[viewtiful alan redux]

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.

[knox]

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.

[jon boy]

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.

[GeneticKiss]

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.

[hevusa]

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.

[Count Mecha]

Originally Posted by GeneticKiss

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.

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.

[FreshChops]

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?

[lucyrulesok]

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.

[FreshChops]

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.

[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by lucyrulesok

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.

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

Those figures kinda balance it out.

[akprodr]

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.

[akprodr]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

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

Those figures kinda balance it out.

Shut up you stupid fuck

And I mean that in the best way possible

[radarmaker]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

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

Those figures kinda balance it out.

Numeracy fail.

[ploesj]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

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

Those figures kinda balance it out.

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.

[pbradley]

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

Rule, Britannia!

[knox]

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.

[ploesj]

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.

[radarmaker]

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.

[ploesj]

Originally Posted by radarmaker

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.

[tesla69]

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.