I think we should. Not ridiculously strong powerful rifles but some type of weapon yes.

No, because weapons are given to pretty much everyone, them weapons could fall into a mental man hands and he would go on a rampage

I think people don't realize that a large majority of the Gun crime in the US isn't from mass shootings, they just get the most media attention.
It's mostly criminals shooting each other.
Now, if you want to lower this then Obama needs to end the war on drugs.
It'll make it harder for criminals to access firearms coming over the borders and if he combines it with stricter needs for a gun licence, like a secure place to store them so your 10 year old kid can't get to them and accidentally shoot the neighbour, there would be a massive decline in gun crime.

So yes, I do think Americans have the right to bare arms.
Even if they did have all their guns taken [which would be a monumental achievement in itself] who's to say people wouldn't just switch to knives, or baseball bats?

Yes, I think we should; banning guns won't stop anybody who really wants one from getting one. It'll be somewhat like the ol' alcohol prohibition.

celtic240497 wrote

SillyPlatypuss wrote Yes we should and do have the right to bear arms. No government should be able to strip basic rights from citizens.

I understand that shootings do happen, but restricting the use of fire arms for everyone is wrong. I own about 9 guns, including pistols, shotguns, and highpower rifles. People who hunt or shoot for competition or hobby are not shooting up schools and are well educated on weapon safety.

For example, the US government wants to ban the use of AR15 rifles because of a few shootings. BUT the AR15 is the most popular and owned weapon in the US. Thats about 3.75 MILLION AR15's in the US!!!

Now lets do the math! We'll say that there were about 10 violent shootings with the AR15. And 3.75 million in circulation.
So 10/3,750,000 = .000002666 * 100 = .0002666% of people in the US with an AR15 went and murdered people.

To me, its obvious that people are blowing guns way out of proportion!

Sincerely, SillyPlatypuss, proud member of the NRA

But is it really a basic right? There is so many countries where it isn't a basic right. As I was saying with r00t, the constitutional rights stand for a time long past and therefore has become out-dated.

Also say this randomly generated number of people who murdered others with an AR15 rifle was true, the fact you say only is an utter disgrace. You have practically went it was only so and so who have lost their lives but it's OK because there is a group of us who haven't killed. The fact is that without those guns these murders would not have happened. But here you go America this is your representative of an everyday citizen. One who doesn't care about all those people who have been killed in mass shootings as long as the percentage is small to look at.

Well, check your reading because I did not say "only 10 violent shooting" and I do not believe that I represent the US in any way. However, I forgot to add major to the 10 shootings. But still do the math. If you can get a percentage that doesnt start with .0, then you are exaggerating the amount of shootings by 1000's

EDIT: I have found that only(and yes I do believe that only is the appropriate word to use here) 323 people were killed with a rifle of any kind in the US last year. That means that only 0.008613% of people with a rifle murdered someone. And even that is greater than it should be, because I am still using the 3.75 million AR15's, not rifles in general.

I think [ Register or Signin to view external links. ] would be a great article for anyone against "High Powered Rifles" but not strongly against pistols and other rifles.

And also "Guns don't murder people, people murder people." It takes a f'd up person to murder people, not a gun. Guns are less likely to be a weapon that your own fists or a kitchen knife.

As for rifles, they are used even less than body parts, blunt instruments or sharp objects to commit murder.

In 2011, more murders were committed by knives (1,694), hands, fists and feet (728) and blunt weapons such as clubs and hammers (496), according to FBI data.

Quoted from above [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]


Just give me one VALID reason that we should not have this right and that can not be proved wrong. I will be on your side if you can provide some evidence my friend.

For a few different reasons, I do believe that we should have the right to bear arms with heavy restrictions and rules. I believe that there should be a much more strict rule on owning and buying a gun illegally or at least have this problem be enforced much more than it is right now. I personally don't want people and don't think people should be able to just go into a gun shop and buy a gun. If you want to buy a gun I think there should be a test that you should need to go through. Maybe something like a mental test or a psychological test that proves you are stable enough to own a gun (unless of course you are a member of our police or have a government ran job that requires you to have a gun. But I do feel that people should be able to obtain guns. You should be able to have them for your own protection, whether you be walking around the town and someone is putting your life in danger or you are in your home and someone is trying to break into your home and you have to protect your family. There won't always be a cop around to save you or respond to your situation or predicament quick enough to actually 'save' you. So overall if there are more strict rules to buying and obtaining a gun I think that through proper testing you should be allowed to own a gun and protect yourself when needed.

celtic240497 wrote

Click to View Content

r00t wrote

celtic240497 wrote [spoil]

r00t wrote

celtic240497 wrote

r00t wrote
- Criminals by definition break the law and banning guns will not stop people from having them. All law-abiding citizens by definition follow the law and therefore would not own guns. Sick and twisted, isn't it?
- Fear != danger. The fact that people don't feel safer in the presence of those who are legally carrying weapons is illogical.
- Who do we call when we need bad guys with guns put down? Good guys with guns.
- Shootings take place in "gun-free" zones because shooters view them as easy targets. Again, criminals by definition break the law.
- An armed society is a polite society.
- Your analogy makes no sense.

1. I did not once say that it would stop crime.
2.You said "who do we call......Good guys with guns". You miss the point that a society without guns would not require "good guys with guns" to stop "Bad guys with guns" as guns become more difficult to find, for your average criminal.
3. You say that "an armed society is a polite society". Nobody said that people had to be armed with guns though.
4. My analogy makes perfect sense as I am giving you an example of using an old and ultimately out of date view that people follow with your constitution stupid.

The fact you believe that people should be able to obtain guns with the ease that the US allows is plain stupidity. No society will be free of crime but you can aid the suppression of it by removing the likes of guns.

1. What's the point of getting rid of guns if not to lower the crime rate? They can be used for recreation, sport, and hunting as well. I didn't say it would stop crime, but all you've said you're in favor of so far is making it impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns. How anyone could think legal gun ownership is a bad thing is beyond me.

2. You're missing the point. Guns are used to stop crime, even in places like the UK that don't allow gun ownership. You can't expect the hundreds of millions of registered guns in the US to simply disappear. Banning them would make them no more difficult to obtain.

3. Why not? Should we not have the right to protect ourselves? This is reality, not some anti-gun fantasy.

4. The 2nd amendment is not out of date. The goal is to give citizens the power to overthrow the government. This has served us well and will continue to do so.

5. Chicago has the most strict gun laws in the country as well as the highest crime rate. I don't want to imagine what it would be like if Chicago's laws applied to the entire country.

1.But it will quite clearly lower crime. You said you get confidence in knowing that there is someone with a gun to protect you, well I'm sure people thinking of committing a crime gain confidence if they have a weapon as powerful as a firearm.

2. At most our police are armed with a taser(although very rare). The only forces with firearms really are the airport security. If you can honestly tell me that you would feel more safe standing between a criminal with a handgun and a police officer with a handgun than a criminal with a knife and a police officer armed with just a baton then there is something wrong because I can tell you which situation I would rather be in.

3. I don't have a gun and I can protect myself. I know that if somebody broke into my house that he won't have a gun and will at most have a melee weapon which in my house I obviously will have plenty of things that I can grab and use against the criminal.

4. Hate to tell you but it is out of date as times change and I can assure you has since that was written.

5. Compare your crime rates with other countries who don't have guns and I can guarantee you that theirs is better.

You also said that you can't expect all guns that are registered to disappear. Well if they are indeed registered then a nation wide operation of going from premise to premise and obtaining these guns isn't unrealistic. It would take time but nobody said it wouldn't. The real challenge is obtaining the unregistered fire arms which lets face it would have it's benefits as progress is made.

1. It has been proven that more restrictive firearms laws do not decrease violent crime. See Chicago. Once again, laws cannot and will not get rid of illegally-owned firearms.

2. So instead of using guns, you suggest we use alternative deadly weapons like knives and blunt objects? This is illogical. You put an absurd twist on my words to suit your argument. In an environment where law-abiding citizens are carrying firearms, yes, I feel safer.

3. So if a man comes in to your house with a bat, you wouldn't wish you had a gun? Once again, guns have always been a part of culture in the US and criminals have access to them all over the world. Australia is a great example of what happens when you take guns from law-abiding citizens when criminals already have and use guns.

4. If you can't provide a reason, there's no argument.

5. You can't compare rates of violent crime and assume that the differences are the result of guns alone. It's like people who make anti-gun arguments have to find statistics that don't actually exist to support what they are saying.

6. I didn't say anything about unregistered guns. A seizure of the nation's guns would not work and potentially result in secession and/or revolt if it were attempted.


[/spoil]
1. You said that restrictive gun laws don't prevent violent crime yet you also said that you can't compare violent crime rates and assume that the differences are guns alone. Therefore you say that having no guns makes no difference due to studies but you can't take the statistics from these studies seriously because it doesn't have alot to do with guns leaving you contradicting your own logic here. All you have done dismissed statistics against your arguments.

2. I didn't say people should switch to knives, I just said that your survival rates when confronted with a knife opposed to a gun is a bit higher.

3. But if I had a gun because it is legal for me to gain one then it is quite possible that this person has a gun also.

4. You dismiss me saying that it is out of date but I only need to ask you when it was created and that will give you your reason. If you are trying to say that there is no need to adapt and change as times goes on then you are basically saying that The US are a country which lacks the ability to move on and develop in the world, just waiting to be overtaken by everyone else.

5.Same as number 1 where you contradicted your own argument.


PS. couldn't be bothered watching the video
1. I think you just ran yourself in a circle. I said that you can't compare violent crime rates in different countries (such as the far-too-common US vs UK argument) and that in the US, anti-gun legislation is completely ineffective.

To show that making comparisons like this is ridiculous, see this article about gun politics and culture in Switzerland: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

2. Yes, you did. You made my point for me that the weapon can't be blamed for the crime. Once again, removing guns from violent crime solves nothing.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

3. The criminal doesn't have to worry about having a gun being legal. He's a criminal. He breaks the law.

4. The men who wrote the Constitution knew it would have to stand the test of time and it has. The 2nd amendment keeps our government accountable. AR-15s are the muskets of this century. Look to history and you'll see that giving people the means to overthrow their government is very important.

5. You've misinterpreted what I'm saying.

Of course we should. Do you honestly think criminals care for gun laws? NOPE. So why cant we have the right to protect ourselves? You want my guns? Come And Take Them.

-x209Zombie

I love freedom so, I must therefore want the right to bare arms.


Right?

you should have the freedom to own a fire arm. that right is a freedom?