The pro gun movement
 

When I hear people going on about the second amendment and gun ownership laws, I always feel torn. On one hand, it is guaranteed in the bill of rights, all of which should be respected as written. On the other hand, the ideologies that propel the movement are, beneath the surface, disturbing. Is an obsession with guns not, in turn, an obsession with, well, killing? When the people talk about the necessity of a gun for self defense... it always seems like they are anxiously awaiting the opportunity to kill, rather than discussing the laurels of the rights granted to us by our forefathers. Discuss.

yeah.

does it really say there people are allowed to carry guns?

as for self defense, it's been proven by stats many times: people who own guns are MORE likely to get hurt.

having seen first hand the damage guns can do i really think there needs to be more laws governing them and maybe a total ban.

My stance is as follows.

There are some places in this world that I would feel safer in if I was armed.

That said, unless it's a them-or-me/someone I care deeply about type of situation, I would sooner try to wound someone with a gun than kill them, and those people who are fanatical about owning twenty different types of firearms and go around threatening to use them or say asinine things like "it's the duty of the people to overthrow the government if it starts to get out of control" (i.e. raise taxes by 2% or come up with some new laws they don't like yet probably won't be affected by) are not the kind of people who should be owning them.

The 2nd Amendment needs to be updated. The gun violence rates in America are out of control when compared to all the other industrialized nations who have banned guns.

The redcoats aren't coming anymore and militias are not necessary. Get over it republicans.

My dad is one of those types.

Personally, I don't think I'd feel comfortable with an outright ban of all guns. I can see the direction of the thought, but I dunno. Criminals are still going to find a way to get guns, and they aren't going to worry about regular civilians being able to defend themselves if there was one. I don't have any kind of stat or anything to back that up, but I'd just feel that's what would happen.

I'd much rather just have one pistol, .45 or whatever, sitting in my closet under some magazines collecting dust that I'm not going to think about 98% of the time but ready to go to in the event of that 1 out of however many chance someone busts into my house. That's my sentiment anyway.

I don't think there is a "pro gun movement", rather an "anti gun movement". Hasn't the right to bear arms always been a part of this countries constitution..... a privilege reserved to any law abiding citizen?

in 2000 the murder rate in the USA was 5.5/100,000 people
in the UK it was 1.7/100,000

anyway, obviously that doesnt mean anything because it doesnt address cause and effect but it is striking.

a gun is not defence.

BTW, I own many guns, and frankly everyone I know literally owns guns and of all, none are even the slightest bit eager to kill someone and in fact are extremely responsible and passive about them. Your outlook sounds very inexperienced and like a naive stereotype exaggerated to the worst case scenario. I would imagine you don't have the responsibility of a family and in an area that could be subject to crime?

what are you talking about "a movement to maintain our constitutional rights?"

ask yourself.... aside from your bloated stereotype of gun waving crazies.... are these same people you refer to as armed for self defense actually committing crimes and killing people unnecessarily? ... or are crimes being committed by criminals that otherwise, legally aren't allowed to be in possession of a guns but would obtain them illegally, black-market anyway.

These people "armed for self defense" aren't kill happy but rather confident about the ability and right bear arms and protect themselves.... something you would probably understand if you had any balls (or have actually ever had experience with guns), it's always those farthest away from the scenario that are the most vocal.

I have a story about a friend, a best friend of my brother who we all go to shooting range together to shoot. Earlier this year in New Orleans, he shot and killed a robber with a shotgun, while on the phone with the security co. who had dispatched the police. It was done out of necessity, he wasn't anxious to do it and it's terribly inconvenienced his life (as you can imagine), but it was him or the intruder..... your opinion? I will post some links to the story and tell the details (by his account) later.

The population of the US is 309,897,000.
The population of the UK is 62,041,708.

Those figures kinda balance it out.

The way the 2nd Amend is worded, if you can read Engrish, it says nothing about an individual's right to own guns.

Alas, our wonderful and esteemed High Court has determined that that is what the framer's meant.

I don't think a gun ban will happen real soon. Make that 'at all'.

I think Canadia has a much more enlightened policy.

Shut up you stupid fuck

And I mean that in the best way possible

Numeracy fail.

no it doesn't.

he stated the number of murders for every 100,000 people. so if the uk had an equal amount of inhabitants, america would still have more murders.

and if you would include the cause of death the difference might be even bigger.

i'm not pro-guns at all. it varies from place to place, but i think the majority of people will never find themselves in a situation where a gun is absolutely necessary. gun laws here have gotten pretty strict after this dude wandered through antwerp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Van_Themsche (this happened practically behind the corner of where i live. the kid was 16 and he had gone into a weapon store and bought an off-license hunting weapon without any problems)

what i mean is that people will always find a way to kill each other, but what a government might be able to do is make some ways less available. i had an uncle who was a manic-depressive person with a history of suicide attempts and medication, and one day he bought a gun the same way hans van themsche did and shot himself through the head. i'm sure he would have killed himself another way if guns weren't available though.

What Keeping It Symmedian means is that one UK citizen is worth 5 US citizens.

Rule, Britannia!

I don't know why people insist on this "defend yourself" thing, and criminals still will have guns. Of course they will, they are criminals.They don't even NEED guns to be criminals, it just makes it easier for them. In fact most of the ones they do now were once legally purchased by someone.

The fact is someone being able to defend himself against a criminal with a gun represents a minority of the cases. Most of the times, the criminal is quicker, more experienced with guns, and way more reckless. He's a million times more likely to shoot you if he for one moment thinks you're reaching for a gun, even if that wasn't the intention. So, you could have been mugged, now you're dead. Stats show that owning a gun INCREASES the changes of being hurt and getting killed.

Most gun owners never get the chance to use their guns to defend themselves. But there are alarming numbers about domestic accidents.

Like I said, all guns criminals own were once legally manufactured and purchased, it's big business.

most safety advisors will tell you that in case of robbery or theft, it's way safer to just give the robber what he wants instead of trying to defend yourself. a criminal is indeed more likely to be better at handling a gun (as knox already stated) and most material posessions can be replaced. i heard someone saying it like this: 'would you really want to get severely injured and lose your life, just to keep your wallet? you'll probably end up losing it anyway'

just now a truck has been carjacked by armed men, who then fired military-style funs at the policemen chasing them. it is the next one in a series of incidents with criminals being heavily armed and using those weapons. police states that criminals are getting younger, more reckless, and more eager to shoot. the truck driver survived because he gave up his truck and didn't try to fight.

Ah yes, discussing gun control on the internet. I'm sure that will work out well and lots of minds will be changed by compelling rational arguement.

who says this thread was started to 'change minds'? as far as i can see, people are giving their opinion here, and some disagree.

Its a sad day when I'm linking to fox, but i think this thread show the propaganda is working well. You have received the message!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107274,00.html
With the avalanche of horrific news stories about guns over the years, it's no wonder people find it hard to believe that, according to surveys (one I conducted for 2002 for my book, "The Bias Against Guns," and three earlier academic surveys by different researchers published in such journals as the Journal of Criminal Justice) there are about two million defensive gun uses (search) each year; guns are used defensively four times more frequently than they are to commit crimes.
The rebuttal to this claim always is: If these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? Many people tell me that they have never heard of an incident of defensive gun use. There is a good reason for their confusion. In 2001, the three major television networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- ran 190,000 words' worth of gun-crime stories on their morning and evening national news broadcasts. But they ran not a single story mentioning a private citizen using a gun to stop a crime.

The framers of the US constitution sought, fermented, and achieved armed insurrection, armed revolt.

due to this, they understood the necessity of a population being armed if it so desired. The Revolutionary war against the british was fought for a while, befiore France provided guns and money, by regular people with their personal weapons, rifles, muskets, pitchforks, etc.

regardless of what anyone tries to spin, an armed citizenry SCARES the powers that be, and the people that wish to retain that power in the hands of a few.

no one talks about this stuff because it is easier to scare people by detailing the relatively few instances where people are hurt by guns or killed accidentally etc.

The USA is a violent, still-young nation, and most of the murders occur not because there is a gun handy, but because some idiot decides to kill someone.

The tales of the "Old West" seem to imply that guns = lawlesness, but that is bullshit. The actual homicide records for those days show a far far lesser rate of murder than now. EVERYONE was armed back then, for hunting food, for protecting from bandits and thieves (no police patrols back in da day), for fighting the natives, and for joining up possees and militias if needed, which was needed during the war of 1812, the mexican american wars, civil war, etc.

taking away guns to protect people is like taking away condoms to keep people from having sex.

I have friends who carry concealed guns, with full [permits and training, who have stopped hold-ups, stopped rapes, just by being in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time. they were not put on the news

the news exists solely to SCARE THE POPULACE.
people rescuing people dioes not fit that mold.

Or course there is a pro gun movement. NRA??? Hello???

one more thing.

I do not own a gun, nor will I likely ever own one.

I fear IDIOTS, not guns. IDIOTS will use a gun/knife/weapon just because it is avialable. They are IDIOTS. One cannot legislate against that by trying to keep the weapons from IDIOTS. We should ligislate better education. It would cost just as much, maybe less.

The argument in the USA is a little different than in another countries.

First, as a colony, this country was constantly at war with indians. The colonists would push the indians out and the indians would come and raid your village. There was also a lot of hunting, particularly as people expanded into "untamed" areas where game was abundant.

As a result, by the time of the American revolution, pretty much everyone owned a gun, or guns, for all sorts of purposes (shooting indians, shooting buffalo, shooting ducks).

Come the revolution, there wasn't much of a standing army: a large portion of the fight was done by armed militias, that is, civilians with their hunting weapons using guerrilla tactics to wear down the better-equipped ingleses. If it wasn't for the help of a regular army like the French one, we would have had our asses kicked by the limeys.

So right at the birth of the country you have the individual ownership of guns as a primary feature.

Now remember these were independent colonies, each with their own laws and customs etc. This is not a monolithic country, in spite of what it may look from abroad. It was 13 states, some had slaves, some were free states, some were "commonwealths", each with their own laws. So when the constitution was written, the states (former colonies) feared too much control from the central government, and the Bill of Rights was created to keep the central power from growing too strong. That's where the 2nd amendment belongs.

Now, the second amendment says

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What does that exactly say? It's not completely clear. The way I read it is that the people have the right to bear arms in the context of A WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA. Which brings us back to the Minutemen of the independence. That seems rational and parallels the weapon ownership of the citizen-soldiers of Switzerland. Homicide rate in Switzerland: 1.2 per 100,000 (lower than England). Now, these militia weapons are fully automatic military issue guns, truly dangerous shit, and everyone keeps one at home. And yet their murder rate is lower than gun-free England, Belgium, France, and gun-rational Canada.

Now, the USA after its creation expanded quickly into Native-owned territory. Many many indians were exterminated, either by military action or by biological warfare (whiskey, smallpox) and the settlers who colonized those lands were out in the middle of nowhere without the protection of an urban environment-- facing dangers such as indian raids, roaming criminals, and the occasional wild animal (mostly wolves attacking cattle, on which their livelihood depended). There ware also territorial disputes, water access disputes, and very little law enforcement. Your survival would often depend on hunting. The bottom line: everybody had guns in the "wild west" during the XIX century.

So today we still have this pioneer mentality where people think of their home in the suburbs as their "homestead" in the prairie even when such days are gone; but culture is a powerful thing and doesn't go away so quickly. Add to that the history of racial violence, civil war, a "do it yourself" mentality, and the notion that the government is instrusive, and you're going to have a slightly paranoid people who think their self protection is mostly in their own hands. Therefore if you take guns away you'll have people thinking they are defenseless agains thiefs and dark people who will come to rape their daughters in the night.

So while the dispute of the second amendment has been going on forever (does it protect the rights of gun ownership under a militia, or individual gun use for self defense?), the supreme court recently ruled that it was an issue of self-defense in the home (and the car, which is an extension of your home) and lifted the ban on gun ownership in the District of Columbia (which is under federal rule).

So, while big cities might find guns repellent and only good for criminal activities (New York is still banning guns for example), "Middle America" loves its guns because without them, they feel, they are alone in the night.

I'll add one thing-- I have a cabin in a very remote area away from the city and emergency services, and I keep a fucking rifle next to the bed when I'm there. Maybe I'm paranoid, but we've had people show up uninvited on our road (looking for a place to drink or get high); and getting such visits at 3 am is scary and creepy, especially considering there is some meth use in the area. You'd want a gun if you lived there, I swear.

Exactly. Pro gun Americans are such paranoid pussies. They have been scared into owning them because they have actually been brainwashed to believe they need to own them.

The redcoats aren't coming anymore. Time to lay down the archaic tools of personal destruction. It would bring our murder rates WAY down.

too true.

Think of where I live, Houston TX. This city has about 4-5 million people in it and the surrounding county.

There are around 3500 Houston Police Department cops. (There is a 1000 cop shortage they cannot seem to fill)
There are aropund 1600 Harris County Sherrif deputies.

That is about 5000 law officers patrolling and "protecting" (HA!) the 5 MILLION inhabitants.

self-defense is a right and an imperative. the defnse of one's neighbor is a right and an imperative.

fuck the pussy redcoats.

what about the chinese? The Iranians? the North Koreans?

You did not see the FEd government timely and appropriate reaction to 9/11? (HA!)
You did not see the Fed Government's timely reaction to the Katrina disaster? (the COPS were shooting terrified survivors in case you did not read about it)

90% of the US military is stationed overseas, and in many instances halfway around the world.

FUCK man, we are even sending out National Guardsmen and State National Guardsmen to Iraq and Afghanistan cuz there are not enough soldiers to go around with all the HUNDREDS of military bases the usa has around the world.

just because no country has attacked the USA since pearl harbor does not mean it won;t happen TOMORROW

And the redneck, republican, Jesus fearing, bud light drinking, gun toting motherfuckers are going to save us? You have been watching too many movies son.

i wasn't talking about the redcoats are coming, i was talking about how the laws of the country were framed when the redcoats had just come and that's why the gun laws are there.

in europe at some point only the nobility was allowed to bear arms, same as japan-- different history, different culture.

in america, you didn't have to be a member of the elite to get yourself a weapon, and the people believe it's their democratic right to arm themselves as they please.

what i'm saying is, it's a matter of CULTURE, not of government policy.

you can't legislate a deeply ingrained culture out of a country. we tried that in the XIX century and it required a civil war to get rid of slavery.

the reason why you think so anti-gun is because you live in an urban area with an anti-gun culture. go live in a montana ranch for a while and you might change your mind.

i'm actually wary of guns, i think they should be licensed and strictly regulated, but what i'm saying is that the issue here, CULTURALLY, is not as black and white as european boardies assume, it's not just a matter of a central government deciding what the people will do and the people are going to be "mmyeah ok".

one young kid finding Daddy's gun and playing with it and kills himself or a friend is one to many deaths for me. I realize that probably 95% of gun owners are smart and lock their weapons away where the kids can't get at them. Some idiots don't though and that is too much. Some weapons get stolen by criminals but nowhere near like it was in the sixties and seventies before all this heavy safes to lock them in and the safeties that have for weapons as well. yet as stated States with less gun control laws do have less crimes it's baffling. The only real solution is no guns what so ever and we know that ain't happen any time soon. So at the moment the best solution is ban all high power high bullet count weapons. All guns have to be tamper proof to having their clips adjusted for high bullet count.

so why is your stereotyping any different than theirs?

why wouldn't YOU join THEM to fight against an invader? or a tyrannical government?

You would think so, however...


source: wikipedia

if we're going to fight invaders we should have a swiss-style militia with military grade weapons stored in our homes.

military weapons (mainly, automatic high caliber assault rifles) are banned from private ownership in the USA though.

can you imagine if everyone had an M16 rifle in their closet? jeezus. that would make me truly paranoid.

"don't turn the music too loud or it will piss off the neighbor..."

"oh, there are those two arguing again, everyone duck & cover..."

"you're fired... no no no you're not fired, you'll just work from home, doing what you want, we'll double your pay...."

I live in the south. I know many, many people with guns. Seldom do you ever even actually see the guns. Pistols that stay stashed away. Rifles that stay locked in cabinets or layeth unloaded against a wall.

I have no issues with them. They keep the deer population at a safe(er) number. I know people that have been in serious accidents (know of some that have died) because of deer running across the street and suddenly becoming frozen stiff by oncoming headlights, driver's not noticing the glowing eyes until far too late.

Guns have done some great things for us.

How many people are murdered via being stabbed? SHould there be a ban on knives? Lead pipe?

I think it was Florida...some state....that put a ban on handguns for a while, then due to a growing crime rate made 'em legal again...the crime rate then proceeded to drop.

One is LESS likely to break into yr house if they think might you have a gun. I for one think it should be 100 percent legal to shoot someone in the face that has broke into my house and has no business being here.

fail.

It is funny that the areas in America that have the least amount of crime with lower populations have the most guns. Stupid, paranoid motherfuckers need to calm down. Easy access to guns = world leading gun violence rates. DUH

If you think unorganized civilians with guns could do anything against a modern military you are fucking out of your mind.

epic fail.

explain.