"why is the private ownership of guns "stupid"?...Why would you want to take away my happiness?"

It's only stupid to them because they think that guns kill people.

I've never once seen a gun stand itself up, point and then shoot at someone. Perhaps they have?

I've fired a 9mm baretta, a semi-auto AK-47, glock, many types of hunting rifles, shotguns, not to mention a plethora of other types of guns. I love target shooting. Hunting for survival is a beautiful skill. For home defense I would never think of using a gun. I have a knife for that purpose but that's just me.

Gun for protection is a very viable defense right now because guns are everywhere. People against gun control are afraid that if all the safety conscious law abiding citizens relinquish their guns then they are left at the mercy of corrupt criminals who can still acquire guns. The people who are against guns have obviously never been at the mercy of a sick fuck holding a gun on you, that feeling of helplessness does not disappear. I fully understand the desire to defend oneself on a level that matches the ones with the intent to harm.

Putin needs to be shot in the fucking face. You take away guns, criminals will find them. Do you fucking think crime and violence didn't exist before guns/drugs existed? These are tools used by criminals not the fucking cause of the crime, learn to think bitch. Live in the real fucking world and not some aggrandized fantasy land where things would be perfect if you had your way.

"Your right to free speech begins and ends with your ability to defend it from all threats."
So can you explain why I have the right to free speech in Canada, but am not allowed to buy a gun? This arguement has already been proven wrong...

Dammit, here I am being drawn into this absurd debate yet again...


@Gunfighter06:

"I love the security that my M1911 provides when I am out and about"

Why? Why do you need the security of a firearm when you're out and about? I am 30 years old and have never felt the need for a firearm when I'm out and about. I can quite happily walk about in public without feeling I need a deadly weapon on my person to protect myself. Why is this not the case for you? Why do you feel so threatened by fellow members of the general public?


"For me, happiness is a warm gun."

Then you're a fucking freak.


"Why would you want to take away my happiness?"

Because apparently your happiness is being caused by a deadly weapon which could be used to kill another human being.


"Jamiet, have you ever fired a gun?"

I've fired an air rifle, but nothing more serious than that. Why would I want to? I don't need a gun.


@ Sayjo: "Gun for protection is a very viable defense right now because guns are everywhere."

Wow. What an idiotic statement. Guns are everywhere in your whackjob country because it is made so easy for dickheads like you to OWN A FUCKING GUN! Guns are everywhere because your system ensures they are openly on sale! You encourage people to buy guns, therefore people buy guns! If you didn't have a culture where you can easily buy firearms, there would be fewer firearms in circulation.

Look at the UK. Then explain to me why we don't have a serious problem of gun crime in this country. Because I can assure you, we don't. We have gun control, and it works.

@ Darwyn: "It's only stupid to them because they think that guns kill people."

Guns don't kill people. Nutjobs who you've stupidly allowed to own a gun kill people with the gun you stupidly gave them.

Happy now?

@Putin,

First let me say that I appreciate your seeming passion and conviction on this subject. However, I think that for all your passion and conviction, you've presented (from the numbers that I have found) spurious figures to back up your position, and as such, your arguments are dubious at best.

You claims that there are 30,000+ deaths (in the US presumably) attributed to firearms. A quick (and by no mean exhaustive) search and I found a document (http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2007/03/15/512188/NumberOddsDeathLifeExotic.pdf) that states that in 2003 (older, I know) there were 730 deaths attributed to "Firearm discharge" and 11,920 deaths attributed to "Assault by Firearm" -- for a total of 12,650 "firearm" deaths. Are we to believe that in the 7.5 years that have elapsed since these statistics were compiled the number of "firearm" deaths has risen over 42%?

Aside from the actual numbers that you present, I think the argument that "x number of people die and are injured every year due to fire arms; therefore, they should be banned..." is spurious as well. 44,000+ people died from auto accidents in 2003, should we ban cars? 3,600+ died in motorcycle accidents -- not to mention the untold 100's of 1000's or even millions that were injured -- should ban motorcycles. Now, I agree that guns are not nearly as useful nor as integral to the function of our civilization as a automobile is, but a raw statistic does not tell the whole story.

To tell the whole story, one need to look deeper into the numbers and find out (or attempt to extrapolate) the circumstances behind the "firearm" death. Although one cannot say with 100% confidence, I think it is safe to say that the 730 deaths attributed to "firearm discharge" were "accidental" and most were likely at the hands of a "lawful" gun owner. By contrast, it would seem equally as safe to say that of the 11,920 "assaults by firearm" most were likely at the hands of an "unlawful" gun owner; and as such, a whole scale "ban" on firearms might on reduce the number of "accidental" deaths at the hands of "lawful" gun owners and do nothing whatsoever to curb the "assaults by firearm" at the hands of "unlawful" gun owners. There is a slogan the "Gun Right" people like to use: When you criminalize gun ownership, ONLY criminals will have guns. After all, criminal are criminal specifically BECAUSE they do not obey the law. In fact, statistics (which I don't have time to look up right now) have shown that when cities, like Chicago (now with the highest murder rate in the nation) ban lawful gun ownership, the murder rate SKYROCKETS. Gun rights advocates attribute this to the fact that the criminals are emboldened by the knowledge that the populace is disarmed.

Further, to get an even deeper understanding of the raw statistics, one would need to find out how many violent crimes were thwarted by a lawful civilian gun owner (which, is one of the main purposes of firearm ownership), i.e., the "utility" of private gun ownership. Anti-gun groups claim that such "self defense" incidents are very few in number, and that even those that admittedly occur, are outweighed by the deaths. Unfortunately, such a stat is nearly impossible to come by. As stated supra, there is a significant "psychological" issue involved with criminal behavior and those that weak and defenseless (or perceived to be) are the most vulnerable. By contrast, those that are strong and well defended are fairly immune from attack. How many more violent crimes would occur in Houston, TX (for example) if criminals didn't have to be mindful of the notorious "gun-loving" populace of Texas? How many less violent crimes would be perpetrated in DC, Chicago, or LA if the contemplating criminal had to factor in the potential of a strapped victim? I don't know, and I don't think ANYONE can know for certain.

Private firearm ownership is a fundamental right because human beings have a fundamental right to defend their person and family from threat of deadly harm at the hands of others. If a criminal assailant comes into your house with a firearm intent upon doing you and your family harm, a baseball bat is going to offer very little protection. When you remove the right of private citizen to defend themselves, you deprive them of a fundamental right, and empower those whose intent it is to take their life, liberty and property by force.

Gun laws do nothing by disarm law-abiding citizen and empower and embolden criminals.

Furthermore, one only need to look at the actions of dictators such as Amin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, etc. to see that disarming the populace is a MAJOR step in their consolidation of power -- a disarmed people cannot fight back when tyranny is upon them. The Founder of our Republic knew this, hence the 2nd Amendment -- they LIVED it at the hands of the British. We can continue the constitutional debate about the 2nd Amend. at another time as I would like to get your (et.al.) response/rebuttal to what I have presented above.

Thanks!

p.s. -- I don't think this is a "retarded" subject at all, and I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts on the subject.

Oh Jamiet the fucking retard ^_^ I don't "OWN A FUCKING GUN!" Nor want to. I fully support the right for someone to hunt and garden to support their diet, your denial of this right makes you worthless to me. I didn't say we shouldn't have gun control, I said the defense against it is fear. I understand the fear, I fully support gun control. Felons shouldn't be allowed guns and they are restricted which is better than nothing. I have a cousin who is a felon and he owns a gun via black market. I would never shoot someone, would you? No, the people you don't want to have guns can still get guns regardless of their availability.

http://www.knifecrimes.org/uk-knife-crime-victims.html

Maybe you should get rid of your knives too you fucking wanker.

+1 MichiganMan for a calm rebuttal haha

edit: "Are we to believe that in the 7.5 years that have elapsed since these statistics were compiled the number of "firearm" deaths has risen over 42%?"

should be 150%

If you were advocating a real ban on firearms, as in their abolition, complete destruction, purged from history, I would totally back you. 100%. Guns really arnt necessary for anything.

See but the thing is, thats not what you're advocating.
You're advocating for not one single person to be allowed by society to own guns, EXCEPT, those who misuse them most egregiously and frequently, governments.
As long as they have them, so will I.

Gun violence is tragic to be sure, but private citizens make up a tiny pittance of a percentage of those killed/wounded/maimed by firearms.

Private ownership of guns is a guard against totalitarianism.

How do you guys feel about not being able to carry onto a university campus regardless of how many licenses you have or who you are? I'm a victim of a school massacre and I can't help but think that it would have gone a lot differently if many of the registered carriers were allowed to on campus.

Oh hey, so michigan man made all of my points except better, pretty much directly before me. I feel sheepish.

"Prevent what? The Patriot Act?"

Your claim is that the 2nd amendment protects the 1st. If so, why didn't our plethora of guns and gun rights prevent the Patriot Act from passing? Or is the Patriot Act not an infringement on the 1st amendment? I'm open to that possibility, but I'd like to see a libertarian like you make that case.

Our guns haven't prevented any expansion of government power, ever.

So Geofram you understand the helplessness it causes that I mentioned. Yours has a different depth since there were many people at stake and mine seems selfish now

"Our guns haven't prevented any expansion of government power, ever."

Have you ever read about the American Revolution? It was this little event in which a tiny colonial power took on the most powerful empire in the world BECAUSE they were expanding their power over the colonies to untolerable levels. It was accomplished with guns!

Wait one second...
you mean the second amendment isn't about wearing short sleeves?!?!

History is FULL of armed populace rebellions -- why do you think as our govt ratchets up the Police State they're also ratcheting up the Anti-Gun legislation? They know they're getting to the tipping point and there are 100's of millions of guns and gun owners who are getting more and more pissed off about the govts encroachments. It's pretty simple, and you're playing right into it with posts like this.

As long as the government vastly out-guns the citizenry - where we might even have automatic weapons, but they have tanks, helicopters, etc., then there is no check against the government. It is a false sense of security only. The only check against the government in the way of arms is if you can appeal to the moral compass of the armed forces and get them to side with you (as in Egypt) or at least not fire upon you (as was the case with the Red Army in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 up until the 27th Army was brought in). You have no hope what-so-ever otherwise. A government will stay in power as long as the military is behind them. Period.

...and local yokels with guns did not win the Revolutionary War... the regular armies did - the American Army and the French Army.

Further, history is full of DISARMED people who have become the victims of genocide. I am sure many if the educate and established jews living in Germany and throughout Europe felt that an enlightened society didn't need nor should it tolerate private gun ownership -- think they regret that sentiment? Is it any wonder that EVERY Israeli citizen MUST serve in the military and own a firearm and be proficient in its operation? Never forget, never again!

"Your claim is that the 2nd amendment protects the 1st. If so, why didn't our plethora of guns and gun rights prevent the Patriot Act from passing?"

Sure, the Patriot Act infringes on our 1st amendment rights but this is a non-sequitur and you know it.

All I'm saying is that you cannot have free speech without the means to protect free speech.

"but I'd like to see a libertarian like you make that case. "

doesn't supporting gun rights make me a conservative? oh well, let me know when you figured out what I am so you can slap a nice clean label on me.

Putin,

Sic and MichiganMan are absolutely correct. Deal with it.

@ Dexter read the accounts if the British march back to Boston after going to Lexington and Concord to, guess what...seize a cash of arms and munitions. It's a horrifying account of what "local yokles" and a a well aimed shot can do to the moral/psyche of the best and most well trained army in the world at that time!

The Native Americans were armed... did it help them? Not particularly. Being outmanned and outgunned and hated due to racism and the fear and greed of settlers brought about their doom. They might have actually gotten a break if they weren't armed at all. (Non-violent protest can be effective - and *any* fighting back during a non-violent protest can make the protestors appear to have lost the moral high ground). To be armed - but inadequately is the worst possible compromise. ...so, until we are handing out IEDs, RPGs, bazookas, and surface to air missiles to the citizenry, then you might as well go the other route and be un-armed (and appeal to the morality of the military).

@ Putin,

Please respond to my lengthy post. I want to hear about how you came to the numbers you presented and what you think about my points. Don't be like most and simply ignore the complete destruction of your original argument and focus only on the "fluff".

I hardly think the revolution was about preventing the expansion of government power. It was about the westward landlust of the colonists.The Parliament had always been sovereign and was able to implement taxes, the colonies hadn't objected to a wide variety of tariffs prior to the rebellion. Furthermore, the revolution was won not because of anything the militia did, the militia was ridiculed for being poorly run and poorly equipped by the Americans themselves (Washington compared them to resting on a broken staff). The revolution was won because of the French, Spanish, and Dutch interventions.

@Sayjo
I think firearms are WAY too easy to get your hands on. And I think automatic weapons and other guns made specifically for mass causalities should never be allowed in the hands of the common man. BUT I don't know how governments should try to control this better, so I can't really be an advocate of better gun control.

I understand why universities want a gun free campus, but I can't stand how they're able to pass ordinances against their students that remove many of those students rights.

"Sure, the Patriot Act infringes on our 1st amendment rights but this is a non-sequitur and you know it.

All I'm saying is that you cannot have free speech without the means to protect free speech."

How is it a non-sequitur? One would think that if what you said was true that we'd actually see this in practice. Instead we see expansions of government power to restrict free speech despite gun rights never being more unrestricted.

Your claims about guns are empty sloganeering with no basis in fact.

@ Dexter,

I agree with your point about the military. However, read The Gulag Archapelago...in it Solzanitzen (sp) said that the "engines" (state agents taking people away in the night for "crimes" agaisnt the USSR) would have broken down had they been met with a shot gun to the face.

As per the Native Americans, those that were "nice" suffered as well as those that were "hostile". At least those that chose to fight exacted a toll against those bent upon genocide! I'd rather be a free man in my grave then live as a puppet or a slave!