Gun Ownership

[kchriste]

That too!

 

[PhillDubya]

Lol...

Statistically, if someone breaks into my home, and attempts to harm or kill me, and statistically I have a gun, then I will statistically remove their head from their shoulders, with my statistical shotgun.

 

[kchriste]

Yes, but statistically, you are also asleep when the neighborhood thief breaks in, steals your gun, points it at your sleeping form and flips on the lights. Statistically you have a 30% chance of wetting the bed at this point.

 

[tcmtech]

Around my parts guns are just another tool. Nothing more and nothing less.

If I walked into a crowd of people intending to kill a bunch of them with a hand gun I probably could at best get one actual kill for every two or more shots I took!
On the other hand if took my pickup and plowed into the same crowd I could get dozens of people.
Yea I know this sounds sick but my point is there are countless examples of other ways to kill someone or a bunch of people and never use any fire arms.
To me regulating fire arms because they could be used in a harmful way is just narrow minded and stupid! There are so many everyday items we have that are far more capable of killing purposly or even accidently!

A gun is considered a defensive weapon but when you measure it against other common items that the vast majority of people do own they are rather ineffective or at least very limited.

I consider them a false comfort device more than anything. If you are afraid or paranoid then owning a gun may make you feel more secure. Although its doubtful that you actually could use it properly in a defensive situation if needed.

Stupid people use firearms and fear against others to get their way.
Smart people use there brains against others to get their way and the others are happy doing it!

I dont have much for firearms but I know many people that do. And I am very glad they are around! If our government tried to turn on its own people it would be very difficult to do.

Our military and law enforcement system is very civilian based. Not one military or law enforcement person I know would ever follow the direct order to turn on his family, friends, or neighbors. Regardless of the command structure or reasoning that is in place!

How do you control a countries population if the military and and law enforcement used for control will not take that order!
Fat politicians wont try and go and do it themselves!

 

[3v0]

What tcmTech said.

What do you think about this statement.

When police and community are responsible, guns are not a problem.

3v0

 

[Leftyretro]

I've never owned or felt the need to own a firearm. Only fired weapons while in the military during training. However I am against any law that would prevent me from purchasing one if I felt the need.

I think of freedom is a personal, practical sense. Can I just jump into my car and drive anywhere I want in the U.S., no papers, no permission, no notification, if yes then that is a freedom I enjoy. Can I purchase a handgun if I get the urge, if yes then that would be another freedom I enjoy. I default to be against anything the would limit a freedom that I presently enjoy. However I'm not against registration as long as it's not a way to prevent my freedom to buy one if and when I desire to. Gun registration does take away my freedom to legally anonymously own a gun so I guess that is one practical freedom taken away for the benefit of society. I can live with that compromise.


Lefty

 

[dknguyen]

What do you think about this statement.

3v0

Is this directed at me? I agree with that statement. But there is the problem of distraught people who can get their hands on other people's legal weapons that they might not have gotten otherwise (think school shooting with their parent's weapons).

I don't entirely with the reasoning that carrying concealed or unconcealed weapons lowers crime (different than having one at home). Schools for example (I'm not sure how many people agree with me on this, but I imagine it's the majority). It's kind of like arguing for mutually assured destruction...it's has it's points, but is still pretty difficult to argue completely for it.

I also think that below 18 is too young...maybe 21 in the US since that's the drinking age after all...

I can see why it might stop a corrupt government before it starts, though people inside a school probably aren't going to be defending national security or constitutional rights at a moment's notice so they should have no business carrying a firearm. I still think it's a bit too easy to get them though (in some places definately, though I don't know all the specifics or how things vary from place to place). Like mandatory training, licensing, registration, background checks etc. is definately a must.

I saw some NRA bulletine online yesterday that seemed to complain that Obama wanted mandatory training (or licensing) or something like that as one of it's reasons against him...I dunno, I thought that was reasonable.

In my opinion, I think comparing guns to cars is a bit silly because cars can be used for pretty non-damaging purposes, whereas a gun was designed to damage something, it might be something unimportant like targets, but by design it's meant to inflict damage.

 

[mneary]

In my opinion, I think comparing guns to cars is a bit silly because cars can be used for pretty non-damaging purposes, whereas a gun was designed to damage something, it might be something unimportant like targets, but by design it's meant to inflict damage.

On the other hand, when a car damages something, it's usually pretty important.

 

[OutToLunch]

I always hear arguments for gun ownership in the US centered around a so-celled "hunting tradition". This is such a load of bunk. For a little background, I'm a hunter and do own a rifle but hunt mainly with bow and arrow (Which is pretty darn deadly - google 'Rage 2 Blade Arrowhead'). While I believe I have a right to own firearms for hunting, hunting is not the sole reason why we have a right to own a firearm.

Personal protection and protection from the government itself are the two main reasons why I believe in the right to bear arms.

I think it was tcmtech who said something to the effect that our police and soldiers would not follow any orders that would mean killing citizens - I would have to disagree on that. Ruby Ridge and the events at Waco are just two examples - and if you think those were justified even in the least, then what about the Kent State Massacre? Think that can't or won't happen again?? I would also point to the so called "war on drugs" and "war on terror" as two policies that are no friends to liberty or freedom.

 

[tcmtech]

My comment was pointing to wards the military or law enforcement being used against the general public.
Not the few cultist nuts or irrational religious or fanatical survivalist groups that pop up every so often. If you look at the actual events that lead up to those cases you will see there was a fair amount of evidence that did point to the need for further and above normal force being needed.
But also there was mistakes that were made by both sides.
As I recall the innocent civilians that were killed died from the actions of their own group. They were given full opportunity to leave and were denied it by their own people, or simply were willing to stay by there own free fwill, not the law enforcement people!

We have many freedoms in this country but there are many well established rules and laws relating to what is considered appropriate behavior by American citizens.

If a local Law enforcement officer feels the need to come an visit me he has a right to do so. If I go nutters and pull a gun in him and start acting inappropriately he is going to call in backup.
Now If I am part of a larger group that does this and has a local reputation and record for suspicious and often highly illegal goings on there is going to be far more backup called in.
And If this group I am part of starts pulling out weapons that are clearly non civilian but obviously military assault grade. I think that warrants some military assistance on the part of the local law enforcement.

There are countless examples of these type of nuts building up large cashes of weaponry and then going out and trying to force there beliefs on others and trying to take over local government for their own misguided purposes.

It happens far too often in todays world. The hard truth is that these examples that came from American soil are in many ways somewhat justified in order to prevent America from becoming another one of the messed up countries that are continually fighting over political and personal beliefs using private military forces and things like that!

Unfortunately Innocent people often become victims during one of these interactions. I dont like it but still its better than having those nuts run loose in the country and start killing innocent civilians while trying to make their point about whatever crazy belief they have.

The needs of the many far out way the needs of the few!

 

[OutToLunch]

do you even know what happened at ruby ridge? they shot a woman in the head who was holding a baby. yeah - she was a major threat at that point. so after the feds killed weaver's son and wife, what was the outcome? he was charged with missing his original court date and some other probation violations. nice

and what could possibly be the reason for shooting into a crowd of students at Kent State? That was the US military firing on American civilians. It happened then it can happen again.

you can certainly place your full trust in the government if you like - I, for one, don't think that any government deserves much trust from the people. if you think that distrust of the government is a crazy belief, then I must be nuts.

 

[tcmtech]

I cant find any reference to ruby ridge or Kent state in my last post. Are you reading between the lines and finding something I did not write?

The closest thing I can come up with is this.

My comment was pointing to wards the military or law enforcement being used against the general public.
Not the few cultist nuts or irrational religious or fanatical survivalist groups that pop up every so often. If you look at the actual events that lead up to those cases you will see there was a fair amount of evidence that did point to the need for further and above normal force being needed.

Waco I think would have probably been able to fit into this description.

I dont have a unwavering trust of our government. I fact I dont have much actual trust in anyone that is in any leadership position. Be it business, social, government, religion, or any other thing you can come up with that relates to a single person or group of people being in charge of another group.

Our society is far to complex to say that every time and in every case the correct approach will be taken.
There is that human emotion factor and very very often their is that personal ego backed by incomplete of incorrectly understood information.

That ego driven "I AM THE LAW" attitude falsly supported by poor human judgment backed by false feelings of power and righteousness.
That is what most often causes the events to happen that you are referring to!

 

[gabeNC]

Well... nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition!

YouTube - Spanish inquisition

 

[Andy1845c]

Around my parts guns are just another tool. Nothing more and nothing less.

If I walked into a crowd of people intending to kill a bunch of them with a hand gun I probably could at best get one actual kill for every two or more shots I took!
On the other hand if took my pickup and plowed into the same crowd I could get dozens of people.
Yea I know this sounds sick but my point is there are countless examples of other ways to kill someone or a bunch of people and never use any fire arms.
To me regulating fire arms because they could be used in a harmful way is just narrow minded and stupid! There are so many everyday items we have that are far more capable of killing purposly or even accidently!

A gun is considered a defensive weapon but when you measure it against other common items that the vast majority of people do own they are rather ineffective or at least very limited.

I consider them a false comfort device more than anything. If you are afraid or paranoid then owning a gun may make you feel more secure. Although its doubtful that you actually could use it properly in a defensive situation if needed.

Stupid people use firearms and fear against others to get their way.
Smart people use there brains against others to get their way and the others are happy doing it!

Nicely put TCM,

That pretty much hits it on the head as for how I feel.

A gun is just a tool. Like any tool, it has its place and it needs to be used and cared for properly.

Taking away the 2nd amendment right makes us less capable as a society. Less capable of hunting for food/animal population control, humainly handling problems with nuisance animals or sick/injured animals, and in extreame cases, to defend our selves and property.

I agree strongly with what TCM said about carrying a gun being sort of a false sense of security, and with the statement that few who have guns on them could use them properly in an emergency situation. Folks who have had extensive firearms training in law enforcment or the military might have the right mindset and skill, but Joe Blow that likes to feel like a tough guy carrying his Glock? No. Bad idea Plink some tin cans and shoot some targets at the range if you like, but otherwise, leave the gun at home.

If you look at crimes that guns are used in, and remove the guns, you still have problems.

Robberys are commited with just about everything you can think of. Implied guns, screw drivers, knives, samurai swords, implied bombs, real bombs, Baseball bats, metal pipes. I mean you name it, someone has weponized it in a converience store.

Gang/drug violence often involved guns, but there not the root of the issues.

Murders sometimes involve a gun, but not always, meaning they are not going to stop if guns are ever banned.

I guess to try and answer dk's question, if i understad what he is asking,
I support the right to bear arms because theres no reason in my eyes we shouldn't be allowed to.

If it would make the world a better place if we all mealted our guns down, I'd surrender mine in a heartbeat. But I don't think thats gonna help one bit. Humans have evolved and adapted for 1000's of years. We will always find another way to kill eachother.

 

[Hero999]

Yes people still get murdered here in the UK.

We don't have much of a problem with guns now, it's knives and you can't exactly ban them.

As far as gun ownership is concerned, I disagree with the idea that gun ownership should be a right but I think the laws here are a bit tough: gun licensing is still the best policy.

The idea that carrying a gun helps you to defend yourself is nonsense. Here in the UK most criminals don't carry guns so people don't need guns to defend themselves. If the law was changed to make gun ownership a right then criminals would certainly start to carry them. What means is that if someone wants to rob you, they'll just make sure they shoot you first before you shoot them.

Another argument I've heard is that removing the right of citizens to defend themselves was one of the first steps taken by totalitarian regimes, e.g. Natzi Germany, Soviet Union. This is clearly rubbish because the army will always have more powerful weapons than ordinary citizens: so what you might have a hand gun but the army has tanks and nuclear weapons? What chance do you stand against them?

Another thing is that when guns were totally legal ,the UK was no democracy, it was under a far more authoritarian system than it is today: absolute monarchy.

Some Americans are too quick to preach human rights but the US hasn't exactly had an exemplary human rights record: torture e.g. waterboarding, racism, political repression i.e McCarthyism.

 

[Mikebits]

I think what TCM might be saying is that the military would not just attack citizens without just cause. The moment a military person enters bootcamp they are taught the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice. They are taught that they must follow all Lawful orders. Here is an exerpt from the UCMJ:

(c) A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph 14c(2)(a).

My point is this, It is a servicemans duty to not follow orders that are unlawful.

 

[3v0]

Some Americans are too quick to preach human rights but the US hasn't exactly had an exemplary human rights record: torture e.g. waterboarding, racism, political repression i.e McCarthyism.

Lets no go here.

3v0

 

[killivolt]

Lets no go here.

3v0

Strange you would be thinking that............

Some Americans are too quick to preach human rights but the US hasn't exactly had an exemplary human rights record: torture e.g. waterboarding, racism, political repression i.e McCarthyism.

All I can say is......... Reeee-hee-hee-hee-hee-ly.


kv

 

[tcmtech]

Uniform Code of Military Justice

Thats the term I was looking for! Thank you!
Law enforcement has similar codes a well.
That why I am rather sure the US government can not turn the law enforcement and military on the its own general public.

At least not without a very justifiable reason. No matter how high up you are in the government system and the power you may have " JUST BECAUSE I SAID SO" will not fly. We remember the Hitlers and the Saddam's that were in the past and we see what they do in the present in other countries.

Their is a limit to how far a persons personal grudges and beliefs can go in our country before the people being told to follow those orders just say; No, thats crazy wrong!
Fortunately for us the American cultural class system is tightly intertwined. There is no real defined military class, or wealthy class, or working class, or poor class.
Because of this the wealthy class can not hire the military class to eradicate the poor class and then force the working class to clean up after them!

 

[monkeybiter]

1)Yes people still get murdered here in the UK.

2)We don't have much of a problem with guns now,
3)it's knives and you can't exactly ban them.

4)As far as gun ownership is concerned, I disagree with the idea that gun ownership should be a right but I think the laws here are a bit tough: gun licensing is still the best policy.
5)Another thing is that when guns were totally legal ,the UK was no democracy, it was under a far more authoritarian system than it is today: absolute monarchy.

1)Always have, always will.

2)Handgun crime in the UK has risen drastically since the handgun ban. The people who are prepared to hurt each other don't care about being licensed.
3)Some types of knives are banned. Some types of knife may not be carried. I have had a penknife in my pocket for 'general utility' since I was in my early teens. I now am prohibited from carrying a lock-knife and must put up with the more dangerous [to me] folding penknife, and I would still have to defend my posession of it if stopped by police. Knife crime is just the latest newsworthy theme guaranteed to get any policeman or polititian a positive headline.
4)The laws here are tough on the wrong people, although I do agree with licensing.
5)Firearm licensing in the UK in the modern sense began with the Pistols Act in 1903.