- Joined
- Sep 21, 2003
- Messages
- 31,044
- Location
- Portland, Oregon
- Car(s)
- 2008 Dodge Viper, 2006 MB CLS55 AMG
Control of everything is never 100% effective, but I'd argue drugs would be more used if they were legal.
Right to bear arms - Yah or nay
- Thread starter jetsetter
- Start date
SirEdward
Well-Known Member
Firearms are very dangerous objects, and to be used correctly they require mental and physical skills that not all people possess.
These skills can be developed, and can be lost, and sometimes in a matter of minutes.
That said, I don't like nanny states, so I don't like the total inhibition from firearms, as it is a way to make people stupid and incapable of dealing with real life; I think that we can grow up and become more responsible and wise when we have to deal with things or situations that can really hurt us, and I think that firearms can be one of the best ways to teach people these things and a good form of discipline in a controlled environment, without too many risks.
But I also do think that guns tend to make people feel powerful and invincible and can do more harm then good if not treated with due respect, and you can not develop a healthy relation with guns if you use them as a way to show off or to impose your point of view upon other people or to try to overcome a lack of self-esteem. If your gun controls you, instead of you controlling your gun, things get dangerous.
Unfortunately, many people are simply not suited to have a firearm, but we can not know whether someone will become dangerous or not and we can not really determine it without having other people do the judgement.
Moreover, it's not only a problem of physical harm. We normally say that men are equal and have equal rights. Well, the words of a man wearing a gun will always be more persuasive then the words of a man not wearing it. Plus, it is more difficult to argue with the man with the gun.
This bring us back to "who decide" whether you can wear a gun or not. Well, letting someone deciding may lead to bad situations (it can be wise to assume that people with some power will eventually try to use it to their own benefit instead that to everyone's benefit).
For all these reasons, I think it is a better idea to ban firearms from public life and forbid people from wearing them outside their house or in specific places (shooting ranges, for example), leaving that right only to people who might actually need a gun for self-defence or for their job. At the same time, firearm possession should not be illegal, but should be strictly monitored (no free guns at the pawn shop, please) and mildly controlled, just to avoid people getting crazy and stuffing their houses with bazookas and grenate launchers. Also, weapon storage should be regulated firmly, just to avoid people keeping a fully loaded and ready to shot automatic gun in the drawer accessible to the little child or to the first idiot coming in from the window.
Last edited:
nomix
True Viking
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Messages
- 7,293
- Location
- Norway
- Car(s)
- Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
That is an age old debate. For instance, there is ample reason to believe that prohibiting rocket launchers has made their use less wide spread in the United States, to mention one.
This argument does not transfer to normal hand guns, though. Hand guns are already in circulation in the US, and they are easily accessable, both legally and illegally. They are also comparatively small, easy to hide away. In a society were everybody has guns, you won't stand out with a firearm, in the same way you wouldn't be branded a bastard for hating negros in the South in the years after the civil war, after all, you shared the view of the absolute majority of the populous.
It's much more complex than a question of wether to ban or not to ban.
wooflepoof
WoofleDay
Drugs would probably be used more, but they'd be marginally safer since they'd be more pure, and people would be more likely to seek proper help without fear of indictment. Plus, while more people would be more likely to try/do drugs, the number wouldn't increase as dramatically as you may think. Drugs aren't difficult to come by, the lack of many people's drug use goes far far beyond their legal status.
Last edited:
Twerp128
Well-Known Member
Statistically, Maine has half the gun violence as Massachusetts and 1/5th the gun violence of California. And all this from a state with more guns than people. Perhaps if America's 2nd amendment special interest groups invested their time and money into the ghetto and slums gun violence would decrease.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,714
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Car(s)
- It's A HONDA! Clarity Plug In Electric
One of my favorite things about Maine is that when you ask people for directions when on vacation in Maine they say "oh... your from away"
I heard Maine described once like Mexico with white people for New Yorkers. By the way thats a jab at New Yorkers not Maine.
I heard Maine described once like Mexico with white people for New Yorkers. By the way thats a jab at New Yorkers not Maine.
I'm fine with people owning firearms for hunting and sport. The UK law has no allowance for owning a gun for self defence, if you want a shotgun you need to prove that you have a legitimate use for it, can use it safely and store it properly. Hunting rifles fall under similar regulations but are more difficult to license afaik.
I can't say I've ever wanted to own a gun for self defence since nobody else carries one. I've never lived in an area where gun crime is a problem, I know it exists but around here the only guns you'll come across are shotguns and rifles for hunting and sport and are thus all properly licensed. It's very rare to hear of a gun related accident, theft or a gun going 'missing' since the police ensure owners are sticking to the law.
I know it's not ideal, there is a certain amount of red tape to battle with but, from what I can see, the law is effective in reducing the chance of accidental injuries, guns falling into the hands of kids or even some crazy bastard going on a killing spree. Some cities may have areas where people are more likely to feel a need to arm themselves for protection but I believe in the majority of the UK very few people feel that way but are weary of the potential for that situation to change if people had the legal right to do so.
So yes, in a way.
I can't say I've ever wanted to own a gun for self defence since nobody else carries one. I've never lived in an area where gun crime is a problem, I know it exists but around here the only guns you'll come across are shotguns and rifles for hunting and sport and are thus all properly licensed. It's very rare to hear of a gun related accident, theft or a gun going 'missing' since the police ensure owners are sticking to the law.
I know it's not ideal, there is a certain amount of red tape to battle with but, from what I can see, the law is effective in reducing the chance of accidental injuries, guns falling into the hands of kids or even some crazy bastard going on a killing spree. Some cities may have areas where people are more likely to feel a need to arm themselves for protection but I believe in the majority of the UK very few people feel that way but are weary of the potential for that situation to change if people had the legal right to do so.
So yes, in a way.
YF19pilot
Well-Known Member
ask for your pardon for a long post, but after reading 8 pages of this thread, I feel I should probably say the following. If you're in a rush just skip to the tl;dr part, but I ask that if you're serious about discussing the matter, please read:
So then, what does this mean? Let's break it down piece by piece.
Let's start with 'well regulated'. It doesn't mean 'regulations' like government laws made to limit the availablilty of tools or weapons. Rather it means organized and trained. So a "well regulated Militia" is a militia that is organized and trained in the use of weapons and the defense of their homes.
Now, to blow your minds, "Militia" DOES NOT MEAN A PROFESIONAL STANDING ARMY OR MILITARY! The United States Armed Forces are just that Armed Forces. They are not a militia. A militia is a group of civilians who organize to maintain law and order; and to defend their homes. Now, militia can refer to other forms of organized groups, but it does not mean a profesional standing army that is funded and run by the government. People on both sides of the argument get this wrong.
So who are the militia? The People of the United States of America, that's who. As citizens of this country, it is our duty to protect and uphold the laws of this land. Which brings us to our first argument of my post:
If "We the People" are the militia, how do we arm the militia?
Easy, the militia is armed and supplied by the very members of the militia. That means the weapons used by the militia are owned by the members, by the private citizens. The militia is not armed, supplied, or funded by the government. Therefore, it is essential for the purchase of firearms and other weapons to be made available-without government intrustion-to the private citizen.
Okay, next bit:
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as the "preamble". A lot of people use the argument that this phrase is a limiter to the rest of the second amendment. That weapons are only a right if you're part of a 'militia'. However, a preamble cannot and does not limit, alter, or create exception for the law with which it preceedes. If anything it gives a reasoning as to why the law is made, but does not mean the law is limited to or applicable only to that reason.
In other words, the right to bear arms is not soley granted nor limited to "a well regulated militia" being used for "the security of a free State".
The rest of this is pretty striaght forward, and I would argue if it's not clear enough to you, there are other issues you should be concerning yourself with. Like the quality of your public education.
Quipps aside (I went to public schools, too), this is the actual "law" or "right" being put forth. That "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, I also want you to notice this law does not grant to the States of the Union the ability to regulate or deny the right of ownership of weapons to its citizen. Also, note this law is not limited to any specific type of weapon, but rather encompases all arms. That means swords, knives, clubs, flails, maces, and guns. So to argue against firearms would be to argue against those nifty replica swords everyone likes. Granted, that could mean an end to LARPers, but I'd rather have the nerds knocking each other around occasionally than to be denied my right to a gun.
So, hopefully this clears up some of the misunderstanding I've noticed of the 2nd Amendment. I'll put my arguments in another post as this one is getting long winded as is and I don't want one to detract from the other.
TL
R: The 2nd Amendment says, and means, "Everyone is given the right to own and carry a weapon." To think otherwise is silly.
So then, what does this mean? Let's break it down piece by piece.
Let's start with 'well regulated'. It doesn't mean 'regulations' like government laws made to limit the availablilty of tools or weapons. Rather it means organized and trained. So a "well regulated Militia" is a militia that is organized and trained in the use of weapons and the defense of their homes.
Now, to blow your minds, "Militia" DOES NOT MEAN A PROFESIONAL STANDING ARMY OR MILITARY! The United States Armed Forces are just that Armed Forces. They are not a militia. A militia is a group of civilians who organize to maintain law and order; and to defend their homes. Now, militia can refer to other forms of organized groups, but it does not mean a profesional standing army that is funded and run by the government. People on both sides of the argument get this wrong.
So who are the militia? The People of the United States of America, that's who. As citizens of this country, it is our duty to protect and uphold the laws of this land. Which brings us to our first argument of my post:
If "We the People" are the militia, how do we arm the militia?
Easy, the militia is armed and supplied by the very members of the militia. That means the weapons used by the militia are owned by the members, by the private citizens. The militia is not armed, supplied, or funded by the government. Therefore, it is essential for the purchase of firearms and other weapons to be made available-without government intrustion-to the private citizen.
Okay, next bit:
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as the "preamble". A lot of people use the argument that this phrase is a limiter to the rest of the second amendment. That weapons are only a right if you're part of a 'militia'. However, a preamble cannot and does not limit, alter, or create exception for the law with which it preceedes. If anything it gives a reasoning as to why the law is made, but does not mean the law is limited to or applicable only to that reason.
In other words, the right to bear arms is not soley granted nor limited to "a well regulated militia" being used for "the security of a free State".
The rest of this is pretty striaght forward, and I would argue if it's not clear enough to you, there are other issues you should be concerning yourself with. Like the quality of your public education.
Quipps aside (I went to public schools, too), this is the actual "law" or "right" being put forth. That "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, I also want you to notice this law does not grant to the States of the Union the ability to regulate or deny the right of ownership of weapons to its citizen. Also, note this law is not limited to any specific type of weapon, but rather encompases all arms. That means swords, knives, clubs, flails, maces, and guns. So to argue against firearms would be to argue against those nifty replica swords everyone likes. Granted, that could mean an end to LARPers, but I'd rather have the nerds knocking each other around occasionally than to be denied my right to a gun.
So, hopefully this clears up some of the misunderstanding I've noticed of the 2nd Amendment. I'll put my arguments in another post as this one is getting long winded as is and I don't want one to detract from the other.
TL
R: The 2nd Amendment says, and means, "Everyone is given the right to own and carry a weapon." To think otherwise is silly.
YF19pilot
Well-Known Member
Okay, so this thread isn't a discussion per se of what the 2nd Amendment means, but rather do we agree with it. I put that in there because much of what is being said is based on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
So, do I think we should have the right to bear arms?
In short; Yes.
In long; Yes, and here's my reasoning.
First, it's my right, my life, my money, and I'll do whatever I damn well please. So if I want to drop $500 on a Fabrique Nationale FAL L1-A1 to go pop paper targets at the range, I will do so.
Second, self defense. At the moment I do not own a proper gun for self defense (to be honest .30 caliber rifles aren't the best when you want to limit over penetration living in an apartment complex), but I do want to get a pistol eventually. My primary motiviation lies in just wanting to own another range toy, but the secondary benefits are hard to ignore (and I'm not going to play the apologist).
Now, I want you all to understand that I am not buying a self defense weapon because my neighbor owns a gun. If anything I would feel safer knowing my neighbor had a gun. This is because I know the majority of gun owning persons are fairly responsible with their guns.
Secondly, I would never purchase a gun for the express purpose of killing or shooting someone. I pray to God I would never have to use a weapon (any weapon, not just guns) against a person. I do not fantasize about being put into such a position. About 95% of the gun owning public would agree with me. That's right, the majority of those who own guns aren't violent psychopaths. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Self defense, or defense of one's home is a crucial aspect of being given the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Here's a shocker for you: The police are not responsible for protecting your "basic rights". The only task Police are charged with is that of catching the criminal, not protecting the victim. Which is why you can't sue the police for failing to show up to a crime or failing to prevent a crime.
So, if the police aren't responsible for protecting your life, who is? That's right, you are. So how to protect yourself? With a weapon, of course. Whether you prefer firearms or some other means, the 2nd Amendment gives us in the USA the ability to use a weapon or some form of "arms" to protect ourselves. That includes using a barstool if really need be.
Now, I know there may be some cultural differences; as in my day to day life it is possible for me to be in a place in which the closest police officer is a good half hour away. This place is called Page, ND (near Fargo. Yes, that Fargo). Of course, I don't fear for my life constantly, and I'm not paranoid as many of the gun control lobby like to paint the pro-gun crowd. In fact I would say I feel safer out in Page (where gun ownership is 100%) than I do in Fargo. But, moving on...
Third point I want to make is that everyone who has argued for gun control or limitations, have argued that it should be the government who makes the rules/regulations and definitions. I am of the belief that the government should fear the people. And in turn I do not like the idea of the government making these decisions. Now, if the people of the US wish to limit themselves in the right to bear arms, that is a decision that needs to be made by the people and not by the government.
And, to make some examples, the most recent "assault weapons ban" was based more on aesthetics than on any actual killing power that a gun has. To add insult to injury, the California "Safe Handgun List" (which is used in D.C. as well) is based more on how much the gun manufactures pay the state, rather than on what is a "safe" handgun. Which lead to a recent law suit in which a woman had purchased a handgun that would've been on the "safe handgun list" if she had bought it in the right color. That's right, she wasn't allowed to have the gun she wanted because that particular color of that particular model wasn't included on the "Safe Handgun List". Could you imagine if you weren't allowed to own your car because the color wasn't registered as being "safe"?
For those of you not convinced about the "assault weapons ban" being a farce, let me tell you this. Semi-auto AK-47s and FALs and what not cannot be made fully automatic with "simple modifications". The mechanisims are so wildly different (and my model FAL was never available in full auto anyways), it would require me to completely rebuild the guns from scratch if I wanted them to be full auto. The only thing that makes either of my rifles an "assault weapon" is the fact that they look "evil". And really, the term "assault weapon" is such an ambiguous term to be using when it comes to making any sort of legislation.
Oh, and another "let's blow your mind": it is very very very difficult to legally own full auto weapons or large bore weapons or rocket launchers in the US (due to laws and the prohibitive costs). You all really make it sound like we live in some twisted action movie dystopia.
I've gotten long winded again, so I'll just respond to people from here on out.
TL;DR, I think it's a fundamental right for the people to own weapons for their self defense and enjoyment.
So, do I think we should have the right to bear arms?
In short; Yes.
In long; Yes, and here's my reasoning.
First, it's my right, my life, my money, and I'll do whatever I damn well please. So if I want to drop $500 on a Fabrique Nationale FAL L1-A1 to go pop paper targets at the range, I will do so.
Second, self defense. At the moment I do not own a proper gun for self defense (to be honest .30 caliber rifles aren't the best when you want to limit over penetration living in an apartment complex
), but I do want to get a pistol eventually. My primary motiviation lies in just wanting to own another range toy, but the secondary benefits are hard to ignore (and I'm not going to play the apologist).Now, I want you all to understand that I am not buying a self defense weapon because my neighbor owns a gun. If anything I would feel safer knowing my neighbor had a gun. This is because I know the majority of gun owning persons are fairly responsible with their guns.
Secondly, I would never purchase a gun for the express purpose of killing or shooting someone. I pray to God I would never have to use a weapon (any weapon, not just guns) against a person. I do not fantasize about being put into such a position. About 95% of the gun owning public would agree with me. That's right, the majority of those who own guns aren't violent psychopaths. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Self defense, or defense of one's home is a crucial aspect of being given the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Here's a shocker for you: The police are not responsible for protecting your "basic rights". The only task Police are charged with is that of catching the criminal, not protecting the victim. Which is why you can't sue the police for failing to show up to a crime or failing to prevent a crime.
So, if the police aren't responsible for protecting your life, who is? That's right, you are. So how to protect yourself? With a weapon, of course. Whether you prefer firearms or some other means, the 2nd Amendment gives us in the USA the ability to use a weapon or some form of "arms" to protect ourselves. That includes using a barstool if really need be.
Now, I know there may be some cultural differences; as in my day to day life it is possible for me to be in a place in which the closest police officer is a good half hour away. This place is called Page, ND (near Fargo. Yes, that Fargo). Of course, I don't fear for my life constantly, and I'm not paranoid as many of the gun control lobby like to paint the pro-gun crowd. In fact I would say I feel safer out in Page (where gun ownership is 100%) than I do in Fargo. But, moving on...
Third point I want to make is that everyone who has argued for gun control or limitations, have argued that it should be the government who makes the rules/regulations and definitions. I am of the belief that the government should fear the people. And in turn I do not like the idea of the government making these decisions. Now, if the people of the US wish to limit themselves in the right to bear arms, that is a decision that needs to be made by the people and not by the government.
And, to make some examples, the most recent "assault weapons ban" was based more on aesthetics than on any actual killing power that a gun has. To add insult to injury, the California "Safe Handgun List" (which is used in D.C. as well) is based more on how much the gun manufactures pay the state, rather than on what is a "safe" handgun. Which lead to a recent law suit in which a woman had purchased a handgun that would've been on the "safe handgun list" if she had bought it in the right color. That's right, she wasn't allowed to have the gun she wanted because that particular color of that particular model wasn't included on the "Safe Handgun List". Could you imagine if you weren't allowed to own your car because the color wasn't registered as being "safe"?
For those of you not convinced about the "assault weapons ban" being a farce, let me tell you this. Semi-auto AK-47s and FALs and what not cannot be made fully automatic with "simple modifications". The mechanisims are so wildly different (and my model FAL was never available in full auto anyways), it would require me to completely rebuild the guns from scratch if I wanted them to be full auto. The only thing that makes either of my rifles an "assault weapon" is the fact that they look "evil". And really, the term "assault weapon" is such an ambiguous term to be using when it comes to making any sort of legislation.
Oh, and another "let's blow your mind": it is very very very difficult to legally own full auto weapons or large bore weapons or rocket launchers in the US (due to laws and the prohibitive costs). You all really make it sound like we live in some twisted action movie dystopia.
I've gotten long winded again, so I'll just respond to people from here on out.
TL;DR, I think it's a fundamental right for the people to own weapons for their self defense and enjoyment.
SirEdward
Well-Known Member
In general, I like the logic behind your position, but I have to disagree on a couple of things.
I'd like to trust you, but I have seen people dealing with weapons.
I have seen so many people dealing horribly with guns in my life that I have to disagree upon the fact that people are mostly responsible with them. People showing-off or feeling like a vigilante or superior just because they own a gun are fairly common.
I speak of people owning guns and going to the shooting range and practicing regularly. I have seen great people but also dangerous people.
Now, gun limitation here puts beaurocratic and expensive hurdles to people wanting to own guns, without taking into account the general feeling of uneaseness you get when you speak about weapons (like you were a maniac about to frenzy and kill everyone around), and I know this hinders normal people but doesn't really stop fanatics from owning a gun, so it is quite possible I met so many poor examples simply because the normal guys weren't there, but I really think weapons require more discipline and training than what normal people are willing or able to get.
When you see a man that should be proficient and responsible with weapons pointing, out of simple carelessness, a gun (unloaded luckily) in the face of another one, you understand something, when you see another supposedly experienced shooter turning the wrong way around in a shooting range holding a loaded gun finger on the trigger, again out of carelessness, you seriously start to think that guns are not really for everyone.
Were they only cases of poor training? Maybe, but here only people who really like guns own guns, so it is strange they don't know how to use them.
(I have to stress that I also found excellent people acting very responsibly, so I know that weapons used correctly are not a danger)
This is lucky for you, but not everyone is like you, unfortunately. The problem is how you can decide if someone is a good person or an idiot?
You can't. Nobody can, so it is not stupid to consider limitations on guns.
I agree, but there are not only people willingly killing other people, there are also people accidentally killing other people. We must take them into account for problems that will arise.
Here, I think that there is a major issue. A government should be, in a way, a representation of the people this is why it is called democracy. I understand what you are saying, but I think that if you feel like your government is not representing you, then you have much bigger problems to solve than the right to bear arms and you should fight for a political reform.
I'd like to trust you, but I have seen people dealing with weapons.
I have seen so many people dealing horribly with guns in my life that I have to disagree upon the fact that people are mostly responsible with them. People showing-off or feeling like a vigilante or superior just because they own a gun are fairly common.
I speak of people owning guns and going to the shooting range and practicing regularly. I have seen great people but also dangerous people.
Now, gun limitation here puts beaurocratic and expensive hurdles to people wanting to own guns, without taking into account the general feeling of uneaseness you get when you speak about weapons (like you were a maniac about to frenzy and kill everyone around), and I know this hinders normal people but doesn't really stop fanatics from owning a gun, so it is quite possible I met so many poor examples simply because the normal guys weren't there, but I really think weapons require more discipline and training than what normal people are willing or able to get.
When you see a man that should be proficient and responsible with weapons pointing, out of simple carelessness, a gun (unloaded luckily) in the face of another one, you understand something, when you see another supposedly experienced shooter turning the wrong way around in a shooting range holding a loaded gun finger on the trigger, again out of carelessness, you seriously start to think that guns are not really for everyone.
Were they only cases of poor training? Maybe, but here only people who really like guns own guns, so it is strange they don't know how to use them.
(I have to stress that I also found excellent people acting very responsibly, so I know that weapons used correctly are not a danger)
This is lucky for you, but not everyone is like you, unfortunately. The problem is how you can decide if someone is a good person or an idiot?
You can't. Nobody can, so it is not stupid to consider limitations on guns.
I agree, but there are not only people willingly killing other people, there are also people accidentally killing other people. We must take them into account for problems that will arise.
Here, I think that there is a major issue. A government should be, in a way, a representation of the people this is why it is called democracy. I understand what you are saying, but I think that if you feel like your government is not representing you, then you have much bigger problems to solve than the right to bear arms and you should fight for a political reform.
Last edited:
YF19pilot
Well-Known Member
I have to say I was expecting worse, so thank you for your response.
I understand your concern with those who act irresponsibly and, well, like morons. They're out there, and they tend to stand out. Mainly because, like you said, they like to show of and what not. The best way to deal with those people is direct confrontation about their actions. In the very least, if you're at a controled range, get the RO's attention about it.
However, I understand the limitation of this extends to about the end of the parking lot, and after we can only hope their negligent discharge only kills a refrigerator and nothing living.
Believe me, I understand where you're coming from. And I have seen people who have been through all the safety courses required for a CCW, and they'll still act like they're Roy Rogers or something else equally stupid. This is an issue which is on going and the gun community is constantly trying to fix. It all comes down to education and confrontation. This is true with anything, and while I may not ease your feelings about idiots, I do want you to know that it isn't something that is being ignored.
For your second point, its the same with knowing if someone will be a moron or not; we don't always know someone's intention for purchasing a gun. And, often times, when people are considering using a gun for a crime such as murder, they often won't think twice about obtaining a gun illegally.
As for accidents, to borrow from the clips of BS earlier; while each accident is tragic, they are few and far between, at least here in the states. I don't know the statistics off hand, but I'm sure they're easy to find. Again, the gun owning community is proactive in trying to educate and prevent such tragidies.
As for the last point, you hit the nail on the head, and I (and others) feel the government needs an overhaul. At the moment our political system is one that is suppose to provide the representation of a broad range of ideas and people; but due to tradition has been boiled down into a faux "two-party" system in which both parties pretty much act the same when they get into office. But that's an argument for another thread.
Just another point about the idiots; it does seem that the less we've come to rely on guns for our day to day lives (like hunting, etc.) the less people have come to know or respect how to handle them. Though I imagine there were still idiots in the 1800s.
I understand your concern with those who act irresponsibly and, well, like morons. They're out there, and they tend to stand out. Mainly because, like you said, they like to show of and what not. The best way to deal with those people is direct confrontation about their actions. In the very least, if you're at a controled range, get the RO's attention about it.
However, I understand the limitation of this extends to about the end of the parking lot, and after we can only hope their negligent discharge only kills a refrigerator and nothing living.
Believe me, I understand where you're coming from. And I have seen people who have been through all the safety courses required for a CCW, and they'll still act like they're Roy Rogers or something else equally stupid. This is an issue which is on going and the gun community is constantly trying to fix. It all comes down to education and confrontation. This is true with anything, and while I may not ease your feelings about idiots, I do want you to know that it isn't something that is being ignored.
For your second point, its the same with knowing if someone will be a moron or not; we don't always know someone's intention for purchasing a gun. And, often times, when people are considering using a gun for a crime such as murder, they often won't think twice about obtaining a gun illegally.
As for accidents, to borrow from the clips of BS earlier; while each accident is tragic, they are few and far between, at least here in the states. I don't know the statistics off hand, but I'm sure they're easy to find. Again, the gun owning community is proactive in trying to educate and prevent such tragidies.
As for the last point, you hit the nail on the head, and I (and others) feel the government needs an overhaul. At the moment our political system is one that is suppose to provide the representation of a broad range of ideas and people; but due to tradition has been boiled down into a faux "two-party" system in which both parties pretty much act the same when they get into office. But that's an argument for another thread.
Just another point about the idiots; it does seem that the less we've come to rely on guns for our day to day lives (like hunting, etc.) the less people have come to know or respect how to handle them. Though I imagine there were still idiots in the 1800s.
MattD1zzl3
2 Slow 2 Noisy
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,736
- Location
- Miamishire
- Car(s)
- 1996 & 2003 Mazda Miatas, 1995 Chevy Camaro Z28
In response to the "No assult rifles" sentiment: You all do know the point of this law right? Its not for hunting or defending your domicile against african-american intruders (As people usually treat it), but as a way for the citizenry to kill their own soldiers if they are used against them.
How am i supposed to kill dan the national guardsman before he kills me if all i have is a shotgun and a pistol?
How am i supposed to kill dan the national guardsman before he kills me if all i have is a shotgun and a pistol?
Peter3hg
Forum Addict
- Joined
- May 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,949
- Location
- Manchester, UK
- Car(s)
- Audi A3 1.4 TFSI Honda Hornet CB600S
I have a slight problem with that analysis. The "People" as a whole cannot be the militia referred to, as the constitution refers to a "Well-regulated militia" which the people as a whole clearly aren't.
I believe that this part of the amendment refers to something that no longer exists. There is no well-regulated militia in the US anymore. Perhaps one could be formed from the "people" if needed, but to say the "people" are the militia is false.
This is however superfluous and has no effect on the issue in the topic.
SirEdward
Well-Known Member
In the places I like (or liked, since time and money are not so much to continue) to go to are well regulated on this part, so both of these examples were strongly confronted on safety. And one of the things I liked the most is exactly those strong reactions when safety issues arised.
Exactly. This is one of the reasons why I believe that weapons are best regulated to use in specific places or situations and not carried around, even if I think that weapons should not be so strictly regulated as they are in my country.
I know, and I hope a good way may be found. I am sad that a solution to the idiot's problem has not been found yet, because I'd like to support (and enjoy) more freedom towards weapons; As far as the things go now, I still think it is better to have a regulation.
Obtaining a gun illegally is rather hard, though, especially in a country with strict weapon regulation, so I'm not sure that what you say is always true. But I also have to admit that guns are not the only way to hurt someone.
I think we should take a look at the figures. I can't really say anything worth reading on this now.
Yes, of course. I understand you well, though, because our politicians decided, some years ago, to follow the US road and develop a two-party system, which has already proved to take democracy away rather than improving it (and without granting real government stability).
I absolutely agree. I think a healthy and respectful relation with guns should be devolped and encouraged, even in countries with gun limiting. It's a way to learn important values, like humility, responsibility, self-control, and to see practically what a real gun can do (something that should be taught).
Last edited:
YF19pilot
Well-Known Member
I suppose this is the difference then between our cultures. It is easier here to obtain a firearm illegally. Granted, the black market is a mystery to me, but there are recorded incidents of people taking advantage of lax laws in one state to bootleg weapons into another.
In the meanwhile I'll see what I can dig up about accidents. From the whiteout I see out my window, I don't think I'll be going to work today.
Otherwise, I think we can agree on one solution: Ban Stupidity :lol:
Edit:
Okay, statistics time. I found some numbers, so here they are.
The NRA-ILA claims that total deaths involving gun accidents in the USA is roughtly one quarter percent for every 100,000 people. Using the figure of about 300 million people in the US, that comes to about 750 people a year, across all age groups. They have some fairly thorough spredsheets if you want to take a look: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=127
The Legal Community Against Violence notes that in 2006, 642 were killed in an accident; and that 1,500 victims between 2001 and 2006 were under 25 years of age. However, it does not make it clear if 'victim' means 'death', as their statistics involve both deaths and hospitalizations. It does, however mention that 8% of these shootings involved a child around the age of 6. http://www.lcav.org/resources/gun_violence_statistics.asp
The only other numbers I could find were mainly from sensationalist articles, but I'll keep digging.
Last edited:
The way I see it, , the right to bear arms is the right to have tools designed for killing people. I can not personaly support the view that some should have access to a convinient method of murder, and I think having this view is a tremendous display of arrogance.
Hunting I have no problem with, and not hunting rifles either.
Hunting I have no problem with, and not hunting rifles either.
MadCat360
Forum Addict
Let me just lend you my well thought-out academic analysis of this particular subject.
Lupin_IV
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,876
- Location
- about 10 miles north of Carlisle, PA
- Car(s)
- '84 Pontiac Parisienne, '93 Chevy Caprice
Pennsylvania's State Constitution makes this clear.
And, saving Spectre some effort, the Texas version:
And, saving Spectre some effort, the Texas version:
