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

[kleinlax21]

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.

This, pretty much. America is built around the principle of divided government, with The People containing the bulk of "possible rights". What I mean by this is that Americans have the rights to live where we want, eat what we want, wear what we want, say what we want, and (when it doesn't infringe on others freedoms) do what we want.*The Second Amendment is designed to allow the American people to rise up against a government that seeks to overly limit the people's freedoms. This Amendment, second only to the freedoms of press, assembly, religion, and speech, is our means of ensuring our ability to protect these freedoms.*

On the subject of the American militia, any able-bodied citizen who can provide for the common defense is in the militia. This includes practically every mature man and woman in decent physical shape. We take it upon ourselves , as a nation of citizens, to control and direct our government through elections, rallies, political discussion and even, god forbid it became necessary, armed revolt.*

If the Second Amendment were to be revoked, a massive power shift would move from the American people to our government. If this were allowed to occur, I know our current government would not use such a power vacuum to strip us of our freedoms. However, somewhere down the line, who knows if or when a generation of government would use the people's inability to oppose government against us. It is for this exact reason the Second Amendment exists.*

Many nations that were driven to a totalitarian system revoked gun rights from the people, and took advantage of a disarmed and unfree populace. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia & China, and even the Southern United States before the Civil War all restricted gun rights in order to keep portions, or the entirety, of the population repressed. An elimination of a population's ability to control their government frequently results in the government controlling the people. In America, removing the Second Amendment would be the first step of a process that would result in a defenseless citizenry. The founders realized this, and provided the American people with the means to protect the security our freedoms in the worst-case scenario. Think of it as a failsafe designed to impede the process of an autocratic government developing, if you would.

[Powerogue]

The limitations I believe in are no automatics, no armor piercing rounds, and no hollow points.

Any particular reason for this? If you're trying to make the guns less lethal, they're still guns. Unless you plan on mandating rubber bullets instead of regular ones.

[DraconusIX]

Failure to undertake progressive measures....that is going to end real well. Gun ownership is just one of the issues.

[steve52086]

Would they increase dramatically? That is not proven or dis-proven. People would still be welcome to non-lethal alternatives (rubber bullets are not a good alternative). One key to making black market prices rise would be gun control laws across all of the Americas. Most criminals tend to be poor and if the cost of weapons dramatically rose, they would have less ability to buy black market copies. would some still have them? yes, but every pimp and corner dealer or mugger would not. less criminals have guns, the more effective non-lethal options become.

most criminals dont murder someone when committing a robbery or burglary for the purpose of murder, but because the person got in the way or they panicked.

Not proven or disproven, but look at the numbers. According to the most recent report from the Home Office, and the DoJ,there were 9608 gun crimes total in the UK, which included non-violent offenses like unlawful discharge (which can be as simple as someone stupid enough to shoot their gun off in the air.) However, there were 1.1 million violent crimes across 57 million people. In the US, there were 326,000 gun crimes total, and 1.3 million violent crimes across 308 million people. The UK had 4.67 times the amount of violent crimes that the US did per person. The exact numbers per 100,000 are 2034 UK, 436 US. Not conclusive proof because culture and other factors always play a role, but that still seems like a dramatic increase in crime rate from the country that banned the guns, to me at least.

Also, according to "wwwDOTjustfactsDOTcom/guncontrol.asp" which has source citations linked throughout, the UK has averaged a 15% higher murder rate since the handgun ban in 1997. Lastly, in 2009, there were over 14 million guns purchased legally in the US. Because of the ban, there were 0 purchased legally in the UK, yet they still managed those almost 10,000 crimes, compared to 326,000 crimes in the US. That's 42.9 guns purchased per crime in the US, and a figure you can't actually figure out for the UK, since you can't divide by zero.

To bring it back on to the original question, yes I would support a less than lethal ammunition in the hypothetical world, if and only if, it were somehow guaranteed that everyone only had that, so I would be on equal footing with my attacker.

[smelltheglove]

Guns are the ultimate interpersonal equalizer. The granny is -just- as dangerous as the street gang

there is an old saying... god made men, colt made them equal

[Sapper]

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.

http://kidnap-prevention.blogspot.jp...vs-knives.html

Think what you want, but you are very, very wrong. I don't need to give it a try, because I've seen it first hand.