Why do you support gun ownership?

[MobBoss]

I don't support gun ownership in the sense that everyone should be entitled to it. Only those who have some specific reason to own guns should be allowed to have them. If you are a law enforcement officer, or military, or other similar such profession, it stands to reason that you should be armed. Otherwise, only special dispensation should allow anyon else from owning a weapon.

Oh, and btw, the Constitution says that you can only bear arms if you are part of a militia, not carrying one to knock of some punk.

Yes, but what does the militia consist of? All able bodied men of accountable age. The militia were the citizens themselves, called upon as a last resort.

 

[Kozmos]

Guns dont kill people, Death kills people!

Ask your doctors its a medical fact, you can die from a cardiac arrest,organ failure or a traffic accident. Small piece of metal aint the problem.

 

[.Shane.]

Incorrect. A gun doesnt kill. The person using it does.

This is the lamest of arguments. A gun is an accelerant and a dangerous one. Think of every murder or massacre committed w/ a gun in recent memory. Now, substitute a knife for the gun. Would people still be dead? Sure. But a hell of a lot less would be.

There's a public safety interest in properly regulating guns.

 

[MobBoss]

This is the lamest of arguments. A gun is an accelerant and a dangerous one.

Accelerant? Not at all. That would be the gunpowder used in the round. Without the round a gun is more harmless than a knife.

And the argument is not lame at all. Guns do not up and shoot people by themselves. It takes some idiot to pull the trigger.

Think of every murder or massacre committed w/ a gun in recent memory. Now, substitute a knife for the gun. Would people still be dead? Sure. But a hell of a lot less would be.

Likewise I could say think of every terrible traffic accident in recent memory...now substitute bicycles for the cars...would people still be dead? Maybe, but a hell of a lot less would be!

Bottom line, lets be real. No one is going to ban vehicles anytime soon, and those kill more people than guns period. No one is going to ban guns anytime soon either (ie. EVER). Sooooo....

 

[.Shane.]

Accelerant? Not at all. That would be the gunpowder used in the round. Without the round a gun is more harmless than a knife.

/sigh

that's just semantics and you know it.

It is a lame argument in that it ignores the role that guns play. They make a bad situation worse, more lethal etc... again, if you'd of read my other posts (probably not) you'd see I'm not arguing for a wholesale removal of guns. I just want an honest discussion and this point of logic is dishonest and, I believe, reasonable people on both sides understand this. Its a straw man point to divert from the issue and create a diversionary argument.

Yes. People are a big part of the problem. But so are the guns. They can both be discussed. The existance of one does not nullify the other.

 

[Colonel]

Note: I do support gun ownership, however I think there should be higher requirments to own a gun

However, there is no such thing as a Constitutional right to bear arms, Go read the constitution again and make sure to note where the comma is in that sentence. Below

"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."

If you read that you notice that the portion after "free state" is dependant upon the first part of the sentence, hence gun ownership would be dependent upon you being part of a Militia. However since the National Gaurd effectively fills that role gun ownership isn't needed.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think that people should be 100% responsible for any damage caused by their guns - even if it was stolen. Then we'd see how many guns there were. Of course, no one could afford to be responsible (no fellow is going to be able to pay the millions required if his gun kills a couple people), so there would have to be insurance. Let the insurance companies decide.

i.e., you can own a gun, if you can afford to compensate people for the damage your gun does. Just like with a car.

 

[Archbob]

Easy, because I like to shoot people, its fun.

Being responsible for having your gun stolen and having it cause harm is the same as blaming someone whose car got hijack to use in a bank robbery, it doesn't make sense.

 

[MobBoss]

/sigh

that's just semantics and you know it.

It is a lame argument in that it ignores the role that guns play. They make a bad situation worse, more lethal etc... again, if you'd of read my other posts (probably not) you'd see I'm not arguing for a wholesale removal of guns. I just want an honest discussion and this point of logic is dishonest and, I believe, reasonable people on both sides understand this. Its a straw man point to divert from the issue and create a diversionary argument.

Yes. People are a big part of the problem. But so are the guns. They can both be discussed. The existance of one does not nullify the other.

I see your point and I even agree with some of your suggestions mentioned earlier.

However, my point is if you are going to use "death" as a reason to ban something...well, there are far greater things (numerically) out there that cause death to deal with. Guns are like 15th on the list overall.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. When people are irresponsible, accidents, often terrible ones, occur. When people dont care, crimes, often terrible ones, are committed. Whether the cause of death is a car, gun, knife or brick is immaterial. If all we had were knives, someone, somewhere, would say we should ban knives since X number of deaths a year are attributed to knives. You just simply CANT make everyone happy.

 

[MobBoss]

If you read that you notice that the portion after "free state" is dependant upon the first part of the sentence, hence gun ownership would be dependent upon you being part of a Militia. However since the National Gaurd effectively fills that role gun ownership isn't needed.

Sorry, Colonel, but you are incorrect. The National Guard is referred to as the "armed militia" and is a different entity than the "militia". The "militia" as referred to in the constitution is the general citizenship.

 

[Abaddon]

Incorrect. A gun doesnt kill. The person using it does. Same goes with vehicles.

Eugh, fine - whats a gun designed to do then?

 

[Kozmos]

Eugh, fine - whats a gun designed to do then?

To fire projectiles at a high enough speed to puncture objects.

 

[Inqvisitor]

Note: I do support gun ownership, however I think there should be higher requirments to own a gun

However, there is no such thing as a Constitutional right to bear arms, Go read the constitution again and make sure to note where the comma is in that sentence. Below

"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."

If you read that you notice that the portion after "free state" is dependant upon the first part of the sentence, hence gun ownership would be dependent upon you being part of a Militia. However since the National Gaurd effectively fills that role gun ownership isn't needed.

40 Reasons For Gun Control...

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

 

[Abaddon]

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

 

[Pyrite]

A federally controlled "militia" is going to defend the populace from the federal government if the need arises?

 

[MobBoss]

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

I am going to have to cry BS on that one.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

Uh...I am going to go out on a limb here and say this is a refutation of the arguement that the 2nd amendment does refer to the national guard...when in fact it does not.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

The National Guard is not solely federally funded, doesnt necessarily have bases upon federal land, the feds dont own the guards firearms, vehicles, buildings or uniforms....and trespassers are punished under state law. I can safely say that #13 is incorrect on all counts.

 

[Abaddon]

lol- read it again.. it SUPPORT keeping guns

 

[IglooDame]

First off, why include suicides in "killed by gun" statistics? Does anyone think that someone committing suicide won't because they need to use a knife, a noose, pills, or whatever instead of a gun?

Now, as to

Facts are very rarely gun ownership saves lives.

More often it leads to children getting shot to shooting someone or a overzealous homeowner goes and shoots a trespasser.

They save lives occasionally, but facts are more innocent lives are taken by gun ownership.

How can you cite "facts" and then say it is not based on anything?

Anyway, here's an actual fact:

There are somewhere between 100,000 and 3,000,000 defensive uses of a gun every year in the US, and the number is probably higher than 800,000. (Source here)

Here's another:

There are now 47 states that allow legal carrying of concealed firearms to varying degrees. Violent crime rates have not gone up in those states when the laws were passed. (It is hotly argued whether they've gone down, and if so whether it is attributable to concealed carry laws). The rate of gun crimes committed by permit-holders legally carrying is (in most if not all) cases lower than that of police.
(Source here)

And finally a couple opinions of mine:

The Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights, not collective rights. They don't apply to publishing companies, religious organizations, hotel owners, or corporate boards of directors, they apply to individuals. I don't think "the people" would be defined one way in the First, Fourth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments and another way in the Second Amendment.

Banning things doesn't work. The US can't keep out illegal immigrants or certain sorts of drugs, and couldn't keep out alcoholic beverages. There's no reason to assume that they'll be any more successful with firearms. With that understanding, I refuse to render law-abiding citizens helpless for the sake of hoping to render criminals less dangerous.

 

[BasketCase]

In the time I've been studying the issue, I've seen:

#1: Areas of the U.S. that have strict gun control laws, and low murder rates.

#2: Areas of the U.S. that have strict gun control laws, and high murder rates.

#3: Areas of the U.S. that have relaxed gun control laws, and high murder rates.

#4: Areas of the U.S. that have relaxed gun control laws, and low murder rates.

So the only conclusion I can reach is that gun control doesn't seem to do much in the way of preventing people from getting shot.

Besides, I'm about ten times more likely to get killed by a car than by a gun. So, really, guns don't worry me.

 

[Inqvisitor]

I am going to have to cry BS on that one.

Uh...I am going to go out on a limb here and say this is a refutation of the arguement that the 2nd amendment does refer to the national guard...when in fact it does not.

You are denying that there was a century's time between the Constitution and the creation of the National Guard?

The National Guard is not solely federally funded, doesnt necessarily have bases upon federal land, the feds dont own the guards firearms, vehicles, buildings or uniforms....and trespassers are punished under state law. I can safely say that #13 is incorrect on all counts.

The National Guard has been federally administrated through the United States Army for nearly a century...

Militia Act of 1903

National Defense Act of 1916

Amazing how "gun control" advocates are willing to fabricate such blatant falsehoods.