scout

While you did not directly say it, I think you did hint at it. After your spill about it being a different time in history blah blah blah and your quote of the Second Amendment you stated

I was merely pointing out that that the argument of a different time in history, it was meant for the militia, blah blah blah, has already been debated several times over and the Supreme Court has even issued several rulings debunking that argument. The Second Amendment is a real reason, just as the First Amendment is a real reason you are able to come into this forum and debate the merits of the Second Amendment without fear of retribution.
If someone is a law-abiding citizen who enjoys the shooting sports and owning guns makes them happy and they don't hurt anyone, what harm is it to you? What harm has it done to you? What business is it of yours? It's absolutely none of your business, just as what happen's in your bedroom, for example, is none of my business or the government's for that matter, but there sure is a lotta people that want to regulate and make it their business. As I stated in my first post, whatever happened to live and let live? As long as you aren't hurting anyone but yourself, provided your over 18, you should be able to do or own anything you choose or want if it makes you happy. Why do you feel compelled to protect people from themselves?

Kurtz

Deer hunting with handguns is popular, humane, and safe.

I agree with the "infant like clutching" bit, there are a bunch of gun owners that have no historical or practical understanding of the 2nd ammendment. That doesn't make them bad, or dangerous. There are plenty of people on both sides of the arguement that can't reasonably argue their points, that doesn't make them wrong. Have you ever herd Rosie O'Donnell speak on the subject? Talk about "infant like"...

Whocarz: the laws I was refering to are the ones that put more cops on the street or more strictly enforce probation guidelines and restraining orders. The gunlaws we have now arn't really enforced anyway, It's basically a honor system thing.

Willravel

Militia has nothing to do with bears and wolves. What I was saying is that most people in that time were not living in large citys. Most of the people living in the 13 colonies in that time were living either in loose communities (i.e. a few neightbors withing a mile radius), or alone. This meant that there were natural dangers that guns might have helped with. Militia was not the only people who dealt with the brits. Before the Revolutionary war, or before actual american militias, there were people who were being treated poorly. Also, there was a shortage of policeing bodys in the colonies. All of that as opposed to now. More people live in towns and citys than by themselves in the US now. Our police is infinately better. Most dangerous animals are on endangered species lists. We are not in immediate danger from a foreign power that guns could prevent.
As for the Second Ammendment, I don't agree with the supreme court. You know what? That's okay. I would never brake the laws just because I don't agree with them, thus I would never take your guns, BUT that doesn't mean I have to agree with you. As for whos buisness this is, most of this is noones buisness, mine or yours. What I am talking about is so general, that it can't be applied to being just your buisness. I'm a little surprised that you compared gun ownership with some private act in the bedroom (probably hinting at sexual acts). Are you serious? I might as weell compare gun ownership to abortion or taxes. "Why do you feel compelled to protect people from themselves?" Good question. Hmmm. It's the right thing to do. I mean if Jesus did it, and Ghandi did it, it doesn't seem to be so terribly evil or bad. Besides, I'm not forcing my beleifs on others. That WOULD be wrong. I am having a discussion with someone that has a different opinnion. Are you really going to incite that is wrong? If you could have stopped what happened with the Heavens Gate suicides, would you have? According to what you said, you would say no. According to you, saving others from themselves is not something we should be compelled to do! And shame on me for doing something about it.

Xell101

Gun ownership deters crime and it is much more difficult to quell or subjugate an armed populace, let alone one that has had a fondness for guns since inception. As for other people's affairs, I shouldn't interfere unless your well being is at stake and I do not believe you to be of sound enough mind to handle your own situation.
Also I'm curious, how do you think of guns? From yours posts I get the feeling that you believe them to be things that bring unwanted elements into the world that on the whole are unnecessary and therefore can't really justify their existence except for the amount of people that want them and your disbelief in imposing your beliefs on other people in the form of rules and regulations on how to live, and in this case, pertaining to gun ownership.

Willravel

Gun ownership probably does deter crime in some way. I'm sure a few potential agessors think twice about robbing a house, because the 'guy might have a gun'. The bottom line is that in a study done by the NBER 'home weapons did not enter into the assailants mind before comitting the violent crime' in over 97% of home invasion cases in which there was a violent crime. According to a recent NBER Working Paper by MMark Duggan, after 1993, gun homicides in the United States dropped 36% by 1998, while non-gun homicidesdeclined by only 18%. In that same period, the fraction of households with at least one gun fell from more than 42% to less than 35%. Duggan finds that about one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership. The largest declines occour in areas with the largest reductions in firearm ownership. His conclusion was that guns foster rather than deter criminal activity.

In theory, the effect of gun ownership on crime is ambiguous. If criminals are deterred from committing crimes when potential victims are more likely to possess a firearm, then more gun ownership may lead to a reduction in criminal activity. If instead guns increase the payoff to criminal activity, or simply increase the likelihood that any particular confrontation will result in a victim's death, then an increase in gun ownership will tend to increase the crime rate.

Proving one theory over the other has been difficult because of the lack of adequate data on gun ownership measured across geographic areas over time. But as evidence of the accuracy of the gun magazine subscription data, Duggan shows that sales rates are significantly higher in counties whose average demographic characteristics are similar to those of the typical gun owner according to national surveys. Furthermore, he shows that the death rate from gun accidents and the number of gun shows per capita are positively related to the magazine sales. While Duggan admits that relatively few readers may be criminals, he points out that the majority of firearms used in crime are obtained either from burglaries or from the secondhand market. Thus as the rate of gun ownership in the general population increases, the ease with which criminals can obtain a gun will increase.

Duggan finds that state and county-level changes in the rate of gun ownership are positively related to changes in the homicide rate. His findings suggest that gun ownership causes crime, and does not simply reflect individuals purchasing guns in response to increases in criminal activity. In support of this, he finds that increases in gun ownership are positively related to future increases in the gun homicide rate, but bear no corresponding relationship to non-gun homicides. His findings reveal that the relationship with other crime categories is much less marked, suggesting that guns primarily affect crime by increasing the homicide rate.

He then examines whether legislation that allowed individuals to carry concealed weapons had an important impact on the crime rate. He shows that this legislation did not lead to a substantial increase in gun ownership, nor did it reduce crime relatively more in counties with high rates of gun ownership. This latter finding suggests, Duggan writes, "either that gun owners did not increase the frequency with which they carried their guns or that criminals were not deterred by the greater likelihood that their victims would be armed." Taken together, his results suggest that Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation did not have an important effect on the rate of gun ownership or on the crime rate.

I hope that successfully shut down your claim that "Gun ownership deters crime". I guess that there are a lot of people out there that are honestly afraid of the government or the military conquering (did't feel the need to use "subjugate" or "quell") the citizens of the United States (assuming you are from the US). The only argument I haven't yet addressed, that has been brought up several times, is this one. I want to clarify, because you suddenly become quite cryptic when it comes to this: are you afraid that the US government and/or the US military are going to take your freedom if you don't have guns in your homes? "It is much more difficult to quell or subjugate an armed populace" those are your words. The only other way I can interpret this is that you beleive that either a non government/military power in the US or a foreign force is immediatally threatening our freedoms. Now as far as a US civilian force, I don't know of any civilian group that can challenge the US police forces and/or military forces that will take YOUR freedoms. I can't imagine an independant group based in the US comming to your home and enslaving you. Most people would say that is either absurd or paranoid. As far as a foreign group, we do have enemys out there. We learned that they have tactics to strike on American soil on September 11, 2001. I know that freaked a lot of people out. BUT, there is no precedent to a foreign force taking over a residential area. The likelyhood of that happening is probably in the same range as alien abduction or being hit by lightning three or four times in a row.

As for your run on sentance, yes, for the most part. I beleive guns are unwanted elements. I beleive that on the whole, they are unnecessary outside of law enforcement (including military). Yes, I was surprised that people were claiming that I was infringing on their rights by my simply stating that I am against private or civilian gun ownership. My argument about gun ownership is not about how people live. If guns are a way of life for you, then I feel pity for you. A way of life should not be around weapons of any sort, but about larger beliefs and values and morals and ethics. A gun is not a belief.

To answer more specifically your question "Also I'm curious, how do you think of guns?": I think them to be a necessary evil for military and police forces. I do not, however, see the logic behind alowing such power to be given simply by background check and a few days to any citizen. Guns find their way to the wrong people too easily this way. How many guns used illegally do you think are from the military or police forces? I would assume very few, if any. As for sport, I know hunting can be fun for people. I've hunted on several occasions. I'd much rather hunt with an older weapon, such as a sword, dagger, or spear, in order to give the prey a chance. You do not hunt for food, but for sport. I hunt on the off chance that I am left away from civilization (meaning grocery stores or markets) and I need to hunt for food. As someone who hikes in very secluded areas and loves to travel to areas that are, in fact, far from civilization, I consider it a necessary evil. I do catch and release 100% of the time. In case you are wondering, I am not a big fan of any projectile weapons.

Damn, I love to babble on. Please feel free to respond, as I welcome a good discussion.

Dostoevsky

Well after reading the debate on this thread I would like to offer a brief commentary.

First, the two sides here will never agree on this subject. In fact, I feel strongly that both sides think the other is completely stupid, insane, and unable to see the big picture. I can't be sure about this because I'm one of those NRA gun lovers and I have never felt willravel's frustration with me, only my frustration with him (and his side.) So willravel, you can help me understand this a little better. Does it frustrate you to no end that I have the value set that I do?

I will say this, I've felt the desire to chime into the small debate here several times with well argued posts, but in the end, my better judgement prevented it.

Nothing you can say will possibly change my mind on this issue. To the contrary, the more you talk about the reasons we shouldn't have guns the more I question what species you belong to. I'm sure you feel the same way about me. So in the end I think it would be silly for me to spend hours preparing relatively well written responses on internet forums.

I would seriously like to know what you think about my opinions posted here.

-To the author and moderators, sorry about this post but the thread got hijacked a couple of days ago, I'm just piling on some semi-original thought.

bodymassage3

Out of curiosity, what natural dangers existed then that do not exist now? I read this very literally, and assumed you meant wild animals, in which case I have to disagree with you.

Willravel

To Dostoevsky: I am totally fine with the fact that I'm probably not reaching anyone. I realize that I am basically preaching anti-guns on a gun forum, so I am not looking for minds to be changed. To be totally honest, I'm trying to understand. I admit that my mind was mostly made up before I started, but I am always looking to understand peoples thought processes and how they reach such different conclusions than I do.

I consider this to be a good way to spend my time and I enjoy talking to people who have completly different outlooks on topics and such. I am starting to understand a great deal about people that, just a few days ago, I had nothing in common with.

While I don't think I belong to a different species than you, I do have a background and beliefs that are in stark contrast to yours. I NEVER meant to frustrate anyone. Actually, I want to share the enjoyment I get from discussions just like these. I think it's okay to question others beliefs, just as you should qustion your own. As long as you never force your beliefs on others, discussion can be constructive.

Though I still consider myself to be very much anti-gun, I have more respect for those who are pro-gun (I realize that anti-gun and pro-gun are not case specific names for some of the people who posted, but it's specific enough to label both general sides).

Getting back to the original question of the threat in pertaining to your question, I think guns are okay if you are completly responsible and there is no way your gun can be taken or given to those who would use it to harm others.

I personally will not own a gun, unless of course something catastrophic happens like another civil war. I HAVE seen several constitutional rights taken away recently, several by the poorly named Patriot Act. If civil war does brake out, I would only kill in self defence. What I'm getting from the responses suggests that most of you guys are on the same wavelength as I am as far as self defence. You just have a slightly different acceptance ruler as far as when it is okay to actually own a gun.

I hope that you can relate to me on some level. I was a bit dissapointed when you took what I said and considered me alienated to people like you. We are probably very similar in many respects. We may like the same music, we may both be of the same religion, or we may both be into the same fight to remain a free nation. I consider all of these to be much more important than opinnions on gun laws.

Well thanks for responding honestly. I hope I helped you to understand both my state of mind and my reasoning.

Willravel

Oh sorry bodymassage3: the dangers of wild animals were higher a few hundred years ago. This is my opinnion, on which I based my argument. Good work pointing it out. I have done a lot of traveling in my life. Some of that traveling has landed me hiking torugh the Appalachian Mountains. Though I traveled more than 60 miles in about a week (this was not on a trail, btw) I only encountered one bear. I was expecting to encounter some wild cats and some wolves. Nothing. I was only with one other person the whole week and this would normally be a simple target for a pack of wolves or a wild cat. I was a combination of releived, and dissapointed. What this meant to me is that either the animals have become very very afraid of humans, or they are simply not there. Do you know how many animal attacks there are in the Eastern United States every year? Except for Coyotes, which are relitivly new in the East, there were almost none. I asked the guide after we had finished if we were in an area with wildlif control or hunting. Nope. While it wasn't a preserve, it was illegal to hunt on the land.

Now back a few hundred years ago, there was a different story. Records state of much different predators in the appalachian area. Wolves and wild cats were a serious threat in most rural areas, and even into citys! While they were hunted, their environment was still a large area and there were many more animals in total than there are now.

One good defence from such wild and dangerous animals were guns.

ecomdan

First of all, fuck me, in my current condition I can't possibly read all of whats been written on this thread as I've just spent the last six and a half hours driving back from a gig. I haven't slept in 36 hours or so, I am tired, I promise to read all of your posts when I'm I've slept a bit.

But I noticed your post Kurt, and felt obligated to reply.

In answer to your question, I think that no parent in their right mind should ever expose their children to firearms except to tell them that they are of no use to a civilized person.

I understand and believe what you say about manufacturers countermeasures and steps taken by parents to prevent their children from gaining access to their weapons, but all we hear over here is Michael Moores side of the story really. Thats the reason I started this thread, so I could get a well balanced view of the situation rather than some over-hyped media hacks interpretation of gun laws in the United States.

Thanks.

scout

Although you may never personally take my guns, if laws was passed and the police or military was ordered to take my guns, wouldn't you at least be partially responsible, along with all the other people that voted for gun control, for taking guns away from law abiding citizens, if in fact you voted for gun control? Would that suddenly make it ok to circumvent the 2nd amendment? Aren't you in fact forcing your beliefs onto others, albeit in a "legal" way? It's my belief that it shouldn't even be an issue in any election period. I compared it to sexual acts in the bedroom for two reasons, one being what happens there is noone's business, i.e., if someone chooses to be a firearm owner its noone's business but his or her own and two, the government already has it's nose where it don't belong. Did you know it's illegal in some states to have sex in any position other than the "missionary position"? Now that you mention it, abortion is much along the same lines, the government has no business meddling in a personal decision, not to mention it's the religious right pressing their beliefs on the general population much like the left pressing their beliefs on gun control. Seems to me to be total BS, do I as say not as I do crap. I personally believe abortion is murder, but that's my opinion so when I vote I leave that out of my decision on whom to vote for. I've voted for pro-life candidates as well as pro-abortion candidates. Do you leave gun control out of the equation when you vote for a candidate? If you don't then I argue you are forcing your beliefs onto others.

No I don't feel compelled to save someone from themselves if they are over 18 and of sound mind. One could argue that anyone who wishes to take their own life isn't of sound mind, so depending on the circumstances I may or may not have felt compelled to stop the suicides at Heaven's Gate. I wasn't there nor did I have to make that decision so anything I say at this point would be pure conjecture with absolutely no meaning. I'm not attempting to shame you or anything like that, on trying to save someone from themselves, merely pointing out that one needs to be careful in doing so they don't take unalienable rights away from others.

Diamond

Ecomdam, you wrote that hunters and legal shooters must jump through hoops that criminals don't. Don't you find this ironic? The people who laws are intended for have guns to break the laws? I beleive Great Britan recently banned all private gun ownership, and promptly, crime skyrocketed. When the criminals don't know who is armed, they are far, far less inclined to commit crimes.

I own guns, I hunt and I shoot. That said, I do agree that owning guns requires responsibilty and training. Personally, while not infringing on current rights, think there should be some kind of training system or personal licensing in place. I'm not saying gun registration, just personal licensing, along the lines of hunters safety type courses. Hunting and shooting are challenging and relaxing past times, never seem to get old, just like golf, always a challenge to improve ones skills.

Additionally, go to the Center for Disease Control web site and find the number of children killed or injured by firearms. Far more drown every year in 5 gallon buckets, shall they also be banned?

bodymassage3

I don't own any guns, and I haven't shot one since I was taken out by a parent when I was about 12. No offense intended to those who are for gun control, but it honestly blows my mind as to how and why this could even be brought up for debate.

Not trying to throw this further off topic any more than it already is, I agree with whomever it was that said, in a thread about gun control in the political forum, that getting a license for a gun should be much, if not exactly like obtaining a driver's license. Like was already mentioned, MOST gun advocates are for some sort of process for getting a gun. People *shouldn't* be able to walk into a store at any time, anywhere and buy a gun right that second (I'm sure there's relaxed processes for people already "in the system" who have bought guns before - this is meant more for first time buyers/users) I think outright-banning them is where its just rediculous.

To answer the original question, I remember my limited experience being pretty fun, and even though it was shooting old empty paint cans, i'd like to shoot again. If anything its at least an important skill to have some knowledge of.

Willravel

I have never, nor will I ever vote on on anything that has to do with gun control. Just the same I will not vote based on pro choice/pro life. I vote for who I think will uphold the law as it is. I found out with Clinton that just because a politician has a different belief system than you doesn't mean that politician can do a good job. So, AGAIN, don't worry about me stepping on your rights. I can't believe how much you went off on that point.
As for the heavens gate tragedy, I was trying to illustrate what a person who wants to help people might have done. I really don't think you need to tell me you wern't there. Let's not be condecending. All it would have taken is a call to the police. Have you ever heard of the police being called to prevent a suicide? It happens. Is what they do wrong? I don't think so. The 'right' to kill yourself is absurd. Now someone can take this thought too far. One could say tht along my logic you should go bomb cigarette companys. Of course not. All I am saying is that some people are not responsible to the point where they need help, whether they know it or not. You mentioned '"of sound mind".

Moonduck

I was raised around guns. When my grandmother on my Dad's side got the news that I was born (I was her first grandchild) she went out and bought a Colt Trooper II revolver in .22lr for me. She kept it until my family travelled to visit, and then she presented it to my parents for me. This was a tradition she kept up for every grandchild she had. No one thought this odd in the slightest, especially as my Dad grew up on a farm in a mountainous region of North Carolina, where guns are a daily part of life.

For as long as I can remember, I knew what guns were and what they did, and the consequences of misusing them. My parents did not go to any efforts to hide the guns, and I knew where they were. I was also under explicit instructions to never touch them unless there was a responsible adult in the room. I followed that advice explicitly until it was judged that I was safe enough with a gun to handle one on my own, sometime prior to my becoming a teenager.

My parents thought nothing of me strapping on a small caliber revolver and going horseback riding in the Apalachians by myself as a youngster. They knew that I was not going to do anything stupid with the gun, that the rattlesnake population was such that a gun was a necessity, and that the horse was perfectly capable of getting me out of any truly bad situation (she was one helluva good horse). The only living thing that I have ever put bullets into are snakes, rattlers and copperheads.

I have three kids now, and there are firearms in the house. My mother has decided to continue my grandmother's tradition, and has purchased a .22lr bolt-action rifle for all three kids, and we will teach them how to shoot when they are each old enough for it. I am of the considered and long-held opinion that the single most intelligent way to prevent accidents is education. Too many children grow up with a media-reinforced fascination for guns. As non-gun-owning parents are tepid to outright afraid of guns, they try to insulate their children away from the reality of them. As a result of fascination and prohibition, children are FAR more likely to want to satisfy their curiosity with a gun they might find. Ignorance and fasciantion is the source of child/gun accidents, not the gun.

Guns are inert tools of wood, plastic, and metal. Nothing more. Any tool can be misused, and guns are certainly not the most likely to be misused. Take a look at vehicluar accidents and homicides if you think guns are some pervasive menace insofar as tools are concerned.

As to the argument that people do not "need" guns, they also do not "need" televisions, nor cars with V-8's, nor computers, nor an awful lot of things. Trying to argue for gun control based on some perceived lack of need is as null-set useless as trying to argue that we should legislate computers out of common ownership because normal people do not need computers, only businesses do.

The argument that on militias are easily debunked if you read the Federalist papers and the various writings of the Framers of the Constitution. Jefferson in particular was very specific in why citizens should have the write to own firearms, and it had nothing to do with hunting or self-defense against wolves and wild cats. It had everything to do with self-defense against tyranny, and tyranny has not dissappeared from the face of the world since 1787. Frankly you could just as easily argue for the dissolution of the First Amendmant because it is no longer 1787, or the Fifth, the Eight, etc.

As to the correlation between guns and crime, there are numerous studies all over the place and showing all sorts of results. There was a very well-supported study published in book from recently that showed a direct relation between increased gun ownership and decreased crime. I hold both in basic contempt as statistics can be swayed and written to show any result you wish simply by monkeying with your control group and your questions, same as polling data. The bottom line is that you can go into police records anywhere that has CCW use wdespread and you will find an amazing lack of CCW holders involved in bad shoots. I personally police officers that call a CCW a "Good Guy Card" simply because they know exactly what a CCW holder has to go through to get a CCW, and the primary thing is showing that you are, in essence, a Good Guy.

In the end, Gun Control does nothing but restrict those who are likely to pay heed to the law anyway, and thus has zero effect on those whom Gun Control legislation is intended to affect. This will always be the case. Yes, greater availablility of guns will also have a corrospondignly greater incidence of gun-related accidents (can't have gun-related accidents sans guns), but the numbers on gun-related accidents are ever so much lower than so many other commonplace, and even rare, occurrences as to be insignificant (except for those involved of course). That we see them reported on the news is solely due to how sensational they are, how well they play on TV.

Guns are a fact of life in America, and a fact of life in most everywhere on the planet. The fact that you still see reports of shooting occurring in countries with pervasive gun bans are good examples that excessive Gun Control does nothing more than disarm those who are least likely to misuse a firearm.

Willravel

GOOD! I couldn't possibly agree more.

MSD

I've heard statistics that 25000 people per year are injured by shopping carts, 18000 by metal key-rings, and almost 10000 by improperly installed plumbing. in the 1990's, an average of 43000 people per year were killed in motor vehicle accidents.

Kurtz

I saw the "natural hazards" bit above and wanted to chime in. The founding fathers did not write the second ammendment to protect individual's right to bear arms. That never even occured to them. The Second Ammendment was written so that large groups of people (milita) could train with their weapons and exist as a coheisive fighting force. Back then, individuals with guns couldn't make a difference in a war, that's even more true now. The Second Ammendment was meant to protect the people's right to form military units with military weaponry that could fight against a real military and be sucessful. People being eaten by bears had nothing to do with it. Back then no one even thought of gun control in terms of private defensive or sporting use. It was about having a state by state force that could fight the federal government if it ever became tyrannical.

By it's intent, the Second Ammendment ONLY protects Millitary weapons. If we stayed true to its intent, we could all own rocket launchers and assault rifles, but would have to look elsewere for a target rifle. The second ammendment really isn't applicable to the modern world, I think we need to look somewhere else for answers to the gun control mess.

Willravel

Go Kurtz! I completly agree.

Moonduck

You were cooking with gas up until the last paragraph, Kurtz. At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, there was no real substantive difference in technology between a firearm used by the miltary and one used for civilian purposes. They were essentially the same. Saying that the 2nd Amendmant is designed ONLy to protect military firearms is entirely innaccurate. Saying it was intended only to protect firearms for military and self-defense against a tyrannical government would be correct.

At the time of the 2nd Amenmant, the vast majority of firearms were the same basic design, being muzzle-loaded black-powder weapons, ignited by a flintlock type action. There were some that were both behind and ahead of the curve, but that was the standard. Said rifle was used commonly both for civilian purposes and pressed into action by the military. It was cutting edge, in essence, and had been so fro quite some time. There are some published reports of an interesting screw-action loading advancement being used in the ARW, but the British Col that came up with the idea was killed rather early on, and his design did not gain popularity as a result.

Back to the point though, again you have to read what the Founders wrote outside of the Bill of Rights if you wish to better divine their intent. The 2nd Amendmant was pruposefully written in a relatively broad and vague fashion so as to not allow the government room to maneuver around it easily.

Menoman

This is false, during the time that the Bill of Rights was being drafted and up until it was ratified December 15, 1791. There were in fact shooting competitions held in towns with prizes such as saddles, horses, and livestock.

There was also no law stating if someone was breaking into your livestock and stealing them, or your farm and stealing equipment, saying you could not blast their head off.


There were very many ways they defended themselves and their property with guns and there were just as many ways that they kept entertainment/sport with guns.





So when you take away guns from the people your taking away one of the many many things that this great country was built on. Your removing one of the very very few traditions that can still be practiced today with relatively unmolested tactics and enviroments.

__________________

Kadin

I'm going to vote "yes" on this one. I've grown up with guns, learned to shoot at a very early age, and now own several: a highpower rifle and a few handguns. I don't hunt, but not for ideological reasons; it's just not what I'm interested in. Mostly I just punch paper, or tin cans.

The thought processes of people who support gun bans in this country (the US) is something I've decided is nearly beyond my understanding. Frankly every intelligent argument I've ever had on the subject has degenerated into a dispute about whether on the whole people are good or evil, and I've begun to wonder if there isn't some fundamental difference of opinion which drives people to one side of the argument or the other. But really, we should move the thread to politics or philosophy if we want to discuss this.

If you're interested in firearms, go to a local range, gun club, or gun store and see if you can get the names of some local people who are certified instructors. These people will almost certainly be both knowledgeable and eager to teach you about guns, and perhaps take you shooting. If I may make one suggestion: start small, like with a .22LR. I've had to spend hours training people to overcome flinching problems because somebody handed them a S&W .44Mag their first time out. And, of course, safety first!!

My local club runs a twice-yearly "Fun Day" where they invite people who are interested or just curious to come down to the range and see what it's all about (under extremely close supervision). They do bowling-pin and balloon shoots, as well as more traditional bullseye, skeet, and trap shooting. It got started as a way to show the neighbors what all the noise was about, and has been a huge success.

So anyway, it's not for everybody, but it can be a fun, rewarding, stress-relieving activity if you know what you're doing and take all the right safety precautions.

Dostoevsky

To Willravel-

Thanks for your post, it gave me something to think about. Obviously, I concede that you and I are the same species. That comment was soley intended to make my post a more interesting read.

I think our common ground lies in the fact that we would both use firearms in self-defense situations. Maybe I just believe that such a situation is more likely to arise than you do and feel the need to arm myself for it. I'm not crazy, I really don't wan't to harm anyone, I just want to know that if a bad situation arises I won't be dependent on a police officer who may or may not be able to respond to save me and my loved ones. Also, I don't trust our government and I believe that an armed population is our best bet to protect our rights against complete erosion over time.

Something Moonduck said earlier about being raised around guns made me think a little bit. Maybe people who are raised around guns are more comfortable with firearms as adults than those who weren't raised around them. I was also raised around firearms. My Remington 870 express 12 guage was a permanent fixture in my closet as a youngster. I carried that thing all over the South Georgia woods. Now, as an adult, I am still very comfortable with guns and the fact that others can own them. In fact, I'm happy with people owning guns.

I sincerely believe that the more responsible citizens who own guns, the safer our country will be from criminals and the government (criminals also for the most part).

Just my opinion.

-Dostoevsky

Willravel

I respect your opinion. Actually, I'm beginning to change my mind. A few private messages with some people have reminded me of a few things that I had forgotten. Waco Texas was the most prominent. I remember being so angry/sad at what my government was willing to do to keep control. That, in addition to the more recent Patriot Acts and second Gulf war, really undermined my faith in my government. The direction that we are headed in is a very scary one. I hope that a certian Abe Lincoln look-alike president (Kerry) can bring us back from a course twards civil war. Bush scares me. A lot.

In an ideal world, all non-simple-tool-weapons would be unnecessary. Well, in MY ideal world. We would all eat natural foods and work in small communities where everyone pulls his or her own weight. Hunting would be done with knives and bows. I think a lot of people wwould be happier this way.

Unfortunatally, we REALLY don't live in that world. We live in a world of many terrible things. Ther is a real need to defend yourself and your friends and family.

While I still will not buy a gun, I am going to continue to learn how to operate and maintain firearms. Who knows what's in the future? Things could get better, but things could get worse. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Thank you to everyone who openly discussed and considered all parts of the discussion.

ecomdan

I'm at work now so this is another quick one...

Just noticed that a few people consider gun control or the implementation of new gun control laws to be forcing their ideals on others.... well, the same thing can be said about drug laws, prostitution laws, and various other illegal activities that right-wing religious straight-head types would consider bad. Its all really a matter of opinion. I think every law should be voted on and not passed unless the majority want it to be law.

Dostoevsky

Willravel-

Well, I will say one thing about not buying a gun right now and that is this...

There is a possibility that by the time you really need a gun for protection during some kind of civil strife or defense against the government that you won't be able to buy one due to restrictive gun laws passed by our middling government.

Think about it, the government can't ban all guns all at once because that would cause too much of an uproar. A better way to do it is to ban guns slowly. Ban "scary looking" guns, then make regular guns harder to buy, then, eventually, try to confiscate what we already own.

Depending on if and when the 'shit hits the fan,' you may or may not be able to get a firearm. Although in such a situation you would be able to pick one up off of a corpse.

Maybe it would be safer on your part to buy a nice AR15 style 'assault rifle' now and practice with it. That won't make you a lunatic, just a cautious person who won't be caught with his pants down should you ever need a weapon.

Just a thought.

-Dostoevsky

Moonduck

"Just noticed that a few people consider gun control or the implementation of new gun control laws to be forcing their ideals on others.... well, the same thing can be said about drug laws, prostitution laws, and various other illegal activities that right-wing religious straight-head types would consider bad. Its all really a matter of opinion. "

Drug laws such as those involved in the War on drugs are pointless and stupid. It is my body. should I decide to destroy it with drug-use, that should be my decision. I view prostitution similarly. It is a victimless crime, in essence. Yes, there is a culture surrounding both drugs and prostitution that is hurtful and engages in crimes with victims, but much of this would be reduced by decriminalizing both. You would think we would have learned our lesson on restrictive drug laws from Prohibition.

Do not make the grave mistake of assuming that someone that likes guns and supports the Constitution is automatically right-wing or a Social Conservative. They are NOT associated by default.

"I think every law should be voted on and not passed unless the majority want it to be law."

This obviates the purpose of government and reduces everything to mob rule. The Founders of the US called this "Tyranny of the Majority". What if a 51% majority decided that private property was no longer a valid concept? Does that make it Right? All mob rule does is put the power into the hands of those with the least amount of knowledge and forethought to use it, ie the mob. And the intelligence of any group of people varies in inverse proportion to its' size.

Willravel

If I were to go to war, I would die to defend the Constitution and Bill of rights for my family and friends, NOT the current administration leaching off the government. I don't care much for the party system or politicians. I do care about the foundation of this country.
Weapons can be all that great in defence. Scary when used against you.

cuervo

For anyone with a little time to do some reading, this is a good article on the "slippery slope" theory.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html

ecomdan

I didn't mean to imply that gun-owners are right wing, nor did I mean that every single law be passed by a vote, but life-choices are our own to make. My government considers me a criminal, because I smoke pot. Although our police force tends to be relatively lenient when it comes to pushing criminal charges. Generally your stash will simply be pocketed by the officer who more than likely smokes himself or has friends who do. Although I've heard tell of people being done for intent to supply, even though he barely had the makings of two or three spliffs. Depends on who busts ya really.

As for the whole firearm issue, I don't think it will ever become an issue here. Irish people shouldn't have guns, we're far too irresponsible in general. I can only imagine how much more dangerous a night in my local boozer would be if all the farmin folk were packing. They get quite rowdy sometimes and they aren't known for their common sense.

whocarz

Ecomdan, that is exactly what the British wanted you to think a century ago.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

cheeterbo

i own and shoot my guns (shotguns, handgun & rifles) because it is much fun and i can. it has nothing to do with protection. protection to me is a side benefit. it does take skill to be able to shoot. target shooting is an olympic event. i grew up learning how to shoot a .22 rifle at our local police target range.

skeet shooting is wicked fun.

hunting i have never been and can't see shooting animals for the sake of shooting them. if i was going to eat them or utilize other parts of them, then no problem. i have retired many animals for my, or others reasons. the main reason being a bullet costs under a quarter and the fucking vet will charge at least $75 for dope...then you have to dispose.

guns are fun, but must be treated with great respect.

Kurtz

Damn Straight! I'll die before I let anyone overtax MY tea!

homerhop

That is the biggest load of horse shit on so many levels that I have seen in a long time.
As a firearms holder and someone who comes from the “farmin folk” side of he line not only do I find it very insulting but also very ignorant.
Firstly lets look at the amount of firearm incidents here in this little country of ours. The percentage of crime or incidents with firearms is not by legally held firearms. They tend to be with either stolen shotguns or handguns by organised criminals from that lovely capital of ours.
Now the majority of people with legally held guns are responsible people here, but as with everything else in life you will always get those who will abuse the system. I have been shooting for a long time, I have never had the urge to go get my gun and go shoot someone, If I have that much anger towards someone I have two fists that I am quite capable of using, and even at that stage I would prefer to walk away.
As for the farming community, go down to your local boozer and repeat that comment and I wouldn’t blame them for being rowdy. The only time I have come across farmers discharging their guns around people is when they are in around their farmyards in the middle of the night.
Im sorry if you don’t like my response but comments like yours just make my blood boil and as I don’t know what part of Ireland you are from I cant generalise about your community. It’s a good job that I am not near you with my gun!!!!!

__________________
its evolution baby

zandor45w

I am always curious about the geographical implications of guns. I am from the midwest own a couple of those deadly "assault rifles". My parents moved out to DC and had to leave their .22's because of the strick laws up there. Talking to their neighbors in DC, it was amazing to see how foreign a gun was to them, they believed only criminals and police had them. They never thought about using them for sport or for fun.
On a side note, has anyone ever gone to Las Vegas and done their shooting ranges where they allow automatic weapons?

__________________
You're so cute, you thought your opinion mattered

Lebell

Not surprisingly, this has become another political debate.

Moved to Politics.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Seaver

False, false, false. My highschool teachers tried to teach us this too, then I got to college and read up on Jefferson and Jackson's writings. As stated above, military weapons were not solely protected, they were the exact same or inferior to the civilian firearms. Many people mistrusted the government, both national AND state. So if they mistrusted the state governments why would the framers only entrust them to protect the liberties of the people?

Anyways time and time again the Supreme Court has struck down this argument, and since they determine the intent of the writing that's how it stands atm.

Stompy

I've been thinkin about this lately.. and it seems that once you get to a point where the govt VASTLY overpowers any individual, it becomes somewhat pointless. Seriously, 1000 people could have guns, but compared to how well trained our soldiers are and the technology and defense that the military has.. there's no standing up to them.

If the govt WANTED to, they could totally come out to the cities and "conquer" us.

__________________
I love lamp.

irateplatypus

i fully support gun ownership but stompy articulated something i've been thinking about for a while.

when the bill of rights was passed, the United States had just come off a revolutionary war where their militias were armed with firepower similar to the British (one of the most formidable armies in the world at that point).

now-a-days, soldiers are so highly trained with such sophisticated weaponry a militia would have absolutely no chance to defend themselves from the government. if we're talking about people with standard firearms against the military, the casualty ratio would be disastrous. defending the citizenry has become nearly irrelevant to the issue of firearms. perhaps it's a hedge, but certainly not a check to the governments power.

times have changed...

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Journeyman

Irate: It's not necessarily a matter of a citizen's militia waging battle against a tyrannically controlled military. When I think of gun ownership as relates to the security of a free state, I think of the impossibility of the US Army maintaining a martial law-style occupation over the whole of America, moreso when armed citizens are taken into account.

Factor in the occassional soldier who does not have the stomach to fire on his own countrymen, the government is restricted from enacting any sort of totalitarian fascist regime.