Gun Ownership

[krisvds]

I think this is just sick. I have never understood why some insist the free carrying of firearms is a form of personal freedom. I could never feel free in a surrounding where every nitwit could come by a weapon as easily as is the case in some places. If the above proves anything it's that this has more to do with cynical economics than fighting for your freedom.

[babomb]

The right to keep and bear arms is an essential right in our constitution. It not a coincidence that it's the 2nd amendment. 2nd only to free speech. It's about personal responsibility! Many of us Americans don't feel comfortable relying on the authorities to keep us safe. Because, well, they really can't keep us safe. They're never there when things go down, only after the fact. So it's on us as individuals to keep ourselves and our families safe. And being a democracy, each state reserves the right to allow it's citizens the privilege to carry a firearm on their person if they meet the criteria needed in order to do so. We don't really have problems with guns in the hands of those who've obtained them legally. Our gun problems come from guns in the hands of those who've obtained them and carry them ILLEGALLY! And laws don't do anything about that because criminals don't follow laws, that's why they're criminals. Most Americans that own guns have been around them their entire lives. I know that I don't personally feel uncomfortable around people who are carrying guns. Most states that allow conceal(or open) carry require the person applying for the permit to have completed a firearms safety course, not to mention an extensive background check and a letter of authorization from the state and country sheriff. So it's not really as easy as many people believe. It's just that when your exposure to firearms is extremely limited, and you listen to what the liberal media spouts about gun violence, all you end up with is fear regarding firearms. What scares me is being around people who aren't very familiar with firearms and regard them with fear! That's a recipe for disaster! I don't feel as if my personal freedoms are in any way limited by people walking around with guns. Those who have gone through the right channels and obtained a permit to carry a gun are very protective over their right to do so. And they understand that some sort of stupid incident involving someone with a CCW is the quickest way to have that right revoked. IMO, it's much more likely for me to be hit by a car while crossing the street or driving, than to be shot down by a law abiding citizen with a CCW for no apparent reason. And they give 16 year old kids drivers licenses. But I'm an American who believes in freedom and exercises personal responsibility, so there will never come a time that i call on the federal government to pass legislature to make me feel safer. Because having the FED pass laws to keep me safe has the direct opposite effect on me. And in all honesty, the FED itself is the biggest reason why the right to keep and bear arms is such an essential liberty. Our own government is the biggest threat to our liberties. And if the populace was unarmed, there would be nothing stopping them from becoming a tyranny of terrifying proportions! Trading liberty for safety is JUST WRONG!!! And you never get those liberties back once you surrender them.

[Thorn]

Every person, and every culture will have an opinion here. In the states it is a hot button topic than can often lead to a fiery exchange of opinions with people spitting out facts, half truths, or pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo. The one reality is in our country at least we are allowed by our governing laws to own and use firearms (specific regulations cover many) While I can not say it always allows you defend yourself, or that every legal gun is used the right way there are many times having guns around has made people feel more secure, and enabled them to in fact defend their home and their property.

[babomb]

Yes, Thorn you're right on the money on all counts. Nobody can say that every legal firearm is used legally, or that a firearm will always allow you to defend yourself. And is is indeed a hot button topic that leads to some very emotional exchanges on both sides. I seriously hope to avoid that. I've been involved with discussions like that before and it never does anything for anyone. My stand on it has always been that firearms are just tools. Like hammers, knives, vehicles. And none of these things do anything when not in the hands of a human being. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. When a person decides to use a firearm in the commission of a crime, he doesn't spontaneously decide to do this because he picked up a gun. He picks up the gun as the tool to be used to commit the crime he already planned to commit. Also, it's always seemed to me that those who take an anti-gun point of view are not at all familiar with them, and have not really been around them very much(most of the time not at all). Maybe the few times they've been around them were stressful because up until then they'd been taught to view them with fear, and they ARE much louder than they seem to be on TV. It just depends on a persons disposition. Some people have a very fearful disposition toward everything. So they think things like fast cars, motorcycles and ATV's, guns, skateboards, contact sports are simply unnecessary and shouldn't be available to the general public. I know people like that.

[krisvds]

Also, it's always seemed to me that those who take an anti-gun point of view are not at all familiar with them, and have not really been around them very much(most of the time not at all). Maybe the few times they've been around them were stressful because up until then they'd been taught to view them with fear, and they ARE much louder than they seem to be on TV. It just depends on a persons disposition. Some people have a very fearful disposition toward everything. So they think things like fast cars, motorcycles and ATV's, guns, skateboards, contact sports are simply unnecessary and shouldn't be available to the general public. I know people like that. That's true in my case, I grew up in Belgium where it's quite hard to obtain a weapon. That being said I don't live in fear of may of the things you talk about. I do believe (firmly) in personal freedom and responsability. It's just that I don't believe all people to be just that: responsible. All I'm saying is that in a crowd of many you only need one nutcase to go haywire to do a lot of damage... You say it's up to you to keep your family safe, not the authorities. Perhaps if there were less weapons in circulation there would be less need to defend them with lethal force? Isn't it true that in a democracy we have police forces and courts working within the boundaries of well defined laws in order to prevent everyone becoming their own judge? I sometimes feel the personal liberty story is misused by people in order to defend a society where everyone upheld their own law and order. I'm glad that isn't the case. It is just that kind of society where an armed individual could excert his own form of justice that frightens me. I know some people in the city where I live have a very different perspective on certain morality issues than I do. Only last week there was a big riot near a school where literally hundreds of hot-blooded youngsters where called to arms via facebook and other media because of a simple love story gone wrong. (basically a young girl had hooked up with a young boy who didn't have the correct religion, I kid you not, and her brother and his gang thought it wise to teach said boy a lesson by sending him to hospital) Things got out of hand. At times like these I'm glad it's harder to obtain a gun here. There was no reasoning with these guys. I'm also glad the police showed up to bring them to justice before things got really ugly. I respect everyone's opinion on this matter, mind you, and your reasoning sounds, well reasonable. It's just that because you are against possession of firearms, that doesn't make you a scared bleeding heart liberal or whatever term you guys use. Just thes ame; I do realise that not everyone defending the right to carry firearms is a John Wayne style cowboy.The world just isn't as black or white as that. I sure didn't want to start a debate like that. This site of zombie lovers, of all places, tends to have discussions that are les internet-y in that respect

[Thorn]

That's true in my case, I grew up in Belgium where it's quite hard to obtain a weapon. That being said I don't live in fear of may of the things you talk about. I do believe (firmly) in personal freedom and responsability. It's just that I don't believe all people to be just that: responsible. All I'm saying is that in a crowd of many you only need one nutcase to go haywire to do a lot of damage... You say it's up to you to keep your family safe, not the authorities. Perhaps if there were less weapons in circulation there would be less need to defend them with lethal force? Isn't it true that in a democracy we have police forces and courts working within the boundaries of well defined laws in order to prevent everyone becoming their own judge? I sometimes feel the personal liberty story is misused by people in order to defend a society where everyone upheld their own law and order. I'm glad that isn't the case. It is just that kind of society where an armed individual could excert his own form of justice that frightens me. I know some people in the city where I live have a very different perspective on certain morality issues than I do. Only last week there was a big riot near a school where literally hundreds of hot-blooded youngsters where called to arms via facebook and other media because of a simple love story gone wrong. (basically a young girl had hooked up with a young boy who didn't have the correct religion, I kid you not, and her brother and his gang thought it wise to teach said boy a lesson by sending him to hospital) Things got out of hand. At times like these I'm glad it's harder to obtain a gun here. There was no reasoning with these guys. I'm also glad the police showed up to bring them to justice before things got really ugly. I respect everyone's opinion on this matter, mind you, and your reasoning sounds, well reasonable. It's just that because you are against possession of firearms, that doesn't make you a scared bleeding heart liberal or whatever term you guys use. Just thes ame; I do realise that not everyone defending the right to carry firearms is a John Wayne style cowboy.The world just isn't as black or white as that. I sure didn't want to start a debate like that. This site of zombie lovers, of all places, tends to have discussions that are les internet-y in that respect I guess to me I see it like this... if you take guns out of circulation, criminals will use Knives, bats, or numbers against you. Either way if a criminal wants to commit a crime they will and they will just do so using whatever tools are at their disposal. I find my daughter's chances to defend herself against an armed intruder with a gun better than her chances hand to hand with cricket bats. Fire it in the area of the intruder and a good percentage are apt to run. Not all mind you but at the end of the day my feeling is a female or a weaker male can defend themselves at range well with firearms without having to worry about a big Brutus type getting his hands on them. There are still firearms in countries where none are allowed, and that says ti me if you want it you can get it anyway, so.... making it harder may help deter firearm crimes but not crimes themselves and those determined enough will still get what they want and they say don't bring a knife to a gunfight and I agree with that logic.

[Mike70]

i have guns and know how to use them because i believe in the govt's (or any other authorities) ability to protect me about as much as i believe in the tooth fairy. i'll take self reliance any day over waiting for some ass in suit to make a decision that concerns my well being. as far as survival goes, there are a few basic skills that i think everyone and i mean everyone should learn: how to swim how to perform basic first aid - stop bleeding, CPR, heimlich maneuver, clean/dress basic wounds how to start a fire from a number of sources how to find water. in most places, it is right under your feet.

[babomb]

That's true in my case, I grew up in Belgium where it's quite hard to obtain a weapon. That being said I don't live in fear of may of the things you talk about. I do believe (firmly) in personal freedom and responsability. It's just that I don't believe all people to be just that: responsible. All I'm saying is that in a crowd of many you only need one nutcase to go haywire to do a lot of damage... I agree that there are more irresponsible people than not, and that all it does take is 1 nutjob to do damage. But I don't think that the answer to irresponsibility or lone nutters is to revoke the rights and privilege of those who ARE responsible and have earned those rights and privileges. That just doesn't seem logical. In that sense, then the irresponsible and nutjobs are the ones who are setting the standard for everyone else. And that doesn't seem right to me at all. I'd rather see much stiffer penalties for those who use firearms to commit crimes. You say it's up to you to keep your family safe, not the authorities. Perhaps if there were less weapons in circulation there would be less need to defend them with lethal force? It's not really that simple though. That just means that there would be less firearms in the hands of the people who are responsible enough to handle them. Because there will still be firearms being produced for police and military, they will still be transported by standard means, and produced in factories by civilians. So there will still be ample opportunity for those firearms to make into the hands of criminals. It's a money game in that regard, there's money in black market weapons and where there's demand there's supply. This is a capitalism issue that goes beyond firearms. The black market for weapons has alot to do with rogue nations, the former soviet union, so it's not as simple as just taking more weapons out of circulation. If it were that would probably already be the case. There's other issues with what is classified as an actual firearm. People can buy kits that include only specific parts of a firearm that themselves aren't considered a firearm, then have the missing components machined privately. There will always be ways to circumvent the law, and the more laws the more creative the ways to get around them. next thing you know we're living in an all out totalitarian state where everything is illegal and regulated. So while I understand your sentiments on this, what you're saying is to enact more legislature to control firearms. Which has far worse implications than simply limiting the amount of weapons in circulation. It's basically giving more power to an already power hungry and out of control federal government, much of which would like to see private ownership of firearms completely done away with. And the way they acheive that is to chip away at the peoples rights little by little. So even what seems like a small thing to you, ultimately ends up part of a larger scheme that further erodes the liberties of the people. Isn't it true that in a democracy we have police forces and courts working within the boundaries of well defined laws in order to prevent everyone becoming their own judge? I sometimes feel the personal liberty story is misused by people in order to defend a society where everyone upheld their own law and order. That's 2 different issues though. A person who feels so emotional about something that's been done to them that they feel vindicated in taking the law into their own hands isn't gonna be discouraged by a lack of a firearm. They're just gonna use some other means. So then what? Require permits to own knives? Limit non-professional ball players from owning anything but wiffle ball or T-ball bats? There's still hammers and wrenches, fire, running people down in vehicles, metal pipes. How would you prevent those from being used in a crime or as the tools of the vigilante? My point is just that when you start regulating everything for the good of the people, where does it end? That kind of regulation has a habit of becoming oppressive, and being used for political and monetary gain. At least here in the US. Everything will eventually be exploited politically and monetarily. Everything is a business! Especially the creation of laws and what they allow and prohibit. Just look at the war on drugs. has that been successful? No. So why would a war on guns be any different? Only last week there was a big riot near a school where literally hundreds of hot-blooded youngsters where called to arms via facebook and other media because of a simple love story gone wrong. (basically a young girl had hooked up with a young boy who didn't have the correct religion, I kid you not, and her brother and his gang thought it wise to teach said boy a lesson by sending him to hospital) Things got out of hand. At times like these I'm glad it's harder to obtain a gun here. There was no reasoning with these guys. I'm also glad the police showed up to bring them to justice before things got really ugly. That's a religious issue. religion has been killing folks since long before the invention of black powder. But these are still personal decisions that people make. And this says to me that things like this will happen even if people don't have access to firearms. I don't really think that incident would've resulted in a shooting anyway. Unless the victim were armed and defended himself against that group of thugs. And if that were the case, then that's the consequence of acting like a moronic thug and attacking someone for no real reason. That's exactly the type of situation that makes me glad that in America we have firearms to allow us to defend ourselves against those types of people. Had that victim been armed, the situation would've played out much differently. Had the thugs known the victim would've been armed, the whole thing would probably never had happened at all. I respect everyone's opinion on this matter, mind you, and your reasoning sounds, well reasonable. It's just that because you are against possession of firearms, that doesn't make you a scared bleeding heart liberal or whatever term you guys use. Just thes ame; I do realise that not everyone defending the right to carry firearms is a John Wayne style cowboy. I wasn't calling you a bleeding heart liberal. Not sure if that would even apply to you as you're not an American. My comment was about the liberal media, and how they apply their own political spin to things and make it seem like it's the firearms that are killing people and not the people who are pulling the trigger. The liberal mindstate is the "nanny state", a feminized state of mind where security is more important than liberty, and everything needs to be regulated to prevent people from hurting themselves or other people. Where feelings are more important than facts and everybody is a winner, even when they lose. I respect your opinion on this. I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, just trying to point out why it is that I disagree with the premise of limiting the ownership of firearms.

[krisvds]

I agree that there are more irresponsible people than not, and that all it does take is 1 nutjob to do damage. But I don't think that the answer to irresponsibility or lone nutters is to revoke the rights and privilege of those who ARE responsible and have earned those rights and privileges. That just doesn't seem logical. In that sense, then the irresponsible and nutjobs are the ones who are setting the standard for everyone else. And that doesn't seem right to me at all. I'd rather see much stiffer penalties for those who use firearms to commit crimes. That is probably the most convincing argument against how I feel about this matter there is. It's a delicate juggling act isn't it, on the one hand personal freedom, and on the other, well, safety. It's basically giving more power to an already power hungry and out of control federal government, much of which would like to see private ownership of firearms completely done away with. And the way they acheive that is to chip away at the peoples rights little by little. So even what seems like a small thing to you, ultimately ends up part of a larger scheme that further erodes the liberties of the people. True enough. But I don't feel the Belgian government (which has very strict regulations regarding possession of firearms and other weapons, you CAN obtain them but have to pass a test every few months to keep your license, you can't cary them on the streets, etc,...) is totalitarian in that way. I guess the common European view on the matter is just different. The same applies to freedom of speech; it's a bit more regulated here. In Belgium you can be convicted for denying the shoah for instance, a political party was sentenced and disbanded a couple of years ago for being openly fascist and racist. (they just started anew under a different name and with less blatantly racist propaganda though, they are still here) These things would never occur in the States I believe. I wasn't calling you a bleeding heart liberal. Not sure if that would even apply to you as you're not an American. My comment was about the liberal media, and how they apply their own political spin to things and make it seem like it's the firearms that are killing people and not the people who are pulling the trigger. The liberal mindstate is the "nanny state", a feminized state of mind where security is more important than liberty, and everything needs to be regulated to prevent people from hurting themselves or other people. Where feelings are more important than facts and everybody is a winner, even when they lose. I respect your opinion on this. I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, just trying to point out why it is that I disagree with the premise of limiting the ownership of firearms. Havent personal liberties been under a lot of stress these past eleven years, in your country as well after those dreadfull terrorist attacks? 9/11, the patriot act, Guantanamo and such. I think you and I agree on this: citizens have to be very careful with how our elected governments are treating our liberties. This also includes our right to safety, privacy, freedom of speech and religion. It is indeed a shame the media (and that goes for Europe as much as for the States I believe) are so intertwined with capitalist sensibilities that all journalistic integrity (being the watchhound of democracy and such) is going out the window in favour of 'sensationalism' and profits. If my mother taught me anything it's this; you will never ever convince anyone of anything. They convince themselves or they don't.

[AcesandEights]

I can't even begin to express how enjoyable it is to see people on opposite ends of the spectrum have an actual give and take conversation on this topic and remain civil and genuine. Hope I haven't shot this thread in the foot or tempted fate too much by saying so.

[Neil]

This has been discussed so much over the years. First, in the US, there are so many guns in the public domain, to try and back track would be a nigh on impossible task. Certainly it would take generation(s). And then there's the matter (as we can see above) it's a cultural expectation to own a gun. Second, living in a country (UK) where gun ownship is not common, I must admit I prefer the idea of keeping it that way. I like the idea I know it's incredibly unlikely I will not meet a drug user with a gun, my children will not face an angry kid with a gun, my partner will not be confronted by a rapist with a gun etc etc... Yes I know other weapons can be used, but a gun is rather effective at what it's designed to do, "kill" - You don't hear about 50 people being stabbed to death for example by a lunatic... Also, I suspect I might be able to outrun a knife, but a bullet is a different matter. Would I like to own a gun? Of course! Would it make me feel safer? Of course... But not at the expense of allowing every nutter in the country to also stand a far greater chance of owning one!

[shootemindehead]

Americans are correct. Their governments cannot protect them and they have no intention of doing so either. They're happy to allow rampant gun ownership and are willing to put up with the most ridiculous rate of gun crime that the world has ever seen in any civilised country, rather than actually try and control the situation through legal means. U.S. governments are more happy to have the by-product of population control due to gun death, than limiting gun death by instituting gun control. The "right to bear arms" and the other niceties that's usually raised by staunch proponents of gun ownership never take into account the actual type of guns that are available on the market these days. Some of which are truly frightening. That element of the constitution that's always dragged out, dusted off and presented was written by people who never conceived of Tec-9's, UZI's, SR-25's and what have you. The "right to bear arms" was written with muskets in mind, not assault rifles, with suppressors attached. Nor, was it written the fact in mind that the citizenry of the country would be offing themselves in record numbers. I agree with Neil here. Gun ownership is not common in my country either and I'd like to keep it that way. Sure, those that may wish you harm can carry knives etc. But you have to get close with a knife and that's a whole different kettle of fish for the person wielding the weapon. Any gobshite can pull a trigger and they don't even have to come near you.

[Danny]

TLR american police carry guns so the people do in the event that the police ever become an instrument to remove peoples freedoms and human rights using them against them. some of those people are criminals, hence why the police have them anyway. Its a genie let out the bottle and cannot be undone. In a perfect world nobody would have them, but in a country like america it is what it is. That said there is a world of difference between a firearm or a hunting rifle and some of the modern "can kill 30 people in 5 seconds" automatic rifles that have no place outside of a battlefield in a war. Look at that dude in norway who just went up to a group of kids with a machine gun and decided to 'go scarface' on them. theres firearms, then there is FUKKEN GUNZ YEEHAW. Thats a world of difference that requires stringent control.

[SymphonicX]

I think it's testament to the maturity of the members here that this thread didn't dissolve into madness at post 2. To me, discussing this issue with Americans is like approaching Christians about abortion - it's a very personal issue that the individual will usually defend their view on to the end of the earth. Personally I've made my feelings known for a while - I don't believe whatsoever in gun ownership yet I'm fully aware that for a culture such as the US, gun ownership is almost necessary for some people. It's too far gone for us in the UK and other non-gun-nutty countries to sit here in our armchairs professing we know better than those who live in America day to day. The perspective of someone living in around or near fear will be greatly different from someone sitting in merry little England where the worse they're likely to experience is getting a brick thrown through a train window or racially abused by kids in hoodies. It's a different kettle of fish altogether. What really needs discussing is what Michael Moore talked about all those years ago in Bowling for Columbine - the notion that America lives in a greater degree of fear and terror than the rest of the world due to their media exposure and inherrently racist institutions.

[LouCipherr]

The "right to bear arms" was written with muskets in mind, not assault rifles, with suppressors attached. Nor, was it written the fact in mind that the citizenry of the country would be offing themselves in record numbers. Also, keep in mind that the "right to bear arms" was also instituted in the US as a precaution by the founding fathers against an out of control government. Part of the reason for those rights is so the citizens could "rise up" against the government (ie: revolution) if they get out of control. That's not the "only" purpose of these rights, but it was certainly a factor and is discussed elsewhere by the founding fathers themselves. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson TLR american police carry guns so the people do in the event that the police ever become an instrument to remove peoples freedoms and human rights using them against them. some of those people are criminals, hence why the police have them anyway. Its a genie let out the bottle and cannot be undone. Very true, Danny. In a perfect world nobody would have them, but in a country like america it is what it is. Yup. The problem now, is, you take away the guns and only the criminals will have them which is exactly what you do not want. It's too late to go back and take them away. “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...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 That said there is a world of difference between a firearm or a hunting rifle and some of the modern "can kill 30 people in 5 seconds" automatic rifles that have no place outside of a battlefield in a war..<snip> Thats a world of difference that requires stringent control. Agreed - both you and shootem (and probably several others, but tl;dr) are dead-on. There's a huge difference between being "allowed to own a gun" and being allowed to own shit like automatic assault rifles and UZIs. Control is required, but complete restriction is out of the question at this point.