I love guns

[Troll King]

Then you already knew the answer to your question.

[bloodzombie]

What can I say.. I have no desire to own a gun, I think that most people who own guns do it because it makes them feel like a bigger man. Sure, shooting at a target might be fun, I had a BB gun when i was a kid, I loved it. If someone said "let's go to the range and shoot my gun", I'd probably think that guy was a weirdo, but I'd go. It's kinda like fishing, sure, I'll go out to the lake once every few years and sit around in a boat, doesn't mean I wanna go buy a poll.. and that's just a fishing poll, it doesn't kill people (unless you get really creative).

I think people should have the right to own guns too, I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm just saying that it's not for me, and if someone brought one into my house, it would make me uncomfortable, not because I'm irrational and I'm afraid it will just spontaneously go off and kill someone, but it's more just a question of why the fuck someone would bring a gun into my house. If it was a cop, ok, that I understand, if one of my friends came over strapped, I'd kindly ask him to take the gun home.

[Subjugation]

In my opinion this is the poorest argument that 5th Amendment activists keep pointing to.

Yea, that would be a pretty poor argument, since the fifth amendment pertains to due process and self-incrimination. I think you're referring to the second amendment to the Bill of Rights.

But it makes sense that you think it's silly to use the Bill of Rights to defend our liberties since it doesn't appear you know much about their place in American History.

[Sarien]

Then you already knew the answer to your question.

I don't understand. You can see by BZ's response there was more to be said, man. But Okee Dokee.

I'm just saying that it's not for me, and if someone brought one into my house, it would make me uncomfortable, not because I'm irrational and I'm afraid it will just spontaneously go off and kill someone, but it's more just a question of why the fuck someone would bring a gun into my house. If it was a cop, ok, that I understand, if one of my friends came over strapped, I'd kindly ask him to take the gun home.

Totally within your rights and I understand it and respect it 100%. It's your home and nobody, friend or foe, should violate your wishes in the sanctity thereof. I can see that you are a bit weirded out however, so if I ever had the opportunity? I'd totally offer to take you target shooting. Not because I think one trip and you'd be enraptured, but because like all things the less knowledge you have, the more dangerous and mysterious it becomes.

I fully believe gun safety should be taught in schools. How to use and fire a gun and kill people? No. How to unload, make safe, and generally not kill yourself with one, absolutely. And that's the reason I'd offer to go with you. You seem like a decent all around good guy, and if ever in your life me having shown you or anybody how to unload and deactivate a firearm without killing yourself or anybody else around you was put to good use, then it would be absolutely worth it. That is something I believe in very strongly.

[genocidal]

Yea, that would be a pretty poor argument, since the fifth amendment pertains to due process and self-incrimination. I think you're referring to the second amendment to the Bill of Rights.

But it makes sense that you think it's silly to use the Bill of Rights to defend our liberties since it doesn't appear you know much about their place in American History.

Apologies, I stated the wrong Amendment. Your dull attempt at making a clever joke about a simple mistake has obviously blinded you from the rest of my post wherin you could have seen proof against your groundless assertion that I don't hold the Bill of Rights in any regard.

You clearly did not read my post. I was not saying that the 2nd Amendment is a poor argument for defense of liberties. If you had read the rest of my post you would have noted that I do support the 2nd Amendment (stated as 5th purely by mistake). Second, if you want to talk about historical contextualization of this particular Amendment then you will find your argument falling short. The 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution not because the framers were worried about their neighbors raping their wives and daughters and stealing their possessions but because they did feared the type "tyrannical" government from which they came. The 2nd Amendment was more to protect citizens from the government than from one another and if you had continued reading rather than attempting to attack me you would have known that that is the exact reason for which I personally support the 2nd Amendment.

[Subjugation]

I fully believe gun safety should be taught in schools. How to use and fire a gun and kill people? No. How to unload, make safe, and generally not kill yourself with one, absolutely. And that's the reason I'd offer to go with you. You seem like a decent all around good guy, and if ever in your life me having shown you or anybody how to unload and deactivate a firearm without killing yourself or anybody else around you was put to good use, then it would be absolutely worth it. That is something I believe in very strongly.

Maybe not in school, but definitely when you get your gun permit. The questions they ask you are waaaay too easy, and any retard can pass the test. It shouldn't have to be the S.A.T. either, but it should be more challenging than just a multiple choice test of:

Should you EVER point a gun at something you don't intend to kill?

A. Yes
B. No
C. Neither

However, it would probably still be argued against by the NRA, but as elitist as this sounds, I don't think stupid people should be allowed to have guns, so call me a bourgeois asshole. However, the dangerous thing about that is when you take something considered a fundamental liberty, and you turn it into a privilige...like a driver's license...does that mean other freedoms should become priviliges as well? That's the danger of precedent.

[Ayano]

Wow, another gun topic..

If we didn't have guns, we'd use swords
If we didn't have swords, we'd use clubs
If we didn't have clubs, we'd use chains
If we didn't have chains, we'd use fists
If we didn't have fists, we'd eat each other

The point is we hate each other due to reginal differences, suspicions, class struggle ectect. And as long as there is hate, we find new ways of killing each other.

Also, guns can be good in some situations.

Hippie1 "Holy shit, a Bear"
Hippie2 "Relax, it won't hurt you"
*Bear eats Hippie2*
Hippie1 "FKING BEJEZZUS"
Hippie1 "We need a gun!"
Hippie3 "Our anti gun sing along in dc made guns illegal"
Hippie4 *smoking weed* "Farrr outttt"
Hippie1 "oh hell no"
*Bear eats hippies*

[genocidal]

As for Sarien, I'm about to sleep so quoting the parts is going to be too much work for me at this point.
http://www.ichv.org/suicideandguns.htm - Evidence for increasing suicides with presence of guns.
http://www.icvp.org/fs_gun.asp - Evidence for various situations dealing with guns. Note:
I wouldn't want a gun in my house (especially if I had kids) knowing this:
Suicide is nearly 5 times more likely to occur in households where a gun is present (8) with approximately 60% of all suicides in the United States involving guns.(9)

I thought this was interesting:
Twice as many children in the United States under ten years of age died as the result of firearm injuries in 1991 as US soldiers were killed in the Persian Gulf and Somalia combined.

And for you penny-pinchers, you're paying for these wounds:
Approximately 80 percent of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries is paid for by taxpayers (11), and the average cost of a patient with firearm-related injuries is estimated to cost $32,000 per hospital admission.(12)

Well there is some evidence. I did read somewhere but could not find in my 2 minutes of research a statistic pertaining to the liklihood of an intruder using a gun in a household against the owner of the household. You can disregard that if you don't trust my credibility and I don't really think it's crucial to my argument.

Now, I am sorry to hear about the poor response time you have where you live - you must really live in the boonies. But know also that you are a small minority of the population being rural. Also, do not confuse what I am saying. I never said guns should be made illegal in the United States.

1) You misunderstood my use of the phrase. I was simply showing that the sword was a primary weapon of combat since the notion that people disliking the sword for its destructive value seemed bizzare to you.
2) I agree, and I'm not saying people should be held accountable for their actions. All I was saying was that pulling a trigger is way easier than stabbing someone or beating someone to death. That a large part of the reason why most homicides are at the hands of a gun.
3) Your self-defense example is all you can cling to for the morality of guns. If the intruders had no guns then it would be much less necessary for the person defending his/herself to have one.
4) Again misinterpreting what I am saying. The Justice system is all fine and good but can you say it's working? No. Crime fluctuates from year to year usually on an uphill path. Obviously crime is not going to be totally shut out of our society ever so why not take away crime's ability to easily take the life of innocent people? That sounds like a good idea to me. But for me, that's all it is - an idea. Please don't misinterpret what I am saying here and post about how the gun can never be taken out of our society. On that point I am not arguing with you. Nor am I even arguing that it should be. But that it is a bad invention - yes I am saying that.
5) Ok great. You win here, buddy, since I never even argued that.

[Subjugation]

Apologies, I stated the wrong Amendment. Your dull attempt at making a clever joke about a simple mistake has obviously blinded you from the rest of my post wherin you could have seen proof against your groundless assertion that I don't hold the Bill of Rights in any regard.

You clearly did not read my post. I was not saying that the 2nd Amendment is a poor argument for defense of liberties. If you had read the rest of my post you would have noted that I do support the 2nd Amendment (stated as 5th purely by mistake). Second, if you want to talk about historical contextualization of this particular Amendment then you will find your argument falling short. The 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution not because the framers were worried about their neighbors raping their wives and daughters and stealing their possessions but because they did feared the type "tyrannical" government from which they came. The 2nd Amendment was more to protect citizens from the government than from one another and if you had continued reading rather than attempting to attack me you would have known that that is the exact reason for which I personally support the 2nd Amendment.

That's true, I didn't read the rest of your post because I figured you had no idea what you were talking about. I admit I was incorrect about that. Regardless of that, I still disagree with the rest of what you said.

It's true the framers of the Constitution were concerned about "the tyrannical government from which they came", but they were indeed concerned about "their neighbors", and by "neighbors" I mean the Indian natives. They were constantly at war with them, however, this became less of a threat as expansion into the west increased, and as population density increased as well. Also, I think you underestimate the legitimate concern about defense of property on the local level.

In addition to fears of attack, they were also afraid of the same kind of government oppresion happening from within their own country. There was still conflict between Federalist and Anti-Federalists, and frankly, many people didn't trust the idea of big government or centralized authority. That's the reason why we have checks and balances built into our system of government, because many of elite minds of the time didn't feel confident that a President would never want to eventually become a fucking King and taking the whole place over.

Although, I think we're kind of past the whole "king" fear in our modern society, I still think there's a very real place for the concern of attacks both foreign and domestic. Those are the kinds of concerns that are likely not to go anywhere anytime soon.

[Sarien]

I don't think you're a terrible person genocidal. I think that you're incorrect and possibly a bit naive about some things, but not bad. I don't think you think I'm a bad person or stupid, either. I should certainly hope not anyway considering that I believe I've shown I'm not only reasonable but fairly informed. We just have a differing opinion.

If you don't want a gun in your home, you have that right, and I support that. More power to you. Your safety as well as those you care about and the sanctity of your home should be paramount.

The response time is terrible where I live, and now, after that night, even were it the best response time in the nation I wouldn't change how I think. My life, and the lives of those I love are too precious to me to just trust it to somebody I don't know doing their job, in a time of emergency. If they are there, wonderful. That's what I want, and what I hope to happen in the case of any emergency. To have help. But the chance when it doesn't work out that way, i don't want to be cornered like that again. It's not a good feeling.

In response to your statistics, I'm not going to argue against them, because statistics seem to mostly clog up a discussion. The only thing I feel even slightly necessary to say about them is just this:
They seem to be at odds with one another. One states the leading cause of firearm death is suicide, the other states 62% is from violent homicide. But the second also limits the age amounts included, and is from 1992. Seems kind of likely that they're using exclusions to skew numbers. But pro-gun sites of statistics would be doing the same thing, so I don't hold it against them, I just don't believe it.


2) I agree, pulling a trigger is easier to accomplish than stabbing someone or beating them to death. This is the essence behind my belief that kids that shoot up high schools are cowards. Rather than stand up to bullies or deal with the problems of their own on a productive level, it seems too hard, so they simply get a gun and shoot the joint up. I know you don't think guns should be made illegal, but with the same breath you wish they could be eliminated. I want people to get along. But I'm also a pragmatist, and attacking legal ownership with ridiculous restrictions, exceptions, and pointless hoops just doesn't accomplish what it is well meaning people are out to get to begin with.

3) There is nothing that makes it "less necessary". When you talk about defending yourself, if you want and see to it that you have the best means available to do so, then nobody can really fault you for it. If you are physically weak, and the guy that breaks in only has a knife, you're at a disadvantage if all you got is the kitchen steak knife. When used for a legal purpose there should be given every latitude given to the owners of firearms.

4) Is the justice system perfect? No. But rather than mess with the tools (which will always be available, no matter what), why not mess with the intention behind it. Make the usage of a firearm in a crime, more serious than the crime itself. No matter what it is. It was sort of intended with stuff like assault.. then assault with a deadly weapon, but that doesn't go far enough. I've no problem whatsoever with that. If you commit crimes with a firearm, you're going to earn punishment. If you keep them legally, and never ever break a single law, what harm is caused by owning 1000 machine guns if you want? Strike at the criminal, because they are the ones responsible. That group of people need to be the ones the message is sent to.

5) You just said that our society would be better off if guns were eliminated is all. I pointed out that it wasn't possible.

[Miku19]

Stupid one-hit-one-kill newbies with guns trying to talk to the masters of melee.

I remember a thread with ALMOST the same subject!

[Bioture]

the correlation between owning guns and why the country sucks only applies if you're liberal, or if you're michael moore.

But honestly, I think the gun epidemic in america shouldn't be overlooked. granted that there are stricter laws for selling firearms (unless it's a hunting firearm, then you just need to hit up walmart) and more saftey devices that prevent non-owners from using them, the legislation for banning larger assault class rifles really need to get underway. In any case, you don't need a .50 caliber revolver or a m4 to hunt deer or for recreational purposes.

And the whole argument about it being a "constitutional right" is also bullshit. It had historical significance, surely, but it's just not practical right now.

[Subjugation]

And the whole argument about it being a "constitutional right" is also bullshit. It had historical significance, surely, but it's just not practical right now.

Not practical? What the hell are you talking about?

[Sarien]

granted that there are stricter laws for selling firearms (unless it's a hunting firearm, then you just need to hit up walmart)

I'd opt for better laws than stricter laws any day. Laws that accomplish the intended purpose rather than punish and restrict an unintended purpose much too harshly.

the legislation for banning larger assault class rifles really need to get underway. In any case, you don't need a .50 caliber revolver or a m4 to hunt deer or for recreational purposes.

And if you own those weapons and you never break a single law with them, you shouldn't be allowed to own them, why?

And the whole argument about it being a "constitutional right" is also bullshit. It had historical significance, surely, but it's just not practical right now.

Woohaa. You are wrong. That isn't even an opinion. You are historically, factually, morally, logically, wrong with this bit. It is a constitutional right. That right in the constitution is not only correct, it is in fact, necessary. The ability for the citizenry of the US to own weaponry which it might defend itself with, is the very last and most extreme check in the checks and balances system that makes the US government not get too crooked and abusive to its own populace.

[suxxor]

I don't know what you're talkin about with that .50 caliber crap, but my blue bullets could pwn j00 ez, n3wb.

edit: ps, I fucking HATE red bombs. they kill me too much. they kill everyone, even on accident. I think red bombs should be banned forever. they're dangerous. all they do is teamkill. every person that flies a ship with red bombs is trying to teamkill people, because that's all that red bombs were meant to do. and since teamkilling is illegal, red bombs should be illegal too.

can I put down the club of subtlety yet?