Do We Really Need Guns?

[Desperado]

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

I totally agree with you, and congratulations on having the cojones to raise this issue.

Countries with less guns are almost always safer than the US, and that is simply a cold, hard truth that few gun rights fanatics are willing to admit.

I totally support peoples' right to own a gun for hunting or target shooting, but all of countries should have safety-based gun laws aimed at protecting life first and foremost. No one needs an assault rifle at home.

Right off the bat you contradict yourself, you said "I totally support peoples' right to own a gun for hunting or target shooting" Now why can't I use an "assault rifle" for target shooting? Now what is your definition of an "assault rifle" , and don't just say a scary looking rifle. You say " No one needs an assault rifle at home" that is the same logic as saying "No one needs a Porsche for driving". It gets down to simply in America we have a choice of what we can own and that should not be infringed upon because it scares you.

 

[Saigon]

Desperado -

What about the rights of the victims of gun violence?

Or don't those people have rights?

 

[007]

It's my first thread here, and I want to start with the issue, that worries me a lot.

Gun owners always claim that they own guns for self protection, even though the guns in their homes impose a much greater risk to their lives than an intruder. They also state they need guns to protect themselves from the government and from tthr police. Oh, seriously? Other argument for guns is hunting. Food production in the US is quite complex and capable of providing all types of foods to all parts of the country. And, if someone is too poor to buy food to eat, they are too poor to buy weapons. So what for?! Explain me, please.

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

 

[pismoe]

I only think of myself as an individual Saigon and my only concern is my individual safety or the safety of kin and friends . I don't even really think of safety either , I just want the tools guaranteed to me by the 2nd amendment because they allow me to efficiently repel attackers and other violent criminals if the need ever arises [always be prepared] plus huntin , target shootin . --- Plus as I already said , guns help me to fulfill the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment !! By the way Saigon , what foreign place do you come from ??

 

[martybegan]

Desperado -

What about the rights of the victims of gun violence?

Or don't those people have rights?

They have the right to the government prosecuting those responsible. They do not have the right to impose collective guilt on the rest of us, and take away OUR rights to firearms.

 

[pismoe]

so , looks like Saigon may be a bloke from England Ehh [guess] ?? This is wot Saigon is allowed to use fer self defence over on ol'blighty . --- James McAdam Porfolio --- but he better be sure he only uses 'proportionate force' or off to gaol for him !!

 

[Saigon]

Desperado -

What about the rights of the victims of gun violence?

Or don't those people have rights?

They have the right to the government prosecuting those responsible. They do not have the right to impose collective guilt on the rest of us, and take away OUR rights to firearms.

Ok....so they have rights, but only after they've been killed. Interesting logic.

I have no idea what you mean by guilt here - but I do think rights should be something ALL people have - not only you. THAT is an imposition on the rights of others.

Pismoe -

I'm in Finland. We have a lot of guns here, and the homicide rate to prove it!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Desperado -

What about the rights of the victims of gun violence?

Or don't those people have rights?

They have the right to the government prosecuting those responsible. They do not have the right to impose collective guilt on the rest of us, and take away OUR rights to firearms.

Ok....so they have rights, but only after they've been killed. Interesting logic.

I have no idea what you mean by guilt here - but I do think rights should be something ALL people have - not only you. THAT is an imposition on the rights of others.

Pismoe -

I'm in Finland. We have a lot of guns here, and the homicide rate to prove it!

Ok....so they have rights, but only after they've been killed.

They also had rights before they were killed.
They had the right to keep and bear firearms, for instance.

 

[pismoe]

looks like Saigon is Finnish and I grew up with Rankinens , Hailalas , Koskis , Makis and these Finns were all over the place where I grew up . Course , they came to America , became Americans and they all had guns !!

 

[Asclepias]

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

I totally agree with you, and congratulations on having the cojones to raise this issue.

Countries with less guns are almost always safer than the US, and that is simply a cold, hard truth that few gun rights fanatics are willing to admit.

I totally support peoples' right to own a gun for hunting or target shooting, but all of countries should have safety-based gun laws aimed at protecting life first and foremost. No one needs an assault rifle at home.

Right off the bat you contradict yourself, you said "I totally support peoples' right to own a gun for hunting or target shooting" Now why can't I use an "assault rifle" for target shooting? Now what is your definition of an "assault rifle" , and don't just say a scary looking rifle. You say " No one needs an assault rifle at home" that is the same logic as saying "No one needs a Porsche for driving". It gets down to simply in America we have a choice of what we can own and that should not be infringed upon because it scares you.

No he said "need". You dont need a gun you want one.

 

[pismoe]

Thanks Saigon , I looked at your profile , Finns are good people fer the most part , pretty good hunters , beer drinkers and woodsmen . You sound like you have too many ideas that come out of 'england' though !!

 

[martybegan]

Desperado -

What about the rights of the victims of gun violence?

Or don't those people have rights?

They have the right to the government prosecuting those responsible. They do not have the right to impose collective guilt on the rest of us, and take away OUR rights to firearms.

Ok....so they have rights, but only after they've been killed. Interesting logic.

I have no idea what you mean by guilt here - but I do think rights should be something ALL people have - not only you. THAT is an imposition on the rights of others.

Pismoe -

I'm in Finland. We have a lot of guns here, and the homicide rate to prove it!

Its as with any crime, you can only prosecute someone for planning a crime if you have damning evidence, and you can't prosecute everyone "just in case" one person may commit a crime

 

[mudwhistle]

Guns are harmless.

Bullets kill.

 

[MXdad]

It's my first thread here, and I want to start with the issue, that worries me a lot.

Gun owners always claim that they own guns for self protection, even though the guns in their homes impose a much greater risk to their lives than an intruder. They also state they need guns to protect themselves from the government and from tthr police. Oh, seriously? Other argument for guns is hunting. Food production in the US is quite complex and capable of providing all types of foods to all parts of the country. And, if someone is too poor to buy food to eat, they are too poor to buy weapons. So what for?! Explain me, please.

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

Provide proof from an unbiased souce that a gun in the home is a bigger risk to the owner. I have quite a large collection in my home in each vehicle etc.. Grew up around the same from a toddler. I've yet to have one of those guns harm me. Sorry but you claim means nothing to me

Food production is great and I don't need to hunt? Sorry I dont "need" your permission nor do I "need" to hunt. I hunt because I want to hunt. I hunt because I enjoy hunting
Wildlife on the dinner table is a free meal. I am fortunate to be able to eat whatever I choose to buy and at any restaurant across the country I choose. I prefer game that is free from chemicals etc... Associated with commercially raised meat/fowl. I prefer to walk outside and take an animal at no charge, process it myself and feed my family the most healthy choice available.

You see it really does not boil down to need as to why many of us have guns, it comes down to wants. You see I want guns, I want to hunt and shoot and here I am free to satisfy those wants regardless of your opinion

 

[MXdad]

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

I totally agree with you, and congratulations on having the cojones to raise this issue.

Countries with less guns are almost always safer than the US, and that is simply a cold, hard truth that few gun rights fanatics are willing to admit.

I totally support peoples' right to own a gun for hunting or target shooting, but all of countries should have safety-based gun laws aimed at protecting life first and foremost. No one needs an assault rifle at home.

Define assault rifle? How is my ARs any different than my Ruger Mini 14 ranch rifle

Both shoot the same ammo one has a wood stock and one is black and scary to Hoplophobes. Beyond appearances why would you say ones ok but I don't need the other.
BTW it's not about need it's basically about I want it

 

[Roadrunner]

It's my first thread here, and I want to start with the issue, that worries me a lot.

Gun owners always claim that they own guns for self protection, even though the guns in their homes impose a much greater risk to their lives than an intruder. They also state they need guns to protect themselves from the government and from tthr police. Oh, seriously? Other argument for guns is hunting. Food production in the US is quite complex and capable of providing all types of foods to all parts of the country. And, if someone is too poor to buy food to eat, they are too poor to buy weapons. So what for?! Explain me, please.

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

Provide proof from an unbiased souce that a gun in the home is a bigger risk to the owner. I have quite a large collection in my home in each vehicle etc.. Grew up around the same from a toddler. I've yet to have one of those guns harm me. Sorry but you claim means nothing to me

Food production is great and I don't need to hunt? Sorry I dont "need" your permission nor do I "need" to hunt. I hunt because I want to hunt. I hunt because I enjoy hunting
Wildlife on the dinner table is a free meal. I am fortunate to be able to eat whatever I choose to buy and at any restaurant across the country I choose. I prefer game that is free from chemicals etc... Associated with commercially raised meat/fowl. I prefer to walk outside and take an animal at no charge, process it myself and feed my family the most healthy choice available.

You see it really does not boil down to need as to why many of us have guns, it comes down to wants. You see I want guns, I want to hunt and shoot and here I am free to satisfy those wants regardless of your opinion

Free meal??

Cold weather clothes, deer stands, food plots, fuel, lease fees, price of hunting land, yeah deer cost a few hundred dollars a pound!

 

[Roadrunner]

I truly believe, that guns only do harm There is no use for guns in our society. The 2nd amendment was made in a time where guns were necessary because of the British.

I totally agree with you, and congratulations on having the cojones to raise this issue.

Countries with less guns are almost always safer than the US, and that is simply a cold, hard truth that few gun rights fanatics are willing to admit.

I totally support peoples' right to own a gun for hunting or target shooting, but all of countries should have safety-based gun laws aimed at protecting life first and foremost. No one needs an assault rifle at home.

Define assault rifle? How is my ARs any different than my Ruger Mini 14 ranch rifle

Both shoot the same ammo one has a wood stock and one is black and scary to Hoplophobes. Beyond appearances why would you say ones ok but I don't need the other.
BTW it's not about need it's basically about I want it

As I recall they content the mini-14 is an assault rifle.

If it does not have selective fire, either burst or full auto, it is not an assault rifle.

To claim otherwise is a blatant lie.

 

[pismoe]

good news about AR style rifles is that they are said to be the new WINCHESTER levergun as far as hunters and gun people are concerned . I also like AR's but my favorite is still the walnut stocked M1a !!

 

[Roadrunner]

good news about AR style rifles is that they are said to be the new WINCHESTER levergun as far as hunters and gun people are concerned . I also like AR's but my favorite is still the walnut stocked M1a !!

I have the synthetic stock, and appreciate the weight difference but miss the bayonet lug.

I don't think the .223 is appropriate for deer, but, I do use it on hogs cuz the ammo is cheap.

Going to get another SIG, in .308, "one of these days'.

 

[2aguy]

Ever notice how those tens of millions of government murders in Europe are never figured into their murder rates?

And another interesting point....how many of those countries that murdered their people....did the people know they were going to be gathered up and murdered 10 years before it actually happened? Did they feel safe under the care of their government before it happened.....?