Is it Time for the US Government to Ban Gun Ownership?

[cristo]

Maybe I'm just stupid, but this makes no sense. I'm serious, I don't understand the reply at all.

My point was that if the ownership of guns is outlawed for law-abiding citizens, then a criminal breaking into a house has no reason to assume that the householder has a gun. A criminal breaking into a house when it is legal for the homeowner to have a gun will have to assume that the homeowner does indeed own one, and carries it with him. I propose that in the former case, you are less likely to be shot than in the latter case.

Besides, if a criminal breaks into your house and wants to shoot you, you're pretty much done for anyway! (Unless, of course, you sit at the top of your stairs with the gun trained on the door all day, on the off chance that someone will break in! )

 

[Averagesupernova]

My point was that if the ownership of guns is outlawed for law-abiding citizens, then a criminal breaking into a house has no reason to assume that the householder has a gun. A criminal breaking into a house when it is legal for the homeowner to have a gun will have to assume that the homeowner does indeed own one, and carries it with him. I propose that in the former case, you are less likely to be shot than in the latter case.

Nope. Not buying it. Why? The criminal is less likely to break into your house to begin with when there is suspicion of an owner with a gun inside.

Besides, if a criminal breaks into your house and wants to shoot you, you're pretty much done for anyway! (Unless, of course, you sit at the top of your stairs with the gun trained on the door all day, on the off chance that someone will break in! )

Read my previous posts. It's quite likely I'd know if someone were even walking around the outside. Can you explain why you think someone would go to the trouble of breaking in my house with the sole intention of shooting me? Is this what happens in England? You can't compare this with Joe. It wouldn't be in the same ball park as a type of crime. Even if that were the case, I'm still better off with a gun than without. Someone has already pointed out the odds of 1,000,000:1 being better than 1,000,000:0.

 

[Anttech]

Nope. Not buying it. Why? The criminal is less likely to break into your house to begin with when there is suspicion of an owner with a gun inside.

Why do you think this, because the rate of house-robbings in America is far less than in the UK (for example). Please give some reasons why you say this.. I haven't ever seen any data to back that up.

 

[Cyrus]

Ignoring your hyperbole the point is that yes if you are responsible fine, but, the percentage of unresponsible people seems to be too dam high for it to be social responsible to allow mass consumption of guns in the public. Its this exact reason why they are banned in most countries. Which is contrary to the idea that all country that ban guns for use in the public domain are waiting (or rather wanting) to be taken over by the paranoid dictator scenario (we as do you, have other more important mechanisms in place to stop this happening). Individualism is fine as long as it doesn't effect society in a negative way, at that point it just becomes selfish. Gun ownership is selfish (especially in American society) because it has a negative effect on society as a whole.

Stop making up figures out your you know what. What proof do you have that says:

"percentage of unresponsible people seems to be too dam high for it to be social responsible to allow mass consumption of guns in the public."

Which is contrary to the idea that all country that ban guns for use in the public domain are waiting (or rather wanting) to be taken over by the paranoid dictator scenario (we as do you, have other more important mechanisms in place to stop this happening).

Again, I don't care what other countries do about their guns. But in my country this is the reason for allowing citizens to have guns. So your point is NOT RELEVANT.

Gun ownership is selfish (especially in American society) because it has a negative effect on society as a whole.

What a load of bull. Stop pawning off blame on others. Now its "selfish" for people to be responsible gun owners.


Honestly, you don't live in the United States, so stop complaining about it. I don't sit here and lecture you on having guns in the UK. You just complain for the sake of hearing your own voice.

 

[edward]

Without proper training in the handling of fire arms, family members are more at risk than the bad guys.

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.

http://www.bradycenter.org/stop2/facts/fs2.php

Below are some troubling stats on firearms:

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

The best weapon for home protection is actually not a hand gun, it is a shot gun with an 18 inch barrel.

 

[cristo]

Nope. Not buying it. Why? The criminal is less likely to break into your house to begin with when there is suspicion of an owner with a gun inside.

I'm not asking you to buy it-- it's my opinion, and you're entitled to you opinion!

However, answer me this hypothetical situation. Suppose every household owns a gun; now what? Will crime stop? Will criminals stop stealing from the average citizen? Or.. will the number of deaths increase because every citizen owns a gun?

Read my previous posts. It's quite likely I'd know if someone were even walking around the outside. Can you explain why you think someone would go to the trouble of breaking in my house with the sole intention of shooting me? Is this what happens in England?

Not with the sole intention of shooting you, but willing to shoot you if he sees you, regardless of whether there is a chance of you carrying a gun or not (to dispose of the witnesses, or whatever other reason there may be).

You can't compare this with Joe. It wouldn't be in the same ball park as a type of crime. Even if that were the case, I'm still better off with a gun than without. Someone has already pointed out the odds of 1,000,000:1 being better than 1,000,000:0.

And I've answered this point before. I'm not really prepared to waste my time again.

If you think that all citizens carrying around weapons wherever they go is a recipe for a safe nation, then good luck to you, and to your country.

 

[Anttech]

"percentage of unresponsible people seems to be too dam high for it to be social responsible to allow mass consumption of guns in the public."

Ohh sorry don't you understand the word "seems", and the use of the word?

Again, I don't care what other countries do about their guns. But in my country this is the reason for allowing citizens to have guns. So your point is NOT RELEVANT.

Good point, I see where you are going with this, ignoring the knee jerk emotion in your post, it does shows that the decision to allow guns isn't based on anything, but the fact people want them, and don't really give a **** about the social effect of having them. Which is what I have been saying.

What a load of bull. Stop pawning off blame on others. Now its "selfish" for people to be responsible gun owners.

pawning off blame, are you saying its my fault you have guns?

Honestly, you don't live in the United States, so stop complaining about it. I don't sit here and lecture you on having guns in the UK. You just complain for the sake of hearing your own voice.

Im not complaining, I am not lecturing, and I don't typically talk when I type.

What it is called, in case you don't understand (like the word "seems") is a debate. I have been giving my opinion based on logic, I have shown why I think like I do, and have Data to back what I say up. You dont, so you are ad homming... but I am used to it from you sooooo whatever.

 

[drankin]

Someone (European) earlier suggested that criminals are more skilled with firearms than everyday folks who have firearms. In general, this is not true for a few reasons. The law-abiding gun carrying folks typically frequent gun ranges, shooting competitions, and may have state mandated training in order to retain their permit. Criminals cannot have a permit. Also, It's a social activity to go shooting and to gun shows with your buddies. Many of your shooting buddies at the range to train tend to be law enforcement folks. The criminal element is not very comfortable hanging out with cops or just good folks that are armed.

Cho, was a loner. Not likely he had a membership at a range. Only two months of gun ownership doesn't make you skilled marksman. A bill was struck down not too long ago that would have allowed college students and teachers to possesses a concealed weapons permit. Had just a few been able to carry on campus, the death toll would likely be much lower.

 

[cristo]

Someone (European) earlier suggested that criminals are more skilled with firearms than everyday folks who have firearms. In general, this is not true for a few reasons. The law-abiding gun carrying folks typically frequent gun ranges, shooting competitions, and may have state mandated training in order to retain their permit. Criminals cannot have a permit. Also, It's a social activity to go shooting and to gun shows with your buddies. Many of your shooting buddies at the range to train tend to be law enforcement folks. The criminal element is not very comfortable hanging out with cops or just good folks that are armed.

But has the average gun carrying citizen shot a man before? I would not define "skill" as being able to shoot a can off a wall; I would define it as being able to hit another human being in a situation of life and death. In that sense, I would say that the average criminal is more skillfull.

Cho, was a loner. Not likely he had a membership at a range. Only two months of gun ownership doesn't make you skilled marksman. A bill was struck down not too long ago that would have allowed college students and teachers to possesses a concealed weapons permit. Had just a few been able to carry on campus, the death toll would likely be much lower.

That's just ridiculous, and I would hope that the majority of US citizens believe that there is no place for weapons in universities.

 

[Cyrus]

Ohh sorry don't you understand the word "seems", and the use of the word?

Ok, so you don't have any evidence of your statement. I understand. Then continue to argue the word "seems" and see if I care.

Good point, I see where you are going with this, ignoring the knee jerk emotion in your post, it does shows that the decision to allow guns isn't based on anything, but the fact people want them, and don't really give a **** about the social effect of having them. Which is what I have been saying.
pawning off blame, are you saying its my fault you have guns?

I already TOLD YOU why its there. Now you are just IGNORING what I said. I will tell you one last time, we have guns because the intent of the constitution was to keep the government in check. So stop comming up with this "decision to own guns isn't based on anything" NONSENSE. And YES, you ARE calling responsible gun owners selfish. You are putting blame on people who did nothing wrong because you can't live with the fact that there ARE responsible gun owners in the world. Its hard to swallow the truth, huh?

Im not complaining, I am not lecturing, and I don't typically talk when I type.

Yes, you ARE. You have been doing it nonstop. In fact, you were the first to go off on a "I told you so" tyrade in the Vignia Tech thread, which was inappropriate. Get some class.

What it is called, in case you don't understand (like the word "seems") is a debate. I have been giving my opinion based on logic, I have shown why I think like I do, and have Data to back what I say up. You dont, so you are ad homming... but I am used to it from you sooooo whatever.

Come up with something better than this buddy.

 

[Huckleberry]

-Guns, especially the type Joe Average buys from his gun shop, are no use in overthrowing the government.

I wouldn't say guns are useless in overthrowing the government. Any militia would have some real problems against a well trained military in an open field. A million guns in a million homes is an entirely different story. It would make holding any ground very difficult, requiring far too many soldiers for the amount of land they intend to control. Far more importantly however, it is the Constitution itself that helps prevent this sort of thing.

-Guns are not even the best way to protect your own property (A fundamental building block of Capitalism).

This is also my opinion. Having checked a little on the internet I can see that gun sales in the US rise dramatically when gun related crimes rise in an area. For example, gun sales in New Orleans after the crime resulting from the chaos created by hurricane Katrina.
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/mar/27/gun-sales-soar-big-easy/

Citizens, the tourism industry, police and politicians have been alarmed by the wave of killings in New Orleans, with 162 in 2006 and 37 so far this year. A Tulane University study put the city's 2006 homicide rate at 96 slayings per 100,000 people, the highest in the nation.

That isn't to say that guns are never useful in home defense, but I worry that people like this woman who claim that they feel more confident because they purchased a firearm concern me. Sure, she is more confident, but is she really more safe because she has a firearm when other means of home defense are more effective? I think she bought the gun to alleviate her fears, which is a mistake IMO.

-Society in general seems to be more violent the more guns that are in circulation

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. American society can be violent in any case, whether there are guns or not. Our culture in many ways encourages aggressive and violent behavior. A ban on guns won't make us a more peaceful society. Or are you speaking of situations like what happened in New Orleans where there is lots of crime in an area and the population arms themselves and the result is a lot of guns in a high crime area? I'm skeptical that a ban on guns would be effective in preventing crime in a situation like that in this country.

-Gun ownership is a right by the constitution and thus beyond encroachment.

Not entirely. New amendments have been made since the original was drafted and one amendment was repealed. The Constitution has changed and so is not itself above encroachment. What is above encroachment is the right to liberty that the document represents. I would hope that Americans value their right to liberty above the safety of government. The second amendment is so vital in this regard because it is the lynchpin between our liberty and the governments authority over us. This is the biggest hurdle to any gun ban in this country.

I wouldn't say that even the poorest of theives know anything about the home they are breaking into. Some of the drug addicts we have running around these days (which are the most dangerous of criminals) will do little research before picking a house. No one has said that owning a gun is like living in a fortress.

I think you underestimate drug addicts. It takes a clever person to survive an expensive addiction while possibly being homeless or unemployed. They are desperate and dangerous, but like any intelligent predator, they will at least attempt to find weaker prey.

If you read my previous posts you will see that I do not support a ban. It goes against what I believe this country stands for. I want to live in a nation that protects my freedom. I'm not willing to sacrafice that for safety. I think that a government that does so has no faith in its people's ability to reason. The goal is to make a peaceful society AND keep our freedoms and live in a society where we can be civil to each other. Banning guns will not make us civil. To do that we need to change our culture, not our constitution. So far we seem to be doing a poor job of it, but that's my hope.

 

[siddharth]

Had just a few been able to carry on campus, the death toll would likely be much lower.

Conversely, one could argue that since there were more students with guns in campus, this type of incident would have been more probable. I don't think that arguing with hypothetical situations will actually achieve anything in this debate.

The best thing would be a detailed statistical analysis, looking at the link between homicide, crime and suicide rates and the availability of guns.

Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere, as people are far too set in their own opinions to change. I respect your opinion, but I don't live in your country, and thus cannot really understand the point of view of people who believe that guns are good

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Why do you think this, because the rate of house-robbings in America is far less than in the UK (for example). Please give some reasons why you say this.. I haven't ever seen any data to back that up.

Can you honestly say if you were planning a break-in and you valued your life at all and you were given a choice between 2 houses, one with guns and one without that it wouldn't matter either way?

 

[drankin]

But has the average gun carrying citizen shot a man before? I would not define "skill" as being able to shoot a can off a wall; I would define it as being able to hit another human being in a situation of life and death. In that sense, I would say that the average criminal is more skillfull.



That's just ridiculous, and I would hope that the majority of US citizens believe that there is no place for weapons in universities.

The don't put up cans at a firing range Just like practicing martial arts. You practice various self-defense scenarios, quick draws, running, etc over a long period of time and you become very skilled. I'd put a veteran from a gun range that has never shot anyone against any common thug who has. The thug doesn't have a chance. You've watched too many movies.

It is absolutely not ridiculous for folks to be able to defend themselves at a university. That doesn't even make sense. "You've come here to learn, but while learning you are completely helpless to defend yourself against gun toting madmen, sorry". That's rediculous.

 

[Anttech]

I will tell you one last time, we have guns because the intent of the constitution was to keep the government in check. So stop comming up with this "decision to own guns isn't based on anything" NONSENSE. And YES, you ARE calling responsible gun owners selfish. You are putting blame on people who did nothing wrong because you can't live with the fact that there ARE responsible gun owners in the world. Its hard to swollow the truth, huh?

Hey.. why don't you read my posts... Then I wouldn't have to re-explain time and time again.. I know why it was written like it was, but it is now defunct, thus it is not a reason to allow people to continue to carry arms, when they are not effective in the remit of that Law! Yes I am calling everyone who buys and carries guns selfish in the respect that it is harming the whole community---> Just look at America's crime rates. As I have already said, I know there are responsible gun owners, but it seems that (Judging by the crime figures from America) there are way to many irresponsible people with guns, and it harms the whole of society

Now time for you to answer my questions, since everyone else decided to ignore them.

Right, so can we say then:

-Guns, especially the type Joe Average buys from his gun shop, are no use in overthrowing the government.
-Guns are not even the best way to protect your own property (A fundamental building block of Capitalism).
-Society in general seems to be more violent the more guns that are in circulation
-Gun ownership is a right by the constitution and thus beyond encroachment.

Yes, you ARE. You have been doing it nonstop. In fact, you were the first to go off on a "I told you so" tyrade in the Vignia Tech thread, which was inappropriate. Get some class.

Told you so? That is simply just a ****ing lie, and you know it!.. Yet more attack the poster rubbish, very very weak!

Come up with something better than this buddy.

Just answer the questions and try and be civil for once.

 

[cristo]

The don't put up cans at a firing range

I know; I figured this needed a light-hearted comment!

I'd put a veteran from a gun range that has never shot anyone against any common thug who has. The thug doesn't have a chance.

Well, I say the thug needs the urge to kill a man and one lucky shot. Anyway, we're both just speculating here, aren't we!

 

[siddharth]

It is absolutely not ridiculous for folks to be able to defend themselves at a university. That doesn't even make sense. "You've come here to learn, but while learning you are completely helpless to defend yourself against gun toting madmen, sorry". That's rediculous.

That's because you normally don't expect gun toting madmen in universities?

As I said before, it could be argued that if there's a hypothetical situation where many people in universities had guns to defend themselves, there would also be much higher probabilities of gun toting madmen in universities.

 

[Anttech]

Can you honestly say if you were planning a break-in and you valued your life at all and you were given a choice between 2 houses, one with guns and one without that it wouldn't matter either way?

No, but a typical house breaker is not a normal person. They usually have a problem that needs fixing via Money. Having a gun or not probably doesn't register. Look honestly I don't know if you are right or not, that is why I want to see some data, because to me I don't think it really makes such a difference.

 

[Averagesupernova]

No, but a typical house breaker is not a normal person. They usually have a problem that needs fixing via Money. Having a gun or not probably doesn't register. Look honestly I don't know if you are right or not, that is why I want to see some data, because to me I don't think it really makes such a difference.

On the average, the typical house breaker still values his life. I'm not sure if stats exist for this sort of thing. I'm beginning to suspect you are asking for data that you suspect does not exist in order to not be proven wrong.

 

[Anttech]

I wouldn't say guns are useless in overthrowing the government. Any militia would have some real problems against a well trained military in an open field. A million guns in a million homes is an entirely different story. It would make holding any ground very difficult, requiring far too many soldiers for the amount of land they intend to control. Far more importantly however, it is the Constitution itself that helps prevent this sort of thing.

1000 People with hand-guns is easy meat for a well train Tank unit. Thats my point, 250 years ago you would have had a point, but now you need other mechanisms in place to stop the paranoid dictator scenario.

This is also my opinion. Having checked a little on the internet I can see that gun sales in the US rise dramatically when gun related crimes rise in an area. For example, gun sales in New Orleans after the crime resulting from the chaos created by hurricane Katrina.
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/mar/27/gun-sales-soar-big-easy/
That isn't to say that guns are never useful in home defense, but I worry that people like this woman who claim that they feel more confident because they purchased a firearm concern me. Sure, she is more confident, but is she really more safe because she has a firearm when other means of home defense are more effective? I think she bought the gun to alleviate her fears, which is a mistake IMO.

Yes I would agree with that, its a very macho masculine ideal to think, *I'll just blow his head off when he comes on my property* Although it might make me as a man feel better it doesn't mean that it is effective.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. American society can be violent in any case, whether there are guns or not. Our culture in many ways encourages aggressive and violent behavior. A ban on guns won't make us a more peaceful society. Or are you speaking of situations like what happened in New Orleans where there is lots of crime in an area and the population arms themselves and the result is a lot of guns in a high crime area? I'm skeptical that a ban on guns would be effective in preventing crime in a situation like that in this country.

I mean that there seems (IMO) to be a correlation between the availability of Guns and how violent a society you live in. But I will give you that, Western (not just America, but is very apparent in America, due to Hollywood) Society is violent, and is very masculine in that seance.

Not entirely. New amendments have been made since the original was drafted and one amendment was repealed. The Constitution has changed and so is not itself above encroachment. What is above encroachment is the right to liberty that the document represents. I would hope that Americans value their right to liberty above the safety of government. The second amendment is so vital in this regard because it is the lynchpin between our liberty and the governments authority over us. This is the biggest hurdle to any gun ban in this country.

OK, but why do Americans seem to think that gun ownership is such a massive liberty they must have/need, and removal of it provokes such emotional no-logic rants... and then on the other hand the patriot act eased pass your congress. Which is more of a eroding of liberties than not carrying a gun-- which is harming society.

Thank you for a thoughtful response, Qudos.

 

[Anttech]

On the average, the typical house breaker still values his life. I'm not sure if stats exist for this sort of thing. I'm beginning to suspect you are asking for data that you suspect does not exist in order to not be proven wrong.

No I am not.. What we could do, is look at the amount of House breakins per person in a country that has a ban on public ownership of guns, for the sake of owning a gun, and America. I just haven't been able to find that Data...

 

[Cyrus]

Hey.. why don't you read my posts... Then I wouldn't have to re-explain time and time again.. I know why it was written like it was, but it is now defunct, thus it is not a reason to allow people to continue to carry arms, when they are not effective in the remit of that Law!

No, its not. The constitution, not a single part of it, is "now defunct".

Yes I am calling everyone who buys and carries guns selfish in the respect that it is harming the whole community

Bull-s. No, its NOT harming the whole community. Its the Irresponsible gun owners that are harming the community.

Told you so? That is simply just a ****ing lie, and you know it!.. Yet more attack the poster rubbish, very very weak!
Just answer the questions and try and be civil for once.

Yes, you were way out of line in the VT thread ranting your crap about guns. That was not the place for it. So like I said, get some class.

 

[Huckleberry]

Why do you think this, because the rate of house-robbings in America is far less than in the UK (for example). Please give some reasons why you say this.. I haven't ever seen any data to back that up.

I'm pretty sure his statement is fairly accurate. The problem is that the burglar rarely knows if he has a gun or not. Unless the burglar has a personal connection to the target, or has actually seen him with a gun, he will never know.

This Harvard study shows no finding of homes with guns to home without guns being robbed more, probably because the robber does not know which home has a gun or not. It does state that homes where someone is home and armed there is much higher chance of homicide than homes without guns. I can't quote the site, but here is the link. There are lots of interesting findings and sources are listed.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/pdf/litreviewfirearmdeaths.pdf

This site http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nburglary08.html is from the FBI. It shows that most home robberies occur during the daytime (while people are not home) and most businesses are robbed at night(while they are closed.) In general, a burglar just wants to get your stuff and get out without any conflict.

Offense Analysis
Among those agencies that reported burglary statistics for all 12 months of 2002, the data showed that forcible entry burglaries accounted for 62.8 percent of the burglary offenses, unlawful entry comprised 30.8 percent, and attempted forcible entry accounted for approximately 6.5 percent. (Based on Table 19.)

The majority of burglaries, 65.8 percent, were residential, and the remaining 34.2 percent were of nonresidences, such as stores, offices, etc. A review of burglary data in which the time of the offense was known showed that most residential burglaries, 61.7 percent, occurred during daytime hours, and most nonresidential burglaries, 57.7 percent, occurred at night. The time of occurrence for 24.1 percent of burglaries was unknown. (Based on Table 23.)

Losses due to burglary totaled an estimated $3.3 billion in 2002, with an estimated average value of $1,549 per offense. Residential burglaries averaged $1,482 per offense, and nonresidental burglaries averaged $1,678 per offense. (Based on Table 23.)

 

[Cyrus]

-Guns, especially the type Joe Average buys from his gun shop, are no use in overthrowing the government.
-Guns are not even the best way to protect your own property (A fundamental building block of Capitalism).
-Society in general seems to be more violent the more guns that are in circulation
-Gun ownership is a right by the constitution and thus beyond encroachment.

-(1) Then give everyone an appropriate weapon like in Switzerland.
-(2) Who cares, then don't use one to protect your property, that's NOT THE POINT OF HAVING THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN.
-(3) There you go again with that "seem's" nonsense.
-(4) If you want to get rid of guns, change the constitution-oh wait, your not a US citizen and thus have no say...sorry.

 

[Anttech]

No, its not. The constitution, not a single part of it, is "now defunct".

So are you asserting that your owning of handguns is the mechanism that will stop a dictator taking over America?

Bull-s. No, its NOT harming the whole community. Its the Irresponsible gun owners that are harming the community.

Yes I know its the irresponsible owners that are harming society, so we agree that having guns available to the pubic does harm society? Of course the pubic is made up of both Irresponsible and responsible people.

Yes, you were way out of line in the VT thread ranting your crap about guns. That was not the place for it. So like I said, get some class.

No I was not out of line that was a thread the same as this one debating the need of Guns in society with that awful event as a backdrop. YOU are out of line, by ad homming and letting your emotions get in the way of having a civil conversation. You never know you (as may I)might learn something from this debate.

 

[Anttech]

I'm pretty sure his statement is fairly accurate. The problem is that the burglar rarely knows if he has a gun or not. Unless the burglar has a personal connection to the target, or has actually seen him with a gun, he will never know.

Right, so it becomes obsolete, and not a valid reason for allow the population to have hand guns for protection of property.

I think we just come back to the point---> We want guns so we will have them! There isn't a *good* argument that shows society is better for the public being armed, and I would say there is a strong case that society is actually more unsafe when the public has easy access to guns.

 

[Anttech]

-(1) Then give everyone an appropriate weapon like in Switzerland.
-(2) Who cares, then don't use one to protect your property, that's NOT THE POINT OF HAVING THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN.
-(3) There you go again with that "seem's" nonsense.
-(4) If you want to get rid of guns, change the constitution-oh wait, your not a US citizen and thus have no say...sorry.

Actually don't bother next time... Sorry I was hoping we could have a intellectual debate, not some *clown* off..

 

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry
I wouldn't say guns are useless in overthrowing the government. Any militia would have some real problems against a well trained military in an open field. A million guns in a million homes is an entirely different story. It would make holding any ground very difficult, requiring far too many soldiers for the amount of land they intend to control. Far more importantly however, it is the Constitution itself that helps prevent this sort of thing.

1000 People with hand-guns is easy meat for a well train Tank unit. Thats my point, 250 years ago you would have had a point, but now you need other mechanisms in place to stop the paranoid dictator scenario.

You miss the point. What I'm speaking about is the same edge the american rebels had over the English in the Revolutionary War. It's the reason the Allies are having such problems maintaining control of Iraq. With tanks alone any military would crush a militia in an open battle. The problem is that they cannot control the populace as long as they are armed. You hide weapons and snipe one soldier and run away. You wait for one military truck and set up a roadblock in front of it and take or destroy their equipment and supplies. You set explosives in areas where you think they will come and then make a reason for them to go there. To fight a more powerful enemy you need to create fear and erode their morale and take away their ability to strike back. You don't stand in a big group and let them roll over everyone with tanks.

Check out the movie Red Dawn. It's a fictional scenario where the Soviet Union invades the U.S.

 

[Averagesupernova]

What we could do, is look at the amount of House breakins per person in a country that has a ban on public ownership of guns, for the sake of owning a gun, and America. I just haven't been able to find that Data...

That's not really good enough since Americans are Americans and Europeans are Europeans. (For example) We aren't the same people to start with. You need a control group. I am not saying that a crook will find out if a house has a gun or not and make their decision. I am saying that the possibility that a house has a gun is a deterent. The same way a security system is a deterent. It quite likely keeps some people from ever getting started in crime and burglary.

 

[turbo]

US citizens continue to buy firearms and increase the number of firearms in circulation. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 1994 2004. That's an average of 6 million background checks a year for people wanting to buy a gun through the retail market. Accompanying this increase in the number of privately-owned firearms is a decrease in the number of violent crimes. From the FBI "Crime in the United States" report:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_01-01a.html

As many people here have suggested, the incidence rate of violent crime shows a negative correlation with gun ownership. Honestly, if you wanted to mug someone or pull off a car-jacking, would you rather do it in NYC, where the populace is effectively disarmed, or in Houston, where the right to carry concealed weapons is heavily used?

 

[Averagesupernova]

I'll also argue for guns because while we may not prevent a dictator from taking over or attempting to take over, post revolution it would certainly be an advantage.

 

[Anttech]

I think Iraq is a different kettle of fish. People there are committing suicide and taking as many coalition as possible.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't understand the thinking behind the 2nd amendment, was it to protect your country against the government or against being invaded? If it is the latter, I don't see the added value considering the size and might of the American Military.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Read my last post Anttech. It may not prevent either the government or an invasion but it could certainly protect the people post-takeover. Not only that, the same thing goes for a takeover here in the US as Iraq. We could go in and wipe out everything that moves but that would be kind of pointless right? Someone could come in here to the US and do the same thing but what is a country without people?

 

[drankin]

I think Iraq is a different kettle of fish. People there are committing suicide and taking as many coalition as possible.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't understand the thinking behind the 2nd amendment, was it to protect your country against the government or against being invaded? If it is the latter, I don't see the added value considering the size and might of the American Military.

If we were to have a civil war, I could easily see a lot of the American Military defecting and bringing over military equipment. I could see a lot of the state run national gaurds joining the rebelion. You understand, as another American serviceman posted, they serve to protect the Constitution first. Not all military personel are going to do that, of course, but it would not be the entire US military against it's own citizens. And, I'd much rather have gun than not. I will not be disarmed, ever.

 

[Anttech]

And, I'd much rather have gun than not. I will not be disarmed, ever.

Yeah I get the picture, doesn't make any (read: absolutely none) sense to me, but I get the picture: You all want your guns, and guns and more guns

I just wish you would all admit that there is no social benefit to having them, its just you want them they make you feel good about (something)