Assault Rifles/Right to Bear Arms

copies and pasted
Guns, in all applications and under all conditions and circumstances, routinely kill far fewer Americans annually than a number of other unrelated causes. In fact, as Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck has regularly proven, guns actually save about 2.5 million lives a year.

Just like an automatic weapon is not applicable in self-defence then? Unless an army is attacking you, which is unlikely?

I know how the constitution is ammended. It could be done in 2 or 3 days if everyone was cooperative, a week if a few were uncooperative.

BS! How can you prove that?

Just a thought.

So we've heard both sides of the argument (I favour not banning guns, but severly ristricting assault rifles to the military and security on hi-tech instalations, and of course, the police)

But here's a question, how do you propose to stop the black market of guns ?
If you can't do that, that is, solve the practical implications of such a ban, why bother with the moral and ethical considerations ?

Since when did my posts shift to the topic of owning automatic weapons?

Really?! And all this time I thought they were for baking! That statement is implying that if you own a gun, you will kill someone. If I own a fire insurance policy, does it mean my house is going to burn down automatically? The whole point it preparedness.

So, if you were a criminal, you would be just as likely to attack someone carrying a gun, as you would be to attack a person with no weapon? You were certainly make the "World's Stupidest Criminals" footage.

And the bias emerges.

Which is why I approve of someone being able to defend himself/herself from said unpredictable person. Why is it that you think only someone who owns a gun can be unpredictable? A burly man could come to my home in the middle of a night, break a window in the first floor and smother me in my sleep. Should we ban pillows and plastic bags?

A crime of passion can be committed by any type of weapon.

Did you go to the trouble to research how many of these burglars use legally obtained firearms, and how many bought theirs from the black market?

This is assuming that I would use a firearm in the instance of a burglary, which is idiotic. I only believe in using violence to protect myself from harm. How selfish of me!

Right, and if I didn't have a gun, then he'd just shoot me immediately and I'd have no chance. How is this the better option for me, the hypothetical victim of crime?

I think that's just been the British people on this discussion who've said that. Obviously, you need to have more community gatherings, or something, because you think the hypothetical man down the street with a gun is just plotting to murder all of you. In contrast, I trust my neighbors a lot more than I trust a stranger.

Yeah, I mean, you're not allowed to own guns in the UK, so only the outlaws have them. It's much safer that way.

Such a shame, really. Americans not being naive like the Europeans. Where do I get off wanting to keep myself protected from an attacker?! He's just misunderstood. If he needs to kill me to feel better, I should be a willing participant! Moral relativism at it's finest!

Well, how shall I ever get over being a violent, behind-the-times American? I'll just have to ride my horse to the salloon, have some Jack Daniels, fire off some gunshots into the ceiling to celebrate how incredibly inferior my culture is to yours. It'll be grand.

Don't worry, I never expected you to have tact. You're from Europe, you're obviously superior to me in every way. How silly of me, a humble non-European, to forget to kneel before you.

They didn't - but that is what this topic is meant to be about.

copies and pasted
Guns, in all applications and under all conditions and circumstances, routinely kill far fewer Americans annually than a number of other unrelated causes. In fact, as Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck has regularly proven, guns actually save about 2.5 million lives a year.

But then a post brought up general gun ownership rights, which was when I stepped in with my opinion.

I don't point guns at people. #1 safety rule, you don't point a gun at something unless you are willing to shoot it.

Ah, well, perhaps you forgot that burglary is breaking into a building/residence to commit a crime. Robbery is the break-in where the criminal has a weapon and attacks. And, as I said, I would not use a gun to stave off some robber. I would only use a firearm to protect my life. Your illustration is a bad one.

And so because some people have used guns for wrong, I shouldn't be able to protect myself with a gun? That's painting everyone with the same brush.

You're basing your presumption that a burglar can just waltz into a home and penetrate a gun safe? He'd have to be the most patient and organized burglar in history.

Yeah, I'm sure that someone is going to be stupid enough to *loan a firearm to a friend*. They aren't like lawnmowers, or something. Anyone who asks someone to borrow a gun would be automatically suspected as having bad intentions, and a gun owner isn't going to lend his gun. That'd be like calling up a friend "Hey, can you stop by my ex-wife's house, I need you to put your fingerprints on a knife for me..."

As I said, private property is not a reason to risk one's life, or the life of another. You are trying to belittle my argument by putting it in a petty context.

Ok, for future reference, remember that a robber is the violent one, a burglar is unarmed. And, you can see above regarding your silly little scenario.

No wonder.

One...ever? Are you a hermit? You have access to the internet, do you actually *read* the news? I did a simple google search for gun crime in Britain and found lots of evidence suggesting otherwise. I sorted through to find a few articles for you, so that you may become enlightened.

Why would you feel less safe? What if the armed suspect is in your home pointing a gun in your face? If you had a gun, then you would have a chance at shooting him first. But, you know, those police, when they get there, are really reliable. Of course, it doesn't take 15-20 minutes to shoot someone.

I feel reasonably safer owning a gun. Why rob me of my sense of safety because some people have used guns to commit crimes before?

Once again, your example is not a valid reason to use self-defense, as you were not immediately threatened by his presense.

"You can get further with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word alone." If someone intends to murder me, obviously I'm going to try to talk him out of it, but I like the idea of having a safety net if that doesn't work.

I didn't mention pointing the gun at someone - I just said holding the gun (and a few thoughts). The point is that you could immediately snuff out somebody's life if you chose to do so. The temptation to use it is always there - just because the gun is always there.

My summation:
-I believe that a law-abiding citizen should be permitted to own firearms, as criminals will find a way to get them anyhow.
-I find it unfair to take away a civilian's right to own a firearm just because criminals can use them in crimes, as there are plenty of citizens who have never violated the law with their guns.
-Preventing civilians from being able to protect themselves seems immoral.
-Civilian possession of firearms serves as a deterrent to centralized control of society.

I'm not that great with these talking points, but basically, my opinions are the polar opposite of yours, with the exception of your approval of rifles and shotguns for hunting, which I agree with.

My summation:
-I believe that a law-abiding citizen should be permitted to own firearms, as criminals will find a way to get them anyhow.
-I find it unfair to take away a civilian's right to own a firearm just because criminals can use them in crimes, as there are plenty of citizens who have never violated the law with their guns.
-Preventing civilians from being able to protect themselves seems immoral.
-Civilian possession of firearms serves as a deterrent to centralized control of society.

I'm not that great with these talking points, but basically, my opinions are the polar opposite of yours, with the exception of your approval of rifles and shotguns for hunting, which I agree with.

Right then. Why does a civilian need a gun to defend their home? Surely
improvised weapons in the event of a break-in etc. can serve just as good a purpose? I'm not saying that you have to keep a cricket/baseball bat at the end of your bed, but the gun isn't necessary - unless you're pretty certain that an intruder will carry a gun.

Douglas, you're my new best friend

Just a thought.

So we've heard both sides of the argument (I favour not banning guns, but severly ristricting assault rifles to the military and security on hi-tech instalations, and of course, the police)

But here's a question, how do you propose to stop the black market of guns ?
If you can't do that, that is, solve the practical implications of such a ban, why bother with the moral and ethical considerations ?

you can't stop it, but.... if assault rifles are illegal you can arrest a person for having one or selling them. You can't stop crime but in order to inforce the law the crime must be illegal so to speak in the first place. Ie. a guy walks into a post office with a semi automatic rifle, ok so the security guard knows this is gonna be ugly, however the guy has a permit to carry the rifle so the guard can't do anything till he starts firing, then it's too late. Just an example of why they need to reinstate the ban. Seriously though there is no reason for anyone other than millitary personel to have these guns in there possesion.

That's not a good example, as permits for such weapons cover use at personal residence or sporting clubs, NOT public buildings. You are not allowed to carry any gun on you in the post office, except if you have a concealed handgun permit, and those only work for handguns.

Look, the whole reason why the ban is stupid is because it just limits the ability of law-abiding citizens to have the weapons, but criminals obtain them anyway. The price of assault rifles or automatic weapons ensure that people who own them keep them protected from theft. Additionally, the previous ban was kind of pointless because most of the guns were still sold, they just had to change their names, or reduce the number of rounds per clip. I mean, I'm not saying lots of people need to own automatic weapons, but the ban was more for show than results. It just drove up the prices for the weapons under their new names, and made it more difficult for police to procure them with their scanty budgets.