Hello, I'm an American Gun owner.

[tombstoner139]

a) As one of the previous posters has already said, go read the federalist papers before spouting things like this

b) Once you finish reading them, read the 2 links I provided in the post you quoted

c) Profit and finally realise that in the US there is an individual right to bear arms, PERIOD

I have read the federalist papers. i got it free on my kindal from amazon.

i cant find your links... i gave it a good look .... it may be in a different thread please relink.

yes there is a individual right to bear arms. i consider that self evident and not in question, but you asked for an instance where an amendment of the constitution can be outdated without the use of another amendment: with citations. i simply complied.

if you disagree that the formation of the national guard didn't effectively strip the states of any viable means of a modern defense, please state why. also consider the various weapon bans put in place that also violate the second amendment and the national guard is part of the federal government. yes each state can have its own militia in the traditional sense. formed from the population of each state and armed with the best/most modern weapons available. not happening... so yea i consider the second amendment violated: with citation

[Tommo]

I'm not talking about comparative studies. I'm talking about objective isolated facts.

What are the odds of getting murdered by a gun in America? They're pretty low.

You can figure it out.

11,000/310,000,000 = ?


and if you want to do comparitive studies the violent crime is higher in the uk and multiple victim shootings are about the same per capita in Europe. Germany had the worst child school shootings of the past decade

Were discussing gun crime, im not about to waste my time proving you wrong on several different subjects so quit going offtopic, if you care so much fucking google it.

Also, I remember you in a thread a couple days ago mocking the US specifically. You dont attack the principles you attack the people. You can see your own post history. I dont have to look it up for you

Mocking? Is English your first language, I didnt mock anyone, I addressed certain topics and referenced extreme views.

And im done with your rubbish, stop making up shit because you have no argument to fall on, its a waste of my time replying back to these posts. If you want the definition of "attacking people" then read the posts your aiming at me, false arguments backed up by repetition.

[klaps_05]

Wasn't there a city in the States where EVERY house is required to have a gun by law, and the crime rate in the city was 0 or something similar?

[Mihalik]

Speak for yourself. I hunt and fish all the time. In fact it is deer season where I live.

If you did read my post, I did clearly said that I considerd hunting to be a legitimate reason for gun ownership. While I dont hunt, I dont agree with killing animals for sport, I dont judge those who do hunt legaly.

Rather my point was that I dont see any reason why you would go hunting with an Assault Rifle, Submachine gun, Semi automatics, Automatic pistols.

[Collegeguy]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but should push come to shove the military would crush any rebellion effortlessly. Tanks and drones beat well-armed civilians.

Please, no army in the world would stand a chance against the largest gun ownership militia the world has every seen.

[Raidenx]

Were discussing gun crime, im not about to waste my time proving you wrong on several different subjects so quit going offtopic, if you care so much fucking google it.



Mocking? Is English your first language, I didnt mock anyone, I addressed certain topics and referenced extreme views.

And im done with your rubbish, stop making up shit because you have no argument to fall on, its a waste of my time replying back to these posts. If you want the definition of "attacking people" then read the posts your aiming at me, false arguments backed up by repetition.

I remember your previous posts. You even said something along the lines of "Wow another gun crime in the US What else is new!"

Hey look its the weekly gun crime story, "still not allowed to generalize!"

'Rolls eyes into back of head'

you try to push your agenda in a snarky manner

And no English isnt my first language

you also didnt address my points.

11,000 gun murders in a country of 310 million is really low no matter which way you cut it. It's not as big a problem as you would like it to be

ignore it all you want its the objective truth

[Tommo]

I remember your previous posts. You even said something along the lines of "Wow another gun crime in the US What else is new!"

you try to push your agenda in a snarky manner

And no English isnt my first language

I think that post was 2 months ago, and it was heavy sarcasm laced with the truth. Im brutally honest with my opinion of things I find unjust, so your most likely not understanding me right, coupled with the fact its near impossible to convey emotions ect over text on the internet.

I dont make personal attacks on people and I certainly dont despise 300 million people because of 1% or less of them.

[Aceshigh]

I don't understand a lot of people from other countries that are fine with police forces and military having weapons but can't be armed themselves.

If you think your arms will be able to protect you from your military arms, well gg LOL. I usually don't respond with that kind of stuff, but in this case I kinda felt I had to.

I don't fear that I will have to protect myself from the police or military and even if I did, a handgun won't do shit against a tank. You can tell me all you want you feel safer with a gun in case you need to kill the US military someday, I'll just give you a high five and a good luck.

[Raidenx]

Wasn't there a city in the States where EVERY house is required to have a gun by law, and the crime rate in the city was 0 or something similar?

Here in New England almost everyone has a gun and the crime rate is the lowest in the country

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 12:31 AM ----------

I think that post was 2 months ago, and it was heavy sarcasm laced with the truth. Im brutally honest with my opinion of things I find unjust, so your most likely not understanding me right, coupled with the fact its near impossible to convey emotions ect over text on the internet.

I dont make personal attacks on people and I certainly dont despise 300 million people because of 1% or less of them.

good well maybe cut out the ad hominem attacks. Not everyone who likes guns is a "redneck" or "gun nut"

[canyonvr]

Everyone should own a gun.
I've BUILT (machined) a .45 1911, an AR15 receiver, multiple AK47 receivers (next project a British Sterling). Building them gave me a lot of incite on how they work and function. All have no paperwork, no trail for the government and are 100% legal (in Pennsylvania).

[Bananarepublic]

Ehm.

Not that I am interested in the subject but can I jump in and group people in here?

-People who hunt, they want guns to be allowed for that reason
-People who want it for self defense
-People who don't want it, at all
-People who are reasonable and are willing to let people have guns under certain circumstances



I have not read the thread btw and am just taking a shot in the dark here.

[Moadar]

If you think your arms will be able to protect you from your military arms, well gg LOL. I usually don't respond with that kind of stuff, but in this case I kinda felt I had to.

I don't fear that I will have to protect myself from the police or military and even if I did, a handgun won't do shit against a tank. You can tell me all you want you feel safer with a gun in case you need to kill the US military someday, I'll just give you a high five and a good luck.

Who is talking about hand guns?

[Kalyyn]

Yeah, done some work with our int guys myself, poor sods thought it was all James Bond Also, we have a term in the British Army, "Death by powerpoint". 6+ hours of powerpoint presentations should be illegal under the Geneva convention.

You think watching them is bad, try having to make one

I feel for you guys though, which is why I condense mine as much as possible.

[The North Remembers]

Please, no army in the world would stand a chance against the largest gun ownership militia the world has every seen.

Delusional.

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 01:00 AM ----------

Here in New England almost everyone has a gun and the crime rate is the lowest in the country

I think that's more to do with the type of people that live there, rather than the fact that everyone has guns.

I hate it when people compare Guns with 'Crime Rate'... Of course the rich, typically middle class states of New England will have lower crime rates than say California, which has a lot of poorer districts (Compton= Gun Crime capital out of the first world countries), and many immigrants.

[hakujinbakasama]

None of the above justify you owning functional and loaded automatic, semi automatic or such pistols, rifles, submachine guns etc. etc.
None of the above justify you being able to transport a loaded firearm.

The fact is guns are bad. There are no "good" uses for a gun. Even when the police is forced to use a gun, it is a horrible situation. It happens because there is no other option, because they often need to take lives to save others. It's a no win situation. Everytime a person is shot, innocent or criminal a life is taken, without due process (if you are a fan of the death sentence). And death is always final. You can't repent, change your mind or anything. And also mistakes happen.

When you have so many guns in a society like in the US, once you try to implement gun control only the honest folk would give up their guns. So on the short term public safety would drop. It would be a decades long period untill law enforcement would be able to bring illegal guns under control.

The only "issue" I take is that it's your opinion, and I'm not even saying it's a bad one. At some point, in an object manor, you have to step back and realize that you (proverbial) are dictating what is reasonable for another human being to defend his or herself with while leaving their opposition completely open. There are a lot of arguments against handguns, and some of them are pretty damn good. Though I've never heard the argument on why it's better for women to not have a gun and to be raped than to have the ability/option to shoot/defend her self against it.

Most opinions against and for guns come from the most "rosy" of circumstances. However, it is the worst case scenarios in which we honestly have to look at things. "You" would nor more hand the keys of a Ferrari to a 16 year old than you should leave your weapons out in the open. I'll ask you this, if it wasn't illegal to not wear your seat belt would you never wear it?

I find it ironic, to a sad degree, that generally people will say they would always wear their seatbelt despite the law because of the idea that "an accident can happen at anytime" and those are often beyond one persons control. Why is the idea of self protection like a gun so different? You can't ask "bad guys" to stop being bad guys. And you can only hope that the guy who broke in to your house and tied you and your family up leave you be... that isn't always the case...
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...home-invasion/

If that is the case, I agree with him. There is little reason for the average citizen to own a handgun, Shotguns and Rifles can do most of what a handgun can do without the concealability criminals needs.

Honestly, if you listen to the experts, they will tell you that the best home defense weapon is an AR15 not a handgun nor shotgun.

Just because the police aren't able to be perfect in their protection of everyone's safety doesn't mean every person is expected to take the law into their own hands. If you are forced to do so you may be forgiven, that's all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0
Please read. If you look around you can find several cases dating back to the 1930's on this. The one that hurt the most was the mother who had a restraining order against her husband who absconded with their kids. She called the police several times and they refused to take any action. They found him later when he showed up at the police station and started shooting, suicide by cop. They found the children murdered in the back of his truck parked outside.

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

I'll soon be joining the club. Looking to get my license sometimes around early next year. But of a rub in this state of course, where whether you can get carry permits not only depends on the state but individual towns. Luckily I live in a "green" town.

[Mormolyce]

a) As one of the previous posters has already said, go read the federalist papers before spouting things like this

b) Once you finish reading them, read the 2 links I provided in the post you quoted

c) Profit and finally realise that in the US there is an individual right to bear arms, PERIOD

In the US there is an individual right to bear arms, ELLIPSIS... subject to a certain amount of government regulation (insert legal grey area here). From District of Colombia v. Heller (2008):

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 01:46 AM ----------

Here in New England almost everyone has a gun and the crime rate is the lowest in the country

Let me guess, high ownership of rifles by farmers.

Here's a bit of real information in case anyone wants to be informed on the issue as opposed to throwing partisan talking points at one another:

One of Hemenway’s studies, published in 2004 and coauthored by Lisa M. Hepburn, reviewed commonly cited research from peer-reviewed journals. It found that studies of the United States or U.S. cities, states and regions "generally find a statistically significant gun prevalence-homicide association." The report said that the evidence from such "U.S. cross-sectional studies is quite consistent … where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates." Hemenway’s report also found that international studies "typically show that in high-income countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." So where there are guns, there is likely a higher rate of murders committed with guns in particular. However, the report noted, "None of the studies can prove causation. They merely examine the statistical association between gun availability and homicide."

...

The National Academies report noted that drawing a causal inference is "always complicated and, in the behavioral and social sciences, fraught with uncertainty."

...

In comparing the United States to industrialized democracies, the Academies says data show the U.S. has the highest rate of homicide and firearm-related homicide. But this also raises a chicken-and-egg question. "A high level of violence may be a cause of a high level of firearms availability instead of the other way around."

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/vio...gun-ownership/

Factcheck is non-partisan I believe. In summary, there is a demonstrated correlation between high gun ownership and violent crime, but there's no way for a scientific study to prove actual causation. If you think about it the arguments of both gun rights AND gun control advocates imply that gun ownership would correlate to violent crime. According to gun control advocates, availability of firearms increases the rate of violent crimes, and according to gun rights advocates people need guns to defend themselves from criminals - so obviously more people would purchase guns for self defence in high crime areas. So there's no point arguing about this because (1) the matter has already been settled and (2) the findings support BOTH sides in any case. Shrug.

Also, interesting table:

United States 88.8 1
Serbia 58.2 2
Yemen 54.8 3
Switzerland 45.7 4
Cyprus 36.4 5
Saudi Arabia 35 6
Iraq 34.2 7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

Look who your bedfellows are! Then again, look at a list of countries that still use NTSC... or countries that still have the death penalty... or countries that still use the Imperial system (I looked it up, there's three: America, Liberia and Myanmar). The U.S. must be pretty used to hanging out with war-torn third world hellholes!*

*Sorry Liberia.

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

Let me guess, high ownership of rifles by farmers.

Not really. New Hampshire as I understand it has probably roughly enough for the rest of New England to make up any gaps.

[Raidenx]

Not really. New Hampshire as I understand it has probably roughly enough for the rest of New England to make up any gaps.

Yeah most states in New England have thousands of licensed gun owners that have handguns, and the crime rate is lower than areas where guns are banned. New England is pretty libertarian.
I dont think the people here should have their guns limited when they have more than the rest of the country and the least amount of crime. Its not our fault people in the rest of the country arent as responsible with their arms.

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

Yeah most states in New England have thousands of licensed gun owners that have handguns, and the crime rate is lower than areas where guns are banned. New England is pretty libertarian.
I dont think the people here should have their guns limited when they have more than the rest of the country and the least amount of crime. Its not our fault people in the rest of the country arent as responsible with their arms.

It's a weird balance. New Hampshire is great for gun ownership, Massachusetts is god awful. (That applies to owning most anything, not just firearms.)