Gun Debate

posted on April 12th, 2011, 7:44 pm

Always good to see Americans discussing pointless things about their country. That makes them less dangerous for the rest of the world.

posted on April 12th, 2011, 7:46 pm

Hey Drrrrr, do you know how to disarm this Davy-Crocket bomb? I've been keeping it in my garage for months now, and it just started ticking when I took the garbage out ...  . Ah well, at least the neighbor's dog will have some place to leave its trash....

posted on April 12th, 2011, 8:29 pm

dom, drr could you two keep your posts related to the topic at hand.

posted on April 12th, 2011, 8:33 pm

Hey Drrrrr, do you know how to disarm this Davy-Crocket bomb? I've been keeping it in my garage for months now, and it just started ticking when I took the garbage out ...  . Ah well, at least the neighbor's dog will have some place to leave its trash....

What?  I think I missed something...

posted on April 12th, 2011, 8:55 pm

I really don't see what the big fuss is. Personally I have no issue with the public owning guns. I don't know that I'll ever own one, but I'm not opposed to it.

The irony is, I don't think the 2nd Amendment will ever be overridden; and in the event that it is, all we'll have is another prohibition situation. People will get guns illegally, or make their own or use something else like, oh, crossbows or knives; it won't at all have the intended effect.

posted on April 12th, 2011, 11:35 pm

Guns in the civilian population serve important purposes.

1.  They provide additional risk for those willing to commit violent crimes.  Criminals will always have access to weapons.  When they know their prey may have teeth, the less violent criminals think twice.  (backed up by US State violent crimes data)

2.  They ensure the government must always be concerned public revolt.  Even with a significant military advantage, knowing the citizens have the ability to oppose the government with arms keeps the government less willing to overstate constitutional boundaries. (think Libya for an extreme example)

3.  They ensure the population has an understanding of weapons should a military draft or invasion situation exist.  This is probably one of the more extreme situations but it's definitely a plus.


A couple of other comments on guns.  Guns don't kill people....people are pretty good at killing each other with whatever they have around....sticks...rocks...food...

I'm in favor of governments leaving their citizens alone.  Don't mess with me unless I am violating the rights of someone else.

Couple of background notes:
1.  I live in the US, the great thing about nations is that you generally can pick where you live and make your own rules...
2. I only own an antique firearm and have never fired a gun..

posted on April 12th, 2011, 11:57 pm

Well I'm from the US and I really would have thought that the tragedy that happened in Arizona only a month or so a go would make people really think hard as to why the US, unlike so many other countries, as so much trouble with gun violence. The more guns you have, and the easier it is get them means more people will get killed or hurt from guns. Whether from just getting shot or by accidental shootings either way guns lead to more violence not less.

Clint I understand your points but its rare that a gun from a private residence stops a crime it usually causes one. Plus if the government wanted to enforce martial law there would be no stopping them with our uzis and shotguns or an invasion. But that is just my opinion, and it won't change anything anyways

posted on April 13th, 2011, 12:18 am

Guns in the civilian population serve important purposes.

1.  They provide additional risk for those willing to commit violent crimes.  Criminals will always have access to weapons.  When they know their prey may have teeth, the less violent criminals think twice.  (backed up by US State violent crimes data)

2.  They ensure the government must always be concerned public revolt.  Even with a significant military advantage, knowing the citizens have the ability to oppose the government with arms keeps the government less willing to overstate constitutional boundaries. (think Libya for an extreme example)

3.  They ensure the population has an understanding of weapons should a military draft or invasion situation exist.  This is probably one of the more extreme situations but it's definitely a plus.


A couple of other comments on guns.  Guns don't kill people....people are pretty good at killing each other with whatever they have around....sticks...rocks...food...

I'm in favor of governments leaving their citizens alone.  Don't mess with me unless I am violating the rights of someone else.

Quoted for truth^

@fallout

It is also not common that crimes are committed with legal weapons.  You can't simply go out and buy an uzi anyway. And in order to buy a weapon, you have to go through a police background check.(atleast in my state)

The point of having the weapons is not to create a militia anyways, it is to protect yourself and your family when the government fails to do so.  If the government can't stop people from bringing illegal guns in and using them against us, then I want to legally get my own and want to legally be able to use it.

[Njm1983]

posted on April 13th, 2011, 12:22 am

Last edited by Njm1983 on April 13th, 2011, 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Generally it has always been my opinion that the 2nd amendments main purpose was to allow the citizens of the US to have guns for the purpose of self defense and as a result of the prior British Government, protect against their own government turning into something that takes away freedoms allowed by the constitution and bill of rights. Its a bit extreme but those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Clint pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter pretty well. I have recently had the opportunity to go shooting, while it was neat and cool. I never once thought these weapons toys... nor did I abuse the responsibility that I held in my hands.

There's always going to be someone who will abuse any given right handed to a population. Whether it be guns, knives, alcohol, free speech.... People drink and drive and guess what... kill people. you dont see the alcohol getting pulled from the shelves. Same with knives and guns.  The proper thing is to punish those who do abuse it when and if it occurs. Not take the freedoms away from everyone because of a small percentage who cannot control themselves. In the end gun regulation and making it more difficult to acquire one is the best solution. An upstanding individual will have no problems going through the proper channels to acquire one for home defense and such. Those with criminal records it should be impossible, but chances are they'll get em anyway illegally and do harm with it.

posted on April 13th, 2011, 12:43 am

Well I'm from the US and I really would have thought that the tragedy that happened in Arizona only a month or so a go would make people really think hard as to why the US, unlike so many other countries, as so much trouble with gun violence. The more guns you have, and the easier it is get them means more people will get killed or hurt from guns. Whether from just getting shot or by accidental shootings either way guns lead to more violence not less.

Clint I understand your points but its rare that a gun from a private residence stops a crime it usually causes one. Plus if the government wanted to enforce martial law there would be no stopping them with our uzis and shotguns or an invasion. But that is just my opinion, and it won't change anything anyways

I'm tired of GROSSLY NEGLEGENT MISINFORMED PEOPLE LIKE THIS.

More guns = less violence. FACT.  Look at switzerland where the population is given assualt rifles and trained how to use them.  Violent crime is non-existant.  The criminals can ALWAYS get weapons.  Gun control only takes guns out of the hands of good people.

Also, the only people commiting voilent crimes in the US is the government.  Look up all the videos on youtube of US soldiers shooting Iraqi civillians for fun and laughing about it.  Look at 9/11, Gulf of Tonkin, The underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, the christmans bomber, the anthrax mailers, Oklahoma City Bombing ALL STAGED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.  Most of which are ON RECORD!

If you want to talk about real issues then you need to grow up and face reality.  Only when we realize that we are living in a authoritarian police state can we overcome it.

If you are ready to learn the truth go to Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!, or better yet youtube.com/thealexjoneschannel.

[fa11out]

posted on April 13th, 2011, 12:47 am

Last edited by fa11out on April 13th, 2011, 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

I understand your opinions and like I said this is my opinion and my experience

It is also not common that crimes are committed with legal weapons

I disagree with this completely, I live in Wisconsin and here and the surrounding states most crimes are with legal weapons and here is a website for everyone http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

@ibench291 thanks that was really funny and made me laugh, because I am grown up and if you really believe all that stuff then all I can ask is: does it make you happy to know that the government is one giant power hungry monster that creates attacks to gain more power, does it help you sleep at night to think this way?

By the way since when does more guns equal less violence?

[Anonymous]

posted on April 13th, 2011, 1:02 am

Last edited by Anonymous on April 13th, 2011, 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

I disagree with this completely, I live in Wisconsin and here and the surrounding states most crimes are with legal weapons and here is a website for everyone http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

That link has nothing to do with your statement.   It is a neat graph though.

I have to agree with you about ibench though.  Other than this statement,

More guns = less violence. FACT.  Look at switzerland where the population is given assualt rifles and trained how to use them.  Violent crime is non-existant.  The criminals can ALWAYS get weapons.  Gun control only takes guns out of the hands of good people.

everything else is a bit overbord.   ok, more than a bit.  

@ibench

ok, after rereading that post, It is actually quite insulting for those of us who know and have family members who may be in the military, and might have even fought for us in Iran and Afghanistan, etc.  I will respect your opinion, but I would also kindly ask you to not continue down that argument.  Thank you.

posted on April 13th, 2011, 1:08 am

Well my put with that cool looking graph is to show that loose gun laws don't prevent crime  http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

how is that one?

posted on April 13th, 2011, 1:11 am

there are sides to every arguement.   Infact, I that graph's data is 10 years out of date.

Here is a more up to date, and more relevant to the US, bit of info.
NRA-ILA :: More Guns, Less Crime Again

posted on April 13th, 2011, 1:23 am

I guess like I said before tho its just my opinion on what guns do you can have your own if you couldn't then I think ibench would be right