[Geezer]

Well good for you. But you might not want to advertise that you have guns on your premises too much.

Guns are one of the most popular things that people like to steal.

[graham.d]

I'm sure all you gun-toting advocates contributing here are very responsible people. However the statistical data suggest that many people are not. I don't hold with the idea that Americans are naturally more violent than people in other countries, though I would note that the very high spread in wealth distribution may be a factor in the high crime rate and, maybe as a result, the high homicide rate.

I think that the most common reason given for gun ownership is personal protection. The justification for having a gun for hunting or protection against wild animals has some justification, but this does not correlate well with the types of gun most popularly sold. The protection justification is usually based on the slightly circular argument that there are a lot of guns out there and the bad guys have them; the circular part being that we therefore should allow more guns to be available to everyone. A handgun ban with a heavy penalty for unlawful possession would remove this justification within around a decade I would suggest.

There is also the effect of the powerful gun lobby supported strongly by arms manufacturers. Those who are not affected by the power of the media, which reflects, to some extent, both the status quo and also the desires of political and business lobbies, are in a small minority of unusual recluses. We are all affected by this combination of ignoble influence, political dogma and positive feedback. The degree to which this affects people's views is a hard thing to accept for many.

The other argument used in favour of retaining guns is the idea that it is the person that kills and not the weapon by itself. Whilst this is indeed unquestionably true, the ease with such an action can be taken with a gun compared with a big stick or even a knife means the types of weapon available is an importent consideration. Human nature is such that people, especially young men, can be raised to anger and this can lead to loss of control. Whilst this may lead to a fight it will rarely result in a homicide. Guns are a too easy response and can kill from a remote position. The effect is usually immediate and final. Even fatal accidents with guns can be a problem despite sensible advice on taking suitable precautions.

[yor_on]

Yeah, it's a hard question. Considering that the 'Gun allowance' was thought to be one of the things defending the right of every individual to be able to defend himself and the constitution (namely USA) once when it was decided, it indeed is a 'right'.

But considering that the same Government today can drop a real good fuel bomb on you as you wave your Kalashnikov defending your constitutional rights, I'm not that impressed over that argument. 

When it comes to food I tend to side with them pointing out that we have super markets taking care of that. Hunting is assuredly a 'kick' for those doing it, making them able to do one of the most sublime thing known, Snuffing someones life out. In a world where we all find ourselves increasingly marginalized, made into cogs in a machine, it's understandable that we want to keep those few things proving ourselves so much better than something else. and what better proof than to kill it?

As for the argument of getting and being close to nature
In a way sure. Like the cavemans huh? Fighting for ya wimma, but with that trusty Kalashnikov instead of a flint-axe.

Still, we are killers, all of us are. And the food we find in the super store is killed too, although not by me personally.

[Geezer]

I'm not a hunter, or a gun owner myself (unless you count a BB rifle as a gun) but it's traditional around here for everybody to go a'hunting. A friend of mine got a moose this year. I tried some of the stew his wife made, and I'm afraid to say it was jolly good.

[CGNFOREVER]

Yeah, it's a hard question. Considering that the 'Gun allowance' was thought to be one of the things defending the right of every individual to be able to defend himself and the constitution (namely USA) once when it was decided, it indeed is a 'right'.

But considering that the same Government today can drop a real good fuel bomb on you as you wave your Kalashnikov defending your constitutional rights, I'm not that impressed over that argument. 

When it comes to food I tend to side with them pointing out that we have super markets taking care of that. Hunting is assuredly a 'kick' for those doing it, making them able to do one of the most sublime thing known, Snuffing someones life out. In a world where we all find ourselves increasingly marginalized, made into cogs in a machine, it's understandable that we want to keep those few things proving ourselves so much better than something else. and what better proof than to kill it?

As for the argument of getting and being close to nature
In a way sure. Like the cavemans huh? Fighting for ya wimma, but with that trusty Kalashnikov instead of a flint-axe.

Still, we are killers, all of us are. And the food we find in the super store is killed too, although not by me personally.

Have you ever Heard of Iraq and Afghanistan.The Taliban is doing a pretty good job without bigger weapons..Now there are well over 600 thousand hunters in the United States, you don't think they would have an impact on an invading army?You're lying to yourself if you disagree.Not every solider is going to be in a tank or an aircraft..

Europeans are a strange bunch,The Europeans that wanted to leave left and came to America the ones that couldn't or wanted to side with monarchies and more controllable governments stayed.This is why I think you all are so anti gun.Your governments told you that guns are bad by banning them or putting stringent gun laws in place and you all seem to be happy with it.Here in the U.S people want less government control and more freedom's to do as they please.American's tend to get pissed when the government over steps its bounds and I contribute that american culture and to the immigrants that left Europe because of governments that were to strict.Also immigrants came here to start over with a better life and part of that was the promise of freedoms they might not otherwise have.

Banning guns doesn't accomplish safety it accomplishes a false sense of safety.We aren't allowed to have guns so we are safe and no one is going to shoot us,WRONG.I believe that proved its self to be true with the shootings in England a few months back.

This video is a must to watch,skip to 2.22 to watch the good stuff.

its long but worth it.
newbielink:http://blogs.redding.com/bross/archives/2010/12/the-worlds-larg.html [nonactive]

[graham.d]

"Banning guns doesn't accomplish safety it accomplishes a false sense of safety.We aren't allowed to have guns so we are safe and no one is going to shoot us,WRONG.I believe that proved its self to be true with the shootings in England a few months back."

I don't think the statistics on fatal killings per capita bear you out on this.

I'm glad that you appreciate the history of what was behind the amendment. Not everyone does so. The reasons for the granting of the right to bear arms was important at the time, but it did not actually mean it quite in the way it has turned out. I believe it was intended to allow the formation of organised militia independent of the state, which could indeed still be a feature of the current situation. I don't think it was thought necessary by the founding fathers as a tool for self protection against crimes by fellow citizens using those same weapons. I actually don't see it as a very likely scenario that Americans are likely to take a weapons' led revolutionary stance against their elected government. And I don't see this to be likely in any democratic state at the present time - and not because the democratic states are necessarily really representative, but mainly that the overall systems that have been developed tend to favour the status quo anyway. Revolutions do not tend to occur in democracies. Do you really think that this is anything close to a prime reason why many people in the US bear arms? If so, there are a lot of dangerous people out there who currently are not regarded as criminals. Is it not more likely that, if you think that you are the last line of defence against an invading army, that this might just be an "invented", if only slightly plausible, excuse. With all the defence power that the US has got, I don't really think anyone would get close. There are countries that can justify this (e.g. Israel), but not the US.

Not all European countries forbid gun ownership by the way. Switzerland is an example and they have a relatively low crime rate, so I would agree gun ownership does not necessarily result in a high homicide rate, but it does in some places. The reasons can be complex. The UK has a rising problem with gun crime but it is still very low and there is general popular agreement about having tight gun laws. I don't see the need in the near future to rise up against the government either and, in any case, asymmetric wars do not tend to involve gun battles against professional, heavily armed, troops; it would be a lousy strategy.

[Geezer]

Futher anecdotal evidence:

Not long after we moved from the UK to the USA, I was chatting with a church minister, and I brought up the subject of guns. I was rabbiting on about how bad I thought it was that so many people in the US felt the need to own hand guns.

After a bit, I realized he wasn't exactly in full agreement with what I was saying, then he mentioned that he always kept a loaded revolver in his bedside table. Put a bit of a damper on the conversation, let me tell you.

[CGNFOREVER]

"Banning guns doesn't accomplish safety it accomplishes a false sense of safety.We aren't allowed to have guns so we are safe and no one is going to shoot us,WRONG.I believe that proved its self to be true with the shootings in England a few months back."

I don't think the statistics on fatal killings per capita bear you out on this.

I'm glad that you appreciate the history of what was behind the amendment. Not everyone does so. The reasons for the granting of the right to bear arms was important at the time, but it did not actually mean it quite in the way it has turned out. I believe it was intended to allow the formation of organised militia independent of the state, which could indeed still be a feature of the current situation. I don't think it was thought necessary by the founding fathers as a tool for self protection against crimes by fellow citizens using those same weapons. I actually don't see it as a very likely scenario that Americans are likely to take a weapons' led revolutionary stance against their elected government. And I don't see this to be likely in any democratic state at the present time - and not because the democratic states are necessarily really representative, but mainly that the overall systems that have been developed tend to favour the status quo anyway. Revolutions do not tend to occur in democracies. Do you really think that this is anything close to a prime reason why many people in the US bear arms? If so, there are a lot of dangerous people out there who currently are not regarded as criminals. Is it not more likely that, if you think that you are the last line of defence against an invading army, that this might just be an "invented", if only slightly plausible, excuse. With all the defence power that the US has got, I don't really think anyone would get close. There are countries that can justify this (e.g. Israel), but not the US.

Not all European countries forbid gun ownership by the way. Switzerland is an example and they have a relatively low crime rate, so I would agree gun ownership does not necessarily result in a high homicide rate, but it does in some places. The reasons can be complex. The UK has a rising problem with gun crime but it is still very low and there is general popular agreement about having tight gun laws. I don't see the need in the near future to rise up against the government either and, in any case, asymmetric wars do not tend to involve gun battles against professional, heavily armed, troops; it would be a lousy strategy.

So you're a expert on the U.S Constitution??? the Constitution means exactly what it says.Good people with guns don't kill people,bad people with guns do.It all has to do with personal responsibility.If you didn't watch that video that I gave the link to,i'll basically tell you in short what it was about.

It was about personal responsibility, you and you alone are responsible for your actions.If some lunatic goes out and murders someone with a gun don't blame the community blame the person.The only one responsible for your actions is you,not the other millions of gun owners just you.Also the video was about teaching your kids to be safe with dangerous things,teach them how to handle and be safe with them.People that want to ban guns want to make the world a safe place by taking away dangerous things.There are a lot of dangerous things that can kill or injure people and if someone doesn't use that object with precision and care someone may get killed and i'm not talking just about guns.Sports cars,motor cycles,knives,swimming pools are a few things that can be dangerous.Someone gets in a sports car and doesn't know how to handle it and goes off and races with it,he is liable to kill someone including himself.Swimming pools kill thousands of kids world wide because they fell in and drowned.

Should we ban those things because some idiot got behind the wheel and killed someone, should we ban swimming pools because some child died?

Well you could say the only purpose guns serve is to kill.Oh yeah? Well that maybe true but a gun doesn't make a person,I own several firearms and I never wanted to go out and kill someone.

Those that want to kill will do so regardless if guns are banned.If they can't get a gun they'll get a knife, if they can't get a knife they'll get a stick.People has been murdering each other since the dawn of time.Nothing is going to stop that, no law on the books will ever do that.A good example of that is a man in Canada killed another man with a crossbow.Guns aren't completely banned there but they are a lot harder to get so someone determined to kill is going to regardless.

Sorry got a little side tracked back to the videos point and my point as well.Dangerous things shouldn't be feared,governments that seek to ban dangerous things like guns do so in fear.We shouldn't fear dangerous things,instead we should teach our children how to use and respect dangerous things because they are dangerous.We should teach them how to safely use them.

I blame the parents,if a child accidently kills himself,if his parents would teach their children that pointing a gun at someone or themselves could kill them and teach them the proper techniques to use them then maybe things would change.

In todays society people blame the community for someones actions and not the parents.If people would go straight to the parents and ask them why didn't you teach him to handle a dangerous thing.lay the blame on the teacher because the student is only as good as he is tought.But instead we blame gun owners because of what one individual did.


If we ban guns whats next?It wont end until the government has us in a padded cell figuratively speaking.And yet a lot of you people agree with that.

Bring back personal responsibility.

I haven't even scratched the surface of the gun debate. 

I mean then theres the whole self defense, believe it or not there are people out there that want to do you harm and may even want to kill you.A gun may give me a better chance of surviving an encounter.I'd rather have one than not have one if a situation like that ever occurred.I could go on and on.


And on to the whole,U.S has so much defensive power we don't need guns.Well gun owners in themselves are part of the defense.
I'm just glad none of you have any influence or it would be a bloody day in the U.S because me and i'm sure millions of other gun owners would not give up our firearms without a fight.

[yor_on]

You're right in that Europeans come because of the chance of a better life. America still have a lot of resources Europe doesn't. But that is 'land' me man And some went because of repression from society etc. I agree to all those things. But times change, mostly, western Europe works in a democratic fashion today, and we seem to do alright without all those guns.

It may come to a point where every home will need its own, but before that point will be reached a whole society needs to go down in flames, valid for any society I'm saying now, not only USA. And if a democratic society reached that point its f*ed anyway. Former Yugoslavia was a good 'eastern' example of that recently.

A democratic country is not tested by its ability to have guns, but by the way its citizens have a right to make them selves heard, and by the way the government and bureaucracy listen and adapt to their peoples 'voice'. But I can't swear to this, it's how I look at it

==

I can tell you this, due to former Yugoslavia, and other wars in the east, we now see an increasing illegal import of heavy weaponry here in Sweden. People sell them cheap there as they need the cash, and we don't like it. The bobbies in England made do a long time without guns, now they need it too. In Canada they don't lock their front door. In the States they would call you a moron if you did the same. I'm not discussing weapons per se, or sport shooting but the more weapons there is in circulation the more probable that someone will get shot. And mostly those that get so are the victims, not the perpetrators.

[Geezer]

So you're a expert on the U.S Constitution??? the Constitution means exactly what it says.

If the Constitution means exactly what it says, why would Graham, or anyone else come to that, need to be an expert to understand it?

[CGNFOREVER]

So you're a expert on the U.S Constitution??? the Constitution means exactly what it says.

If the Constitution means exactly what it says, why would Graham, or anyone else come to that, need to be an expert to understand it?

What I mean by that is, is he a lawyer schooled in constitutional rights.But my guess is he's not because usually they fight to keep the constitution intact and not misinterpret it.

[yor_on]

Futher anecdotal evidence:

Not long after we moved from the UK to the USA, I was chatting with a church minister, and I brought up the subject of guns. I was rabbiting on about how bad I thought it was that so many people in the US felt the need to own hand guns.

After a bit, I realized he wasn't exactly in full agreement with what I was saying, then he mentioned that he always kept a loaded revolver in his bedside table. Put a bit of a damper on the conversation, let me tell you.

A reverent situation where you suddenly saw the priesthood in a whole new light?
Someone should have tipped Jesus to it, then he might had a chance huh ??
I know, my jokes just went to a new all high low
Heh
==

Can't help it, I keep seeing that reverend talking to his mirror

"You talking to me, huh! You talking to me,  punk.."

[Geezer]

So you're a expert on the U.S Constitution??? the Constitution means exactly what it says.

If the Constitution means exactly what it says, why would Graham, or anyone else come to that, need to be an expert to understand it?

What I mean by that is, is he a lawyer schooled in constitutional rights.But my guess is he's not because usually they fight to keep the constitution intact and not misinterpret it.

I not sure I understand. I think you are saying that my right to bear arms is guaranteed by the US Constitution.

If, as you say, the Constitution means exactly what it says, then there can be no ambiguity about it, so why would we need lawyers to interpret it for us. Or, are you really saying that the US Constitution is a bit vague on the subject, and open to different interpretations by artful lawyers?

[Marnaz]

As Admiral Yamamoto famously said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a man with a rifle behind every blade of grass."

This is the reason. America will always be a country for itself because the majority of citizens, even in times of difference, would stand and fight together as one people under the Unites States to protect their individual interests. We are "United States" but are still individual States, none the less. The constitution governs over all states and ensures the personal safety of all based on ones own means from the bill of rights for safety. The laws and times may be different, but the constitution is still important because they are baseline laws. The forefathers knew what they were doing. Sometimes there has to be a necessary evil to protect something that is already malleable enough. We're supposed to always be wary of our government as well because sometimes power gets into the wrong hands.

I'm not saying that guns are good and we should just shoot people, all I'm saying is that it is a good threat to anyone who wants to take the power away from the people. A threat and that only, but sometimes people take it too far and use their guns unnecessarily and it is sad to see this happen. But if the times ever get serious, people will at least have some kind of personal defense against tyranny.

[graham.d]

There is quite a good discussion of the meaning on the 2nd amendment in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

CGNF, I'm all for personal responsibility but I don't think it follows that the collective responsibility, as represented by a constitutionally elected government, should not limit the actions of individuals where there is serious endangerment to other members of the society. To use your analogy with ownership of cars; these are very useful, and today necessary, forms of transport and vital to the national economy. Their use is certainly controlled and people have restricted rights (age limits, use under the influence of drugs/alcohol, speed limits, police supervision to see that rules are obeyed). It would clearly not be sensible to ban driving - at least not while there is no alternative and if there were alternatives the need to ban them may never arise. Going the other way, I don't think an individual is permitted to buy and own (say) Surface to Air Missiles are they? I may be wrong about this so I would be interested to know. The point is that all societies agree on rules which, to some extent, limit individual freedoms in favour of some advantages to the whole society. The statistics show a very high percentage, per capita, of fatalities resulting from the use of firearms in the US. It would seem to be a good idea to think of ways to reduce this. I have heard it argued that the people killed usually deserve it, and it is true that many teenage deaths (which is very high in the US) are often gang and/or drug related. However it does not seem that this problem is being overcome by use of firearms either and it is also not a very civilised approach to law enforcement.

My views on this are somewhat reinforced by the fact that a friend of mine who lived close to San Hose (nr San Francisco) had his 5 year old stepson shot and killed, whilst playing in his own house, by someone driving by and randomly firing a gun out of the window. There are loonies everywhere but in the US they can get and use a gun easily; the consequences can be dire.

[Don_1]

Regardless of the arguments for and against the of bearing arms and the individual's interpretation of the constitution and any evidence from around the world, it would take a very brave and very foolish president to take on the might of the gun lobby.

[graham.d]

You mean... you mean... someone might try to shoot the president???

Surely it would never happen.

[Don_1]

We may never know.

Please stop calling me Shirley.

[Geezer]

Futher anecdotal evidence:

Not long after we moved from the UK to the USA, I was chatting with a church minister, and I brought up the subject of guns. I was rabbiting on about how bad I thought it was that so many people in the US felt the need to own hand guns.

After a bit, I realized he wasn't exactly in full agreement with what I was saying, then he mentioned that he always kept a loaded revolver in his bedside table. Put a bit of a damper on the conversation, let me tell you.

A reverent situation where you suddenly saw the priesthood in a whole new light?
Someone should have tipped Jesus to it, then he might had a chance huh ??
I know, my jokes just went to a new all high low
Heh
==

Can't help it, I keep seeing that reverend talking to his mirror

"You talking to me, huh! You talking to me,  punk.."

At least he'd be able to administer the coup de grâce * and the last rights almost simultaneously.


(* Not normally a French lawnmower)

[imatfaal]

Can't help it, I keep seeing that reverend talking to his mirror

"You talking to me, huh! You talking to me,  punk.."

I am not sure I could trust a supposed man of god who combined his Clint Eastwood and his Robert de Niro