Should We Have The Freedom To Bear Arms?

some people should have the right to have guns

others are just too ------ing stupid.

 

Let's see here:
- "you used a gun you're a coward"
- "you'd get your ass shot in the ghetto"
- "Lmao who's more ignorant? The one thats trying to be a e-thug or the one thats telling the truth. ------ you"

I could go on.

A simple profile check tells you that I'm eighteen. Currently, I'm in NROTC at a college in Tennesssee, just finishing up my first semester. Once I'm done with college/NROTC, I'll be commissioned as a second lieutenant in the USMC. Sound like Xbox live?

Even though I've told you the law what, three times now, you still think that I'm either living in Canada and subject to your laws or you're just a dumbass. So, here you go:

That situation applied. Oh, wait, I'm a coward, nevermind (get the hell out of your shell. Utopia is just that, fantasy land). According to that law (TN Code 39-11-611 - Self Defense), the cops wouldn't have even pulled out their cuffs, much less would I have gotten five years (!?!?!) for murder.

When will you learn that Utopia is just that, fantasy land. Unless you can un-invent the gun, banning them solves approximately dick.

And by the way, I *do* think shooting is "cool." I enjoy it, actually.

Merged Post:

 

Ok, have to put my 2 cents in here... First, to the person that said join the army and get a life. Guess what bud? I'm active duty military, and you know what? As luck would have it, I have been in THOUSANDS of situations in which if I didn't have a firearm I wouldn't be here right now. And I've been in situations outside of the military as well to where my wife and kid would be 6 feet under if I didn't have a firearm.

I've experienced about as much as life can throw at me, and if we didn't have the right to own firearms, I would've died long ago. Coming face to face with an intruder makes you take a good look at life, especially when it flashes before your eyes as you hear a gunshot ring out in the comfort of your own home.

I can admit that I have killed people. Not just overseas in this war we're in, but have killed one individual inside my private residence. And guess what? I didn't get charged for murder. Show me a country where you can rightfully walk into a residence that isn't your own and not have consequences happen. I don't regret killing that asshole either. He put not only my life in danger, but my wife and childs as well.

The freedom to carry arms has saved my life on more than one occasion, and I find myself grateful to live in a country to where I do have the right to own a firearm. I feel for all of the people who have lost loved ones due to senseless violence associated with firearms, but being able to defend myself and my family when the situation arises makes me feel that being able to own a firearm is worth it.

That's life right there. When you have a gun pointed at you in your own home with your family in the house, it doesn't get much more real than that.

 

I don't understand why people agree that guns should be banned (well the ones living in the United States). It is the SECOND AMENDMENT. We have a right, as Americans, to own firearms. Now would the same people who said that guns should be banned think that religion should be banned? How about speech? Banning firearms is the beginning to us Americans losing more rights.

 

ferret, since this was a thread related to whether people should be able to bear arms, I thought those statistics would help prove that gun crime was a greater problem in the US where it is legal to own a gun. Comparing statistics about "total violent crime" including other forms of non gun related crime would be irrelevant as that isn't really the issue. What would be more useful is the total violent crimes with firearms:

England+Wales: 21,521 (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm)
USA: 419,640 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.htm)

Again thats 19 times larger, but the USA has only 6 times the population. So even if homicide is taken out of the equation, gun crime is still greater in the USA.

Also, the article you referred to (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html) was written in 2002 where the uk crime statistics were the highest in many years, but the total number of fatal and non fatal gun related offences has decreased since then (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm), and again this is the statistic that is relevant to the discussion.



Remember, the whole point of these statistics is that gun crime in the US is far higher than in countries that do not allow firearms, such as most long term EU member countries - an argument that supports the banning of firearms.

 

Even if guns are banned, it won't stop the criminals from recieving guns. Considering that the guns that criminals have are not even legal.

Also, in states where it is legal to carry a firearm, there is less crime, compared to cities/states with very strict gun laws such as LA or New York.

 

rofl are you really that ignorant? if a man is in your house with intent to steal your ---- and they are armed, you have to assume and are probably correct in assuming that they are ready to use their weapon. especially if ferret had a weapon. you see a man with a gun on your property trying to invade your privacy and take what is not his, and you see a gun on him, you are legally and morally justified to kill that man. if a man like that was in your house unarmed, you would be justified in killing that man, because the fact that he is suspect to breaking and entering, and likely many other crimes makes it entirely right to kill him for self-defense.

you say he could have punched him. lets say he was unarmed. it is likely that the man is much stronger, and that he is deranged and has intent to hurt people. he is obviously desperate and a punch wont stop him. you cant just walk up to someone and punch them expecting no resistance. he knows he is not supposed to be there, and he isnt just going to take a hit for fun. going close to the man would also make it possible for him to steal the gun and use it against him. that would mean a lot of blood and trouble.

now lets say he WAS armed. you expect someone to walk up to an armed robber and punch him in the face? no one in their right mind would do that. and even if they wanted to i can GUARANTEE you that the criminal would not stand there. the man is armed, and you can expect him to be ready to use the weapon.

you need to think a little before you say ----. these things arent pretty. ferret shows he is a responsible gun owner by showing restraint. youre assuming that every gun owner is trigger happy and just wanted to shoot someone. youre completely wrong and naive. guns can be used for personal protection, game, and unfortunately wrongful violence. but the right to bear arms is not to give criminals guns. it is used to make americans feel safer if they believe that carrying a gun will make them safer. you really really need to understand a few basic things before you throw down statements.

please think before you speak

 

hey i remember that since 8th grade LMFAO

 

My point is that, since gun control is supposed to stop violent crime, that doesn't work. A more relevant example is the Brady law period in the US, seeing as gun crime went up, gun-related murder went up, and, woe and behold, it's been steadily decreasing since 2003. The Assault Weapons Ban affected precisely dick. My point is that, simply, it won't do jack ----. See, I remember watching these types of things, politicians pushing for how "it's gonna stop crime and bla bla bla;" it hasn't.

The thing is that, to my knowledge, violent crime involves armed robbery, assault (be it with a weapon or not), and the ever-present homicide. That's why I think it's relevant. The reason for that is because, even if firearms were banned, a criminal can simply move to a knife, baseball bat, tire iron, lead pipe, sap, two-by-four, or any number of other things available on Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Though gun crime is reduced, criminals will find other means. Arming citizens if they so chose to, I think, is a positive factor in reducing crime.

If a criminal is intent upon breaking the law and using a weapon in the course of doing so, no law (thing that he/she is going to break) is going to stand in the way. Why obey a gun control law when you're committing murder anyway? Unless you can un-invent guns and take the idea of murder out of people's heads, it'll occur, and the minute it does, "preventing crime" went out the window--be it a single stabbing or a mass shooting as per Virginia Tech.

 

Okay, here we go (cracks fingers).

This shows that the way your government works, isn't working at all. If your government can change things and laws just like that, without the citizens approval, well that's just sad..
Using guns to convince the government not to change laws, is even more sad..

A gun doesn't come into the equation??!! you can kill more people in less time with a gun.

The harder it is to get a gun, the fewer criminals there are (many streetthugs won't have a gun anymore). The fewer criminals, the less there is to defend you from.


this is as far as i go. I'm not interested in discussing this anymore. It's not that i don't have any arguments anymore, it's that i think it is impossible to convince the p.r.o.-gun's-people from the bad things that guns bring with them. They're just too thickheaded, and some aren't even able to see the big picture.
Allowing guns because you need to defend yourself is nothing more but stupidity. If your county is that ------ed, then do something about the criminal rate, so you won't need guns anymore. If the freedom you have causes you trouble, then it would be better to make some sacrifices in your freedom. Get some restrictions, ban other things, change laws, so people can't do whatever they want. If you don't want to sacrifice some freedom for a better/safer life, because the your country isn't based on that, then please die, and do it quick, or seperate yourself from the rest of world, instead of infecting other countries. Acknowledging your own mistakes is the first step into a better world, if you can't, then you don't belong in this world.

 

Thats what Ive been trying to say the whole time. Good job. Everything you said is true about people owning guns are to thickheaded. They cant fix outside the box and thats why so many people are dieing for no reason. No guns no trouble

 

If you want to talk about this in terms of what happened to VTech then the gun laws wouldn't even halve mattered because it was reported that the guns he was using were illegal guns anyways, so why would a law stop him from getting a gun if he had an illegal gun already?

 

the right to bear arms just applies to good us citizens. the criminals may steal the guns, but they can get them anyway. all those guns are illegal with the serials scratched out.

 

I'm speaking for myself here, I'm not talking about this in terms of what happened to VTech, i'm talking about this in terms of all massacres together. The easier it is to get a gun, the easier it is to shoot people with it. Not all people have illegal connections, so not all people that snap would have a gun to massacre a classroom full of people, if gun-ownership would be restricted. How many kids that killed others used their dad's gun? If their dad didn't have a gun in the first place, most of those kids wouldn't have murdered others.