Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[Juicy J]

I see the right to personal self-defense as one of the most fundamental human rights. To that end, I think every (sane) human being should be allowed to keep and bear some kind of arm. In the Middle Ages, that was a sword. In the days of the Revolution that was a flintlock (or smallsword). Today it is a semiautomatic.

So, I'll always support at least some personal interpretation of the second amendment.

I agree with this. When I have my own family and my own house, I definitely plan on having firearms just to be safe.

We've evolved past barbaric things like self defense. A woman who allows an attacker to have his way with her is morally superior to a woman who uses an evil gun to defend herself.

At least that is what I've been told over and over again by anti-gun folks.

 

[Mikelus]

Yeah, it's not like people still need to protect themselves anymore.

People have the right to protect themselves, but you don't need assault weapons to do it.

Something is very rotten in American society, there are more psychopaths in the US than any other region of the world, is a very complex issue to say the least.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

People have the right to protect themselves, but you don't need assault weapons to do it.

Something is very rotten in American society, there are more psychopaths in the US than any other region of the world, is a very complex issue to say the least.

Probably no more than anywhere else. They just seem to get the attention when something bad happens.

 

[wiegeabo]

Probably no more than anywhere else. They just seem to get the attention when something bad happens.

If anything, we just do a worse job at identifying and helping the disturbed.

Fix that, and you'll see gun issues pretty much go away (at least those involving legally purchased guns).

And, as tragic as situations like this are, they are relatively rare. And shouldn't deprive legal, responsible citizens from owning firearms for whatever purpose they want them for. It's the illegal and irresponsible citizens we need to address. Not the guns.

 

[Kable24]

People have the right to protect themselves, but you don't need assault weapons to do it.

No offense, but who the Hell are you to tell me what I can or can't have to defend my family, my self and my home?
Personally, I don't use my AR15's for home defense as the 5.56/.223 round is not good for home defense. the bullet will go through the victim and through walls possibly injuring someone innocent. The best home defense is a 12 gauge shotgun using bird shot. Bird shot at close range is obviously deadly and the small pellets will barely go through a wall.

 

[souloffire]

People have the right to protect themselves, but you don't need assault weapons to do it.

People also have the right to drive, but you don't need a BMW to do it.

 

[Phallic]

People have the right to protect themselves, but you don't need assault weapons to do it.

Something is very rotten in American society, there are more psychopaths in the US than any other region of the world, is a very complex issue to say the least.

Once again, the "assault weapons" term is thrown out. I've already detailed in a previous post why most of these "deadly" features that "assault weapons" have are nothing more than cosmetic features or features designed to make the gun more comfortable to shoot. If you gave an AR a wooden stock and removed the pistol grip, the overall killing power would not be changed in anyway. Just because it looks like an assault rifle doesn't make it one.

I have an AR15 that I use sometimes for home defense. It has light recoil, good capacity, and good stopping power so long as good defensive ammunition is used. Other times I use a pump shotgun. So yes, the AR15 "assault weapon" does have a legit defensive purpose. And millions of others use their ARs for defensive purposes as well.

If I choose to CCW, I usually go with my Glock 19 which is referred to some as an "assault pistol" (funny term given I don't know of any law enforcement / military squads that "assault" with handguns except as a secondary / back-up gun. If I know I'm going to be in a gunfight, I'm bringing a long gun). And yes, I do want all 15 rounds in my magazine for self defense. Hell sometimes I'll bring a spare. If you have almost no experience with the defensive use of firearms, you have really no place to tell people what they do or don't need to protect themselves. Given you're in France, as according to your profile, my guess is your experiences are probably quite limited.

 

[Phallic]

People also have the right to drive, but you don't need a BMW to do it.

Funny thing is people don't have a right to drive. Nor do people have a need for alcohol - I don't see people jumping up and down to ban either.

In the case of alcohol, we tried banning it. I'd recommend doing some research on how that worked out to those who think any sort of gun ban will do anything.

It's as if people would rather ban things that could be misused (which is virtually everything) rather than have people take personal responsibility for their actions. A very dangerous road to travel down.

 

[Phallic]

No offense, but who the Hell are you to tell me what I can or can't have to defend my family, my self and my home?
Personally, I don't use my AR15's for home defense as the 5.56/.223 round is not good for home defense. the bullet will go through the victim and through walls possibly injuring someone innocent. The best home defense is a 12 gauge shotgun using bird shot. Bird shot at close range is obviously deadly and the small pellets will barely go through a wall.

Actually with good defensive ammunition. the .223 / 5.56 doesn't penetrate as much as common handgun calibers. I personally usually go with hollowpoints and have been messing around with some Hornady V-Max ammo - doesn't make the deepest wound channel but doesn't over-penetrate at all. I live in an apartment, so I tend to worry quite a bit about over-penetration.

I personally prefer buckshot, but birdshot would probably get the job done as well. Either are better than nothing though

 

[Arc-Light]

Yeah, it's not like people still need to protect themselves anymore.

yeah i live in danger everyday where i need to arm my-self....no need for police...

 

[Arc-Light]

Probably no more than anywhere else. They just seem to get the attention when something bad happens.

Sure the only difference is we are well armed......

 

[Phallic]

yeah i live in danger everyday where i need to arm my-self....no need for police...

I wonder where you live where the police magically appear the instant you need them. I wish I could live in a place like that - unfortunately I live in the real world where that simply doesn't happen. A vast majority of the time, the police will not have arrived until the crime has already been committed. The purpose of the police is to protect society as a whole, not to be your personal bodyguard. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not responsible for your individual safety, only you are.

Most law enforcement officers know this as well, which is why a majority of them support gun rights and CCW.

 

[Arc-Light]

I wonder where you live where the police magically appear the instant you need them. I wish I could live in a place like that - unfortunately I live in the real world where that simply doesn't happen. A vast majority of the time, the police will not have arrived until the crime has already been committed.

Most law enforcement officers know this as well, which is why a majority of them support gun rights and CCW.

Wonder where you live where armed men/women are killing, robbing and worse......

 

[Phallic]

Wonder where you live where armed men/women are killing, robbing and worse......

The real world. What utopia do you live in where people are never victims of violent crime?

 

[wiegeabo]

yeah i live in danger everyday where i need to arm my-self....no need for police...

police that will take who knows how long to get to you...assuming you're in a situation where you can call them.

Just because it doesn't apply to you at the moment doesn't mean it can't happen to people, and that people don't have the right to prepare to protect themselves if the need arises.

 

[Arc-Light]

police that will take who knows how long to get to you...assuming you're in a situation where you can call them.

Just because it doesn't apply to you at the moment doesn't mean it can't happen to people, and people don't have the right to prepare to protect themselves if the need arises.

Agreed, but you dont need a AK or any type of auto to do it...

 

[Phallic]

Agreed, but you dont need a AK or any type of auto to do it...

Automatic weapons are very tightly regulated and have been since the 1930s.

 

[Arc-Light]

The real world. What utopia do you live in where people are never victims of violent crime?

The same country you live in, but i don't live in fear....

 

[Arc-Light]

Automatic weapons are very tightly regulated and have been since the 1930s.

Horrible regulated, hell i wouldn't call it that...

 

[Phallic]

The same country you live in, but i don't live in fear....

So taking precautions against certain things is living in fear? So what you're saying is if you wear a seat belt, that you're in fear of dying in a car accident? If you have insurance on your home, you're in fear of your home being destroyed? If you have a fire extinguisher in your home, that you're in fear of something catching fire?

Violent crime happens - more often than you assume. I know people personally who have been victims of violent crimes. To them it certainly isn't paranoia to know that there are bad people out there. If you think its paranoia to defend yourself, then that's your choice. But don't stand there and assume that taking precautions to protect what is most precious, one's life, immediately indicates fear or paranoia.

I will sleep just fine tonight and I will go about my business tomorrow without worry. I expect to live my life without being murdered. It's not necessarily fear that compels people to take responsibility for their own safety at all.

If you have zero fear, then you will be complacent. Bad things tend to happen to complacent people. Kind of goes hand in hand with the whole people walking down a dark street with their eyes glued to their smart phones being more likely to be a victim thing.

 

[Phallic]

Horrible regulated, hell i wouldn't call it that...

How do you figure, when there has only been one instance of a fully automatic assault rifle being used in a crime within the past few decades, the most recent one in 1988 which was committed by a law enforcement officer?

Aside from that instance, there has been one other instance since 1934.

So over the course of 78 years, there were *2* homicides committed by a legally owned fully automatic weapon. Not exactly a huge problem.

If what you're thinking of are AR15s, then they make up less than 2% of all violent crime in the country, a majority of those illegally owned. And those aren't automatic weapons, they're semi-automatic weapons. Less than 0.1% of all legally owned AR15s are used in any sort of crime. That means 99.9% are never used in a crime. You had better have a better case than that if you want to ban a product that is owned by close to 10,000,000 people and used for only lawful purposes.

If you want to engage in a debate about gun control and tell people what they are and are not allowed to have, then you need to do more research into the area. There is enough misinformation as it is.

Alcohol kills more people than AR15s do.

 

[Grievous]

People always tell me guns don't kill people, people kill people, and I agree with that statement. But I always come back and say but they sure make it easier for people to kill people. I don't think guns should be banned or anything radical of that nature. I always liked the idea of having to provide proof that you own the gun before you could get ammo for it. Alcohol contributes to a lot of deaths too but people always play the not everyone is a drunk driver card. When do we draw the line and say that just because some people can control their alcohol means we have to risk people dying due to the people that can't handle their alcohol. But this is a gun debate. I just wanted to throw my thoughts on alcohol in their since both cases are kinda similar.

 

[Hotwire]

Here's a thought. What about training? What I mean is, right now, as far as I know, you don't need to complete any kind of training course in order to own a gun. Given how dangerous a gun is, shouldn't we require everyone to complete some sort of training course? Something that would teach them proper handling, firing, safety, and securing of their weapon? Something along the same lines of what the military and police forces put their recruits through. Let's face it, an untrained person with a gun is pretty much an accident waiting to happen. I would even be all for putting them through something intense, giving them a taste of what it would be like to actually have to shoot someone. I think this would greatly reduce the number of accidental shootings and deaths.

You hear people all the time talking about how they were raised to understand and respect guns. Of course that would lead to them becoming responsible gun owners. Yet, after one of these shooting, people panic and rush out to buy a gun. Did they even bother to learn how to use it properly? I'd doubt it. They buy it so they feel safe. Then it gives them a false sense of security. Now you have a scared, untrained person with a lethal weapon. That doesn't really inspire my confidence.

What do you guys think? Should proper training be part of the purchase process?

 

[Fading]

I don't think guns should be banned either, but I do think we do need to do something. Same with mental health problems which ar, IMO, a larger problem. I keep seeing the argument made that the amount of deaths from guns is so small that it's not worth bothering over, yet apparently important enough to suggest arming every school in the US. To me, one death is too many, let alone the national average of 87 gun related deaths a day.

Guns always seem so untouchable, in any form. You can allow the gov to spy on it's own ppl with the patriot act. Carpet bomb other countries. Try and limit free speech, and mediums protected therein (art, games, movies, TV). Limit religion, sexuality, and so on. However, touch guns? "Over our dead bodies!" It's odd how hard that freedom is fought over the others, even over the tiniest of concessions. Same oddity with teachers. They can be arrested for spanking a child, but it's encouraged they pack heat.

I see nothing wrong with a balanced approach. Limiting sales of guns over a certain ammo clip size, and make checking the mentally stablity of gun owners a part of the conversation. It doesn't have to be "ban guns", or "arm everyone". We shouldn't force responsible gun owners to give their guns up, just as they shouldn't force us to pick one up. However we have to quit kicking the ball down the road, keeping gun related topics as a can't touch issue, and act like everythings fine as is. It's not just guns either, people can, and have used bombs, knives, ect. as well. That however doesn't mean because people can use other weapons that it excuses guns from the issue at hand.

 

[Fading]

Here's a thought. What about training? What I mean is, right now, as far as I know, you don't need to complete any kind of training course in order to own a gun. Given how dangerous a gun is, shouldn't we require everyone to complete some sort of training course? Something that would teach them proper handling, firing, safety, and securing of their weapon? Something along the same lines of what the military and police forces put their recruits through. Let's face it, an untrained person with a gun is pretty much an accident waiting to happen. I would even be all for putting them through something intense, giving them a taste of what it would be like to actually have to shoot someone. I think this would greatly reduce the number of accidental shootings and deaths.

You hear people all the time talking about how they were raised to understand and respect guns. Of course that would lead to them becoming responsible gun owners. Yet, after one of these shooting, people panic and rush out to buy a gun. Did they even bother to learn how to use it properly? I'd doubt it. They buy it so they feel safe. Then it gives them a false sense of security. Now you have a scared, untrained person with a lethal weapon. That doesn't really inspire my confidence.

What do you guys think? Should proper training be part of the purchase process?

I'd be very happy with training, couple it with a brief, but thorough psyche exam, and toss in limiting guns with very large ammo clips. People who shouldn't have guns can still get them through loopholes, and illegally. However that would no longer put the burden on gun owners who obtained the guns the way the law states. They would have proper training, ruled competent to have it, and aren't deprived of something with the stopping power to protect their family, hunt with, or have fun shooting at the range. The burden would then be on the police, and gov to stop illegal purchases, and friends, co-workers, and family to spot someone mentally unstable who has a weapon (not just guns) meaning to do harm, and report them.