Why do you support gun ownership?

[Grisu]

I support gun ownership for none of the cited reasons. I support it because in a free society you should be able to own guns, if you chose so.

with gun ownership, however, comes a great deal of responsibility, and if you are found to not fulfill these, you should be punished severely for it (like letting your gun lay around for your kids to find and play with it....)

 

[Abaddon]

but are the suitable punishments in place?

 

[Grisu]

Unfortunately not that I'm aware of

 

[7ronin]

Its a well known fact the US has huge ammount of gun deaths compared to any other developed contry.

I don't know that it's well known, but it is, unfortunately, true. From a study by the U.S. Center for Disease control, here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994:

United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

The study has been criticized because it addressed only numbers of deaths and did not look at causes. It also suggests that the United States might be the most violent country in the world by ignoring countries where violent deaths result from causes other than guns.

 

[Abaddon]

England and Wales 0.41



See! the UK's getting it right.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

A question to those supporting gun ownership for self defense:

As you know there are tasers that can be shot from a distance and render the opponent helpless. If these were allowed for private persons would you still be for the right to bear lethal friearms to defend yourself?
I would think that a non-lethal method would be preferrable in any case (accidents would not result in death for instance).

 

[IglooDame]

A question to those supporting gun ownership for self defense:

As you know there are tasers that can be shot from a distance and render the opponent helpless. If these were allowed for private persons would you still be for the right to bear lethal friearms to defend yourself?
I would think that a non-lethal method would be preferrable in any case (accidents would not result in death for instance).

I'm passingly familiar with tasers. I don't think they are as effective at instant incapacitation (heavy clothes or any kind of cover will frequently stop them, for example), which is too bad, because I would definitely prefer a non-lethal defensive tool, all other things being equal. If they were truly as effective as firearms while being non-lethal, why do police officers (in the US, anyway) still carry pistols?

 

[Brian_B]

There's certainly something to be said about societies like the U.K. where the lack of guns may possibly contribute to the lack of an overall violent culture. Unfortunately, in the U.S., the poop is already out of the proverbial bag. Banning firearms will do very little to correct the issues that people are concerned about.

Although people may disagree with how to interpret the 2nd Amendment, it's there. Pretty much nothing short of another amendment repealing it will change things.

 

[Brian_B]

But if you are a young black male aged 15-24, you are, sadly enough, most likely to be killed by gun violence.

.....


That said....


.....

I support the right to arms because you cannot regulate them anyway. If someone wants a gun, they can get it regardless of the law. Regulation is pointless in this case. I also just don't see the harm in a responsible person properly keeping a firearm in his possession. All constitutional rights aside, it isn't that big of a deal. Criminal people will kill each other with something else if guns are outlawed. Knives, Garrotes, blunt weapons, whatever.

Agreed. It's a societal problem that goes far beyond the simple object of a gun.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

I'm passingly familiar with tasers. I don't think they are as effective at instant incapacitation (heavy clothes or any kind of cover will frequently stop them, for example), which is too bad, because I would definitely prefer a non-lethal defensive tool, all other things being equal. If they were truly as effective as firearms while being non-lethal, why do police officers (in the US, anyway) still carry pistols?

Are heavy clothes really that effective? The impression I got on TV was that they could go through pullover and shirt with ease, maybe leather is a problem, though. But there are also possibilites to protect yourself from bullets (at least against the type of projectiles sold for private ownership)?
The police still carrying guns is easily explained - they may have to shoot to stop cars, for instance.
I guess the development of these tasers is not at en end, yet.

 

[IglooDame]

Are heavy clothes really that effective? The impression I got on TV was that they could go through pullover and shirt with ease, maybe leather is a problem, though. But there are also possibilites to protect yourself from bullets (at least against the type of projectiles sold for private ownership)?
The police still carrying guns is easily explained - they may have to shoot to stop cars, for instance.
I guess the development of these tasers is not at en end, yet.

I just did some looking, and indeed newer tasers do not have to touch the barbs to skin to be effective. However, they are still exclusively single-shot weapons (tactically, anyway), both barbs need to hit and stick to be at all effective, and the wires to each of the barbs needs to stay unbroken.

They're a better defensive tool than I'd thought (particularly in the circumstance of home defense, as they're not suitable for concealed carry at all), but they're still not as good as a pistol.

 

[Samson]

I have not read through the whole thread, so I am probably repeating what has already been said.

As I understand it the justification for gun ownership in the constitution is "The right to bear arms as part of a militia." This comes from the situation where america was formed by an armed militia winning a war against the worlds superpower. I have also heard that it was stated by on eof the writters of the constitution that an advantage of this ownership is that the populance would not be able to be milataraly supressed by the govenment.

It seems to me;

This gives no justification for ownership of guns outside of an armed militia.
That to restrict effective defensive milatry technology such as anti-air and anti-tank rockets while allowing handguns seems to defeat the purpose of this law.

 

[IglooDame]

I have not read through the whole thread, so I am probably repeating what has already been said.

As I understand it the justification for gun ownership in the constitution is "The right to bear arms as part of a militia." This comes from the situation where america was formed by an armed militia winning a war against the worlds superpower. I have also heard that it was stated by on eof the writters of the constitution that an advantage of this ownership is that the populance would not be able to be milataraly supressed by the govenment.

It seems to me;

This gives no justification for ownership of guns outside of an armed militia.
That to restrict effective defensive milatry technology such as anti-air and anti-tank rockets while allowing handguns seems to defeat the purpose of this law.

Which is one of the reasons why I favor legalizing ownership of everything up to (but not including) nuclear weapons, but then people raise a hue and cry about how you don't need a machine gun to hunt a deer...

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

The consitutional right to bear arms.

Indeed we do, and I use that right to the fullest.

I know a guy that used to be locked up (for some piddly little crime, only like 6 months in the clink), but when he chatted with his cellmate (a man convicted of several counts of robbery), he said if he knew someone in the house he was going to rob had a gun, he would choose another house.

This is a direct quote from the guy. And they damn sure better think twice about robbing mine, we're armed to the teeth with, well, weapons. 5 Shotguns, 2 rifles, a few pistols stashed around, I personally have about a dozen and a half knives in my room, a sabre, and a paintball gun (it won't kill you, but it'll hurt like hell). We also have a healthy supply of ammo for all of these guns.

No Trespassing

Violators will be shot...
Survivors will be shot again.

----------------

but then people raise a hue and cry about how you don't need a machine gun to hunt a deer...

You technically don't, but man would it be a blast!!

Takin' the fifty cal to Bambi!!

 

[JohnRM]

The 2nd amendment was created in order to allow "the people" to rise up against the governnment - should the government become to tyrannical.

This is the reason why the 2nd ammendment is outdated - You can't fight the U.S. military with handguns alone - that's just sheer lunacy.

Do you honestly believe that what little of the US Military would fight against the People, would be enough to defeat 80 million civilians with guns?

 

[tombeef]

Do you honestly believe that what little of the US Military would fight against the People, would be enough to defeat 80 million civilians with guns?

80 million people don't have guns, or bombs, or planes, or sub's, or missiles, etc.

 

[Goonie]

Rifles or hand guns?

 

[Heretic_Cata]

(i didn't read all the ranting)

Question:
What other countries allow gun ownership ? (not hunting rifles, not gas pistols)

 

[IglooDame]

80 million people don't have guns, or bombs, or planes, or sub's, or missiles, etc.

There are three million members of the NRA. Most surveys have come up with roughly a third of the households in the US having at least one gun in them. Those figures taken together indicate to me that while "80 million people don't have guns", the number may not be far enough south of 80 million to matter.

And then there's the "60,000 dead Russian soldiers can't be wrong", courtesy of Afghan rebels armed with outdated battle rifles (and yes, some shoulder-fired SAMs).

The wikipedia page on the gun control issue I just read strikes me as reasonably balanced, you all might want to give it a look.

 

[Mise]

The fact that I'm 30 times more likely to get shot in the USA than in the UK speaks for itself, IMO.