Pro-Gun or Anti-Gun

[AstroProdigy]

Alright I hade not read most of the posts on this topic because there is too much to read. Also, no one has posted on this topic in a long time. I just want to comment about the two arguments in favor of guns.

 

With regards protecting urself against criminals with guns, you have to understand that the legalization of guns is arming both you and the criminal. What does that accomplish? Simply more gun related violence I would say.

 

Regarding the argument that we need guns against the militia; first of all, the people who support the sale of guns to citizens have control of the Executive, Legislative, and basically the Judicial Branch. If anything, Democrats should be supporting guns with this argument.

 

On top of that, do you actually believe that a population with guns can actually defeat the government? You can do guerrilla warfare, but the United States government can simply take control of all of the media and are much better equipped to fight guerrilla warfare now than in Vietnam.

 

If push comes to shove, the military has a huge arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that it can keep the masses down with. Try shooting a nuclear bomb with whatever you want it still wont make a difference.

 

So that is why I believe the reasons that people claim to support the sale of guns to citizens are just wrong. I believe people really want to have guns because it makes them feel powerful. If you really think about it you will realize that it is a chauvenistic belief.

[LearJett+]

You outlaw guns in the US and people will just get them illegally. It would be like prohibition all over again. Drugs are illegal and people still use them. Gun smuggling would rise and the average Joe would be defenseless. (Unless tasers were still legal )

[MonteZuma]

Gun smuggling would rise and the average Joe would be defenseless.

I'm not so sure. I believe that less guns in average Joe's hands also means less gun's in criminal Joe's hands.

[Greased_Lightning]

Fewer guns in citizen joe's hands means less of a deterrent for the criminal joes who get guns illegally

 

guns are a part of the heritage of our country, gives a certain amount of self reliance which is a highly valued trait in our culture

 

when you get the french to give up their wine, the italians to give up their spaghetti, the british their tea, then maybe you can try, because its just part of the culture in many areas

[»SD>Big]

Fewer guns in citizen joe's hands means less of a deterrent for the criminal joes who get guns illegally

 

guns are a part of the heritage of our country, gives a certain amount of self reliance which is a highly valued trait in our culture

 

when you get the french to give up their wine, the italians to give up their spaghetti, the british their tea, then maybe you can try, because its just part of the culture in many areas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

death by spaghetti and tea? never happens. i haven't given this issue too much thought, but i think it's a safe bet to say that some sort of a gun ban will result in less people killed each year by a gun. just because americans have a rich history involving guns, doesn't justify it.

[LearJett+]

death by spaghetti and tea?

Obesity (hehe)

 

I'm not so sure. I believe that less guns in average Joe's hands also means less gun's in criminal Joe's hands.

 

If someone wants to get a gun - they'll get it. Legally or Illegally. This would just making it harder for law-abiding folks to get it, ya know, the ones who aren't going to kill anyone.

[Greased_Lightning]

thousands of people die from car accidents or being run over each year... same goes for alcohol related deaths, cigarrettes, french fries but no one says we should ban these. People are killed each year by knives but you dont tell people they cant use a steak knife anymore. I can use a length of steel pipe and kill a person with that, do we make steel pipes a controlled item?

 

It's like the simpsons episode where they get rid of their guns and the aliens take over with a slingshot and a club Thank God for people with a nail in a board

[»SD>Big]

thousands of people die from car accidents or being run over each year... same goes for alcohol related deaths, cigarrettes, french fries but no one says we should ban these.  People are killed each year by knives but you dont tell people they cant use a steak knife anymore.  I can use a length of steel pipe and kill a person with that, do we make steel pipes a controlled item?

 

It's like the simpsons episode where they get rid of their guns and the aliens take over with a slingshot and a club    Thank God for people with a nail in a board

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

cars are a mode of transportation, guns are meant to harm or kill someone, nothing else, they are lethal weapons, they serve no other purpose then harm. none.

 

cigarettes? of course people have tried to ban them, i didn't know you could get internet under the rock you live in. since the american (as well as canadian) government has started anti tobacco measures, tobacco use has gone done over the years.

 

french fries? america is currently in an epidemic as far that's concerned and they are trying to do something about it.

 

everything else you mentioned is too stupid to comment on and you know it, i could name any object on my desk and use that to harm someone.

 

 

i dont feel like dragging up statistics, but countries with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun related deaths... doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

 

what countries need are harsher laws, make it really hard to get a gun. thorough checks, records of every sale etc... i saw some report on how in the states, you can buy a gun from someone in your own state legaly (i dont know if that's every state or a few). without backgroung checks, without anything, just cash and carry. that's ridiculous!

[LearJett+]

If someone is crazy enough to kill another person, I don't think the fact that guns would be illegal would stop them.

 

 

 

 

My solution is to make bullets really really expensive. Like $5000 each. If bullets were $5000, people wouldn't waste them on other people.

[MonteZuma]

If someone is crazy enough to kill another person, I don't think the fact that guns would be illegal would stop them.

 

My solution is to make bullets really really expensive. Like $5000 each. If bullets were $5000, people wouldn't waste them on other people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suspect that many homicides are heat of the moment incidents that could very well be avoided by keeping guns out of people's cars and homes.

 

Bullets are much easier to smuggle than guns.

 

You won't stop a determined crook getting hold of a gun ever. But you will stop petty criminals and some hot heads from having them and doing dumb things with them.

 

The argument that you can't stop ALL gun related crime by regulating gun ownership more strictly is a spurious argument. You can't stop all car related deaths by installing seatbelts - but they will still save a lot of lives.

[LearJett+]

Heh, I guess the sarcasm didn't broadcast well with my bullets comment?

 

 

I agree that some, if not most, gun-related incidents are heat of the moment. However, guns are part of the culture in many regions of the United States.

 

If we ban guns because someone things they're dangerous, then what's next? Knives? Pointy things? Who decides what's dangerous, anyway? Next thing you know, it's 1984 and we're hailing Big Brother.

 

An interesting link. Read it. >>>>Link<<<<

 

Hm, another one. >>>>Link<<<<

^This one says that only 4.46 homicides out of 100,000 are with a firearm.

[MonteZuma]

Heh, I guess the sarcasm didn't broadcast well with my bullets comment?

Oops. Missed it.

 

...An interesting link. Read it. >>>>Link<<<<

 

Hm, another one. >>>>Link<<<<

Both of those websites (gunowners.org and Usenet can.talk.guns) present a very biased viewpoint.

 

^This one says that only 4.46 homicides out of 100,000 are with a firearm

Actually no. You've misread the data.

 

What it is saying is that, in the US, 7.59 people out of 100,000 died as a result of homicide. 4.46 out of every 100,000 people died in a gun related homicide. Therefore....59% of homicides in the US are gun related (ie 59,000 out of every 100,000 homicides are gun-related). That is higher than every other country in the table, except Northern Ireland.

 

However, there are less homicides in Northern Ireland. The chance of dying in a gun-related homicide is higher in the US than in every other country listed, including Northern Ireland.

 

Also. The data don't actually say 'gun-related'. They say 'homicide with a gun'. I wonder how many homicides were carried out with a knife or whatever in a situation where guns were also involved? It could be that many more than 59% of homicides are 'gun-related'.

[LearJett+]

Biased viewpoint or not, they both present facts.

 

 

Heh, oops that I read that wrong

[Dr.Worthless]

Guns dont kill people, people do.

 

Remove guns, replace it with the next most efficient tool for killing.

 

Gun control in the United States is a bad idea.

[MonteZuma]

Biased viewpoint or not, they both present facts.

Not really. There are too many points in those websites for me to address one by one, but in each case, the writer has been very selective about what data they use to demonstrate their point.

 

For example, the first website points to the low number of children that are accidentally killed by guns each year, but they don't inlude children between 14 and 18 in their statistics. Sites that are biased in the opposite direction routinely use figures that include yout up to age 21.

 

This one is a mind-bender:

 

Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

 

If this is true (and I use a conservative 7% rather than 8%), 175,000 people are killed or wounded each year when citizens defend themselves with guns. But the consensus on pro and anti gun sites on the Internet is that 100,000 people are injured and 30,000 are killed by guns (IN TOTAL) each year in the US. Many of those are accidents, homicides and suicides.

 

Their figures don't add up.

[Manus Celer Dei]

Guns dont kill people, people do. 

 

Remove guns, replace it with the next most efficient tool for killing.

 

Gun control in the United States is a bad idea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I propose then that gun control be replaced by people control.

[ThunderJam]

Hunting (95% of the time [in the USA]) is bull!@#$%^&* - anybody that thinks otherwise, come on down to Florida and I'll happily kick your !@#$%^&*.

 

mmm, I live in maryland, and in the past 5 years we have become ridiculously overrun with deer. I was driving into my neighborhood just two nights ago, and passed 8 deer, including a 8 point buck. And this isn't a rural area either. It's gotten to the point where hunters are basically welcome, not just as a sport, but people are glad it decreases the deer population.

 

*EDIT* Hehe oops, didnt realize how much i bumped this topic

[X`terrania]

What the !@#$%^&*?

[shellshock]

this subject is one of the main things that won the election for Bush...

 

Many hunters and gun-rights supporters voted for him, even though they may have disagreed with much of his policy, because he supported citizens' rights to bear firearms.

 

In the US, this issue is as big as abortion rights, the war in iraq, etc etc etc...

 

LEGAL gunowners passionately defend their right to own firearms.

 

I agree with earlier posts that stated that if guns were outlawed, or made much harder to legally purchase, criminals would still find them. People will find tons of statistics to support either side, but I support the stance that more restrictions on gun ownership will only restrict LAW ABIDING citizens. Criminals are CRIMINALS, they aren't worried about the laws. And, before you say that less guns will make it harder to find guns, you need to understand the AMOUNT of guns that are in existence. Unless the government is going to confiscate and destroy 100's of MILLIONS of firearms, there will still be PLENTY of weapons available to those who really want them and to those who are willing to break laws to obtain them.

 

Personally, I own two firearms. I own a 12 guage shotgun that I use when I bird hunt, and I own a 9mm Ruger pistol that I use for target shooting. I also deer hunt, but I borrow a rifle from my dad, because I don't have the cash right now to get my own. I enjoy both hunting, and the physical act of firing a weapon. There IS a lot of power in your hands when you fire it, and it is FUN to control it for many people. You can say its a power trip, compensation for penis size, many arguments, but I don't care, I still enjoy it.

 

My dad owns somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 firearms. Out of those, one is a pistol, the rest are long-guns used for hunting. His weapons are kept in a safe. And monte, the gun cabinets you spoke of earlier, are being replaced all over by safes that will take considerable effort to break into.

 

In my highschool, (and yes, I'm out of high school, and have a university degree, but still live in the local area I grew up in), the majority of families that I knew owned multiple firearms. I've known NO-ONE that has been harmed by a firearm, and my parents only know of few cases, which were either caused by mishandling of a loaded firearm, or were suicides. I understand that the situation is different in many urban areas, and that occasionally an unstable youth obtains firearms and harms many (Columbine), but that isn't a TYPICAL situation that affects firearms owners.

 

There is also a major difference is legislation prohibiting the purchase of assault weapons, and legislation controlling all purchases of firearms. The major fear amongst law abiding gun owners is that anti-gun activists will try to use ANY anti-firearms legislation as a stepping stone to remove ALL guns from law abiding citizens. Personally, I'd like to own an assault weapon, to use on targets. When I visited Vietnam a few years ago, I had the chance to fire some older machine guns at a firing range, and I enjoyed it. But, I understand why lawmakers would want to limit access to those weapons to law enforcement agencies and to military personnel. I would be willing to give up legal access to those weapons, IF and ONLY IF, they guaranteed our right to continue to possess other firearms which are currently legal. I don't believe this would happen though. Just after the Brady Bill was passed, anti-gun activists claimed that they would use that victory as a stepping stone towards their longterm goal of getting rid of all firearms. I'm not ok with that, and will vote for people who will fight that type of legislation, and will support lobbying groups like the N.R.A. in order to have my views pushed on Capitol Hill.

 

Huntingwise....

I eat every animal I kill. Everyone I know who hunts, eats every animal they kill, or gives it to someone who wants it for food. Most anti-hunters don't realize that most hunters are conservationists themselves, who WANT to see thriving numbers of animals in the wild, healthy, because it BENEFITS hunters. Legal hunting is also controlled, with major studies done to monitor wild animal populations, and to set limits that control the population without hurting it. Over the course of my lifetime, I've personally seen local populations of whitetail deer and turkeys, begin to thrive. I can now enjoy to hunt these animals, AND I can enjoy seeing these animals in the wild. This year, I've been deer hunting probably 20 times, of these times, I've seen deer on all but 2 occasions. I've yet to fire a shot. I am waiting to see if I can find a large buck, which I can shoot and eat, as WELL as mount as a 'trophy'. If I don't see one, I will shoot a doe solely for meat. I don't want to shoot more than I will eat, and I enjoy watching the wildlife as much if not more than shooting it. Most anti-hunters don't understand how hunters feel, or have only seen examples of 'bad' hunters who shoot anything that moves, who overkill, who tresp!@#$%^&*, who waste the animals they kill, etc, etc, etc... A good example of a positive group of hunters, who not only enjoy hunting but do things to help wildlife with habitats to thrive is Ducks Unlimited.

 

Back to guns,

Guns are one of the few issues that I will get 'up in arms' about (no pun intended). I will adamantly stand up for my right to own them, and to use them legally.

 

As far as the handgun I own, it IS for personal protection. Is this a sad commentary on the state of affairs in our country? Probably. As an aspect of my career, I frequently have to enter abandoned houses, to secure them for lenders, and I also have to go to homes to evict people. When I enter these abandoned/vacant homes, I am alone 99% of the time. Occasionally, you will encounter vandals or druggies in these homes. I feel that this firearm gives me a chance against a drug crazed person, who may not realize that I'm not there to harm them, and who could attack me without being provoked. If they come at me with a baseball bat, or piece of broken glass I DO feel safer with a gun by my side. No, I've never had to use it, and no, I've never been attacked. There HAVE been local people in the same field as me who have been though, with one fatality in a nearby city.

[MonteZuma]

Most criminals are opportunists. If access to guns becomes more difficult, fewer criminals will have guns and gun-related crime will fall. Some criminals will still have guns, but your overall chance of being killed or robbed with one will fall.

 

Having a gun in your house does not protect you from criminals. In fact it can make you a target. Criminals like to steal guns.

 

The idea that easy access to guns make society (or your home) a safer place is a fantasy.

[shellshock]

i think that if USA was a new country, and we were deciding from the start about whether or not to allow gun ownership, we could legitimately control guns and gun ownership and they would be reasonably hard to obtain by the criminal set, BUT, given the number of guns already in USA, gun control will mainly keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens...

[»Ducky]

Keep a hunting rifle, 1 per person and/or family pending the age of the children who also own.

 

No excuse for not getting rid of hand guns for citizens.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Taser.jpg

Edited December 20, 2005 by Ducky

[quickspy]

Most criminals are opportunists. If access to guns becomes more difficult, fewer criminals will have guns and gun-related crime will fall. Some criminals will still have guns, but your overall chance of being killed or robbed with one will fall.

 

Having a gun in your house does not protect you from criminals. In fact it can make you a target. Criminals like to steal guns.

 

The idea that easy access to guns make society (or your home) a safer place is a fantasy.

 

 

I do not fully agree with the fact that having a gun in your house makes you a target. If that was the case almost every American's home would be burglarized for their firearms. But in reality many homes are broken into for expensive items or the intent to harm someone.

 

Also in America it will be impossible to take away a significant amount of guns from criminals. I say this because as you probably know a high percentage of firearms used in crimes are un-registered. This would leave a large amount of criminals armed and a smaller amount of legal gun-owners unarmed.

 

In a utopian society guns would not be needed to defend our homes. But in reality criminals do have guns already and we cannot do anything significant about it. Living in Philadelphia I have heard stories of guns preventing crimes like murders and rapes but the sad thing is those stories are never published in the media. Taking guns away from owners who use them in preventative crime is like taking a gun away from a soldier that is rushing into a battlefield.

[»Ducky]

I do not fully agree with the fact that having a gun in your house makes you a target. If that was the case almost every American's home would be burglarized for their firearms. But in reality many homes are broken into for expensive items or the intent to harm someone.

The intent to steal firearms solely is existant. They won't be stolen from an Armory. With that said; you are a target if you own a gun.

 

Also in America it will be impossible to take away a significant amount of guns from criminals. I say this because as you probably know a high percentage of firearms used in crimes are un-registered. This would leave a large amount of criminals armed and a smaller amount of legal gun-owners unarmed.

What you are doing is not releasing new guns and cracking down on illegal gun sales. We would be reducing the outflow of firearms; not changing the amount we take in from criminals considering we must aprehend them first.

 

In a utopian society guns would not be needed to defend our homes. But in reality criminals do have guns already and we cannot do anything significant about it.

We can do significant things about it. You don't want to though.

 

Living in Philadelphia I have heard stories of guns preventing crimes like murders and rapes but the sad thing is those stories are never published in the media.

A taser gun wouldn't do that just as well? You won't be raped or murdered by a stunned person.

 

Taking guns away from owners who use them in preventative crime is like taking a gun away from a soldier that is rushing into a battlefield.

The analogy (to me) makes no conclusive sense.

Rushing into a battlefield doesn't sound preventive at all.

 

When we have subs!@#$%^&*utes that still harm the bad guys equally well but don't cause needless death; it seems irrelevant any arguement most people bring up.

[MonteZuma]

Yeah. I agree with Ducky, except that I believe that we don't need to have Tasar guns in public hands either.

 

The best way to protect yourself from home invaders is to do stuff like lock your doors and windows, install a back-to-base alarm - and have home contents insurance.

 

Is it worth having a gun battle to protect your new plasma tv?

 

At the commnunity level, there needs to be adequate social services and policing. If you feel unsafe in your home, I would ask the government to do something about that. Adding more guns to the system is counterproductive.