Poll: Do you think that every individual should have the right to own a gun to protect themselves? |
- Yes
- No
- Yes (with restrictions; i.e. no felon ownership, no machine guns, etc.)
- idk?
Do you think that every individual should have the right to own a gun to protect themselves?
Topic started by lamegame621 on Oct. 6, 2009.
Last post by lamegame621 1 month, 2 weeks ago.
Post by lamegame621 (580 posts)
Post by sdauz (158 posts) See mini bio
423 ACH / 7610 P
Loading...
when ppl have guns, ppl use guns, Australia has tight gun controls...why do u think we have less gun violence than the US? Only 5% of Australians own guns, most of them are farmers and ppl in rural areas. Im not saying Australia is perfect but widespread gun ownership (20% and above) in society can only lead to two things crime and death.
Posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago
Post by jinxman (69 posts) See mini bio
1248 ACH / 20622 P
Loading...
@sdauz said:
actual scientific studies show that countries with more widespread gun ownership actually have less violent crimes as compared to countries with less gun ownership.
BAM
" when ppl have guns, ppl use guns, Australia has tight gun controls...why do u think we have less gun violence than the US? Only 5% of Australians own guns, most of them are farmers and ppl in rural areas. Im not saying Australia is perfect but widespread gun ownership (20% and above) in society can only lead to two things crime and death. "you sir, are wrong
actual scientific studies show that countries with more widespread gun ownership actually have less violent crimes as compared to countries with less gun ownership.
BAM
Posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago
Post by Najaf (197 posts) See mini bio
2646 ACH / 64260 P
Loading...
Anti-gun Democrat politicians (i.e. Hilary Clinton) like to go on about gun crime and how assault weapons are not reasonable for civilians to own. Meanwhile, they stroll around in armored lemo's and SUV's, and enjoy a sound sleep at night, with Secret Service agents brandishing M4 assault rifles and submachine guns protecting them.
Why is it that they are privileged to such protection yet they would like to deny citizens the same protection within their own home or vehicle? Oh, because they are a VIP and some sort of target? How about the father who pulls a bunch of gang bangers off some poor kid in a park? How well will he get to sleep at night?
The simple fact is that there are over 100 million privately owned firearms in America. There is no changing that. If a criminal wants to get his hands on one, there is not a whole lot standing in his way. In a gun populated society, citizens deserve a right to bear equal arms to their aggressors. This is how things have been for centuries.
Lastly, one must ask what our Forefathers intended when they included the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It is a very simple truth that many liberals try to ignore. It did not have anything to do with hunting or sport. Fearing the future abuse by a government as was experienced with England, they wanted to ensure that citizens would always pose a threat to any governing body so as to avoid dictation as well as defend their right to life, liberty, and property.
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can excercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
James Madison
Why is it that they are privileged to such protection yet they would like to deny citizens the same protection within their own home or vehicle? Oh, because they are a VIP and some sort of target? How about the father who pulls a bunch of gang bangers off some poor kid in a park? How well will he get to sleep at night?
The simple fact is that there are over 100 million privately owned firearms in America. There is no changing that. If a criminal wants to get his hands on one, there is not a whole lot standing in his way. In a gun populated society, citizens deserve a right to bear equal arms to their aggressors. This is how things have been for centuries.
Lastly, one must ask what our Forefathers intended when they included the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It is a very simple truth that many liberals try to ignore. It did not have anything to do with hunting or sport. Fearing the future abuse by a government as was experienced with England, they wanted to ensure that citizens would always pose a threat to any governing body so as to avoid dictation as well as defend their right to life, liberty, and property.
In their own words:
Abraham Lincoln"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can excercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
James Madison
The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46
Alexander Hamilton
"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29
Patrick Henry"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress?If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Edited 1 month, 3 weeks ago
Post by Najaf (197 posts) See mini bio
2646 ACH / 64260 P
Loading...
@sdauz said:
The United States however has more than 100 million privately owned arms and consumes more than 7 billion rounds of ammunition annually. This is a gun culture. There is no amount of restriction or law beyond a mandatory surrender of arms (which would not go well for its enforcers) that will effectively curb gun crime. There are simply too many and too readily available.
While both Japan and Germany, and as you claim Australia, enjoy low gun crime rates, you also do not enjoy the power of the people that the United States does. While not armed nearly as well as a modern military, the people of this nation do pose a potential threat to an abusive government.
The bottom line is that those who rely on the government for protection and are willing to surrender their right to bear arms are relying upon the good nature of their leaders. Sure, you might trust the government to do the right thing now and maybe even in thirty years. It is not about that. It is about protecting future generations from the many horrific scenarios we have bore witness to in history where governments abuse their populace.
What you say is true. Where there are minimal firearms, there is minimal gun crime. Japan and Germany have largely proved this as well. Why is it that they have no firearms you ask? Because they both lost wars are were forced to surrender them. There are extremely tight gun control laws in both of those countries. And, due to the fact that they surrendered their privately owned arms following the wars and the tight control on importation since that time, there are no longer weapons readily available for criminals to use. This is common sense." when ppl have guns, ppl use guns, Australia has tight gun controls...why do u think we have less gun violence than the US? Only 5% of Australians own guns, most of them are farmers and ppl in rural areas. Im not saying Australia is perfect but widespread gun ownership (20% and above) in society can only lead to two things crime and death. "
The United States however has more than 100 million privately owned arms and consumes more than 7 billion rounds of ammunition annually. This is a gun culture. There is no amount of restriction or law beyond a mandatory surrender of arms (which would not go well for its enforcers) that will effectively curb gun crime. There are simply too many and too readily available.
While both Japan and Germany, and as you claim Australia, enjoy low gun crime rates, you also do not enjoy the power of the people that the United States does. While not armed nearly as well as a modern military, the people of this nation do pose a potential threat to an abusive government.
The bottom line is that those who rely on the government for protection and are willing to surrender their right to bear arms are relying upon the good nature of their leaders. Sure, you might trust the government to do the right thing now and maybe even in thirty years. It is not about that. It is about protecting future generations from the many horrific scenarios we have bore witness to in history where governments abuse their populace.
Edited 1 month, 3 weeks ago
Post by Manatassi (313 posts) See mini bio
2011 ACH / 36551 P
Loading...
@Najaf said:
need i say more?
" @sdauz said:LMFAO ..." when ppl have guns, ppl use guns, Australia has tight gun controls...why do u think we have less gun violence than the US? Only 5% of Australians own guns, most of them are farmers and ppl in rural areas. Im not saying Australia is perfect but widespread gun ownership (20% and above) in society can only lead to two things crime and death. "What you say is true. Where there are minimal firearms, there is minimal gun crime. Japan and Germany have largely proved this as well. Why is it that they have no firearms you ask? Because they both lost wars are were forced to surrender them. There are extremely tight gun control laws in both of those countries. And, due to the fact that they surrendered their privately owned arms following the wars, there are no longer weapons readily available for criminals to use. This is common sense. The United States however has more than 100 million privately owned arms and consumes more than 7 billion rounds of ammunition annually. This is a gun culture. There is no amount of restriction or law beyond a mandatory surrender of arms (which would not go well for its enforcers) that will effectively curb gun crime. There are simply too many and too readily available. While both Japan and Germany, and as you claim Australia, enjoy low gun crime rates, you also do not enjoy the power of the people that the United States does. While not armed nearly as well as a modern military, the people of this nation do pose a potential threat to an abusive government. The bottom line is that those who rely on the government for protection and are willing to surrender their right to bear arms are relying upon the good nature of their leaders. Sure, you might trust the government to do the right thing now and maybe even in thirty years. It is not about that. It is about protecting future generations from the many horrific scenarios we have bore witness to in history where governments abuse their populace. "
need i say more?
Posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago
Post by Najaf (197 posts) See mini bio
2646 ACH / 64260 P
Loading...
@Manatassi said:
You did not see the Jews laughing just prior to the Holocaust now did you?
LMFAO ... need i say more? "
Posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago
Post by lamegame621 (580 posts) See mini bio
153 ACH / 0 P
Loading...
I was going to enter my opinion in here, but Najaf pretty much summed it up for me.
Granted that America is very much a "gun culture" as opposed to some other countries. But the simple fact is that there are no statistics to show that an increase in guns shows a direct positive correlation to an increase in crime (in the US). That's fact. I'm a Democrat, but those are still the facts.
Yes, the police are the ones you should call when there is a crime being committed. However, in court cases such as the Supreme Court case Castle Rock v. Gonzales it is stated explicitly that:
"the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation"
Sentiments similar to Warren v. D.C which states; "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection"
This is why we in America have the right to protect ourselves from harm. But don't take that as a blanket statement meaning that the gun laws in the US are perfect, or that a certain minimal percent of the population will buy a gun to commit a crime, but as shown by the US Department of Justice, most of these transactions take place "on the street" or between family members.
Also, If I remember correctly, Switzerland has a shit load of guns and less suicide rates/ murder rates than the US. This points to the overwhelming problem being something other than the gun itself...maybe poverty, socioeconomic status, mental health, etc.
That said, gun rights are always going to be different in rural areas than they are in big cities. When you get enough people together, you have a higher percentage of violent offenders.
Edit: links to the US DOJ webpage on gun statistics:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
Granted that America is very much a "gun culture" as opposed to some other countries. But the simple fact is that there are no statistics to show that an increase in guns shows a direct positive correlation to an increase in crime (in the US). That's fact. I'm a Democrat, but those are still the facts.
@Bioderm
said:" No you don't need a gun police is there for that. I live in canada and I have never wanted one or feel the need for one "
Yes, the police are the ones you should call when there is a crime being committed. However, in court cases such as the Supreme Court case Castle Rock v. Gonzales it is stated explicitly that:
"the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation"
Sentiments similar to Warren v. D.C which states; "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection"
This is why we in America have the right to protect ourselves from harm. But don't take that as a blanket statement meaning that the gun laws in the US are perfect, or that a certain minimal percent of the population will buy a gun to commit a crime, but as shown by the US Department of Justice, most of these transactions take place "on the street" or between family members.
Also, If I remember correctly, Switzerland has a shit load of guns and less suicide rates/ murder rates than the US. This points to the overwhelming problem being something other than the gun itself...maybe poverty, socioeconomic status, mental health, etc.
That said, gun rights are always going to be different in rural areas than they are in big cities. When you get enough people together, you have a higher percentage of violent offenders.
Edit: links to the US DOJ webpage on gun statistics:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
Edited 1 month, 2 weeks ago
Post by Baillie (852 posts) See mini bio
11757 ACH / 270050 P
Loading...
@emkeighcameron said:
Really.
" Absolutely. My family and I own more than 10 firearms, including pistols, rifles, carbines, and shotguns. But oh no, the statistics say we must be violent criminals because we own guns. Crap. "Just because your family won't shoot anyone else, doesn't mean no one else will. Why the fuck do you need 10 firearms? No one needs guns to protect themselves. Protect themselves from what?
Really.
Posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago
Post by Captain_Insano (457 posts) See mini bio
615 ACH / 11570 P
Loading...
I'm not American so my say in this debate won't help much. but people seem to forget that the 'Founding Fathers' were around 200 years ago! That was an age without a standardised police force, where laws were just beginning to be established, without easily accessible communication so yeah, guns were probably a good idea at the time.
Also emkeighcameron, have you needed those 10 firearms to protect yourself? And why the need for so many, are you preparing for a Left 4 Dead situation where you need that many guns to protect yourself?
I'm not trying to attack those who voted yes (because, let's face it, you guys have fricken guns!) but it just seems like gun ownership is an antiquated law that should no longer exist.
Also emkeighcameron, have you needed those 10 firearms to protect yourself? And why the need for so many, are you preparing for a Left 4 Dead situation where you need that many guns to protect yourself?
I'm not trying to attack those who voted yes (because, let's face it, you guys have fricken guns!) but it just seems like gun ownership is an antiquated law that should no longer exist.
Posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago
Post by lamegame621 (580 posts) See mini bio
153 ACH / 0 P
Loading...
@Baillie said:
" @emkeighcameron said:Criminals....?" Absolutely. My family and I own more than 10 firearms, including pistols, rifles, carbines, and shotguns. But oh no, the statistics say we must be violent criminals because we own guns. Crap. "Just because your family won't shoot anyone else, doesn't mean no one else will. Why the fuck do you need 10 firearms? No one needs guns to protect themselves. Protect themselves from what? Really. "
Posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago
Post by Baillie (852 posts) See mini bio
11757 ACH / 270050 P
Loading...
@lamegame621: Criminals? I've never once encountered a 'criminal' with a gun. Maybe it's different over there with your absolutely stupid gun laws, but here in the UK it is very rare.
Are you just going to shoot someone who comes into your house? What if he's unarmed?
Are you just going to shoot someone who comes into your house? What if he's unarmed?
Posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago
Post by lamegame621 (580 posts) See mini bio
153 ACH / 0 P
Loading...
@Baillie said:
" @lamegame621: Criminals? I've never once encountered a 'criminal' with a gun. Maybe it's different over there with your absolutely stupid gun laws, but here in the UK it is very rare. Are you just going to shoot someone who comes into your house? What if he's unarmed? "lol i think there is some cultural disconnect here. You're very lucky to have never seen a criminal with a gun. As I understand it, knife crimes are more common over there. Criminals carry guns here. And yes, if they came in my house with a gun, I would shoot them IF it meant saving my life.
Posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago
