Right to bear arms...Are you for or aginst it?

Personally I believe that all who are capable of responsibly owning, maintaining, and using firearms should be allowed to do so. Now the key word here is "responsibly" as I would put that qualification on legal ownership. I would like to see firearm training for all citizens more readily available, and I would like to see it as a requirement for gun ownership.

I am a US citizen living in the northeast and come from a family of hunters and gun owners. As such, I was raised to properly appreciate and respect the responsibility that comes with ownership and use of firearms, having handled various rifles, shotguns, and pistols from an early age. I took a hunters safety course as a child at a local rod and gun club, and I was further trained in the proper use of firearms by my father, grandfather, and uncles, as well as the leaders of my Boy Scout troop.

Not once has it occurred to me that I should shoot up my hometown, school, place of business, or ex-girlfriends, in an attempt to get even with perceived wrongs.

I've written stories on ATS's Short Stories forum (among other places) that involve the violent use of firearms, but these were no more a reflection of reality than any number of comic books, novels, television shows, cartoons, or movies would be. There is no glory in killing, and no truly sane person goes out looking for trouble, hoping for the chance to shoot someone.

A firearm used irresponsibly or improperly is no more responsible for someone's death than an automobile is when driven irresponsibly or improperly. A firearm is a tool, my friends. It has no more choice in how it is used than a hammer, a screwdriver, or a steak knife. All of those, of course, could be used to kill just as easily as the firearm if used improperly or irresponsibly.

The real issue I see is that society refuses to place the blame squarely where it belongs -- on the people who commit acts of violence. Instead we take away the tools that might be used to commit them, knowing that the tools themselves aren't truly at fault. The real issue is the people, not the inanimate objects they carry.

Society wants a quick and easy answer to every problem. We live in an age of instant gratification, where people believe the quickest solution is the best. Taking away firearms is a quick and easy band-aid on the bleeding jugular of civilization. There will always be other means to commit despicable acts of violence though. There will always be other ways for the malicious to prey upon the weak or innocent.

Take responsibility for the actions of yourself and those around you. Hold people accountable for their actions instead of blaming the tools used for their actions. The barrels of these weapons were aimed by a living breathing person. The triggers were pulled by someone's fingers.

It may not be an easy solution but its the only truly rational one. Fix the issues in our society that lead our fellow man to act maliciously against another.

It's the people who are doing all the killing after all.

posted by TheDemonHunter
I believe that all who are capable of responsibly owning, maintaining, and using firearms should be allowed to do so. Now the key word here is "responsibly" as I would put that qualification on legal ownership. I would like to see firearm training for all citizens more readily available, and I would like to see it as a requirement for gun ownership.

As you may well know, Mr T/D/H, to obtain a CCW permit from any state requires just what you have recommended above. Mandatory should be the word, not just “more readily available.” Every member of a gun owning household of age 6 and over should be required to attend. Some restrictions have slowed gun sales to unqualified people. The point of sale background check has prevented millions of intended gun owners from making legal buys at licensed gun stores.

Without the numbers, I suspect that after licensed gun stores, more sales are made person-to-person and some fewer are made at gun shows without the background checks. To address this loop-hole large enough to drive an 18 wheeler through, I have recommended each firearm be titled as in the case of a car or boat. Then the seller must transfer the title at the local Registrar of Deeds office for a nominal fee. In that way, “responsibility” joint or shared, can be laid where it belongs. On the indiscriminate provider of the firearm. This would also have the extra side benefit of stopping legal buys of firearms in one state only to be re-sold on the street to an unqualified buyer in another state.

A firearm used irresponsibly or improperly is no more responsible for someone's death than an automobile is when driven irresponsibly or improperly. A firearm is a tool, my friends. It has no more choice in how it is used than a hammer, a screwdriver, or a steak knife.

While there is some merit in this argument - guns don’t kill people, people kill people - it begs the issue. Statistics do not support the thesis. The CDC keeps records that show that of all accidents serious enough for the victim to seek medical aid, fewer than 1/10th of 1% are fatal. Using the same criteria but limited to gunshot wounds, 28% of victims die. This is the measure of relative lethality of firearms versus all other accidental causes of death. Using the same criteria but limited to gunshot wounds, 28% of victims die. This means you are 280 times more likely to die from a firearms accident than from an "all other accidents" injury. Guns are more lethal. This indisputable fact takes guns out of the category of clubs knives and poison as ways to kill a fellow human. IMO. (Statistics were taken from CDC website in 2001).

The real issue I see is that society refuses to place the blame squarely where it belongs -- on the people who commit acts of violence. The real issue is the people, not the inanimate objects they carry.

Now here we part company Mr T/D/H. Over the last 2 decades, there has been a wholesale revision of state criminal codes which routinely add 5 years to any criminal conviction in which the perpetrator uses a firearm.

In many states when a firearm is employed, parole is not available for repeat offenders until 85% of the sentence is served . Note: For most other crimes on a first conviction, other than in capital cases, parole is available after serving 20% of the sentence. Second Note: As Sirhan Sirhan can tell you, parole being available does not mean parole you will get. Despite the Kennedy family having stated specifically they have no objection to his parole. Squeaky Fromm, Charles Manson and John Hinckley to mention only the most notorious non-paroled prisoners. I think you can put that non-issue to bed.

Fix the issues in our society that lead our fellow man to act maliciously against another. It's the people who are doing all the killing after all.

Well, that wish is all very good, albeit somewhat pollyannaish. It is after all what government of the people, by the people and for the people is all about. Despite our differences in ways and means, it is this commonly held goal that keeps us united even if we cannot define the goal.

[edit on 10/28/2007 by donwhite]

I'm for the right to keep and bear arms. I agree that there should be controls and I've no issue with registering guns and a background check. There is no need for further gun control laws just enforce the ones currently in effect.

In answer to the statement guns kill people I would have to say I've never ever seen a gun leap off the coffee table and kill some one. If a person really wants to kill there are many ways to do so that don't involve guns so the arguement that fewer guns equal less crime doesn't hold water in my opinion.

However, if you own a gun for home protection skill isn't the only requirement you must also have the will to use it. If after a great deal of soul searching you decide that you don't have the will to use it I suggest an alternative method of self defense such as capstun which will render most people incapable of hurting you. Please note that I said most not all.

reply to post by gallopinghordes

gallopinghordes In answer to the statement guns kill people I would have to say I've never ever seen a gun leap off the coffee table and kill some one. If a person really wants to kill there are many ways to do so that don't involve guns so the arguement that fewer guns equal less crime doesn't hold water in my opinion.

May I repeat this observation which does not seem to have been dealt with? While there is some merit in this argument - guns don’t kill people, people kill people - it begs the issue. Statistics do not support the thesis.

The CDC keeps records that show that of all accidents serious enough for the victim to seek medical aid, fewer than 1/10th of 1% are fatal. Using the same criteria but limited to gunshot wounds, 28% of victims die. This is the measure of relative lethality of firearms versus all other accidental causes of death. Using the same criteria but limited to gunshot wounds, 28% of victims die. This means you are 280 times more likely to die from a firearms accident than from an "all other accidents" injury. Guns are more lethal. Guns are several orders of magnitude more lethal. This indisputable fact takes guns out of the category of clubs knives and poison as ways to kill a fellow human. IMO.

[edit on 10/28/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Don, you can make stats say anything you want them to. Suffice to say if I really want some one dead I don't need a gun. However, I would like to point out that I've no intention of wanting anyone dead; just thought I'd point that out.

You've made it clear that you don't think anyone should own guns and demonized the NRA. The NRA has never said everybody should own guns convicted felons and the mentally unstable shouldn't own guns I think we all agree on that which to my knowlege is the NRA's stand. There are enough gun control laws in place; enforce those and no more are needed.

posted by gallopinghordes
Don, you can make stats say anything you want them to.

Well G/H, I beg to differ in this instance. The numbers are straight forward. 21 million plus people who obtained emergency room attention versus about 78,000 of those who died. A bit fewer than 40,000 of those were killed in automobiles. Separating out the gunshot victims who sought medical aid, 105,000, versus the number who died, 29,000, gives the 28% death rate for gunshots. The total includes ALL gunshots, making no provision for those that are self inflicted which itself is open to some argument.

If these very simple numbers do not establish beyond legitimate criticism that gunshots are farm more lethal than auto accidents then I give up. We do not speak the same English nor share the same goals.

Suffice to say if I really want some one dead I don't need a gun.

No one I know has ever disputed that argument. To illustrate the problem, let me cite Jacksonville, FL, where I live. 800,000 total population. So far this year 117 people have died in homicides. The unlawful taking of a human life. 91 were by firearms. Included are 2 children who were inside at home when stray bullets passed through the walls and struck them.

Even without the numbers, I believe all of us are sufficiently aware that very few people are stabbed to death, fewer still are beaten to death and almost none at all are poisoned to death. That seems to be more a diversionary tactic than a genuine issue. Just last month, and not for the first time here this year, a young boy - around 12 - killed his brother - around 8 - when he accidentally discharged a handgun. His 16 year old cousin had bought the 6 shot revolver on the street for $20. Guns are a much larger problem than Bowie knives, Hillerich & Bradsby bats and D-Con Rat poison although I admit any of those could kill a person.

There are enough gun control laws in place; enforce those and no more are needed. I've no issue with registering guns and a background check. There is no need for further gun control laws just enforce the ones currently in effect.

If there are 280 million guns in America, that is 200 million too many. I hate to see American police imitating Darth Vader. I hate to see American police carrying M16s. I hate “no knock” warrants. I hate the limited range of responses we have fallen so easily into. I do not fault the policeman any more than I fault the Army or Marine in Iraq for killing civilians, even for being trigger-happy, it is our national culture that is gradually working itself into an America that is a knock-off “Brazil North.” If you don’t like it or if you don’t understand it, shoot it. That is not a good long range approach. IMO.

[edit on 10/28/2007 by donwhite]

Don,

First of all I don't care for your condescending attitude. Secondly I believe you to be wrong and you believe me to be wrong. I don't see either one of us changing our minds so in this instance as indeed most; we should agree to disagree.

reply to post by gallopinghordes


G/H, I'm sorry your feelings are hurt. Rather than lay blame on my "condescending attitude" - denied - it seems more likely because your NRA Handobook fails to give the flip answers that passes for debate on the muderous effect out-of-control guns has on our society. People who think baseball bats are as dangeous as 10 mm Glocks are "condencending" proof. IMO.
Don

reply to post by donwhite


Just so you know I'm not a member of the NRA. I just don't care to see any more of my rights stripped away by people with knee jerk reactions. Flip answers no friend just a desire for the government both left and right to stay out of my life. Also just so you know I don't even own a gun but if ever I want to there shouldn't be an unecessary roadblock placed there for no reason by the anti-gun crowd.

reply to post by gallopinghordes


gallopinghordes Just so you know I'm not a member of the NRA. I just don't care to see any more of my rights stripped away by people with knee jerk reactions. Flip answers no friend just a desire for the government both left and right to stay out of my life. Also just so you know I don't even own a gun but if ever I want to there shouldn't be an unnecessary roadblock placed there for no reason by the anti-gun crowd.

When I was an enlisted man in the US Air Force, we had to deposit our firearms at the local Special Service unit. Special Services did such things as rent boats, motors and trailers for our recreation. They also had a firing range for target shooting and lockers where each man was to deposit his firearms. We could check out our guns anytime but either had to return the gun by closing time - usually 6 PM - or sign a form to keep it overnight. It was a serious offense to take any weapon loaded or unloaded into the barracks. The reason ought to be obvious. I followed those rules for more than 2 years without inconvenience or hardship.

I have owned many guns in my lifetime. Rifles. Shotguns. Pistols. Revolvers. Even a set of French dueling pistols that fired .22 BB cartridges. Guaranteed not to hurt much unless hit square in the eye. I'm down to my last gun, a Model 79S Beretta .22 cal target pistol.

Oddly enough, it was said in the 1950s and 1960s that more people were killed by .22 cal guns than any other single caliber. The unstated fact was that 80% of firearms in the US were .22 cal. I would not be surprise to see that number reversed today, with only 20% of firearms of .22 cal.

I have no quarrel with owning or possessing "traditional" firearms. I do feel we should not only ban sales but confiscate all so-called assault weapons and knock-offs. You may already know that the law treats as "armed robbery" anyone who uses a "reasonable replica" of an existing firearm in the commission of a crime, provided the victim believes the weapon presented is real. If it's good enough to fool the victim, it's good enough to get you into prison.

I believe it is safe to say - sad to say - that more people are killed in American every year with firearms than in all the EU. Probably 10 X over. I don't know if the number killed here is 10, 20 or 30 thousand, but it remains inexplicable to me why we continue to ignore this largely preventable loss of human life year in and year out, as if it was not happening. To me, that's a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

[edit on 10/29/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by gallopinghordes

 

I have no quarrel with owning or possessing "traditional" firearms. I do feel we should not only ban sales but confiscate all so-called assault weapons and knock-offs. You may already know that the law treats as "armed robbery" anyone who uses a "reasonable replica" of an existing firearm in the commission of a crime, provided the victim believes the weapon presented is real. If it's good enough to fool the victim, it's good enough to get you into prison.

There have been so many falsehoods in this thread as to make it a veritable compendium of left wing gun lies.

I have chosen the above quote to focus on because it typifies the twisted logic that the left uses shamelessly to sell their tripe to the uninformed public.

Donwhite, you say that you support ownership of traditional firearms, but what is that? A flintlock?

You say that assault weapons should be banned, but you provide no definition of what an assault weapon is.

Is an assault weapon any weapon that can be used in an assault?

Or is it one of those ugly guns that the Democrats decided to ban after the NRA told them that a firearm is not defined by what it looks like, but how it functions and all the guns which were on the ban list functioned as all those nice guns that the left wing would like to ban but aren't scary looking enough.

So, when they banned pistol grips and flash suppressors and all those other things that made guns ugly, the manufacturers just removed them and because the guns were functionally legal, the new versions were legal.

Oh, boy! Was the left mad? You bet they were, but you know, if they'd just listened to the mean old NRA, they wouldn't have all that egg on their faces.

Your analogy of the law that someone who uses anything that can be construed as a firearm is guilty of armed robbery doesn't hold water, because in this case the person is committing a crime and they are using something that convinces the victim that the perpetrator possesses something that can inflict lethal harm. That could be a metal pipe or even your finger.

What's that got to do with a pistol grip or a flash suppressor on a semi-automatic weapon? It certainly doesn't make it a fully automatic weapon.

And by the way, fully automatics aren't banned either. You just have to have a very expensive license to own one.

One more thing. As far as I know, in all the years that automatics have been controlled, only one crime has ever been committed with a legally owned fully automatic weapon.

For those of you who are interested in the truth, I suggest you look at the first post I posted here on this thread and visit the NRA website.

The left hates the NRA because the NRA tells the truth about firearms and the truth is what hurts the left the most. Nothing typifies that better than the the ugly-gun ban of the Clinton administration. You know the one that died with barely a whimper a few years ago, because it was completely ineffective and made the left look like the liars they are.

As for gun show loophole lie, here's the truth, compliments of the NRA and you can check it out for yourself:

FABLE XV: A gun show "loophole" exists that allows many criminals and terrorists to purchase guns.

Fables, Myths, and Other Tall Tales about Gun Laws, Crime, and Constitutional Rights

An example of left wing's shameless and unethical tactics against the Second Amendment.

www.nraila.org...


[edit on 2007/10/29 by GradyPhilpott]

In a general response to all the liberal crap-for-crap arguments against guns, including but not exclusivly the following:
"Guns kill people."
"Criminals couldn't kill people if they can't get to guns."
"Guns are ok, until teens get them and start killing their friends."
"If we outlaw guns, people wouldn't be able to get them and kill people."

Bull.
Criminals don't get guns through conventional means. The school shooters did not go into a store, "Hey, can i purchase that glock over there? I'm underage and i'm planning on killing a few of my friends."
It doesn't work that way. When you outlaw guns, all you do is take the guns out of the hands of innocent civilians. Crooks will still have them, so the only thing that has been accomplished by outlawing guns is making SURE that civilians won't be able to defend themselves.

Heck, if you armed teachers, then I would guarentee that school shootings would drop. Right now, Guns aren't allowed within a certain distance of a school building. Meaning, that a psycho WITH one doesn't have competition. If you armed the faculty, things would change.

When was the last time you heard about a nutcase shooting up a police station?

Originally posted by uberarcanist
reply to post by tac109

 

Yes, I think we can all agree that it's a pretty ridiculous policy. The laws we have in America are good now, let's enforce those and get the guns out of the hands of criminals. Do this, and I predict the homicide rate will plummet.

Thats the problem.. A criminal does not buy guns at a store and go through the background check and fill out paper work. The criminal buys his weapons off the street from another criminal. How many guns do you think are put on the street by the Government?

Its easier to buy a gun illegaly than it is legaly, it may cost more but then there is no trace back to you . Get it.
So its easier for a criminal to get a gun than a law abiding citizen. What sounds wrong here?

Don White and others,

From the post down below this thread on "Guns what good are they"

www.abovetopsecret.com...


What I also find very disturbing in these types of posts is the very abscence and silence on the topic of how often guns or firearms are used in the protection of private propertys and persons in the course of every day lives. This concept and practice are almost totally missing from education and the media leading me to question the intent of these positions.

As stated in other posts I have made..missing also is the concept of how much risk the average American takes in earning thier livings and propertys purchased in their daily occupations. The thesis is a better world for everyone..no mention of who takes the risks to do so. The struggles of these peoples is not mentioned or glossed over ..in lieu of the instant gratification of a "Better World". The stuggles/risks daily of these people are implicit ..not explicit. They and their persons dont count at all in lieu of the bigger picture. This view I mention here is quite clear in the posts of the anti gun people.

I agree with the poster who said that statistics can be made to read anything desired...in this case by the abscence of other views and statistics. Missing totally is how many times a year firearms are used in the protection of persons and propertys...totatlly missing from any such debate or position.

People in America have a fundamental right to own private property..including firearms as private property. Included in the ability to own private property is the ability to protect and defend the same...even from abusive government. From a goverenment who is as criminal in thier intent and results as is a criminal leaving them undefended and unprotected such that they, the criminal element,. can access thier propertys. This is obviously the intent of many in our government. To place the criminal in intent above the property owner and leave only the government defensible. Not the public. This is quite obvious in the major citys in many states in this country. The governments are obviously criminally at fault in abusing thier constituency...leaving them defenseless.

As I stated in my post to Hidasta..mindset is not criminal.

If mindset were criminal ...the first banning and shackeling casualty should be Hollywood and television..including the news media., for the mindset they cultivate is dispicable.

CAn one dispose of one right/amendment to the constitution without doing so to the others..are they all foldable, spindable, malliable/flexible?? Or are we going to be selective in which one we lie and deceive about this week??

Thanks,
Orangetom