My take on guns

Comparing guns to knives is really dumb; getting shot is nothing like being stabbed. Comparing guns to cars is even dumber.

The ONLY, and I mean ONLY, valid argument for keeping guns, at this point, is the ability to carry out an armed insurrection against a totalitarian government, should we ever reach such a point.

Unless you are skilled with a knife, chances are cutting or stabbing someone once won't result in a fatality; furthermore, knives don't misfire.

Look, if someone is planning on killing a person, we can either make it EASY for them to do so, or we can make it difficult. Allowing just about anyone to have access to guns, then, ENABLES them to go on shooting sprees and very effectively kill multitudes of people. A person with a knife can is much easier to apprehend than a person with a gun.

As for the idiotic "WHY DON'T WE BAN CARS THEN!?!??!?!" idea, please name one incident in recent history where a person went on a driving rampage with the intent to run over as many people as possible. The fact stands that guns, while having beneficial uses, such as allowing us to hunt effectively, do more harm than good. There is no arguing this. The question is, however, whether it is wise of us to give up the security of weapons for the sake of a proposed "safety."

Outlawing guns doesn't make them disappear; in fact, after outlawing guns most countries see a sharp spike in gun violence. This spike, however, dissipates over time and with it comes a long term solution to gun violence; as guns become harder and harder to obtain, those with criminal intentions will have to resort to other, less lethal, weapons. The entire process takes a few decades, but it is perhaps a necessary step.

To address the idea of resistance to a totalitarian state, chances are that a pistol won't do much to defer a tank from blowing up your house. The question, then, becomes whether our soldiers would enforce the orders of a totalitarian regime. The only scenario I could imagine this happening in would be one in which our economy has collapsed and people are without food; survival comes before just about everything else, and I could see desperate times calling for people to take up desperate measures, including oppressing their fellow countrymen.

Given such a state, having a gun really isn't going to do much to help your chances of survival; this isn't 300 or the Alamo; if the government wants to enforce martial law, civilian weaponry will easily be outgunned.

Regardless, it makes little sense for our government to want to become tyrannical; we are not a savage people, with the exception of a few, nor do we have a history of rising up against our governments actions. If the last 11 years have proven anything, it is that we Americans are complacent and uninterested in the actions of our government. They don't NEED our guns, but it's not like taking our guns would accomplish much anyways.

Another solution to the gun violence problem, and perhaps better one at that, would be to train and arm the entire citizenry, with the exception, of course, of those with a history of violence or mental instability. When everyone has a gun, the gun violence drops. Why? Because arms give people an advantage over those without, or with lesser, arms. When the playing field is even, then, the chance of death suddenly skyrockets, and most people value their own lives too much to risk death by getting into an armed altercation over money or sex. Will this solution stop those hellbent on carrying out a shooting spree? Maybe; trying to massacre a crowd of armed people alone is a rather futile endeavor.

Interesting post. You are right one sentence, then wrong the next, then right, then wrong.

Pay attention - you are about to be set straight. I'd do it but I'm tired of repeating myself.

I'm kinda confused.. You open by saying the only valid reason to have them is armed insurrection but then close by noting (I agree here by the way) an armed society is a polite society.

I'll toss out a new and VERY valid reason guns are absolutely essential in a practical survival way. This is above and beyond why people like I carry a gun, which has to do with multiple violent crimes happening in the city I'm in every day. Many by people ...not in their right minds...to stay T&C friendly...and brutal in the damage done to a victim who couldn't end it on their terms.

No, the other one was brought up by a different member earlier who lives in Arizona. The Mexican Border hosts a raging turf/drug war happening just on the other side ...and the fear of it spilling North became a reality a long time ago. For the ranchers and residents along the border from Brownsville to San Diego, it can be 30-45 MINUTES for police response on a full 911 scream for help. In rural areas, distances just are what they are and cops can't fly there. So....You're either able to defend yourself or the cops may as well save the time and roll with a Medical Examiner at the same time in many cases these days,


Although personally, I still figure my competition shooting, hunting to stock my freezer (If I get a Deer) once a year and just plain because I want a few...has been plenty reason going back to the time the Ink was still wet on the Constitution and it can just stand now too.

*Good OP, by the way...in terms of being thought out. It just seems to be arguing both sides equally well in the same post?

Saying guns are anything other than tools is just plain dumb.

Giving up your rights is idiotic.

Being a willing participant in facilitating a crime spree in hopes that it will one day subside is beyond moronic. Especially considering there is no proof that it would ever subside.

Household chemicals can be used to make bombs. Where there is a will there is a way.

How well another feels my survivability will be increased or not by my gun ownership is not for them to decide if TSHTF.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


This 2 way discussion lately on ATS is Split into two Black and White camps.
When their has to be a Grey Area.
Ive been Labeled Stupid, Liberal, Weak and many other Choice Stereotypes.
The sad Fact is We as Americans cant accept a Grey Area.
When we Support a Party , we support to Excess, even if we dont agree with all the Party Stands for.
When we Eat, we Eat to Excess, even if it will Kill us.
When we are Patriot , we are Patriot to Excess, even though we Know our Gov is One of the Most Corrupt on the Planet.
Should we Ban all Guns?
No.
We should Ban the Excess in the Gun Culture.
Personal handguns for our Homes, and Hunting Rifles for our Hobbies...
All others are the Excess.

I think far too many people are making far too big of a deal of this whole gun thing.

Clearly if the American government wants to take guns off Americans they will, and nobody will be able to do anything about it.

They can whinge and moan and post messages of hope or frustration on inter web forums, but at the end of the day they will have to either surrender their arms or be shot.

That would be ironic in my view.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


I don't need a valid reason for keeping a gun any more than you need a valid reason for being able to speak freely or a valid reason to worship how you please.

It's my right to protect myself. Rights are not granted by governments, they're inherent.

It's not up to us to validate our rights as humans.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy




guns kill people. guns are the latest technology that can kill quickly, hence the reason they are used in warfare, as long as people kill, guns should be available to all. until the day everyone agrees not to kill anymore guns will be manufactured, until that day.

i posted this a few days ago and believe it to be true, when blades and melee weopons were used for death everyone had one and carried when need be. same will be true for guns till the next tech comes out.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

This 2 way discussion lately on ATS is Split into two Black and White camps.
When their has to be a Grey Area.
Ive been Labeled Stupid, Liberal, Weak and many other Choice Stereotypes.
The sad Fact is We as Americans cant accept a Grey Area.
When we Support a Party , we support to Excess, even if we dont agree with all the Party Stands for.
When we Eat, we Eat to Excess, even if it will Kill us.
When we are Patriot , we are Patriot to Excess, even though we Know our Gov is One of the Most Corrupt on the Planet.
Should we Ban all Guns?
No.
We should Ban the Excess in the Gun Culture.
Personal handguns for our Homes, and Hunting Rifles for our Hobbies...
All others are the Excess.

edit on 31-12-2012 by Tw0Sides because: (no reason given)

Tell us how some constitutional amendments are black and white, but the second amendment is gray? If anything, it is the LEAST obscure of them.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yes, there are pros and cons to both sides. Personally I'm for the armed and trained citizenry option as it allows us to keep our guns, protect ourselves against foreign and domestic enemies, and lowers the crime rate. It's the best solution, albeit an expensive one.

I don't buy the whole, "I'm gonna rise up against the gubment with my pistol!" argument; the arms that citizens have really don't stand a chance against our military's capabilities. You can hide in your house with your guns, but that's not gonna stop a drone strike or a tank, lol.

For some reason I am having a hard time comprehending some peoples views. They only look at and only see the things that fit with their thoughts. For instance, compare the numbers. Sure, there are gun deaths. But do some research and compare. How many people die each year from malpractice/legal prescription drugs? Way more than guns. It was reported that over 50,000 people died from the drug Viox before they finally took it off the market. How about vehicle accidents involving cell phones?

As for a complete gun ban, maybe decades in the future there might be less school/theater shootings, but how will the numbers compare to the numbers of crimes that weren't prevented by legally armed citizens?

As for the inability of the people defending themselves against the military; first, an unknown amount of our military would fight for us, not against. Second, consider Afghanistan. How long have our soldiers been there? And that's after Russia fought them for over ten years then gave up. Also, Afghanistan is about the size of California. Compare that to the entire US. Where they going to get an army big enough to cover it? I've read where if you consider just the deer hunters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio, you would have the largest army in the world. They would have to resort to biological weapons to stop the people. The problem there is it's hard to control who it kills, and hard to stop it when you're done. And that's not considering the veterans who would be on our side.

Take the time to watch some YouTube videos on 9/11. Open your mind to possibilities. Who would benefit the most from firearm confiscations? There is a secret agenda. Study the Hegelian dialectic.
www.crossroad.to... is a good post.

reply to post by DocHolidaze


The difference between guns and blades, the way I see it, is that blades are much less lethal. For one, you have to be close to your target to effectively kill him or her with a blade. Second, it often takes multiple stabs to kill someone with a blade. Blade don't misfire either; the only similarity they share with guns is that they can be used to kill things, but their method is different entirely.

reply to post by older1


I'm familiar with 9/11 conspiracies, but I don't buy into most of them. Yes, the official story is absolutely wrong, but that's all I'll agree with because there simply isn't enough evidence to suggest any other theory is correct.

Regarding this "secret agenda," these shadow powers need PEOPLE to carry out their wishes. If there is to be a totalitarian regime in America, it will need to rely on the American military to support it. Furthermore, throwing a nation like America into civil discord is an idiotic choice defense wise; it would leave us weak and susceptible to foreign invasions.

I'm just saying, as much as everybody loves doom porn, the chance of it actually happening is slim to none.

Regarding Afghanistan, it's known as the Graveyard of Empires for a reason; the terrain makes conquering it nearly impossible. At least we'll be out of there soon, though.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


As far as I'm concerned, people can own whatever arms they want, and the second amendment ensures this right. However, it is barbaric to not put any guidelines or regulations on gun ownership; ignorant gun owners, meaning those who have guns but don't really have any idea how to use them, are dangerous.

The biggest problem we have is an imbalance in who has guns and who doesn't. Quite frankly, many people don't WANT guns as they don't hunt and perhaps live in safe areas.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Yes, there are pros and cons to both sides. Personally I'm for the armed and trained citizenry option as it allows us to keep our guns, protect ourselves against foreign and domestic enemies, and lowers the crime rate. It's the best solution, albeit an expensive one.

I don't buy the whole, "I'm gonna rise up against the gubment with my pistol!" argument; the arms that citizens have really don't stand a chance against our military's capabilities. You can hide in your house with your guns, but that's not gonna stop a drone strike or a tank, lol.

Thank you for clarifying your position and where your coming from in your OP. I suppose I'd have to agree given how I've written about this myself a time or two.

Indeed... Armed insurrection looks SO good on the big screen in a Hollywood movie...but when you get to asking people just WHO it is that needs killing (every revolution needs someone to play that role, after all) it tends to kinda fall to pieces outside of vague references to 'TPTB' or 'The Cops' or ' The Dems!/The Repubs!'.

It's hard to get across, isn't it? Revolutions don't fight and win by attacking vague concepts and poorly defined ideas of who did what to whom. lol...

(On the other hand...the other side will have absolutely no such hangups in identifying who THEY are coming to arrest or put down in response.) Good points then. Firearms for the purposes of defense, community and the sporting uses ..but revolution is probably best handled in other ways.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


if it was up to me guns would be stricken from the face of the earth, we would all have blades of bows, since this is an almost impossible dream, i choose to get good at shooting guns, and collect them when i can, what i enjoy about guns is that they make hunting easier, and fun to shoot with your buddies, otherwise they are worthless, but then again im not a soldier. if i were, i would think that meeting your opponent face to face on the battle field with a sword would be more honorable(but does honor matter when you holding your guts in your arms), and make one think twice about going to war, im assuming death by blade or melee weapon would be gruesome, but if blades and bows were are only choice im sure i would get good with blades and bows, i think everyone should own and learn how to properly use a gun. even if one is anti-gun, one can still die from a gun

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Someone should point out to missus destroy that knives are extremely lethal. Most knife fatalities are shocked to learn that they are, in fact, dying, and dying fast. But knives simply aren't enough when Jimmy sets his drink down and armies in with the UN to quell an inappropriate uprising.