Why are guns so important to Americans?

[HoleInTheVoid]

I am not a fan of guns either ... but the law was made before thugs and criminals took advantage of it with their AK-47's. I agree with what Obama said in his speech about it.

You're claiming the Founders had no concept of armed criminals in their day?

Astounding.

 

[bornright]

Would it lessen crime if everyone was required to have a gun in their home? My belief is that it would; especially burglary.

The taking away of guns would create even more gang time rule in neighborhoods. The physically stronger would take away from the rest of society.

 

[DiveCon]

Would it lessen crime if everyone was required to have a gun in their home? My belief is that it would; especially burglary.

The taking away of guns would create even more gang time rule in neighborhoods. The physically stronger would take away from the rest of society.

the only way i would support that is if everyone was also required to take gun safety courses as well
and to show they are a proficient shooter

 

[Vintij]

the only way i would support that is if everyone was also required to take gun safety courses as well
and to show they are a proficient shooter

Sounds good, not only give guns to anyone including criminals, the mentally unstable, the elderly, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the aggressive, the passive aggressive. Lets train them how to aim for the head shot. Nice thinking.

Its the equivalent of saying, "give IQ tests before gun purchases". So idiots wont be able to buy guns, which nobody would ever go for. Still, plenty of peer reviewed studies have been administered, the VAST majority of people who own guns are at least 2-3 IQ points below the national average. PM me for works cited evidence. Yet which peer reviewed studies can you show me about the success of nations that let anyone and everyone own a gun? Is there a correlation between gun deaths and gun ownership? What about gun deaths and IQ related gun ownership? Probably not, because only in America is it the norm to see people the age of 18 buying guns without a mental health background check with an IQ score below 80. The idea that this goes on is sickening to the rest of the industrialized world.

We should follow the example of Illinois and Wisconsin. Barrack Obama can show you the figures from his own home state, how well gun control is working.

 

[Vintij]

Barack Obama on Gun Control
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions. Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008


My Answer
Personally, as a citizen of these United States of America, I have a major problem with the basic ideals of any presidential candidate that even entertains the idea of further restricting our gun rights. I think this represents one of the biggest double talks that the gun control lobbyists keep bringing up. They tout they only want to remove the illegal guns, however that's not what they go after, they instead try to remove the legally owned guns. They make no apologies for doing this, in fact, this is there full intent.

If you are wondering at this point, what’s the difference, so long as guns are removed from the streets, won't that make us safer?

The answer is a resounding “NO”; it will not make us, you, or anyone any safer. The problem is not the law abiding people that have a handgun, long gun, or any gun, they are not the issue. The problem is the people that have the illegal guns, the very people that are committing the crimes. The problem is the way our laws protect the very people that are violating the rights of the law abiding population, the ones that hide behind lawyers, screaming about police brutality, that their rights are being violated, all while breaking into your home, ransacked the place, and even threatened your family. If that very individual gets hurt while inside your home, while you were trying to defend your family, your possessions, your home, your very way of life, then you end up in a law suit. You end up being forced to defend yourself, spending many hundreds of dollars, while the state provides food, shelter, and legal support to the criminal. It's these delinquents we need to deal with, it's these criminals that the law needs to punish, not the rest of us.

There are many examples of where gun control has caused problems, look at what has, and is happening in Africa, Australia, and other places where guns were taken from the law abiding population. Just look at any of the places where people were forced to turn in their protection. Now they have many times the incidents of burglary, of innocent people being killed in their homes, all because the government saw fit to take away their defense. The government that is in place to protect, gets too greedy, wants to control too much, and in the end, instead of allowing the citizens to protect themselves, tries to make them as helpless as possible.

This is where we will be, if the politicians in this country succeed in removing our firearms. We will then be helpless to defend ourselves, our homes, our families. For those of faith, you as a man, as head of your family, it is your responsibility to provide for your family. Part of providing for your family is protecting them, giving them a safe place to live. Let the government take away your right to own a gun, let them take away yet another piece of freedom, the very freedom this country was founded on, and you are failing miserably, you are giving up your wife, your children, placing them in harms way.

Think about it for a while, if you’re no longer able to defend yourself, what then. If the government tells you leave your doors unlocked, to leave the keys in your car, that others have the right to use it whenever they want, would you be willing to do that. Would you sleep well at night knowing, at any time, someone could just walk right in and take whatever they wanted.

What society would you like to live in, one where the criminal is in full control or one where the citizen is allowed to defend himself? Even if you do not want to own a firearm, having a right to do so leaves the criminal guessing. Will someone in this home be armed; will they try to defend their home, family, property? Forcing the criminal to second guess the situation, forcing the one wanting to commit the crime to wonder, will I get shot if I break into this residence? The very possibility that you may have a gun, may be able to counter the criminals threat, may have a way to defend what is yours may be all the protection you need.hat doesn't count, then look at

Nobody is saying take away guns. Nobody has ever said that. What Obama, and many democrats and other anti-gun advocates are saying is reduce the amount of Illegal guns being sold or distributed. You did not read his statements correctly. Never did he say take away anyones guns or rights to own guns. Exactly as I said earlier, make purchasing a gun a little tougher, big deal is that so hard? Why would that effect anyone who already owns a gun? Unless you are trying to buy every gun on the market which is really unnecessary for protection. One or two guns is plenty for protection period.

 

[DiveCon]

Sounds good, not only give guns to anyone including criminals, the mentally unstable, the elderly, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the aggressive, the passive aggressive. Lets train them how to aim for the head shot. Nice thinking.

so, you'd rather gun owners not be able to actually hit their targets?
thats how innocent bystanders get hit in the gang related drive bys
they suck yet still have a gun
(and no, making guns illegal doesnt keep them from getting them)

 

[Bern80]

Nobody is saying take away guns. Nobody has ever said that. What Obama, and many democrats and other anti-gun advocates are saying is reduce the amount of Illegal guns being sold or distributed. You did not read his statements correctly. Never did he say take away anyones guns or rights to own guns. Exactly as I said earlier, make purchasing a gun a little tougher, big deal is that so hard? Why would that effect anyone who already owns a gun? Unless you are trying to buy every gun on the market which is really unnecessary for protection. One or two guns is plenty for protection period.

When are you going to get off this NEED trip? Making such an argument really shows that your perception is still not really lining up with reality. Why is how many guns you think someone needs even remotely relevant? Why would it be neccessary to limit the number of firearms one possesses? There are a dozen guns in my house. Is that too many? If so, why is it too many?

 

[Vintij]

When are you going to get off this NEED trip? Making such an argument really shows that your perception is still not really lining up with reality. Why is how many guns you think someone needs even remotely relevant? Why would it be neccessary to limit the number of firearms one possesses? There are a dozen guns in my house. Is that too many? If so, why is it too many?

No its not too many, its perfectly fine for you. The problem is not how many guns you own its who is buying the guns and how easy it is to get guns. My point was the people who own multiple guns should really have no reason to complain about future gun laws seeing as they have enough guns to support a small guerrilla war already. Its hard to believe that Americans would give up their privacy and let the government spy on them to stay "safe" from terrorists yet they cling to guns and will not budge when more civilians have died from 200 years of gun violence than the amount of people who will ever die from terrorism. Like I said, minor changes need to be made and everyone needs to follow the example of Illinois and Wisconsin.

 

[Bern80]

No its not too many, its perfectly fine for you. The problem is not how many guns you own its who is buying the guns and how easy it is to get guns. My point was the people who own multiple guns should really have no reason to complain about future gun laws seeing as they have enough guns to support a small guerrilla war. Like I said, minor changes need to be made and everyone needs to follow the example of Illinois and Wisconsin.

That really doesn't make much sense. That's the equivalent of saying I got mine so fuck whatever might be down the road for the rest of you. They have every reason to complain because those future gun laws may very well end up effecting them.

 

[Vintij]

That really doesn't make much sense. That's the equivalent of saying I got mine so fuck whatever might be down the road for the rest of you. They have every reason to complain because those future gun laws may very well end up effecting them.

Did you care to respond to what I added. The fact that more people have died from 200 years of gun violence, than the amount of people who will ever die from terrorism. So why do Americans give up so many rights for national security, yet will not budge on gun control?

 

[DiveCon]

Did you care to respond to what I added. The fact that more people have died from 200 years of gun violence, than the amount of people who will ever die from terrorism. So why do Americans give up so many rights for national security, yet will not budge on gun control?

i'd like to see your source for that claim

 

[Your Overlord]

guns+cars=freedom in america
I can go where I want and if you get in my way I'll shoot you.
makes you think twice about messing with someones stuff if you think they can blow your head off

 

[Vintij]

i'd like to see your source for that claim

No problem. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt by just focusing on one year (1997) and one group of people (20 and younger) Compare just ONE single year to the past 20 years of American deaths caused by terrorism (which would be simple, just count up terrorist attack related deaths) and then come back and talk to me.

"The American Academy of Pediatrics has compiled some statistics from data focusing on firearm-related deaths and injuries in the last 10 years.

In 1997 there were 32,436 firearm-related deaths, 4,223 of which were children and adolescents younger than 20 years old.
Handguns continue to account for the majority of deaths and injuries from firearms in the U.S.
In 1997, 85% of all homicides and 63% of all suicides for adolescents 15 to 19 were committed with a firearm.
The U.S. has the highest rates of firearm-related deaths (including homicide, suicide and unintentional deaths) among industrialized countries. The overall rate for U.S. children younger than 15 is 12 times greater than 25 other industrialized countries, and the homicide rate is 16 times higher than all other countries combined.
In 1994, the mean medical cost per gunshot injury was approximately $17,000, producing $2.3 billion in lifetime medical costs, of which $1.1 billion was paid by U.S. taxpayers.
In 1997, 306 children and adolescents younger than 20 killed by firearms died as a result of unintentional firearm-related injuries."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/4/741

http://www.aap.org/

 

[Bern80]

Did you care to respond to what I added. The fact that more people have died from 200 years of gun violence, than the amount of people who will ever die from terrorism. So why do Americans give up so many rights for national security, yet will not budge on gun control?

Because it is a misplaced fear and misplaced ire. It just baffles the mind when I get into a gun debate with people that either want them to be more heavily regulated or banned altogethr that the singular focus of their attention is on an object that can do no harm without a person operating it and yet I have nary a peep, including from you, about what is commiting the action you are trying to prevent. Call it cliche if you want, but it is as true now as it ever has been. GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. People kill people. When people rail for gun control of any type they are completeing skirting the issue and that is HUMAN behavior.

The argument for regulation just makes zero logical sense for all kinds of reasons.

1) As noted above it fails to directly address behavior.

2) A gun is a machine. Over the years it has killed far fewer people then other types of machines, like cars (much as you don't want to use that comparison).

3) the argument I hear time and again including from you is need. Again, need is irrelevant from both a philosophical and, currently, legal sense. The law essentially says if you can show you are responsible enough to handle one and want one you can have one, very similar to a car. If you think need is important where gun regulation is concerned, then that requires you to apply the same standard to any other possession you might have and I'm pretty sure you don't want the government coming into your home and taking away what they deem you don't need.

3) It makes no sense to infringe upon the rights of a majority of people in an effort (an unrealistic one at that) to try to stop the behavior of really a very small percentage of gun users.

In general terms it appears to be similar philosphy to a debate I'm haveing in another thread. And it seems to be this mentality that if you could just get enough laws in place, nothing bad will happen and that simply isn't possible. We could get to a point where every law you want is on the books. What will be your plan when you see you have made nary a dent in violent gun crimes?

My views on gun control are pretty simple. I am all for most any measure that prevents the wrong people from owning firearms. I think we would both agree with that and probably agree that that really is the whole point here.

Where I have problems with gun control is this: If the above is our goal what is the relevance of laws that restrict how many guns one can own or of what type?

 

[Vintij]

Because it is a misplaced fear and misplaced ire. It just baffles the mind when I get into a gun debate with people that either want them to be more heavily regulated or banned altogethr that the singular focus of their attention is on an object that can do no harm without a person operating it and yet I have nary a peep, including from you, about what is commiting the action you are trying to prevent. Call it cliche if you want, but it is as true now as it ever has been. GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. People kill people. When people rail for gun control of any type they are completeing skirting the issue and that is HUMAN behavior.

The argument for regulation just makes zero logical sense for all kinds of reasons.

1) As noted above it fails to directly address behavior.

2) A gun is a machine. Over the years it has killed far fewer people then other types of machines, like cars (much as you don't want to use that comparison).

3) the argument I hear time and again including from you is need. Again, need is irrelevant from both a philosophical and, currently, legal sense. The law essentially says if you can show you are responsible enough to handle one and want one you can have one, very similar to a car. If you think need is important where gun regulation is concerned, then that requires you to apply the same standard to any other possession you might have and I'm pretty sure you don't want the government coming into your home and taking away what they deem you don't need.

3) It makes no sense to infringe upon the rights of a majority of people in an effort (an unrealistic one at that) to try to stop the behavior of really a very small percentage of gun users.

In general terms it appears to be similar philosphy to a debate I'm haveing in another thread. And it seems to be this mentality that if you could just get enough laws in place, nothing bad will happen and that simply isn't possible. We could get to a point where every law you want is on the books. What will be your plan when you see you have made nary a dent in violent gun crimes?

My views on gun control are pretty simple. I am all for most any measure that prevents the wrong people from owning firearms. I think we would both agree with that and probably agree that that really is the whole point here.

Where I have problems with gun control is this: If the above is our goal what is the relevance of laws that restrict how many guns one can own or of what type?

So we agree on one thing, supporting measures to keep the wrong people from owning guns. Thats agreed upon. There is still an average (as I posted above) of 300 people aged 20 and below,who die unintentionally from guns each year. So obviously, even if someone can safely operate a gun....young people are still dying from guns for reasons that could have been 100% avoidable. We are not even talking about homicide here (the figure would be alot higher) we are talking about accidental deaths. Any unintentional death can be avoided. Which further strengthens my original premise that the age limit should at least be raised. Would you not agree?

 

[Paulie]

Yes I know it is a right. I just want to know this is one of those rights that people will go to the wall for.

Back in the days of the constitution, the right to own a firearm was the right which all other rights were protected by.

These days though, our guns are no match for what any REAL potential enemy to our rights possesses.

The great purpose they serve, is self defense and deterrence. A couple weeks ago, an elderly woman from PA pulled her handgun on a would-be home invader, and held him prisoner until the police arrived to take him away.

Do you think she would have accomplished that without her firearm, being a much weaker, probably otherwise defenseless old lady? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Luissa]

So we agree on one thing, supporting measures to keep the wrong people from owning guns. Thats agreed upon. There is still an average (as I posted above) of 300 people aged 20 and below,who die unintentionally from guns each year. So obviously, even if someone can safely operate a gun....young people are still dying from guns for reasons that could have been 100% avoidable. We are not even talking about homicide here (the figure would be alot higher) we are talking about accidental deaths. Any unintentional death can be avoided. Which further strengthens my original premise that the age limit should at least be raised. Would you not agree?

About this I won't tell you, you can't have a gun and you don't tell me I can't have an abortion. It is a give and take system, works well sometimes.

 

[Bern80]

So we agree on one thing, supporting measures to keep the wrong people from owning guns. Thats agreed upon. There is still an average (as I posted above) of 300 people aged 20 and below,who die unintentionally from guns each year. So obviously, even if someone can safely operate a gun....young people are still dying from guns for reasons that could have been 100% avoidable. We are not even talking about homicide here (the figure would be alot higher) we are talking about accidental deaths. Any unintentional death can be avoided. Which further strengthens my original premise that the age limit should at least be raised. Would you not agree?

Had different circumstances played out, yes gun accidents could have been avoided. One can draw another car analogy. We can agree that more people die each year from car accidents then from gun related accidents. In 2001 motor behicle accidents were the leading cause of death for people ages 1-34 http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/whd2004/information/MV-Facts.pdf. Look at all of the effort that goes into avouding these accidents. One could argue I suppose that more effort has been made to make cars safe then guns safe and they are still far outweigh gun deaths OF ANY TYPE.

The fact is you can take every measure imaginable to reduce these accidents, but you will never get it to zero. As long as guns exist you will never, ever make that number be zero. The question is will even more regulation have any significant impact on that number. Guns are a pretty simple objects. The only law I can think of that might have an impact is mandatory trigger locks. I doubt that would have mich significant impact on an already insignificant number.

In all honesty those deaths are not accidents, they are avoidable and in ways most people already have control over. The deaths are most likely the result of negligence. To kill they still have to be handled by someone. Either they neglected to check a safety, the didn't check to see if the chamber was empty, or they pointed it where they shouldn't have been pointing it. It is unrealistic to think that simply passing a law requiring gun locks, an unenforceable law in the first place, is suddenly going to make irresponsible people, responsible.

 

[AllieBaba]

More children die each year of battery than die from accidental gunshots.

I guess we should make it illegal for women to take on second husbands, have boyfriends...and all men should have their hands amputated.

 

[Luissa]

More children die each year of battery than die from accidental gunshots.

I guess we should make it illegal for women to take on second husbands, have boyfriends...and all men should have their hands amputated.

I vote for amputation!