Who has seen ...

[MDowdey]

as for bearing arms against some unforeseen threat that our own military can't or won't defeat, i think the odds of that are extremely long

I think Gero meant the bearing of arms against our own military or gov't, should it become corrupt and need to be forcefully removed. At least that's how I read it...

exactly.

 

[Chase]

i'm confused- are you saying that drugs and cars are tools which often result in death, or are you saying that they are things which lead to violence and the use of guns? if you mean the former, i fall back on the argument that guns are designed for the express purpose of killing, and are far and away the most efficient in fulfilling that purpose, thus making them a class by themselves. they should be regulated.

as for bearing arms against some unforeseen threat that our own military can't or won't defeat, i think the odds of that are extremely long, and those odds have to be balanced against the odds that guns will be utilized here and now in such a manner that our very society is torn apart. as for this last, the odds are not very long at all- in fact we are confronted daily with news of just such occurances.

You mentioned that guns should be regulated. Currently, they are, and I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that they shouldn't be. What method or level of regulation are you suggesting?

I think you are also focusing a little too heavily on the topic of military threats, which is only one piece of the puzzle. What about situations of civil unrest? I agree that currently I don't see much of an organized threat from other countries, but what about problems right here at home with our own citizens. One example would be the Los Angeles riots back in 1992. If you lived or worked in that area, how effective do you think the police were at defending homes, businesses and individuals? In this situation, why shouldn't a law abiding citizen have the right to have a gun as a tool to protect themself from the threat surrounding them?

 

[Geronimo]

Following your logic here, why not stop the catalyst for a lot of violence? Drugs ( both alrealy illegal and legal drugs), Alcohol and etc. Why not elimate cars as well

i'm confused- are you saying that drugs and cars are tools which often result in death, or are you saying that they are things which lead to violence and the use of guns? if you mean the former, i fall back on the argument that guns are designed for the express purpose of killing, and are far and away the most efficient in fulfilling that purpose, thus making them a class by themselves. they should be regulated.

as for bearing arms against some unforeseen threat that our own military can't or won't defeat, i think the odds of that are extremely long, and those odds have to be balanced against the odds that guns will be utilized here and now in such a manner that our very society is torn apart. as for this last, the odds are not very long at all- in fact we are confronted daily with news of just such occurances.

The bearing of arms arguement I made was directed towards our own gov't or agencies of the gov't. That was the purpose of the 2nd adm.

The other things I had thrown out there (drugs and etc.) was to show the catalysts of violence. For if you are truely worried about the affects of guns (i.e. your repeated statement about guns are only made to kill) then you should be looking into the causes of violence, not the tools used to carry the violence out. I.E. Cars are effective killing machines when trained on a person or under the control of a loose mind. See the point is not that guns can kill, but that they are simply tools. Just as knifes are tools made to kill. Yes they were made to kill and ripe thing apart.

Not that I agree with your guns are only made to kill statement. They are made to protect. I dont have a gun to kill things with, but to stop things from killing me. But here again is the point of the causes of violence should be brought up. I dont want to kill things but a criminal or drunk or distraught person might or even intend to kill something. There are too many theories on why but the simple truth is the the "motive", lack of judgement or what ever you want to call it, is the thing that kills.

 

[Osmer_Toby]

then you should be looking into the causes of violence

elimination of all causes of violence would involve a fundamental change in humanity itself. would love to see it happen. it won't.

What about situations of civil unrest?

good point. only thing is, situations of this magnitude are very few and far between. weigh that against the daily violence perpetrated with guns and i think it is clear the balance tips in favor of gun control.

I think Gero meant the bearing of arms against our own military or gov't, should it become corrupt and need to be forcefully removed

thank you for the clarification. this is a tough one- if it comes down to street fighting to overcome a corrupt government, i'm not so sure the right to bear small arms, which is all we have now, would do any good what-so-ever against tanks and fighter jets. if we need a law for this contingency, all americans need to be armed with tow anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft batteries.

"Tobacco companies make a product that kills 440,000 Americans a year."--CDC/THE TRUTH

"Tobacco kills more Americans than AIDS, drugs, homicides, fires, and auto accidents combined."--CDC/THE TRUTH


im not quite sure how anyone can sit here and claim a gun is the most effective killing device...

another good point. cigarettes ought to be banned, too
but seriously, how many of those deaths were caused by second hand smoke and how many were the primary smoker? the reason i ask is because at least with cigarettes, you can choose not to smoke. with guns, if someone decides to shoot you, you have no choice in the matter.

You mentioned that guns should be regulated. Currently, they are, and I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that they shouldn't be. What method or level of regulation are you suggesting?

today's gun regulation laws are a joke. we couldn't even get an assault weapons ban made permanent. at the very least, laws should be enacted which will keep these heavy-duty type weapons out of the general population, perhaps along with handguns. i think rifles and shotguns should be allowed, simply because they do have legitimate reasons for use other than killing another human. even when employed for the latter, it's a helluva lot easier to see a shotgun coming than a concealed .44 mag., and you have at least a decent chance of getting the hell out of the way.

 

[manda]

argh
i said i was done

how can u seriously compare guns to cigarettes??
you are talking about inanimate objects and not what the intent is using them is, which is the real issue!

as so many of you argue for your side of the story, its not the guns, its the people. of course its the people.
so what if more people died from cigarettes than guns.
the person who takes up a cigarette does not point it to someone else's head with the intent to kill them.

i dont think guns should be compared to anything on the planet.

cigarettes are not made for the sole purpose of killing.
cars are not made for the sole purpose of killing.

you simply can't compare them.

toby and doxx, your points on the 7th page of this thread were awesome.

 

[Chase]

What about situations of civil unrest?

good point. only thing is, situations of this magnitude are very few and far between. weigh that against the daily violence perpetrated with guns and i think it is clear the balance tips in favor of gun control.

Regardless of how common these situations are, they do happen, have happened, and will happen again. We have the right to protect ourselves. I can't control what another person does when they have a gun, but that shouldn't negate my right to protect myself with one if I choose do to so.

I think Gero meant the bearing of arms against our own military or gov't, should it become corrupt and need to be forcefully removed

thank you for the clarification. this is a tough one- if it comes down to street fighting to overcome a corrupt government, i'm not so sure the right to bear small arms, which is all we have now, would do any good what-so-ever against tanks and fighter jets. if we need a law for this contingency, all americans need to be armed with tow anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft batteries.

I disagree, small arms have been amazingly effective in street fighting situations. As we have seen in Iraq (and I'll ask everyone to leave further Iraq comments out of this situation, this is purely for supportive evidence), a relative few can defend themselves rather effectively against all of the weapons you mentioned when it comes down to urban combat.

You mentioned that guns should be regulated. Currently, they are, and I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that they shouldn't be. What method or level of regulation are you suggesting?

today's gun regulation laws are a joke. we couldn't even get an assault weapons ban made permanent. at the very least, laws should be enacted which will keep these heavy-duty type weapons out of the general population, perhaps along with handguns. i think rifles and shotguns should be allowed, simply because they do have legitimate reasons for use other than killing another human. even when employed for the latter, it's a helluva lot easier to see a shotgun coming than a concealed .44 mag., and you have at least a decent chance of getting the hell out of the way.

You mentioned "heavy-duty" type weapons, but I am curious what your definition of heavy-duty is. A majority of the weapons that were banned were arguably not heavy-duty at all. In fact, many of them were a different style (looked different) than the hunting rifles which people are more comfortable with, but fired the exact same bullet at the exact same firing rate. What would make one of these more heavy-duty than one that was not listed in the ban? In my honest opinion, most of the guns that were listed in these bans were banned based more upon how scary they looked than being any more dangerous than other weapons.

You also mentioned the term assualt weapon, again I'm curious what your definition is. Out of curiousity, I looked up a formal definition on dictionary.com and found an entry which was somewhat vague...

An infantry weapon, such as an assault rifle, designed for individual use.

This entry mentioned assault rifles as an example, which lead me to 2 more definitions:

1. Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

2. any of the automatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use

In the first definitiion, it mentioned any rifles designed for use in combat. Which brings me back to my point that in many cases these "military style" rifles have very little difference between an average hunting rifle. A common difference is what material the gun stock is made out of (wood vs. other materials), which makes very little difference as far as how dangerous a weapon is.

The second definition specifically points to automatic rifles which, to my understanding, are already banned.

The bottom line to me is that I can understand people not wanting others to have guns, but that doesn't mean the right to own guns should be taken away.

As for some of the discussion on the 2nd Amendment...

John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann

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.

Boy...was that long enough for everyone??

 

[Osmer_Toby]

I disagree, small arms have been amazingly effective in street fighting situations. As we have seen in Iraq (and I'll ask everyone to leave further Iraq comments out of this situation, this is purely for supportive evidence), a relative few can defend themselves rather effectively against all of the weapons you mentioned when it comes down to urban combat.

do you really believe the us military in iraq is exercising its full strength? the only reason the "relative few" are not ashes in the wind is because the us military is constrained to fight with one arm, hell, both arms tied behind its back- the relative few are hiding in areas where if we go after them full-bore, we'll lose completely the propaganda war being waged worldwide.

 

[Osmer_Toby]

I can't control what another person does when they have a gun, but that shouldn't negate my right to protect myself with one if I choose do to so.

using this logic, nothing should be illegal: i can't control what another person does when they have ___________, but that shouldn't negate my right to have __________ if i chose to do so.

insert any illegal substance or item into blanks.

 

[Chase]

I disagree, small arms have been amazingly effective in street fighting situations. As we have seen in Iraq (and I'll ask everyone to leave further Iraq comments out of this situation, this is purely for supportive evidence), a relative few can defend themselves rather effectively against all of the weapons you mentioned when it comes down to urban combat.

do you really believe the us military in iraq is exercising its full strength? the only reason the "relative few" are not ashes in the wind is because the us military is constrained to fight with one arm, hell, both arms tied behind its back- the relative few are hiding in areas where if we go after them full-bore, we'll lose completely the propaganda war being waged worldwide.

No, I don't. But by the same token, I'm not sure the military would excercise its full strength against its own people either.

 

[Chase]

I can't control what another person does when they have a gun, but that shouldn't negate my right to protect myself with one if I choose do to so.

using this logic, nothing should be illegal: i can't control what another person does when they have ___________, but that shouldn't negate my right to have __________ if i chose to do so.

insert any illegal substance or item into blanks.

I think the logic is relatively clear. If someone uses an object for a "bad" purpose, that shouldn't automatically take away my right to own such an item. That is similar to punishing a group of people when one person in that group does something wrong. In the end, how does that solve the problem?

Making it illegal to own items as a whole, doesn't solve issues. I know this is a tired argument, but many drugs are illegal...how hard is it to get any of them? Why would it be any more difficult to get illegal guns (which already happens anyway) if all of them were banned?

It also concerns me when people talk about banning items, because where does it stop? Is someone going to promise us, for example, that only "dangerous" items will be banned? Assuming we believe that to begin with, who then gets the right to define what a dangerous item is?

 

[Osmer_Toby]

I think the logic is relatively clear. If someone uses an object for a "bad" purpose, that shouldn't automatically take away my right to own such an item.

no, it shouldn't, and i agree. not just any old "bad" object should be banned, but what you have to take into account is the degree of "badness," as well as the overall effect it has on society. caffeine is a drug, yet consumed daily by the public at large with nary a second thought. crack cocaine is also a drug, but is illegal. why? what's the difference between the two?

crack is illegal because, in the hands of a significant number of individuals, it is highly destructive to society as a whole. same with certain classes of firearms.

 

[Chase]

I think the logic is relatively clear. If someone uses an object for a "bad" purpose, that shouldn't automatically take away my right to own such an item.

no, it shouldn't, and i agree. not just any old "bad" object should be banned, but what you have to take into account is the degree of "badness," as well as the overall effect it has on society. caffeine is a drug, yet consumed daily by the public at large with nary a second thought. crack cocaine is also a drug, but is illegal. why? what's the difference between the two?

crack is illegal because, in the hands of a significant number of individuals, it is highly destructive to society as a whole. same with certain classes of firearms.

Your last statement implies that certain classes of firearms in the hands of a significant number of individuals would be highly destructive to society as a whole, which I disagree with.

Society is in the process of breaking down for a number of reasons, but I don't believe owning a gun is a major contributing factor. Gun use may increase along with the problems a society faces, but the gun use is a result of the societal issues, not a cause of the societal issues. If gun ownership were the cause, you'd see the negative effects of gun ownership in places like Switzerland and Israel where gun ownership is high, yet gun related crimes are low. What is the difference between those places and here? Its not the guns, it is society and culture in general.

 

[Osmer_Toby]

Society is in the process of breaking down for a number of reasons, but I don't believe owning a gun is a major contributing factor. Gun use may increase along with the problems a society faces, but the gun use is a result of the societal issues, not a cause of the societal issues

been to the inner city recently? for responsible people like you and me, owning a gun does not contribute to the rapidly accelerating decay of our society. in the hands of those who could not care less what their actions portend, access to guns is a very real contributing factor to that decay. ask any beat cop who works the inner city. every single damn one of them are sure to tell you they favor handgun control.

whether you argue a cancer is a cause or a symptom, does it not make sense to cut it out before it metastizes further?

 

[photogoddess]

I agree with Chase wholeheartedly. I lived near the area of the LA riots and it was a very scary time. My husband had to work right in the middle of some of the riot zones and carried a gun in his vehicle for protection. He was a Marine so I know that he was well aware of how to use it to protect himself if need be. Illegal yes, but we firmly believe that we would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. The fact that we have had the need to arm ourselves in our lifetime should be a strong reminder of why our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment. The police were either incapable or unwilling (scared? – justifiably so) to protect the citizens. Many people and their businesses survived through that time due to the people’s ability to arm themselves.

Just because some people choose to use a tool (yes, a gun is a tool) to commit crime, doesn’t mean that it should be banned. Many other tools have been used to commit some pretty horrific crimes. For example, it has been told that box cutters were used to hijack the jets that were flown into the Twin Towers. How many were killed in those instances? I haven’t heard anyone rally to ban box cutters. Guns serve many purposes in our lives. Recreation, something to collect, to protect our families and yes, sometimes to kill.

Some of the reasons that are used to set a certain weapon aside as an assault weapon are ridiculous. Example, the Russian SKS which is a rifle that was used by the military. It’s just a plain old rifle and is completely legal to own - Unless it has a bayonet lug on it. With the bayonet lug, it is considered an assault weapon and is consequently a federal offense to own one. No other difference in the gun – just a bayonet mount. Obviously some politician was either completely swayed by the scary appearance of the bayonet mount or was concerned about a possible rash of drive by bayonetings.

Toby said “today's gun regulation laws are a joke. we couldn't even get an assault weapons ban made permanent. at the very least, laws should be enacted which will keep these heavy-duty type weapons out of the general population, perhaps along with handguns. i think rifles and shotguns should be allowed, simply because they do have legitimate reasons for use other than killing another human. even when employed for the latter, it's a helluva lot easier to see a shotgun coming than a concealed .44 mag., and you have at least a decent chance of getting the hell out of the way.”

I am surprised that people really feel that way. This isn’t directed specifically at Toby but to anyone in general who shares the above logic. Personally, I can hit 6 shots in a 4” group with my hunting rifle at 300 yards. If I were a cold-blooded killer and was aiming at you from 300 yards away, do you really think you would see it coming? Rifles are pretty much worthless at close range. Even with shotguns, you still have to have a distance between you and your target to be effective. The reality is, if someone attacked you with a handgun, you would see it coming long before you saw a bullet headed at you from 300 or more yards away.

 

[Osmer_Toby]

Personally, I can hit 6 shots in a 4” group with my hunting rifle at 300 yards.

how many inner city kids buying a gun on the street can claim to do this? compared to how many inner city kids buying a gun on the street can claim to be able to put a bullet in cashier's belly after walking in the store and looking quite innocent right up until he pulls the gun out of his jacket?