Shooting Rekindles Issues of Gun Rights and Restrictions

Exactly, don't like guns... don't buy them.

[piercehawkeye45]

How is driving a privilege and owning a gun a right? Driving actually has a purpose that can not be successfully duplicated in another way while there are other ways to protect yourself. Both guns and cars can be good when used correctly or horrific when used incorrectly. If you get into it, guns are much worse than cars. The main purpose of a car is transportation while the main, and only, purpose of a gun is to kill, whether for protection or not. So it is your right for everyone to possess something thats main purpose is to kill but it is a privilege to use something that can transport people but can result in injury and death if used incorrectly? I find this kind of backwards.

Who says it is your right to own a gun anyways? I'm sorry but the founding fathers is not a valid source. The times were so much different back then you can't even begin to compare. There weren't 31,000 fatal injuries from firearms in one year. There weren't semi-automatic handguns back then. An average joe could buy a weapon that could actually stand up to a well trained army. Not to mention the fact that dueling was a common practice back then and the founding fathers, Jefferson at least, were racist.

Originally Posted by Ibram

The two options are as follows:
Control guns more tightly and risk denying them to those that sorely need them, or
Control guns more loosely and risk giving them to people who will use them for ill.


While I loathe guns and personally, emotionally, non-rationally want them to be completely controlled in every way...

I have to go with the second one. I believe in always picking the freedom over the control. Just as I'd rather a thousand criminals go free than one innocent be put in prison, I'd rather a thousand criminals buy guns than one person in need of one be denied it.

Who sorely needs a gun? There are other ways to protect yourself and you could easily make very effective methods of protecting yourself without a gun out on the streets. If you instate restrictions the people who want guns can still get them, it just makes them harder to get.

Freedom is a funny thing because a freedom can affect two different people two completely different ways. Is it my right to drink and drive? Yes it is, but our society has decided to give up that freedom to protect innocent people. Is it my right to own someone else? Who says I can't? Society does so we take away that freedom to own someone else.

The constitution says owning a gun is a right.
I have "sorely needed a gun" many times. Who said streets? "back then" is irrelevant to the technology, the right is not.
Driving a car is a privilege based on ability, access and conduct. It is the law.

[piercehawkeye45]

Because the law and consititution is always right.....
I already said why I don't think the consititution is not valid for this argument, no reply?

Did you soley needed a gun or some form of protection?

I expect massive hatred and rage from this but I am starting to believe that owning a gun is not about freedom but power.

If you don't agree with the foundation of the US then it does not matter, you should not argue at all about our laws and way of life.
No, they are good for shooting hobbies as well. I have had two jobs where I used a side-arm.
Freedom and power are the same thing... that is the idea, to be empowered.
Power is not a bad thing, unless one lives in fear of others, disliking other's ability to say, write, do as they like.
The opposite of the power of freedom is fear of self and others.

[piercehawkeye45]

The opposite of the power of freedom is fear of self and others.

Isn't this why many people buy guns in the first place. A fear of being attacked or robbed?

Power is not a bad thing, unless one lives in fear of others

Once again, this is why I don't like the power that comes with guns.

No, they are good for shooting hobbies as well. I have had two jobs where I used a side-arm.

Please go on. Owning a gun for a job is much different than owning a gun for personal reasons.

Not fear, we just don't want not to be able to defend ourselves. Not the same as fear at all. It could be, but the two are not and, in no way have to be the same thing. I have rarely met anyone that stated they had a weapon because they feared.

Most, whom are not compulsive, do not go through the process of deciding if they are afraid of being robbed today while locking their doors. It is just a precaution. Not out of fear, just necessity.
Some are just more cautious or in different situations than others. They have guns, mace, more locks, etc. That is all.

While some are content to practice the common option when they differ with another, do not participate in an activity.
Some decide that is not enough... they think they must FORCE everyone to be like them.
Why? I don't know. I am a fairly secure individual and of the first ilk. If I don't like something I just don't do it.

If you don't like the power that comes with guns... don't buy one. Problem solved. Though I don't get it... s-like saying you don't like a college education.
No, owning one for personal reasons and one for a job is no different. I have been in both situations more than once and know.
I am correct.

It is just a tool, a piece of metal, that is all it is, all it will ever be, all it can be. Job, no job, hobby, protection, art, etc... just a tool, nothing more. Never bad, never good, nothing other than a metal tool.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Because the law and consititution is always right.....
I already said why I don't think the consititution is not valid for this argument, no reply?

You don't get to cherry pick what you want from the Bill of Rights. So you don't think the Constitution is valid for this agrument? Give us a break. This is about the Constitutional right. The courts have continually upheld this right, as recently as March 2007:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/

[Spexxvet]

If there is someone with a gun accosting you, are you more or less likely to get shot, if you are also armed?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

...How are you going to stop criminals from using guns while protecting legal gun owners rights?

Personal force fields
Cutting off the trigger finger of anyone who uses a gun illegally
Giant magnets
Chris Rock's "expensive bullets" plan
Employing criminals with more than a "subsistence income" to reduce the motivation to commit crime.
Reduce the wealth gap
Legalize drugs

[elSicomoro]

The right to bear arms is an important one, and I support it strongly. But like anything, I think our rights have limits. But I don't know where the cut-off line should be.

[Hime]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Yes, cause a philosophy called FEMINism sounds really gender-neutral and equal to me.

Feminism is just as bad as Misogyny. Feminism holds women over men. (I'll admit that I'm somewhat guilty of thinking women are better, but thats only cause they dont try to act all macho, which I loathe... not actually because of any like, inherent things.)

Everything and everyone should be utterly gender-neutral if you ask me. Gender should never be any sort of issue whatsoever (unless you're about to hop in bed with someone, but even then... I'm against it!). Holding men and women to a different standard is discriminatory and stupid, always.


(Realism? What's that?)

Ibram, feminism is about equality. It's about trying to create a world where NO ONE is harassed, oppressed or assaulted because of their gender or sexuality. Meaning that women shouldn't have to be sex objects and men shouldn't have to be macho warriors, either. Unless they want to be.

The idea that feminism is about female supremacy is one that has been created by the reactionary elements in the media. Always better to get these things from the source.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

If there is someone with a gun accosting you, are you more or less likely to get shot, if you are also armed?

Situational. If you do not have a gun, you are always at a disadvantage.
However, not the case if you are armed.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Situational. If you do not have a gun, you are always at a disadvantage.

This doesn't make any sense at all. Is it situational, or are you always at a disadvantage without a gun? If you are always, regardless of the situation, at a disadvantage without a gun, then it isn't situational.

That is not what I wrote at all.
It is situational. Sometimes you may be at a disadvantage or you may be able to kill the offender... it depends on the situation.
If you do not have a gun, you will NEVER be able to protect yourself from someone with a gun.
How did you read what you wrote out of my post?