Firearms

[jrgen]

I see no reason for regular citizens to own weapons. They should be used only by people who need them to perform their professions. The military, the police and hunters need them. Bakers, ornithologists and taxi drivers do not need them. They are designed to kill, so if you're not going to kill, then why do you need them? If you need them for protection, then your government isn't doing its job and you should probably move rather than buy one.

[War Angel]

taxi drivers do not need them.

Taxi drivers drive in dangerous places, at night, and pick up strangers. They need measures of effectively protecting themselves.

hey are designed to kill, so if you're not going to kill, then why do you need them?

So that no-one can endanger or kill you, instead. A gun does one thing - shoot. For the vast and absolute majority of the population, that means shooting as an absolutley last resort, and only in case of self-defence.

If you need them for protection, then your government isn't doing its job and you should probably move rather than buy one.

There are evil people everywhere. The 'goverment' has little to do with this. Besides, most people aren't too keen on leaving their homes because of security problems... especially when there's no-where else to go. :rolleyes2

[jrgen]

If there are less weapons in a society, less potentional killers will have a weapon in this society. And if someone breaks into your house with a gun, you are not less likely to be shot if you run up to the burgular with a weapon. No matter how illogical it may seem, handing out guns to everyone does not increase safety, nor does it decrease gun-related crime. I'm not saying your government is breeding dangerous people. I'm saying it's their job to protect you from them. If they fail to do so and you need fire-arms to protect yourself, your government has then, in my opinion, failed on this point.

[Dr.K]

I guess it depends on how finely you want to walk on the tightrope. Criminals will indeed get their hands on weapons pretty much regardless of what gun laws are placed. But just think - if EVERYONE'S going round with some type of projectile weapon in their possession, I can see, at least in the town I live in anyway, alot more mayhem than ever before. Enough people are killed during arguments in bars and misunderstandings in the street as it is, but if people are constantly subconsciously wanting to take their gun out at the first sign of trouble, I can only see hell breaking loose. It's a toughie really. I voted for guns to be legal to law-abiders, mostly because criminals have a pretty flowery existence where I am, so at least SOME sort of deterrent/protection is needed for the lay person.

[Raistlin]

I see no reason for regular citizens to own weapons. They should be used only by people who need them to perform their professions. The military, the police and hunters need them. Bakers, ornithologists and taxi drivers do not need them. They are designed to kill, so if you're not going to kill, then why do you need them? If you need them for protection, then your government isn't doing its job and you should probably move rather than buy one.

What about people who only hunt as a hobby?

Rifles and handguns are fine for every "law abiding citizen" over 18.

[The Man]

I'm fine with people buying guns as long as there's a required background check. I don't see why civilians would need automatic weapons in most cases, though.

[Madame Adequate]

Here in America, our entire culture is based mainly on violence. Extreme violence in the media? A-ok perfectly American. Mother's breastfeeding their babies? AH NO SEX! HUMAN BODY! PROTECT THE CHILDREN! I don't have problem with most gun use, but the lift of the assault weapon ban was idiotic. No citizen needs their own personal Uzi. It's not like that this will stop criminals from gaining them, but it could cut down on the many accidents.

The automatic weapons ban was horrifically overexaggerated. It actually banned very little. Changing the stock, changing the ammo, and changing the barrel (I can't remember the specifics, it's been awhile since I read up on it and I'm no firearms expert anyway.) was about all that was required. It didn't actually prevent a good 90% of the guns people presume it did from being legally traded. (Moreover conditions on trading made it possible to trade previously owned guns perfectly legally, if I recall correctly.)

The reason for allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms is quite easily summed up in Gary Kleck's studies on firearms. A particular study indicates that as many as - and maybe even more than - 2.5 million Americans per year use firearms to prevent crimes in progress, and in the abundant majority without doing more than simply displaying the weapon.

In addition, the study indicates what whilst non-violent resistence results in injury for about 25% of assault cases, the figure drops to only slightly more than 12% for those who used guns to defend themselves.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.study.html

http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html (Read especially Dr. Wolfgang's peer review.)

If there are less weapons in a society, less potentional killers will have a weapon in this society. And if someone breaks into your house with a gun, you are not less likely to be shot if you run up to the burgular with a weapon. No matter how illogical it may seem, handing out guns to everyone does not increase safety, nor does it decrease gun-related crime. I'm not saying your government is breeding dangerous people. I'm saying it's their job to protect you from them. If they fail to do so and you need fire-arms to protect yourself, your government has then, in my opinion, failed on this point.

The first sentence is a flawed argument. Guns make it easier to kill people (Put aside that it makes it easier for people to defend themselves.), but if you're determined enough to kill, I daresay you aren't going to make much odds between a gun and a knife.

If a burglar knows his victims may be in the possession of firearms they are willing to use, he will be dissuaded. This isn't speculation or supposition, this is the proven case. Moreover, if he's a burglar he won't care about the law anyway and thus may already have a gun. I'd rather have one of my own to at least even the field than have to try and take down an armed criminal with a can of soda or something.

Finally, you are misunderstanding some of the founding tenants of the USA. Self-reliance and self-defense are extremely important factors in many places and have been since frontier times. The two main reasons for owning a firearm are that 1) You recognize it is an impossibility for all but the most totalitarian of states to be able to actually prevent all crime, and 2) You understand that there may be situations where the government itself is incapable or unwilling to defend you, or even that it may be oppressing you (Which is why gun control arouses such heated debatel; it's seen as doing exactly that, and paving the way for more in the future.).

[Jebus]

No one should own mini-guns and heavy artilary. No assult rifles or like that. Normal hand guns and rifles should be sufficet. If we need to over throw the government eventually...its not like this stuff would be super hard to come by in this country. When all those types of guns were banned the criminals still got them so it can't be that hard.

[Lionx]

I am cross last vote and the third one but if i had to pick one the third one. Responsibly guns can save mroe lives, however just like anything handled badly, it can do harm too. So law abiding citizens that can afford them should be fine with me. Felons and other stuff..ehh if it wasnt falsely accused then i would think a big restriction for obvious reasons.

[jrgen]

What about people who only hunt as a hobby?

Hunting should exist only to provide necessities such as food and clothing. Hunting for these things is ok IMO, but hunting for fun is something I strongly disagree with.

The first sentence is a flawed argument. Guns make it easier to kill people (Put aside that it makes it easier for people to defend themselves.), but if you're determined enough to kill, I daresay you aren't going to make much odds between a gun and a knife.

It is way easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. You don't stab someone by mistake because you are nervous, but it's very easy to just pull the trigger in a stressed situation. It is not easier to defend yourself with a gun in your posession. It might help you protect your property, but it only endangers your life further.

If a burglar knows his victims may be in the possession of firearms they are willing to use, he will be dissuaded. This isn't speculation or supposition, this is the proven case. Moreover, if he's a burglar he won't care about the law anyway and thus may already have a gun. I'd rather have one of my own to at least even the field than have to try and take down an armed criminal with a can of soda or something.

Well, to make criminals aware that you're willing to use your firearms, you need to have shot someone before.

Finally, you are misunderstanding some of the founding tenants of the USA. Self-reliance and self-defense are extremely important factors in many places and have been since frontier times. The two main reasons for owning a firearm are that 1) You recognize it is an impossibility for all but the most totalitarian of states to be able to actually prevent all crime, and 2) You understand that there may be situations where the government itself is incapable or unwilling to defend you, or even that it may be oppressing you (Which is why gun control arouses such heated debatel; it's seen as doing exactly that, and paving the way for more in the future.).

Rights are something you are granted, not something you have by nature. I just don't understand why it's important for so many to have the right to own tools of killing.

[Lionx]

I dont see how it would endanger your knife everytime you cut meat more -_-; I have had some guns since i was a kid, taught well on not to touch them..and it was fine.

To make crimminals aware you are going to use your firearm, just point it at them :P I dont need to make them aware even...i dont take chances, all i did was go to a shooting range to get the hang of things, then practice. Never would i even think of going violent with the gun, its only for defense.

Why is it important to make an army that is only there to cause death? To defend your own country. Every weapon can either be used to hurt another, or to prevent yourself from being hurt from the people that want to hurt another. It depends on how you use it. Should people be not violent i dont see any reason for a gun or weapon at all. But theres the simple fact that some people are violent and dangerous and if they invade your home and endanger your loved ones, you need to disable the person from doing any permanent damage. (i aim to just take him down...not to kill him if i dont have to)

Thats my view on firearms. If it was a perfect world, i would have voted never for ANYONE to use one...but it isnt so i advocate at least one that is easily accessible when you are sleeping should bad things happen. So far i never had to use any...and i hope it stays that way.

[DMKA]

Guns don't kill people, people do.

...and I suppose the same thing could be said about eletric chairs and gas chambers?

I hate guns with a passion, but I support ownership of them. I will never own one of them though, and I think most people want them for idiotic and illogical reasons, and they fail to use common sense to realize it.

But hey, idiot gun owners shooting each other dead is something I'm glad to see happen.

[Endless]

Well, to make criminals aware that you're willing to use your firearms, you need to have shot someone before.

I like these nifty signs that say something like "This house is protected by Smith & Wesson", or "Tresspassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again", it carries the message pretty well. Criminals learn to know the neighborhoods where the risk is higher, and they avoid them.

Rights are something you are granted, not something you have by nature. I just don't understand why it's important for so many to have the right to own tools of killing.

Not in the US philosophy. Rights are something you have by nature, and people agreed to give some of them up (gov't powers, laws) for the greater good.

[Raistlin]

Rights are something you have by nature, and people agreed to give some of them up (gov't powers, laws) for the greater good.

According to US philosophy, rights are something you have by nature, and people agreed to not infringe upon the rights of others(i.e., not kill each other), and to watch over them and make sure they don't is the government and objective law. Basically, I have the right of life and liberty, but I can't infringe upon the life or liberty of anyone else. I am free to act in any way I wish, but I must be responsible for the consequences of my own actions(good or bad).

There is no such thing as a "greater good" outside of the individual. The government and laws are there to protect individual rights, no to infringe on some of them for the "greater good."

[Madame Adequate]

The first sentence is a flawed argument. Guns make it easier to kill people (Put aside that it makes it easier for people to defend themselves.), but if you're determined enough to kill, I daresay you aren't going to make much odds between a gun and a knife.

It is way easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. You don't stab someone by mistake because you are nervous, but it's very easy to just pull the trigger in a stressed situation. It is not easier to defend yourself with a gun in your posession. It might help you protect your property, but it only endangers your life further.

Actually, a fair proportion of private firearms owners are well-trained, to a degree equalling or even surpassing the level of proficiency which the police require from cops. I do understand your general point. Which is why one educates oneself about the use of firearms, as I plan to do. When I move to the US I'm going to own a gun, maybe several, and I'm not planning to do it just by walking into a store and picking the biggest hand cannon I can find. No, I'm going to talk to other firearms owners, I'm going to make sure I know the safety rules, I'm going to ensure I follow all the laws, both national and local, and I'm not going to brandish a firearm unless there is clear and present danger. I also plan to go to a shooting range to ensure I am accurate with the weapon. I guarantee a hell of a lot of firearms owners have due respect for the weapons they handle.

And apparently you didn't read what I said about the Kleck Study. Firearms make you safer - firearms are the safest method of defending yourself against an aggressor, often by a good five to ten percent over the next nearest method. Guns make you safer, and that's the end of the discussion.

If a burglar knows his victims may be in the possession of firearms they are willing to use, he will be dissuaded. This isn't speculation or supposition, this is the proven case. Moreover, if he's a burglar he won't care about the law anyway and thus may already have a gun. I'd rather have one of my own to at least even the field than have to try and take down an armed criminal with a can of soda or something.

Well, to make criminals aware that you're willing to use your firearms, you need to have shot someone before.

No, they need to know there's probably a gun in the house. Criminals aren't generally totally stupid, and they know that if someone is armed, and there's an unknown assailant in the house, the person will probably be a bit nervous and not really willing to ask questions. The presence - even the potential presence of firearms - is a very great deterrant.

Also, doesn't this sit at odds with the statement "You don't stab someone by mistake because you are nervous, but it's very easy to just pull the trigger in a stressed situation."?

Finally, you are misunderstanding some of the founding tenants of the USA. Self-reliance and self-defense are extremely important factors in many places and have been since frontier times. The two main reasons for owning a firearm are that 1) You recognize it is an impossibility for all but the most totalitarian of states to be able to actually prevent all crime, and 2) You understand that there may be situations where the government itself is incapable or unwilling to defend you, or even that it may be oppressing you (Which is why gun control arouses such heated debatel; it's seen as doing exactly that, and paving the way for more in the future.).

Rights are something you are granted, not something you have by nature. I just don't understand why it's important for so many to have the right to own tools of killing.

As has been pointed out, the founding philosophy of the United States is that rights are, in fact, inherent and inaliable. The very idea that rights are granted - and can thus be removed as desired - is one of the best reasons on the planet for owning firearms, second only to defense of oneself and one's family, friends, property, and so forth.