Gun laws in USA

Is this stat true? Becouse holy shit, that should be enough to tell you that making guns so easily available doesn't protect anything.

It is true, but it's kinda skewed because of how many more people there are in the US. The estimated population is 315k, the closest country to that on your list is Germany with 80k.

But nevertheless, I'm definitely for gun laws, it's just this stat isn't the best one to use to support them.

NRA

I still don't think just banning all guns is the answer. The right to bear arms is firmly ingrained in America's culture. It's just who we are as Americans. I personally have never used a gun before because I've never been in a situation where I've needed to, as have millions of other Americans. If I ever found myself in a situation where a gun would come in handy though to protect myself and my family, then absolutely I would own a gun and use it if I needed to.

I said it before in the Sandy Hook thread....Chicago has a city-wide ban on guns and yet it has the highest gun violence numbers in the nation, making it one of the most violent cities in the world along with Detroit, which is where I reside now. The lawmakers in the state of Illinois made Chicago a gun free zone and so gangs and drug cartels funnelled illegal weapons onto the streets. The innocent people of that city cannot protect themselves because if they're caught buying a gun for protection, they're going to get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Why would we wants this for the entire United States? It's just not the answer.

The truth of matter is this: guns are inanimate objects. They are of no danger to anyone just lying somewhere. The brain that controls the hands that control the gun are what make this a dangerous weapon. We need to find ways to prevent that type of person from getting such ready and easy access to not just guns, but all of the ammo that goes with them.

Let's start by making sure those who do lawfully own weapons are responsible enough to ensure that these guns are kept completely secure and way from those who either do not know how dangerous these weapons can be (children) or those who fully know what these weapons are capable of and intend to use them harm (such as Adam Lanza) . Let's make sure people who are just not right mentally do not have access to these weapons. Now maybe that's subjective because then it turns into a game to define the line between sane and insane and it's an ever shifting line according to societal norms. So that's a slippery slope, but since it's become abundantly clear that all other forms of combating our problem with mass violence has failed, this desire another try.

Not a very complex argument here, but I do think banning all guns would be the way to go.

Would be an absolute nightmare to try and make happen though.

Banning guns would cause similar cartel wars to what happens in Mexico with drugs. Banning is not the answer.

McLewis, the problem with your argument is within the nature of the laws passed: there are no customs checks entering Chicago city limits, or crossing state borders into Illinois. As long as it is legal for someone to buy an automatic weapon elsewhere in the country, weapons bans will not have the desired effect. A recent study found that 1 in 5 guns recovered at NYC crime scenes were purchased legally in Virginia and then carried across state lines.

The "guns don't kill people" argument doesn't work either, because the purpose of guns IS to kill. When the Sandy Hook crisis occurred there were the predictable political fights all over Facebook, and one kid tried to cite a recent mass-stabbing in China as evidence that attacks will occur regardless of access to weaponry. But that event resulted in no deaths.

I'm not saying ban all guns, but there's a huge realm of middle-ground between that and what we have right now. Banning assault weapons, automatic handguns, and beginning with common sense regulations like waiting periods, background checks and requiring licenses for all firearms (which currently does not occur with longhandled weapons in most states) is not a crazy idea. It just needs to occur at a higher level than it is currently, because city- or state-wide legislation will not have an impact.

bazinga wrote:Banning guns would cause similar cartel wars to what happens in Mexico with drugs. Banning is not the answer.

You're REALLY going to need to expand that analogy. Are you trying to claim that making any good illegal has no effect on its prevalence in society due to the black market? Or is it just guns and drugs? In either case, you're gonna have to come up with responses to a LOT of readily available information...

stevieg8 wrote:McLewis, the problem with your argument is within the nature of the laws passed: there are no customs checks entering Chicago city limits, or crossing state borders into Illinois. As long as it is legal for someone to buy an automatic weapon elsewhere in the country, weapons bans will not have the desired effect. A recent study found that 1 in 5 guns recovered at NYC crime scenes were purchased legally in Virginia and then carried across state lines.

The "guns don't kill people" argument doesn't work either, because the purpose of guns IS to kill. When the Sandy Hook crisis occurred there were the predictable political fights all over Facebook, and one kid tried to cite a recent mass-stabbing in China as evidence that attacks will occur regardless of access to weaponry. But that event resulted in no deaths.

I'm not saying ban all guns, but there's a huge realm of middle-ground between that and what we have right now. Banning assault weapons, automatic handguns, and beginning with common sense regulations like waiting periods, background checks and requiring licenses for all firearms (which currently does not occur with longhandled weapons in most states) is not a crazy idea. It just needs to occur at a higher level than it is currently, because city- or state-wide legislation will not have an impact.

Let's say we ban AR-15s, AK-47s and other rifles of that family. What happens when the next mass murder is committed with a handgun?...do we ban those too? What happens when someone throws a grenade into a crowded place?...do we ban those as well? What happens when someone starts hacking away at random people with a knife or a sword? Do we ban those as well?

Where would it end?

Banning guns is a slippery slope. I've said this many times. If a person wants to kill as many people as possible...they are not going to care the instrument of which they do the killing with. If they are hellbent to cause as much carnage as possible, they are going to find a way. A gun is just the most convenient weapon at their disposal. Take it away and they'll find other ways. We have to stop these people. We stop them, we stop the violence. Taking away the instruments will not solve the problem.

People have a right in this country to protect themselves and guns are often the best way to do that. Is it the only way? Absolutely not. Guns are indeed designed to kill. I am under no illusions of that. If someone comes into my house, threatens my family, then they've just signed their death warrant. Me personally, I could care less whether this is done with a gun. Protecting myself and my family is what matters, not how that gets done.

Grenades are already banned for ANY civilian usage, which is precisely how I can prove your argument wrong.

You want to talk about a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy. Instead, I'd like to talk about legal precedent and strict guidelines for the restrictions. The question one has to ask isn't "what is used in a mass killing?" but "what tool makes it easiest to kill people?" You bring up handguns; I explicitly referenced those in my post - and in fact, they're more heavily regulated than long-handle rifles. The point is, it is HARDER to kill large number of people without a gun than with one. Case in point: the example of mass knifing at a school in China, where similar numbers were injured to Sandy Hook, but - and this is crucial - no one died.

Would you like to compare knife death per capita in the countries listed above with gun deaths in the United States? Firearms account for over 50% of all homicides committed in the United States, and handguns are over 90% of those (source: Bureau of Justice Statistics). The United States also has the highest per capita homicide rate of any Western country, once again beating out every single country listed in the above infographic. In all of Europe, only Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia and Lithuania are higher than the United States (source for both sentences: UNODC). You're really telling me banning and restricting use of firearms - yes, not just assault rifles, but handguns too - wouldn't help? Believe it all you want, but the facts don't support you.

The only reason there are any studies citing trends showing gun control laws as not working is because of the lack of surveillance over state borders in the US. I've read the studies; they ignore the international data, all of which works against them, and they fail to account for prevalence of urban areas, the only reason it looks like New York has more of a gun problem than Mississippi or Alaska in the first place. The numbers flat out do not support the position you're proposing, and there is NO argument based in reason that can be made in favor of the current state of gun laws in this country.

And don't even get me started on the absolute cliff of political philosophy you toss us off of by arguing from the standpoint of vigilantism. It undermines the most crucial philosophical underpinnings of democracy. Thomas Hobbes must be spinning in his grave.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the PILES of psychological research that shows that using a gun removes the emotional ties of killing and makes it easier for someone to pull the trigger. Not only are guns more practical for killing, they actively make the murderer feel better about it in the process.

McLewis wrote:

stevieg8 wrote:McLewis, the problem with your argument is within the nature of the laws passed: there are no customs checks entering Chicago city limits, or crossing state borders into Illinois. As long as it is legal for someone to buy an automatic weapon elsewhere in the country, weapons bans will not have the desired effect. A recent study found that 1 in 5 guns recovered at NYC crime scenes were purchased legally in Virginia and then carried across state lines.

The "guns don't kill people" argument doesn't work either, because the purpose of guns IS to kill. When the Sandy Hook crisis occurred there were the predictable political fights all over Facebook, and one kid tried to cite a recent mass-stabbing in China as evidence that attacks will occur regardless of access to weaponry. But that event resulted in no deaths.

I'm not saying ban all guns, but there's a huge realm of middle-ground between that and what we have right now. Banning assault weapons, automatic handguns, and beginning with common sense regulations like waiting periods, background checks and requiring licenses for all firearms (which currently does not occur with longhandled weapons in most states) is not a crazy idea. It just needs to occur at a higher level than it is currently, because city- or state-wide legislation will not have an impact.

Let's say we ban AR-15s, AK-47s and other rifles of that family. What happens when the next mass murder is committed with a handgun?...do we ban those too? What happens when someone throws a grenade into a crowded place?...do we ban those as well? What happens when someone starts hacking away at random people with a knife or a sword? Do we ban those as well?

Where would it end?

Banning guns is a slippery slope. I've said this many times. If a person wants to kill as many people as possible...they are not going to care the instrument of which they do the killing with. If they are hellbent to cause as much carnage as possible, they are going to find a way. A gun is just the most convenient weapon at their disposal. Take it away and they'll find other ways. We have to stop these people. We stop them, we stop the violence. Taking away the instruments will not solve the problem.

People have a right in this country to protect themselves and guns are often the best way to do that. Is it the only way? Absolutely not. Guns are indeed designed to kill. I am under no illusions of that. If someone comes into my house, threatens my family, then they've just signed their death warrant. Me personally, I could care less whether this is done with a gun. Protecting myself and my family is what matters, not how that gets done.

they will find things that are inconvenient and consequently also inefficient.

In my eyes guns are weapons for cowards. You can use them from a range where a victim has no chance to fight back, especially if a sniper shoots from some cover. Moreover, guns are easily more deadly for a larger amount of people than any other stuff bar explosives, poisonous gas and biological weapons and the latter are banned for public use for a reason already.

If someone attacks you with a knife, s/he has to get close enough so that you can fight back. If someone attacks you with a gun, chances are you have a bullet somewhere before you even can react. Even if you carry a gun yourself, unless you have it handy right away, the attacker has a vast advantage. Chances are high that you already got shot before you took your gun out and could take aim. Moreover, if some attacker would know you might have a gun with you, s/he would not wait for you to draw it - the attacker would likely simply decide to shoot first and ask questions later.

stevieg8 wrote:Grenades are already banned for ANY civilian usage, which is precisely how I can prove your argument wrong.

You want to talk about a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy. Instead, I'd like to talk about legal precedent and strict guidelines for the restrictions. The question one has to ask isn't "what is used in a mass killing?" but "what tool makes it easiest to kill people?" You bring up handguns; I explicitly referenced those in my post - and in fact, they're more heavily regulated than long-handle rifles. The point is, it is HARDER to kill large number of people without a gun than with one. Case in point: the example of mass knifing at a school in China, where similar numbers were injured to Sandy Hook, but - and this is crucial - no one died.

Would you like to compare knife death per capita in the countries listed above with gun deaths in the United States? Firearms account for over 50% of all homicides committed in the United States, and handguns are over 90% of those (source: Bureau of Justice Statistics). The United States also has the highest per capita homicide rate of any Western country, once again beating out every single country listed in the above infographic. In all of Europe, only Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia and Lithuania are higher than the United States (source for both sentences: UNODC). You're really telling me banning and restricting use of firearms - yes, not just assault rifles, but handguns too - wouldn't help? Believe it all you want, but the facts don't support you.

The only reason there are any studies citing trends showing gun control laws as not working is because of the lack of surveillance over state borders in the US. I've read the studies; they ignore the international data, all of which works against them, and they fail to account for prevalence of urban areas, the only reason it looks like New York has more of a gun problem than Mississippi or Alaska in the first place. The numbers flat out do not support the position you're proposing, and there is NO argument based in reason that can be made in favor of the current state of gun laws in this country.

And don't even get me started on the absolute cliff of political philosophy you toss us off of by arguing from the standpoint of vigilantism. It undermines the most crucial philosophical underpinnings of democracy. Thomas Hobbes must be spinning in his grave.

Lookit, I know I sound pretty conservative on this topic and maybe I am. I'm actually quite liberal to be honest though. I just believe people have a right to protect themselves. Take away that ability and we're going to see even more tragedies. Do you think the criminals who already own illegal weapons are just going to go quietly with whatever gun control laws go into place? Do you think people who have always had this freedom are just going to give it up because their government says they have to? It's just not going to happen. This is one of the few issues in this country that if handled wrong could lead to way more than just the civil discourse we've seen thus far. You're talking about taking away legally purchased weapons away from millions of people who have done nothing wrong with them just because a few nuts use them in wrong and often tragic ways.

How in the world is that fair?

How are families, especially those who don't have the benefit of living in cozy suburban neighborhoods, supposed to protect themselves against criminals who have shown absolutely no qualms about murdering the innocent and the unarmed?

I'm not talking about vigilantism here. I'm talking about protection. About security. About safety. I live 40 minutes from Detroit, the so-called "Murder Capital of the World". Break-ins, robberies and muggings are the norm in this area. There are some areas of this city that cops simply won't go to at night and while that's down to the city's financial woes more than anything, that speaks to just how serious the criminal element problem is here...and guess what? They ain't using legal weapons. IF gun control does go into effect in an area like this, these criminals will grow bolder than they already are. They will know that they can basically rob anyone and won't have to worry about getting shot in the process either by the person they're robbing or the police, who simply too few to protect the citizenry.

As I said, there needs to be a broader conversation than just "ban guns!" or "more guns!"...that is not the end all, be all fix for this issue and it astounds me that both gun control advocates as well as gun rights advocates fail to acknowledge this. Compromise and sacrifice from both sides are needed if we're going to stop these atrocities.

But I already DID acknowledge that. I'm not saying "ban guns!", and if you think that's a way to summarize my argument, you didn't read it.

Look, I'm not from cozy suburban areas. I'm not from 40 minutes outside of the dangerous areas. I grew up in an inner city, albeit a small one, which is within the top 20 most dangerous urban areas in the US. I moved for school from there to a city which is even more dangerous in sections of it. I have never carried a weapon, nor have any of my friends, nor anyone in my family. So please don't talk to me like I'm ignorant of the circumstances.

You're right, banning guns will not immediately get them off the street. But through enforcement, over time, the number of guns held illegally or legally will decrease dramatically. Without a source within the US, it will be VERY difficult to gain access to weapons, and the number of firearms will gradually go down.

This is the ONLY way to go about it. Because we're not talking about isolated nuts. You want to know what percentage of the homicides I'm talking about are the result of mass shootings like Sandy Hook? It's less than .01%. That number drops even farther if we expand the category to all gun deaths, which includes accidental deaths - of which there are many. As you should know from your reference of Detroit, we're NOT talking isolated incidents. We're talking an epidemic of murders, with people dying on a daily basis.

These things happen regardless of the gun laws in the state, so the protection argument doesn't work either. Texas, the only state both with lax gun laws AND a major prevalence of urban areas also happens to be the supposed outlier (according to conservatives) where lax guns laws ARE correlated with higher death rates. Furthermore, we see mass shootings at places with professional armed guards on a regular basis - Fort Hood anyone?

The fact is that arming more people does not help; it leads to MORE crime, not less, and it leads to more bystanders getting hurt in a crossfire. There are studies on this, and the numbers once again are clear. Providing firearms to more people does not help protect them, it in fact puts them at risk. You're right, there will be difficulties that arise from strengthening gun laws, but over the course of a few years numbers will start to drop. And every study out there says that those difficulties will not include criminals growing bolder with the knowledge people aren't carrying guns. It simply doesn't correlate like that in the other places gun laws have been strengthened.

Even more importantly than that, though, is the implications to political philosophy of your argument. Most people don't care about this, but if you want to talk about a slippery slope, lets examine a real one:

Thomas Hobbes, one of the founders of liberal political thought (liberal in the old sense, not the Dems vs. Republicans sense), posited that all humans exist in a state of natural law. Natural law grants everyone the right to everything, inevitably leading to conflict as two people wish to control the same resource/mate/territory/whatever. This situation guarantees no safety for anyone, and life is "nasty, brutish and short."

Nobody likes this situation, because you can be killed at any moment. So to escape the violent nature of natural law, people come together and make contracts. "I won't kill you if you don't kill me," etc. Now these contracts mean nothing without enforcement, because otherwise the first person to want something the other person has will simply kill them. The protection only lasts until a conflict arises, and then it disappears.

The contracts need to be enforced, and they need to be enforced by an arbitrary force. Otherwise, one member of the contract will be allowed to do whatever they please, and state that they were not violating the contract - no one else will have recourse against it, because there is no other enforcer to appeal to. This is the situation of monarchy.

Instead what we have as enforcement is the law. The law is arbitrary because it is a concept, not an individual. This concept applies itself through the actions of people, but it stands above those enforcers as well - it applies to all. The conclusion of all this, as everyone can see, is democracy. how do we ensure that the law is applied equally to everyone? By putting it in the hands of society as a whole. Because the laws are created by the people (or, in most cases, by representatives of the people), they become an embodiment of the social contracts being signed and cannot be escaped by any one enforcer.

What the argument for "protection" (or, as it is more accurately called, vigilantism) does is clear: by making every individual, not just representatives of the state, active enforcers of the law - with a weapon and the right to use it - the contracts are undermined. Now, anyone who pleases can violate the contract - in this case, as simple as "do not murder" - in the name of enforcement. And guess where the primary witness against their alibi is? Dead.

Just look at the recent case with Trayvon Martin. Even with a "stand your ground" law, which most states don't have, self defense is pretty difficult to prove. In other states, Zimmerman would have no legal defense simply because he APPROACHED Martin before anything happened - if you have the ability to escape, even if that is summarized as being somewhat more fit than your attacker, self defense gets thrown out of the court in most of the northeast and west coast.

You want to protect yourself against burglars and home intruders? That's fine, those cases are much more clear cut (most of the time). And as you already stated, you could do that with a baseball bat or a knife if you had to. Under what I said earlier, you could go get yourself a license for a handgun, wait a week for it to be processed and them to make sure you're not crazy, and then keep it in your nightstand, never to show up again unless you need it.

But the right to walk around with it in your pocket, so that you can fire if you feel threatened? You're undermining democracy. Why don't we spend our time and considerable brainpower working on improving our police forces, or better yet fixing the socio-economic problems in cities like Detroit that LEAD to the high crime rates? Sure, it may be more difficult, but at least we're not taking steps back towards "nasty, brutish and short."

I'm not saying guns are justified. I come from India, and we have pretty strict gun control and consequently lower gun related crimes.

Currently, I live in the US and I don't see how stricter gun laws will get the majority support they require. My analogy about Mexican drug cartels is that making something more difficult to get is only going to encourage illegal operations to obtain it.

I am all for gun laws, I agree guns are the problem, I just don't see how the problem can be solved.

bazinga wrote:I'm not saying guns are justified. I come from India, and we have pretty strict gun control and consequently lower gun related crimes.

Currently, I live in the US and I don't see how stricter gun laws will get the majority support they require. My analogy about Mexican drug cartels is that making something more difficult to get is only going to encourage illegal operations to obtain it.

I am all for gun laws, I agree guns are the problem, I just don't see how the problem can be solved.

Well they're already polling well, over 50% for the first time, so it's a matter of time. The commission recently set up will probably make some suggestions that will end up law sooner or later.

The issue about illegal operations is what I was responding to earlier. Guns may still be accessible through illegal means, but they will be less so. And the US is a stable enough country that we're not going to see a rise in organized crime fighting an all out war against the government over the issue ala Mexico. It will not work perfectly - I would never expect any government initiative to - but the number of guns available WILL go down by a noticeable amount.

There are corollaries to be drawn with other banned goods - drugs, for one, are noticeably less accessible in the US than they would be under legalization.

stevieg8 wrote:But I already DID acknowledge that. I'm not saying "ban guns!", and if you think that's a way to summarize my argument, you didn't read it.

Look, I'm not from cozy suburban areas. I'm not from 40 minutes outside of the dangerous areas. I grew up in an inner city, albeit a small one, which is within the top 20 most dangerous urban areas in the US. I moved for school from there to a city which is even more dangerous in sections of it. I have never carried a weapon, nor have any of my friends, nor anyone in my family. So please don't talk to me like I'm ignorant of the circumstances.

You're right, banning guns will not immediately get them off the street. But through enforcement, over time, the number of guns held illegally or legally will decrease dramatically. Without a source within the US, it will be VERY difficult to gain access to weapons, and the number of firearms will gradually go down.

This is the ONLY way to go about it. Because we're not talking about isolated nuts. You want to know what percentage of the homicides I'm talking about are the result of mass shootings like Sandy Hook? It's less than .01%. That number drops even farther if we expand the category to all gun deaths, which includes accidental deaths - of which there are many. As you should know from your reference of Detroit, we're NOT talking isolated incidents. We're talking an epidemic of murders, with people dying on a daily basis.

These things happen regardless of the gun laws in the state, so the protection argument doesn't work either. Texas, the only state both with lax gun laws AND a major prevalence of urban areas also happens to be the supposed outlier (according to conservatives) where lax guns laws ARE correlated with higher death rates. Furthermore, we see mass shootings at places with professional armed guards on a regular basis - Fort Hood anyone?

The fact is that arming more people does not help; it leads to MORE crime, not less, and it leads to more bystanders getting hurt in a crossfire. There are studies on this, and the numbers once again are clear. Providing firearms to more people does not help protect them, it in fact puts them at risk. You're right, there will be difficulties that arise from strengthening gun laws, but over the course of a few years numbers will start to drop. And every study out there says that those difficulties will not include criminals growing bolder with the knowledge people aren't carrying guns. It simply doesn't correlate like that in the other places gun laws have been strengthened.

stevieg8 wrote:Even more importantly than that, though, is the implications to political philosophy of your argument. Most people don't care about this, but if you want to talk about a slippery slope, lets examine a real one:

Thomas Hobbes, one of the founders of liberal political thought (liberal in the old sense, not the Dems vs. Republicans sense), posited that all humans exist in a state of natural law. Natural law grants everyone the right to everything, inevitably leading to conflict as two people wish to control the same resource/mate/territory/whatever. This situation guarantees no safety for anyone, and life is "nasty, brutish and short."

Nobody likes this situation, because you can be killed at any moment. So to escape the violent nature of natural law, people come together and make contracts. "I won't kill you if you don't kill me," etc. Now these contracts mean nothing without enforcement, because otherwise the first person to want something the other person has will simply kill them. The protection only lasts until a conflict arises, and then it disappears.

The contracts need to be enforced, and they need to be enforced by an arbitrary force. Otherwise, one member of the contract will be allowed to do whatever they please, and state that they were not violating the contract - no one else will have recourse against it, because there is no other enforcer to appeal to. This is the situation of monarchy.

Instead what we have as enforcement is the law. The law is arbitrary because it is a concept, not an individual. This concept applies itself through the actions of people, but it stands above those enforcers as well - it applies to all. The conclusion of all this, as everyone can see, is democracy. how do we ensure that the law is applied equally to everyone? By putting it in the hands of society as a whole. Because the laws are created by the people (or, in most cases, by representatives of the people), they become an embodiment of the social contracts being signed and cannot be escaped by any one enforcer.

What the argument for "protection" (or, as it is more accurately called, vigilantism) does is clear: by making every individual, not just representatives of the state, active enforcers of the law - with a weapon and the right to use it - the contracts are undermined. Now, anyone who pleases can violate the contract - in this case, as simple as "do not murder" - in the name of enforcement. And guess where the primary witness against their alibi is? Dead.

Just look at the recent case with Trayvon Martin. Even with a "stand your ground" law, which most states don't have, self defense is pretty difficult to prove. In other states, Zimmerman would have no legal defense simply because he APPROACHED Martin before anything happened - if you have the ability to escape, even if that is summarized as being somewhat more fit than your attacker, self defense gets thrown out of the court in most of the northeast and west coast.

You want to protect yourself against burglars and home intruders? That's fine, those cases are much more clear cut (most of the time). And as you already stated, you could do that with a baseball bat or a knife if you had to. Under what I said earlier, you could go get yourself a license for a handgun, wait a week for it to be processed and them to make sure you're not crazy, and then keep it in your nightstand, never to show up again unless you need it.

But the right to walk around with it in your pocket, so that you can fire if you feel threatened? You're undermining democracy. Why don't we spend our time and considerable brainpower working on improving our police forces, or better yet fixing the socio-economic problems in cities like Detroit that LEAD to the high crime rates? Sure, it may be more difficult, but at least we're not taking steps back towards "nasty, brutish and short."

I think we have our wires crossed here.

I agree with maybe 80% of what you said. I will address the 20% that I do not agree with.

I think you're assuming that I'm advocating for looser and more far reaching concealed-carry laws. I'm not.

I personally think that's incredibly dangerous as it's been shown that gun owners are nearly 10 times more likely than non-gun owners to die a violent death. Like you, I do not own a gun nor have I shot one or even held one. I frankly do not ever want to, but I just want to know that if I ever feel the need to arm myself to protect me and mine, that I don't want to have to worry about whether I'm breaking the law to do it. If I ever do own a gun, I would likely never wear it on me as I do not feel compelled to put myself in that type of danger.

Now what I really disagree with you on is your definition of vigilantism and that you think that's also what I'm advocating. I can assure you that I am not. Zimmerman considered himself a vigilante and he often characterized as one because as you pointed out, he APPROACHED Trayvon. He knowingly and willingly went after someone he took for a criminal, as all vigilantes do. That's not what I support. I don't want that for every person in this country. I just want to be able to protect myself and my family the best way possible and if a gun achieves that, then I should have a right to it. Do I need an AR-15? Nope. A nice little handgun with a few clips of ammo would do nicely. As far as gun issues go, that's all I've ever supported. That's as conservatives as I get on this topic. I do not support people stockpiling 23304 assault rifles, and crates upon crates of ammo for the next apocalypse, sane though that may be to them...I think it's unnecessary, paranoid and dangerous. I do not support these gun shows and transaction where nothing is known about the seller or the buyer of these weapons, especially their mental temperament. I do not support the NRA, who say that we need more armed people walking around to stop potential crimes....that would be the vigilantism that you spoke of earlier and I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

Guns were made to kill, but murder does not have to be the objective. If used the right way, they can preserve life just as easily as they can end life.

McLewis wrote:I still don't think just banning all guns is the answer. The right to bear arms is firmly ingrained in America's culture. It's just who we are as Americans. I personally have never used a gun before because I've never been in a situation where I've needed to, as have millions of other Americans. If I ever found myself in a situation where a gun would come in handy though to protect myself and my family, then absolutely I would own a gun and use it if I needed to.

Chances are though that if that situation were to arise, it'd be too late. I don't mean just mass shootings either. If disaster were to happen chances are you'd come across someone who's armed before you've armed yourself. I'm in the same boat. I agree that banning guns is not the answer and although I've never used a firearm I think that everyone should have at least one for protection and thats where things get blurry. Who is fit to have one and who shouldn't?

What is the argument here? Many nations have successfully implemented gun control laws.

I'm no expert on Australia's gun laws, but we have done quite well and these are all measures that we have had for ages:

1. No assault weapons.
2. Gun licenses required for gun ownership.
3. Gun licenses required for each individual weapon.
4. Legitimate purposes have to be declared to gain a gun ownership license. E.g. You want a gun for hunting - you need to either be part of a recognised hunting club or have land big enough and well suited for hunting - and you need to prove it to get your license.

barca 2011 wrote:

McLewis wrote:I still don't think just banning all guns is the answer. The right to bear arms is firmly ingrained in America's culture. It's just who we are as Americans. I personally have never used a gun before because I've never been in a situation where I've needed to, as have millions of other Americans. If I ever found myself in a situation where a gun would come in handy though to protect myself and my family, then absolutely I would own a gun and use it if I needed to.

Chances are though that if that situation were to arise, it'd be too late. I don't mean just mass shootings either. If disaster were to happen chances are you'd come across someone who's armed before you've armed yourself. I'm in the same boat. I agree that banning guns is not the answer and although I've never used a firearm I think that everyone should have at least one for protection and thats where things get blurry. Who is fit to have one and who shouldn't?

Well that's the paradox isn't it? We want guns to be regulated, but we also want them easily accessible should we ever have need for them. We're finding that we really can't do both. It's like we want to have our cake and eat it too...this is an either/or issue really.

Me personally, I choose carefully where I live and where I work as well as who I associate myself with. This cuts down dramatically on the chances of me ending up in a situation where I'm either threatened by a gun or forced to use one. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to be so liberal about that, but it has served me and mine very well.

There is one thing that just sprang to my mind - don't you think it is sad that in a country that considers itself highly civilised and the epitome of Western culture and morals, the majority of citizens seem to feel they need a killing weapon to feel safe?

rwo power wrote:There is one thing that just sprang to my mind - don't you think it is sad that in a country that considers itself highly civilised and the epitome of Western culture and morals, the majority of citizens seem to feel they need a killing weapon to feel safe?

It's quite sad and very true. This is a tough world though. It always has been as history can surely attest to. People have been protecting themselves with killing weapons, in one form or another, for thousands of years. I don't think that will ever change because the human temperment itself is very unlikely to change. As long as there are people out there with no scruples about preying on those who cannot defend themselves, killing weapons will continue to serve a dual purpose.

You're making that world tougher than it needs to be, though. Sorry, but living here, in Heidelberg, with no recorded homicide in like 18 months or so, neighboring the city of Mannheim, which is a bit larger than Denver, and infamous for it's high crime rate, which didn't record a homicide in 2 years, I kind of have to look over the pond from up my mighty steed, and make an arrogant statement:

You're really making the bed you have to sleep in. Is that an expression in english? Either way: you can't just say "it's a tough world";
It's mainly a tough world because every thug and their little sister has an assault rifle and a grenade launcher. It would be a much less tough world, if all they had were steak knives.

I'm not saying that it's entirely wrong what you said, but your stance really helps out people who take it a step further, and cynically say "well, it's all FUBAR anyway, let's just keep guns to help defend us against guns."

I know you yourself aren't really advocating that, but you're playing into those people's hands.

In the school shooting thread, I made the only point I'd personally accept in favor of no increase in gun control, and that's cultural and political.
I will fully accept the argument, if made, that American culture is built on individual liberty, and the populace being a legitimate threat to the government as a built-in safeguard against tyranny.
But then you have to have the guts to stand up and say "this is worth 10k dead innocents each year", if someone is willing to publicly make that point, I'll say that it's a valid point.

But mostly, from pro-gun activists, you just get hypocritical watering-down of facts and half-truths. I really think American culture is the only proper argument against gun control there is, since anything else is easily destroyed by crime statistics in countries with gun control.

(Edit: There were two homicides in late fall though, I just remembered, the statistic I quoted was from the summer. But still, those were two dead in a mass-brawl including severel stabbings involving two rival motorcycle gangs.)