a question to US gun owners.

[skrump]

You can't be serious about this response. Of course you know that cars can kill because people tend to overspeed, drive under influence of illegal substances, don't use seat belts, drive offensively or all of the previously mentioned options.

Now please see on the statistics how many cars were used to ram and kill people intentionally, due to roadrage/vengence issues, and not by accident.

In his defense a car is a very expensive/unreliable/single use weapon.
Well unless your hitting pedestrians "Should be a form of capital punishment, real life Gta/death-race"

But yeah essentially I believe that those that misuse guns should receive a more severe punishment "and potential retaliation from their peers"
Guns themselves were never the problem, the problem is that the criminals either don't fear retaliation or don't think they will get caught"

[Maleficus]

Hm right because if I shot the guy there was no way I could have missed and there was no way he could have shot me back.

We should ban police from having guns, right? I'm curious, how many people would have been saved?

Just a reminder: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-24-11-49-15

[Merendel]

IF you guys are honest law abiding citizens hard gun controling laws wont make a diference right?

Also another question,why do you actually need AK-47 or machine guns,i mean i can undersatnd having a handgun or a shotgun but machine guns?Isnt that a bit extreme?

The issue I see is this. Honest, law abiding citizens obey the laws, criminals by definition do not. If all or just specific types of guns are banned the citizens will give them up, the criminals wont give a shit till they are caught. All banning guns does is take them out of the hands of those that would use them in a responsible manner. The criminals will still find ways to get ahold of them and use them, if they get caught well they were going to get punished anyway whats one more offense?

As to an AK-47. Honestly I dont see a need to have one myself. I have no reasonable need for one and see no reason to waste money just to have one. That said however if I did have a reasonable need for one and was a responsible citizen why shouldn't I be allowed to have one? Banning select gun's sets a very dangerous precedent that many lawmakers are all to happy to expand upon later depending on their own agenda and the whims of an easily agitated vocal portion of the populace.

[Ramman]

In accordance with the logic of the original poster, guns should be banned because they are used to commit crimes and if the laws were more draconian then fewer crimes would be committed.
1. Hitler would disagree
2. Tojo would disagree
3. Mao would disagree
4. Chavez is disagreeing
5. Sadam Hussein disagreed for awhile
6. Those jerks in Syria are disagreeing (the pro-government ones)
It comes down to this, The US Constitution as interpreted by the founding fathers of the US and the current supreme court of the US say that we the citizens have the right to bear arms. That includes fully automatic weapons if you apply for and pay for a class III weapons ownership license. If you don't like it stay out of the US. As a point of interest if you do decide to visit the US, the three strictest gun control cities are Washington D.C., New York, and Chicago. They also have the highest crime rates.

One other thought, last year, in the US less than 30 thousand crimes were committed with guns,(not people killed just total criminal acts), over 45 thousand people were killed in car accidents, many by repeat Drunk drivers, maybe we should make more "Draconian Laws", about drinking and driving and make car ownership really hard to obtain, you know so that we all feel safer.

[skrump]

The taliban and viet cong are completely different by some rogue Texan home owners association that goes wild and starts attacking the government. A "rebellion" in the US sure would be funny but regardless of whatever machine gun they get their hands I'm fairly confident they'd get squished by the overwhelming authorities in America

I don't think it will happen anytime soon "at least not on the scale needed" but if one were to gain the support of the nation the current government would fall pretty quickly however both the conservative and socialist ideologies would lead to decades of civil war until the socialist movement was either eradicated or pushed off onto some small cesspool on the map.

With any luck the society that sprung forth would decide against letting the federal government impose more than a few human rights laws on the entire nation and left the majority of law decisions on the state level.

---------- Post added 2012-08-24 at 12:12 PM ----------

Do you see a lot of 60 year old robbers who are women? But a 60 year old woman with a gun is much less likely to be a victim. In fact, many violent criminals are physically advantaged over their victims, and choose them for that reason. Guns change this dramatically.

Robbers with or without guns being shot by civilians with guns? Sounds great to me. Working as intended!

I hereby steal the underlined portion as a signature, as I could not agree more with said statement.

[Aoyi]

if they were doing all of the above then it wasn't an accident...it is negligence.

regardless of how or why it happens, people are still dying from it. if a gun magically jumped out of a holster and shot someone people would still blame the gun. just like the car example. it's the drivers fault not the vehicle.

Let it go. Seriously. Let it go. Tell that to the people who had faulty holsters that accidentally fired their guns. Or who's guns fire when falling. Or during cleaning. Or any of the numerous situations where a misfire can happen. Guns are for killing. That is their created purpose. End. Of. Story. You want to bring other BS statistics in on this for how many people die of car accidents vs. guns? Cars were not created to kill people. Crashes happen, but it is in no way the intent of the vehicle. Guns on the other hand are weapons. A weapon that can for the cost of a bullet take a human life.

[Zehroh]

if you haven't noticed...the economy is crashing. crimes like break ins and robberies are going up because of it. many of these criminals are armed.

Well newsflash... economy in Europe is also crashing. Hell, expanding the EU even opens up the borders so people from poorer countries go to countries like the Netherlands, Germany, France etc. to rob people. But you don't see a majority in west Europe who have a gun in their house.

Hiding behind the 2nd amendment sounds like bs to me. That was written in different times. You can't call it a civilization if most households have shotguns.

[Beavis]

How is the Viet Kong different than American guerrillas? I'd argue that a lot of us would be better fighters than they ever were, in fact. Especially those of us with military training.

I'd ignore that comment. The people who believe that know nothing about 4th generation warfare. The vast majority of counterinsurgencies in the last century have been unsuccessful. Often spectacularly so.

[kromagnuts]

I meant citizens, of course. I don't like that «civilian» term either, as my country suffered a military dictatorship for 40 years.
And yes, we had guns in the 1930's. Meant zero to prevent a tyrannical government, because we elected them.

There is a very basic premise to gun rights in the U.S. The Constitution of the United States allows for ownership of "arms" by the citizens of the United States. The exact phrasing of the Second amendment of the Bill of rights was actually written in 2 different ways.

The one ratified by congress: "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."

The one distributed to be ratified by each state: "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."

People have argued that the commas have some different meaning, they argue that only a state sponsored militia should have arms, and they argue that the founding fathers were old paranoid fogies. The point that is being made is one the founding fathers knew, but has been slowly forgotten. It actually boils down to the statement, "place not your trust in princes".

Having just fought a war to secure the independence of themselves and their families and friends from an oppressive government, the framers of the Bill of Rights wanted to try and protect the ability to protect ones self from being legislated away by future governments. Case in point Great Britain which has removed ownership of firearms from it's citizens. The founding fathers knew that it is not desperate criminals or mad men that are the biggest threats to freedom, but instead it's those who feel the need to control other people by controlling their thoughts and actions. They also knew that people are often stupid, and can forget that people fought and died over the concepts in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the years passed. So the second amendment is a reminder that you will one day have to fight for your rights. Whether that fight is a very short one as the thought police and stormtroopers round you and everyone you love up, or if it is dragging you kicking and screaming and fighting all the way is a choice you have to decide on.

Now that seems very dramatic, and it is. Please feel free to believe that the world is far too nice a place for these sort of bad things to happen. (Please also send me your email as I have some info about the Nigerian lottery to send you.) However it WILL happen again one day. Every country rises and falls, as the people that make it up does. Think of the turmoil the the financial markets are in, the ethnic fighting all over the world, the rise in intolerance against ones fellow man. If you aren't worried about this sort of thing, if you aren't worried about governments who try and take away freedoms because they feel father knows best then I wish you the best of luck.

I own several handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Like most Americans I do not walk around with them strapped to my hip to try and piss off other people who feel guns are evil. I don't own a gun to prove how manly I am or for any aesthetic reason. That's not the point of owning a weapon for me. It's for the protection of myself and my family. I'm not going to pull my gun on some idiot who cuts me off on the freeway or the person who can't understand that I don't want to buy a magazine right now.I train regularly with all my firearms and until the thought police and stormtroopers come for my guns and me I will continue to do so. Its not a macho thing, though I understand it is for some people.

One last thing to think about. What do you think the chances of reversing Great Britain's gun control laws would be? I'm aware there are those who say, "Why in the hell would we ever do that? Guns are bad." Just for the sake of argument try and imagine what it would take for that to happen. It would probably not be possible under the current government, as any freedom that is given up freely, requires a fight to get it back.

[vaeevictiss]

Let it go. Seriously. Let it go. Tell that to the people who had faulty holsters that accidentally fired their guns. Or who's guns fire when falling. Or during cleaning. Or any of the numerous situations where a misfire can happen. Guns are for killing. That is their created purpose. End. Of. Story. You want to bring other BS statistics in on this for how many people die of car accidents vs. guns? Cars were not created to kill people. Crashes happen, but it is in no way the intent of the vehicle. Guns on the other hand are weapons. A weapon that can for the cost of a bullet take a human life.

these are all bullshit. a holster causing a gun to fire is an extremely rare thing. almost every gun made in the past 20 to 30 years won't fire when dropped...during cleaning? what dumbass cleans a loaded gun?!

all of these can be attributed to negligence. not all guns are designed for killing. many are designed for a host of other activities. i have several, and they rarely are used to shoot anything but paper targets.

[Vyxn]

First you need to understand why the founding father gave us the constitutional right to own and bare arms
Most think so people can hunt and protect them selves from criminals but that isn't the full reason why. they knew that for the citizens of a country to protect their god given rights from government trying to violate or even eliminate them they need the means to do so. Its so citizens can protect them selves from Tyranny
the Founding Fathers knew that government will eventually get out of hand they will gradually assume to much power and stripping right from its citizens. They hoped if they allowed citizens to own arms the government would think twice about doing so
they also knew the only way they would ever gain independence from England was because of having armed civilians and there could be another day that we need to rely on those armed civilians again to protect this country
America was built apon an idea that everyone one has rights and we understand that we need the ability to protect those rights from anything and anyone including our own government

[Aoyi]

these are all bullshit. a holster causing a gun to fire is an extremely rare thing. any gun made in the past 20 to 30 years won't fire when dropped...during cleaning? what dumbass cleans a loaded gun?!

all of these can be attributed to negligence. not all guns are designed for killing. many are designed for a host of other activities. i have several, and they rarely are used to shoot anything but paper targets.

http://acidcow.com/pics/18523-worn-l...ccidental.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-02/t...e?_s=PM:TRAVEL

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...hen_off-d.html

Or you could just Google

[Lockon Stratos]

The taliban and viet cong are completely different by some rogue Texan home owners association that goes wild and starts attacking the government. A "rebellion" in the US sure would be funny but regardless of whatever machine gun they get their hands I'm fairly confident they'd get squished by the overwhelming authorities in America

You have no clue what guerrilla warfare is. Authorities are only overwhelming if they have a chance to deploy that power, and if their enemy has no plan and are idiots. Guerrillas will attack their enemy on their terms, when and how they want. They're not going to walk out into the street and tell the cops here we are, come at us. No, they are going to lay ambushes, use booby traps, sniper attacks, IEDs, etc. They don't have to overthrow the government right away, all they have to do is not lose, make it too costly for the government or enemy to fight them.

[Tierst]

well I know we have a 'concealed' handgun license.. means you can't walk down the street with a weapon like that. I own a shotgun for home security, mainly because i feel like the sound itself of cocking it will scare someone off so I don't have to use it.

I feel like if you take away the ability for homeowners to own guns as well, the only people WITH guns will be the criminals. I don't, however, feel that it's necessary for someone to own some of the heavier artillery. That's just over the top, and ASKING for something like the batman-massacre to happen.. ugh

[vaeevictiss]

http://acidcow.com/pics/18523-worn-l...ccidental.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-02/t...e?_s=PM:TRAVEL

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...hen_off-d.html

Or you could just Google

the first is sketchy, the second says right in there the pilot fired it, and the third actually was investigated and found there to be foul play involved.

the only possibly legit one is the first, but I'm willing to bet he was messing with it (as what is normally found to be true after investigating these cases). people don't like to openly admit they shot themselves, so they blame it on something else.

[Drakain]

Gun rights are irrelevant. The idea behind gun rights is that if the govt gets too out of control then you have the arms to overthrow it. But technology has outpaced handguns. They now have drones and smart guns and body armor that will render most guns useless should an actual coup occur. This is why the Federal govt doesnt not actually care about taking away gun rights like many actually believe.

I am a liberal btw. However I do admit at this point our govt is something out of control and something to be afraid of. The US govt is turning into a Police State. I would not be surprised if a Revolution happens.

I do family law, criminal law, and PI. I've had dissatisfied clients and unhappy potential client along with people I've sued threaten to harm or kill me. I commonly encounter people who are dangerous. The police are great, but I'm worried by the time they show up, it'll probably be too late. I own a gun to protect myself and my family from these people, not the government.

[time0ut]

the first is sketchy, the second says right in there the pilot fired it, and the third actually was investigated and found there to be foul play involved.

the only possibly legit one is the first, but I'm willing to bet he was messing with it (as what is normally found to be true after investigating these cases). people don't like to openly admit they shot themselves, so they blame it on something else.

I doubt he read the things he linked. Its evident from his post that he didn't even read what he was replying to.

You essentially argued that accidental discharges are rare events and typically attributable to negligence. His links pretty much support that position.

[skrump]

well I know we have a 'concealed' handgun license.. means you can't walk down the street with a weapon like that. I own a shotgun for home security, mainly because i feel like the sound itself of cocking it will scare someone off so I don't have to use it.

I feel like if you take away the ability for homeowners to own guns as well, the only people WITH guns will be the criminals. I don't, however, feel that it's necessary for someone to own some of the heavier artillery. That's just over the top, and ASKING for something like the batman-massacre to happen.. ugh

The reason that should have ensured a civilians right to own heavy artillery is simply because If we ever do end up fighting the tyranny of our government, shotguns won't be doing a lot of good against fully armored military units operated by soldiers who choose the country over the countrymen.

Of course their has to be some limit, your average citizen should not own long range surface to air missiles, fighter jets or tanks, those are things that would need to be commandeered or manufactured during a revolution.

Of course we could ban guns if their was a system in place to automatically remove politicians from office immediately should their approval rating fall below 60% "polls would be up on an official government website which aloud you to switch your personal rating at any time should you so feel inclined.
(politicians removed this way would be denied their government pension and any/all other forms of payment for services offered,severance pay)

[The Riddler]

A question for all persons to ponder in this... What is more important? A woman's right to choose, or the 1,300,000 lives ended by abortion every year?

If the answer is, "A woman's right to choose is more important than the loss in life" then you are starting to understand the logic underlying the defense of the second amendment. To 2nd amendment advocates, this freedom is worth the horrible cost - just as to abortion right advocates the principle of freedom of choice is more important than millions of unborn.

I realize that people who feel strongly on either side of either issue will say "HARUMPH! Illogical comparison! HARUMPH! Totally different...!" I disagree. Logically, both groups are willing to sacrifice the lives of the innocent in order to take a stand on the greater principle of personal freedom. And I think they are both right. Freedom is worth its cost.

Problem is both sides are hypocrites about it. Both accept the concept that freedom is worth the cost - but want to deny that freedom selective depending on their personal preferences. I am not so fettered by ideological blinders. I accept that freedom is worth it in both issues.

[Kalyyn]

fighter jets or tanks,

These are actually things that civilians can legally own. They're just prohibitively expensive, is all. Although, you won't be able to get the weapons and software packages that are reserved for the USAF on your jet, but you can get the platform and some basic weapons/systems if you've got $10-20 million lying around.