Yeah, but that is a little flawed. By that logic, we shouldn't have drunk driving laws because law abiding citizens don't drink and drive.
I have no doubt that people who really want guns at any cost will get ahold of them, even if that means breaking the law. But if they aren't as publicly readily available and are infinitely more regulated and secured, it will make it more difficult for them to acquire guns in the first place. Even then there will still be fewer people who have guns who will be using them for non-self-defense reasons (seeing as that seems to be the only real argument for being anti-gun control). Nobody can honestly sit there and say that by enforcing stricter gun control there would be more criminals running around shooting up the streets. I also think people are lumping "criminals" into far too broad a category. Not all people who carry guns are criminals. Not all criminals with guns want to (or choose to) use them. Not all criminals choose to commit crime for a non-survival reason. Like other groups, you cannot lump people under one view (similar to how we have "people who like the same sex" vs. "gay people", or "people with a disability" vs. "disabled people"). While I get the fear that someone may hold you at gunpoint, stop and ponder for a second where that overarching societal fear came from in the first place. If guns weren't so widespread, would it be an issue? And let's get serious for a second here, if someone is really trying to kill you, do you think them not having a gun OR you having a gun is going to stop them?
Horrible comparison. Not having gun laws allows people to protect themselves - an upside. Of course it has it's downside of irresponsible people having easier access to guns. Getting rid of DUI's would be the exact opposite and has no upside. I don't know one person with a brain cell arguing for legalization of drunk driving anyway.
I understand your points, good sir. As I stated earlier, I know that guns do not deter crime for the most part. However, I do think they're good just to have around, just in case, and should be kept in a place where children cannot access them. As for your reply to my statement on laws only apply to law-abiding citizens, that's pretty much what I was getting at. Laws do not actually prevent anyone from doing anything. They're basically there for the protection of the general populace if something should happen. But again, anyone who doesn't want to follow the laws won't, regardless. I think guns can be used for self-defense, but I understand that they're not fool-proof protection from anything. I also know that, if someone breaks into your house, it will almost always be when no one's there so that they can avoid confrontation, which is honestly probably for the best because, if they break in while you're home, they either don't realize your home or are armed and ready to kill you. Personally, if someone broke into my home, I probably wouldn't actually kill them. I've been in fast food for almost 7 years, and I was always told in training, "Don't be a hero. If someone points a gun in your face and demands all the money in the drawer, just give it to them and pay attention to their physical appearance, the things they say, and the way they say them. Then, when they're gone, call the police." However, if someone was try to kill me and/or my husband, yeah, I'd probably kill them. When someone steals your stuff, you can always replace is, but you can't replace someone's life. That's just what I think. I'm not saying I'm universally right because I know that no one solution works for everyone. That's fine with me. I checked out the link you sent me, and I generally agree with it. However, I still believe that people should be allowed to own guns. I don't have a problem with them. There will inevitably be people who disagree with me, and I'm fine with that. I can't change your mind. I have no reason to, and I don't want to. I have my stance on this situation, and you have yours. That's fine with me.
Cyclic relationship, hm? "Those guys have guns, so I'd better have guns to protect myself from them. Oh, and to get my guns, I'm inadvertently letting them get more guns. I guess I'd better get more guns." That doesn't make much sense to me personally, but hey, to each their own.
I didn't mention anything remotely like that. In my household we have one firearm, and we do not need anymore. Maybe some people think that way, to which you have a point. But, I personally think that comparing gun laws to other laws not a viable argument. Legalizing DUI or any of the laws Linthras's stated have absolutely no upsides whatsoever- they are there to protect people. But if law-abiding citizens are able to own fire arms, they have the ability to protect themselves, which is at least one upside. The problem is with criminals, which is why I think we could do a better job with background checks.
For me as for almost all people from Europe (or at least Germany) this entire debate in the US is really hard to understand. It's just a no brainer. We have pretty strict gun-laws and nobody complains about it. Also I want to post this video about gun use in german police (they shot only 85 bullets in all 2011): German Police Barely Shot Anyone in 2011 - YouTube
If people would stop complaining like big baby's and just deal with it.....Maybe we wouldn't have this problem
False. Not having gun laws is just really stupid, and people like hiding behind the Second Amendment to justify their dangerous beliefs, even though no right is absolute. Saying that not having any gun laws allows people to protect themselves just isn't very logical. It's nothing more than a childish NRA talking point. Obviously there are differences between drunk driving laws and gun laws. I made the comparison to make a point that just because criminals are going to commit crime doesn't mean it should be used as an excuse to not put in place common sense laws. So yeah, it's a fair comparison...
I have, actually. I was ten years old at a summer camp. ---------- Post added 4th Jul 2013 at 11:06 PM ---------- When the time comes to destroy the government, do you really think that any amount of weaponry a civilian can realistically obtain is going to be effective against the military?
Sorry, I phrased that example poorly. When I said "I" what I really meant was all of the average American citizens. The "they" is the criminals. As for criminals, if we've established that criminals are going to get their hands on guns no matter how badly they want them or how restricted they are, what good does increasing background checks do? Sure, it might decrease the number of criminals getting guns "legally", but wouldn't it decrease that number even more if we just limited the number of guns available at all?
Neither pro gun or anti gun. I support the right to bear arms for hunting or target shooting or personal protection, but you don't need assault weapons. You don't need a weapon that is designed only to kill human beings. I also think that if you don't have a reason to own a gun other than "Because Obama and Janet Napolitano are hoarding ammunition to come to everybody's houses and round up all the guns and we'll be forced to kill Federal agents..." you should NOT be allowed to own a gun. I support background checks, I support the Brady Bill (banning the mentally ill and people convicted of certain crimes from buying guns, as well as a 7-day waiting period to buy a handgun), and I'm more anti-NRA than anything. Republicans want to force women to endure humiliating and unnecessary medical procedures to get an abortion like a vaginal ultrasound, but there should be absolutely no restrictions on the one thing that kills more real people every year. Also, Ronald Reagan, one of the most staunch defenders of the Second Amendment, weighed in on the Brady Bill when it affected him personally. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
Most would agree, including myself. I haven't been able to justify spending any amount of money on an AR-15. But one could argue that the need IS there in some measure, because people out there would use similar implements to kill you. Once again, it's not really a statistically-supported need and more survivalist paranoia, but being a free country, I'd heartily support the state of over-preparedness instead of under. Add that to the idea that the liberty of many should not be held at the mercy of the abusive few, and my opinion stays decidedly at pro.
Ugh, the stereotype that every mentally ill person is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon is aggravating. I'm bipolar and have been forcibly hospitalized three times, but that doesn't mean I'm violent. Yet it's still against the law for me to buy a gun even if I was 24. I'm fine with people owning a handgun or something but there are two knee-jerk reactions here. One side wants all firearms gone (that just won't happen in the US.), and the other uses mental illness as a scape-goat. There are other sides too but I'm lazy so I'm using those two.
There's a huge difference between assault weapons and the rifle you inherited from your grand daddy. Assault weapons have one purpose to kill or cripple enemy forces. They are lousy for hunting and tremendous overkill for paper targets. Grampa's rifle is meant for hunting, target practice and self-defense if necessary. I believe that safety training classes go a long way in preventing accidents. A locked gun cabinet is also a must.
I think that's a really chilling view. I realize that you do think people should be able to have weapons for personal protection, but that entirely reasonable position is not really compatible with what I just quoted. If something can be used for personal protection, or the protection of others, I would think that we hope it's designed to kill human beings. Your view is reasonable. The problem is that there are many other people who say exactly what you just said and want to take guns away from everyone. Infuriatingly, they'll even say that gun violence and/or self-defense claims hurts minorities the most. I guess their thoughts are that gay-bashing isn't a thing or that cops have magic instantaneous teleportation powers. I'm linking to my album which I hope adequately explains my philosophy on the matter. If the link is broken, it the album probably still needs moderator approval.
I see your point. I guess if someone really wanted to kill me, them not having a gun or me having a gun still probably wouldn't at least stop them from trying anyway. And in stressful circumstances like that, it would be hard to take aim and shoot accurately. Based on that, the idea of having an advantage over a potential attacker or a way to defend one's self is purely theoretical. I understand that, a lot of the time, it doesn't work so well in practice. However, I still think people in general should have access to guns, but there should be rigorous background checks performed on anyone who wants to buy a gun. I figure that anyone who wants one anyway will somehow obtain one regardless because there are people who don't care that what they're doing is illegal for their own reasons. The area where I live has a pretty overwhelming drug problem, and I've seen that some people don't care that they're endangering their kids by cooking meth in their homes or whatever. It's completely baffling to me, but anyway, that's a bit off topic. I just come from a place where lots of people have guns, and I'd like to know how to shoot one in case I ever need to, in case I should ever have to defend the life of myself and/or my husband. I at least want to give myself a chance to survive instead of being unarmed just because there are many instances in which guns fail as a self-defense measure.
