Uh, there is no real NEED in 90% of cases, but that's hardly the point. You just said yourself that restricting guns caused no lowering of violent crime, so...why take them away? Are we in the habit of removing freedoms just 'cuz they aren't necessary?

You know, I have always been against banning guns and thought that video games aren't causing people to be violent but the shooter would lock himself in his room, blast music, and play counter-strike *all* the time, and now I'm actually starting to slide a bit after what happened.

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman makes an interesting point on the affect of video games in modern society - I'd highly recommend picking up 'On Combat' from your local library (or buy it)..it's well worth the read.

It's actually alot easier than you think.

On Combat is a great book from all I've heard. I've wanted to read it for a long time, but the library on campus never has it.

If you were local, I'd lend you my copy. See if they can get it from another library..

Uh, that's exactly how it works. It's pretty easy, too.

the point is that owning a device intended to cause death when one does not need it seems to be a pointless waste of money, and if you have the time to actualy get the gun out of its storage then get the ammo out of its seperate storage (you are storing your gun and its ammunition seperatly as you are legaly required arent you?), then you probably either are using excessive force as if the guy wanted to kill you, he would have done it already, or you could have gotten out of the house and called the police from a neighbours house.

Because it's fun and I like it. Also, I don't know what YOU think the law is, but (though I'm not old enough) my friends have concealed carry licenses. That means they can have a magazine or chamber loaded pistol wherever it isn't explicitly prohibited. It also means that they can carry long guns magazine loaded wherever it isn't explicitly prohibited (within reason, like in a vehicle or between a vehicle and some other reasonable place).

Also, I, not having a license, am allowed to transport my long guns unloaded basically however I want, and magazine or clip loaded in a separate locked compartment of my vehicle. There is no law regarding storage of a gun as far as I know: My property, I do what I want.

I'm also allowed to shoot people who break into my house or car if I feel threatened. Concealed carry people are allowed to shoot anyone who they feel is putting them or someone they know VERY VERY CLOSELY in imminent danger. For example, if they are in a gas station and someone walks in with a gun, that person may be shot immediately and without warning.

Basically: I know the gun laws of my state and country better than you do.

Also, to reiterate: guns are fun, guns are useful, cold dead hands, etc.

thing is, that getting shot doesnt always make you die instantly, and it is quite possible that said person putting you in imminent danger (hopefuly imminent enough that you didnt have time to aim, as time to aim = potential time to get out of random crackheads line of sight) will be able to get a shot of at consealed carry person and possibly take them down with them.

Also, if they miss, then they will become the target of the bad guy, even if they werent originaly, meaning that something that could have ended without bloodshed could go much worse. remember, most people who RANDOMLY rob a place probably would not shoot someone as long as they dont see anyone as a threat, and if they were wanting to kill you, they would have hidden their gun until the moment they wanted to shoot, giving target no time to react.

That's why you use the weapon before he gets to notice it. If he is honestly that close to notice a concealed weapon, what are you doing.



Really? Because you can also say many robbers would also run because they don't want to get shot, arrested and charged with not only robbery but also firing a weapon. I've read stories of how store robbery were stopped because of a law-abiding citizen pulling out a weapon. I've read stories of robbers going in and shooting people to death because they don't give a **** about human life. Assuming the robbers are kind enough to not disregard the value of a person's life is a danger in itself.

But hypothetical situations are stupid and you should stop using them.

So in other words, the only real people who get affected by no-gun restrictions are law-abiding citizens..? What's the point. If you just admitted that crime rates haven't been significantly lowered by no-gun laws, I don't see what is the real advantage of taking away guns from regular people other than ..."a pointless waste of money."

I don't think anybody has the right to kill others.

Why should the law facilitate it?

Because it doesn't.

"better safe than sorry"?

No, you're not legally required to store a firearm and ammunition separately. My duty weapon is normally stored loaded and chambered. My AR15 has a loaded magazine with an empty chamber, bolt forward. It's not going to take me long to get to a firearm.

You're making enough assumptions to get somebody killed. I'm not required to run away from my house, either. Hypothetical situation. You're married and have two daughters. A rapist breaks into your house. He's armed with a deadly weapon. What are you going to do, run away to your neighbor's house and let your family be sexually assaulted and possibly killed? Attempt to stop him with your 1337 ninja skillz?

If someone is placing me (or someone else) in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury (any harm to the body which causes severe, permanent or protracted loss of or impairment to the health or of the function of any part of the body), I have the legal right (and responsibility) to stop the threat. For better or for worse, it often happens that stopping the threat results in the death of the attacker.



Read above. You think it never happens? You're wrong. You might want to reconsider your 'anybody' statement as well - you want your police to retreat when faced with a deadly threat?

I wouldn't necessarily define it as a 'right', but yes, it does.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LXII/627/627-4.htm
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LXII/627/627-5.htm

America has guns because they were paranoid and defensive after their former tyrannical government. When this was intended to be controlled with the national guard, it did nothing to remove rifles from the hands of the layman.

Now our national guard is a section of the army, and united states citizens are paranoid once again. If any time in our history we've needed guns, the civil war is the only thing that trumps this.

Being a pacifist, I don't see why a civilian would need an m16, a hand gun, or a tactical shotgun. None of these things are going to stop the government from doing what they'd like to do to you, and our only defense there is our defunct national guard.

Guns simply do not solve gun violence. That's the same stupid idea of using bombs to fight bomb makers. The number of incidents where you'll need your "self defense" are so far and few between, where the number of incidents that a majority of the population owning firearms will cause is probably just as high. You slowly devolve your culture into this eat or be-eaten society by arming everyone with the worse man's weapon. If you know anything about the ghettos and gang wars, you understand how this concept doesn't work.

The problem is that no one will ever give up their guns and feel protected by the national guard, so we're stuck with this stupid idea of self empowerment that is gun ownership, so we have to deal with it.

Oh well, at least it provides endless amusment for us to look back at our crazy little backward colony.

That's why they're trained to neither miss nor hesitate. The instructor told them if you are letting anyone see your gun in public, it means you are in fear for you life, and you are ready to kill someone to protect it. Meaning: unload into someone, and don't give them a chance to get a shot off. He did a demonstration where he had his gun in his hand, down at his side. I don't care how good you are, he is going to be able to get that gun up, pointed in your direction, and fired before you can get your gun out of your concealed holster, up, aimed, and fired. Especially if you hesitate. That's why you don't, you see a gun, you shoot before he has time to realize you're even there.

Anyway, this is all getting away from the point. America is not (or should not) be in the habit of taking away freedoms "just because". I don't see the removal of guns having a significant enough effect on the wellbeing of society for it to be worth taking them away. I like my gun, I have fun with it.

In the very very unlikely event that someone comes out into the country and busts down our gate or hikes the quarter mile up our hill to our house and tries to do something (people have done that already, on an occasion where our gate was broken and left open) I don't want to have to wait for the police to find our house to stop them from doing something. It's just a little bit more peace-of-mind.

I'd like to say I disagree with pretty much this entire post. History has pretty much proved this wrong time and time again.

That's not pacifism. That's willful submission.

That's arrogant machismo. You aren't going to accomplish anything with your peashooters against your government. The only use any of those weapons is going to be is against your fellow citizens, and then we're talking about something entirely different.

I'm sure King George III and Abe Lincoln thought the same thing.




Good people will buy legal guns to defend themselves and their families (and there's nothing wrong with that). Bad people will acquire guns by any means necessary -- even if they are illegal.

And you didn't read my post. That's self destructive thinking in a peaceful society.

I did. It's based off your personal assumptions which you attempt to use to "prove" your point.

I disagree with your post entirely.

There's no point to prove. These are opinions. In my opinion, a society that feels the need to always be armed against the "evil" of society is not a comfortable one.

Where's this utopia you're living in?

Every other first world country?

Banning guns won't magically make guns go away. Societies with gun-free laws still have gun-related crimes. America once made the sale of alcohol illegal, it hardly made a peaceful utopia of morality they envisioned.

Yah. Banning guns, alcohol or drugs is just going to put huge dollar signs in the eyes of crime lords.

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you. If it were so easy to squash people armed with "peashooters", why are we still in Iraq?

You guys forget that everything is a peashooter to jedikirby, because his super impenetrable bone armor protects from all forms of lethal force.

some americans just confuse me, you think that if you somehow loose the right to own any gun you want (as we all know that there is no such thing as mild restrictions, just "own any firearrm you want" and "ban all guns to oppress the people" ) that the government will suddenly become evil and start opressing you.

NEWS FLASH.

Here in Australia, we dont even have things like a constitutional right to free speach, and yet, our television is far LESS maniacal about things like swearing or minor sexual referances. We have never had a right to own firearms, yet even after the laws restricing gun ownership, you can still get a license to own a firearm if you can display that you have a need for one, which includes shooting clubs (not that there are very many, as there is no wildlife in australia that is able to be hunted for food that isnt safer to buy from special farms, so there is little need for clubs in which you practise shooting), we also have "OMG IM BEING TEH OPPRESSED BY TEH EVIL GUBMINT" laws such as compulsory voting and we were one of the earliest nations to have mandatory seatbelt laws. Yet our government still hasn't gone crazy with power (mostly becuase of the way we vote directlky for our memebers of parliment, with said members only being put into positions once elected into a seat, and their party is in power, and leadership challanges can happen) and put us into some kind of super opressed state.

Also, your second ammendment does NOT state ANYTHING about FIREARMS, it clearly states; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". You could technically argue that the Arms reffered to in the 2nd ammendment could refer to any sort of weapon used for personal defence, and that it only prohibbits laws from being made that prevent someone from having ANY form of weapon for self defence, but still allow for the prohibition of certain types, as long as there are still some types of weapon that are not prohibbited.

If it doesn't refer to the right to have weapons, then what does it refer to?

Oh, I see. There's no crime in any country other than the US. Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh, and in regards to the government oppressing us, that's hardly MY concern, personally. I hardly think that's an issue anymore. Is there really a problem with feeling somewhat empowered, though? I think it's healthy.

Again, i'm saying, I don't think guns are necessary, but what is the real problem here? Why should they be taken away from us?

Australia seems like a lousy place to live in.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people who buy guns would be for the purpose of...you know..protection against bad guys these days. Not the government, unless you are :tinfoil:.



This is only true for the Principality of Sealand.

edit: wait a minute, there were crimes in Sealand (a kidnapping). I did not know this.

Actually, Australia is rated to be a freer country than the US.

eh. I was leaning more toward sarcasm. Australia seems like a decent place to live, with all its kangaroos and slouch hats. Reid would love those kangaroos.