Discussion: The Second Amendment

[The Senator]

Why, you can use a gun to open up a beer can and to turn on the telly!

 

[Malice]

I got a serious question....that everyone needs to answer before your next post.

In your next post answer the following

Where you live (rural, suburbs, inner city, or something of that nature)
State
Did you have a gu before the age of 16

Honestly, I can bet I know what you are going to see.

 

[The Senator]

I have lived in all of those areas before the age of 16 and the answer to all of them is "no."

 

[Malice]

Houston, suburbs
No

 

[SuperFerret]

I got a serious question....that everyone needs to answer before your next post.

In your next post answer the following

Where you live (rural, suburbs, inner city, or something of that nature)
State
Did you have a gu before the age of 16

Honestly, I can bet I know what you are going to see.

I know exactly what you're getting at here, and yes, I grew up in New York City (one of the most urban areas in the country), and no, I have never owned or even handled a gun in my life.

And yes, it does have a bearing on my dislike of guns. I'm aware that it's impossible to ban guns completely, but I've seen just how stupid, irresponsible and dangerous the average person can be, and I want to keep any weapon out of those hands.

 

[Malice]

I am almost willing to bet...those that grew up in more rural areas, who went hunting and had a gun early in life, see them as protection\toys\tools
They don't see them any differently than a hammer...granted a dangerous one

Those who didn't have one early in life, tend to veiw them in a more dangerous and violent way. Thru television news, "someone was shot today".....and "there was a mass shooting on campus today"

Its a generalization of course, but depending on how the gun was used in your childhood, will tell you alot on how you think about it growing up

 

[SuperFerret]

I am almost willing to bet...those that grew up in more rural areas, who went hunting and had a gun early in life, see them as protection\toys\tools
They don't see them any differently than a hammer...granted a dangerous one

Those who didn't have one early in life, tend to veiw them in a more dangerous and violent way. Thru television news, "someone was shot today".....and "there was a mass shooting on campus today"

Its a generalization of course, but depending on how the gun was used in your childhood, will tell you alot on how you think about it growing up

More reasons for why this debate will never end, and opinions will never change (or rarely change, I hate dealing in absolutes). Which is why I realize that my opinion (i.e. guns should be banned) is unrealistic, and why I favor gun control, which I hope will be strict enough to allow those who wish to get guns and own them responsibly to do so, and to limit the number of guns that fall into the hands of those who would use them irresponsibly.

 

[SuperT]

I got a serious question....that everyone needs to answer before your next post.

In your next post answer the following

Where you live (rural, suburbs, inner city, or something of that nature)
State
Did you have a gu before the age of 16

Honestly, I can bet I know what you are going to see.

- Born in Riverside CA, and lived in Orange and Huntington Beach. Now live in Indianapolis.
- I've never had a gun in my life. My mother wouldn't even let me and my brother play with fake toy guns

 

[danoyse]

Born in the Bronx, raised in NJ. Never owned a gun and never plan to.

 

[Handsome Rob]

"Guns don't hurt people" is crap. Guns are weapons, they are intended to be used to hurt people. They are not tools like hammers and screwdrivers, as those tools have non-violent uses.

I was attacked by a guy with a screwdriver, once, so forgive me if I don't care about what the "intended" use of an object is. And, I know people who use guns for competitive target shooting--what is violent about that? And what of the citizen who by merely displaying a gun stops a crime in progress. In that case, a gun was used in a non-violent manner to stop a violent action.

An object cannot be used except by an individual. And, that individual can use an object for good or evil purposes. So, it is the INDIVIDUAL that bears full responsibility for any action and the use of any tools to achieve said action.

But, I do agree with you on one thing (which you said a few posts down from the one I'm responding to): This debate will never end.

 

[mclay18]

I got a serious question....that everyone needs to answer before your next post.

In your next post answer the following

Where you live (rural, suburbs, inner city, or something of that nature)
State
Did you have a gu before the age of 16

Honestly, I can bet I know what you are going to see.

I live in the suburbs of Durham, NC (I live in rural VA during my college semesters). And no, I did not have a gun and nor did I operate one. But my parents own a gun -- they've owned it since I was little and kept it locked up in a metal box in their closet. And they keep the bullets separate. So far to my knowledge, they'd never had to use it -- they got it "just in case."

But there was this incident at the high school I went to where one student (who was a gang member) had brought a gun and a fight broke out right after school ended between him and a rival gang member. No one got hurt, but several people were arrested. And there was an earlier instance where a person had brought a gun to campus and it accidentally went off -- the entire school went into lockdown, which was not fun.

I do support the 2nd Amendment rights, but there should be limits on what and how people obtain guns. Not to mention strict reinforcement of these limits and install metal detectors at entrances for at-risk schools and universities.

 

[Handsome Rob]

I got a serious question....that everyone needs to answer before your next post.

In your next post answer the following

Where you live (rural, suburbs, inner city, or something of that nature)
State
Did you have a gu before the age of 16

Honestly, I can bet I know what you are going to see.

I grew up in a medium-sized town in Mississippi. I did not own a gun until I got out of college, but I've been handling them since I was 7 or 8 (supervised and heavily educated as a child--by the time I was in high school, I could shoot guns by myself).

 

[SuperFerret]

I was attacked by a guy with a screwdriver, once, so forgive me if I don't care about what the "intended" use of an object is. And, I know people who use guns for competitive target shooting--what is violent about that? And what of the citizen who by merely displaying a gun stops a crime in progress. In that case, a gun was used in a non-violent manner to stop a violent action.

An object cannot be used except by an individual. And, that individual can use an object for good or evil purposes. So, it is the INDIVIDUAL that bears full responsibility for any action and the use of any tools to achieve said action.

But, I do agree with you on one thing (which you said a few posts down from the one I'm responding to): This debate will never end.

Fine. Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people, as the saying goes. So wouldn't it make sense to keep guns away from these dangerous things we call "people".

Oh, and the act of firing a weapon is a violent act, despite the fact that in that case the action is not intended to harm anyone. And a citizen brandishing a gun in an attempt to stop a crime in progress has just raised the level of danger for themselves and others around them. Not a smart idea.

 

[danoyse]

If not the student at least the private security and the faculty members, no? The Virgina tech campus was a completely "gun free zone", they just never fathomed someone would actually "break the rules" and massacre a bunch of students... Having people gunned down is small price to pay in order to feel free of guns

I don't think most people would fathom an atrocity on the level of the Virginia Tech massacre could happen.

And I do think at the very least security should be armed. And faculty if they choose - although I think that gets tricky, because now that also gives more access to a gun to some psycho who couldn't get one otherwise.

I just don't think arming the entire college campus is the answer. They'd all be shooting at each other.

 

[Paradoxium]

"Guns don't hurt people" is crap. Guns are weapons, they are intended to be used to hurt people. They are not tools like hammers and screwdrivers, as those tools have non-violent uses.

Things that can hurt people, but has non-violent uses therefore making it alright... is crap too. I'm sure people is alright with hanging with a ex-serial killer who happens to have a machete, whilst the ex-greenberret with the glock is obviously dangerous and therefore a big nono.

 

[justinlancaster]

There sure does seem to be a lot of people in here that are for gun control, yet have never handled or shot a gun before. I suggest before you declare the banning of all guns, you actually get familiar with one and then make an informed opinion.

 

[Paradoxium]

I don't think most people would fathom an atrocity on the level of the Virginia Tech massacre could happen.

And I do think at the very least security should be armed. And faculty if they choose - although I think that gets tricky, because now that also gives more access to a gun to some psycho who couldn't get one otherwise.

I just don't think arming the entire college campus is the answer. They'd all be shooting at each other.

The Virginia Tech psycho was pretty methodical to begin with. It would be more efficient to get legal or illegal weapons than try to steal and get caught doing so. In the Virginia Tech case, it was legal. I also mentioned concealed (aka permit involved), not any drunk clown can get one - there are controls/filters by virtue of this. I never said anything about arming everyone, I said if they were allowed to carry concealed firearms, faculty members and security particularly - things would be different. But it ended up being a gun free zone for the law abiding citizen, and free to carry guns for the not so law abiding ones.

It's pretty safe to say, the sane ones have a moral barometer and are law abiding... but the reckless one - laws can and will never change their attitudes and behavior.

 

[chaseter]

Pyschos will get guns whether they are controlled or not. I am all for harder registration for such weapons but if a person wants to own a gun I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. I would support banning automatic weapons like assault rifles and uzi's and what not. But, I see no problem with handguns and hunting rifles.

 

[SuperFerret]

Things that can hurt people, but has non-violent uses therefore making it alright... is crap too. I'm sure people is alright with hanging with a ex-serial killer who happens to have a machete, whilst the ex-greenberret with the glock is obviously dangerous and therefore a big nono.

Weapons have no other purpose other than hurting people. That's the difference.

There sure does seem to be a lot of people in here that are for gun control, yet have never handled or shot a gun before. I suggest before you declare the banning of all guns, you actually get familiar with one and then make an informed opinion.

I have an informed opinion. Guns have the potential to be dangerous, if they didn't then they wouldn't be effective weapons. People have the potential to be irresponsible, if they didn't then the world would be a much better place, and we wouldn't need to be having this conversation. Guns plus people can equal danger, I doubt anyone can refute that. Gun control does not equal banning them, just keeping them out of the hands of those who should not own a weapon.

I'll be frank, I don't like guns. I don't like them for a multitude of reasons that I won't list here. I don't see a single reason as being good enough to justify owning one as a civilian. In my perfect world, guns would be banned and not needed. I am not stupid, and fully realize that banning guns is not possible and unconstitutional, I just don't understand how anyone could be against gun control, as it will not only prevent guns landing in the hands of those who misuse them, but make the penalties for those who do misuse them, or worse, own illegal firearms, much harsher. It baffles me.

 

[The Senator]

No-- drunk, irrational college students will be able to receive a conceal-carry permit and get a hold of guns, regardless of the processes they are forced to endure. Why? Because there will always, always, always be some moronic owner of a gun shop or some crazed public bureaucrat who feels the need to dance around laws and regulations because it is our God-given right to own dangerous weaponry. That's what happened with Virginia Tech; the assailant didn't receive a proper background check because the man in charge of the store was a self-righteous buffoon. If someone with such a blatant case of psychological illness was able to purchase several guns, then I can only imagine your "average college student" would be able to do so in a heartbeat.

 

[Paradoxium]

Weapons have no other purpose other than hurting people. That's the difference.

My point is, if you set the precedence of controlling something that can harm strictly speaking - fine. But you open this door as an argument too: harm is harm, how is harm any less because the tool has other utilities?

 

[chaseter]

Weapons have no other purpose other than hurting people. That's the difference.



I have an informed opinion. Guns have the potential to be dangerous, if they didn't then they wouldn't be effective weapons. People have the potential to be irresponsible, if they didn't then the world would be a much better place, and we wouldn't need to be having this conversation. Guns plus people can equal danger, I doubt anyone can refute that. Gun control does not equal banning them, just keeping them out of the hands of those who should not own a weapon.

I'll be frank, I don't like guns. I don't like them for a multitude of reasons that I won't list here. I don't see a single reason as being good enough to justify owning one as a civilian. In my perfect world, guns would be banned and not needed. I am not stupid, and fully realize that banning guns is not possible and unconstitutional, I just don't understand how anyone could be against gun control, as it will not only prevent guns landing in the hands of those who misuse them, but make the penalties for those who do misuse them, or worse, own illegal firearms, much harsher. It baffles me.

So banning guns, bows and arrows, large knives/swords, etc...would be justifiable because all they do is kill people?

 

[justinlancaster]

I have an informed opinion.

-Well according to post #84, you don't. You are commenting on firearms and you have never even held nor shot one.

Guns have the potential to be dangerous

-Yes, as does knives, bats, cars, bow and arrows.

if they didn't then they wouldn't be effective weapons. People have the potential to be irresponsible, if they didn't then the world would be a much better place, and we wouldn't need to be having this conversation. Guns plus people can equal danger, I doubt anyone can refute that. Gun control does not equal banning them, just keeping them out of the hands of those who should not own a weapon.

-How about we leave your loathing of the human race out of the gun argument. Its your opinion of what gun control is, that I have a problem with. You want to punish the law abiding citizen to catch the criminal.

as it will not only prevent guns landing in the hands of those who misuse them

-Criminals don't obey the law, hence the name.

but make the penalties for those who do misuse them, or worse, own illegal firearms, much harsher.

-Now you are on the right track. Instead of punishing the law abiding citizen who has committed no crime, lets go after the criminals and punish them to the full extent of the law.
[/quote]

-Once again I urge anyone who may be unfamiliar with or scared of firearms to visit your local gun range and talk to the people there. Gun owners are very respectful and nice people. There is nothing to be afraid of.

 

[chaseter]

Guns will get into the hands of criminals and psychos no matter what...it just may take longer or harder for them to get it but they will get it. Plus...you don't have to go to the gun store to get a gun in the criminal world

 

[SuperFerret]

Fine. I'm wrong. I'm not arguing this crap anymore. It's not like anything I do can change that.