The right to bear arms

[SausageofPower]

Corey,

You have the right to your opinion. The statistics are pretty clear, however, and arguing that the easy access of handguns wouldn't cause an increase in gun-related violence simply doesn't hold water.

Very well, you're entitled to your opinion as well. I do feel, however, that you're ignoring the point of my post. People predisposed towards violence will commit violence, guns or no. You may refer to the fact that Native American tribes could be very brutal to frontiersman, as well as competing tribes. They used no guns at all for a great period of time. 

I, for one, am happy to live in a country where getting a handgun is difficult.

Very well. Were you placed in a situation where you played the part of a defenseless victim, you may feel differently.

I doubt that the gun shot victim cares about the exact semantics behind "negligent discharge" vs. "accidental discharge of a firearm".

You'd be surprised, especially when 'negligence' makes a party culpable whereas an accident does not. It can mean the difference between any medical bills or rehabilitation costs being paid by the responsible party, or you being left with the check. And I know this, as I work for a group of pathologists.

This wouldn't worry me, if everyone was competent enough to deal with the possession of a gun.

And that is the problem, right there. We must educate people.

For that reason alone I think it's unbelievable that people other than police officers or other legal human protectors are still allowed to bear arms.

The training police and military receive is far less than you'd think. My friend is a Marine, and I'm a much better shot that him with a pistol. Heck, here in my area, a SWAT team accidentally shot a man to death because they didn't use proper technique in holding their pistol, a very rookie mistake. The man's crime? Gambling.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6374

-Corey

[Callaway]

A tool is neutral. The person wielding it is the evil behind an attack. I can stab someone in the chest with a screwdriver and hit their heart, killing them. I can beat someone to death with a tire iron. I can run someone over with my car. Does that mean all of the above need to be banned? No. We need to be educated as a society, and if anything we must make people more accountable for their actions, instead of blaming the methods they used.

That's just my opinion. I've owned guns for two years, and I haven't shot a single person. Will I carry one of my pistols for protection? Yes, and legally at that. And if the day ever arrives where I have to use it, when someone endangers my life, I will take responsibility for my actions.

-Corey

I agree with this, even though I do not own a gun myself at this time.  I have a ten year old daughter and in my mind the chance of her possibly getting hold of it and being hurt by it is at this time greater than the chance that I would need to use on an intruder.

I fully support the rights of others to legally bear arms in my country, however.  One of my brothers is a hunter and a gun enthusiast and I myself am a very good marksman, although I do not hunt and would never want to.  If I lived in a higher crime area, I might want to own a gun and keep it in a locked gun safe so I could use it to protect myself and my family if I ever needed to.  My brother has his guns in a locked gun safe and he thinks it is important to teach his children about gun safety.  I prefer to just keep guns away from my daughter, but I can't say my brother is wrong to think this way about his children.  He bought a rifle as a gift for one of his children who is older than my daughter, he took him out to the shooting range to teach him how to use it properly, and he keeps it locked in his gun safe as well the rest of the time.

[Litigious]

I, for one, am happy to live in a country where getting a handgun is difficult.

There is a pretty well known immigrated couple, who owned a restaurant in Gothenburg who are victims of blackmailing from a motorcycle gang. Do you think it's fair to them that the police can't protect them and that they can't protect themselves either due to our cowardly gun law? Would you like to be in their situation?

[Kiss_my_AS]

This wouldn't worry me, if everyone was competent enough to deal with the possession of a gun.

And that is the problem, right there. We must educate people.

In a society with a liberal gun policy, this would be the best solution. But you can't be educated on extreme situations, moments when you lose your rationality. And those moments are what I'm talking about, moments that might cause an unnecessary loss of lives. One might say that is a reasonable price to pay for the sake of your own protection, but I do not want to take that risk.

As I said, I believe that killing someone should be the ultimate of all penalties. There are laws to decide who deserves that, and I don't think that most of us are capable of deciding who does deserve it.

If you live in a society where many do own guns on a legal basis there will also be many who're willing to use it against you, it's not so strange that people will resort to having guns themselves. But fighting fire with fire will never lead to the final solution, just a temporary one.

Mind you that having a strict gun policy isn't a perfect solution, but it does decrease the amount of gun-owners and thus the amount of possible killers (for whatever reason they might kill somebody). Every murder is one too many, but if we are speaking in numbers I'd rather choose the lowest amount of gun victims.

For that reason alone I think it's unbelievable that people other than police officers or other legal human protectors.

The training police and military receive is far less than you'd think. My friend is a Marine, and I'm a much better shot that him with a pistol.

-Corey

I think that we can all agree when I say that, save for the possibility that your an expert in gunshooting, shouldn't be the case. The training they receive should definitely be improved then.

[Litigious]

A member in a Swedish shooting club usually must practice at least a couple of times every month to keep his license. A Swedish policeman must only fire 50 rounds a year for training. Sounds really safe and logical to me...

[QuirkyCarla]

I agree with odeon. One of the things I hate about my country is all the morons with guns. Restricting guns is a good idea because it prevents deaths. Yes, that takes away one's "right to bear arms", but since it saves lives, it is worth it. Most successful suicides are from guns. If these people didn't have access to guns, maybe they would get the chance to get help rather than putting their loved ones through that.

You live in a country where you have the great gift of easily arming yourself for self-protection and you would like that freedom taken away from you? I wish you could read that ridiculous Swedish law text that I linked to.

And suicide is a human right, since it's a human right to decide over your own life and body. It's your right to protect your life with all means necessary and it is also your right to end your life if you find it unbearable.

There are better ways of protecting oneself than with guns. Guns too often get in the wrong hands (i.e. the hands of children), not to mention all the accidents that can happen with them, and the fact that they can backfire on you. It's not about freedom; it's about safety.

Try telling that to a parent who had a gun in their house that comes home to find their child committed suicide with it. Suicide may be a human right, but as a survivor of multiple suicide attempts, I'm happy I never had access to a gun. I thought my life was unbearable in the past, but I survived it and am doing much better now. The same thing could have happened for other people who chose to take their life, but sadly it's too late for them now.

[SausageofPower]

There are better ways of protecting oneself than with guns.

I'm schooled in martial arts, Tae Kwon Do to be exact, but having dealt with seeing the result of violent crimes I can tell you now that a firearm is perhaps one of the most effective means of self defense, utilized correctly. I can disarm someone with a decent probability of not being hurt, but would I rather take a 50% chance with my martial arts or a 80% with my Beretta? And that's assuming the attacking party doesn't have a pistol themselves.

Guns too often get in the wrong hands (i.e. the hands of children),

Which is a crime, in my country, with serious penalities. You are criminally liable for ensuring that your firearms are not accessible by minors.

not to mention all the accidents that can happen with them,

An accident implies no one is at fault. Technically, "accidents" do not include incidents where someone is at fault, i.e., negligent: where someone fails to take reasonable precautions in the circumstances. I've never heard of a gun going off, in this day and age, unless someone loaded it and pulled the trigger.

and the fact that they can backfire on you.

I've fired several pistols, taken many apart and put them back together to see how they're engineered, and never heard of one "backfiring". I've heard of cars backfiring, mind you, due to improper timing and stoichiometry. The way that the modern firearm is engineered actually makes it practically impossible for the user to be injured, assuming they wield it properly. This isn't including 'Saturday Night Specials', also known as 'Junk Guns'. Those are the Ford Pinto's of firearms ;p

It's not about freedom; it's about safety.

It's not about safety, it's about liability for one's actions. If I get drunk "accidentally", puts the keys in my ignition "accidentally", drive down the road "accidentally" and hit a bus full of children by "accident", who do you blame? Me, or the car? Same goes for firearms in my mind. If you're not responsible enough to know how to handle one (the first rule that anyone is taught is to ensure yourself that it's unloaded, rendering it completely impotent by default), they you shouldn't be handling one. Simple as that. If you do something wrong, it's the product of your own negligence.

And just as I despise people blaming video games, movies and music for their children's actions, I hate people not taking responsibility for firearms mishaps. If your child gets a hold of your gun and hurts themselves or someone else, and you didn't have the pistol locked up, you're going to prison, and rightfully so.

As for the 'backfire' issue, I'd like to see your support of that claim. The only such claim I know of, in modern times, was a design flaw on the Beretta 92 series about two decades ago wherein a couple of pistols out of thousands had their slides come off and hit the person shooting them in the face. Since that was addressed and remedied from an engineering standpoint, no such incidents have occurred. I think the most serious injury from that was someone having a tooth knocked out.

-Corey 

[thepeaguy]

I'm somewhat mixed on this subject.

On one hand, I agree with what the pro-arms are saying about guns. When the police aren't around, it can be a useful deterrent; no-one argues with a fucking bullet (unless, of course, you think you're impervious to them because you've been watching too much of DragonBall Z :p).

The other, though, I can sympathise with the anti-arms, saying that gun usage leads to too much violence and all that, and therefore should be sanctioned from use.

Sorry for not adding anything new to this.

[SausageofPower]

(unless, of course, you think you're impervious to them because you've been watching too much of DragonBall Z :p)

Ore wa Suupa Bejiita? ;p

-Corey

[Leto729]

We all must remember this it is not the gun that kills it is the person behind and pulling that trigger that kills.

[SausageofPower]

We all must remember this it is not the gun that kills it is the person behind and pulling that trigger that kills.

Exactly. That's about the core of my arguement. Anything within reason can be used to kill (household chemicals, common tools, over the counter drugs, etc.), it's the intent of the user that counts.

-Corey

[purposefulinsanity]

I agree that people should be able to defend themselves, their homes and their families and that people with the proper training can be responsible gun owners.  I also agree that if people want to be violent not legally being able to buy a gun won't stop them.  But my main worry is that I don't particularly want to make it easier for the violent idiots to own such a deadly weapon.  And in countries where it is legal to own guns now much training do they legally have to have?

[McGiver]

i don't really trust the police to protect me.

and if the president decides to declare marshall law then there is no recourse for the citizens unless hey are properly armed.

i don't trust politicians either.

[SausageofPower]

But my main worry is that I don't particularly want to make it easier for the violent idiots to own such a deadly weapon.

Well, this is true, but keep this in mind:

Joe Blow goes to buy a gun legally. He fills out paperwork, he has to bring proof of residency, and have a background check run. Also (in my state), unless you have a concealed handgun permit you can only buy one handgun every 30 days. Some states, you even have to get your gun registered, where it can be readily identified if it's used in a crime. Some states you have a waiting period, even if you haven't purchased a handgun in the past month.

On the other hand, go to a crooked dealer, slip them an extra $100, and bypass all of the above. If you ban firearms, the former is eliminated, but the latter keeps thriving. That's my whole problem. Banning firearms only takes them out of the hands of legal purchasers. Think the crackhead in Washington D.C. cares about firearms being illegal?

And in countries where it is legal to own guns now much training do they legally have to have?

Well, to own, none in the U.S. To carry? You have to take an NRA certified course. Mine was about 5 hours, and consisted of instruction on safety primarily and time on the range firing both a .38 Special Smith and Wesson revolver and a 9mm Ruger P89.

-Corey

[Kiss_my_AS]

But my main worry is that I don't particularly want to make it easier for the violent idiots to own such a deadly weapon.

Well, this is true, but keep this in mind:

Joe Blow goes to buy a gun legally. He fills out paperwork, he has to bring proof of residency, and have a background check run. Also (in my state), unless you have a concealed handgun permit you can only buy one handgun every 30 days. Some states, you even have to get your gun registered, where it can be readily identified if it's used in a crime. Some states you have a waiting period, even if you haven't purchased a handgun in the past month.

On the other hand, go to a crooked dealer, slip them an extra $100, and bypass all of the above. If you ban firearms, the former is eliminated, but the latter keeps thriving. That's my whole problem. Banning firearms only takes them out of the hands of legal purchasers. Think the crackhead in Washington D.C. cares about firearms being illegal?

No, such criminals will continue to exist. They will go beyond the law to get what they want(that's why their criminals) and those people will always be here, liberal or non-liberal gun policy. However, with a strict gun policy you do diminish the chances for most people to get a gun and thus you diminish the amount of possible killers.