the Constitution actually said, "shall not be infringed ... except for having the federal government choose and keep track of who gets to have a firearm".

I own a Remington 03A3 30.06 battle rifle, a .22 caliber small game rifle and a 20 ga shotgun.

Remington 03A3 hasn't been a battle rifle for nearly seventy years.

I used to own a Glock model 36 subcompact .45 ACP but I went to a beer pong party, got drunk and a pot smoking negro the host allowed in the house stole it from me. True story.

I've actually drawn my gun and set it on the ground to duke it out with my fists with a high negro who thought he was the toughest thing ever to walk through the hood.

First of all, the racism doesn't help your cause. It just makes you look like an ignorant moron, and right now, whether you like it or not, you represent gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, so your ignorance reflects on the rest of us.

Second -- and I can't stress this enough -- if these are true, you are ****ING STUPID. How in the **** does somebody steal a gun that you're carrying? And why the hell would you take out your gun and put it on the ground? A Glock 36 is not only a $500 pistol, it's also a damn GUN. Why would you want to be responsible for something that somebody else could do by simply picking up YOUR handgun? If either of these two stories are true, you are too stupid to own a firearm, and you should sell all of yours immediately.

They should have semi-auto assault rifles in addition to their current beat load.

There are no semi-auto assault rifles. Please educate yourself before discussing firearms.

But onto your actual argument. Do you really see the Federal government as such a threat that it is likely to unleash the military against its own citizens--against the brothers and sisters of the people who are actually serving in the military? How paranoid can you be?

A) It's not going to happen, ever.

It's already happened, multiple times.

Anyway. On to the OP.

Do you believe that people have the right to bear arms? (Bonus questions: Which kind of arms (handguns, concealed, full-auto, hunting only, bazookas, tanks...)? Which people (licensed, drug-free, no criminal records...)? How many? For what purpose do these rights exist? (Is it Constiutional, and if so, again, for what purpose?))

Many questions in this one. Yes, people have the right to bear arms. Whether you call it Constitutional, or natural, or God-given, or whatever, every person on earth has the right to defend themselves with all means necessary. (Some governments restrict these rights, however.) As for what kinds of arms? Basically, all kinds. I can understand the restriction of certain types of firearms or ammunition for hunting, but there should be very few restrictions on owning. When the American Constitution was written, civilians were allowed to have the same arms that the military had -- military going up against civilians would have been a semi-even match. Now, the federal government can literally do whatever the hell they want, restrict any and all rights they desire, because the populace doesn't have the means to defend themselves. Militia is not the National Guard, it's made up of the civilian populace.

And as far as the purpose goes ... Why should we be allowed to own firearms? Because people that wish to do harm to others -- whether they be governments, opposing armies, or criminals -- always prefer an unarmed populace. That's why some of the worst dictators this planet has ever seen all started by disarming those who might resist their policies. That's how they started -- they continued to slaughter and oppress their own people, because their own people were stripped of their means of defense.

Do you think crime is positively or negatively associated with rates of gun ownership? (If people own guns, are they more likely to use them in crimes, or; if people own guns, the good guys are empowered to beat the bad guys in their lairs?)

In short ... yes. Higher legal firearm ownership will always make firearms more available, and thus more easily obtained for those with illegal purposes in mind. However, the only people that will obey laws requiring them to give up their guns are the people who would also obey laws against committing crimes with their guns. Bad guys will get ahold of guns, it's a fact.

How do we stop evil dudes from obtaining guns? (Do you support some kind of arms amnesty, and would this only serve to dis-arm responsible owners? Are guns a Pandora's box of no return?)

We enforce the laws and the penalties against illegal firearms. The same way we would deal with rape, child molestation, or any other serious crime -- make the punishment an actual punishment. Make prisons into bad, uncomfortable places to be. Make people lose rights if they show that they can't be trusted not to abuse them.

On the flip side, let's stop going after honest, law-abiding citizens just because they own firearms. Let's stop the police brutality and harassment for Concealed Carry permit holders, let's stop ATF raids (and murders, like the Weavers) on people that "might" have an illegal firearm, let's stop funneling illegal guns into Mexico and then "forgetting" to track them, let's focus on the actual criminals.

Do you own (or do you want to own) a gun? (What kind?)

I have a few, yes.

If you own a gun, have you ever used it to defend yourself (or someone else)? (If you do not own a gun, would you ever use one to defend yourself at another's expense?)

I have. Other than the military, as well. Two schmucks tried to break down my door a couple years ago, because of something they thought I said about one of their girlfriends, or some BS like that. I had a FNP .40S&W at the time, so I simply leaned back in my recliner, took it out of its case, chambered a round, and waited. Once they got the door open to the chain latch (maybe three inches), they could see that I had a gun, and ... well, let's say that they weren't so enthusiastic about getting into my living room anymore. After that, they stuck around, so after my best friend showed up to make it a fair fight (it was either wait until they break in and I have to shoot, or go outside and get jumped by both of them), one of 'em started a fight, so I whupped his ass, and both of them got arrested that night.

The majority of self-defense cases involving a firearm don't involve actual shooting.

Should ordinary police persons have access to guns? (This might be a weird question to some, but they don't here, and the thought that they could actually scares me a lot.) (In holsters or in their cars?)

Yes, of course. On their person. Granted, they should be a little more well-trained in its use (most LEOs shoot twice a year and that's it -- this is reflected in their horrible accuracy), but yes, they should carry firearms on them. Otherwise, they will be completely useless when it comes to facing real danger.

[Hobaginator]

Get over yourself, kid.

This is a forum controlled by a private entity. You don't have freedom of speech here.

Yes, but I can advocate it.

Remington 03A3 hasn't been a battle rifle for nearly seventy years.

Battle rifle as in it was in service as a battle rifle over 70 years ago. I even have the bayonet for it now. Working on obtaining the rest of the complete package as close to as it was used in WWII. This rifle is over 70 years old and is what I consider one of the most influential battle rifles ever engineered and deployed into combat. It was certainly battle rifle enough for 7th marine division Baker One Seven at the Chosin Resevoir, North Korea; and the island hopping campaign before that.

Second -- and I can't stress this enough -- if these are true, you are ****ING STUPID. How in the **** does somebody steal a gun that you're carrying?

I wasn't carrying it. It was in my personal bag which he rifled through, found, and stole while I was sleeping off a case of beer. You're quick to insult one for stupidity though you are ignorant to the details.

And why the hell would you take out your gun and put it on the ground? A Glock 36 is not only a $500 pistol, it's also a damn GUN. Why would you want to be responsible for something that somebody else could do by simply picking up YOUR handgun?

It wasn't my glock. It was my rifle. I was bringing it and my other belongings to my car when he started the fight with me. I decided not to use my firearm, so I unchambered the round and removed the bolt slide, putting both in my back pocket, before I placed the rifle on the ground. It's a sturdy rifle, and I decided not to use it. Nobody else had any way of operating it unless they first subdued me (not going to happen), took the bolt from my person, and managed to figure out how to reassemble the firearm before I stopped them (unlikely). I didn't choose to get in a fight while armed, but I did decide to disarm the rifle in that situation. I got sucker punched as I set it down. It was weak. I came out on top. We don't choose every situation we're put in but we can choose how to react to them. I chose to take the firearm out of the equation because I knew he wasn't armed and that I could handle him just fine without it. I was just trying to put my stuff in my car.

If either of these two stories are true, you are too stupid to own a firearm, and you should sell all of yours immediately.

Okay boss. Any other expert advice?

There are no semi-auto assault rifles. Please educate yourself before discussing firearms.

Assault rifles have a variable setting; semi-auto, burst or full-auto depending on the firearm. I'm of the opinion that police should be armed with assault rifles, but restricted to keep them on semi-auto unless given clearance (or are sprayed at by full-auto fire), to then set their firearm on fully automatic. Maybe I should have clarified that.

[Heartless Angel]

Do you believe that people have the right to bear arms? (Bonus questions: Which kind of arms (handguns, concealed, full-auto, hunting only, bazookas, tanks...)? Which people (licensed, drug-free, no criminal records...)? How many? For what purpose do these rights exist? (Is it Constiutional, and if so, again, for what purpose?))

Yes, any kind up until the point at which it becomes a danger to others (whether by being a dangerous weapon, or being something rare that someone would steal and use, like a working tank or something). I would not support my neighbor keeping a nuclear warhead in his back yard. Anybody who society doesn't have any reason to believe would misuse them. So no criminal record, pass a drug test, and has passed a gun safety course of some sort.

Do you think crime is positively or negatively associated with rates of gun ownership? (If people own guns, are they more likely to use them in crimes, or; if people own guns, the good guys are empowered to beat the bad guys in their lairs?)

Negatively, when the system isn't stupid. As it is right now, a lot of places in the states completely destroy the entire reason we allow concealed firearms with their "No concealed firearms allowed inside" signs. Why would you think a sign would stop criminals from concealing a weapon? If somebody comes to a building with a gun, planning to kill people, he doesn't care about laws of morality, the laws of man, or the laws of basic logic and common sense. Why in the **** would you think he cares about a sign in your window? The only people who care about your sign are law abiding citizens. All the "no concealed firearms allowed inside" sign tells a criminal, is that the law abiding citizens inside are unarmed and defenseless. Not helping.

How do we stop evil dudes from obtaining guns? (Do you support some kind of arms amnesty, and would this only serve to dis-arm responsible owners? Are guns a Pandora's box of no return?)

You can't really, you just have to make sure it's longer a major advantage to have a gun. One armed bad guy vs 100 armed law abiding citizens ready to take him out, suddenly his gun doesn't matter so much. Not to say of course this means an end to all violent crime, sometimes the bad guy is gonna kill some innocents before somebody gets a gun on the guy, or you'll have bad guys with bullet proof vests or bombs, or whatever. In any case, you've got a better chance if your law abiding citizens have some means of fighting back, than if they're all just at the bad guy's mercy.

Do you own (or do you want to own) a gun? (What kind?)

Several shotguns, various gauges, two rifles, 22 cal, two handguns, 22 cal. I mostly use the shotguns, for hunting and sporting clays. Sometimes I do some stationary target scored shooting with handguns, the rifles haven't been used for ages.

If you own a gun, have you ever used it to defend yourself (or someone else)? (If you do not own a gun, would you ever use one to defend yourself at another's expense?)

Never had to, but I wouldn't hesitate if I ever did.

Should ordinary police persons have access to guns? (This might be a weird question to some, but they don't here, and the thought that they could actually scares me a lot.) (In holsters or in their cars?)

Definitely. "We have you surrounded but don't have any means of stopping you", isn't a very good threat against an armed criminal. If you want ANYBODY armed to be able to fight your criminals, it's the people employed to do so.

[seanb]

Do you believe that people have the right to bear arms?
Yes.

(Bonus questions: Which kind of arms (handguns, concealed, full-auto, hunting only, bazookas, tanks...)?
Arms for the purpose of hunting and protection only. These are they only weapons which I feel are necessary. All other weapons which are made for the army should stay in the army and special forces and so on. As far as I'm concerned, grenades and M-16's don't belong under the beds of civilians.

Which people (licensed, drug-free, no criminal records...)?
Weapon's should need a licence. And to obtain a licence it should take a series of interviews and form's to be completed to prove that the person in question does not have any serious mental health problems or a severe criminal record... (all of which is pretty much how things are were I live)

How many? For what purpose do these rights exist? (Is it Constiutional, and if so, again, for what purpose?))
I'm not qualified to name a specific number, but yes there should definitely be a limit to the amount of guns you can own. Personally I would impose this more on handguns, more than hunting guns, obviously rifles and shotguns are not just as prone to be involved in crime than smaller concealed weapons.

Do you think crime is positively or negatively associated with rates of gun ownership? (If people own guns, are they more likely to use them in crimes, or; if people own guns, the good guys are empowered to beat the bad guys in their lairs?)
I think crime is affected both positively and negatively in relation to ownership of guns, which is unfortunate as it leaves us with unclarity and confusion when trying to discern ways to reduce terrible crimes. Her, police don't bear arms, which angers me sometimes because they are often outnumbered and cannot handle situations which get out of hand. Handguns are illegal here too for regular use, and I have to say I cannot remember hearing about a crime that has involved a handgun in years. However people can and do get them. and larger weapons end up being used in organised crimes, ie sawn of shotguns.
so I honestly can't give a black or white answer to this one.

How do we stop evil dudes from obtaining guns? (Do you support some kind of arms amnesty, and would this only serve to dis-arm responsible owners? Are guns a Pandora's box of no return?)
Again my views get torn here because I do support the right for responsible owners to have guns. It's getting the balance right with legislation on types of guns, and make sure people are fit and legible to posses a firearm by means of licencing, that's the closest I think we can get to making things as safe as possible for the general public.

Do you own (or do you want to own) a gun? (What kind?)
Not legally, I never bothered getting my gun licence, but myself and my dad go hunting often and I use one of his shotguns. A world apart from the malicious crimes associating handguns.

If you own a gun, have you ever used it to defend yourself (or someone else)? (If you do not own a gun, would you ever use one to defend yourself at another's expense?)
I don't but my neighbor sleeps with a shotgun under his bed and I know for a fact he would shoot anyone who came onto his property who wasn't invited. I admire him for that, he's an old man and has every right to defend himself in his home. I'd do the same if I was in his position.

Should ordinary police persons have access to guns? (This might be a weird question to some, but they don't here, and the thought that they could actually scares me a lot.) (In holsters or in their cars?)
I think they should. They don't here either, and i don't think they get the respect or authority they deserve. I would feel safer in a public place if I knew police armed.

[Clint]

Do you believe that people have the right to bear arms?
Yes, for the most part.

(Bonus questions: Which kind of arms (handguns, concealed, full-auto, hunting only, bazookas, tanks...)?
If it's designated for military purposes, it should be illegal to privately own. Who the hell needs an M-16 or a submachine gun? I'd say limit it to handguns and any variety of hunting rifles. That sounds reasonable to me.

Which people (licensed, drug-free, no criminal records...)?
Everybody, as long as they pass a background check. I don't know how gun retailers get away with selling their products without giving background checks to the people they're selling to. Especially because they're selling potentially deadly weapons.

How many? For what purpose do these rights exist? (Is it Constiutional, and if so, again, for what purpose?))
I think it should be illegal to build an arsenal. You're deranged and paranoid if you think that you need an arsenal, and if you have one simply because you like guns, get over it. I like dogs, but I'm not going to live in a kennel.

Do you think crime is positively or negatively associated with rates of gun ownership? (If people own guns, are they more likely to use them in crimes, or; if people own guns, the good guys are empowered to beat the bad guys in their lairs?)
Gun ownership isn't the problem. The people who go through all the proper channels to obtain their firearms probably just want it for hunting or protection. It's the people who go underground to get their guns that want their weapons for criminal purposes. Illegal arms dealers should be sought out, not people who own guns.

How do we stop evil dudes from obtaining guns? (Do you support some kind of arms amnesty, and would this only serve to dis-arm responsible owners? Are guns a Pandora's box of no return?)
How can you possibly tell if somebody is evil, or plans to do harm to anybody? Even if somebody goes through all the right channels and gets his arms legally, there's still a risk that he's a psychopath. Instead of disarming people of their arms, I have a better solution; more police officers.

Do you own (or do you want to own) a gun? (What kind?)
No, I don't, and I don't want one. I'm not a big fan of guns. I never have been. They're cool in movies, but that's about it.

Should ordinary police persons have access to guns? (This might be a weird question to some, but they don't here, and the thought that they could actually scares me a lot.) (In holsters or in their cars?)
Police officers should have a sidearm at all times, and a rifle stashed in their cars. It's basic self defense, and in the case of an officer, if he doesn't have his gun, it may cost him, or an innocent bystander their life.

[Halie]

Do you believe that people have the right to bear arms? (Bonus questions: Which kind of arms (handguns, concealed, full-auto, hunting only, bazookas, tanks...)? Which people (licensed, drug-free, no criminal records...)? How many? For what purpose do these rights exist? (Is it Constiutional, and if so, again, for what purpose?))

This may be the coward's way but I'm honestly torn on the issue. But for the most part, I think yes, they do. As people have pointed out, guns don't kill, people do. In my city, last August/September time, a man walked into a hairdresser's where his ex-wife worked and shot her and a couple of other people who were in the building. Fortunately, all the people who were shot survived. He had a gun license because he was a hunter. So, if nobody was allowed a gun in my country, would this really have stopped him from going into that hairdresser's and trying to kill his ex-wife? I don't think so. The guns were just convenient. I believe he would have found another way to attack her and the other people in the building. In fact, I think any other way might've been more painful, such as beating her to death. On the other hand, being beaten to death certainly takes longer to do than to shoot someone to death. Just one bullet has the power to kill somebody and that happens in a mere second, so what if he'd shot his ex-wife in one of her vital organs? She'd be dead. But if he didn't have a gun and chose to try and beat her to death, he could have been stopped before she'd been killed. There are valid arguments for both sides.

Do you think crime is positively or negatively associated with rates of gun ownership? (If people own guns, are they more likely to use them in crimes, or; if people own guns, the good guys are empowered to beat the bad guys in their lairs?)

I do think people are more likely to use them in crime if they have them. It's like the man I talked about above, he used one of his guns out of convenience. I suppose you could say they're an easy way to "get the job done".

How do we stop evil dudes from obtaining guns?

Having citizens be tested before they can own a gun is really the best way around it. Drug tests, mental health tests, etc. One could argue that people who don't past these tests have every right to defend themselves as much as people who have passed these tests do, but I think they'd honestly be more of a danger.

Do you own (or do you want to own) a gun? (What kind?)

No, I don't, and I honestly would never want to. I think it would be absolutely bizarre if one day people in my country started walking around with guns in their bags, to be honest. A bit contradictory to my prior argument but hey, like I said, I'm torn. I think I would only own a gun if I lived in a particularly rough area with a really high crime-rate. The story I told earlier was pretty much a once in a lifetime event in this city and regardless of it, my area is somewhat safe. Somewhat. Safe enough to not need to walk around with a gun.

If you own a gun, have you ever used it to defend yourself (or someone else)? (If you do not own a gun, would you ever use one to defend yourself at another's expense?)

I would only use a gun to defend myself if I was being raped or something. I'm not a violent person, but I most definitely would use a gun to defend somebody else who was in danger of being killed or raped, etc.

Should ordinary police persons have access to guns? (This might be a weird question to some, but they don't here, and the thought that they could actually scares me a lot.) (In holsters or in their cars?)

Not in my area, no, because I believe this type of power would be abused in all honesty. It's not needed in most cases. On the other hand, I agree with seanb, they would be a lot more respected, which is something which definitely lacks in my area and many other places.

[Rowan]

I think it shouldn't be a 'right' to bear arms, but a priveledge. As in healthcare is a right, and guns are a priveledge. Guns are a priveledge because you're entitled to them as long as you meet a certain criteria. Although I dont think outlawing guns would change anything. A lot of the crimes commited with guns are often obtained illegally and by outlawing guns you would be restriciting honest people from owning something which could possibly save the life of another when used in the right circumstances. Having said that, whats stopping people without a record purchasing heaps of guns, filing off the serial numbers and selling them off to criminals? Granted I dont really know much about how the system works, so correct me if im wrong.

[Aerif]

I should be working, but I'm not working. So I will respond, but not too some of the comments within the thread - mostly because sometimes an idea or a person can disprove itself just by being viewed by an intelligent enough person.

Do you believe that people have the right to bear arms? (Bonus questions: Which kind of arms (handguns, concealed, full-auto, hunting only, bazookas, tanks...)? Which people (licensed, drug-free, no criminal records...)? How many? For what purpose do these rights exist? (Is it Constiutional, and if so, again, for what purpose?))

No. Full stop.

Despite a common held-belief, it is possible to legally own a gun in the United Kingdom, although only for sport and hunting. In these cases there should be the tightest regulations placed on the use of guns. Individuals should not be able to own guns and keep them in their own homes. Even well-trained individuals can make mistakes or be careless, and guns don't really have any purpose other than to cause harm.

Do you think crime is positively or negatively associated with rates of gun ownership? (If people own guns, are they more likely to use them in crimes, or; if people own guns, the good guys are empowered to beat the bad guys in their lairs?)

In 1996, the Dunblane massacre occurred in Dunblane, Scotland. An armed man entered a primary school and killed over a dozen children (5-year-olds) and a teacher who tried to stop him, before turning the gun on himself. This massacre led to the British government effectively banning the ownership of handguns and declaring them illegal. Since 1996, only one 'mass-shooting' has occurred in the United Kingdom.

The population of the USA is approximately 5x that of the UK's. However since 1996 there has been: Tuscon, Cupertino Quarry, Ingleside, Oikos University, Seal Beach, Aurora, Columbine, Northern Illinois University, Wichita, Wakefield, Grand Rapids, Red Lake, Westroads Mall, Wendy's (NY), 9/11, Nickel Mines, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, Cafe Racer (Seattle), and Capitol Hill. Some of these events such as 9/11 are not directly related to a civilian's ability to bear arms, however according to the statistics there have been 10x as many 'massacres' in the United States than in the United Kingdom, when statistically there should only have been 5x as many, I got this information from Wikipedia without looking into every incident.

Logic would dictate that gun ownership is influential to these numbers.

If a person is forced to become a criminal and already owns a gun because they legally already own it, are they more likely to commit a crime with that gun than a new criminal first purchasing an illegal gun and then committing a crime? I'd say yes, because it makes the process easier.

How do we stop evil dudes from obtaining guns? (Do you support some kind of arms amnesty, and would this only serve to dis-arm responsible owners? Are guns a Pandora's box of no return?)

Well you could suggest the traditional 'mental test, background checking, training' stuff, but this can't help every case. Besides, guns can be obtained illegally anyway.

In so far as disarmament goes:

This depends on the country. Guns are a massive part of American culture, and sadly I think the right to bear arms has become a Pandora's box. A ban on weapons would be met with major criticisms and a nation-wide ban would be impossible unless it was done a state at-a-time or something like that.

The banning of handguns dramatically decreased gun-related-crimes in the UK, meaning that it must have disarmed criminals as well as responsible owners. Mostly because a responsible owner can very easily become a criminal - especially if he already has a gun.

Do you own (or do you want to own) a gun? (What kind?)

No and no. You'd possibly become more of a victim if you happened to own a gun in this country, with people trying to steal the gun.

If you do not own a gun, would you ever use one to defend yourself at another's expense?

I don't think so. But who can ever tell before being placed in that situation. I'd like to be able to say that I might shoot an attacker in the legs, but only if it were a proportional defensive method.

Should ordinary police persons have access to guns? (This might be a weird question to some, but they don't here, and the thought that they could actually scares me a lot.) (In holsters or in their cars?)

No. They should have access to some sort of non-lethal means of disarmament such as guns which can temporarily incapacitate only. But if an armed police man was overpowered by a crazed lunatic that lunatic could take the gun. Or a police woman could be overzealous with her crowd control. Or some other situation which could lead to unnecessary injury or death.

[Hobaginator]

The population of the USA is approximately 5x that of the UK's. However since 1996 there has been: Tuscon, Cupertino Quarry, Ingleside, Oikos University, Seal Beach, Aurora, Columbine, Northern Illinois University, Wichita, Wakefield, Grand Rapids, Red Lake, Westroads Mall, Wendy's (NY), 9/11, Nickel Mines, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, Cafe Racer (Seattle), and Capitol Hill. Some of these events such as 9/11 are not directly related to a civilian's ability to bear arms, however according to the statistics there have been 10x as many 'massacres' in the United States than in the United Kingdom, when statistically there should only have been 5x as many, I got this information from Wikipedia without looking into every incident.

Logic would dictate that gun ownership is influential to these numbers.

Hold it right there. Over half of those sources you listed, guns weren't even involved. You can't just take every major death-related incident of recent U.S. history and use it to argue against guns. That doesn't even make sense. You're talking about home-made bombs and terrorists and grouping them into one category under the title of "why guns are bad" and saying that's logical? I think a more logical argument would be why citizens should always be armed: preventing bads from out-gunning them as is what happened in most of those incidents referenced.

Wait... I don't even know why I'm arguing against somebody who actually listed Wikipedia as their resource (and not as a joke).

If a person is forced to become a criminal and already owns a gun because they legally already own it, are they more likely to commit a crime with that gun than a new criminal first purchasing an illegal gun and then committing a crime? I'd say yes, because it makes the process easier.

Being forced to become a criminal? What do you think this is, Max Payne?

You'd possibly become more of a victim if you happened to own a gun in this country, with people trying to steal the gun.

I thought crime rate was better in your country than the U.S.A? Or is armed robbery a daily occurance there? Here, people get their heads blown off for that kind of shit. It's called natural selection. Here in the U.S.A. we're not afraid to exercise our own freedom for fear of becoming a victim. Here, we don't take kindly to having our freedoms infringed upon through fear tactics (terrorism). Your country definitely sounds like it has things under control. Just keep throwing the socialist party more money. That will solve everything.

I don't think so. But who can ever tell before being placed in that situation. I'd like to be able to say that I might shoot an attacker in the legs, but only if it were a proportional defensive method.

I love this. Do you even know how to use a gun? Do you know how to aim with the sights? At 10 yards with a pistol, would you be able to nail the bad guy and pacify him, or would you accidentally murder the woman he's holding hostage at knife-point? Have you ever even fired a gun? If not, you have no means of self-defense nor could you be of any help in a situation requiring that kind of action. You'd be more of a detriment than a help. I'm not trying to dig in to you, I'm trying to make you realize that in unexperienced hands a gun is dangerous to everybody.

If all of you people who hate guns so much and think they are so dangerous actually were taught how to use one properly, aim with accuracy, and how to handle it safely, then you'd look at firearms with a whole new set of eyes. In the right hands, a firearm is just another tool that humans can use. In the wrong hands -- it's a lethal and unpredictable force of nature.

Edit: About the U.S.A being so deadly... total up the deaths in all of those incidents in the U.S.A. Ready?

Libya finds mass grave from 1996 massacre - Video Dailymotion

It was dawn on June 29, 1996 when guards at Abu Salim prison in Tripoli ordered inmates into the courtyard.
They were then shot by security men standing on prison roofs.
This is the account survivors gave to human rights groups.
Now, the first physical evidence of the Abu Salim prison massacre has been found, this mass grave.
Libya's National Transitional Council said it contained the bodies of people killed by toppled leader Muammar Gaddafi's security forces in a 1996 massacre.
It holds the remains of 1,270 people.
It was an event covered up for years."

Prisoners murdered by their govornment and tossed into a mass grave. Unarmed prisoners. Take away people's guns, and they can't fight back. Unarmed people become fish in a barrel for armed psychos. Get my point?

[Aerif]

I wanted to reply to Mr. Hobaginator but unfortunately he has been banned. Still, there's no harm in clarifying some of my points.

Hold it right there. Over half of those sources you listed, guns weren't even involved. You can't just take every major death-related incident of recent U.S. history and use it to argue against guns. That doesn't even make sense. You're talking about home-made bombs and terrorists and grouping them into one category under the title of "why guns are bad" and saying that's logical? I think a more logical argument would be why citizens should always be armed: preventing bads from out-gunning them as is what happened in most of those incidents referenced.

Wait... I don't even know why I'm arguing against somebody who actually listed Wikipedia as their resource (and not as a joke).

I did acknowledge that a lot of the incidents didn't involve guns, however even if half of them had nothing to do with gun control that still makes a rather high body count. Perhaps the number of massacres are directly related to the relationship between guns and crime? I'm not really trying to say that there is a definite correlation - but the more people that own guns the more people who can easily cause an incident like this.

And snobbish-ness against Wikipedia is only really relevant in the academic world where it is generally frowned upon due to the past unreliability of the website. Nowadays Wikipedia is almost always an accurate source. And anyway I don't really care if you have a problem with it since I never actually asked you to pick at my points - but merely to consider them.

Being forced to become a criminal? What do you think this is, Max Payne?

Joke if you like, but everyday people who fee that they have no alternative turn to a life of crime in order to maintain a lifestyle or to ensure their survival. Drug addicts often steal in order to support their habit (since a lot of the time support systems are overloaded and unable to assist them), and these crimes can become increasingly violent from stealing money from your grandmother's stash above the wardrobe to getting a gun and holding up a corner shop.

I thought crime rate was better in your country than the U.S.A? Or is armed robbery a daily occurance there? Here, people get their heads blown off for that kind of shit. It's called natural selection. Here in the U.S.A. we're not afraid to exercise our own freedom for fear of becoming a victim. Here, we don't take kindly to having our freedoms infringed upon through fear tactics (terrorism). Your country definitely sounds like it has things under control. Just keep throwing the socialist party more money. That will solve everything.

Did you just use the phrase 'socialist party' unironically? Wow.

Anyway, crime rate varies everywhere and I can't be bothered to look up the statistics - I am fairly certain that the crime rate of Scotland is overall lower than that of the USA.

BUT, I think you missed my point. With guns being so rare (as in an ownership rate of less than 5 guns per 100 people) they could be seen as a valuable commodity to a criminal who may not own one and want to steal one.

It's worth noting that terrorism doesn't have a major impact on Scotland, the last major terrorist attack was the Glasgow Airport Attack, and there were no casualties because some 'innocent bystanders' literally went and kicked the terrorists in the crotch to prevent further damage. The terrorists were a little incompetent - but despite that it is the only terrorist incident I can recall ever happening in Scotland. The only two deaths related to the incident were the terrorists themselves.

I love this. Do you even know how to use a gun? Do you know how to aim with the sights? At 10 yards with a pistol, would you be able to nail the bad guy and pacify him, or would you accidentally murder the woman he's holding hostage at knife-point? Have you ever even fired a gun? If not, you have no means of self-defense nor could you be of any help in a situation requiring that kind of action. You'd be more of a detriment than a help. I'm not trying to dig in to you, I'm trying to make you realize that in unexperienced hands a gun is dangerous to everybody.

No I don't - a fact I am proud of, however I do have a general idea. Yes I do, I will admit that I'm not very good at it, but at a certain range it sort of becomes irrelevant. I wouldn't risk that, and if he were holding her as a human shield I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't risk it - however I do have a natural talent for archery so that may be something. I have never fired a gun, thank goodness.

I didn't actually expect myself to be in a situation which required any sort of action with a gun. It was a hypothetical question. If it were a simple situation where I had access to a gun and was about to witness a serious crime I'd hope to be able to do something.

See the funny thing is that you think I could take offence to having never had access to a gun and being completely untrained. I'm proud of it.

If all of you people who hate guns so much and think they are so dangerous actually were taught how to use one properly, aim with accuracy, and how to handle it safely, then you'd look at firearms with a whole new set of eyes. In the right hands, a firearm is just another tool that humans can use. In the wrong hands -- it's a lethal and unpredictable force of nature.

I think I'm too sane much of a 'socialist' to be able to ever look at guns in a positive manner. Being trained how to use a tool for injury/murder is actually a terrible thing to suggest ever doing. Firearms aren't tools, they are weapons - they have always been weapons invented to kill a fellow human being - that's how they were conceived in China - that's how they are seen by the rest of the non-gun-toting world.

Edit: About the U.S.A being so deadly... total up the deaths in all of those incidents in the U.S.A. Ready?

Prisoners murdered by their govornment and tossed into a mass grave. Unarmed prisoners. Take away people's guns, and they can't fight back. Unarmed people become fish in a barrel for armed psychos. Get my point?

And I'm sure if army officials came in the middle of the night with appropriate identification to take you away unarmed to a mass grave or as a prisoner in a jail cell you'd be able to do something about it. Prisoners don't exactly have easy access to guns.

[Heartless Angel]

I did acknowledge that a lot of the incidents didn't involve guns, however even if half of them had nothing to do with gun control that still makes a rather high body count. Perhaps the number of massacres are directly related to the relationship between guns and crime? I'm not really trying to say that there is a definite correlation - but the more people that own guns the more people who can easily cause an incident like this.

So a statistic, obviously inflated by the fact that not all incidents involved guns, to establish what is at best an interesting correlation? Statistics also show that shoe size has a strong correlation with mathematics, reading, and logical reasoning abilities. This is primarily because most adults do these things better than toddlers. Correlation is worth nothing without evidence of causality.

And snobbish-ness against Wikipedia is only really relevant in the academic world where it is generally frowned upon due to the past unreliability of the website. Nowadays Wikipedia is almost always an accurate source. And anyway I don't really care if you have a problem with it since I never actually asked you to pick at my points - but merely to consider them.

Accurate in many cases, but often quite forgetful when it comes to the important details. Wikipedia articles are usually loaded with bias, that's why it's laughed at in the academic arena. Wiki articles aren't reliably objective and fair, so it's generally not a good thing to use for anything other than obtaining the most basic knowledge of a topic for personal curiosity.

Joke if you like, but everyday people who fee that they have no alternative turn to a life of crime in order to maintain a lifestyle or to ensure their survival. Drug addicts often steal in order to support their habit (since a lot of the time support systems are overloaded and unable to assist them), and these crimes can become increasingly violent from stealing money from your grandmother's stash above the wardrobe to getting a gun and holding up a corner shop.

And what 'forced' them to commit the crimes of purchasing and using illegal drugs that they are then 'forced' to become worse criminals to continue buying to satisfy the addiction a law abiding citizen wouldn't have to begin with? They were criminals from the start. When people disregard one law, there's not much reason to believe they care about the rest of them (except of course when they work in their favor)

Anyway, crime rate varies everywhere and I can't be bothered to look up the statistics - I am fairly certain that the crime rate of Scotland is overall lower than that of the USA.

BUT, I think you missed my point. With guns being so rare (as in an ownership rate of less than 5 guns per 100 people) they could be seen as a valuable commodity to a criminal who may not own one and want to steal one.

You also have a lower quantity of illegal immigrants from Mexico, is it then reasonable to assume that illegal Mexicans are the cause of all gun crimes? Of course not. Again what you have is an interesting correlation, not an argument. Guns being available in stores is not where the firearms used to commit serious crimes come from. Guns are purchased illegally by criminals, so they they don't have to be registered, and are more difficult to track. Very few serious crimes are committed with legal firearms. The ones that are, are usually, as you already hinted at, drug addicts, who are already criminals. Stupid criminals. Stupid criminals who usually get caught.

People steal firearms here too. Only the lowest tier of the stupidest criminals would commit a crime using a legal, registered firearm. They either buy an unregistered one illegally, or use somebody else's gun, so they can't be easily tracked.

No I don't - a fact I am proud of, however I do have a general idea. Yes I do, I will admit that I'm not very good at it, but at a certain range it sort of becomes irrelevant. I wouldn't risk that, and if he were holding her as a human shield I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't risk it - however I do have a natural talent for archery so that may be something. I have never fired a gun, thank goodness.

I didn't actually expect myself to be in a situation which required any sort of action with a gun. It was a hypothetical question. If it were a simple situation where I had access to a gun and was about to witness a serious crime I'd hope to be able to do something.

See the funny thing is that you think I could take offence to having never had access to a gun and being completely untrained. I'm proud of it.

I'm not sure why somebody would ever be proud to be lacking in a potentially useful experience. Or even one that isn't useful. Lack of knowledge is never a preferable thing. As for risking shooting a human shield, it's not much of a risk when you're skilled enough to safely hit the target. If there was a clear shot, I'd shoot a criminal with a hostage as a shield without a second thought.

Interestingly enough, bows are also weapons, originally designed for the sole purpose of ending lives. Why then, is only the gun inherently evil?A bow is an equally fatal weapon in the wrong hands. If guns dropped off the face of the earth and somebody wanted to kill somebody at a distance, what would stop them from using a bow? Do we need to outlaw them too? Should we not have access to knives? I mean if a criminal had one and you didn't, you'd be at a disadvantage. People get mugged at knife point sometimes. You can kill somebody with just about anything if you made an honest effort. The thing is, criminals whose intention it is to cause injury and/or death, are going to find a way to do it no matter what you do to keep weapons out of their reach.

I think I'm too sane much of a 'socialist' to be able to ever look at guns in a positive manner. Being trained how to use a tool for injury/murder is actually a terrible thing to suggest ever doing. Firearms aren't tools, they are weapons - they have always been weapons invented to kill a fellow human being - that's how they were conceived in China - that's how they are seen by the rest of the non-gun-toting world.

For the record, there are uses for a firearm outside of killing people and robbing banks. Several sports involve the precision shooting of nonliving targets with a firearm. Many are quite entertaining. Not to mention that whole hunting thing in which people are not the intended targets. Not everybody who owns a gun, or would want to wants it for the purpose of committing mass murders.

[Aerif]

So a statistic, obviously inflated by the fact that not all incidents involved guns, to establish what is at best an interesting correlation?

That was the point, yes.

It does however draw attention that the USA has a disproportionate number of highly violent and murdersome incidents, most likely established by differences in culture. Since the biggest difference between American and British culture is related to gun ownership, it is a a fair conclusion to draw - even if there is no scientific evidence.

As the gentleman so kindly put it, I am pulling things out of my ass. I did not intend to debate over this observation but merely to draw attention to the interesting phenomenon.

Statistics also show that shoe size has a strong correlation with mathematics, reading, and logical reasoning abilities. This is primarily because most adults do these things better than toddlers. Correlation is worth nothing without evidence of causality.

There is causality in some of the cases though, whenever the incident's inciter legally owns the gun for instance. Most likely had he not owned that gun he would not have shot the people. Yes there are bombs and things like that, but when I say I am against the 'right to bear arms' I say I am also against private ownership of bombs. As you all should be. Why do you need a bomb?

Accurate in many cases, but often quite forgetful when it comes to the important details. Wikipedia articles are usually loaded with bias, that's why it's laughed at in the academic arena. Wiki articles aren't reliably objective and fair, so it's generally not a good thing to use for anything other than obtaining the most basic knowledge of a topic for personal curiosity.

Part of the reason why I didn't increase my knowledge. I merely looked at a list of incidents, which is by no means complete and comprehensive, just to show a point. A poorly received and, as you may have seen, criticised point, but a somewhat valid point in the grand scheme of things I feel.

And what 'forced' them to commit the crimes of purchasing and using illegal drugs that they are then 'forced' to become worse criminals to continue buying to satisfy the addiction a law abiding citizen wouldn't have to begin with? They were criminals from the start. When people disregard one law, there's not much reason to believe they care about the rest of them (except of course when they work in their favor)

Oh well that's rather disappointing. I offered a single example - not a complete explanation. But not all addicting drugs are controlled substances anyway. This is also STILL not the only way to be 'forced' to become a criminal.

Note well that I consider the phrase 'forced to become a criminal' ridiculous, as normally there are other options even if they are less 'rewarding'. But people still use it as an excuse, and in some examples it makes sense when listening to them.

You also have a lower quantity of illegal immigrants from Mexico, is it then reasonable to assume that illegal Mexicans are the cause of all gun crimes? Of course not. Again what you have is an interesting correlation, not an argument. Guns being available in stores is not where the firearms used to commit serious crimes come from. Guns are purchased illegally by criminals, so they they don't have to be registered, and are more difficult to track. Very few serious crimes are committed with legal firearms. The ones that are, are usually, as you already hinted at, drug addicts, who are already criminals. Stupid criminals. Stupid criminals who usually get caught.

That's almost a silly response, I suppose it is technically plausible that Mexican immigrants are the cause of high gun crime, but gun crime existed before immigration problems. Gun ownership and gun crime are connected by their very nature - and as you point out registered guns are sometimes used in criminal activity - these incidents involving guns would never happen if the criminal didn't have a gun, surely?

People steal firearms here too. Only the lowest tier of the stupidest criminals would commit a crime using a legal, registered firearm. They either buy an unregistered one illegally, or use somebody else's gun, so they can't be easily tracked.

I know that, but my original point was that with the lack of guns in Scotland it is more difficult to get hold of one, so if you happen to own one and people know this you are more likely to be burgled by some idiot wanting to get their hands on the gun, than say the nice middle-class couple down the road who don't own any guns.

I'm not sure why somebody would ever be proud to be lacking in a potentially useful experience. Or even one that isn't useful. Lack of knowledge is never a preferable thing. As for risking shooting a human shield, it's not much of a risk when you're skilled enough to safely hit the target. If there was a clear shot, I'd shoot a criminal with a hostage as a shield without a second thought.

If there was a 'forbidden word' that could end the entire world by speaking it (ala the first chronological book in 'The Chronicles of Narnia') would you advocate it's learning? To me, guns are like that on a smaller scale. There is a massive dependence on morality attached to a gun, and quite frankly there are too many idiots who lack the foresight of seeing the potential consequences of using a gun - even trained professionals - how many times have policemen 'accidently' killed perpetrators?

If I were trained to use a gun, I would accept the knowledge - because I am a knowledge-seeker, but I wouldn't seek out the knowledge on my own. For the same reasons that I don't seek out the means to dispose of a dead body quietly or the amount of time it takes for a corpse to freeze in a chest freezer. I consider these events attached by the way - I know you don't because of a difference in mind sets - but at present I do.

Interestingly enough, bows are also weapons, originally designed for the sole purpose of ending lives. Why then, is only the gun inherently evil?A bow is an equally fatal weapon in the wrong hands. If guns dropped off the face of the earth and somebody wanted to kill somebody at a distance, what would stop them from using a bow? Do we need to outlaw them too?

True, although bows were first intended to hunting animals they evolved into a tool of war. But I think you misunderstood me, you see even though I am trained to use a bow and have all the safety knowledge attached to it, and the skill to use one effectively - I don't advocate the private ownership of them. Every time I've practised it has been in a secure, supervised enviroment.

However you may ask yourself the question: In countries where people can't own guns (such as coincidentally, Tunisia - which has the lowest gun ownership figures in the world) why don't they kill with bows and arrows - since they are not banned?

Should we not have access to knives? I mean if a criminal had one and you didn't, you'd be at a disadvantage. People get mugged at knife point sometimes. You can kill somebody with just about anything if you made an honest effort.

Glasgow is the knife crime capital of the world, and by true correlation, is the 'murder-capital of Europe'. Knives are very different from guns though in that they have a more practical and definable primary use outside of violence. Because of the crime in Glasgow it has become illegal to carry a knife on the streets in Scotland without it being in some sort of protective case and only if it happens to be crucial to your occupation (such as chefs).

The thing is, criminals whose intention it is to cause injury and/or death, are going to find a way to do it no matter what you do to keep weapons out of their reach.

Of course. But that's why guns were invented. To kill people. That's their big problem.

For the record, there are uses for a firearm outside of killing people and robbing banks. Several sports involve the precision shooting of nonliving targets with a firearm. Many are quite entertaining. Not to mention that whole hunting thing in which people are not the intended targets. Not everybody who owns a gun, or would want to wants it for the purpose of committing mass murders.

I know that, but it is possible to perform all of these actions without having lethal firearms involved. Using blanks for instance.

[Rhaps]

Do you believe that people have the right to bear arms? For what purpose do these rights exist?

I do believe that people have the right to bear arms. I see guns and other weapons as a means of protection after hand-to-hand self defense has either been ruled out as a viable idea (i.e. the threat has a gun, car, some advantage you can't get by no matter how much training you have). We all have a natural born right to protect ourselves and the things we love, and if we can't do it through words, or through our fists, then sadly, guns are a necessity. The world would be infinitely better if we didn't have to fight to protect what's ours, but if there were laws set in place to ban firearms, then there would be a huge issue. How many criminals do you know that follow the law? It sounds very paranoid, but I can't see any other result of a gun ban/the right to bear arms being removed.

Do you think crime is positively or negatively associated with rates of gun ownership? (If people own guns, are they more likely to use them in crimes, or; if people own guns, the good guys are empowered to beat the bad guys in their lairs?)

That's a tricky one. I think the federal processes to legally obtaining a gun help cut back on the crime rate in relation to guns, but by no means does it completely end it. Firearms are a double edged sword (and that's irony if I've ever typed it) since their use is entirely up to the owner. So, crime rate is probably going to be more positively associated with ownership, whether or not it's legal, since it's much easier to rob a store or kill someone with a gun than your mean looks.

As for beating bad guys in their lairs, I don't think that happens quite enough to totally undo the positive association. I've got no idea what goes on with that sort of thing, but I can assume that the amount of criminals they take out with guns balances/falls short but close to the amount of crimes perpetrated to begin with.

Do you own (or do you want to own) a gun? (What kind?)

I don't own one, really. My grandfather gave me a shotgun for one of my birthdays when I was really young (I can't remember how old I was, under thirteen for sure, though.) and my dad immediately locked it in his gun safe after we test fired it. What little kid needs a shotgun?! But yeah, we registered it under my Dad's name, so I don't legally own it, nor do I really want to keep it for defense purposes. I do want to own guns, but I don't want to collect. Just something for protecting myself/my family, if I ever have one.

If you own a gun, have you ever used it to defend yourself (or someone else)? (If you do not own a gun, would you ever use one to defend yourself at another's expense?)

I would indeed use a gun to defend myself. I would try not to hit anything vital, and with medical science as far along as it is now, as long as I don't kill them instantly, they should have a high survival rate if I hit them somewhere to immobilize them, like the leg or shoulder. I really would have no idea what I was doing, since I've only done target shooting outside with my old man, so I'd definitely want training on where to hit to be non-lethal with a gun.

Should ordinary police persons have access to guns? (This might be a weird question to some, but they don't here, and the thought that they could actually scares me a lot.) (In holsters or in their cars?)

The only time I could see the police having a gun as a bad thing is in a state of total anarchy. But then, anyone with a gun would pose a serious threat to me. Otherwise, I think police do need to have a firearm on their holster. It adds to their authority, for me at least. You're not going to find someone being all belligerent and unruly when someone with a .45 shows up strapped to his side.

Anything above a handgun should be reserved for S.W.A.T./special divisions of law enforcement. An officer carrying an assault rifle to check your car for drugs is just asinine. A team using assault rifles to neutralize a building where a man has taken several hostages makes sense, to me at least.
--

Hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. I don't normally post in I.D. threads for that reason, but this one seemed open enough, and I think I have a pretty solid opinion when it comes to guns.

[Order]

I'm going to answer some of these questions for my own entertainment. I'm not really concerned with how my responses will be recieved. It's more like those personality tests which determine your need for control, routine, etc... Imma see where I come out compaired to others.

What are your views on gun rights?

Before answering the questions, I'll lay out my mindset. During answering, I'll see if my honest opinion shifts at all.
To put it plainly, I want my guns. For sport, for protection, for a sense of security at home and in public, for fun, for competition, for just in case china decides to annex or zombies, aliens or robots attack; there are few things that can fill all of those roles alone.
I don't carry everywhere I go. I wish I could, but douchebag criminals have already taken that away from me.

Do you believe that people have the right to bear arms? (Bonus questions: Which kind of arms (handguns, concealed, full-auto, hunting only, bazookas, tanks...)? Which people (licensed, drug-free, no criminal records...)? How many? For what purpose do these rights exist? (Is it Constiutional, and if so, again, for what purpose?))

I believe american citizens have the right to bear arms.
Specifically, honest, responsable, law-abiding American citizens have the inherent right to own and practice using guns. Anyone short of the definitions of those terms above consciously and expressly forfits the right.
There is and should be no limitation to the number of guns I (a responsable, honest, law-abiding American citizen) can own. Weapons such as tanks, jets, missiles, RPGs, explosives, belt-fed machineguns, fully automatic submachineguns, etc... require licenses issued by the federal government which are apparently expensive and difficult to obtain.
It should remain so.

These rights exist in light of our nation's history including, but not limited to the American revolution and the civil war. When a power, foreign or domestic, demands compliance and a large enough part of American people refuse, military force is used. The American people have the right to form militias at any time, militias require weapons such as guns to be effective.
The American people have the inherent right to form effective militias, armed with their own personal firearms. The purpose of this right is for normal citizens to have the ability to defend themselves against things such as riots, invasion or federal tyrrany. Because American's do not believe any other country would come to our aid on our homeland if the need arises, we ensure that we are, at least, not completely helpless. Furthermore, if the need did arise for American citizens to organize into militias, the rest of the world would have already fallen to whatever chaos caused the need in the first place.

Do you think crime is positively or negatively associated with rates of gun ownership? (If people own guns, are they more likely to use them in crimes, or; if people own guns, the good guys are empowered to beat the bad guys in their lairs?)

I believe that the number of violent crimes attempted is not effected by an area's gun laws.
I'll grab some statistics real quick:
((unrelated, funny how you get violent crimes broken up by race in every major city in the US, the percentages are very similar))
According to the New York Times, 83% of all Americans will be victims or intended victims of violent crimes in their lifetime.
Oh, look at that. There is not one single study of this type done in Britan. There are victims who arrive in hospitals, statistics on what race will do what, what gender gets what crimes commited most often, but there is not one single study which illistrates the likelyhood of an individual being a victim at all in their lifetime.

I did, however find some studies which compare leagal gunownership vs. number of violent crimes. (one map, which I can't be sure of the sources on... excluded california all together. Bias much?)
It appears from these studies that there isn't really much proportionality in the US of legal gunownership and violent crime, however, SC has more guns and more crime than NC, NY has much lower gunownership and much higher crime and AL has much higher gunownership and much lower crime.
I believe it has more to do with the density of an area's population that it has to do with legal gunownership.
States with more crime are host to bigger cities, surprise! huh?

How do we stop evil dudes from obtaining guns? (Do you support some kind of arms amnesty, and would this only serve to dis-arm responsible owners? Are guns a Pandora's box of no return?)

Commit a crime, lose your guns. Allow the ATF to continue doing it's job of investigating, detaining and prosecuting gun trafficers, etc... There has actually been a considerable decrease in the number of illigal guns in the US since the 80's (nobody should be surprised about that).

Do you own (or do you want to own) a gun? (What kind?)

I own several guns, each with a specific intended purpose. From sport/hunting to recreational shooting, concealed carry and home defense.

If you own a gun, have you ever used it to defend yourself (or someone else)? (If you do not own a gun, would you ever use one to defend yourself at another's expense?)

Nope, most likely never will. I practice handling, safety, accuracy, speed and various styles of firing anyway. I prefer to be able, even if I am not willing.

Should ordinary police persons have access to guns? (This might be a weird question to some, but they don't here, and the thought that they could actually scares me a lot.) (In holsters or in their cars?)

Yes.
There is no need to fear armed law enforcement unless you are a criminal or your country's enforcment departments are so corrupt that you fear they would use them to take over.
This is not the case in the US. Most police have good intentions and use their weapons as they are ment to be, to defend the lives and safety of themself and citizens, to deter potential criminals and to force compliance during potentially life-threatening situations.
Police should carry handguns in holsters as they commonly do in the US. They should have access to shotguns and rifles in their vehicles (a lesson we learned when body-armored baddies shot up a bank and then got into a two hour shootout with police in the parking lot).

Police should always be better trained and better equipped than any criminal organization. Put the power in the hands of those who defend us so they can intimidate, deter, subdue and detain the ones who would do us harm.

I think it shouldn't be a 'right' to bear arms, but a priveledge.

It is for you. Congratulations, you have it the way you want it.
Why is this such an important topic to non-US citizens anyway?
Why do the brits and the aussies and the kiwis have oppinions at all on American gunownership?
To put it in perspective,
I don't give a shit if you have a gun or not. I don't give a shit if you are afraid of guns, love them, think they are evil, want to marry one or whatever.
I don't care if your government stops by your house to collect tax in the form of taking your kitchen appliances or if you rob banks by knife-point sometimes.
I don't care if it is illigal for you to tell someone you dislike their sexual orientation or if you slap children as a pass-time.

Why are foreigners so concerned with the inner workings of the US?
The rights of our citizens?
The crime rate in Austin, TX?
The local gas prices in LA?
You know more about my country than you know about your own city, about your own history.
The only way citizens of most countries learn who is in charge of their fed is when that person is assassinated or an election comes up.
Do you know who the head of your local police force is?
Do you know the name of the person who informs the fed of your area's opinion on gun control?
Do you remember who your country's last "leader" was?

From my expirience, the various countries I have visited and people I have spoken to, the most politically aware people (in reguards to their own government and who did what) was the Phillipines!
A mostly thirdworld country knew more about their own politics than most Aussies. They could name their president off the top of their head as fast as an American service member.
They knew who their representitives were. They knew it was legal not to wear a seatbelt when driving and that it was illigal to insult a member of law enforcement.
In the damn Phillipines!

I dunno about you New Zealand types, but most of the rest of the world has no clue about the workings of their local or federal governing bodies. Japan, Hongkong, south korea, blah, blah, blah. But they all know about american politics. They can name OUR president no problem. They can tell you what Justin Beiber is up to and the name of the kid who got shot by the neigborhood watch.
But they can't tell you who the sheriff is in their town. Much less, what authority that sheriff is granted and what he is not.

Booyah.

Now you know what to think.

[Jinkasima]

in Switzerland there are more guns per household than people, and i mean fully auto machine guns and assualt rifles not just handguns and grampa's old shotgun, and you know how many murders on average are a result of firearms, roughly 1.5 per year, you know how they manage that? gun control that actually works.

[Kyrel]

Not in Europe. Maybe in the US it works. But I don't think it's a very positive thing here, and we've done fine without it so far.

[Order]

No I don't - a fact I am proud of, however I do have a general idea. Yes I do, I will admitthatI'm not very good at it, but at a certain range it sort of becomes irrelevant. I wouldn't risk that, and if he were holding her as a human shield I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't risk it - however I do have a natural talent for archery so that may be something. I have never fired a gun, thank goodness.

Hunger games, fantasyland-living douche face. Aerif or whatever.

Your post is full of terms like "i didnt do the research.", "I assume my country is better.", "I dont need to draw on any experience on the issue because I cant possibly be wrong."

Your arguement is garbage.
Everything you said is pointless, meaningless babble.
Why would you even approach this topic when you know nothing about it?

You've even pointed out that you are simply spouting pointless bullshit.
On what planet did anything you typed make sense!?

You're a moron to the point that there is no need for anyone to read shit that you type, ever.

Seriously, go back and read what you wrote.
You actually stated that you are proud to know nothing about the topic and did no research at all.
Congratulations, dumbass.

[Order]

I was talking about this topic with a coworker and we came up on an interesting idea for gun control,
What if there were a class in schools (middleschool for example) which taught proper safety and handling of a firearm from rifles to pistols. Familiarize students with safety in the event that their parents haven't taught them or they go to a friends house which has firearms in it, the student would be equipped with the knowladge not to accidentally shoot themself or their friend or family, whatever.

It could be a manditory 3 week course, focused on recognizing types of firearms, how to tell if they are loaded, how to handle one safely, load, unload, etc.
All of that can be done with "snap caps", fake ammunition made of plastic.

Familiarizing people with proper and safe handling of firearms would result in fewer accidental deaths at least.
I have seen many people who disliked guns and take the time to learn about them and become comfortable around them evenutally begin liking firearms. For example, my mother, my sister, friends of the family, blah blah blah.
I have never witnessed someone become familiar with firearms and still claim they dislike them, or even don't understand the attraction to them.

Knowladge is power,
Those who know, know that there is nothing inherently wrong with owning a gun.

I think much of the negativity toward firearms is due to a lack of knowladge and familiarity.
I will admit freely that I don't know anything close to everything about guns, but I do know how to handle the majority of guns safely and feel comfortable around them.
It is knowladge and skills nessicary to living in modern America which many Americans lack. I see it the same as not knowing how to navigate the internet or operate a DVD player.

[Order]

I've really written practically nothing.

Well, you did write that less guns leads to less violence.
That's actually not true.
If you look at the US alone, there is no connection between rate of ownership and guns used in crimes.
However, california has the most restrictive laws for any US state yet has the highest gun related crime rate.

If you look at it internationally, the statistics are misleading due to facts pointed out by Jox in the colorado thread (the US has more accurate and unbiased statistics than most other countries, especially pertaining to crime and gun violence), but taken objectively, it is clear that guncontrol laws do not effect a country's rate of gun crime.
In london, their crime rate overall surged after strict gun control was established.

[lovehearty42]

As a member of the Christian faith made up of saints who aren't totally effin' insane, I think it is morally wrong for myself to own a weapon. That is not a standard I would try to impose on anyone else. However, it is one that I impose on myself for a number of reasons. Chief among those is the fact that I do not want to be responsible for the death of another human being. Even if, in self-defense, I shoot someone in the leg to disable them, I could still cause them to die if I hit the femoral artery. They would bleed out in about ten minutes.

I was a soldier, for a time. It wasn't for me. I didn't feel like I was defending or expanding anyone's freedom so much as I was working for a corporate machine who only gave a damn about profit margins. As a way of redeeming myself, I am working toward earning my Paramedic certification, and hope to be a licensed physician within the next ten years. I want to lead a life that helps people, so that I have no reason to defend myself. I realize there is always some risk involved in whatever profession one chooses, but the fact of the matter is that if I am in a position where a person has a weapon and I am unable to subdue them with my bare hands, I will probably take that as a sign that it is my time to take my leave of this plane of existence.

I understand that this may be a ludicrous set of values to have, but they are mine, and they make sense to me. The crux of it is that I don't want to be the cause of someone else's pain.

Although, if someone attacks my kids or my wife... all bets are off.

[Sasquatch]

Ah, good ol' hoplophobia ... Hell, even Freud associated fear of weapons with sexual and emotional immaturity.

As a member of the Christian faith made up of saints who aren't totally effin' insane, I think it is morally wrong for myself to own a weapon. That is not a standard I would try to impose on anyone else. However, it is one that I impose on myself for a number of reasons. Chief among those is the fact that I do not want to be responsible for the death of another human being.

Perfect example of something I've seen floating around the internet. "Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."

The idea that it is morally wrong to protect oneself against those who wish to do harm to innocents is nothing short of asinine. Logically, it's better -- or, at least, less bad -- for a wrongdoer to be hurt or killed than it is for the same to happen to a law-abiding, employed, supportive citizen. Ethically, the wrongdoer deserves less of a life than the innocent civilian. Morally -- especially under Christianity -- well, Jesus even told some of His disciples to bring a weapon, and if they didn't have one, to sell their cloak and buy one.

Personally no one has ever properly explained to me how "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." equals any asshole can buy a gun.

The militia is made up of all able-bodied male citizens. Basically, anybody who could fight. No uniforms, no government oversight or control, just a group of armed men. Since then, obviously, rights have been expanded to include women, non-whites, and those with certain disabilities -- on a presentation in a college course, my professor (who was a little person) brought up this point, and I explained that through things like the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, even those with disabilities or physical conditions that may bar them from official military service are considered part of the militia.

So yes, any asshole of military age can -- and should, responsibly -- own a firearm.

1. Constitution was ratified when there was still major fear of Britain coming back and the US still didn't have an official standing army at the time. Citizen militias won the war, and citizen militias would protect America from Britain again.

In 1787, Britain wasn't nearly as much of a threat to the United States as were specific factions and states within. There was much more of a threat of dissolution than foreign invasion. And the United States Army was officially re-created in 1784, three years prior to the Constitution's writing.

The Second Amendment was written not to ensure American civilians' protection from foreign invaders, but to ensure American civilians' protection from tyrannical American government. This has been expressed not only in the Constitution itself (which is why it mentions a free State instead of simply a sovereign State), but in myriad quotes by the vast majority of Founding Fathers.

2. The founders wrote the damn then when firing two shots a minute was expert skill, not hundreds.

And the same rate of fire -- by the exact same firearms -- would be matched between military and civilian. The rights of civilians to own the same weapons as the military were protected. They didn't tell civilians that they could own bows and arrows, but not firearms -- no, they wanted civilians to be able to hold their own against any force.

3. The right is granted specifically, in the wording of the constitution, to create a citizen militia.

As explained, the citizen militia is made up of every citizen capable of fighting.

If a citizen militia is no longer necessary (it isn't) then why hasn't the right to bear arms, which was granted according to the constitution in order to create a well regulated militia, been revoked?

Who are you to say that a citizen militia is no longer necessary?

Look at history's blatant examples of citizens being stripped of their rights of defense. Check out what tyrannical governments have done to their own people, shortly after removing their rights of self-defense. An armed populace keeps its government in check. Without it, you have concentration/death camps, gulags, intentional starvation, extermination of political dissidents, etc., etc. Many of these examples weren't too long ago.

Why do people still believe it's their constitutional right to own a gun but have no part in the protection of the country with said gun?

Because that's what the Constitution says. If you disagree with that, then you may disagree with the Constitution itself -- but unless and until the Constitution is amended to repeal the Second Amendment, it is our Constitution right as American civilians to own firearms, whether we are actively involved in the defense of the country or not.

We no longer have regulated citizen militia, we have a regulated armed services. The second amendment has been null and void for decades. No where does the wording imply that anyone can own a gun for the sake of owning a gun.

Except, you know, the time-accurate definition of the word "militia", or the definition of the word "infringed". The Second Amendment could very easily -- and accurately -- be re-worded to "don't **** with peoples' guns".

Now many people argue that they own weapons to protect themselves from the government, so that when the time comes they can rise up and be anarchists.

There's a difference between protection against a tyrannical government and a devotion to anarchy.

I just want horrendously strict laws about automatic assault weapons (read: complete ban and severe punishment for owning one unless active duty police officer or military personnel whom are assigned one for duty), a national registry for ammunition sales, and strict oversight to gun sales.

There already are horrendously strict laws about automatic assault weapons. You can't just walk into a gun shop with a few bucks and walk out with a machine gun, it doesn't work like that. The idea that it is, in any way, "easy" to acquire an assault weapon is extremely ignorant -- keep in mind, an actual assault weapon, not the modern synonym of "scary-looking gun".

And registering ammunition sales or tightening already-tight restrictions on firearm transfers won't help anything. I don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand -- people that will break laws with guns will break laws to get guns.

I'd also like to see all concealed carry permits removed and that it be illegal to carry a loaded weapon anywhere in public. Private or government-owned hunting grounds not withstanding.

Because no crimes are ever committed, and nobody ever needs to defend themselves, in a public place, right?

I don't buy the argument that if you take away all the guns only criminals will have them and no one will be able to stop them. It's fear mongering, plain and simple.

Nah, because we all know that criminals obey gun laws. Hell, imagine how many Columbines there would have been if the would-be murderers hadn't been worried about breaking gun laws?

I do buy the argument that most weapon owners are sane, normal people who are not dangerous, however, and punishing them would be unfair. I'm not advocating that we remove everyone's weapons, though. I'm advocating strict control to keep people from amassing stockpiles of weapons and ammunition to try and play anarchist.

So you're not advocating a complete ban on firearm rights ... just an infringement on the right to bear arms.

...

While I'm posting here anyway, I'd like to point out a few things. Maybe enough to get people thinking and researching on their own.

In 1999, only 13% of bullets fired by the NYPD during gunfights hit their intended target. Historically, only about 1/3 of rounds fired from police officers hit their intended target. Civilians responding with deadly force have over an 80% hit rate. Civilians are also much, much less likely to hit an innocent bystander, and civilians are responsible for more justifiable homicides annually than law enforcement officers. And logically, civilians with concealed-carry permits must have some sort of interest in firearms, and it doesn't take much to out-practice LEOs, most of whom do no more than the semi-annual familiarization fire with their issued firearm.

[Sean]

Personally no one has ever properly explained to me how "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." equals any asshole can buy a gun.

Here's the problems:

1. Constitution was ratified when there was still major fear of Britain coming back and the US still didn't have an official standing army at the time. Citizen militias won the war, and citizen militias would protect America from Britain again.

2. The founders wrote the damn then when firing two shots a minute was expert skill, not hundreds.

3. The right is granted specifically, in the wording of the constitution, to create a citizen militia.

If a citizen militia is no longer necessary (it isn't) then why hasn't the right to bear arms, which was granted according to the constitution in order to create a well regulated militia, been revoked? Why do people still believe it's their constitutional right to own a gun but have no part in the protection of the country with said gun?

We no longer have regulated citizen militia, we have a regulated armed services. The second amendment has been null and void for decades. No where does the wording imply that anyone can own a gun for the sake of owning a gun.

Now many people argue that they own weapons to protect themselves from the government, so that when the time comes they can rise up and be anarchists. Others own them for personal defense, for hunting, for sport, etc. There's certain things I think are fine.

Personally I'd be happier with no guns, period, but that's not logical. Hunting weapons and personal defense weapons, I think, are all fine and dandy. I just want horrendously strict laws about automatic assault weapons (read: complete ban and severe punishment for owning one unless active duty police officer or military personnel whom are assigned one for duty), a national registry for ammunition sales, and strict oversight to gun sales.

I'd also like to see all concealed carry permits removed and that it be illegal to carry a loaded weapon anywhere in public. Private or government-owned hunting grounds not withstanding.

Edit: I should clarify that while it's my opinion I want these things, I know most are not feasible.

I don't buy the argument that if you take away all the guns only criminals will have them and no one will be able to stop them. It's fear mongering, plain and simple.

I do buy the argument that most weapon owners are sane, normal people who are not dangerous, however, and punishing them would be unfair. I'm not advocating that we remove everyone's weapons, though. I'm advocating strict control to keep people from amassing stockpiles of weapons and ammunition to try and play anarchist.

[Order]

You dont want to own a gun, thats fine. Dont.
Why dont you want me to own a gun and carry it?
Does it make you safer if I dont have a gun?
No.
Does it make you less safe if i do?
No.

Does it make me safer if I dont own a gun?
No.

It issue is not day to day life. Gun ownership and carry is about having the option to defend yourself if you are put in that situation, which may never occur and you definately wont know if it is going to happen.

Why do you feel that it is outdated and pointless?

If it is actually pointless, why do you have a problem with it?

Because you are not familiar with guns?
Because you dont own one?
Because you dont have a consealed carry permit?
Because you arent confident in your ability to defend yourself?

Gunownership is not about fear. Its about freedom from fear.
You are afraid.
I am comfortable.

[Alpha]

Sasquatch, can you explain how the right to bear arms to form a citizen militia to keep a tryannical government in check equates to an argument for concealed weapons so that civilians can shoot ctiminals?

It strikes ne that the constitutional argument cannot be used for the latter, as individuals with concealed weapons =/= an armed militia, and criminals =/= a tyrannical government.

Also, isn't the threat of a tyrannical government overblown? You actually think American service people can be persuaded to turn on their own? You actually think that even if they did, there'd be no action by, say, foreign military forces?

[Heartless Angel]

I don't buy the argument that if you take away all the guns only criminals will have them and no one will be able to stop them. It's fear mongering, plain and simple.

Yes, you caught me. It's a complete stretch which is entirely illogical to assume that criminals will break new laws in the same way they break current ones. And this implementation of common sense is totally an attempt at scaring people into promoting my right to have a gun, which I wouldn't need in the first place in the new world order where all criminals everywhere will read the 'no firearms allowed inside' sign on the door, and leave without incident. Because criminals read and respect signs, rules, and laws.

Seriously? How do you get fear mongering out of the application of common sense? Criminals by definition are people who break laws. It is therefore reasonable to assume that more laws, which again, they break by definition, aren't going to do anything to stop them. Law abiding citizens however will be disarmed by laws, because law abiding citizens by definition follow the laws.

A law to disarm people would only disarm those who follow them, not the people who don't, the ones you're actually trying to disarm. The results of logic being frightening does not turn the logic into fear mongering.

[Sasquatch]

Order: I will say this again, as I have said it before. Please, please, shut the **** up. You are not helping your cause, and your ignorance and arrogance reflects upon those who share even remotely similar beliefs, which includes me.

Sasquatch, can you explain how the right to bear arms to form a citizen militia to keep a tryannical government in check equates to an argument for concealed weapons so that civilians can shoot ctiminals?

Probably the best argument would be that it doesn't matter. The right to bear arms is protected -- whether it be to bear arms in defense against a tyrannical government, a foreign nation, or a mugger, or for hunting or sport.

It strikes ne that the constitutional argument cannot be used for the latter, as individuals with concealed weapons =/= an armed militia, and criminals =/= a tyrannical government.

Individuals with weapons are exactly an armed militia.

Also, isn't the threat of a tyrannical government overblown? You actually think American service people can be persuaded to turn on their own?

While the actual military would not, there are certain groups -- namely, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) and DHS (Department of Homeland Security), perhaps the FBI, IRS, and others -- that can, would, and have done so in the past.

Look up Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas. (Now, I don't disagree that the people involved were friggin' nutcases. But they didn't deserve to be targeted for slaughter.) Those two incidents were the prime motivation for the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh.

You actually think that even if they did, there'd be no action by, say, foreign military forces?

Do you honestly think that an outside military force would come in to the United States to protect United States citizens against its government? Especially when many places in the world bitch and moan about the United States doing that exact thing for other countries? If it was a huge event, possibly. But small, isolated incidents -- even when the defenders have no chance -- would not draw too much international attention.

I really, really hate how the standard debate format is to pick apart arguements line by line, as I really don't want to bother with doing that.

Actually, I would recommend that. It's a good way to address specific points, without missing anything, and keep the points and their rebuttals close to each other to maintain context.

Anyhow, on the statistic you quoted, Sasquatch, that's... pathetic.

It is, isn't it? That's one reason I support concealed carry -- not only is a handgun in my pants much closer than a police officer, it's also much more accurate and reliable.

Assuming it's true (as a cursory search of Google brought me nothing) then it's a strong case for gun rights, but it still doesn't change my mind nor make me feel safer with a bunch of people running around with guns strapped to their waist.

What if you were in a mass shooting scenario? Put yourself in the mall, or in the school, or in the church, or in the movie theater. Now put a shooter in there, with absolutely nobody to stand against him.

Would you rather there be one person with firearms, or more than one? Especially with the knowledge that civilians are less likely to catch people in the crossfire than police are?

Except for one instance, since 1950, every public multiple-shooting resulting in three or more deaths has been in a place which banned firearm possession.

Firearm possession by responsible, individual citizens is supported by many common sayings, as well. Like, "I carry a pistol because a police officer is too heavy," or, "When seconds count, police are just minutes away."

All I will say is this: People who advocate loose gun laws because they live in fear of the government, I will not understand. You made that plain in all of your arguments it's how you feel.

The more people have guns, the less they need to fear their government. Now, I don't own firearms because I believe the government will one day arrest me and put me into a gulag or a concentration camp or anything, but the very fact that I own firearms helps to prevent that from happening. As I pointed out already, tyrannical governments don't start by arresting people, they start by disarming them of their means of self-defense.

America having fairly loose gun laws still hasn't stopped the myriad of shitty presidents, congressmen, and local officials this country has seen and nor will it.

Oh, of course not. We've had quite a few, and I'm sure we'll have quite a few more. In fact, you could say that America protecting the right to bear arms has actually caused shitty Presidents -- without it, America would have had shitty Dictators.

You're mistaking my fear of an indvidual who is carrying a weapon with a fear of the weapon itself. I'm more afraid of the (stereotypical usual Republican, usually white, usually male, usually Christian, usually bigoted, homophobic, racist) individuals carrying the weapons who may, for whatever reason, decide to turn them on me because I'm not a white male Christian Republican, but instead an antitheist, atheistic while male liberal who doesn't live in constant fear of his government, because I'm not quite cynical enough to have given up hope that this country isn't completely ****ed, but rather in constant fear of the far right.

I'm scared to death of the Tea Party. I'm scared of the angry, bigoted, racist, so-called God-fearing conservatives, most of whom are armed, who want more than anything, based on their actions, to commit anarchy. I'm scared of the violent hatred being spewed by the (again, armed) far right against homosexuals being turned on the most hated minority in America: the atheists, to which I belong.

... You ****in' serious, kid?

Back to my "Criminals will be the only ones with guns" comment, way to blow it out of proportion. Of course criminals would find ways around it, but I like to think, and maybe I'm being over idealistic, that they'd have fewer of them than they do now if there were stricter gun laws.

Sure, there might be fewer illegal firearms out there. But there would be absolutely no legal defense against them.

You're making people afraid of anyone who's illegally carrying a weapon, so that they think they have to go gear up to defend themselves from these people.

Yeah, because criminals who carry firearms illegally are law-abiding citizens with no intent to do harm, right?

On assault weapons: The federal ban expired in 2004 and has yet to be reenacted.

That wasn't a ban on assault weapons, it was a ban on scary-looking guns. An assault weapon, by definition, has a selectable rate of fire. For example, an M16 is an assault rifle -- the rate of fire can be switched from "semi", meaning semi-automatic that fires one round every time the trigger is pulled, to "full", meaning fully-automatic that continues firing while the trigger is depressed until it is released or it runs out of ammunition. (There is also a "burst" function on some assault rifles, including modern M16s, that fires three rounds per trigger pull.) Assault weapons -- firearms with a selectable rate of fire -- anything that can fire more than one round per depression of the trigger is highly illegal without immense amounts of registration.

Many states currently have no bans on them, and it's perfectly allowed, by law, to own a semi-automatic weapon (and people sell kits to easily convert them to fully automatic, which some states allow) in many states.

No state allows fully-automatic firearms owned by regular, unlicensed civilians. If you have any source that states that, it's wrong. Even being in possession of a firearm and anything that makes it fully-automatic -- even if it's not installed -- is highly illegal. And those "kits" you refer to are very hard to find ... mainly because, as has been mentioned, they're illegal as hell.

This isn't a topic I've give too terribly much thought, aside from the basic "I don't like it" decision and that the armed far right scares the **** out of me ...

And please, praytell, how many mass shootings in the United States have been committed by right-wing extremists with legal, registered firearms?