A good reason to own guns in the home

[Vern Gagne 0]

It's a serious argument and a valid counterpoint. Far more people die as a result of car accidents in the United States than from any kind of gun-related violence, and there are fewer cars than guns in the United States. That means that cars are indisputably more dangerous than guns. It doesn't matter that they're designed for travelling and guns are designed for killing; guns would kill a whole lot more people if they were cars. Has anyone called for a ban on cars? Why not?

I'm reminded of a classic Archie Bunker quote.

 

Gloria: Did you know 70% of the people murdered last year were killed by hand guns.

 

Archie: "Would it make you feel any better little girl...if they's was pushed out a windas"

[Firestarter 0]

Last time I checked, 'semi-automatic' wasn't on my weekly shopping list, nor did I use it to wash soap off my body.

Wow, that was fucking substantive, wasn't it?

 

Well wait, no, it wasn't.

[Guest Goodear]

I am all for firearms as long as people use and look after them responsibly. But since increasingly large numbers aren't responsible, they shouldn't be allowed to have them. Simple as that.

No. Irresponsible people can turn anything deadly especially something as inherently dangerous as a weapon. I refuse to allow my life to be dictated because some people carry hairdryers into the shower with them. There is no such thing as idiot proofing, and the same stupid people that will drink and drive are the same people that will stick a fork in a toaster. And quite frankly, fuck em.

[EricMM 0]

It's easy. Just get mugged / burglarized a couple times.

 

Ok Vyce, did you read my story??

 

Also, regarding bathtubs being dangerous, I guess one could argue that showers are much safer than bathtubs, regarding drowning.

 

But they waste so much water (sike)

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I am all for firearms as long as people use and look after them responsibly.  But since increasingly large numbers aren't responsible, they shouldn't be allowed to have them.  Simple as that.

No. Irresponsible people can turn anything deadly especially something as inherently dangerous as a weapon. I refuse to allow my life to be dictated because some people carry hairdryers into the shower with them. There is no such thing as idiot proofing, and the same stupid people that will drink and drive are the same people that will stick a fork in a toaster. And quite frankly, fuck em.

If they want to kill themselves, fine by me. It is when they start killing other people. I would be for prohibition too, if I knew it could possibly be done. Public support won't allow it, like they will for gun control.

[Jingus 0]

A rebuttal to the whole "if you know someone who's been shot you'd be for gun control" argument:

 

A few years back, a maniac broke into my father's house and shot him full of holes. The main thing that saved my dad's life was that he got to his loaded shotgun (which he keeps in his bedroom) in time, and ran his assailant off.

 

The attacker didn't legally own his gun. My dad legally owned his shotgun.

 

And at the time five children lived in the house. And despite the fact that they were all minors and at least two of them were fucking idiots, the fact that the parents took time to educate their kids regarding firearms and didn't leave the damn things lying around where anyone could grab them have resulted in a house where nobody was ever in danger of being accidentally shot.

 

I don't own a gun. That's because I'm broke. Once I have the money, I'm getting a nice Glock and a concealed carry permit. I don't trust other people in this world not to try to kill me.

[Guest MikeSC]

Of course parents should look after their guns better and educate their children more, but the reality is that they don't. I'm for gun control (not an outright ban, but tighter controls) strictly for my own safety. Don't blame us for this. Blame those parents that ruined it for you. Maybe if the NRA put more pressure on them instead of the anti-gun activists, the anti-gun crowd would peter out a bit.

 

I am all for firearms as long as people use and look after them responsibly. But since increasingly large numbers aren't responsible, they shouldn't be allowed to have them. Simple as that.

Let's be honest, if the NRA lets down on an issue, the floodgates open. The anti-gun lobby will simply continue nit-picking away.

 

The NRA sponsors gun safety classes all over the place. They do all they can do.

 

But they have to be vigilant because they are defending the one right in the Constitution that the elites seem to have a burning desire to get rid of.

-=Mike

...As a rule, you'd be a total idiot to willingly sacrifice a Constitutional right

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The NRA sponsors gun safety classes all over the place. They do all they can do.

 

I realize that. This issue is far beyond the NRA. The NRA can educate people, but they can't force them to listen.

 

I will say this. I would be willing to agree to harsh punishments for people that are irresponsible, and see where it goes. It is these people that are to blame, not the NRA.

[Guest MikeSC]

The NRA sponsors gun safety classes all over the place. They do all they can do.

 

I realize that. This issue is far beyond the NRA. The NRA can educate people, but they can't force them to listen.

 

I will say this. I would be willing to agree to harsh punishments for people that are irresponsible, and see where it goes. It is these people that are to blame, not the NRA.

If memory serves, the NRA has always supported heavy penalties for gun-related crimes.

-=Mike

[MrRant 0]

I think we are all missing the most important point of all.

 

 

 

 

 

Guns are cool.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Tanks are cooler.

 

I'm sick of the tank-control laws...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Hold on Mike, people claim pot is not addictive?

You are kidding right?

 

I knew guys who went to work stoned just so they could make money to buy more weed to get stoned.

 

And god forbid if they tried to go a week without it. It may not be addictive like the major ones, but it damn sure is addictive.

Tons of pot advocates make that claim.

 

It's psychologically addictive, which is every inch as bad as physical addiction.

-=Mike

I'm coming into this topic quite late, and I imagine much of what I'm about to say has been said, but tough shit.

 

Regarding physical and psychological addiction, they are NOT even the same animal. As someone who has (and has had) several of both, I can safely say the shaking, puking, teeth-rattling headaches and horror of kicking something your CNS very deeply desires is a thousand times harder to do than to make a conscious willpower decision to not light up. Addiction is as different as people are different, though. This is just my .02

 

As for guns, I've had a shotgun since I was a kid. My dad is a responsible gun owner (and NRA member), and taught me at a VERY early age to respect firearms. If more parents would take the responsibility, and have the balls to show a kid what a gun is all about, the rugrats wouldn't regard a pistol with such awe, and wouldn't play with it.

 

The streets are already saturated with illegal firearms. Keeping a means to fight back out of the hands of responsible people is an absolutely sickening thought to me. MUCH more sickening than a kid dying because their parents are too cowardly (or ignorant) to educate their child on personal safety.

 

Speaking from personal experience (which means about as much as all of yours) I can say that homes where crooks know there are guns DON'T get robbed.

 

I live out in the sticks, with lots of farmers and skunk-eyed hermits, and ALL of them have at least granddad's old blunderbuss. Most houses have plenty of nice shit, too. Know how many get robbed? Not a one, because any dipshit that tries to bust in is going to get pumped so full of lead, they might as well be used to mark the circles on standardized tests.

 

Responsible gun owners counteract crooks.

[Vern Gagne 0]

What states have conceal and carry laws? Minnesota's has had it since last August.

[Guest TJH]

To change the subject along the same lines (re: guns in Australia), I'm curious to how Aussies feel about this:

 

Martin Bryant: guilty or framed?

Guilty. Never been in any doubt whatsoever. There was all the evidence in the world to convict him, and I haven't even heard any rumours of conspiracy theories.

 

As for the gun debate:

 

Yes, there is a constitutional right to own guns, which places to limitation on them, as I interpret it. However, the Constitution is over 200 years old, and things change, so the Constitution (as opposed to Judges who wish to legislate from the bench) should change with it, and limit the types and quantity of weapons that can be owned. Handguns in particular have no practical function other than killing other human beings, so limits should be particularly strong on them. There is no justification for anyone owning twelve firearms, impressive as it may be. Increased proliferation of legal guns inevitably trickles down to illegal weapons.

[tommytomlin 0]

I can't believe I missed the Aussie question!

 

But - guilty. Beyond any doubt whatsoever. How could he have been framed? For what purpose?

[Firestarter 0]

There is no justification for anyone owning twelve firearms, impressive as it may be

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

Increased proliferation of legal guns inevitably trickles down to illegal weapons

Bullshit.

[Zorin Industries 0]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Does that really apply in this day and age now? It's not like the Redcoats are going to come and drag you from your home.

[Firestarter 0]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Does that really apply in this day and age now? It's not like the Redcoats are going to come and drag you from your home.

And it's not like Josef Stalin, Mao tse-Tung, Adolf Hitler, or Pol Pot committed some of the worst genocides in modern history after the citizens of their countries had been disarmed by law.

 

Oh, wait. They did.

 

 

Never again.

[Zorin Industries 0]

And it's not like Josef Stalin, Mao tse-Tung, Adolf Hitler, or Pol Pot committed some of the worst genocides in modern history after the citizens of their countries had been disarmed by law.

 

Oh, wait. They did.

Um, lets face it, if your Government wanted to oppresse you, i doubt a couple of hunting rifles in your home is going to stop them.

 

And don't you always say that that sort of thing could never happen in the U.S. anyway?

[k thx 0]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Does that really apply in this day and age now? It's not like the Redcoats are going to come and drag you from your home.

And it's not like Josef Stalin, Mao tse-Tung, Adolf Hitler, or Pol Pot committed some of the worst genocides in modern history after the citizens of their countries had been disarmed by law.

 

Oh, wait. They did.

 

 

Never again.

Marney, are you seriously saying that the Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany could have overthrown the government if they had guns?

[Firestarter 0]

Um, lets face it, if your Government wanted to oppresse you, i doubt a couple of hunting rifles in your home is going to stop them.

A lack thereof would be even more of an assurance that such oppression could not be stopped. Incidentally, I think your statement about the relative weakness of American citizens was first made in reference to the colonists and the armies of the British Empire.

 

And don't you always say that that sort of thing could never happen in the U.S. anyway?

I've said that the chances of it happening are lower under our system of government, with its checks and balances, accountability, transparency, independent review, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, than under any other system of government known in history.

 

But only fools bet on perfection.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Incidentally, I think your statement about the relative weakness of American citizens was first made in reference to the colonists and the armies of the British Empire.

Did I? I didn't really mean it like that, what I meant was that warfare and intelligence have increased to such a degree that any guerilla activity on American soil would be very difficult and achieve little, no matter how many guns you have

[Firestarter 0]

Marney, are you seriously saying that the Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany could have overthrown the government if they had guns?

I'm saying that free people with the ability to defend themselves are not shipped off to die in gas chambers. Only slaves.

 

The Nazis didn't take a bunch of free, well-armed, organised human beings and dump them on the railway to Auschwitz. First they dehumanised them. Then they took away their guns. Then they segregated them. Then they imprisoned them. And finally, they killed them.

 

Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is a necessary step for any dictator. We have the absolute constitutional right to bear arms in this country, and free American citizens are not going to give up that right and thereby remove one great step from the path of a possible future tyrant.

[Skywarp! 0]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

 

Please. That's so irrelevant at this point. Even if everyone was packing, we can't overthrow the U.S. Army.

[k thx 0]

Marney, how many examples are there in history of an armed peoples militia overthrowing the government for the good of the nation?

 

Even if American citizen were armed and fighting against the US government, they'd never overthrow them.

[Firestarter 0]

Did I? I didn't really mean it like that, what I meant was that warfare and intelligence have increased to such a degree that any guerilla activity on American soil would be very difficult and achieve little, no matter how many guns you have

First of all, intelligence and warfare capabilities would be tremendously decreased in the event of a de facto civil war. Second, it doesn't matter whether or not a citizens' resistance would succeed in the face of oppression. The very fact of its possibility is sufficient to deter most attempts to oppress the people. Take away the possibility, and you make it a thousand times easier for a tyrant to assume power.

[Firestarter 0]

Please.  That's so irrelevant at this point.  Even if everyone was packing, we can't overthrow the U.S. Army.

 

Marney, how many examples are there in history of an armed peoples militia overthrowing the government for the good of the nation?

 

Even if American citizen were armed and fighting against the US government, they'd never overthrow them.

 

No one is advocating the overthrow of the United States government, least of all me. I'm talking about basic liberties essential to the survival of a free people.

[k thx 0]

Marney, are you seriously saying that the Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany could have overthrown the government if they had guns?

I'm saying that free people with the ability to defend themselves are not shipped off to die in gas chambers. Only slaves.

 

The Nazis didn't take a bunch of free, well-armed, organised human beings and dump them on the railway to Auschwitz. First they dehumanised them. Then they took away their guns. Then they segregated them. Then they imprisoned them. And finally, they killed them.

 

Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is a necessary step for any dictator. We have the absolute constitutional right to bear arms in this country, and free American citizens are not going to give up that right and thereby remove one great step from the path of a possible future tyrant.

But the guns were only taken away after their deuhmanization. It was not the cause of their suffering, only a side effect.

 

The taking away of arms is not a sign of dictatorship, it's a sign of progress. It'as a sign of trust. It's a sign of peace.

 

And as you previously said, the jews guns were taken away after they were dehumanized. There possesion of guns didn't stand in the way of Hitler.

[Firestarter 0]

But the guns were only taken away after their deuhmanization. It was not the cause of their suffering, only a side effect.

No, it was a necessary step towards killing them.

 

The taking away of arms is not a sign of dictatorship, it's a sign of progress. It'as a sign of trust. It's a sign of peace.

A sign of lunacy.

 

And as you previously said, the jews guns were taken away after they were dehumanized. There possesion of guns didn't stand in the way of Hitler.

Yes. Because they gave up their guns. They didn't resist the Nazis then, and thus lost the means to resist them later.

[k thx 0]

But the guns were only taken away after their deuhmanization. It was not the cause of their suffering, only a side effect.

No, it was a necessary step towards killing them.

 

The taking away of arms is not a sign of dictatorship, it's a sign of progress. It'as a sign of trust. It's a sign of peace.

A sign of lunacy.

 

And as you previously said, the jews guns were taken away after they were dehumanized. There possesion of guns didn't stand in the way of Hitler.

Yes. Because they gave up their guns. They didn't resist the Nazis then, and thus lost the means to resist them later.

Disarming Jews may have been a neccessary step towards kiling them, but your posts make out like it was the only factor. THe Jews were basically placed in prison, and any prisoners need to be disarmed. Would you put someone in prison with a gun now? The disarming of Jews wasn't the main point of their dehumanization, they were shaved, given numbers, had all their possesions taken away. Yes, the guns were part of their possesions, but that doesn't mean that they should be taken away. Thats like saying Saddam should be allowed to keep all of his weapons becaue they're his.

 

Taking away guns is lunacy now? What do you honestly think would happen if guns were taken away or outlawed in the United States?

 

And the jews offered no resistance? Please. Orthodox Jews may have been obliged to be peaceful, but there was resistance to Nazis.