What is your stand on gun ownership?

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Rights come with costs.

What would make you think that the poster could possibly want that?

None of my encounters with the police have involved brutality; I’ve only ever seen them act quite professionally. Is that a comprehensive picture? No. Neither is yours.

I have lived abroad, my friend. Injustice can be found everywhere, including Europe.
Potentially, everyone with a knife, or a stick, or a rock, or a fist is a criminal. I’m sorry, but you’ve let your reason run away from you.

If enough of the populace is armed, it can make for very effective guerrilla warfare. At the very least, it gives people the option to die on their feet rather than living on their knees. I’m not sure if that sentiment will be appreciated by all.

Mind you, I’ve never bought a gun with the idea in mind that I could use it against a government grown tyrannical. My opposition to gun bans have to do with how a view the relationship between government and citizens.

I have discussed this before and your arguments are not new for me. They seem to be memorized from childhood as they come with the same words.

A knife is the same thing as an atomic bomg, if you have go to have right you need gund (I wonder that the Azazon Indians have no rights!), America-the-Beatiful-does-not-care-about-other-countries-experiences, die on their feet (I have seen this sentence in some hundreds of westerns), peole’s guns against government tanks (what a neverhear of scenario in 200 years of American History), injustices everywhere so a parking ticket is the came as Columbine School, if my encounters with police were nice so are everybody for I am the lighthouse, and so on.

Some american discuss thing in a rational manner. Recognize all the aspects ofthe question. But others like like you become irrational and just throw any argument they have in mind no matter good or bad, as long as it defends their trenches: the guns.

Simply there is no possibility to discussions. Anyhow, the problem is not mine and it is not me who has the possibility of being shot in america. I have an opinion, that’s all.

I simply agree to disagree.

 

[Rocks_91]

Where do you live?
Do you have a legal right to own a gun?
What is the context of your country’s gun control law, if any?
Is it effective?

1. Kolkata, India (where Mother Teresa was at).
2. No. The common man here is not allowed to own a gun, just law enforcement workers, unless for a very grave reason, and you have to submit documents for it, and the system being lax as it is, you can expect them to process it in about six years or so, unless you bribe the officials with large amounts of cash, and yes police and government workers here are notorious for accepting bribes. Well, most people here do not own guns. And I agree with it, you know. Almost anything can be used as a weapon and I don’t see the point in adding more jewels to the crown.
3. To prevent more crime, I guess. There is crime here, rape and murder too. But handing out guns to every home isn’t going to solve it. Guns can easily fall into the wrong hands, and the less guns out there, the better. As for self-defence, I believe that guns are going to do less than practicing safety measures, such as girls not walking down dark alleys and men not hanging out with druglords and gambling houses and the like, well you get the drift.
4. Well, I’m not sure, but looking at stats online, it seems India is tenth on the top ten list of countries with highest crime rates, though still much better off than America and UK, which occupy the top two slots. Also, India has a very large population.

 

[chipeto]

I have discussed this before and your arguments are not new for me. They seem to be memorized from childhood as they come with the same words.

A knife is the same thing as an atomic bomg, if you have go to have right you need gund (I wonder that the Azazon Indians have no rights!), America-the-Beatiful-does-not-care-about-other-countries-experiences, die on their feet (I have seen this sentence in some hundreds of westerns), peole’s guns against government tanks (what a neverhear of scenario in 200 years of American History), injustices everywhere so a parking ticket is the came as Columbine School, if my encounters with police were nice so are everybody for I am the lighthouse, and so on.

Some american discuss thing in a rational manner. Recognize all the aspects ofthe question. But others like like you become irrational and just throw any argument they have in mind no matter good or bad, as long as it defends their trenches: the guns.

Simply there is no possibility to discussions. Anyhow, the problem is not mine and it is not me who has the possibility of being shot in america. I have an opinion, that’s all.

I simply agree to disagree.

I apologize; I am not unable to understand exactly what you are saying. I suppose there is a language barrier. I do take it that you feel that my argument is flawed. If it is, then I must have:

• Used a term ambiguously, or
• Expressed a false premise, or
• Committed a logical fallacy

Could you tell me which of these I have done, and in what way? And, may I ask, was it really necessary to assume the worst of me? I wasn’t throwing out any argument that came to mind; each of the points I made was, rightly or wrongly, in response to one of your points.

Certainly, I understand if you do not wish to carry the discussion further.

 

[Gift_from_God]

Where do you live?

Canada

Do you have a legal right to own a gun?

Yes

What is the context of your country’s gun control law, if any?
Is it effective?

Very regulated. Virtually no shootings up here

 

[Hastrman]

Some american discuss thing in a rational manner. Recognize all the aspects ofthe question. But others like like you become irrational and just throw any argument they have in mind no matter good or bad, as long as it defends their trenches: the guns.

Simply there is no possibility to discussions. Anyhow, the problem is not mine and it is not me who has the possibility of being shot in america. I have an opinion, that’s all.

I simply agree to disagree.

You need to read the statistics.

John Lott, economist. More Guns, Less Crime.

Understand, our multibillion dollar-a-year gun control lobby has thrown everything they have at trying to debunk those statistics, and hasn’t pulled it off yet.

I don’t give a damn about the Second Amendment; a constitution, being positive law, has the precise same authority as the warranty on your fridge (it’s handy to have as long as you’ve still got the fridge, admittedly). But humans have an inherent right to self defense.

You’re right, though, those people who think small arms are much defense against a regular army are quaint ideologues, little better than the Ghost Dance with their magic shirts.

The real reason for private gun ownership is that the courts in America have ruled—as they must, or face negligence-lawsuits for every crime, ever—that the police are only obligated to protect society as a whole, not any particular individual (they are still required to intervene when they can, of course). The concept is summed up in the slogan “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”

 

[Zooey]

Seriously?

Seriously.
Whenever I read of an aborted attempt at a school shooting, an armed robbery, or another violent crime, I look ahead for the name of the armed citizen who drew down on the criminal…and it is always there. Even though it much embarrass some of the reporters who tell the story, it is a fact:
There is no greater deterrent to violent crime than an armed citizen. Criminals count on being ravening wolves facing frightened sheep. A gun pointed** at** them–they panic. They are, after all, only common cowards after all…That’s why they are out threatening somebody’s garndmother, or a room full of innocent children.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I apologize; I am not unable to understand exactly what you are saying. I suppose there is a language barrier. I do take it that you feel that my argument is flawed. If it is, then I must have:

• Used a term ambiguously, or
• Expressed a false premise, or
• Committed a logical fallacy

Could you tell me which of these I have done, and in what way? And, may I ask, was it really necessary to assume the worst of me? I wasn’t throwing out any argument that came to mind; each of the points I made was, rightly or wrongly, in response to one of your points.

Certainly, I understand if you do not wish to carry the discussion further.

Would you mind to wait a while for me to dissect the fine points?
You feel like it, but I am not throwing at you. sowwy if it felt like that.
till soon.

 

[chain]

1. UK

Most violent crime is knife crime (which is a serious problem in some cities), but at least, you’re more likely to survive a knife wound than a gunshot.

Honestly, I seriously doubt that assumption.
I would highly suspect that anyone who would pull a knife on my would be less than half my age and more likely than not in somewhat better physical shape. The odds are their hand eye coordination are good enough that they would not miss, and I would end up injured.

Most gun crimes are also committed by kids - and they are utterly random shootings. They are not even aiming. Even to the extent they are aiming, few of these youth have any knowledge of marksmanship, the chance of getting hit - are fairly low, and getting hit critically are even smaller. Add to it, most of the guns being used are small caliber pistols that are considered inadequate for self defense - your chances of survival are still very high if you are hit.

I have read numerous accounts where police departments have fired more than 100 rounds at individuals and never hit (or if they did, did not stop) the criminal. These are the professionals who supposedly train. If they can not hit a target with 100 rounds, I really am not frozen solid that some punk will do that much better. I do suspect he could easily perforate me like Swiss cheese with a knife if given the opportunity.

Last year, there was a shooting in a town near me (these are small towns with small populations). The shooting happened in the court house parking lot. The criminal shot at the mom, hit her boys with the car, then proceeded to shoot the boys at point blank range. Even at point blank range - the boys were never listed in critical condition and were out of the hospitable quickly (I don’t think he managed to hit the mother). That said, those police still could not help - and that was a shooting essentially in the parking lot of the police station. I honestly not even recall if the shooter was apprehended (but I will at least hope he was).

Rifles are a completely different story - but they are rarely used in gun crimes.

 

[Corki]

Where do you live?
Do you have a legal right to own a gun?
What is the context of your country’s gun control law, if any?
Is it effective?

Texas

Absolutely

For the most part, gun control is state law, not a “country’s law” in the US. The context in Texas is that you have a right to a firearm until you do something that causes you to lose that right.

Yes.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Rights come with costs.

Boy, what a cost! Is is worthwhile? Dont you think that is ar argument just for the sake or argument?

What would make you think that the poster could possibly want that?

No. I am not saying that. If you dettach that sentence fromt he whole text it means taht. thatis the problem of answering sentence by sentece. The whole text has a structure. I am saying that he is aremed like that because he is expecting a gun and do not want to be killed for he has a family

None of my encounters with the police have involved brutality; I’ve only ever seen them act quite professionally. Is that a comprehensive picture? No. Neither is yours.

Again. In logic, you can never argue to a general principle with a particular case. Maybe some black will say: "ALL my encounter with police envolved violence and I have seen videos of it in LA. It is the churchill factor. Smoking Kills. BUT churchill smoke like a chemney, drank like a pipe and the only exercise he did was to lift the fork from the plate to the mouth and lived to be 90: this proves nothing !!!

I have lived abroad, my friend. Injustice can be found everywhere, including Europe.
Potentially, everyone with a knife, or a stick, or a rock, or a fist is a criminal. I’m sorry, but you’ve let your reason run away from you.

That is the oposite mistake. Generalizations. If we talk about a particular subject, one generalizes. The fellow in Norway killed 80 people? No problem, everybody hs got to die and there are killings everywhere. It does not say anything. So let’s do nothing for there are injustices everywhere, let’s not catch criminals and so on. Again, everybody in the States that is in favour or gun say THE SAME SENTENCE: a stick and a rock also kill. That is the reason I said it was memorized, because the words are the same. Com compare a rock with a gun? And you say of me: “I’m sorry, but you’ve let your reason run away from you.” People may have submachine guns and you pretend that a rock makes as much harm as an arm? I tell you the difference: if someone throws a rock at me he may get killed, if someone shoots me 99% of the cahnces are that I, I repeaat, I, will get killed even if the gun was in the hand of a child! Do you think that it is me who let my reason away from me?

If enough of the populace is armed, it can make for very effective guerrilla warfare. At the very least, it gives people the option to die on their feet rather than living on their knees. I’m not sure if that sentiment will be appreciated by all.

I thought the whole situation would be ridiculous enough and you would not answer to that. But for you to defend that the people is fghting against their own children, parents, family in the army is absolutely surreal. No, that sentiment is only appreciated to me when fight my enemy, NEVER my brethren.

Mind you, I’ve never bought a gun with the idea in mind that I could use it against a government grown tyrannical. My opposition to gun bans have to do with how a view the relationship between government and citizens.

Again, everybody repeats THE SAME SENTENCE as if it has been brainwashed into the minds of American people and they cannot think by themselves. I have seen this sentence thrown to me so many times that i suspect it is memorized in school. Again, I patiently recall that you cannot fight tanks with guns. You will not die standing you wil be desarmed. They will knowck you out of your senses and take the arm from you and will send you bakc to work.

With the System you have that impeached Nixon for a little sin and almost impeached Clinton for another little weakness, you are expecting a tyranical government? Your system has everything it takes to avoid to make it impossible for a tyrannical government to be able to exist and you talk to me in guns, in dying standing in all these surreal circumstances that I think you seem to know little about the States, and you are american !!!

 

[BigFellaMick]

people forget the whole right to bear arms was mostly to allow one to protect his home from criminals or from the british lol Times were way different back then. They didn’t have a police force well versed for dealing with these kinds of things. I think the states should listen to the un and get rid of these dang guns. Yes the gangs are going to keep getting their hands on them and that won’t stop no matter what policy is implemented. But to arm more people just leads to more violence eventually. western europe has tight gun control laws, and their violent crime is almost non existent compared to america. The rest of the world has found a way to live in society without weapons (outside of military and police and the like) and they are perfectly happy. But here in america we have people that feel it is their God given right to own guns “just in case” something happens. I don’t think Christ would be packin if he was walking the earth today. I’m not saying he would condemn someone who does (or that we should). I’m just saying that society has matured (in some ways) to the point where the whole gun ownership just isn’t necessary. I think it would be a great act on americas behalf to hop down from its high horse and join with the rest of the world in getting rid of its guns. It’d show that americans aren’t all ignorant cowboys who thrive on violence as we often get painted as since people would sell their soul defending their right to carry weapons. If you’re worried for your safety carry a rosary. That will keep you safer than any caliber handgun and thats a promise!

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Excellent question. I would like to know what The Church teaches about this. Can someone fill us in on that?

 

[Kaninchen]

Gun crime rose 40% in the two years following the UK gun ban, and from the data I have seen, those numbers have stayed consistent. Those are numbers provided by your own Home Office. The same thing happened in Australia following their ban. Mexico banned guns years ago. How’s that working at lowering gun violence? Switzerland requires every home to have a gun. What’s their gun crime rate?

The simple truth is that it is people and culture that impart violence. Guns are just a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

I could kill people far easier by driving my car through a bus stop full of kids as compared to trying to walk into a school and shoot them if I was inclined to do so. I suppose in the UK if I did that, they would take everyone’s car away.

After one such discussion here some time ago, I checked the Home office criteria crime statistics for my local area (darkest leafy English suburbia) against FBI based crime statistics and discovered that we’d be equivalent of the seventh most crime-ridden city in the US.

Since our local newspapers tend to lead on things like teens and their appalling littering of the local parks with soft drinks cans or dog-owners failing to keep their dogs on leads, I was a bit surprised by all this.

So, I came to the conclusion that the can and dogs not on leads situation in the top six crime-ridden US cities must be really frightful - either that or there’s something incompatible with the way our two countries do their crime stats.

I would like to add that I’ve lived in the US so I’m not entirely ignorant about it and that I don’t actually give the hind quarters of a member of the species rattus rattus about whether Americans have guns or not.

 

[jwinch2]

After one such discussion here some time ago, I checked the Home office criteria crime statistics for my local area (darkest leafy English suburbia) against FBI based crime statistics and discovered that we’d be equivalent of the seventh most crime-ridden city in the US.

Since our local newspapers tend to lead on things like teens and their appalling littering of the local parks with soft drinks cans or dog-owners failing to keep their dogs on leads, I was a bit surprised by all this.

So, I came to the conclusion that the can and dogs not on leads situation in the top six crime-ridden US cities must be really frightful - either that or there’s something incompatible with the way our two countries do their crime stats.

Funny! As a point of clarification, the stats I found from your home office were specifically related to gun and violent crime, not doggie crime.

I would like to add that I’ve lived in the US so I’m not entirely ignorant about it and that I don’t actually give the hind quarters of a member of the species rattus rattus about whether Americans have guns or not.

Good. Would that more had your attitude. The only time I concern myself with the affairs of Europe is when it affects me directly, e.g. the world economy, etc. or, when things like this come up and people try to tell us how we should do things in America because it is working so well in xyz country…

I would ask anyone thinking about this situation to consider the following. Are guns outlawed in your country? If so, do you think criminals know where to get one if they desire to? What about drugs? Are they illegal in your country? If they are, do you think that if you wanted to you could buy them? The point is simple, it is not possible for law enforcement to control this situation and the people who obey the laws are the ones you DON’T have to worry about. Disarming them, makes no sense when criminals are still able to get pretty much anything they want.

 

[Kaninchen]

I would ask anyone thinking about this situation to consider the following. Are guns outlawed in your country? If so, do you think criminals know where to get one if they desire to? What about drugs? Are they illegal in your country? If they are, do you think that if you wanted to you could buy them? The point is simple, it is not possible for law enforcement to control this situation and the people who obey the laws are the ones you DON’T have to worry about. Disarming them, makes no sense when criminals are still able to get pretty much anything they want.

I think the problem here is that you’re talking about other countries as if they’re just like the US except for failing to understand some deep truths that have been revealed to Americans and it’s as if you’re saying to people ‘think hard and you too will come up with American answers’ while forgetting that you’re merely asking for answers to American questions.

American answers come from the history of America, its image of itself, its great stories and myths - other countries’ answers come from their history, their self-images, their great stories and myths. Trying to convince the British electorate of the wonders of mass gun ownership would be no less frought, no less anger-inducing than trying to convince the American electorate of disarmament.

 

[chipeto]

Rights come with costs.

Boy, what a cost! Is is worthwhile? Dont you think that is ar argument just for the sake or argument?
I have admitted that my country has serious problems with violence. I do not think that gun ownership is the problem. So, you and I have different views on the ‘cost’ of gun ownership. It should go without saying that I think the cost worthwhile, that the cost of gun ownership is less than the cost of gun confiscation and the cost of a government powerful enough to do such a thing. It should also go without saying that I do not think that I am making an argument for the sake of argument.

What would make you think that the poster could possibly want that?

No. I am not saying that. If you dettach that sentence fromt he whole text it means taht. thatis the problem of answering sentence by sentece. The whole text has a structure. I am saying that he is aremed like that because he is expecting a gun and do not want to be killed for he has a family
I am sorry that I misunderstood you.

None of my encounters with the police have involved brutality; I’ve only ever seen them act quite professionally. Is that a comprehensive picture? No. Neither is yours.

Again. In logic, you can never argue to a general principle with a particular case. Maybe some black will say: "ALL my encounter with police envolved violence and I have seen videos of it in LA. It is the churchill factor. Smoking Kills. BUT churchill smoke like a chemney, drank like a pipe and the only exercise he did was to lift the fork from the plate to the mouth and lived to be 90: this proves nothing !!!

I was merely demonstrating how easy it is to make unfounded statements, as you did. Of course the ‘implied’ argument is ridiculous, that was the point.

I have lived abroad, my friend. Injustice can be found everywhere, including Europe.
Potentially, everyone with a knife, or a stick, or a rock, or a fist is a criminal. I’m sorry, but you’ve let your reason run away from you.

That is the oposite mistake. Generalizations. If we talk about a particular subject, one generalizes. The fellow in Norway killed 80 people? No problem, everybody hs got to die and there are killings everywhere. It does not say anything. So let’s do nothing for there are injustices everywhere, let’s not catch criminals and so on. Again, everybody in the States that is in favour or gun say THE SAME SENTENCE: a stick and a rock also kill. That is the reason I said it was memorized, because the words are the same. Com compare a rock with a gun? And you say of me: “I’m sorry, but you’ve let your reason run away from you.” People may have submachine guns and you pretend that a rock makes as much harm as an arm? I tell you the difference: if someone throws a rock at me he may get killed, if someone shoots me 99% of the cahnces are that I, I repeaat, I, will get killed even if the gun was in the hand of a child! Do you think that it is me who let my reason away from me?

Again, you are ascribing to me an argument that I did not make. You said: 'Potentially, every american is a criminal, for with a gun he may shoot the police. '. With respect, this statement is just silly, and that is what I was pointing out.

If enough of the populace is armed, it can make for very effective guerrilla warfare. At the very least, it gives people the option to die on their feet rather than living on their knees. I’m not sure if that sentiment will be appreciated by all.

I thought the whole situation would be ridiculous enough and you would not answer to that. But for you to defend that the people is fghting against their own children, parents, family in the army is absolutely surreal. No, that sentiment is only appreciated to me when fight my enemy, NEVER my brethren.
It happened during the American Revolution. It happened during our Civil War. Before I am accused of being a bloodthirsty monster allow me to say that I find the very thought of such a conflict heinous.

Mind you, I’ve never bought a gun with the idea in mind that I could use it against a government grown tyrannical. My opposition to gun bans have to do with how a view the relationship between government and citizens.
May I reiterate this? The points I made about tyranny and armed populaces are, for me, academic ones. I have a penchant for playing devil’s advocate. I’m sorry if I was too subtle about this.

continued…

 

[chipeto]

continued…

Again, everybody repeats THE SAME SENTENCE as if it has been brainwashed into the minds of American people and they cannot think by themselves. I have seen this sentence thrown to me so many times that i suspect it is memorized in school.

I do not know what sentence you are referring to, but I haven’t memorized anything of the sort and I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself.

Again, I patiently recall that you cannot fight tanks with guns. You will not die standing you wil be desarmed. They will knowck you out of your senses and take the arm from you and will send you bakc to work.

At the risk of coming across, once again, as some anti-government wacko, I am going to call shenanigans on this. I have been a soldier. If someone is shooting at you, you do not ‘knock him out of his senses and send him back to work’. You shoot back. Period.

With the System you have that impeached Nixon for a little sin and almost impeached Clinton for another little weakness, you are expecting a tyranical government? Your system has everything it takes to avoid to make it impossible for a tyrannical government to be able to exist and you talk to me in guns, in dying standing in all these surreal circumstances that I think you seem to know little about the States, and you are american !!!

Again, you are ascribing to me an argument that I never made. I never said that I expected such a thing. Since you ask, however, I will say that I don’t think any system of government can render tyranny impossible.

But I feel that I must mention once again that the whole tyranny angle is an academic one for me.

At any rate, please allow me to apologize if I have offended you, which it seems I must have done.

 

[Z_Ninja]

Where do you live?
North Metro Atlanta, GA USA

Do you have a legal right to own a gun?
Yes

What is the context of your country’s gun control law, if any?
depends on the local/state laws.

Is it effective?
also varies.

There is a city here, Kennesaw, GA, that has a law that makes it mandatory for all homeowners to own a firearm. this law was enacted in 1982. Statistics show that crimes against persons dropped 74% from 1981 and 45% from 1982 to 1983.
this is a small sample size though, i understand, but shows that just the threat of a possible victim owning a gun in the home is somewhat a deterrent. not everyone actually owns a firearm, as there are multiple ways of getting around this law.

 

[Newbie2]

Seriously.
Whenever I read of an aborted attempt at a school shooting, an armed robbery, or another violent crime, I look ahead for the name of the armed citizen who drew down on the criminal…and it is always there. Even though it much embarrass some of the reporters who tell the story, it is a fact:
There is no greater deterrent to violent crime than an armed citizen. Criminals count on being ravening wolves facing frightened sheep. A gun pointed** at** them–they panic. They are, after all, only common cowards after all…That’s why they are out threatening somebody’s garndmother, or a room full of innocent children.

I don’t recall that happening in the fairly recent Tuscon shooting.

Anyway, I would be more concerned with some yahoo playing Dirty Harry or some soccer mom blasting away with…let’s say “inaccurate” aim.

I’m not against firearms, just firearms in the hands of someone who is just as likely to unintentionally shoot someone as the bad guy is.

As far as the other post that “required” people to purchase a firearm and take training, methinks that’s not likely to be a law that would hold up to a challenge.

 

[jwinch2]

As far as the other post that “required” people to purchase a firearm and take training, methinks that’s not likely to be a law that would hold up to a challenge.

It already has. This ordinance has been in effect for several years now.