[achtung]

Wow I just realized I misread Mr. Vega's comment.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector is broken today.

[Mr. Vega]

Or we could just not let anybody have guns, so we don't have to kill them to protect ourselves.

Why don't we make it easier for them and kill ourselves right now?

If you're going to ignore my earlier arguements, then waste more time and write a couple paragraphs please.

[Polpolion]

I would, but I'm so lazy (I probably didn't even read your earlier arguments).

My point still stands, though. A total firearm ban is unconstitutional.

[Mefustae]

Banning firearms basically takes them out of the hands of citizens who would use them for a positive purpose, and lets the people who are willing to use them in a negative manner run around practically invincible.

Bollocks. If having such widespread gun ownership "protects" people, explain why so many Americans die every year from guns?

One good example of this being the shootings in which Charles Whitman held himself up on that Texas campus way back when.  As well as police coming to aid, many civilians that were probably better equipped also arrived on scene to aid in any way possible with their personal firearms.

That's right! Because having dozens of armed civilians running around in a crisis situation makes everyone so much safer!

Police forces are very effective, but they aren't perfect.  In many rural areas, and in some urban ones, it can take quite a while before police can arrive on a scene, and in that time lots can happen.  If I can neutralize the threat of someone trying to enter my home and harm me, my family, or to steal my personal belongings, I think I should have the right to defend myself from that threat by any means.

I don't suppose you could cough up some statistics that show that owning a gun will provide effective protection against breaking-and-entering? I mean,

The only thing banning firearms does is move the market from the public market, where it can be controlled to some degree, to the black market.

But in doing so it would put firearms out of reach of those who would kill on impulse. Of course, you'd still be able to buy a 9mm just as you can go down to a bad neighbourhood and buy some crack, but that's better than having legal vendors that sell guns with no accompanying registration or background checks. The idea is to make firearms harder to obtain so that it becomes more difficult for killings like this to take place. Nobody is under any illusion that mass-murders and such would stop dead if firearms were banned, simply that they wouldn't be so damn easy to pull off.

Oh, and lastly, banning firearms will do very little to actually get them off the streets, as they are already well saturated throughout the country.

Well, obviously. There would need to be a major initiative to put a dent in gun ownership, but isn't saving just a few lives worth the effort?

[Polpolion]

It seems like no one is listening to me.

Anyone ever heard of the second amendment?

You can't just go reversing the Bill of Rights. It's kind of why we have it, you know how crazy times make governments crazy and start removing civil liberties, but with the BoR, they can't do that.

(BTW, first ten amendments is the Bill of Rights. Everything else was added later.)

[Mefustae]

It seems like no one is listening to me.

Anyone ever heard of the second amendment?

You can't just go reversing the Bill of Rights. It's kind of why we have it, you know how crazy times make governments crazy and start removing civil liberties, but with the BoR, they can't do that.

The Second Amendment is a hold-over from a time when the United States didn't have a standing army, and instead relied upon militia forces to protect the nation from hostile invasion. Logically, to have a solid militia you would need to have widespread gun ownership amongst the population, but modern armies have superceded this need and now widespread gun ownership serves only to protect people from the widespread ownership of guns.

In a nutshell: The Second Amendment is woefully out of date and requires revision if not complete erasure to better suit modern society.

[Agent_Koopa]

It seems like no one is listening to me.

Anyone ever heard of the second amendment?

You can't just go reversing the Bill of Rights. It's kind of why we have it, you know how crazy times make governments crazy and start removing civil liberties, but with the BoR, they can't do that.

The Second Amendment is a hold-over from a time when the United States didn't have a standing army, and instead relied upon militia forces to protect the nation from hostile invasion. Logically, to have a solid militia you would need to have widespread gun ownership amongst the population, but modern armies have superceded this need and now widespread gun ownership serves only to protect people from the widespread ownership of guns.

In a nutshell: The Second Amendment is woefully out of date and requires revision if not complete erasure to better suit modern society.

But when you think about it... you can't invade Middle Eastern countries with a militia... suddenly this whole thing is looking a lot better... 

[Polpolion]

It seems like no one is listening to me.

Anyone ever heard of the second amendment?

You can't just go reversing the Bill of Rights. It's kind of why we have it, you know how crazy times make governments crazy and start removing civil liberties, but with the BoR, they can't do that.

The Second Amendment is a hold-over from a time when the United States didn't have a standing army, and instead relied upon militia forces to protect the nation from hostile invasion. Logically, to have a solid militia you would need to have widespread gun ownership amongst the population, but modern armies have superceded this need and now widespread gun ownership serves only to protect people from the widespread ownership of guns.

In a nutshell: The Second Amendment is woefully out of date and requires revision if not complete erasure to better suit modern society.

Yes I know that.

But it doesn't matter. It's a right that the people have. The Bill of Rights was the only reason some of the states signed the constitution, and that second amendment was certainly one of them, even if it was like that. Also, remember when I said crazy times make crazy people ( ), it is certainly true that a large portion of the U.S. is stupid, and with the repealment of that right would possibly create some instability in some of the "less civilized" regions.

If it was really as obsolete as you say, then the government would have repealed it by now.




EDIT: Honestly, if the second amendment was not there, I would be all for the ban of guns.

Just so you know...

[Agent_Koopa]

It seems like no one is listening to me.

Anyone ever heard of the second amendment?

You can't just go reversing the Bill of Rights. It's kind of why we have it, you know how crazy times make governments crazy and start removing civil liberties, but with the BoR, they can't do that.

The Second Amendment is a hold-over from a time when the United States didn't have a standing army, and instead relied upon militia forces to protect the nation from hostile invasion. Logically, to have a solid militia you would need to have widespread gun ownership amongst the population, but modern armies have superceded this need and now widespread gun ownership serves only to protect people from the widespread ownership of guns.

In a nutshell: The Second Amendment is woefully out of date and requires revision if not complete erasure to better suit modern society.

Yes I know that.

But it doesn't matter. It's a right that the people have. The Bill of Rights was the only reason some of the states signed the constitution, and that second amendment was certainly one of them.

If it was really as obsolete as you say, then the government would have repealed it by now.

So the reason we shouldn't repeal it is because we haven't already done so? (Hold on, I can't believe I'm saying "we".) It's a right of the people because it was made one by the government of the United States, and the government of the United States can remove it, with, of course, the ratification of the representatives of the public.

[Polpolion]

The US is more of a republic than a democracy. (representational democracy essentially is a republic)

[MP-Ryan]

Mefustae, I keep reading your post over and I can't figure out if you're totally against legal firearms ownership at all, or just somewhat extreme in favor of responsible ownership (i.e. stricter controls on the 'who' as opposed to the 'what').

Mind clearing that up before I respond and discover that I totally mis-read you?

[Mefustae]

Mefustae, I keep reading your post over and I can't figure out if you're totally against legal firearms ownership at all, or just somewhat extreme in favor of responsible ownership (i.e. stricter controls on the 'who' as opposed to the 'what').

Mind clearing that up before I respond and discover that I totally mis-read you?

While I advocate the notion of complete restriction, such a hope is merely a pipe-dream. Hence, I support the idea of tougher restrictions on how one obtains firearms and who is allowed to do so.

So, yeah, while my standing regarding firearm ownership itself is a bit ambiguous, it's more my disgust towards the notion that gun ownership is somehow 'essential' or otherwise needed in modern US society, where one of the biggest dangers in life is getting held up by someone with a gun, that defines my position in the argument.

[jr2]

In a nutshell: The Second Amendment is woefully out of date and requires revision if not complete erasure to better suit modern society.

You, sir, are dangerous.  

What, pray tell, is to hold a representative government responsible, if it is the only power wielding weapons?  People tend to abuse power if they know they can get away with it.  I do believe the crime rate in Britain / Australia has gone up, am I correct?  See, I don't believe the weapon involved matters much.  Someone that's totally snapped, blown his lid, you think he's actually going to look around for a gun, and, not finding one, take a few breaths, count to ten, and just relax?  You are aware that you can physically beat someone to death, and that this does happen from time to time, aren't you (sarcastic, don't take that personally).  Baseball bats make the aforementioned a bit easier.  Ban all baseball bats, maybe?  Outlaw martial arts, perhaps?  Oh, now we just had a recent example of alternative weapons a little while ago... box cutters anyone?  People who lose it will usually find something to harm the person they're upset with.  BTW, they don't just have guns lying around, and then when they're mad, they grab it and shoot someone.  They keep guns whereever they put them, in a closet, under their bed, etc.  It is unlikely that someone who has a gun is just going to have it lying around... BTW, perhaps while we're banning everything, maybe ban pencils from school?  I do seem to recall one or two instances of someone being fatally stabbed with a pencil before.  Those you do find just lying around.

Does anyone catch my point here?  The only difference that a firearm makes it in its range and power.  There are, however, other things more powerful then a firearm (4,000 pound vehicles come to mind.)  Now, if you ban firearms, and the only people owning firearms are the government and the police, take a guess who's the only other group that's going to have them... bingo, the crime world.  Also, like I said, having an armed citizenry does tend to curtail the government somewhat.

So, what do you think so far?  Please try to avoid using anything unduly provoking, or I shall have to sick m on you to make sarcastic footshot remarks; I'm sure he'd be tickled pink.    

[WMCoolmon]

Or we could just not let anybody have guns, so we don't have to kill them to protect ourselves.

Why don't we make it easier for them and kill ourselves right now?

If everyone had a gun and knew how to use it, it would radically change things. Pulling a gun in anger in a public area would quite possibly result in serious injury or death, and actually using it would assure one or the other.

Because everyone would have the power to kill in self-defense, the immediate consequences of pulling or using a gun for something bad would be far, far, worse than before.

Quite simply, I think that most people don't want the kind of responsibility that owning a gun would force them to take on. So instead of taking action to give themselves the same power as the would-be perpetrator, they choose the only other route: force the would-be perpetrator down to their level. Hence why gun control is such an attractive proposition.

Before believing an argument that either complete gun control or lack thereof will make any significant difference, I'd want to see some actual studies of places that the policy has been implemented.

[jr2]

Britain.. Australia.

[Mefustae]

What, pray tell, is to hold a representative government responsible, if it is the only power wielding weapons? People tend to abuse power if they know they can get away with it. [...] Also, like I said, having an armed citizenry does tend to curtail the government somewhat.

Come again? What does that have to do with the issue? Please tell me you're not attempting to paint government as a Machiavellian organisation that will brutally oppress the citizenry the second they let down their guard?

See, I don't believe the weapon involved matters much.  Someone that's totally snapped, blown his lid, you think he's actually going to look around for a gun, and, not finding one, take a few breaths, count to ten, and just relax?

The idea is that by taking away readily-available firearms, the number of impulse-killings will be curtailed. If someone who wants to kill his school-chums has to go through a lengthly process to get a firearm, or can't get a firearm at all, then the chances of him or her working out the issue in another, preferably non-violent way, go up. Of course, the lack of firearms would never stop impulse killings or mass murders, but you've got to keep in mind that it's a little difficult to go on a murdering-spree and kill 32 people with a knife or similar weapon. Had firearms not been so easily accessible, those news reports would probably read "Virginia Tech stabbings: 2 confirmed dead".

You are aware that you can physically beat someone to death, and that this does happen from time to time, aren't you (sarcastic, don't take that personally).  Baseball bats make the aforementioned a bit easier.  Ban all baseball bats, maybe?  Outlaw martial arts, perhaps?  Oh, now we just had a recent example of alternative weapons a little while ago... box cutters anyone?  People who lose it will usually find something to harm the person they're upset with. [...] BTW, perhaps while we're banning everything, maybe ban pencils from school?  I do seem to recall one or two instances of someone being fatally stabbed with a pencil before.  Those you do find just lying around.

Your argument is completely irrelevant. Restricting access to firearms would not end violent crimes, but doing so would undeniably limit the power to commit violent acts.

Moreover, taking your example to the extreme would mean people should be allowed to own and bear Hydrogen Bombs, because if they can kill with a pencil, then what difference does it make?

Now, if you ban firearms, and the only people owning firearms are the government and the police, take a guess who's the only other group that's going to have them... bingo, the crime world.

So you support vigilantism?

[jr2]

Hydrogen bombs cannot be used for self-defense; they are purely offensive / retaliatory / MAD weapons... (sane) countries, yes, individuals, of course not.

So you support vigilantism?

No.  But until the day police can respond within 30 seconds of a call...

The idea is that by taking away readily-available firearms, the number of impulse-killings will be curtailed. If someone who wants to kill his school-chums has to go through a lengthly process to get a firearm, or can't get a firearm at all, then the chances of him or her working out the issue in another, preferably non-violent way, go up. Of course, the lack of firearms would never stop impulse killings or mass murders, but you've got to keep in mind that it's a little difficult to go on a murdering-spree and kill 32 people with a knife or similar weapon. Had firearms not been so easily accessible, those news reports would probably read "Virginia Tech stabbings: 2 confirmed dead".

Cuts down on the number of people that can be hurt per incident, yes.  Not the number of actual incidents... except for the logic that the incidents themselves would drop if more people owned firearms... because it wouldn't be worth it to try and kill a bunch of people and then instead you end up maybe killing one or two, and being quickly blown away...

[Ghostavo]

Britain.. Australia.

You mean two of the first world countries with the lowest death by firearms rate in the world?

By the logic dictated in this thread, one would expect almost every country in the world but the US to be a chaotic, violent cesspool.

[jr2]

Not death by firearms... what's the murder rate?  The burglary rate?  Up or down?

[Mefustae]

Not death by firearms... what's the murder rate?  The burglary rate?  Up or down?

That has nothing to do with this thread, unless you can give us a link to statistics demonstrating a definite link between firearms ownership and burglary. Just saying "Australia hasn't got very many guns and thus has a higher burglary rate" is outright fallacious without further evidence.