THE (RESTRICTION) OF RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!

[Narkro555]

No smart criminal would buy a gun legally anyway. Guns should be illegal all the way.

Tell that to the people hoarding guns "in case the government tries to take our freedoms". I'm not sure if they're just full of hot air and want to sound patriotic or will actually fire at police officers enforcing democratically created anti-firearm laws, but it's not something to risk. We're pretty screwed.

[Ad Bot]

[ZombiLoin]

To sir dooble, because I can't be assed to quote his post.
1) Most gun owners don't fire their gun in self-defense because more often than not they don't need to. Only the criminally insane (i.e. honor students) or idiots would actually try and attack a person with a gun on the off chance that he/she is bluffing.

2) Civilians own semi-automatic rifles because it's a) fun to use them, and b) it decreases the gap between their capabilities and the military's capabilities. Again, it's a safeguard against tyrannical government.

3) While indeed, most of American society has declared itself free because, well, that's how it's been since most people have been born, your rights aren't really yours unless you're willing to fight for them.

4) Again, the normal burglary. Sure, you can own a knife, or a dog, or your fists, but the burglar could have them too, or even *gasp* a gun! And then you and your wife and your children are all forgeted. Having a handgun means that you're on at least equal footing.

Tell that to the people hoarding guns "in case the government tries to take our freedoms". I'm not sure if they're just full of hot air and want to sound patriotic or will actually fire at police officers enforcing democratically created anti-firearm laws, but it's not something to risk. We're pretty screwed.

I think you're using democracy wrong. What you're looking for is Ochlocracy, which is tyranny by the majority.

[Narkro555]

I think you're using democracy wrong. What you're looking for is Ochlocracy, which is tyranny by the majority.

So if we remove the second amendment, and congress passes a law mandating the destruction of all guns, should they shoot at police?

[Harm94]

So if we remove the second amendment, and congress passes a law mandating the destruction of all guns, should they shoot at police?

Narko calm down. See this chart?

FBI published it.

[AdinX]

And if you aren't near the door? The shooter has the advantage in almost every case, except once someone hiding is more tuned into the situation and can fire back. If someone has a powerful gun with the intent to shoot up a place, he's going to succeed for a while. The issue is, we cannot take guns away, so until somehow there's a way to make it so everyone has less guns, arming people is the best means of defense we have at the moment.

I'm gonna break this down right quick babe hope you don't mind

And if you aren't near the door? The shooter has the advantage in almost every case, except once someone hiding is more tuned into the situation and can fire back.

No, they don't. If you are in your house, it's a home game. You know the turf. You know the turns, the halls and the doors. Clearing your head is hard, but you have to. That's how you win a fight. Not just fight fights or knife fights, any fight. War isn't just bullets back and forth. You have to think strategically how you are going to save yourself, and then others.
Odds are in a home situation, you will be AWARE something is wrong in the house before they reach, say, a bedroom door. If it's a front door breach and they've caught you off guard, that's another story, and then you run and duck. They may have the element of surprise, but you have those first few seconds that are going to dictate whether or not you go home or go to a hospital.

If someone has a powerful gun with the intent to shoot up a place, he's going to succeed for a while.

Do yourself and never say this ever again. This is the epitome of stupidity.
A gun is a gun. A .22 will hurt, and a .50 BMG will hurt (actually it'll probably just kill you from the shock alone, but I digress.)
If they walk in your house with a .22 pistol, they can STILL kill you just as easily as if they blew your door down with a 12 gauge. This isn't COD where you get hit points and a sniper rifle is a 1-hit kill if it hits the head. Bullets hurt.
If someone has the intent to shoot up a place, odds are concealed carry isn't the answer. There is no argument for that. If they walk into a mall guns blazing, you don't get a chance. You can only hope he misses, you have time to duck and then draw your weapon to get a sneak attack.

The issue is, we cannot take guns away, so until somehow there's a way to make it so everyone has less guns, arming people is the best means of defense we have at the moment.

Can we work on banning doctors, alcohol, cars, tall buildings and pocket knives first







guis look at dis
http://www.filedropper.com/multimediapres

[ZombiLoin]

So if we remove the second amendment, and congress passes a law mandating the destruction of all guns, should they shoot at police?

That's a metaphorical scenario that won't happen in the real world so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

[Swat 3]

hi guys

i was asking for points for the restriction

not a war zone kthanks

[Night Fox]

Narko calm down. See this chart?

FBI published it.

this is a terrible chart

[Nikolan]

Hey America,
We (England) get about 1 crime with a gun a year (and its usually a massive heist or a toy gun)
I feel safe knowing that the guy that will break into my house will pretty much most of the time, not have anything on him (we dont even get that much robberies anyways)

Obviously, you can't just make an anti-gun law in America, as business will fail, people will be angry at losing their weapons, and people will still have them.
Truth is, you will always be the stupid country with weapons. Even if a law was put in place, you wouldn't even get rid of half the civilian weapons in your country.

The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

goodbye

[Kingdaro]

Narko calm down. See this chart?

FBI published it.

I love how the chart tries so hard makes it look like a super significant decrease.

[Tayasaurus]

Are you trying to suggest that most guns in the US are made by hand by individuals? Because I'm pretty damn sure that's not the case.
You would be surprised actually.
No, I say unnecessary like "why does an office-worker need to own a handgun", or why does a civilian need to own 4 light machine-guns, or an automatic rifle strapped to a car? How often does a person in America walk down the street and get confronted by a roving Army or people waving handguns at each other? How often have you ever needed to defend yourself from another gun? How many gun-owners have ever fired a gun out of self-defence, or have had offence avoid them because they own a gun?
Its agreeably unrealistic to go outside seeing civilians waving weapons at eachother yes. But when you buy a firearm you're purchasing it for several reasons. You could be buying it to use for recreational material such as hunting or target shooting. Or you could be purchasing a gun to protect your household in the likely chance that an isolated incident chooses you out of the unlucky bunch. These things DO happen and its unfortunate that in a lot of cases a person falls victim to a weapon because they are not on equal footing with those using it against them. Another thing you could be doing is possessing a firearm with evil intent. The fact that you keep pushing that the possession of a firing weapon is unnecessary is unrealistic. And if it is so unnecessary, why do we need to take them away?

I'm not saying that the constitution was written perfectly. That's kind of my point, that people take this ancient text and abide by it regardless. It's not relevant to own a gun anymore, and it's certainly not relevant even to the standards of the time it was written that you can own a fully-automatic gun.
There is no doubt that a written human document is fallible. However because its old doesn't make it irrelevant.

This is a major problem with the way American philosophy plays out, and honestly, it's one of the reasons why there are such a popular disapproval of America in foreign culture.
America and Americans believe they are entitled to Freedom.
You're not.
The citizens of a nation are not entitled to a Freedom to do whatever the forget they want. This is not how a normal society works. Individuals shouldn't be allowed to take up lude, crude and dangerous activities that endanger others solely because they claim they are Free. If every richardhead could do whatever the hell they wanted, including owning killing machines, then nobody is safe and nothing gets done. Yeah, America gets things done, because you're not all free to do whatever you want (you're constrained by laws, and the need for money and society and other such things), but the American psyche still appears to stick to the view that it can do whatever it wants because it's declared itself Free.Better for no criminal to be breaking into a house at all is a better argument. Focus on education and thinning the poverty-rich divide.
This is still not an argument for guns.
Not every American follows the idea that they can do whatever they want. You're hearing probably a lot of the ignorants and highschool dropouts who take "the land of the free" way out of context. The law is necessary and nobody should be above the law. However we need to keep in check that lawmakers don't feel free to pass laws willy nilly. Its one thing to be prancing around claiming that its your solemn right to own Anthrax in a bottle. Guns are another thing that can be owned by responsible individuals and maintained by those who wouldn't abuse them. Its not right to take away from those because of the mistakes of the few.

Criminals have everything to be afraid of breaking into a house. People own other weapons than guns. There are these magnificent items called knives, and clubs and fists and dogs. People still own those and they still live in houses.
And chances are they're not as likely to be used to kill someone else who isn't breaking in, or to be accidentally used by a child to injure or kill itself or others.
If i were a criminal i would have very very little worry breaking into a house if i'm holding a handgun. Your dog will go down and your butterknives don't possess the long range reach of my under the radar illegally obtained handgun. (or legally obtained if i'm stupid as an ox)

Comparing the abolition of alcohol, a stimulating drug used for over 10,000 years and bred into the culture of every single nation and tribe that has existed on the planet since that time, is not the same as banning a lethal and dangerous ranged weapon that has existed in it's current form for 100 years.
Yeah, I'm sure there will be gun-smuggling. There is in Britain.
But I am pretty confident to say that removing guns from the general public will decrease gun-crime due to it's lack of availability and the fact that it's no longer at hand for the non-criminally oriented to use in times of passion and madness.
The only thing taking weapons from the hands of civilians will do is get them killed more easily.
We don't have guns in Britain, but they still exist and are still smuggled among certain criminals. But most of the criminals operating in this country are petty robbers and thieves and druggies, the likes of which aren't so focussed on high-stakes crime that they need to import smuggled guns to thrive. I'd happily say that most criminals in America aren't committing crimes so severe that they would necessarily need a gun to carry it out.
You're assuming the mentality of a petty robber and theif. Weapons are not strictly for use in high stake crimes. Guns are more than just something designed to operate. They are motivators as well.


When I say England has less gun crime I'm not meaning by number. Of course we do, when America has over 10x the population. But by proportion our gun crime is lower. It's always going to be lower solely by the fact that we don't get accidental gun crime, since guns aren't available to be used by accident as they are in America, let alone it's use in planned crime.
So suddenly accidents is the biggest worry of all? I'm sure if everyone had the perfection of Jesus and was wielding a handgun the world would be better off yes. But sadly you can't avoid accidents. Its part of the trip.

And yes, other methods have risen in the UK. But that's because crime is always going to exist and people are always going to try and defend themselves or enforce their crime.
The difference is that most people can run away from a knife, compared to a bullet, and no one is going to take an entire school hostage and systematically kill tens of students and teachers armed solely with a penknife and baseball bat.
which is ironically why they obtain a gun first. Illegally. Under the radar. Without the police knowing. Without your lawmakers knowing. Thats the whole point.
Sorry for the long post and it not being in a great state. I'm tired and all the best arguments turn up at bedtime. :/
If it's not lost in a sea of posts when I get back I'll try and respond to any replies. Or send me a PM if you want to discuss anything I've said some more.

[Narkro555]

No, they don't. If you are in your house, it's a home game.

I was talking about school shootings. Yes, at home you could have an advantage if you hear something.

Then again, someone shot his wife when she was making noise in the kitchen at night, but that's a different story.

Do yourself and never say this ever again. This is the epitome of stupidity.
A gun is a gun. A .22 will hurt, and a .50 BMG will hurt (actually it'll probably just kill you from the shock alone, but I digress.)

By power I did not mean "bullet damage", I meant faster-firing guns with large clips have a lot more killing power simply because there are more bullets to shoot, and faster.

Can we work on banning doctors, alcohol, cars, tall buildings and pocket knives first

Doctors, cars, and tall buildings have other, more useful purposes (alcohol and pocket knives are debatable). The sole use for a gun is killing. It is a weapon, that's what weapons do.

[Nonnel]

I love how the chart tries so hard makes it look like a super significant decrease.

200,000 less offenses isn't a big decrease?

[AdinX]

hi guys

i was asking for points for the restriction

not a war zone kthanks

then you posted in the wrong forum

I would bet 75% if not more are against gun control

If you want stuff FOR gun control, go see the facebook group Moms Demand Action

[Harm94]

this is a terrible chart

I love how the chart tries so hard makes it look like a super significant decrease.

This is the most up to date UCR that isn't dumbed down.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2013/tables/table_1_january_to_june_2012-2013_percent_change_by_population_group.xls