Guns and Right to Bear Arms

[MsRuthieB]

FYI-Americans generally don't take up arms to protect themselves from the government. Moreso, we take up arms to protect ourselves for the criminal population.

[Marie]

Some Americans just enjoy target shooting. It's a hobby.

[MsRuthieB]

Yep. That's true too. Or they just like to collect.

[newstars]

FYI-Americans generally don't take up arms to protect themselves from the government. Moreso, we take up arms to protect ourselves for the criminal population.

Well statistically you have more chance of being shot if you have a gun in your house since it's often that a criminal uses the owner's own weapon on them. So protect yourself from the criminal population by not having one :)

Also, most of the criminal population don't obtain guns legally. The less that law obiding citizens have, the less there are to steal.

As for the hobby aspect, get a new hobby. That's no real argument to have guns. It might be my hobby to create pipe bombs, should people be allowed to have those? And if it's strictly for collecting, there are procedures to have guns altered so they can't be used. If you don't want to stomp on someone's "freedom" to collect tools that are designed to kill people, then make them disable their weapons capabilities. It won't affect the asthetics while they stare at their guns in their display.

Also, hunting is a hobby for many. Just out of curiousity, are you supportive of their freedom to do that?

[otomik]

Well statistically you have more chance of being shot if you have a gun in your house since it's often that a criminal uses the owner's own weapon on them. So protect yourself from the criminal population by not having one :)the classic Arthur Kellerman study fallacy, he's since apologized.

Also, most of the criminal population don't obtain guns legally. The less that law obiding citizens have, the less there are to steal.taking away the rights of law obiding citizens fights crime? call me a straight shooter (no pun intended) but going after criminals always made more since to me. The USA doesn't have much of a gun crime problem. http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap&int=50

As for the hobby aspect, get a new hobby. That's no real argument to have guns. It might be my hobby to create pipe bombs, should people be allowed to have those?More children die from swimming pools than guns, there's nothing wrong with either hobby in itself. Lots of sports are dangerous, but people enjoy them, life has many risks.

And if it's strictly for collecting, there are procedures to have guns altered so they can't be used. If you don't want to stomp on someone's "freedom" to collect tools that are designed to kill people, then make them disable their weapons capabilities. It won't affect the asthetics while they stare at their guns in their display.That's simply not true, effective permanent deactivation includes many procedures to mutilate major functioning parts. have you even looked into it?
http://www.cybershooters.org/dgca/FAQ.htm

[Bankruptor]

Well statistically you have more chance of being shot if you have a gun in your house since it's often that a criminal uses the owner's own weapon on them. So protect yourself from the criminal population by not having one :)


I am also statistically more likely to get my hand caught in a blender if I have one in the house. Your "argument" is one that is frequently bantered about by those who have done no research on the subject, and base their opinions solely on emotion and Hollywood movie scenes. It is utterly meritless.


As for the hobby aspect, get a new hobby. That's no real argument to have guns.

I already have several other hobbies, thanks anyway. I happen to like this one the best. As for there being no argument, there are dozens of arguments in this thread alone. There is no argument with which you agree. There's a distinct difference. For freedom's sake, thankfully you and your fellow political cronies are in the distinct minority. I work hard to keep it that way and, guess what, we're winning. :)


Also, hunting is a hobby for many. Just out of curiousity, are you supportive of their freedom to do that?

Yes, so long as they do so for personal consumption and within the law. Personally I don't hunt myself because I no longer have the heart, or the need, to do so. Others aren't so privileged, or inclined. I accept that, because I have gotten old enough to realize that everyone who doesn't think like I do isn't necessarily "wrong". Maybe someday you'll reach that level of maturity.

[newstars]

taking away the rights of law obiding citizens fights crime? call me a straight shooter (no pun intended) but going after criminals always made more since to me.]

Less guns in the hands of law obiding citizens means less guns in the hands of criminals. :rolleyes: My point should've been apparent.


The USA doesn't have much of a gun crime problem. http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap&int=50

:lol: ok...


More children die from swimming pools than guns, there's nothing wrong with either hobby in itself. Lots of sports are dangerous, but people enjoy them, life has many risks.]

More PEOPLE die from guns than swimming pools. Nice alteration of a fact to make it suit your point. Something i seen you whine about Michael Moore doing.


That's simply not true, effective permanent deactivation includes many procedures to mutilate major functioning parts. have you even looked into it?
http://www.cybershooters.org/dgca/FAQ.htm

Well i deeply apologize for this horrible mistake i've made. I was under this impression as my grandmother has some of my late grandfather's rifles and they have been disabled with no apparent (apparent to me, a non-gun expert) physical mutilation. But you're right, gun mutilation is a horrible crime! SAVE THE GUNS!

[newstars]

I am also statistically more likely to get my hand caught in a blender if I have one in the house. Your "argument" is one that is frequently bantered about by those who have done no research on the subject, and base their opinions solely on emotion and Hollywood movie scenes. It is utterly meritless.

Yes, cause death and injury by blenders are such an epidemic in your country. :rolleyes: Try a different comparison.


As for there being no argument, there are dozens of arguments in this thread alone. There is no argument with which you agree. There's a distinct difference.

Well i said THAT'S no argument in reference to the argument of "well many people collect guns as a hobby". I never said there was NO arguments at all. And you're right, there isn't any argument i agree with that justifies the right to own a tool that serves no purpose but to kill. Sorry if that bothers you. I think no one needs them.


For freedom's sake, thankfully you and your fellow political cronies are in the distinct minority. I work hard to keep it that way and, guess what, we're winning. :).

Well keep up your fight. If it's so important for you to be able to shoot tin cans in your backyard at the cost of other people's lives, it's your right to do so. :) Just like it's my right to argue that your hobby contributes to the threatening of my safety. I hope one day enough people realize guns simply aren't needed by everyday citizens and people like you find better things to do with your time :)


Yes, so long as they do so for personal consumption and within the law. Personally I don't hunt myself because I no longer have the heart, or the need, to do so. Others aren't so privileged, or inclined. I accept that, because I have gotten old enough to realize that everyone who doesn't think like I do isn't necessarily "wrong". Maybe someday you'll reach that level of maturity.

Oh yes, because you're OLD you're right and mature. So sorry. Haha, actually the line alone...

"Maybe someday you'll reach that level of maturity."

...kinda reminds me of something a 12 year old girl would say. Kinda ironic, no?

As for the question, it wasn't directed towards you, i should've made that clear, my bad. Nor did my question state that i believe hunting should be out lawed. I really don't have enough of an opinion on that. I do think it's a pretty disgusting "sport", but whatever. At least guns for hunting serve some kind of purpose, no matter how disgusting that purpose is. Hand guns, and other automatic weapons serve no purpose in society, but to kill.

I was curious to know if MsRuthieB or Marie felt people should be allowed to hunt and why or why not since their arguments based on gun ownership were "well it's a hobby".

[MsRuthieB]

Out of recreational activities, drowning is the number one cause of death. Out of unintentional injury related deaths, motor vehicles are the number one cause. Firearms falls somewhere toward the middle, depending on the age group. Out of homicide and suicide related deaths, firearms rank number one as the method of choice. More people die from unintentional injury than they due both homicide and suicide. So, when you speak of firearm related deaths and start comparing them to deaths related to other things, like swimming pools, it's like comparing apples to oranges. You must consider the intent intent of the firearm user.

Here's where I'm getting my facts from:

The American Association of Insurance Services (http://www.aaisonline.com/Viewpoint/03fall1.html)

Leading cause of death in 2002 (the latest stats) from the CDC here (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html). (just hit the submit request button)

Note that the leading cause of death isn't firearm related.

On the one side of the fence we have people who want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people who harm themselves. On the other hand, we do not want that restriction to affect the right for law abiding citizens to own firearms. The dilema is how do you satisfy both sides of the fence?

[MsRuthieB]

To answer your hunting question newstars, even though I don't agree with killing animals, I believe that people should not be told by the government that it's illegal to provide food for their family via hunting rather than buying the plastic wraped styrofoam packed carcass at the corner store. Which is worse? Which animal suffered more? The factory farmed animal or the hunted one?

[Marie]

I was curious to know if MsRuthieB or Marie felt people should be allowed to hunt and why or why not since their arguments based on gun ownership were "well it's a hobby".

I don't care if people hunt or don't hunt.

[MsRuthieB]

Newstars: Do you believe that if people were not allowed to hunt that they would stop eating meat and become vegetarian? I'm not advocating hunting, but think about it. Don't you think that hunter would buy more meat in the grocery store? You're not going to stop them from contributing to the killing by not allowing them to hunt.

[newstars]

To answer your hunting question newstars, even though I don't agree with killing animals, I believe that people should not be told by the government that it's illegal to provide food for their family via hunting rather than buying it at the corner grocery store.

Thank you for answering, i was just curious. I would've found it odd if you were against hunting as a hobby but not gun ownership.


On the one side of the fence we have people who want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people who harm themselves. On the other hand, we do not want that restriction to affect the right for law abiding citizens to own firearms. The dilema is how do you satisfy both sides of the fence?

To me, a non-gun user, the solution is simple (And i know this is easy for me to say as a non-gun user.), people don't need them. I think the "right to bear arms" is an outdated law which is irrelevant to our time. Some people may try to make it seem like guns aren't really a problem, but i simply can't bring myself to believe that.

In any case, interesting facts MsRuthieB. I appreciate the non-attacking non-"i'm smarter than you" approach to your post. I hope it will set an example for others, including myself :) (It's hard not to retaliate.)

[MsRuthieB]

You're welcome. I know this is a sensitive topic and both sides have interesting additions to the conversation.

I believe it necessary to own a gun in my neighborhood. Anyone that knows where I live might agree.

[newstars]

As for swimming pools, i don't think many of them get into the hands of criminals and used at tools to kill people. Which is why i think our society would be a lot safer with the least amount of guns in circulation as possible.

I don't think i've ever heard of gangs selling swimming pools on the black market anyhow, haha.

[newstars]

Newstars: Do you believe that if people were not allowed to hunt that they would stop eating meat and become vegetarian? I'm not advocating hunting, but think about it. Don't you think that hunter would buy more meat in the grocery store? You're not going to stop them from contributing to the killing by not allowing them to hunt.

Oh, like i said, i never expressed a need to outlaw hunting. Nor do i think we should make it law that people stop eating meat either. I really do believe the best approach is to educate people that they're better off without eating meat or at least educating them in the fact that meat really shouldn't be a staple in their diet, rather a condiment. That's from a health point of view too.

But obviously, hunting doens't solve the animal cruelty and slaughter issue. In all honesty, i'd rather someone have to hunt for their meat than buy it pre-packaged from a grocery store. That way they will know what they're doing to the animal and have some kind of a respect towards it when they consume it. It sounds odd and somewhat hypocritical, but that's the way i feel.

With that said, i don't believe that the crime situation will magically disappear if guns were outlawed. But i do think it's safe to say that there will be less guns in the hands of the wrong people. And as a non-gun owner, i think it's a small sacrifice to make (as something that is not a necessity) that will improve the quality of our lives.

[Life2k]

We have three guns in our home. I wouldn't hunt with any of them. I like target practice at the shooting range, because our neighborhood is getting rougher. Unfortunately I live too close to the violent part of Oklahoma City. I won't be shooting animals when I fire one of our pistols in serious business. It will be at a home invader endangering my family. Or haven't you heard, the bad guys who break in usually are carrying guns and kill all witnesses.

Not in my home they won't.

Would I have remorse if they died? yes. Would I have remorse if I wounded them? Regret yes, regret that I would have to clean up all the blood splatter on the walls.

This will sound cold and insensitive to many of you, but when the level of violence has reached down to include killing everyone in the home including 8 month old children just because they were there, it makes me ready to do what ever it takes to protect my family and myself.

[MikeyVT]

Would I have remorse if they died? yes. Would I have remorse if I wounded them? Regret yes, regret that I would have to clean up all the blood splatter on the walls.


This made me bust out laughing

[mynameisbob]

People killing people, or animals, has been going on long before there were guns, as a 'reformed hunter' I own several guns myself. They remain locked up most of the time, they're only out for target practice now. My belief is that if someone wants to do harm to someone or an animal they would just find another way to do it. I could kill someone with the screwdriver in my toolbox but I don't hear any cries to make them illegal. I agree 110% with Life2k, if someone wants to do harm to my family it's gonna be messy.

[ug333]

People killing people, or animals, has been going on long before there were guns, as a 'reformed hunter' I own several guns myself. They remain locked up most of the time, they're only out for target practice now. My belief is that if someone wants to do harm to someone or an animal they would just find another way to do it. I could kill someone with the screwdriver in my toolbox but I don't hear any cries to make them illegal. I agree 110% with Life2k, if someone wants to do harm to my family it's gonna be messy.

This argument always comes up in support of gun ownership. People can still kill other people without guns. Everyone knows this. Here is how I look at it. It isn't a question if people will die, it is a question of how many fewer deaths would their be without guns. To say murder/death would still happen so guns are OK is a false dichotomy. It isn't all or nothing, but improvement I am after. Then, the improvement must be weighed against the costs. The costs as I see it would be taking away freedom, reducing the ability of self-defense, and taking away a form a recreation.

I honestly think that, right now, outlawing guns has a higher cost than benifit. This is because they already exist in society and outlawing them will have little impact on ownership in the population that is the primary concern. I could be convinced otherwise, but I would need to see evidence that would justify taking away this freedom from the citizens of my country. If that day comes, I would support banning guns. Until then, I do not.

[Descentia]

Cool line from a movie

guy 1: Guns don't kill people, people do
guy 2: Yeah. They shoot them, with guns.

[newstars]

People killing people, or animals, has been going on long before there were guns, as a 'reformed hunter' I own several guns myself. They remain locked up most of the time, they're only out for target practice now. My belief is that if someone wants to do harm to someone or an animal they would just find another way to do it. I could kill someone with the screwdriver in my toolbox but I don't hear any cries to make them illegal. I agree 110% with Life2k, if someone wants to do harm to my family it's gonna be messy.

I don't think any advocators of gun control really believe that if we eliminate guns, we eliminate murder :rolleyes:

So should we make it easier for someone to kill? Should we make rocket launchers legal to people who want them for hobby purposes? According to your argument, it shouldn't be a problem because people are going to kill no matter what. Heck, we should bring tanks to the consumer market too. You know, for people who like to collect tanks.

Personally, i'd rather defend myself against the person with the screwdriver than the person with the gun.

Also, screwdrivers serve a practical purpose other than their ability to be used as a killing tool. Hand guns serve no other purpose than to kill. People don't need them.

[GOPVeggie]

People don't need them.

newstars is obviously posting from the Garden of Eden.

[Merqutio]

newstars is obviously posting from the Garden of Eden.

No, I think you are just ignorant. It's illegal for civilians to own handguns in Japan. Guess which nation has one of the lowest rates of murder in the entire world? Kinda hard to murder someone if you don't have a gun, yes?

[Marie]

My arms are bare.