Liberal arguments for supporting gun ownership rights

[Bern80]

Heck gun control, are you kidding, they should be sold everywhere, given as presents and used for target practice anywhere at all, in the best of worlds they would rival cellphones as people walking the streets twirled them and compared their collection to their neighbor's. Oh what a wonderful world it would be if everyone were armed - oh by the way peace on earth and good will to man too this holiday season. bang bang.

Another reasoned, objective, and rationale argument from your friendly neighborhood Midcan5

 

[Chris]

Heck gun control, are you kidding, they should be sold everywhere, given as presents and used for target practice anywhere at all, in the best of worlds they would rival cellphones as people walking the streets twirled them and compared their collection to their neighbor's. Oh what a wonderful world it would be if everyone were armed - oh by the way peace on earth and good will to man too this holiday season. bang bang.

Let's face it, the gun nuts love guns because guns are fun. Who doesn't enjoy firing a gun? It makes a loud bang, and there is a real sense of power in it. But as far as society is concerned guns are terrible. Guns make it easy to kill ourselves and others, and leave grief and sorrow in their wake.

We lead the developed world in gun deaths. Some people see this as a problem. I do. The deaths of 1,000,000 Americans should be seen as a problem by everyone.

 

[QUENTIN]

I certainly see it as a problem, wish there were less guns out there, and generally oppose guns. The vast majority of gun owners do not need guns and they pose a constant threat of unnecessary danger, but I still support gun ownership rights.

To me it's equivalent to the KKK. I oppose the KKK wholeheartedly, they're a terrible hatemongering organization, but I support their right to free speech and assembly. Sometimes you have to support what you do not personally agree with to stay true to principles and the government has no right or authority to confiscate legally acquired property.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because they'd like to have more of it???

Lott-Mustard the most comprehensive study of Guns and gun violence ever conducted demonstrates conclusively that in the US State with the most liberal conceal and carry laws have over all lower crime rates than state with out such conceal and carry laws.

Well, of course they do. Criminals are no more suicidal than anyone else. If committing violent crimes becomes more risky for them, they'll turn to something else. It is noticeable that those states with concealed/carry laws experience a small rise in property crimes at the same time they experience a serious drop in violent crimes. Annoying, but a trade I would certainly be willing to make.

 

[Bern80]

Let's face it, the gun nuts love guns because guns are fun. Who doesn't enjoy firing a gun? It makes a loud bang, and there is a real sense of power in it. But as far as society is concerned guns are terrible. Guns make it easy to kill ourselves and others, and leave grief and sorrow in their wake.

The reason we don't want infringments on gun ownership has nothing do with being 'nuts' about guns. There are probably a dozen guns in my house. Does that make me a 'nut'? Of course not. The only thing easy about guns as that they are an easy scapegoat.

We lead the developed world in gun deaths. Some people see this as a problem. I do. The deaths of 1,000,000 Americans should be seen as a problem by everyone.

I see it as a problem with people as oppossed to a 'problem' with an inanimate object.

 

[Bern80]

I certainly see it as a problem, wish there were less guns out there, and generally oppose guns. The vast majority of gun owners do not need guns and they pose a constant threat of unnecessary danger, but I still support gun ownership rights.

Statistically they don't pose any more threat, in fact less so, than a car. I will ask you the same question I ask anyone who brings up the completely asanine concept of necessity where guns are concerned: Do you mind if I come to your place and rid you of all the things you don't 'need'?

To me it's equivalent to the KKK. I oppose the KKK wholeheartedly, they're a terrible hatemongering organization, but I support their right to free speech and assembly. Sometimes you have to support what you do not personally agree with to stay true to principles and the government has no right or authority to confiscate legally acquired property.

The perception of guns I believe is entirely dependant on one's exposure to them. I would have to guess you didn't grow up as hunter, because I imagine if you did you would view people like yourself with the same mind boggling consternation with which i look at you. It is unreal to me how out of whack people's perceptions are about guns. You may not like the comparison, but it is an accurate one. Guns are no different than cars. They are both machines and they both require operation via a person to operate them before they can do much of anything at all. They both require a high degree of training to handle properly and responsibly. The differences: one is responsible for far more deaths per capita than the other. Wanna guess which? And yet you compare the one that causes fewer deaths to the KKK.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'd imagine that there is as much of a difference between liberals and progressives as there are between conservatives and neocons. For instance, while I identify as a liberal democrat there are a LOT of motherfuckers to my left that are just as socially dangerous as the polarized bastards on my right.

excellent and very true point Sho......many people on both sides do not consider this point....everybody is just lumped together.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Horseshit.

I've never gotten a government check in my life except for that rebate thingy last summer.

Most of the retired military Republicans on this board get a check from the government every month.

and they fucking earned it.....you ever been in the military to make a stupid dumbass comment like that?...

 

[Harry Dresden]

If you own a gun, you are much more likely to die of a gun death. States with looser gun laws have more gun deaths.

show a link to that so i can show you one to prove your wrong......

 

[Harry Dresden]

this is from the Orange County Register.....who claim this is from a guy named John Lott who has done a lot of research on guns all over the world.....the last sentence sums up much about what has been debated here...



Gun control would increase the demand for guns in the black market. Increased sales make the black market a very profitable business for criminals, thereby increasing criminal activity.

* "Guns don’t kill people – people kill people" The argument here is that sociological factors are more important than the availability of weapons in determining gun violence and deaths in societies.

* Citizen gun ownership acts as a deterrent against criminals If criminal fears that their potential victims possess guns and can harm or kill them, they will be less likely to commit crimes and take the risks.

* Criminals will find a way to commit crimes and violence with or without guns Guns are not the only means of violence and crime. Determined criminals will find a way to do what they intend. Depriving guns to criminals will not have an effect on crime and violence.

* Low homicide and crime rates are not a direct cause of low gun ownership

* Because guns used in murders and crime are not usually legally held or registered, efforts to enhance gun-protection through legal means are futile: Some have pointed out that in the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the gun used is not legally held or registered. It is further noted that many of these illegal weapons are imported secretly from abroad, rather than being stolen from registered owners. Gun-control measures will not affect this major body of weaponry that is illicitly held in societies. This extends to the following section in regards to enforceability, but is relevant here in regards to the consequences of the nonenforceable of gun laws.

* Gun restrictions and bans disadvantage citizens against armed criminals

* A study originally commissioned by the Clinton Administration, in 2003 the study found that strict gun laws could not be correlated with crime statistics.

 

[garyd]

Chris they had higher crime rates after weapons were restricted and states with the loosest conceal carry laws have lower not higher crime rates according to Lot/Mustard again far and away the most thorough going study of guns and violence in the US.

Most of Hangun control inc studys on this are grossly flawed in one way or another. For instance limiting your study to only violence by guns is essentially retarded.

I'm quite possibly here posting this today because on three occasions people attempting to break into my abode either were certain or believed I had a gun of some sort. Om two of those Occasions I actually did have a gun -a shot gun to be precise. In neither instance did I have to fire a shot merely the sound of me loading a round proved more than sufficient to send the would be robbers looking for safer places to ply there chosen profession.

 

[Old Rocks]

show a link to that so i can show you one to prove your wrong......

As a gunowner, I have seen statistics that say exactly that. Same as people that own saws are more likely to suffer cuts from saws than those that do not. Given the attitude of some of the less brainy gun owners, it is hardly surprising.

 

[garyd]

Again the study on which that is based is hugely flawed. On several levels.

 

[Chris]

Chris they had higher crime rates after weapons were restricted and states with the loosest conceal carry laws have lower not higher crime rates according to Lot/Mustard again far and away the most thorough going study of guns and violence in the US.

Most of Hangun control inc studys on this are grossly flawed in one way or another. For instance limiting your study to only violence by guns is essentially retarded.

I'm quite possibly here posting this today because on three occasions people attempting to break into my abode either were certain or believed I had a gun of some sort. Om two of those Occasions I actually did have a gun -a shot gun to be precise. In neither instance did I have to fire a shot merely the sound of me loading a round proved more than sufficient to send the would be robbers looking for safer places to ply there chosen profession.

Lott Mustard was completely bogus....

Professor David Mustard, the co-author of Lott's study, has conceded that there were serious flaws in their study - flaws that seriously undermine the conclusions. Mustard was deposed under oath in the Ohio concealed handgun case Klein v. Leis. Mustard admitted that: 1) the study "omitted variables" which could explain that changes in the crime rate are due to reasons other than changes in CCW laws, and 2) the study did not account for many of the major factors that Mustard believes affect crime including crack cocaine, wealth, drugs and alcohol use, and police practices such as community policing. These serious flaws completely undermine Lott's findings.

Lott Claims Computer Ate His Controversial CCW Survey

In his published research analysis, John Lott has claimed that a 1997 survey he conducted found that concealed handguns deterred crime without being fired an astoundingly high 98% of the time. That claim allowed Lott to explain away the fact that extremely few self-defense uses of handguns are ever reported. But when scholars began questioning his survey results, Lott began a series of evasions that culminated in the claim that his computer had crashed and he had "lost" all the data. The University of Chicago, where Lott claims he conducted the study, has no record of it being conducted so Lott began claiming that he funded it himself (and kept no records) and that he used students to make the survey calls (though no students have been identified who participated). Indeed, no records of the survey exist at all. Lott is now facing serious questions about whether he fabricated the entire survey - raising serious questions about his ethics and credibility.

Brady Campaign - Concealed Handgun Fraud: Exposing John Lott

 

[garyd]

That from the liars at hand gun control. Whose arguments have been repeatedly refuted by Lot and Mustard.

And whose own studies are generally so seriously flawed that sane people reading them aren't sure whether to laugh or cry. The only thing you get from listening to thois idiots is your ears filled full of horse crap.

 

[Chris]

That from the liars at hand gun control. Whose arguments have been repeatedly refuted by Lot and Mustard.

And whose own studies are generally so seriously flawed that sane people reading them aren't sure whether to laugh or cry. The only thing you get from listening to thois idiots is your ears filled full of horse crap.

1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

States with more restrictive gun laws have fewer gun deaths.

These are the facts...

National Firearm Injury and Death Statistics | Washington Ceasefire

 

[Father Time]

1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

States with more restrictive gun laws have fewer gun deaths.

These are the facts...

National Firearm Injury and Death Statistics | Washington Ceasefire

Correlation is not causation.

And once again just because some idiots can't handle guns is no reason to take them from others.

 

[garyd]

And states with harsher gun laws have more crime over all. Making crime a safer occupation is not a way to minimize it's impact.

Fact five gallon buckets according to the CDC are more dangerous to toddlers than guns.

Fact, trading to gun deaths for five hundred more assaults 100 more home invasion robberies is not a trade sane people make.

 

[Chris]

And states with harsher gun laws have more crime over all. Making crime a safer occupation is not a way to minimize it's impact.

Fact five gallon buckets according to the CDC are more dangerous to toddlers than guns.

Fact, trading to gun deaths for five hundred more assaults 100 more home invasion robberies is not a trade sane people make.

Wrong.

Guns don't prevent crime, they only make the crime that does occur more lethal.

 

[Chris]

Correlation is not causation.

And once again just because some idiots can't handle guns is no reason to take them from others.

1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

America leads the developed world in gun deaths per capita.

Guns should be better regulated.