How can anyone oppose the second amendment?

wherever there are people, there will be psycho killers ready to kill you for no reason at all. there will also be coward bystanders who'll just walk by if you're getting mugged. even with strict gun laws, street gangs and thugs will always find a way to get weapons one way or another.

pretty much, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

I don't know..because they aren't american :o..

Because there are generally more violent shootings in places where guns are legal than where they aren't.

Lab392

Guns most likely do not help with public safety. However, the issue is about personal freedoms and rights.

They have the mistaken belief that removing guns the hands of citizens will make them safer. That's not the case, however, as proven in Washington DC.

They also think criminals will just turn in their guns if they somehow got legislation through that would ban firearms.

They have the mistaken belief that removing guns the hands of citizens will make them safer. That's not the case, however, as proven in Washington DC.

They also think criminals will just turn in their guns if they somehow got legislation through that would ban firearms.

airshocker

No one thinks that. I reckon most people simply think that arming the nation is overkill for dealing with criminals.SolidSnake35

They sure seem like that's what they think.

Our nation can't deal with criminals as is. Banning firearms will only make it worse.

Guns most likely do not help with public safety. However, the issue is about personal freedoms and rights.

sonicare

Just a few thoughts on the topic: 1) The picture you paint of gun control is that nobody will have a gun, and therefore all the 'outlaws' will have guns and the world will be powerless to stop them. Guns are outlawed in the UK and we are not all at the mercy of gun-toting mobs of criminals. Shootings and killings by firearm are a teeny fraction of what they are in the US (taking into account population of course). So that's that point dealt with. 2) If outlaws DO have guns, that does not mean everyone should have a gun to protect themselves. In America you can shoot and kill another human being over a TV. I would much rather people be able to get away with stealing a TV once in a while then live in a society were property and goods are valued higher than life. 3) The fewer guns there are out there, the easier it is for police to deal with criminals who use guns via identifying the weapon/casings they used. In a city with very high gun ownership/use, the police haven't got a chance of narrowing something like that down. :)Ninja-Hippo

No violent crime should be tolerated.

A person who needs to steal anything from another person doesn't deserve mercy or compassion.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Just a few thoughts on the topic: 1) The picture you paint of gun control is that nobody will have a gun, and therefore all the 'outlaws' will have guns and the world will be powerless to stop them. Guns are outlawed in the UK and we are not all at the mercy of gun-toting mobs of criminals. Shootings and killings by firearm are a teeny fraction of what they are in the US (taking into account population of course). So that's that point dealt with. 2) If outlaws DO have guns, that does not mean everyone should have a gun to protect themselves. In America you can shoot and kill another human being over a TV. I would much rather people be able to get away with stealing a TV once in a while then live in a society were property and goods are valued higher than life. 3) The fewer guns there are out there, the easier it is for police to deal with criminals who use guns via identifying the weapon/casings they used. In a city with very high gun ownership/use, the police haven't got a chance of narrowing something like that down. :)airshocker

No violent crime should be tolerated.

A person who needs to steal anything from another person doesn't deserve mercy or compassion.

Just a few thoughts on the topic: 1) The picture you paint of gun control is that nobody will have a gun, and therefore all the 'outlaws' will have guns and the world will be powerless to stop them. Guns are outlawed in the UK and we are not all at the mercy of gun-toting mobs of criminals. Shootings and killings by firearm are a teeny fraction of what they are in the US (taking into account population of course). So that's that point dealt with. 2) If outlaws DO have guns, that does not mean everyone should have a gun to protect themselves. In America you can shoot and kill another human being over a TV. I would much rather people be able to get away with stealing a TV once in a while then live in a society were property and goods are valued higher than life. 3) The fewer guns there are out there, the easier it is for police to deal with criminals who use guns via identifying the weapon/casings they used. In a city with very high gun ownership/use, the police haven't got a chance of narrowing something like that down. :)Ninja-Hippo

It's not tolerated but that doesn't mean you need to head shot them.SolidSnake35

I'm not saying they need to be shot in the face for stealing a TV, but why should the victim of the theft have to even consider that in his thought process as he attempts to stop the thief? Why should the victim have to worry about his actions when he's the one who is wronged?

No, I'm sorry. I have as much compassion as the next guy, but that goes out the window when a criminal does ANYTHING to violate another person's sanctity.

Because there are generally more violent shootings in places where guns are legal than where they aren't.

Lab392

Outlawing guns won't change anything as most crimes where firearms are used are purchased illegally anyways...

Look at Columbia... Gun control is strict there, you need a license only obtainable from registering via the military... Yet that nation has the highest per capita gun-crime rate in the world.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]It's not tolerated but that doesn't mean you need to head shot them.airshocker

I'm not saying they need to be shot in the face for stealing a TV, but why should the victim of the theft have to even consider that in his thought process as he attempts to stop the thief? Why should the victim have to worry about his actions when he's the one who is wronged?

No, I'm sorry. I have as much compassion as the next guy, but that goes out the window when a criminal does ANYTHING to violate another person's sanctity.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Just a few thoughts on the topic: 1) The picture you paint of gun control is that nobody will have a gun, and therefore all the 'outlaws' will have guns and the world will be powerless to stop them. Guns are outlawed in the UK and we are not all at the mercy of gun-toting mobs of criminals. Shootings and killings by firearm are a teeny fraction of what they are in the US (taking into account population of course). So that's that point dealt with. 2) If outlaws DO have guns, that does not mean everyone should have a gun to protect themselves. In America you can shoot and kill another human being over a TV. I would much rather people be able to get away with stealing a TV once in a while then live in a society were property and goods are valued higher than life. 3) The fewer guns there are out there, the easier it is for police to deal with criminals who use guns via identifying the weapon/casings they used. In a city with very high gun ownership/use, the police haven't got a chance of narrowing something like that down. :)airshocker

No violent crime should be tolerated.

A person who needs to steal anything from another person doesn't deserve mercy or compassion.

It shouldn't be tolerated, true. They should be punished in court and sent to prison, not murdered. ;)Ninja-Hippo

Punishment deriving from self-defense is quite fair in my eyes.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Just a few thoughts on the topic: 1) The picture you paint of gun control is that nobody will have a gun, and therefore all the 'outlaws' will have guns and the world will be powerless to stop them. Guns are outlawed in the UK and we are not all at the mercy of gun-toting mobs of criminals. Shootings and killings by firearm are a teeny fraction of what they are in the US (taking into account population of course). So that's that point dealt with. 2) If outlaws DO have guns, that does not mean everyone should have a gun to protect themselves. In America you can shoot and kill another human being over a TV. I would much rather people be able to get away with stealing a TV once in a while then live in a society were property and goods are valued higher than life. 3) The fewer guns there are out there, the easier it is for police to deal with criminals who use guns via identifying the weapon/casings they used. In a city with very high gun ownership/use, the police haven't got a chance of narrowing something like that down. :)Ninja-Hippo

No violent crime should be tolerated.

A person who needs to steal anything from another person doesn't deserve mercy or compassion.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Just a few thoughts on the topic: 1) The picture you paint of gun control is that nobody will have a gun, and therefore all the 'outlaws' will have guns and the world will be powerless to stop them. Guns are outlawed in the UK and we are not all at the mercy of gun-toting mobs of criminals. Shootings and killings by firearm are a teeny fraction of what they are in the US (taking into account population of course). So that's that point dealt with. 2) If outlaws DO have guns, that does not mean everyone should have a gun to protect themselves. In America you can shoot and kill another human being over a TV. I would much rather people be able to get away with stealing a TV once in a while then live in a society were property and goods are valued higher than life. 3) The fewer guns there are out there, the easier it is for police to deal with criminals who use guns via identifying the weapon/casings they used. In a city with very high gun ownership/use, the police haven't got a chance of narrowing something like that down. :)positivebalance

You're acting as if it will always and definitively result in murder in every scenario?..Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]You're acting as if it will always and definitively result in murder in every scenario?..Ninja-Hippo

If a person robbed your TV and was caught afterwards, would they be given the death penalty? So why should they be shot and killed in the procurement of said TV?Ninja-Hippo

No, which is a problem with our justice system. I'm a very firm believer in hard-justice.

Yes, they should be shot if they're on your property, violating your home. They have no right to be there.

As long as we have lenient judges, punishment coming from a person protecting themselves is truly justice.

[Alls that does matter is that not too long ago a guy shot and murdered two people because they were stealing his neighbour's TV and that was a-ok. I find that just awful. And i brought up the UK as an example of a country were guns are limited but, contrary to what you make out, people are not constantly robbed and murdered by gun-owning criminals.

Ninja-Hippo

Ignorance...

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Just a few thoughts on the topic: 1) The picture you paint of gun control is that nobody will have a gun, and therefore all the 'outlaws' will have guns and the world will be powerless to stop them. Guns are outlawed in the UK and we are not all at the mercy of gun-toting mobs of criminals. Shootings and killings by firearm are a teeny fraction of what they are in the US (taking into account population of course). So that's that point dealt with. 2) If outlaws DO have guns, that does not mean everyone should have a gun to protect themselves. In America you can shoot and kill another human being over a TV. I would much rather people be able to get away with stealing a TV once in a while then live in a society were property and goods are valued higher than life. 3) The fewer guns there are out there, the easier it is for police to deal with criminals who use guns via identifying the weapon/casings they used. In a city with very high gun ownership/use, the police haven't got a chance of narrowing something like that down. :)Ninja-Hippo

No violent crime should be tolerated.

A person who needs to steal anything from another person doesn't deserve mercy or compassion.

I don't oppose it, it's legally defined in the constitution that guns cannot be banned. In fact, how could you ban them when there are as many guns in the US as people, if not more? Regulation of firearms is what we need, but gun-nuts would happily tell you their 'rights' are being taken away.CRS98

because they don't understand it.

[QUOTE="CRS98"]I don't oppose it, it's legally defined in the constitution that guns cannot be banned. In fact, how could you ban them when there are as many guns in the US as people, if not more? Regulation of firearms is what we need, but gun-nuts would happily tell you their 'rights' are being taken away.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="CRS98"]I don't oppose it, it's legally defined in the constitution that guns cannot be banned. In fact, how could you ban them when there are as many guns in the US as people, if not more? Regulation of firearms is what we need, but gun-nuts would happily tell you their 'rights' are being taken away.CRS98

It's a constitutional right, originally set in place for the people to arm and protect themselves from an oppressive government. Of course, times have changed since it's inception.

Removal of the legal use of the weapon doesn't necessarily mean people won't find a way to acquire them and use them. I don't believe everyone should be walking around and toting a piece in their belts, purses, etc. But I don't see a problem with owning one to protect one's property, life, and loved ones.

The major problem with American society and guns and the laws to govern them is, most people are ready to just pick one up and blast away their problems. The respect for the firearm and respect for the fellow man seems to be on the decline. Not many people are down for a good old fashioned fisticuff match. Or contacting the proper trained authorities, or simply avoiding situations that put them in danger. But there are some situations that can't be avoided. The emergency services aren't always a phone call away or just around the corner when it comes to split seconds.

All I know is, if someone comes breaking into my home attempting to rob me or do harm to me and my family, then I have every right to defend myself. This isn't just limited to home, but anywhere out on the streets as well.

The US has relatively lax gun laws. It has 0.028 murders committed with firearms annually per capita.

Canada has stricter gun laws. It has 0.005.

The UK has even stricter gun laws. It has 0.001.

(Source)

Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it seems to me that this really ought to render the argument of "if you restrict guns then only criminals will have guns" null and void. The uniquely American need to always have guns has always struck me as being a bit bizarre, and perhaps a bit unhealthy too, although perhaps the ill health stems from the atmosphere that would spawn such a feeling of necessity rather than the feeling itself.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Just a few thoughts on the topic: 1) The picture you paint of gun control is that nobody will have a gun, and therefore all the 'outlaws' will have guns and the world will be powerless to stop them. Guns are outlawed in the UK and we are not all at the mercy of gun-toting mobs of criminals. Shootings and killings by firearm are a teeny fraction of what they are in the US (taking into account population of course). So that's that point dealt with. 2) If outlaws DO have guns, that does not mean everyone should have a gun to protect themselves. In America you can shoot and kill another human being over a TV. I would much rather people be able to get away with stealing a TV once in a while then live in a society were property and goods are valued higher than life. 3) The fewer guns there are out there, the easier it is for police to deal with criminals who use guns via identifying the weapon/casings they used. In a city with very high gun ownership/use, the police haven't got a chance of narrowing something like that down. :)SolidSnake35

No violent crime should be tolerated.

A person who needs to steal anything from another person doesn't deserve mercy or compassion.

It's a constitutional right, originally set in place for the people to arm and protect themselves from an oppressive government. Of course, times have changed since it's inception.

worthyofnote

The US has relatively lax gun laws. It has 0.028 murders committed with firearms annually per capita.

Canada has stricter gun laws. It has 0.005.

The UK has even stricter gun laws. It has 0.001.

(Source)

Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it seems to me that this really ought to render the argument of "if you restrict guns then only criminals will have guns" null and void. The uniquely American need to always have guns has always struck me as being a bit bizarre, and perhaps a bit unhealthy too.

GabuEx

wherever there are people, there will be psycho killers ready to kill you for no reason at all. there will also be coward bystanders who'll just walk by if you're getting mugged. even with strict gun laws, street gangs and thugs will always find a way to get weapons one way or another.

pretty much, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

positivebalance

[QUOTE="worthyofnote"]

It's a constitutional right, originally set in place for the people to arm and protect themselves from an oppressive government. Of course, times have changed since it's inception.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]You're acting as if it will always and definitively result in murder in every scenario?..Xx_Hopeless_xX