Why are guns so important to Americans?

[DiveCon]

I have noticed that greenpartyaz has disabled the reputation rating button....yet feels compelled to adjust others reputation rating.......hypocritical. Funny....

you can still rate them
it just doesnt show

 

[necritan]

you can still rate them
it just doesnt show

Ahhhh....still funny though.

 

[LOki]

In a community with a high gun ownership the chances of a random break on a house turning up firearms to be stolen are greater that a thief will find a weapon.

There's also a greater chancethat a thief will get shot--which is certainly your real complaint.

But if the weapons are stored in a secure manner then it might be that the chances of a thief actually getting the firearms is lowered.

"Weapons stored in a secure manner" is newspeak for "weapons stored in a manner that they are not readily available for self defense."

Obviously you are more concerned that victims remian unarmed.

It's sensible then to ensure that gun owners are required to lock away their weapons securely to avoid giving crooks an easy supply of firearms.

It's sensible only to the criminally violent.

The idea that lists of gun owners make it easier for thieves to steal guns is ridiculous.

Except that is exacly how they are used; and used to great effect.

If a community has a high gun ownership concentration then who cares about lists? Just keep doing busts until you find what you want

Spoken like a true totalitarian. My point is well made.

It's a good idea to make sure that responsible gun owners make sure their weapons are secured against theft.

It's a bad idea to make sure it's safe for criminals and Brown-Shirts to exert their will.

 

[Diuretic]

There's also a greater chancethat a thief will get shot--which is certainly your real complaint.

"Weapons stored in a secure manner" is newspeak for "weapons stored in a manner that they are not readily available for self defense."

Obviously you are more concerned that victims remian unarmed.

It's sensible only to the criminally violent.

Except that is exacly how they are used; and used to great effect.

Spoken like a true totalitarian. My point is well made.

It's a bad idea to make sure it's safe for criminals and Brown-Shirts to exert their will.

Housebreakers usually do their work in the daytime on the chance that the occupants of the house are out at work, school etc. If a breaker does a bust at night when people are expected to be occupying the house then they deserve whatever comes their way.

When I wrote that securing the weapons would probably lower the chances of a weapon being stolen I meant just that. You chose to deliberately misrepresent what I wrote.

And the rest of your post goes along the same way, not addressing the issues and not moving the discussion along. Very disappointing.

 

[necritan]

My guns....while away from the house.....are locked up. One goes with me...the rest are safe.

If I were a thief....aside from money and jewlery....they'd be the first thing I'd look for.

 

[Ninja]

You're wrong in that police officers aren't required to put themselves in harm's way. They take an oath to do just that.

Wrong.

Gonzales v. Castle Rock

 

[LOki]

You're wrong in that police officers aren't required to put themselves in harm's way. They take an oath to do just that.

You are the fucking LOLZ!

 

[KGB]

I have really no problem with someone hunting. I state the extreme of my position. I think that something does need to be done to curb violence in the streets. But with so many people worried about gun control it is hard to make it happen.

Gun control doesn't work....it's a proven fact....the problem is in the sentencing of the thugs....if the courts would just enforce the laws on the books & get these bastards off the street, we wouldn't have the violence we now have.....

As far as firearms are concerned, the right to defend oneself is one of the basic rights you have in this country. The 2nd Amendment isn't a right to hunt as the Left would have you believe, it is a right to protect yourself & your community.......

 

[editec]

Gun control doesn't work....it's a proven fact....the problem is in the sentencing of the thugs....if the courts would just enforce the laws on the books & get these bastards off the street, we wouldn't have the violence we now have.....

On that we agree

As far as firearms are concerned, the right to defend oneself is one of the basic rights you have in this country. The 2nd Amendment isn't a right to hunt as the Left would have you believe, it is a right to protect yourself & your community.......

If but only the founder fathers had bothered to write that sentiment more clearly, this whole goofy argument would just go away.

Instead they confused the issue by noting STATE MILITIAS as the reason why people should be able to keep guns, and by doing so they clouded their intentions considerably.

 

[AllieBaba]

Perhaps they were in a hurry. After all, they lived in constant fear that British troops would descend upon them and they'd have no defense....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

On that we agree



If but only the founder fathers had bothered to write that sentiment more clearly, this whole goofy argument would just go away.

Instead they confused the issue by noting STATE MILITIAS as the reason why people should be able to keep guns, and by doing so they clouded their intentions considerably.

NO they did not. They are two distinct concepts included in one Amendment. Just as the first is more than ONE concept. Just as the rest of the Bill of rights generally covers more than one concept per amendment.

There were over 180 amendments suggested for the Bill of Rights. That was paired down to 12 and 10 passed. The 180 plus were combined into 12 or dismissed all together.

The individuals right to own and bear arms is NOT dependent on a militia though a militia is dependent on the citizens right to such a promise, thus why they were combined.

 

[KGB]

On that we agree



If but only the founder fathers had bothered to write that sentiment more clearly, this whole goofy argument would just go away.

Instead they confused the issue by noting STATE MILITIAS as the reason why people should be able to keep guns, and by doing so they clouded their intentions considerably.

a throwback to the Revolution....state militas were the main operating armed force of the day....that being said, the 2nd Amendment was always an individual right.....

 

[LOki]

If but only the founder fathers had bothered to write that sentiment more clearly, this whole goofy argument would just go away.

I can't imagine being much clearer than, "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Instead they confused the issue by noting STATE MILITIAS as the reason why people should be able to keep guns,...

Not so. Militias were in no way cited as the reason why people should be able to keep and bear arms--no such reasons were cited.

Militias were cited as the reason for enumerating the right, not the People's possession of the right.

...and by doing so they clouded their intentions considerably.

Their intentions were crystal clear--their intentions are clouded by the fatuous arguments from Nanny Statists who find a other people's rights repugnant to their authoritartian aggendas.

 

[AllieBaba]

And the very reason the 2nd amendment was created was to ensure that we were never under the thumb of a disgruntled and overbearing military.

We were required to assist the militias, but the right to have and to bear arms was a personal right meant to provide people with the right and the means to eject interlopers from their HOMES. One of the most atrocious things the Brits did before the revolution was to pass an edict which provided that ANY member of the British military could enter into any colonist's home and be housed, fed, and whatever else. There was nothing the citizens could do about it. To raise a hand to a member of the British Army was an instant death sentence.

 

[cbi0090]

I have really no problem with someone hunting. I state the extreme of my position. I think that something does need to be done to curb violence in the streets. But with so many people worried about gun control it is hard to make it happen.

Taking guns from people won't curb violence. Violence is a consequence of family and social factors, not weaponry. You want to curb violence, support the family and strengthen community ties. When people play even a small part in their community, they are much more responsible and constructive. And how a person is raised, plays such an important role, I hardly need to point it out.
Everyone, and I do mean everyone, when I was kid, growing up in the midwest, had a gun. We all did. I got my first gun when I was 10.
I can't recall ever hearing about someone being shot in my town of 50,000 or so. People were always getting shot in Chicago or St. Louis, but in our little town? Violence is not about guns, it's about people.

 

[mightypeon]

The Japanese can afford strict gun laws for the same reason that the British could afford to ban them several decades ago: their crime rate is already low, for whatever other undetermined reasons. It's not politically correct to say it, but culture has the biggest effect on crime, bigger than guns or laws or whatever.

On the other hand I could point out that Switzerland has lots of gun ownership, and is one of the most peaceful places on earth. What few violent crimes they experience, are done by immigrants usually. But again, culture. Being shamed and ostracized by your peers is a powerful motivator. Shame and guilt are not PC emotions though.

Also I should point out that even if you could confiscate and melt down all firearms, it would not be terribly difficult for a machinist to fabricate new ones. Seriously, all it would take would be a gangster with some spare cash, a spare garage, a mill and a lathe, some blueprints and a machinist. You could probably get started for well under $10k.

An interesting fact about Switzerland is one thing: They very tightly control Handguns. I would propose to control Handguns while keeping Rifles legal. The advandtadge of a Handgun is its easyness to conceal, which is not really needed for legitimate gun using.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

An interesting fact about Switzerland is one thing: They very tightly control Handguns. I would propose to control Handguns while keeping Rifles legal. The advandtadge of a Handgun is its easyness to conceal, which is not really needed for legitimate gun using.

Eh? Lots of law-abiding citizens have concealed carry permits in states that allow them. And concealed carry laws have reduced crime rates, as Professor John Lott showed in More Guns, Less Crime. The great thing about concealed carry is, criminals have no way of knowing who is armed and who isn't.

 

[AllieBaba]

The end result being they walk a little more cautiously and with a little more respect...

 

[Diuretic]

Wrong.

Gonzales v. Castle Rock

That sounds like the case where a woman brought suit against the city police department because they didn't protect her from domestic violence. If that's the right case then you're using it in the wrong context. The judgement held that the police department isn't obligated to any single citizen but is obligated to the law. The idea is that if the law is obeyed and properly enforced on those who choose to disobey it then harm in society will be minimised. But it's a blanket coverage, not a specific obligation.

So that case doesn't destroy my point.

 

[Diuretic]

You are the fucking LOLZ!

You appear to be losing it.