Why do Americans need guns? Rip UP the Second Amendment, problem solved.

Something tells me that this thread's purpose is to get people riled... So I'll just answer this once.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
...but surly if it were the case that gun’s were outlawed or heavily regulated it would lead to a overall reduction in the number of firearms owned and therefore the odds of someone pulling a gun on you would be greatly reduced...

You're right. If guns were outlawed or more heavily regulated, fewer people would have guns. Law abiding citizens wouldn't have guns and criminals would. So, all the people who would like to break into your house and rape your daughter would have guns and you wouldn't. And the rapists would KNOW that.

And many otherwise law abiding citizens would BECOME criminals just for the action of keeping their guns.

You don't think a thief or murderer is going to defer to the law against guns and dutifully give theirs up, do you?

A criminal's biggest fear is not law enforcement, it's an armed citizen.

reply to post by AshleyD

In a perfect world, I wish none of these devices existed. But they do therefore I prefer things to be a bit more even sided.

Completely understandable point. The outlaws would still get them and asking you to rip up the second amendment is silly, I agree.

The OP just cares about the people who get hurt, I hope most of you can understand that.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Actually, since you probably don't live here, freedom of speech is one of the few rights we have left.

They've taken our right to be safe in our papers, personal effects, and property. They've taken our reasonable expectation of privacy in doing so. They've taken our right to not buy something away, they've even removed the protections of the 5th 6th 7th and 8th amendments. They step on the 9th and Tenth amendments regularly...But they have yet to really mess with guns and speech...

They want to...They talk about it everyday on the MSM. But they know it won't happen, and the second they try...Those guns you hate so much are coming out.

reply to post by projectvxn


True that.
makes me think of the famous Noam Chumsky quote.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

reply to post by AshleyD


In a roundabout way I can understand that it’s the same argument that I use to justify maintaining a nuclear deterrent. The difference is that my argument is that you can’t guarantee that other states will give up their nuclear deterrent therefore we should keep ours, it’s a matter of national security. We can legislate for other states to give up their nuclear deterrent so there is nothing we can really do but keep our own.

The difference between this argument and the gun control argument is that the Government if they wanted to, could begin to start heavily regulation of guns and introduce a program of slowly banning particular firearms. It would not happen overnight and would need a A-politlcal cooperation witch isn’t going to happen because the Republican party is heavily funded by gun rights interest groups.

Therefore my view is that it’s possible, but will probably never happen unless there is a major change in the Republican Party or the politicians are forced to cave in to public pressure. That I think could be possible if a majority of the electorate wanted a ban on all guns, it could happen. I admit it would not happen overnight, it would be difficult, but I think it could be done as part of a gradual process.

reply to post by projectvxn


Go stand outside the Whitehouse, and preach about how you think it is just for terrorists to fly planes into American landmarks in the name of Allah and that you want other's to join you, then come back and tell me you still have freedom of speech.

Originally posted by kevinunknown

........ In the UK I know no one who owns a gun, and no one I know has ever been disadvantaged because of this why is it that the worlds “super power” is any different, Gun Laws are out of date, rip up the second amendment and join the 21st century .

Ummm... You may not want to be so quick to claim that everything has been ducky in the UK without guns.

A report last year revealed that despite the lack of guns in the UK...

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

America is far from perfect - but this doesn't lead me to want America to emulate the UK gun model anytime soon.

Originally posted by Lagrimas
reply to post by AshleyD

 

The OP just cares about the people who get hurt, I hope most of you can understand that.

Then he is naive, and should begin railing against GMO food, prescription drugs, cars, toxic emissions from various sources, kitchen knives, fire, alcohol, cigarettes, unprotected sex, etc... as well.

Everything has the potential to hurt, maim and kill if used carelessly or improperly. Law abiding gun owners in America don't own with the intent to harm anyone.

I am a disabled man and I am married with 4 children.
I can neither defend myself or my family physically nor can I run from trouble.
You assign me a cop to defend my family 24/7 I'll gladly relinquish my guns.

Weapon control laws only disarm the law abiding citizens.
That would leave only the criminals with guns.
Sometimes the criminals are just gangsters, other times it's entire groups like the Nazi party.

If you want to be a martyr that's your business.
I have no intention of going down "peacefully" because Charlie the crackhead needs $20 for his next rock.,

Guns are just technology - something that neither good nor evil.
It is who is wielding it that makes it so.

reply to post by Lagrimas


Indeed.

I may not like the liberals on MSNBC or the neo-cons on Fox news, but the day they say they're going to pass a law restricting either, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with them. The Natural rights of the people are paramount. Those rights are this:

The Right to free expression.
The Right to believe as your conscience dictates
The Right to your property.
The Right your life, defense of that life(The basis of the Second amendment), and the defense and preservation of the life of others.

Natural Rights aren't governed by Government mandates or fiat. They are governed by nature and the God of Nature(whatever that means to you). No government can grant you freedom. But government are "instituted among men" to mutually protect the rights of the people, and to be guards of their security while enjoying the fruits of their liberty.

What's the point of it if you can't defend those rights.

Why do cops and federal agents need guns? People need guns to defend themselves and their property. Why? Because its effective.

Dog eat dog, I want to be the one munching down.

Do you believe that you will never be put in a position where a gun is needed to protect yourself or a loved one? It does not matter what disaster leads to it, if there is a breakdown in society, chances are you will need to defend yourself regularly, some people just don't trust the police to protect them all of their lives.

What if guns were outlawed? Who would turn their guns in? Do you think the criminals, that are already using them to kill, would turn them in because they became illegal? The only people who would turn their guns in are the people who are strictly law-abiding... these people generally are not a threat to public safety.

You say that people are paranoid that the government might come try to take people away... Hasn't that happened many times before, essentially all throughout history? What if the citizens of Nazi Germany were better armed? You act like it would always be 1 on 20 or so... Do you really have no faith in our citizens' ability to form an organized resistance? How can we move into the future if we allow history to continue repeating itself?

In any survival situation owning a gun improves your odds by about a gazzilliabillion times or so.

Should we outlaw cars because some people use them incorrectly and kill innocent people? (Far FAR more than guns... at least in the more modern societies.)

Most gun owners buy guns with the hopes that they will never have to use them, and the ones who do have to use them to defend their life or a loved one, are damn glad they made that purchase.

You will never keep guns out of the hands of criminals, heck, with little training, they could make them...and do in lower socio-economic regions. So why take them from law-abiding citizens? There is NO way that you wouldn't be throwing the balance of power heavily unto the criminal side.

The last reason I have for ya is freedom, this country was founded on it. If gun control is your thing, move somewhere with a successful gun control policy. It is just who we are, as Americans we hold freedom and personal liberty in a very high regard. Maybe you should move to a more socialist country if you want gun control. (I am using "socialist" in its true usage, not as an insult.)

Unfortunately the world is not a safe place, and I find it perfectly reasonable to desire and procure higher odds of survival.

reply to post by Frogs


I never said the UK was perfect, I was just making stating that in the UK we have less gun problems than in America and we also have gun control.

You do realize disarming America will be one of the bloodiest wars ever undertaken by mankind dont you?

Do you think we will just lie down and surrender?

You need to think again my friend.



At least educate yourself on what you will face.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Freedom of speech is not license to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.You don't have the right to threaten others.

You have the right to defend your life with the use of firearms in this country. You do not have the right to wantonly take life. You have the right to free speech in this country, you do not have the right to make threats, or to slander others as this violates their rights as fellow citizens. You have the right to earn a living and keep the fruits of that work, but you do not have the right to demand more than what you worked for.

I just don't think you understand American society, our jurisprudence, or our overall culture.

reply to post by kevinunknown

In a roundabout way I can understand that it’s the same argument that I use to justify maintaining a nuclear deterrent. The difference is that my argument is that you can’t guarantee that other states will give up their nuclear deterrent therefore we should keep ours, it’s a matter of national security. We can legislate for other states to give up their nuclear deterrent so there is nothing we can really do but keep our own.

Exactly. I've used that analogy before as well about nuclear programs when it comes to the gun control debate. On a smaller scale, it's the equivalent of citizens owning guns for the exact same reason. Asking the US to dismantle the nuclear program would be like asking our citizens to give up the second amendment. It would be completely illogical.

Again, I wish I would make them all vanish but since Pandora's box has been opened, it seems more sound to make things as even as possible.

The difference between this argument and the gun control argument is that the Government if they wanted to, could begin to start heavily regulation of guns and introduce a program of slowly banning particular firearms. It would not happen overnight and would need a A-politlcal cooperation witch isn’t going to happen because the Republican party is heavily funded by gun rights interest groups.

Unfortunately, that is already happening. Our government knows there is no way in this world they could take our guns away overnight. So they are doing it in small doses with difficult regulation, nitpicking small print in the gun laws, and, from what I understand, making bullets excessively expensive and taxed and reducing production. Kind of like, 'Sure. OK. Keep your guns but good luck getting hands on ammo.'

So the TPTB who fear the people bearing arms are doing everything they can to gradually boil the frog in the pot and take away our right.

reply to post by Lagrimas


I understand Britian was thinking about regulating outlawing cooking knives.
A city in the states (oakland I think ) has informed the tax payers recently that the police will no longer respond to a large cross section of complaints due to budget constraints.
The major criminals are under no such restarints

Best think about how to remove the needs for weapons then the weapons
IMHO

reply to post by kevinunknown


....and I was pointing out that despite your tough gun control you have had a 77% increase in violent crime, have the highest violent crime rate in Europe and actually have more violent crime per person. than America.

So the argument that very strict gun control will cause a drop in violent crime seems to be out the window based on the UK.

we need guns to protect ourselves against people who think like you OP
its this type of thinking that has caused the downfall of any free society throughout the ages.

guns aren't the problem, people without guns are the problem

Ah, where to begin........

Originally posted by kevinunknown
To me guns are inherently evil objects that have been designed to kill our fellow man and therefore are evil as is to use a gun to kill.

Guns are inanimate objects, and are no more "evil" than a rock, a cute puppy, or a ham sandwich. It is the people who employ guns that are either good or evil. Removing guns from the equation does not remove the evil from a person's soul, nor does it reduce the likelihood that an evil person will commit evil acts.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Further to this there have been a number of high profile shootings in America were a gun man has committed multiple homicide or gang warfare has resulted in innocents being killed. Now with that in mind how can you possibly say that the right to bear arms is justified?

Your argument is premised on the mistaken assumption that all users of guns in the U.S. obtain them legally and are licensed to carry them. This is not true. Criminals, such as gang members and drug dealers, almost always obtain firearms illegally. Simply banning the ownership of guns will not make them go away. These criminals, by default, are already banned from obtaining or owning weapons, yet they procure them regardless. Removing guns from the hands of the responsible citizenship does not make our streets any safer.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Yes some people need guns to do their jobs such as game keepers, farmers and law enforcement but why does Joe the plumber really need one.

We live in a country where owning a gun has been a tradition and even a necessity since revolutionary times. It is part of our national heritage, and has allowed us as a people to maintain a strong hand in limiting the power of our own government, which was started by throwing off the chains of the English monarchy. It is not a need to own a weapon, it is a right to own a weapon, guaranteed by our founding fathers, to maintain a strong spirit of civil independence. Never forget what Thomas Jefferson said: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty".

Originally posted by kevinunknown
The argument is always that it’s for self defence, that way if someone pulls a gun on a knife on you, you can protect yourself. It’s a hard one to argue against, but surly if it were the case that gun’s were outlawed or heavily regulated it would lead to a overall reduction in the number of firearms owned and therefore the odds of someone pulling a gun on you would be greatly reduced therefore you wouldn’t have to own a fire arm and the odds would fall further. In any case you can never be sure it’s going to help your odds, if two gun men mug you or break into your house you’re already on the losing side. Now baring in mind that there are almost enough firearms America for every citizen the robbers are going to know you have a gun in your house, they are going to be prepared and have the element of surprise on their side.

See my previous comment regarding legal versus unlawful gun ownership. IMO, removing guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens, while knowing that the criminal population would be largely unaffected, would be an irresponsible and dangerous decision.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Now am sorry to spit on your 2nd amendment right, but for me self defence is not a valid argument for defending the 2nd amendment. Also the ability to carry arms has been severely restricted by the Gun-Free School zones act of 1990 signed by Gorge H W Bush, which is ironic considering that 41% of republicans own a firearm compared to only 23% of democrats so kudos to Bush. This does mean though that as a law abiding citizen in a town or city you really can’t carry a gun knowing that you are not breaking a law. As such you would be better just not carrying one, so again if you get attacked by someone you shouldn’t have a gun to defend yourself in the first place because to be carrying said firearm you would be breaking the law.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here, but I will admit that guns laws vary from state to state, and they can be very confusing. Ignorance of certain laws often results with legal gun owners running afoul of the law, due to restrictions and variations. However, in most cases the court systems take these facts into account, and legal gun owners without criminal records are treated fairly.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
The line that I love is this “we have places to keep people who can’t use their guns properly, they’re called prisons”. Very true, but you also have places called hospitals and mortuaries filled with the victims of the scum your keeping in prison, and thousands of homes full of grieving families. Would it not just be better to ban or regulate these guns out right that way no idiots going to prison and cheaper hospital bills and less tears.

Where I live, on any given week end, the hospitals and mortuaries are filled with the victims of drunk drivers, rather than gunshot wounds. Are you also advocating the prohibition of cars, and alcohol for that matter? If they kill a lot of people, they must then be evil, right?

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Then we get to my favourite, the line that all gun loving conspiracy theorists loves. “ I need my guns to protect myself for when the government turn on its people and try to through us all in the FEMA camps”. If that is your reason for keeping a gun, then you shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun based on your sanity. This fantasy that one day the feds are going to come knocking at your door to put you on the FEMA bus, then you, in a spectacular move pull out your Glock and take them all out then spend the rest of your life like the incarnation of the movie Rambo: First Blood, is just a fantasy no more. It’s not going to happen and even if it does your guns won’t do you any good, you will either die or be put in the camps so again I don’t give that fantasy any credibility as a reason to keep a locker full of AR-15’s in bedroom.

The example you describe about is fanciful and not in touch with the reality of every day life in the U.S. However, I will agree that the person(s) you describe above are sounds nutty and I wouldn't give them a gun. However, in the U.S. all persons, nutty or otherwise, have equal protection under the Constitution, and their rights cannot be infringed unless they demonstrate criminal behavior. It's just like free speech.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
So can someone please tell me why you need a gun? In the UK I know no one who owns a gun, and no one I know has ever been disadvantaged because of this why is it that the worlds “super power” is any different, Gun Laws are out of date, rip up the second amendment and join the 21st century .

In the U.S. I know dozens and dozens of legal gun owners. They are not advantaged or disadvantaged by the fact, no more than other people who choose to own a circular saw. You live in a country and society where gun ownership has either been severely restricted or outlawed, and you have acquiesced to that fact. Well, good for you. I sincerely hope you never need a gun, for whatever reason.

I also suspect that you do not understand what it is like to live in the U.S., and that your perceptions about the U.S. and gun ownership are badly skewed, most likely by the internet, the news media, and (hopefully not) the entertainment industry. Contrary to popular belief, if you spent all day walking around America, you would be very hard pressed to find anyone carrying a gun, outside of our police departments. The vast majority of legal guns are locked up in homes, where they belong. This is not the Wild West.

We own guns because it is our right, our will, and our tradition. And we will make it through the 21st century just fine, thank you very much......