Another gun thread...

[Tiberius]

And I guess that's a fair comparison?

Freedom of speech is on par with the right to own a gun? The ability to say what you like, is on par with the ability to handle dangerous weaponry. Is this the comparison you're making?

I think it's a fair comparison. Both are rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Both were proposed and enacted on the same day. The 1st amendment couldn't have foreseen people being able to spread their views on a global scale within seconds. Does that make it outdated? Hell no. The 1st amendment is as important now as it ever was. The same goes for the 2nd amendment. Take a good long look back over the past few decades. We've seen once democratic / revolutionary governments overthrown because they became oppressive. This shit still happens. Today. The American system isn't perfect; the founding fathers knew that, and they knew that one day the country they helped to create may become an oppressive regime too. Thomas Jefferson was so worried about this, he wanted a rebellion every 20 years to remind the government who was in charge.

I didn't ask for what it says. I asked for what it enables.

Ok, it enables them to fight back. Sure, they may not have a good chance, but they have a damn sight better one than they do without guns.

Yeah you're right, many in the army probably would defect. Never did I make the assumption they wouldn't. But for precisely that reason, why is it then necessary to arm average citizens as well as soldiers? I just don't buy that the average person with a gun would do anything but get their head blown off if they were to revolt. Not against the US military. Now if the military were to fight the military, then it's a different story. But if that's the case then what good becomes of arming citizens?

Maybe the impact of arming citizens against an oppressive government is where we disagree.

It is necessary to arm average citizens for a number of reasons:

1) A revolution cannot just depend on deserters from the army to bring all the guns and ammunition.
2) Even with deserters, it may not be enough. Strength in numbers, not necessarily strength in skill.
3) An oppressive government will often try to silence those that speak out against it. Guns are not just for fighting the government in a civil war, but for fighting them when they come for you at your home.

So you think arming the population with assault rifles puts them on par with what the government can do? Oversimplification or what? The government has access to a shit ton more than assault rifles, yet we aren't crying that the american people should have access to all this other stuff such as tanks and fighter planes.

I think that even today, most of warfare is fought with guns, and not tanks and fighter planes. Besides, we've already spoken about defectors from the army, who do have access to that kind of tech.

Even with that said, I still don't buy that it's a good enough reason that people should have access to these things as a right. I find it ludicrous. Hell, I find it funny that it's even talked about as though it's the real reason at all. People aren't getting their knickers in a twist because they might not be able to fight oppressive governments are they? How come the arguments about home invasion and the chances of death with or without guns come up as people's reasons for wanting to own a gun, yet these aren't the supposed reasons people have as a right to own guns in the first place?

Well, some people are certainly talking about that; I've watched a number of them confront Piers Morgan about it (even the non-crazy ones). The point is, whilst the second amendment was set up so that people can fight back against their government, guns do have other uses. The second amendment allows people to own guns; those guns are used for hunting, self defense, etc.

Besides, if you really want to talk about the real issue, let's do it. Most people are pissed off because every time some crazy kid gets hold of a gun and shoots up a school, the first reaction is not to question whether there should be more checks in place for people with mental illnesses, but to treat everyone who didn't kill those children as if they deserve to be punished by banning them form having guns. The logic just doesn't make any sense; these are very rare events...most people who own guns to not use them to kill people or go on mass shootings. It is ridiculous to suggest that because a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population commits atrocious crimes, the rest of us should have to suffer for it.

I also still think it's an unfair comparison between what is essentially freedom of speech and the second amendment. They have drastically different potential outcomes (one being that people have access to life ending weaponry).

Just because they have different potential outcomes does not make one more outdated than the other. Both were created at a time when the ability to exercise free speech and the ability to own a gun were very different to what they are now. I hold that if the 2nd amendment is outdated, so is the 1st.

I've not seen any reasoning or evidence to show that owning an assault rifle makes it any easier to fight an oppressive government. Unless I'm blind or have made a serious error in judgement here.

So...you think that if an oppressive government force came through your door to arrest / kill you, you'd have a better chance against them armed with a pistol or a knife than with an automatic weapon? Are you joking?

Sorry, but if you don't think an assault weapon makes it easier to kill people, why are you even against them in the first place? By your logic, there is no difference between owning a revolver and an AK47.

I disagree with this. That having a gun necessarily empowers you to force an intruder to leave. Is it not possible the intruder could force the gun off you and shoot you with your own gun? Would this scenario not lead to having a gun being a fatal mistake? Is it that unlikely this could happen? Is that good enough reason to dismiss it?

Certainly it's a possibility, and it should certainly be a consideration when thinking about home security. A good lock is going to be better than any firearm. My point is, unlike a knife or other handheld weapon, a gun has the ability to be fired from long range. It doesn't even have to hit your target; if you are a thief and getting shot at, you'll probably run.

I'm not saying that having a gun means every intruder will leave, or that you will overpower them, but that having a gun certainly makes it easier to do.

Burglaries happen, so on the off chance I get burgled I think I should have the right to blow the fuckers head off.

Fair enough. Guns are good in this instance right? Not disagreeing there.

But to me, the odd chance that a gun might defend you, is not good enough reason to have them as a right when the vast majority of times (I guess that's a bare assertion), guns just end up getting people killed, be that by the good guy or the bad guy.

I heard a statistic the other day that the vast majority of gun crime in America is gang-related. Yes, accidents do happen, but they are the minority of cases, as are mass shootings.

I'd be interested to see the statistics on successful home invasion preventions directly because of guns, and the rest of deaths in america due to violent gun crime. Because essentially you're wiping out all the bad that happens with guns because some good can happen with them.

Don't get me wrong, I've never said that guns are perfect and cannot be used in bad ways. Of course they can. However, so can almost anything. Painkillers are great and you can get them over the counter, but they can be used to commit suicide. Various forms of poison are available for sale legally, and they can be used in murder. We don't ban these items because a small number of people abuse them, and nor should we with guns.

So you're relying on this assertion that you would be a better shot than the burglar. Yeah, I'd like to see that statistic.

No, I'm basing it on the fact that if a person has a gun in their house, they are more than likely to have trained with it at a range. They also have the upper hand in that they know the layout of their house, whereas the burglar does not. A burglar will also be aiming to get in and out quickly, so even if he is carrying a gun, he will likely not have it out and available for quick use. All these factors combined suggest to me that the homeowner is statistically the better off in this situation; I believe someone posted stats that say as much.

Bolded because I think it's important. With or without a gun you still have a chance of getting shot. So how does that make having a gun any better than not. Guess we're gonna be going in circles here.

It makes it better because without a gun, you have to hope the burglar isn't in a trigger-happy mood. With a gun, you have the chance of shooting them first.