A question for those who are pro-guns and U.S. citizens ONLY

[Jaxi]

There is rarely a perfect solution to any problem. Do you think deadly ammunition is worth it? I'm not disagreeing, I'm purely curious in what you guys think.

I don't want to kill anyone, I would rather just wound them. However, shooting is not as easy as the movies always make it out to be, so I still think that if I am forced to fire my gun in self defense, and no other route of escape exists for me, then I should play it safe for myself and my family by using the ammo most effective for the job.

That's not a terribly important issue to me, though, since I use a flare gun for my home defense. Nothing says get the hell out like a ball of white hot phosphorous threatening to burn a hole through your chest cavity.

[BLCalliente]

I have never seen "The Wire"

I'm referring to actual statistics.

You have to see the problem first hand to understand how bad it is. It's really sad.

I lived in Detroit for 35 years, and trust me I have seen everything there is to see there. You picked a bad example to monkey with the statistics.

[Bobdoletoo]

The limitations I believe in are no automatics, no armor piercing rounds, and no hollow points. Beyond that, I believe everyone should be able to own guns not violating these criteria within their homes. Where my views differ from many pro-gun proponents is that I have issues with concealed carry outside the home (except for shooting ranges and designated hunting grounds).

I do believe that, while every man and woman has a right to defend his/herself, mistakes can be made which result in death.

Here is an idea of mine, and I want to see if this is a compromise that you all would hypothetically make. What if handguns were allowed outside the home, granted they were loaded with non-lethal rounds. Not rubber bullets, something with stopping power, but something that is unlikely to cause the target to die from impact or bleed out. Perhaps a wider bullet that intentionally crumples on impact to cause enough damage to put someone in the hospital briefly, but not enough to cause serious damage unless hit directly in the head (which should be avoided).

I support the right to protect oneself, but I also know that passion is a greater force than reason in our species, and sometimes we go too far, even if it is for the right reasons.

So, pro-gunners, is this something that you would consider? It is totally hypothetical and nebulous, I know, but is it worth considering? Hit me

This is all hypothetical and very much impossible. How would you police a populace that has the means to make their own bullets? Also you fail to see that no matter what type of ammunition you use, there is always a chance for lethal force because you are firing a weapon. Accidents happen.

[asharia]

If nobody had guns, nobody could kill anybody. Think about it.

The only reason you believe you 'need' a gun with all the super high damage and super lethal whatever, is because thats what your burglar or mass murderer has access too also.

I live in Aus. Here, we are not allowed to own guns just because we want one. The only people allowed to own a gun are competitive shooters, cops, some security guards, and someone who needs it for their job (hunters or w/e). Even then, the types of guns you can actually get are limited. Even if you do get a license, you still cant carry them around for no reason, in public.
Interesting fact. With the differing gun laws between my country and the USA, i would be 9 (Nine) times more likely to die in a gun related incident, if i were to move to the US. Is that 'safer'? Doesn't appear to be.

[Astounded]

I don't want to kill anyone, I would rather just wound them. However, shooting is not as easy as the movies always make it out to be, so I still think that if I am forced to fire my gun in self defense, and no other route of escape exists for me, then I should play it safe for myself and my family by using the ammo most effective for the job.

That's not a terribly important issue to me, though, since I use a flare gun for my home defense. Nothing says get the hell out like a ball of white hot phosphorous threatening to burn a hole through your chest cavity.

First off. In a tense situation you generally lose a lot of fine motor skills. You will not be able to really aim with pin point accuracy and you will revert to what you know, which is hopefully to aim centermass and drop that fucker. So please don't go in with the intent to wound.

Secondly, a flare gun? Really? Burn your house down why don't you.

[Amsden]

No, If I'm in a situation where I need to use my gun less lethal means they may not be dropped after the first shot. Also if you force less lethal on the law abiding citizens, the criminals will still have the deadly stuff.

---------- Post added 2012-05-01 at 05:39 PM ----------

A common misconception of the Second Amendment. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Now the 1700s were full of grammatical oddities and random commas, but it looks to me like it's only referring to the right of people IN A MILITIA to keep and bear arms. That's because there was no standing military at the time. The closest thing the US currently has is our National Guard, which is by state and so technically counts as militia. However, the actual constitutional right to bear arms is definitely questionable at best.

False. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It's saying a militia AND the people. As interpreted by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia V. Heller.

[Prokne]

Here is an idea of mine, and I want to see if this is a compromise that you all would hypothetically make. What if handguns were allowed outside the home, granted they were loaded with non-lethal rounds. Not rubber bullets, something with stopping power, but something that is unlikely to cause the target to die from impact or bleed out. Perhaps a wider bullet that intentionally crumples on impact to cause enough damage to put someone in the hospital briefly, but not enough to cause serious damage unless hit directly in the head (which should be avoided).

I support the right to protect oneself, but I also know that passion is a greater force than reason in our species, and sometimes we go too far, even if it is for the right reasons.

So, pro-gunners, is this something that you would consider? It is totally hypothetical and nebulous, I know, but is it worth considering? Hit me

There is no such thing as non-lethal rounds. Even rubber bullets can be lethal if they hit you in places like the temple or the eye. Thats why theyre call less-than-lethal. Also any round that can penetrate into someones body has the ability to kill them it just depends on where they are hit.

The best way to prevent unnecessary injuries or deaths from people who carry concealed weapons is to successfully prevent unstable people from owning them and require everyone with a concealed weapons license to pass firearms safety and marksmanship tests and know the laws behind the use of deadly force.

[oblivionx]

Who says the conservative mind is closed? Conservative = anti-progressive My question is "How the fuck can you be Anti Progress??!"

Progressive doesn't mean progress.

The simplest way of explaining conservatism is that they are of the opinion that the success of the USA wasn't an accident, hence massive change to the system very quickly is a bad thing. Note that this doesn't mean they are against change, just that they are against knee jerk reactions and massive alterations to the system.

The constitution is on the conservative's side, this is why liberals say things like (high pitched whiney voice) the constitution is a living document. It's not, it was never intended to be something that is open to sudden changes in interpretation.

Why this is... is extremely easy to explain. Liberals or progressives do not have nearly enough votes to change the constitution. They are short by a nearly insurmountable amount. So what they do is try and sidestep the Constitution and/or pass things that should require a constitutional amendment without one.

In this case... you would have to overturn the 2nd amendment.

Progressiveism/Liberalism is a little baby shaking a rattle demanding what they want NOW. Even if it burns down the crib to get it.

[Aalyy]

A common misconception of the Second Amendment. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Now the 1700s were full of grammatical oddities and random commas, but it looks to me like it's only referring to the right of people IN A MILITIA to keep and bear arms. That's because there was no standing military at the time. The closest thing the US currently has is our National Guard, which is by state and so technically counts as militia. However, the actual constitutional right to bear arms is definitely questionable at best.

I think you're the one with the misconception. The second amendment wasn't ensuring the right of government to bear arms. It ensures the right of the people to bear them. There is definitely a "greater good" tone to the amendment but to say that the National Guard equals a militia of the time is false. The National Guard is government, the very entity that this amendment is protecting the people's right to bear arms from.

That said, it doesn't give any and everyone to own whatever guns they want unrestricted willy nilly. The words regulated and militia imply that there was always meant to be a sense of order about it. Which is why, in general, I'm fine with gun control laws that allow law abiding citizens to bear arms. Many gun enthusiasts take the second amendment to mean that any and all forms of gun control are constitutional. That's just silly. Reasonable gun control that allows law abiding citizens to own guns while trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the crazies is perfectly acceptable, IMO. I think our background checks need to be on a Federal scale and the gun show loopholes are outrageous. Other than that, if you don't break the law you should be able to own what you want, short of rocket launchers and hand grenades.

[Tore]

Rubber bullets in a small enclosed space are extraordinarily dangerous. Those things ricochet like you wouldn't believe.

Anyway, I think no fully-automatics is a reasonable position. I've yet to have need for anything greater than my .22 revolver. If you actually need an Ak or even a civilian AR15 for protection then you've got bigger problems than a home invasion and robbery and should probably seek help from the police.

I have a box of hollow points but they're not a necessity. They're handy because it let me dispatch my previous home invader (the only one I've ever been home for) with a single shot to the leg. The expanding bullet caused enough bone damage to keep the invader from attacking or escaping while waiting for the police to show up. They're useful for someone with enough gun discipline to not shoot for the torso (assuming you're not shooting to kill. I never would) and instead aim for the limbs or shoulders.

[archelios]

If nobody had guns, nobody could kill anybody. Think about it.

The only reason you believe you 'need' a gun with all the super high damage and super lethal whatever, is because thats what your burglar or mass murderer has access too also.

I live in Aus. Here, we are not allowed to own guns just because we want one. The only people allowed to own a gun are competitive shooters, cops, some security guards, and someone who needs it for their job (hunters or w/e). Even then, the types of guns you can actually get are limited. Even if you do get a license, you still cant carry them around for no reason, in public.
Interesting fact. With the differing gun laws between my country and the USA, i would be 9 (Nine) times more likely to die in a gun related incident, if i were to move to the US. Is that 'safer'? Doesn't appear to be.

Why is this person posting in this thread? Get out

Infracted

[kleinlax21]

A common misconception of the Second Amendment. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Now the 1700s were full of grammatical oddities and random commas, but it looks to me like it's only referring to the right of people IN A MILITIA to keep and bear arms. That's because there was no standing military at the time. The closest thing the US currently has is our National Guard, which is by state and so technically counts as militia. However, the actual constitutional right to bear arms is definitely questionable at best.

This is factually incorrect. It is meant to read: "A well regulated Militia, [that is] necessary to the security of a free State, [and] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The assertion in your last sentence doesn't make much sense, given this quote: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment.

[Bobdoletoo]

I think another thing that should be brought up is lethal force in home defense. Nonlethal ammunition is not home defense, which is what most firearms are used for(or what most people say they use them for). There are stories all the time of people being charged with crimes because they used excessive force on an intruder. It's a fine line , but with nonlethal ammunition you would have stories of how many times a person hit an intruder with a bat, and is 10 times too excessive? How many hits does it take to subdue an intruder?

[DraconusIX]

15,241 murders in the US in 2009, 648 in England
9,146 murders in the US by gun, 39 by gun in England

Yes, tell me that our firearm advocacy is keeping us safe. Compare that to other western european nations and its even worse

[Tore]

15,241 murders in the US in 2009, 648 in England
9,146 murders in the US by gun, 39 by gun in England

Yes, tell me that our firearm advocacy is keeping us safe. Compare that to other western european nations and its even worse

What does the source determine to be "murders by gun"? Does it include self-defense shootings? Does it include police shootings?

[Prokne]

I think you're the one with the misconception. The second amendment wasn't ensuring the right of government to bear arms. It ensures the right of the people to bear them. There is definitely a "greater good" tone to the amendment but to say that the National Guard equals a militia of the time is false. The National Guard is government, the very entity that this amendment is protecting the people's right to bear arms from.

That said, it doesn't give any and everyone to own whatever guns they want unrestricted willy nilly. The words regulated and militia imply that there was always meant to be a sense of order about it. Which is why, in general, I'm fine with gun control laws that allow law abiding citizens to bear arms. Many gun enthusiasts take the second amendment to mean that any and all forms of gun control are constitutional. That's just silly. Reasonable gun control that allows law abiding citizens to own guns while trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the crazies is perfectly acceptable, IMO. I think our background checks need to be on a Federal scale and the gun show loopholes are outrageous. Other than that, if you don't break the law you should be able to own what you want, short of rocket launchers and hand grenades.

In the 18th century a militia wasnt a group of government hating gun nuts in the backwoods that stockpiled weapons because of their paranoid fantasies. Militias were colony/state sponsored armies made up of private citizens so yes they are like state national guard regiments. The Constitution and Bill of Rights protect state's rights as much as personal rights because the founding fathers wanted to make sure a huge central government couldnt take over the states. Saying people need guns to form a militia is just dumb, if you want to be in a militia join the national guard and actually learn how and when to use them. Also the federal government shouldnt be using the national guards to augment the army in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, if the country want to go to war they need to either recruit more for the army or draft people, its not the National Guard's job.

[Zamfix]

The second amendment is meant to prevent a military coup or an authoritarian state forcibly enslaving you, not to kill the 19 year old kid who broke into your house to steal $50 worth of crap. Not minimizing burglary or home invasion as a crime, but it sure doesn't deserve death.

[anothdae]

Look, this isnt even up for debate. Its a right granted to citizens of the USA. If you want to regulate and limit it ... fine ... but that doesnt change the fact that that is unconstitutional.

If you hold these opinions, okay, but dont lie to yourself. You are disagreeing with the constitution of this country. This isnt a "lets get together as a neighborhood and make sure that our yards are all cut", this is a "I disagree with one of the founding principles of this country, and I want to see it changed."

The point of a gun is to kill. Period. Many times the threat of that is enough, some times it isnt.

Here is an idea. Lets read and understand why the founding fathers thought it so important for citizens to be armed and think about that.
Here is another idea. Lets hold people accountable for their actions. If you kill someone, you pay the price, it doesnt matter if you do it with a gun or a bow and arrow or a knife.

Guns are the ultimate interpersonal equalizer. The granny is -just- as dangerous as the street gang, AND THIS IS A GOOD THING. In a world full of guns no one is stronger than anyone else. No one can force others to do anything by force. Robberies, rapes, murders... these are all projections of force, and an armed victim is a huge deterrent to a criminal.

tl:dr - No. this is a constitutionally guaranteed right of the citizens in this country for really good reasons.

---------- Post added 2012-05-02 at 12:36 AM ----------

This is all hypothetical and very much impossible. How would you police a populace that has the means to make their own bullets?

I would guess in the same way that we have been doing it for the past 200 years.

[Sapper]

15,241 murders in the US in 2009, 648 in England
9,146 murders in the US by gun, 39 by gun in England

Yes, tell me that our firearm advocacy is keeping us safe. Compare that to other western european nations and its even worse

That statistic means absolutely nothing. First, you'd have to look at it as a percent of population, not a total number. I'm sure it'll still be higher, but not as drastic.

Second, anyone with even a little law enforcement training will tell you in close quarters, like most home invasions, a knife is a lot more deadly than a gun. Its been a while, but I want to say within 10 feet a knife is far superior to a gun. So lets pretend you delusions come true, we ban guns and they all magically disappear. Nothing will change. We have a violent culture. Instead of 15k murders by guns, it'll be 15k more murders by knifes, or bats, or rolling pins. It really doesn't matter what weapon they use, people will still get killed.

[tubbytubaman]

A common misconception of the Second Amendment. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Now the 1700s were full of grammatical oddities and random commas, but it looks to me like it's only referring to the right of people IN A MILITIA to keep and bear arms. That's because there was no standing military at the time. The closest thing the US currently has is our National Guard, which is by state and so technically counts as militia. However, the actual constitutional right to bear arms is definitely questionable at best.

Lillia, hun. Owning a gun and vowing to use it in protection of your property and family from any outsiders constitutes you being part of a militia. Here in Michigan, most of us deer hunters consider ourselves part of a well regulated militia out to slay deer and bad guys. Some "formal" militia around here also have training weekends and shoot around days to get together and blow shit up (on a gun range, of course) Though I am not part of a "formal" militia, if bad guys were to come into my territory, I'd be out there firing away along with the rest of my deer hunting colleagues.

Just the total amount of deer hunters in the state of Michigan (over 3 million) makes the state of Michigan around the 10th largest army in the world. I DARE the government to try and take my guns away. They may get them, but they are going to lose a few good men in the process.

OT: Hell no to rubber bullets. Why not just keep a paint ball gun?

And Sapper, if you believe that is true give it a try. Even at close quarters, I'd never take a knife over a gun, especially my 12 gauge full of turkey loads. At 10 feet, one shot would blow the face off you and your 3 buddies while you fumble over your knife.