To gun, or not to gun?

I know. The fact that this is even partisan irritates me.

 

True, but jumping off a bridge is even more likely to kill you than a gun.

Look at homicide rates in countries that banned guns (australia and ireland for example). They didn't change, in that the trend before the ban continued (if it was going down, it kept going down, if it was going up, the same)

This is true, and I agree. That's why I don't expand the definition of arms to nuclear weapons and such.

However, I believe (with evidence) that the intention behind the second amendment was to allow people to defend themselves from (any) threats.

"...the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." It really doesn't. However, I can also recognize that the average civilian doesn't need nuclear weapons, as it wouldn't help us defend ourselves (it just devastates our homeland.

Since people have been attacked by bears (since people moved into Europe and Asia and North America.

It's used a lot, but I don't think that constitutes overuse in this case.

True, but, in my opinion, we'd have to prove that they had intent to cause harm to violate their rights.

We wouldn't really have to worry about a foreign gov. (maybe China, sometime in the future?), but our own could be a problem.
Since when is it a good idea to trust politicians?

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 23, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 23, 2016 ---

I hate party identity.
"I'm liberal, therefore I believe x." "Well I'm conservative, so I believe y."

It's all backwards. You're only liberal because of what you believe, and you're only conservative because of what you believe, not the other way around.

 

Can you please quote the full second amendment? Because I'm sure the first half of it will help my case.

But is it common enough for us to really be worried? We are talking about gun laws affecting thousands of people each year.

Well, when politicians accept 3.7 millions dollars from the NRA and fail to pass any type of gun regulations, then I don't trust them.

I'm aware. I try to stay away from being partisan. I just can't escape the fact that I have more liberal views.

 

This post hurts my head.

 

This thread or the topic? For me, both.

 

Both. People bring so much irrelevant crap into gun talk. Politics, parties, hunting, gun types, accessory limits. . ect.
Realistically it has nothing to do with that. I would rather go into that in voice chat because typing it would be a longgggg post.

Anyway take away my job and I'm exactly like everyone else here gun wise. However I'm trusted to carry for my protection and others?

Im just a human like everyone else but because Ive gotten training, Im trusted?
Why cant everyone else do that? Ill never understand it.

 

Yes because you have training your trusted. By that logic I should go and fly a plane right now. A airline wont hire just anyone to fly a plane they pick someone who is trained. That's just simple logic.

 

And yet nothing stops you from being trained how to fly a plane and doing it. Yet civilians can get trained more and better than me and still not be able to carry a firearm to defend themselves or family.

Where did the logic go now.

 

Lots stop you from flying a plane. To get your license you go thou lots of training and they check to see if u physically can get a license there is nothing stoping u from murdering people with a gun. I still dont see your logic. Coase it sounds like your saying its harder to go out and buy a gun. Also with diffending your family if a terrorist comes and attacks america you and your gun are going to go out and stop it

 

First off its Defending, not diffending.

Secondly, It has NOTHING to do with a terrorist coming and me stopping it. The second amendment wasn't written with terrorists in mind. It was written so that I can defend my family against government tyranny. However if someone comes to my house with harming my family in mind, Yes. I 110% guarantee they will not make it past the front door. If they make it past the security lights, door locks, and cameras unnoticed and kick in the front door, They will be greeted with an AR-15 (not so legal 45 round mag), Beretta 92fs (always chambered), a Springfield 1911 (loaded mag next to it), my girlfriends glock 17 , and a few shotguns and hunting rifles that wont do much in the gun safe, But on top of all of it, my girlfriend and I are well trained on how to use them.

So yeah, Anyway back to the post. . .

To fly a plane you need a license. Same with a gun. (most of the time) Unless you illegally buy one but i can also illegally fly a plane so. .
They check if you physically (I think you mean mentally) can fly. Same with a gun. Thats what background checks are for.
Theirs nothing from stopping you from killing with a gun? How about, Mental stability? Cost of buying it and ammo?

You could NOT have used a dumber argument for yourself. Lets think about 9/11 for a moment shall we?
Flying planes is LESS dangerous than a gun? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Come back to this discussion after you graduate high school and we can have another talk.

 

The AR has a nice feel but I prefer an M4. Even at semi-auto and 16" it's a nice rifle.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 24, 2016 ---

We need more people like this.

 

Do you really need a assault rifle? do you really need extended rounds? I can understand it in rural parts of America, but I just don't understand needing a assault rifle with 20 bullets? why not 7? 7 will still kill someone whos suposedly attacking you, 7 will let you hunt, Maybe i'm uneducated but i just really can't fathom needing a assault rifle.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 24, 2016 ---

Again, I could be wrong, but after 9/11 they passed all sorts of restrictions about weapons on planes and stuff.

 

See, this kind of logic is what gets us nowhere. This all or nothing mentality that is plaguing this debate. If we can't prevent some bad people from getting their hands on the wrong weapon, then it's not worth stopping any people from getting their hands on it. What?

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 24, 2016 ---

How do you plan to illegally fly a plane, may I ask? Ever since 9/11, it's been next to impossible.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 24, 2016 ---

And after 9/11, we put many new regulations and safety checks. Since then, another 9/11 has not happened.
Actually, 9/11 might be the best argument on why we need to make sure everyone is in check with regulations regarding owning firearms.

When you can bypass background checks, licensing, and other rules by just buying guns online and going to gunshows or just going to another town, then we have a problem.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 24, 2016 ---

I'll go back to my all-or-nothing remarks. If we can prevent some people from doing harm to others, is it not worth it?

 

There are plenty of private planes and runways. Illegal piloting happens all of the time. I'm assuming that from your 9/11 remarks, you're referring to corporate airlines. In that case, illegal piloting also occurs when pilots don't get the required sleep, drink the night before, fly when sick/tired/against their best judgement etc.

 

Please stop posting.
ITS ILLEGAL TO OWN ANY ASSAULT RIFLE. YOU CANNOT BUY FULLY AUTOMATIC FIREARMS. AN AR-15 IS NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE.
Also theirs no suck thing as extended rounds.
7 rounds will kill someone if you hit them 7 times. Its not Call of Duty.
This argument has NOTHING to do with hunting. Most hunting rifles are bolt action anyway.

The main reason is sport. I love to go shooting with my friends and see who can hit more targets. One of the most fun things is to set up a deck of cards and play poker. You have to shoot a card to get it in your hand. Great fun. Reloading every 10 seconds is not fun. Aside from that, It doesnt matter if I have 1 45 round mag, or 4 10 round mags. The same damage will be done as reloading takes about 1-2 seconds.

You cannot prevent anything if you cannot protect yourself. The fact that someone can sit there and say that making laws will prevent criminals from doing bad things blows my mind. Trust me. I deal with it every day. Cocaine has been illegal for decades and guess what is VERY popular in New York and Chicago. .

This is a very very ignorant post. You cannot bypass background checks by buying a gun offline. Youve watched too much media. The gun show loophole IS a problem that they've been trying to fix, but the NRA has trust issues so. . . Good luck. Its also not that big of a deal since not a single time has a mass murder weapon been linked to the gun show loophole. Its also very expensive.

 

*tries to stop criminals from breaking laws* *makes more laws*

 

The only gun you need for defensive purposes is a shotgun, preferably sawed-off. Pistols are inaccurate, if you have a shotgun pointed at someone you will take them down, if not cause severe injury. You can probably get assault rifles off the black market or .onions afaik, but they are illegal otherwise

 

LOOOOOOOOOOL Sawed-off shotguns are illegal in every state. . .
Pistols are inaccurate? HAHAH WTF. Yeah the gun police carry to defend are inaccurate. . . Wtf? Why did you even join this convo?

Pointing a gun at someone wont do anything unless you pull the trigger. . . and a shotgun will damage everything around your home as well. A 9mm with hollow tips is MUCH better.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah. for like 30k.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 24, 2016 ---

Im out of this convo. This isnt even a real convo. I was hoping someone over the age of 15 would join haha.

 

First off the fact that i'm a minor does not make my opinions worse than yours.

With that said. My argument is not fully get rid of guns but to higher restrictions. Before u use 9/11 make sure u know what your talking about. After this tragedy people went into the argument that people hert people or that weapons (in that case planes) hert them but its that people use weapons to hert people and they add security and restrictions to make sure this never happens again. Same with guns. Homes guns are far out dangerest to everyone including owner. The fact that anyone would own a gun thinking that it will pertect them is crazy. How many statistics do we have to throw and your face before you realize your just being stubborn and unsafe like a child. I may been a teen but your acting like a kid. Your stubbornness is coase people to die. I usually mind my own business on the argument page but this problem is so big and so stupid.

The second amendment is not a argument to be pro gun. remember this is the opinion of people hundreds of years ago back when you were allowed to kill someone in duel or just because they have a different opinion than the public. We are not the same country we were back then.

Proof for that gun restrictions work look to Australia. In 1996 Australia restricted gun ownership do to over 5 that right 5 recent mass shootings. Do you know how many have happen sense then? None. To add up on how much restrictions help i did a little research to add on http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-gun-ban-shooting.html?_r=0 The rate of gun-related suicides and homicides per 100,000 residents in Australia has fallen sharply since gun ownership restrictions were tightened in 1996.

 

Yes. Ask anyone who lives in northern states.

Millions*

Yeah...

Yeah, but at least you're liberal because of your views, instead of having your views because you're liberal.

Ik. It's somewhat pointless to have a gun and not be trained to use it. I won't begrudge someone their right to have a gun just because they aren't trained though.

And other threats, but mainly that one.

Lol, that reminds me of my uncle. He keeps a shotgun that he doesn't like shooting, just because when he pumps it, it can be heard from anywhere in the house.

Civilians already can't own assault rifles.

Flying though a no-fly zone.
There are a lot of other ways too, but that's the most obvious one.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 24, 2016 ---

Omfg...

Gun crime rates are irrelevant... All that matter are homicide rates, that is, the number of people that are actually dying...
And that didn't change...
From http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html (Australian gov. site)

The gun ban was in 1996. Nothing changed.