Debateful

I'm personally a gun rights advocate; I believe that people are not inherent killers waiting for a means to act upon their feelings. I also believe the 2nd amendment guarantees my rights to own a firearm, just as the 1st guarantees my rights to free speech. The 2nd protects the 1st. Guns are nothing more than a tool, just like a hammer, a power saw, a camera, a computer, etc. We should enforce the laws we already have, not make more that only make it harder for the law-abiding citizen to protect themselves and make them vulnerable to the crooks who prey upon them, while the politicians who made the law are surrounded by bodyguards with guns.

I’d like to hear opinions on this matter.

Oh, guns are nothing more than just tools? Yeah, you could probably apply that to a bomb also. Guns are simply deadly and the main reasons why people own guns are to defend themselves or to inflict harm on others. Perilous times calls for perilous actions, yeah? Sure, there are many other reasons why people own gun; maybe for a collection? People view guns as a deadly weapon that should be put away simply for the reason that it could perhaps hurt or kill innocent civilians. Many incidents happened when little children held a gun and accidentally pulled the trigger. What's to say that it might not happen again? Chances are that it may happen imminently if people continue to own guns without acknowledging the fact that it might be available to other people in the household.

Sure, people want to own guns to defend themselves if they were ever put into harm, correct? It saves a lot of lives, but then again, it does take an abundant amount of lives. I'm not completely sure if I could agree with you when you said that we're not inherent killers because if you looked a history, well, many aspects could prove that statement false. However, if you believe human beings are not born-killers, then that's your opinion. Guns have been called useful and have benefited many people in the past. Love it or hate it, it has been used in the past to secure the passage for peace which is rather ironic in my opinion.

What do I think about gun control? Well, as long as it doesn't cause danger to innocent civilians and that it should be use for defense, then it might be beneficial to people.

John Wrote:Oh, guns are nothing more than just tools? Yeah, you could probably apply that to a bomb also. Guns are simply deadly and the main reasons why people own guns are to defend themselves or to inflict harm on others. Perilous times calls for perilous actions, yeah? Sure, there are many other reasons why people own gun; maybe for a collection? People view guns as a deadly weapon that should be put away simply for the reason that it could perhaps hurt or kill innocent civilians. Many incidents happened when little children held a gun and accidentally pulled the trigger. What's to say that it might not happen again? Chances are that it may happen imminently if people continue to own guns without acknowledging the fact that it might be available to other people in the household.

The only part of the gun that makes it dangerous is the user. Automobile incidents kill and maim more people annually than firearms in the US. Their misuse constitutes as a major threat toward innocent bystanders far more than firearms. The total for firearm-related death in 2004 was 29,569 (4.9% drop from 03). That's less than 0.1% of the population. In the same year there were 45,113 automobile-related deaths. Which is more dangerous?
Children die more often from cancer than from firearms.
Less guns do not equal less death.
I believe it's a responsible parent who owns a firearm in order not only to protect themselves, but their children as well.

Quote:Sure, people want to own guns to defend themselves if they were ever put into harm, correct? It saves a lot of lives, but then again, it does take an abundant amount of lives. I'm not completely sure if I could agree with you when you said that we're not inherent killers because if you looked a history, well, many aspects could prove that statement false. However, if you believe human beings are not born-killers, then that's your opinion. Guns have been called useful and have benefited many people in the past.

What do I think about guns? Well, as long as it doesn't cause danger to innocent civilians and that it should be use for defense, then it might be beneficial to people.

The FBI estimates that there are about 2 million crimes prevented each year due to law-abiding citizens with legal firearms. Compared to the deaths, I'd say it's acceptable.



All data available from CDC, FBI, etc.

Quote:The only part of the gun that makes it dangerous is the user.

Yes. But then again, it is the universal truth that humans are to do anything to gain power. And when someone has power, what do you suppose one would do? I mean the right to bear arms means the right to hurt anyone. I suppose if you don't see how my reasoning makes sense you really need to rethink about your thoughts.

Back to my thoughts about gun control, yes i think you should NOT have the right to bear arms. You say it's only dangerous if it depends on the user? How do we know the person that has the right to bear arms isn't dangerous or sick minded. I mean, if you think about it, what about the serial killers that the police have not caught yet? Why can't we figure it out?

Quote:Less guns do not equal less death.
I believe it's a responsible parent who owns a firearm in order not only to protect themselves, but their children as well.

And protecting yourself? You don't need protection if there's nothing harmful out there. Guns are indeed harmful. John has a big point, guns are harmful, they are deadly WEAPONS. They are not just TOOLS, they are dangerous tools. Even a lighter has to retained and should be under supervision while using it.

Quote:The FBI estimates that there are about 2 million crimes prevented each year due to law-abiding citizens with legal firearms. Compared to the deaths, I'd say it's acceptable.

Oh really? I guess there would be even more less crimes prevented.

I hope I made my point clear. :)

Kenneth Wrote:Yes. But then again, it is the universal truth that humans are to do anything to gain power. And when someone has power, what do you suppose one would do? I mean the right to bear arms means the right to hurt anyone. I suppose if you don't see how my reasoning makes sense you really need to rethink about your thoughts.

Back to my thoughts about gun control, yes i think you should NOT have the right to bear arms. You say it's only dangerous if it depends on the user? How do we know the person that has the right to bear arms isn't dangerous or sick minded. I mean, if you think about it, what about the serial killers that the police have not caught yet? Why can't we figure it out?

Quote:Less guns do not equal less death.
I believe it's a responsible parent who owns a firearm in order not only to protect themselves, but their children as well.

And protecting yourself? You don't need protection if there's nothing harmful out there. Guns are indeed harmful. John has a big point, guns are harmful, they are deadly WEAPONS. They are not just TOOLS, they are dangerous tools. Even a lighter has to retained and should be under supervision while using it.

I can understand where you're coming from, but the fact is you're wrong. There are over 80 million gun owners in the US, why aren’t they in power then? The right to bear arms is deeper than just owning a gun. It's about responsibility. Responsibility to know how to use a gun safely (the basic gun rules, any gun owner knows them). It’s also a way to keep our democratic government in check. Say, for example, Bush decided that he would be President-For-Life, making himself a dictator and oppressing everyone who opposes him. Say that you do indeed oppose him. What are you going to do? Sit idly by and let him and his death squads do as they please? Ask him nicely to please stop? Or resist, and resist with the force of arms? That is what the Framers intended when they added the 2nd amendment. They intended that the people would make their government listen to them, because that government would fear it’s people, not the people fearing the government.
Yes, it sound’s far-fetched, but look at every single oppressive government in history. They all have taken away the arms of their subjugated people, from Nazi German to the USSR and on.

George Orwell said “That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)
Noah Webster: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops" (Noah Webster, 1787)
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
Thomas Paine: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.
Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)
John F. Kennedy: "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."
James Earl Jones: "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."


Why fear one person who is deranged and armed, when there are a hundred sane and clear-minded individuals around him who are armed as well? Criminals will inflict harm and death no matter what the law says, as they are indeed criminals. Why take the only effective means of protection away from the people? Do we have no right to self-protection? Must we rely on the police to guard us 24/7? Are the police capable of protecting us 24/7?

Are you saying that the common person isn’t capable of handling anything more dangerous than string? That we need a certified government agent to watch over us?
I think Stalin and Hitler agree.

Quote:

Quote:The FBI estimates that there are about 2 million crimes prevented each year due to law-abiding citizens with legal firearms. Compared to the deaths, I'd say it's acceptable.

Oh really? I guess there would be even more less crimes prevented.

I hope I made my point clear. :)

Gun control advocates tend to go off of fear and emotion, rather than facts.
I think I've made my point clear.


EDIT:
I suggest you check this out.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.a-human-right.com/views2.html">http://www.a-human-right.com/views2.html</a><!-- m -->

Kenneth Wrote:

Quote:The only part of the gun that makes it dangerous is the user.

Yes. But then again, it is the universal truth that humans are to do anything to gain power. And when someone has power, what do you suppose one would do? I mean the right to bear arms means the right to hurt anyone. I suppose if you don't see how my reasoning makes sense you really need to rethink about your thoughts.

Back to my thoughts about gun control, yes i think you should NOT have the right to bear arms. You say it's only dangerous if it depends on the user? How do we know the person that has the right to bear arms isn't dangerous or sick minded. I mean, if you think about it, what about the serial killers that the police have not caught yet? Why can't we figure it out?

Quote:Less guns do not equal less death.
I believe it's a responsible parent who owns a firearm in order not only to protect themselves, but their children as well.

And protecting yourself? You don't need protection if there's nothing harmful out there. Guns are indeed harmful. John has a big point, guns are harmful, they are deadly WEAPONS. They are not just TOOLS, they are dangerous tools. Even a lighter has to retained and should be under supervision while using it.

Quote:The FBI estimates that there are about 2 million crimes prevented each year due to law-abiding citizens with legal firearms. Compared to the deaths, I'd say it's acceptable.

Oh really? I guess there would be even more less crimes prevented.

I hope I made my point clear. :)

I think you made it clear, Caveman, I mean, look at Britain, they have crime even with millions of cameras and some of the tightest gun control for a developed nation. But guns leak into Britain through the black market, and only criminals use the black market to purchase guns, which they soon use to commit crimes. I was reading the news online, and it said that a man was arrested for having a shotgun and trying to prevent an intruder from entering his home. The man who was the victim was arrested! Unbelievable!

And the sad truth of the matter is, if the pilots of the hijacked flights on 9/11, or even God forbid the passengers, were allowed their Constitutional right to bear arms, the horrific attacks would not have happened. Instead of passengers and pilots cowering in fear, trying to heat up water to throw on the hijackers who had box cutters and plastic knives, the hijackers may have found themselves on the business end of a pistol. And have the actual criminal cowering in fear, instead of American citizens.

And thirdly, how can the Constitutional right to overthrow a tyrannical government that abuses its power occur if the people have no way of doing so? Throwing stones like the Palestinians?

I think that guns should be harder to own then what they are. The people who are good and law abiding citizens shouldn't be too put off if they say, have to wait a month or two to make sure that all background information and the like goes through. Waiting say, even a few months is no big deal. That way people still get their guns, and those of us who don't like guns can rest easier that it's harder to get a gun.

Now, I believe that guns are impersonal. That is why it is easier for people to use them as a weapon, which is their intended use. You don't have to stand up next to someone to kill them with a gun. For example, in a knife fight, or something like it, you have to be pretty close to the people you are fighting. I feel that that is more personal, and makes it a little harder for some, to hurt another person. Now I'm not saying everyone, just maybe some people.

But on the other hand, I live in Montana. I'd be willing to bet all the money I'll ever make that there are more guns in this state than people. I've seen more than a few people drive around with fully loaded rifles sitting on their front seats, back seats, back windows and in special gun racks that "hide" the rifles up by the visors. Granted, people here hunt. A lot. And one word about gun control gets out and 7 out of the 10 people in the area would gladly go get the gun you'd like to take away. I believe in hunting. I've hit two deer since I started driving. My mom has hit and killed at least 4. Theses poor animals are getting killed out on the roads because there are so many of them. I would rather have someone kill one and use the meat than to see it rot on the side of the road.

If everyone would work together to make it harder for the "wrong" kind of people to get guns then there is nothing wrong with them. But if everyone and their brother gets to have a gun because they can, then I'm going to say take them away. My father was shot at about 7 months ago because some punks broke into his garage. Is it fair that people like those kids should have as easy access to weapons as the people who aren't going to abuse them? Also, maybe if there were stricter gun control laws then maybe people wouldn't have to buy guns as defense as often as they do.

koishii Wrote:I think that guns should be harder to own then what they are. The people who are good and law abiding citizens shouldn't be too put off if they say, have to wait a month or two to make sure that all background information and the like goes through. Waiting say, even a few months is no big deal. That way people still get their guns, and those of us who don't like guns can rest easier that it's harder to get a gun.

How does that stop crime? It makes you feel better? I bet you didn't know that criminals and those inclined to misuse guns don't buy their guns at legal gunshops, then.

Quote:Now, I believe that guns are impersonal. That is why it is easier for people to use them as a weapon, which is their intended use. You don't have to stand up next to someone to kill them with a gun. For example, in a knife fight, or something like it, you have to be pretty close to the people you are fighting. I feel that that is more personal, and makes it a little harder for some, to hurt another person. Now I'm not saying everyone, just maybe some people.

Hardly. If a criminal is going to use a weapon, they're going to use a weapon. No matter what.

Quote:But on the other hand, I live in Montana. I'd be willing to bet all the money I'll ever make that there are more guns in this state than people. I've seen more than a few people drive around with fully loaded rifles sitting on their front seats, back seats, back windows and in special gun racks that "hide" the rifles up by the visors. Granted, people here hunt. A lot. And one word about gun control gets out and 7 out of the 10 people in the area would gladly go get the gun you'd like to take away. I believe in hunting. I've hit two deer since I started driving. My mom has hit and killed at least 4. Theses poor animals are getting killed out on the roads because there are so many of them. I would rather have someone kill one and use the meat than to see it rot on the side of the road.

Owning a gun isn't just about hunting. Its first and formost having protection. Second its a consitutional right, and like the first ammendment, works best when exercised.
Sporting is the third and least important reason for owning a gun.

Quote:If everyone would work together to make it harder for the "wrong" kind of people to get guns then there is nothing wrong with them. But if everyone and their brother gets to have a gun because they can, then I'm going to say take them away. My father was shot at about 7 months ago because some punks broke into his garage. Is it fair that people like those kids should have as easy access to weapons as the people who aren't going to abuse them? Also, maybe if there were stricter gun control laws then maybe people wouldn't have to buy guns as defense as often as they do.

We already make it illegal for convicts to own weapons. Background checks are already mandatory. How will more ledgislation help? Killing is illegal, but people still do it. Why make it harder for people to protect themselves while making it easier for criminals to do their thing, all the make you 'feel' safer? Are you actually safer taking a gun out of a law-abiding citizen's hands? Police have an average of shooting an innocent bystander 11% of the time. Armed law-abiding citizens have an average of 2%. (During armed response to a crime)
Like I said before, don't go off of emotion, but what the facts state.

Exactly, its important to have a clear head on an issue of such importance.
I still stand by what I said earlier about if the pilots on the hijacked flights on 9/11 were allowed their Constitutional right to own a handgun, they would have made short work of terrorists wielding box cutters and plastic knives. And 3000 of our citizens may be here today.

ireland88 Wrote:Exactly, its important to have a clear head on an issue of such importance.
I still stand by what I said earlier about if the pilots on the hijacked flights on 9/11 were allowed their Constitutional right to own a handgun, they would have made short work of terrorists wielding box cutters and plastic knives. And 3000 of our citizens may be here today.

Following up on that, should someone say "Oh, well the terrorists would've had guns too!" Let's see, 12 terrorists against 100+ passengers. Considering that the US has over 80 million legal gun owners, at least 33 of those passengers could be armed, not including air marshals, pilots, or flight attendents.