Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 20 of 672 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Guns are at the core of our national identity. Our society worships the icon of the cowboy. It romanticizes the mobster. The images are endless, but that doesn't make it right.

Guns are a serious issue. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my humble opinion is that the second ammendment is antiquated. It may very well be that we in the United States do have a few rotten apples spoiling the barrel, but adding more apples doesn't solve the problem.

Now, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, but this one is worth mentioning. (granted, this one is about five years old, but I doubt it's changed much) If you add the populations of Great Britain, France, Denmark, Spain, Canada, Germany, and Italy - you get a population roughly equal to that of the United States. The US murder rate was more than double the murder rate of all those countries combined. DO you think it's because the people in the US are more homicidal, or because those countries have strict gun control laws?

And I don't buy the whole "for my protection" arguement either. I don't care how good of a marksman you are - your weapon has more of a chance of being used AGAINST you than protecting you.

If you like to hunt - great. Buy a shotgun. Last time I checked, one didn't need a glock, modified AK 47, or bazooka to hunt deer.

When our great country was founded, you needed a firearm to survive. We certainly needed them to kick the brits back across the pond. (twice) Before the US Civil War, the country's military was horribly small, making local militias necessary for protection. In the 21st century, our needs are different. In the words of my father-in-law, (a former marine, and captain of the a local police department) "the more people have guns, the more dangerous everybody is."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
There are very few gun control measures I support. Ex-felons should not be allowed to purchase firearms (perhaps ever again). Mentally ill people should also not be allowed to purchase firearms. To own a full automatic weapon, one should have to apply for and get a permit, and those are the only firearms I believe need be registered.

And that's about it.

Also, armor piercing rounds, incdinary rounds, and other nonstandard rounds should be subject to limited access/banned based on the individual states. The Constitution implies the states have the majority of the control here. I do not believe handgun bans are legal (nor does the Supreme Court). That being said, if California wants to require registering your guns, that is their right. If you don't like it, move to a state that doesn't.

I also don't believe firearm manufacturers should be responsible for someone doing something stupid with a gun. If you get up tomorrow, take your gun and kill me with it, that is not the manufacturer's fault. If you get up tomorrow, get drunk and run someone over in your Toyota Prius because they drive a Hummer, they would have no standing sueing Toyota because they built the weapon used.

Guns are far less dangerous than many other things.

Before jack or skysov put down the peace pipe to argue, biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons are not firearms. Nor are missiles, rocket launchers, gernade launchers, gernades, rockets, flamethrowers, or other weapons that are not conventionally firearms.

fire·arm /ˈfaɪərˌɑrm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fahyuhr-ahrm] -noun a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.
 

·
Connoisseur/Curmudgeon Emeritus - Moderator
Joined
·
37,088 Posts
A firearm is nothing more than an assemblage of machined (generally) metal parts. It is neither good or bad. For some, firearms are simply a tool used in their work. For others they may be the implement, through which the owner enjoys a hobby. Humans are the catalytic ingredient that bring good or bad into consideration. As for whether they should be banned, doesn't the second amendment say it all?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
996 Posts
+1 to Eagle2250

I have no romanticism either way about the tool.

I am libertarian and oppose all encroachments on liberty. For all I care, the Kwik-E-Mart can sell firearms next to donuts. I hope the cashier would not sell to unaccompanied small children, but it's his call.

An armed society is a polite society. Relying on the government (or anyone else, really) to protect your life is an unacceptable risk.

The (US) constitutional reason for personal firearm rights is to ward against rogue governments, like we have now. Unfortunately, the wording is correct and a well-regulated militia is required to fight the government. Individuals cannot do it alone, nor small bands of paramilitary wannabes. In this age of telecommunications, an organized armed citizen militia would have no problem resisting a state-sponsored force when necessary. In fact, it has been done in Iraq for several years now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
996 Posts
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my humble opinion is that the second ammendment is antiquated.
Luckily the Supreme Court disagrees.

DO you think it's because the people in the US are more homicidal, or because those countries have strict gun control laws?
More homicidal. Ignoring the whole homogenous society argument, it says here that "The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates." Rates, not total numbers.

Before the US Civil War, the country's military was horribly small, making local militias necessary for protection.
Horribly cheap and effective too. Also friendlier to the general populace because they were the general populace.
 

·
Connoisseur
Joined
·
5,988 Posts
Guns are, like eagle said, nothing but a collection of parts. They are only as dangerous, or safe, as are the people in who's hands they end up. Much like an automobile which can also be a deadly weapon in the hands of the wrong person.

I own a gun along with a permit to carry it, although I will admit that I almost never do. In fact, it hasn't left the house in over a year and then it was just to go to the firing range. I might fire it more often if I didn't hate cleaning the thing so much. :icon_smile_big:

Speaking as a gun owner I am in favor of strict compliance and harsh penalties for those who are negligent or commit crimes with firearms. I say "negligent" because gun ownership is a voluntary act and with it should come heightened responsibility with severe penalties for failing to maintain that level of responsibility.

As for the criminal element, they are going to have guns anyway regardless of whether we take them away from law abiding folks. For example, I believe that Washington D.C. has some of the strictest gun contral laws in the country and just take a look at their homicide rate. Go figure.

Cruiser
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
The Constitution doesn't say anything about "firearms". It talks about the right to keep and bear arms. I have never seen a principled argument that the Constitution provides an individual right to own rifles, shotguns, or pistols, that doesn't apply equally well to machine guns, bazookas, tanks, or nuclear weapons. Furthermore, "shall not be infringed" does not, by its terms leave some kind of regulation open to state governments that is denied to the federal government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Luckily the Supreme Court disagrees.

More homicidal. Ignoring the whole homogenous society argument, it says here that "The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates." Rates, not total numbers.

As I stated earlier - lies, damn lies, and statistics. We, and the rest of our allies on the left and right, can skew the numbers any way we want to make our point. None of us are 100% correct in the end.

I don't think it's realistic to expect our society to ban guns. Again, quoting myself, guns are too entrenched in our national identity to make that plausible. I think that's tragic. I will admit that gun control policy does us no good if our laws are unenforceable - and we can thank congress for that. Not only do we need extenseive background checks and bans on assult weapons, but we need bans on ammunition for such weapons and better human intelligence to combat the worldwide black market for guns.

But that still doesn't get the heart of it, does it? We still haven't answered the question of: should you or I be allowed to own a gun simply because we want to? I say no. I think it's a dangerous step toward the wild west. If you ask law enforcement (and they are the people we SHOULD be talking to on this issue - any police officiers on the forum?) I think most would say they worry about an armed society.

Somebody come up with a good way to keep guns out of the hands of ciminals without infringing on the 2nd ammendment, and I'll listen and plan to be wrong. I think all owning a gun does is tempt the owner to use it. Until then, I think we've got to answer this question: what's more important? Our right to own a gun, or the right for us to walk down the street and not worry about who has a gun?

I respectfully recommend "America Declairs Independence" written by Alan Dershowitz. It's a good read and provides great insight into where our constitutional rights actually come from. Are they inalienable? Well, read it and make your own judgement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I'll post this just to stir things up a little more.

----------------------------------

Why The Gun is Civilized

By Major L. Caudill
USMC, Retired

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100 pound woman on equal footing with a 220 pound mugger, a 75 year old retiree on equal footing with a 19 year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a car load of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a (armed) mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed, either by choice or legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV. There people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I’m looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation….. And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
a little story

My grandfather (may he rest in peace) was a gun owner - he owned a shotgun. He was very proud of the fact that he was a RESPONSIBLE gun owner - in that he kept the gun unloaded and the ammo stored separately. I'll never foget the thanksgiving day when we were talking about guns, and my grandfather stated, "if any burgler breaks into my house, all I have to do is get my gun." My grandmother said, "really? GO!" Twenty minutes later, he's still searching for the gun & ammo...

An arguement could be made for a lack of my grandfather's sanity - and I'd agree with you! (he was a nutcase!) However, consider this - to be responsible gun owners, we keep our guns unloaded and the ammo stored separately, and hopefully we all have trigger locks. When you hear suspicous sound in the middle of the night, with your heart pounding and palms sweating, can you get to your gun, load it, unlock the trigger, make it downstairs to locate the intruder before he finds you, and actually shoot to kill accurately? If you've ever been in the military or law enforcement, I have no doubt you can. The rest of us? Well... GO!:icon_smile_big:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
I'm a fan of all of the amendments. I don't view the second amendment as specific enough but given the recent supreme court decision we now have a more specific construct to work within.

I own a gun but I also have a young child and I have decided that the prudent thing to do is to not have any ammo in the house. At the appropriate time we will discuss gun safety and at some point I will take him to a shooting range if he is interested. I believe that owning a gun is a privileged and with that comes certain responsibilities.

I've always made the joke (only partially tongue in cheek) that technically the constitution does not prohibit or define what constitutes "arms" so in my mind people should be able to own cannons, missiles, and even nuclear bombs. Of course these would have to be for the expressed intent of furnishing a state militia should such a situation arise. :icon_smile_big: I believe that the framers would have been more specific if they had any idea of the types of "arms" that the human race would go on to create.

In terms of gun control I believe that a person should show competency in order to receive a gun license. If they are a felon or mentally unstable then they should not be able to own or possess weapons. I also believe that we should have a multi-tiered approach to gun licenses. Something like this:

Class A License: Pass a background check. Allowed to own a combination of weapons including handguns, shot guns, and rifles but not to exceed five weapons.

Class B License: Pass a more stringent background check. Show competency with weapons by attending and passing a gun safety program of 20 hours or more. Basically a Class A license with the ability to own more weapons. Let's say 25.

Class C License: Background Check. Psychological testing. 100 hours of gun safety classes and instruction. Ability to own up to 100 weapons.

Class D License: Background Check. Psychological testing. 200 hours of gun safety classes and instruction. Ability to own guns, shot guns, rifles, and fully automatic rifles.

Personally I am not a fan of concealed carry and a number of my friends who work in law enforcement have told me that they are not in favor of it either as it makes their jobs harder. I also think it disrupts the line of whatever you are wearing :icon_smile_big:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
The 2nd amendment is the security policy for the rest of the rights, both state and individual, that are protected by the US constitution.

500 years from now we'll be arguing about light sabers and ray guns vice flamethrowers and bazookas, but the intent will remain. It is the basic right of an individual to protect himself and secure his rights from whatever government may be in place, by force if necessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,922 Posts
The US murder rate is a big red herring to the gun issue. The homicide rate for white, non-Hispanic Americans is comparable with Europe's, but for black Americans it's almost an order of magnitude higher. That skews the statistics. Yet, whites are more than twice, even three times more likely than blacks to own guns.

Also, since the 1990s the number of guns in this country has increased dramatically, yet the homicide rate for all Americans has fallen dramatically as well. So more guns = less murders?



(note that "white" includes Hispanic for the purposes of this graph)
 
1 - 20 of 672 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top