Gun Ownership

[TigerTank77]

Ladies and gents, I do believe it's time for a thread about gun ownership.

Tell us about how your state/country handles things, and what your opinion on the matter is. Outside research is encouraged. Flaming and ad hominems are a NO NO.

I'll be posting throughout, but I'd like to see some opinions first.

[The ANTI-Troll]

as a registered gun owner i think as long as you can pass a background check you should be allowed to own whatever you want.

[Alrex]

I'm a canadian, and the laws here are crazy stupid.

I compared gun assault stats with Oregon to British Columbia

Suprisingly they are around the same, and you can walk in to a Fred Meyers in Oregon and purchase one off the shelf, whereas British Columbia the closest thing you can get is a BB gun.

Also, the media makes guns FAR more lethal then they actually are. IMO a knife wound is far more deadly then a gunshot wound from a .22 caliber pistol.

[Union Of V]

I couldn't vote since you have to choose between no restrictions and outright banning...

I think our system is the best. Give the impression that guns are banned, and impose a lengthy process that assesses the user's knowledge of gun safety. Then give them the rights to use the gun only in the context of gun sport or keeping the local vermin population down. While there is some gun crime over here, cases of gun crime surrounding legally owned weapons is extremely rare.

Background checks won't do anything. What are they meant to check for, affiliation with terrorist organisation? Past murder convictions? They can't predict a shooting, they can only make a wild guess.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Alrex

. IMO a knife wound is far more deadly then a gunshot wound from a .22 caliber pistol.

At short range, a knife is a potentially deadly weapon. At an arm's length, a .22 caliber pistol is more deadly. At a distance, unless you were a master knife thrower, the .22 caliber would win because you've got several shots in a clip and you have distance. You could put 5 rounds in a dude before he ran to you. You can also kill someone with your bare hands, so I can agree on your point, at least I think that's your point, but I kind of disagree at the same time.

[ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST]

I think if the person has no record they should be allowed to own a gun; because, the only thing banning does is take them out of the hands of those that WANT to obey the law.

[Lugez]

I like my guns.

They're fun.

They go POW!

[✖Ice✖]

Originally Posted by I love dogs

I think if the person has no record they should be allowed to own a gun; because, the only thing banning does is take them out of the hands of those that WANT to obey the law.

What about a speeding ticket?

[Xujhan]

Personally I'm much happier living in a country where civilian firearms are essentially non-existent. I agree that gun ownership doesn't significantly affect the number of gun-related deaths so I wouldn't say it's an issue on the level of, say, abortion or homosexuality. I like that we can trust our society enough to not feel the need to personally own a weapon 'just in case'. In a truly enlightened society weapons would be all but obsolete, and I appreciate any step toward that we can take, even if it's a fairly small one.

That said, between living in a country with no guns and a country with no bibles I'd take the latter in a heartbeat, so gun ownership really isn't a big issue for me.

[Union Of V]

Originally Posted by I love dogs

I think if the person has no record they should be allowed to own a gun; because, the only thing banning does is take them out of the hands of those that WANT to obey the law.

Firstly, that policy fails entirely to prevent first-time offenders, and secondly, the vast majority of those who want to obey the law have absolutely no use for a gun.

Originally Posted by KLECK, G. and BORDUA, D. J

(1) Guns are five times deadlier than the weapons most likely to be substituted for them in assaults in which guns are not available. (2) The sight of a gun can elicit aggression, due to the learned association between guns and violence. (3) If guns are made more expensive, more difficult to obtain, or legally risky to own, people will do without them. (4) Guns are useless for self-defense or protection of one's family, home, or business, and have no deterrent effect on criminals. (5) Homicides are largely “crimes of passion” committed by otherwise law-abiding citizens not distinguishable from other people. Therefore, control must be directed at all gun owners rather than select criminal subgroups.


KLECK, G. and BORDUA, D. J. (1983), THE FACTUAL FOUNDATION FOR CERTAIN KEY ASSUMPTIONS OF GUN CONTROL. Law & Policy, 5: 271–298. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9930.1983.tb00300.x

Surely those with previous convictions have a greater chance of committing a gun-related crime, but if you want to prevent gun crime you've got to have a better strategy than simply lowering the chances.

[The ANTI-Troll]

Originally Posted by Union Of V

Firstly, that policy fails entirely to prevent first-time offenders, and secondly, the vast majority of those who want to obey the law have absolutely no use for a gun.

ya cause you know people who hunt are breaking the law...

[Union Of V]

Originally Posted by The ANTI-Troll

ya cause you know people who hunt are breaking the law...

And the vast majority of people hunt? Is that what you're saying?

[Boobies]

If someone wants a gun then they'll get a gun, even if they're banned.
But I voted 'Background checks, psych checks, and firearm safety courses are a must.' mainly because I have nothing against people going to shoot birds on the fields and similar thing.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Union Of V

And the vast majority of people hunt? Is that what you're saying?

You do realize in the US alone, 14,000,000 hunting licenses are sold every year? That might not be a VAST majority, but that's a LOT of people.

Originally Posted by Union Of V

the vast majority of those who want to obey the law have absolutely no use for a gun

Besides sport shooting, competition shooting, hunting, target practice and home defense (which is protected by LAW), all gun owners must be wannabe criminals, right?

Also, in response to that paragraph you posted.

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

Also, that passage you posted makes a lot of general assumptions, and states a lot of obvious and yet irrelevant points in it's "ban all guns" defense. I.E- if you own a gun, you WILL kill someone, and it WILL be in a crime of passion.

I myself am a gun owner and I haven't killed anyone, and I don't plan on it. Most people who buy guns legally for home defense don't plan on and hope that they don't have to use it for that purpose. It's essentially the same principle as a condom.

[Union Of V]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

You do realize in the US alone, 14,000,000 hunting licenses are sold every year? That might not be a VAST majority, but that's a LOT of people.

I never said a lot of people didn't hunt (I went to school in what was essentially a farmer's school), and the fact that a lot of people hunt doesn't support your assumption that I considered hunting a crime.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Besides sport shooting, competition shooting, hunting, target practice and home defense (which is protected by LAW), all gun owners must be wannabe criminals, right?

Don't throw US law at me, it's not some sort of universal definition of what's right. We have proper restrictions in place to control the ownership of firearms and therefore we have no use for "home defense" (guns are only involved in 1/4 of (mostly drug-related) homicides here compared to 2/3 in the US - further over here there is a 3 in a million chance of being murdered with a firearm, compared to your 30 in a million). I didn't say that all gun owner's were criminals, I'm very friendly with two sport shooting enthusiasts, one which competes internationally. What I am saying is that unregulated gun use leads to unnecessary deaths.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Also, that passage you posted makes a lot of general assumptions, and states a lot of obvious and yet irrelevant points in it's "ban all guns" defense. I.E- if you own a gun, you WILL kill someone, and it WILL be in a crime of passion.

It doesn't support the banning, rather the control of guns, but that's unimportant. My objection to the piece you linked is that it deals solely with the deaths prevented by unregulated gun use, while ignoring the additional deaths caused by the same. It's clear from the difference in homicide rates between countries with differing gun laws that regulation prevents far more deaths than gun-orientated "home defense" does.

[The ANTI-Troll]

Originally Posted by Union Of V

And the vast majority of people hunt? Is that what you're saying?

around here they do...or atleast the men do..

[thebigmole]

HATE guns. Hate them, hate them, hate them. I think that people grossly misunderstand the second amendment and I think that there is absolutely no point in owning a gun. That people who buy them for "safety" actually end up hurting themselves more there are countless stories. There was a guy who was cleaning his gun and it went off and he shot his pregnant wife. There was another guy who got up in the middle of the night thinking someone was breaking in and ended up shooting and killing his fiance. An elderly couple was running a drill of what they would do if someone broke into their house and the guy ended up shooting his wife in the chest on accident. There was another guy that got so pissed off at his dog that he started shooting at it and hit his wife. Not to mention kids that end up getting a hold of their parents' guns. I do not believe that there is ANY reason for a civilian to own a gun. If you hunt I believe that there should be somwhere away from your house that you keep the gun.

[The ANTI-Troll]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

HATE guns. Hate them, hate them, hate them. I think that people grossly misunderstand the second amendment and I think that there is absolutely no point in owning a gun. That people who buy them for "safety" actually end up hurting themselves more there are countless stories. There was a guy who was cleaning his gun and it went off and he shot his pregnant wife. There was another guy who got up in the middle of the night thinking someone was breaking in and ended up shooting and killing his fiance. An elderly couple was running a drill of what they would do if someone broke into their house and the guy ended up shooting his wife in the chest on accident. There was another guy that got so pissed off at his dog that he started shooting at it and hit his wife. Not to mention kids that end up getting a hold of their parents' guns. I do not believe that there is ANY reason for a civilian to own a gun. If you hunt I believe that there should be somwhere away from your house that you keep the gun.

condem something just cause of a few idiots.. first off you never clean a loaded gun and you check before hand.. second i dont know anyone who would run a "what if drill" with a loaded weapon anyone with half a brain knows better... just a couple idiots who had no bussiness owing a weapon...

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by The ANTI-Troll

condem something just cause of a few idiots.. first off you never clean a loaded gun and you check before hand.. second i dont know anyone who would run a "what if drill" with a loaded weapon anyone with half a brain knows better... just a couple idiots who had no bussiness owing a weapon...

I mentioned way more than a couple of incidents. And those are all very recent, that doesn't include the countless of cases that have happened over the years. And you didn't give me a reason anyone should own a gun.

[The ANTI-Troll]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

I mentioned way more than a couple of incidents. And those are all very recent, that doesn't include the countless of cases that have happened over the years. And you didn't give me a reason anyone should own a gun.

as i said a coupel incidents cause if you calculate how many people have firearms and how many accidents im sure those who possess firearms will far out stretch those incidents...it being the second amendment in the US constitution is enough for any true american whos had family fight for those rights....

heres exactly what i read when i saw your post... Wahhhh someone was being a complete idiot and cleaning a loaded weapon and shot someone.... Wahhhhh some idiot was running a drill and shot his wife cause he was waving around a loaded weapon... Wahhhhhhh some idiotic kids dug around in there parents bedroom and found a firearm and shot themselves cause there idiotic parents didnt lock the weapon up and never taught there kids not to mess with a gun unless there was a parent around to supervise...

as for owning a weapon for safety i could provide a story if i looked for it where someone broke into a house while a teenager and his little sister were home alone and the teenager grabbed his dads gun and shot the intruder and protected his little sister

[kiwi_fish_bunny]

nothing wrong with guns. i mean sure people go on shooting rampages and shit but i mean how many people have guns and how many of them go crazy and shoot people?
and i mean if u say guns should be banned, what about baseball bats?knifes?cars? alcohol? all of these things can be just as dangerous. i mean forgods sakes! its like people go like
"holly shit its something thats possibley dangerous lets bann it before sum nutter comes and hurts us with it"
people need to stop trying to bubble wrap everything. cos it just makes things worse!

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by The ANTI-Troll

as i said a coupel incidents cause if you calculate how many people have firearms and how many accidents im sure those who possess firearms will far out stretch those incidents...it being the second amendment in the US constitution is enough for any true american whos had family fight for those rights....

heres exactly what i read when i saw your post... Wahhhh someone was being a complete idiot and cleaning a loaded weapon and shot someone.... Wahhhhh some idiot was running a drill and shot his wife cause he was waving around a loaded weapon... Wahhhhhhh some idiotic kids dug around in there parents bedroom and found a firearm and shot themselves cause there idiotic parents didnt lock the weapon up and never taught there kids not to mess with a gun unless there was a parent around to supervise...

as for owning a weapon for safety i could provide a story if i looked for it where someone broke into a house while a teenager and his little sister were home alone and the teenager grabbed his dads gun and shot the intruder and protected his little sister

Again the second amendment is grossly misunderstood. The second amendment states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This amendment is null and void as we no longer need to form militia's to protect our country. If people want to say that they have the right to have a gun just because, then we need to add a new amendment to the Constitution, because the second amendment does NOT cover that.

And don't give me that "true American" bullshit. People only say that when it's something that they want, the second something else comes up that other "true Americans" support but they don't, patriotism goes right out the window.

This whole damn country is filled with idiots and it's our governments responsibility to protect those idiots, and I believe that that means not allowing anyone who can manage to get a permit to own a gun.

[Pelios]

In México it is actually illegal to have a gun(irony), you can't carry them with you unless you are a cop or something related to the military. Or unless you can proof you belong to an organization that uses guns such as a sport "hunting" but to obtain a permit you have to wait 3-5 months or buy them in the black market. But even then you can’t carry them with you or have them that easy legally. I don’t really like guns I don’t want anything to do with them I will not have guns in my house when I have my own place, I don’t feel like I need one in order to “feel safe”.

[The ANTI-Troll]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Again the second amendment is grossly misunderstood. The second amendment states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This amendment is null and void as we no longer need to form militia's to protect our country. If people want to say that they have the right to have a gun just because, then we need to add a new amendment to the Constitution, because the second amendment does NOT cover that.

And don't give me that "true American" bullshit. People only say that when it's something that they want, the second something else comes up that other "true Americans" support but they don't, patriotism goes right out the window.

This whole damn country is filled with idiots and it's our governments responsibility to protect those idiots, and I believe that that means not allowing anyone who can manage to get a permit to own a gun.

quite simple in my eyes to get rid of the idiots...line them up infront of a firing squad...or allow darwens law to take affect :P

also i can assure you if someone had malicious intent to harm someone id rather it be a gun personally cause i have seen what some people are capable of and id rather be shot then submitted to someone like jack the ripper

[TigerTank77]

Okay, Anti-troll and Big-mole, calm down guys, this is the internet. The fate of the 2nd amendment isn't hanging in the balance of this thread, it's just a friendly discussion.

Now what being said, Bigmole, while I agree with you that the 2nd amendment is poorly worded, MANY of the founding fathers intended it to apply on a personal level.

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

To name a few:

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our 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?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

And while yes there are idiots, I would like to point out that statistically, physicians kill more people than gun owners.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...9/155404.shtml

Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. (C) Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.
Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. (B) There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. (C) The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.
Statistically, then, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners are.

Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one doctor

[kiwi_fish_bunny]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Okay, Anti-troll and Big-mole, calm down guys, this is the internet. The fate of the 2nd amendment isn't hanging in the balance of this thread, it's just a friendly discussion.

lol that made me laugh, i agree people get way to caught up in some of these debates

also i loved your point on how more doctors kill people then guns xD
but yea also car accidents steal our loved ones alot more then gun and im guessing people wanna ban them too?

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by kiwi_fish_bunny

lol that made me laugh, i agree people get way to caught up in some of these debates

also i loved your point on how more doctors kill people then guns xD
but yea also car accidents steal our loved ones alot more then gun and im guessing people wanna ban them too?

Driving a car and doctors operating on people are necessities owning a gun is not. I am not for the banning of guns to prevent people who want to use them for crimes from getting them, because I know that that doesn't really work. I am for the banning of guns to prevent people from hurting themselves or others for stupid reasons, and I don't understand why that's not a good enough reason.

[Lugez]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

And you didn't give me a reason anyone should own a gun.

People own guns for many reasons. The most common seem to be: Self defense/protection and sport (hunting, or target shooting/competitions). Isn't that reason enough? It's one thing if you don't like the reasons, but saying there isn't a reason is just incorrect. You can make a much better case by addressing the safety concerns as you've been doing...But please stay away from the "no reason" argument.

...Don't want to make it seem like I'm out to get you. I just really really hate that argument..

But my stance: I come from a gun family, so I'm probably a little biased. My dad has taught me and my siblings the PROPER way to handle a gun. His first rule: Never point the gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them. And I always follow it when I hold it or go to the range. The biggest issue I have is that there are alot of people out there who think guns are toys or don't know how to properly use them. I think some kind of required course would be beneficial, but I'd rather not an outright ban of guns.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Lugez

People own guns for many reasons. The most common seem to be: Self defense/protection and sport (hunting, or target shooting/competitions). Isn't that reason enough? It's one thing if you don't like the reasons, but saying there isn't a reason is just incorrect. You can make a much better case by addressing the safety concerns as you've been doing...But please stay away from the "no reason" argument.

...Don't want to make it seem like I'm out to get you. I just really really hate that argument..

But my stance: I come from a gun family, so I'm probably a little biased. My dad has taught me and my siblings the PROPER way to handle a gun. His first rule: Never point the gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them. And I always follow it when I hold it or go to the range. The biggest issue I have is that there are alot of people out there who think guns are toys or don't know how to properly use them. I think some kind of required course would be beneficial, but I'd rather not an outright ban of guns.

Hunting I get, self defense not so much. I mean I think it would be better for people to have a taser, or a bat, or something like that. And honestly how often do people actually successfully use guns to protect themselves, I'm willing to bet it's less often then people hurt themselves or others with their guns by accident.

Aside from hunting, which I don't really like but eh I get it, I don't see a reason for someone to own a gun, unless they are a cop or in the military.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

I am for the banning of guns to prevent people from hurting themselves or others for stupid reasons, and I don't understand why that's not a good enough reason.

Because we don't live in a nanny state. A few people being retarded is not justification to take guns away from everyone. Thats the equivalent of giving the entire class detention because some kid got his head suck in a chair.

In all honesty, if we applied that mentality to everything, we should ban cars, alcohol, all over the counter and prescription drugs, food, pools, and all electrical devices, unless each is given to us and operated for us by a trained government agent.

Originally Posted by thebigmole

And honestly how often do people actually successfully use guns to protect themselves, I'm willing to bet it's less often then people hurt themselves or others with their guns by accident.

BASED UPON 2 MILLION DGUs PER YEAR:

1. Only 24% (480,000) reported firing their guns. This means 76% (1.52 million ) times the gun deterred crime merely by its presence.

2. Wounds occurred in less than 8% of the cases., or less than (300,000)

3. Most DGUs occurred in the home, 37% ( 740,000) vs 27% (540,000) away.

4. Property was lost in only 11% (220,000) cases. Guns successfully prevented theft in 89% of the cases or 1.74 million times.

5. In 84% (1.68 million), cases the perp displayed a weapon or attacked before the DGU. Eleven respondents reported using gun only after being injured by the attacker.

6. Only 18% (360,000) reported criminals armed with guns, but 53% (1.06 million) reported facing multiple assailants in DGU incidents.

7. Assailants had weapons other than guns 48% of the time, ( 960,000) in DGU cases. In 18% ( 360,000) of the cases the assailants were armed with guns.



From the statistics garnered by Kleck and Gertz we can conclude guns succeed in preventing crime. Defensive gun users only used guns as a last resort, often only after they were injured by their assailants. Contrary to allegations by anti-gun activists of CC gun owners turning "vigilante" and acting like "Rambo", statistics show the opposite. They shoot less, kill fewer, and cause less incidental damage than police. Guns are extremely successful in preventing theft. They succeed almost 90% of the time, most often without being fired, or the thief injured.

Source: http://www.outdoors.net/site/feature...Code=121&jse=1

[kiwi_fish_bunny]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Driving a car and doctors operating on people are necessities owning a gun is not. I am not for the banning of guns to prevent people who want to use them for crimes from getting them, because I know that that doesn't really work. I am for the banning of guns to prevent people from hurting themselves or others for stupid reasons, and I don't understand why that's not a good enough reason.

necessties umm no. cars are not necessities at all, we were given things called legs to walk on.. to hold it here is a big one..TO GET AROUND!
people in the old days walked miles and didnt "need" cars.

and i didnt say operating either.... just plain doctors (yus im being stubborn so what)
i do not think i ever said that guns were necessties... i dont see where u got that...

[Union Of V]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

I can't find this quote in context, but it sounds from the use of the word "disarmed" that he is refering to a government taking the right of rebellion away from the people, which is what the 2nd Ammendment was intended to prevent. Not the unconditional right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

Important caveat here is the assumption that the people are peaceable citizens. Past events have proved all but that.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our 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?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

Finally, the overarching problem with these quotes is that 18th century reasoning, no matter how true, is only valid in context ie in the 18th century. At this time people had slaves for Christ's sake. They simply could not make laws for a society two centuries away. It's best to rely on current knowledge than past reasoning, no matter how valid that reasoning was at the time.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

And while yes there are idiots, I would like to point out that statistically, physicians kill more people than gun owners.

As well as BigMole's point that physicians are reducing deaths overall, they are doing a highly difficult and precise job that has a very slim safety margin. They undertake that work because of a patient's need. They know what risk they're taking.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Because we don't live in a nanny state. A few people being retarded is not justification to take guns away from everyone. Thats the equivalent of giving the entire class detention because some kid got his head suck in a chair.

In all honesty, if we applied that mentality to everything, we should ban cars, alcohol, all over the counter and prescription drugs, food, pools, and all electrical devices, unless each is given to us and operated for us by a trained government agent.

Firstly Reductio Ad Absurdum. You can take away some without taking away a lot.

Secondly, I'm calling for regulation, not banning. A few people being retarded and causing harm to others is definitely enough to regulate the use of guns. People do stupid things in cars, so you need a driving license to be able to drive. People did stupid things in aircraft, so you need several licenses to fly one. People do very stupid things with heavy machinery, so you have to be properly trained to operate it. Why in God's name should any "adult" person be able to simply walk to the shop and buy a gun? It simply makes no sense - if necessary practices require regulation, why are recreational pursuits open for every idiot to take part in?

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by kiwi_fish_bunny

necessties umm no. cars are not necessities at all, we were given things called legs to walk on.. to hold it here is a big one..TO GET AROUND!
people in the old days walked miles and didnt "need" cars.

and i didnt say operating either.... just plain doctors (yus im being stubborn so what)
i do not think i ever said that guns were necessties... i dont see where u got that...

You didn't say that owning a gun is a necessity, I was just showing that the examples don't compare because they are necessities. In today's society driving a car is a necessity. Seeing a doctor, or any type of medical person is a necessity. Owning a gun is not. Therefore we cannot avoid the risks that come along with those. However we can avoid the risks of guns, because it's not a necessity to have one.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

You didn't say that owning a gun is a necessity, I was just showing that the examples don't compare because they are necessities. In today's society driving a car is a necessity. Seeing a doctor, or any type of medical person is a necessity. Owning a gun is not. Therefore we cannot avoid the risks that come along with those. However we can avoid the risks of guns, because it's not a necessity to have one.

A gun is a necessity for self-defense. If it's not a necessity for you, you just simply don't need a gun and certainly don't need to obtain a license to get one. If you lived in a bad neighborhood, then a gun would be a necessity because bad things are likely to happen. Driving a car is a necessity for fast transportation. Guns are necessity's for people who hunt to feed their family. You can't call driving a necessity and not call guns a necessity. I sense some bias.

[Union Of V]

Originally Posted by Brandon

A gun is a necessity for self-defense. If it's not a necessity for you, you just simply don't need a gun and certainly don't need to obtain a license to get one.

As I said, it's not a necessity for us since we don't give out guns like condoms. You should try it too.

Originally Posted by Brandon

Guns are necessity's for people who hunt to feed their family.

How many people in the developed world hunt to feed their family?

[The ANTI-Troll]

Originally Posted by Union Of V

As I said, it's not a necessity for us since we don't give out guns like condoms. You should try it too.

How many people in the developed world hunt to feed their family?

me for one.... i dont eat meat unless i killed it myself so i know exactly what its been through before i eat it and make sure there aint 100 + chemicals in it..

[Union Of V]

Originally Posted by The ANTI-Troll

me for one.... i dont eat meat unless i killed it myself so i know exactly what its been through before i eat it and make sure there aint 100 + chemicals in it..

Organic dude. Organic. And you have absolutely no way of knowing the wild animal didn't have an illness that could pass onto you, since it wasn't inspected by a vet beforehand.

[The ANTI-Troll]

Originally Posted by Union Of V

Organic dude. Organic. And you have absolutely no way of knowing the wild animal didn't have an illness that could pass onto you, since it wasn't inspected by a vet beforehand.

rather get an illness (very unlikelly have eaten quite a few animals and never once got sick) then ingest some chemicals or have to deal with the concious of what the animal was possibally put through before it got to me....

[Union Of V]

Originally Posted by The ANTI-Troll

rather get an illness (very unlikelly have eaten quite a few animals and never once got sick) then ingest some chemicals or have to deal with the concious of what the animal was possibally put through before it got to me....

If the food the animal is fed is organic there are no chemicals in the animal, bar those it picks up from the environment in which case the wild animal is actually a worse proposition (contaminated rivers, soil etc.)

[mIssIng:nO]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Personally I'm much happier living in a country where civilian firearms are essentially non-existent. I agree that gun ownership doesn't significantly affect the number of gun-related deaths so I wouldn't say it's an issue on the level of, say, abortion or homosexuality. I like that we can trust our society enough to not feel the need to personally own a weapon 'just in case'. In a truly enlightened society weapons would be all but obsolete, and I appreciate any step toward that we can take, even if it's a fairly small one.

That said, between living in a country with no guns and a country with no bibles I'd take the latter in a heartbeat, so gun ownership really isn't a big issue for me.

IF you think that civilian fire arms are "non existant" in ontario, you really know nothing, are they legally owned? Nope, but alot more people have guns than you think man. Also, we get it, you don't like Christianity, and once again, your "i'm so edgy i need to bring up that I don't like Christianity every time i post" tag is showing. Give it up man, I thought by 20 years old people would realize that "hating on shit" doesn't make you cool, fucking hipster.