People should stop protecting guns

[Something Amyss]

This is America. I am an American. I've never owned a gun in my life. I don't really want to. But I will not allow my freedom to be stifled by cowards.

It's easy to call people cowards for not thinking the same way as you, but it's not exactly productive or indicative of a strong argument.

It's nice to shout things like "freedom" and call people "cowards," but howabout some substantial argument? Freedom is such a loose thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but don't the people of Switzerland have something like 200.000 guns hidden away in their homes, with one of the lowest gun crime figures in the EU?

I'm not saying gun ownership should stay as loose as it is right now in the US - I'm not really decided on the issue - but it is clearly a societal issue.

It's not just a societal issue, however. In stating that, you've shifted from one extreme (it's the guns) to another.

The answers are usually more complex. The thing is, it's not just the guns, but the type of guns available, the way they are available, etc.

Yes, we are a nation of gun nuts. that influences things. Yes, there is a mental health problem in America. That influences things. But these elements are not alone in the matter.

Switzerland, in many ways, has better gun control laws than we do. Its gun ownership rates are due to the well-regulated militia we are supposed to have. Background checks and permits are pretty non-controversial. Ammunition is restricted, even for the assault rifles that are standard issue for their military service.

They have some pretty strong gun restrictions, which isn't out of keeping with the US, where the states with the most gun laws tend to have the least gun violence.

I know you're not taking a side here, but I do want to point out Switzerland is commonly brought up as an argument by pro-gun advocates in the US quite often. And it is a bad one.

 

[Antari]

What is needed is a comprehensive mental health system. Guns exist, there is NOTHING you can do about that. They aren't going to vanish until they've been replaced by something far more lethal. At which point you will still be fighting the same problem. Human nature. Gun control won't do a thing to change anything. It never has and it never will. And no I don't need to hear how a country 1/20th the size of the USA has such a peaceful lifestyle.

 

[astrav1]

I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.


1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

2 People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

4 The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

5 A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

6 A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

7 Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.


Any arguments to add, anything you wish to discuss ?
Be polite,calm and respectful about it.


[sub]the poster of this thread neither condemns nor accepts guns[/sub]

You know, because of this thread and overdone topic, I think I'm going to join the NRA, nice going, you really made a change.

 

[Xanex]

"1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill."

Really. Then why do police have them? It's to help them serve and protect the community. Yes with guns.

 

[Xan Krieger]

I think in order to make everyone safe we should just ban people. People are the leading killers of people so people must be banned for everyone's protection.

 

[Xanex]

I think in order to make everyone safe we should just ban people. People are the leading killers of people so people must be banned for everyone's protection.

Genius! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before! Someone call the government!

 

[kgpspyguy]

It doesn't matter whether guns are safe. It doesn't matter whether guns have any use in self defense, recreation, or crime. It doesn't matter whether they kill people.

What matters is that Americans desire to own firearms. And the ownership of firearms does not trespass upon the rights of those who do not desire to own firearms.

This is America. I am an American. I've never owned a gun in my life. I don't really want to. But I will not allow my freedom to be stifled by cowards.

I dont know who you are but I can tell you're smarter then about 75 percent of people on the internet.

 

[supermanNBC]

A gun is a tool to kill, but a gun does not kill people, the person pulling the trigger is the killer. Guns are used to defend yourself, whether a shotgun, semi-automatic pistol, or if you want, an assault rifle. NRA is a bunch of idiots, and I've lost respect for them since blaming video games for the shootings. The gun didn't walk into the school and shoot people nor did a video game, it was a very disturbed person that did it. It's not a perfect world out their and we need something to defend ourselves from those who would do us harm. Some people may go their whole lives without needing a gun, and I understand you see no need for it if you feel perfectly safe without one. Some of us, less fortunate will need it. This video gives every reason why we should have guns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKWNTdTRQuE).

 

[kgpspyguy]

it's not just a "gun" thread

it's a neutral thread

In order: it is, it isn't.

And it's in Off-topic, rather than R&P. Not to mention it's a new thread. If you wanted to discus what those "other people" say about guns, you should have discussed it with them. Making a new thread citing "something" apparently "somebody" has "said" is just weaselling words and making a groundless statements.

would you please stop the picture spamming there's no need for it.

And they aren't groundless statements if you wish for me to back these up I will.

PS: next time reply in a mature way please, this picture spamming just makes you look foolish.

I dont know, I thought it was pretty funny.

 

[blaize2010]

This is dumb. Nothing anyone says is going to sway my opinion that it is a persons right to own guns, and nothing I say will sway anyone elses opinion that guns are the devil.

Seriously, this is a gaming website.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

To summarize the beliefs that I (personally) consider rational.

Guns aren't the issue. Less guns and less gun-owners does not mean less violence.

Violent videogames and movies aren't the issue. Blaming media removes personal responsibility.

Preventing violence is the issue. But it unfortunately the most difficult to discuss for some reason, perhaps because increased security tramples on more rights than just the first and second amendments above.

 

[Proeliator]

As an US citizen, I am guaranteed the right to own a firearm in order to protect myself against tyranny. For a while people argued that the 2nd amendment really meant that states could have their own militias, but the supreme court said that, no, its the individuals right. In that context, law-abiding citizens should have the ability to own rifles that are comparable to military grade weapons. It appears a semi-automatic small-medium caliber rifle with a medium capacity magazine fits this.

Heavy Machine Guns and Anti-tanks missiles for all? Of course not. That would be idiotic. We have a hard enough time training everyone to operate motor vehicles safely. But the current interpretation of the law seems to point to assault rifles. If you want that changed, I'd advise an amendment to the constitution, and then the supreme court can re-interpret it.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

For a while people argued that the 2nd amendment really meant that states could have their own militias, but the supreme court said that, no, its the individuals right.

With no intention of contradicting your post. If a lot of gun owners get together with a political agenda, does that count as a militia? I'm legitimately curious.

 

[Proeliator]

For a while people argued that the 2nd amendment really meant that states could have their own militias, but the supreme court said that, no, its the individuals right.

With no intention of contradicting your post. If a lot of gun owners get together with a political agenda, does that count as a militia? I'm legitimately curious.

Sure! I'd love to have a non-rage-fueled discussion!
I was talking about state-sponsored militias, meaning they took orders from the governor of the state, which today has sorta morphed into the National Guard (although some/most national guard take orders from the president). However, what your talking about looks more like a private militia, which might be protected under the right to assemble (the key word being peaceful, so if they started shooting people obviously no), and private militias do exist. They run the risk of being labeled as a gang or terrorist cell by law enforcement, but they're still out there. I could be confusing things though, and private militias could be illegal. Its most likely a state law.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

People are going to passionately defend amendments to the Constitution because they see it as part of their rights as citizens. Just as people will passionately defend the First Amendment and balk at any restrictions people will defend the Second Amendment the same way. Like the First Amendment there are reasonable restrictions such as not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater but it takes careful crafting to not over reach with restrictions on freedoms.

I'm also not big on this idea that somehow you have to justify owning a gun. We don't say you can only own a car if you have a legitimate reason for owning one because cars are dangerous. It's not as if cars are restricted to people who can claim it's only for work purposes.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

Off to R&P with you, foul gun thread! You ain't welcome round these parts!

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Sure! I'd love to have a non-rage-fueled discussion!
I was talking about state-sponsored militias, meaning they took orders from the governor of the state, which today has sorta morphed into the National Guard (although some/most national guard take orders from the president).

Did not know that about the National Guard. Interesting.

However, what your talking about looks more like a private militia, which might be protected under the right to assemble (the key word being peaceful, so if they started shooting people obviously no), and private militias do exist. They run the risk of being labeled as a gang or terrorist cell by law enforcement, but they're still out there. I could be confusing things though, and private militias could be illegal. Its most likely a state law.

Yeah, this is where groups in India (Salwa Judum and Ranvir Sena) Colombia (numerous right-wing groups), and Sudan (Janjaweed) come up. It's really scary to think about the KKK achieving the same level of dangerousness like Rwanda's Interahamwe in the 1990s.

It's kind of ironic that fear the idea of militias more than the army, when they both have the same problem (violent humans).

 

[Proeliator]

Sure! I'd love to have a non-rage-fueled discussion!
I was talking about state-sponsored militias, meaning they took orders from the governor of the state, which today has sorta morphed into the National Guard (although some/most national guard take orders from the president).

Did not know that about the National Guard. Interesting.

I'd better clarify, for your's and my benefit. Some states still have a state militia, that only answers to the state, but way back when, the civil war basically up to WWI, the US's army was very small, and depended on the state militias for more troops. Come the 20th century, the army was expanded, and the divisions of each state were reorganized into the branches we know today, with the national guard now answering directly to the president, like the navy. Basically, the national guard came from state militias. Its a lot more complicated than that, I'd recommend surfing Wikipedia to get a more accurate picture.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I would like to put out there that shotguns and skeet-shooting are also not bad. Owning a shotgun for the purposes of shooting skeet is (unless I'm mistaken) considered an Olympic sport other than just being a regular sport. Anyway that being said, I'm from Mur-ka and agree with the points on both side. I can see gun ownership being important to home and personal defense but at this point don't see why law abiding gun owners don't switch out to non-lethal ammo and/or electricity based weapons like tazers etc. A quick blast would incap someone long enough to restrain said person after all! That being said I also know that nobody on the planet really needs anti-vehicle rounds, armor piercing rounds, hollow point rounds, etc. Nobody outside of a warzone needs a sniper rifle or, high-powered machine gun of any kind.

To be completely contrary though, the idea of dual-wielding M-16's and shooting exploding and, flammable things is on par with running shit over with a steam roller in that it's one of those boyish fantasies that many people probably still have. None of us are going to be Robocop or The Terminator but if you have that mindset and the chance to unload into something squishy (that isn't human obviously...or is a hostile human about to murder you anyway) there are people who want nothing more than to indulge that fantasy. I'm one of those people who would jump at the opportunity to shoot at a car with a sniper rifle for example but only if it was guaranteed to explode...and destroy a tree with it.

One last point: Crazy is always crazy. If crazy finds a gun it can murder lots and, lots of people. If crazy is unable to find a gun it gets creative and...well aren't there a lot of really interesting murder attempts in the UK for example? Like disgruntled employees trying to make bombs out of Mountain Dew and Baking soda and other people stabbing people at random with home-made sporks?

 

[Ryotknife]

Sure! I'd love to have a non-rage-fueled discussion!
I was talking about state-sponsored militias, meaning they took orders from the governor of the state, which today has sorta morphed into the National Guard (although some/most national guard take orders from the president).

Did not know that about the National Guard. Interesting.

I'd better clarify, for your's and my benefit. Some states still have a state militia, that only answers to the state, but way back when, the civil war basically up to WWI, the US's army was very small, and depended on the state militias for more troops. Come the 20th century, the army was expanded, and the divisions of each state were reorganized into the branches we know today, with the national guard now answering directly to the president, like the navy. Basically, the national guard came from state militias. Its a lot more complicated than that, I'd recommend surfing Wikipedia to get a more accurate picture.

I thought the Nation Guard is still nominally under state control. The president can request a temporary transfer of control, but that request can technically be denied (although it probably never has been denied).

nevermind, apparently that was changed in 2007-2008 (state governor is no longer the sole commander in chief). Strange, how did that fly under the radar? I imagine something like that would cause a colossal stink.

Ah...

"In a letter to Congress, all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the President over the National Guard"

Although if push came to shove, im not sure how loyal those NG would be to the president if he required them to fire on their own people seeing how the NG are all locals.

EDIT: whoops looks like the president overriding state control was repealed in 2008....unless i read this article wrong. How wonderful our political system is. Ping pongs between two different ends constantly...