jump to last post 1-41 of 41 discussions (344 posts)

What Guns, If Any, Should People Be Allowed To Own?

  1. 0
    HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago

    With all of the uproar over gun laws lately, I'm curious to see what HubPages thinks. So here's the question:

    A) What guns, if any, should be allowed?

    B) Do "gun laws" actually accomplish anything?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A)  Basically, and without considering every possible gun, anything up to a fully automatic weapon.  Fully automatic guns available with special permits and conditions, just as they are now.  Pretty much whatever is currently available, then. 

      I could also support a magazine limit of 5 or 6 rounds on anything larger or more powerful than a .22 caliber "plinking" gun.  It won't do much good, but is a sop to the anti-gun crowd that I could live with.

      B) Yes.  Mostly they make a large number of jobs available for more government employees and cost gun purchasers more money.  They make it easier to stick someone back in jail for parole violations.  They hurt internet business by making internet sales of guns much more irritating and pushing possible buyers to local stores..

      In addition, though, there might be a small benefit in making it just a little more difficult for the mentally ill and criminally inclined to get guns.  Not impossible and not even particularly difficult, but if we can keep guns from those people for even a week it is possible that their "need" to kill may pass.  Or maybe a rival gang member will shoot his opponent that is looking for a gun before he finds one.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Did you know that you can now use a 3D printer to make your own 30-round magazine for an AR15 at home?

        Banning them won't keep them out of the hands of people who want to use them to harm others.

        Limiting magazines to 5 or 6 rounds will serve to cause good people to die who shouldn't. For instance, the mother who recently defender herself and two children from an invader... she shot the guy 5 times, with 6 bullets. He was still moving. What would she have done if she was attacked by two people?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's a common experience is it?  I don't think so.  Nor do I think the current technology of 3D printers is up to making a magazine even if a killer owns one - easier to buy that magazine on the black market.

          Everything we do is a compromise.  A compromise with money, a compromise with time, and compromise with freedoms or with differing opinions.

          That's one I'm willing to make to placate the gun haters.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, it's a new technology.

            The current technology is up to making it. That's my point. It's been done, and the plans are available for download on the internet. It will only become more common(FYI, 3D printing is going to be as important of a technological advancement as, well pretty much anything).

            Much much easier to make one in secret, on your own, for $5 worth of materials. The point is, it is now impossible to keep magazines out of the hands of bad guys(always was, but now they can just make them at home).

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Jaxon, just curious--do you masturbate to Internet gun sites? :-)

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How old are you Ralph? That's the only thing you can think to say when I show a flaw with your argument?

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I didn't make any argument on this thread, flawed, or valid. I was referring to your apparent "getting off" on all kinds of arcane details about guns.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    My mistake. So you just come into a thread to insult me?

                    Thanks. Why don't you take some time off to cool down, so you don't feel the need to make pathetically childish remarks like that?

      2. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Excellent points, Wilderness.

        Gun bans are as ridiculous as banning cars. If someone really wants to go crazy, they can drive their car into a crowd. One would do better to do the impossible and ban insanity.

        But seriously, we need to stop "reacting" to knee-jerk stimuli. Legislation created in this fashion is ruining America. Like HR 347, where it is now a felony to protest what the government is doing. Or NDAA 2012, where the military could lock your butt up without charges, an attorney or a phone call -- and do it indefinitely. Or watch out for Obama's "Kill List." Maybe you won't end up on it, but just the fact that it exists, with American citizens listed on it, is a sad day for America. No more habeas corpus. No more posse comitatus.

        Get rid of the 2nd Amendment and the tyrants will breathe a sigh of relief before nailing the coffin shut.

        I just wish Ben Franklin was here to remind us that giving up liberty for the perception of "security" is lunacy and that we will end up deserving neither.

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      According to the 2A, any that the military has access to.

      Fear over 'assault rifles' is ridiculous, as they are less damaging to a human than hunting rifles or shotguns. Shall not be infringed, however, means no infringement.

      1. Shadesbreath profile image90
        Shadesbreathposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This x1,000,000

      2. 0
        HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If that's the case, then would you support private citizens being able to buy advanced military hardware (i.e. helicopters, jets, missiles, etc.)?

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I think an argument can be made that you can't 'bear' any of those, so they would't constitute those kinds of arms they were talking about.

          That being said, private citizens did own much of the advanced military hardware back then, and they didn't have a problem with it.

          1. 0
            HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            True, but back then a musket and a horse were considered "advanced military hardware". smile

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, back then, advanced military hardware included things like

              Canons
              Ships full of canons
              Rifles capable of firing up to 20 shots in 5 seconds with one trigger pull
              'Semi-automatic' air rifles
              Revolving canons

              Doesn't matter, the principle is that what the military can have, the citizens can have. The reason? The founders had just won their freedom by fighting a government. They never wanted us to lose it.

              1. 0
                HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                True, but what about the argument that the National Guard fulfills the "well regulated militia" provision of the 2nd Amendment? Should private citizens still be allowed unrestricted access?

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There are two individual clauses in the 2A. It doesn't say "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms'. It says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'.

                  The founders knew the danger of a standing army. If you don't know the danger, look at Rome. The militia was, quite literally, the people. Regulated refers to 'regulars'. Being well-regulated meant well-trained. The founders wanted citizens to grow up with arms, to be trained with them, so they would make a well-regulated militia.

                  1. 0
                    HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Just as a side note for anyone who may be following along with this discussion, here is the actual text of the 2nd Amendment:



                    So then, does the ability for people to own any type of weapon they choose fulfill the "well regulated militia" requirement? If not, shouldn't training also be required along with the purchase of said weapons?

    3. 60
      lifegamerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A) What guns, if any, should be allowed?
      ***Considering that what is allowed in the hands of JQ Public & surface military ops is behind in technology by about 20 yrs. (that's pretty much everything, not just guns), then considering that the majority of humans who utilize available high-tech weaponry are in the security business of both 'legal' & 'illegal' realms, make very good money, and are well-trained & well-conditioned.  For the few morons who indulge themselves as such, We should be seeing Stupidity being sorted out, yes?  Let whomever have whatever & deal with them as they arise stupidly.

      B) Do "gun laws" actually accomplish anything?
      ***Hmmm...If 'laws' worked, why the need to build more prisons?  If laws accomplished, We would not need such security...the fears would not be...See?   So, yes...gun laws will accomplish just as any of them.

      Your questions are fun...thanks.smile

    4. MissJamieD profile image79
      MissJamieDposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Although we cannot stop guns from being sold on the black market, there should be some type of ID system formed to make detection of stolen guns easier. Also, in order to won a gun you should have to go through a psychological evaluation.

      As far as the ID system, maybe there needs to be something invented like a little sticker with a fingerprint tab on it, if the fingerprint doesn't match, the gun will not shoot....??? Just a though:)

      1. 0
        HuntersWhittposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps it's my overly pragmatic nature coming through, but if I were the one in charge of the decision, I wouldn't bother with regulating firearms; anyone can have whatever they want.

        However, I would ban 99% of the ammunition on the market, require the remaining varieties to be purchased from a Law Enforcement agency, ban all ammunition sales via the internet, and make the illegal purchase/possession/distribution a felony.

        Yes, the 2nd amendment protects a persons right to bear arms, however it doesn't say anything about ammunition.

        1. MissJamieD profile image79
          MissJamieDposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I agree that anyone should be able to have whatever they want, if they register it and they're not crazy. People who are medically tested and deemed to be of a mental health status should not be able to carry firearms because having certain mental health issues proves that they are unable to make sound decisions. That is not fair to anyone else. Maybe they could own beanbag guns, that would not be fatal. But as far as a true firearm, we must regulate somehow.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I have to ask; why the requirement for registration?  Of what value is that registration to society - why, in your opinion, should guns be registered?

            Just curious.

            1. MissJamieD profile image79
              MissJamieDposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well there would have to be some sort of paperwork stating that the person who owns the gun is mentally stable enough to do so. It doesn't necessarily have to be the same type of "registration" that we have nowadays but something that shows law enforcement that the gun is not in the hands of someone mentally incapable of using it properly.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Hmm.  So govt. has no need to know who owns guns, just that those that do are mentally capable. 

                Should the gun owner then have to carry that certificate of mental health on them whenever the gun is?  To show any cop that asks?  If so, how often should it be renewed - monthly, yearly, bi-yearly?  What happens when they fail the next scheduled test (or just forget about it and fail to show up)?  Who should pay for the tests - society, that is protecting itself from the mentally ill or the gun owner that would never hurt a fly and is totally innocent of any wrongdoing?

                Mind you I don't necessarily disagree - I think mental illness and guns is an area that desperately needs some work.  I'm just not sure you've thought it through.

                1. Paul Wingert profile image79
                  Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Just like a car, it would be a good idea for firearm owners to register their firearms (guns manufactured after 1894 and ammo is easy to come by - doen't pertain to replica muzzleloaders)  every year ($15-$20 each) and prove they are mentally stable of owning them. Oh yeah, and that's Constitutional.

                2. MissJamieD profile image79
                  MissJamieDposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well of course a name should be attached to the gun so that the govt can follow it. Or, along with the serial number, as they are now, it will contain the owner's information and some type of code as to the owner's mental capacity. Although that wouldn't be necessarily needed because if they have a gun they should've been deemed NOT mentally handicapped. So, if a mentally handicapped person is found with a gun and the cops run the serial number, the person holding the gun must show some type of ID, maybe a persons drivers license should have a code attached to the gun ownership so there is no way to fraud the ownership.....I'm not a professional, I cannot explain all elements and legalities of this I just want people to have guns, and the rest of the country to actually be comfortable with it. If we make it much harder for certain people to have guns (like mentally ill or felons, etc) the citizens of this country could breathe a sigh of relief for a change. And like I said, if a gun could have some type of ID system attached to it so it won't shoot, there will be far less public/school/business shootings around the world.

                  Just my humble opinion. As I said, I'm no professional, just a citizen who wants guns and my safety too:)

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Why should the govt "follow the gun" - until a crime is committed with it it's none of their business who owns it.

                    Problem with mental illness; the person healthy today isn't tomorrow (disregarding temporary - I mean really ill).  How could we ever handle that?  A drivers license note might be a possibility, but testing I don't see a reasonable answer for.  Shoot, I don't see a reasonable answer to mental illness at all, which is why I asked.  A problem with no solution, and yet we have to come up with one.

                    There actually are ID systems wherein the gun won't fire if it's not being held by the owner, and most of the objections have been worked out of them.  It wouldn't take much to implement that in all new guns, though old ones would remain a problem for a hundred years.  I think that's encouraging, but wouldn't help much for decades to come.

    5. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think if the government can sell F-15 fighters to the Muslim brotherhood, I should at least get an AR-15 without any questions asked.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Anyone can buy a F-15 without ordinance. But we don't have a problem with people committing mass murder with F-15s, do we?

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You think the Muslim brotherhood won't commit mass murders with F-15s? LOL!

          1. Onusonus profile image86
            Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            My bad, F-16s. wink
            http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/156370_329196640518648_1534211956_n.jpg

            1. Paul Wingert profile image79
              Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Again, the subject is guns, not F-16s.

              1. Onusonus profile image86
                Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So you don't have a problem with the Muslim Brotherhood getting our F-16s then? Interesting.

        2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
          tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We should.

        3. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "But we don't have a problem with people committing mass murder with F-15s, do we?"

          Wow.

  2. Justin Earick profile image80
    Justin Earickposted 3 years ago

    Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion of the Heller case, that we have the basic right to a handgun in the home.
    You can't have a grenade, machine gun, sawed-off, tank, nuke...
    As far as assault rifles?  Pie-in-the-sky - it would be nice either A.  if we could restrict them to use at a gun range; or  B. if they only had 3-round magazines, they would just be ugly and ineffective. 
    Of course then we get to argue about what makes a gun an assault rifle?  Could we even get rid of them if we wanted to? 
    They all get grandfathered in regardless of any ban... but at least it would begin to slow the proliferation.
    A better solution is a campaign similar to Mothers Against Drunk Driving.  And domestic violence.  And smoking...

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You can have a machine gun or short-barreled rifle/shotgun.

      1. Justin Earick profile image80
        Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I know about the DD $200 transfer fee.  That's not the point.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You said you can't have them, but you can. That's the point.

          1. Justin Earick profile image80
            Justin Earickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            They are restricted, that was the point.  I apologize for not being clear enough.

  3. Len Cannon profile image87
    Len Cannonposted 3 years ago

    Nerf.

    1. FatFreddysCat profile image92
      FatFreddysCatposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I was gonna say "water," but this works too.

      1. SimeyC profile image89
        SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Don't leave out the trusty old 'spud' gun too...

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          bubble guns are apparently a no-no though hmm

          1. FatFreddysCat profile image92
            FatFreddysCatposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Don't kid yourself, those bubble guns are dangerous. Haven't you ever had a bubble pop, and the soap gets in your eyes? That HURTS!!

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not to mention, soap poisoning will make you blind!

              1. FatFreddysCat profile image92
                FatFreddysCatposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Especially if it's "Lifebuoy" soap. NEVER use Lifebuoy.

  4. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    There are only three arguments one can make here:
    1. Nobody in the entire world should own a weapon (or a type/size of weapon/clip).
    2. A select group of people should be allowed to own a weapon, and others should not.
    3. Everybody in the world should be allowed to own a weapon.

    The first is consistent, but impractical, and most importantly a violation of property rights. Then one has to justify the necessary distinction one makes by asserting it.  If you're not in favour of complete gun control, why are you making a distinction between assault weapons and other types of guns? Guns and knives? Or baseball bats? Why is it that only guns used in school shootings must be banned? Are the other deaths by guns not as bad?

    Many cite that items that's sole purpose is to kill must be banned. But this is unenforceable. For example, assault weapons may have any number of uses depending on the individual, including hunting, target practice or hammering in nails. Then the prohibitionist might argue against banning an object that's primary purpose is to kill. Again, how does one define 'primary usage'? Is it by the percentage of how much it is used? Most assault rifle owners have used their weapons for other purposes, and may never have to kill anyone with it in their life. The only way to apply this consistently would be to argue for banning items that are most used to kill, effectively banning cooking, driving and baseball in the process.

    Thus we know it is unenforceable, for the primary or 'sole' use of an object is decided by the individual.

    The second is morally inconsistent, and the grounds for allowing a select group, for example, the government or the military, to own any weapon it likes are arbitrary. Many people like to argue for 'properly trained and background checked' individuals to own weapons ahead of untrained people. However, this is not in and of itself grounds for discrimination. For what is the difference between the trained and the untrained individual that justifies the violation of the property rights of the latter? If it really is true that the aim is to prevent the deaths of civilians, then the measure of 'properly trained and background checked' is completely arbitrary. As evidenced by the countless civilian deaths in the middle-east each and every day, there is little to suggest that 'properly trained and background checks' make the individual any less likely to kill a civilian. In fact, statistically, it is the elite band of 'trained and background checked' individuals, in the form of the military, who are most responsible for civilian death in the world.

    Therefore, we have to conclude that the judge of the individual's responsibility with a weapon must surely lie, not from their experience or training, but within their moral compass, which the government has no domain in.

    That leaves us with the third option. The individual must be allowed to own any item that the government can. Yes, this include nukes and tanks (but of course, only governments want to use nukes. They are too dangerous and basically useless for individual self-defense, too expensive for the average moron, and too damaging to public image for corporations). This does not grant the individual the right to kill others, only to hold the weapon.

    1. tammybarnette profile image59
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Very interesting....sooo maybe we should make the assualt rifles ridiculously expensive. Taxing seems to be the idea too limit the rights of smokers...I am pretty sure cigarettes are legal, but frowned upon because they are "unhealthy"...So, maybe, some believe assault weapons are "unhealthy," so let's tax them properly smile

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        None of the proposals that I've seen infringe rights under the 2nd Amendment nor do they interfere with the rights of any hunter or target shooter or the right to self protection. Bushmasters or Glocks with big magazines aren't necessary for hunting, target shooting or self protection.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Just how many bullets are needed for self-protection?

          If 3 guys break into a single mom's house, does she need the same number of bullets as if 1 or 2 guys come in?

          1. tammybarnette profile image59
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If she knows how to use the gun properly, 3 for 3 perps, etc. I have never heard a story of an entire group of people breaking into or robbing someone, doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I haven't ever heard...

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It actually happens all the time. Whether a burglary, mugging, or other violent crime, people often commit them in groups. Heck, there was an instance last summer I believe where 4 men with body armor broke into a guy's house. He managed to kill one, and wound two, with something like 10 shots, which is really amazing shot placement in that situation.

              Your statement 3 for 3 perps shows a lack of understanding of how guns work. It's not like the movies. Much of the time people don't even know they've been shot until later. The only way to stop someone with 1 bullet is to hit their heart, spine, or brain, and that doesn't even always bring them down instantly.

              1. tammybarnette profile image59
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If someone broke into my house I would shoot them in the head, and I am a good shot...I'm pretty sure it would slow them down. As far as these gangs of intruders, you should be able to take care of business with a 10 round clip shouldn't you? I mean everyone is saying how quickly they can change clips, see I really don't understand the animosity towards these common sense measures being made, most police officers back these measures, that should say something.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Headshots on a moving target are not that easy. Why do you think every single military and law-enforcement group teaches to aim center-of-mass?

                  10 rounds might be enough. It might not be. If I have to grab something real quick for defense, I might not have time to grab extra magazines, or even anywhere to put them.

                  Changing magazines when you are being attacked is far different from changing magazines when you are slaughtering unarmed people.

                  Most police? I don't know about that. Regardless, police don't have a legal responsibility to protect a citizen, and if they do show up they almost never can show up on time to make a difference, so their opinion isn't really that important when it comes to self-defense.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image59
                    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes a moving target is not an easy shot, that's why you practice moving targets, many times intruders will run away when being fired upon as well...But I have also taken many safety measures in my home, not only being armed, and this part is being left out of the self defense equation....I am hearing of loads of gun sells but not a spike in home defense sells?

                    I don't have the link at the moment, But I have read many articles of the police forces petitioning for gun control measures...Police "public safety" have no responsibility to protect citizens? That's not true, and yes they most certainly have proven helpful in these as well as many such situations. Domestic violence is a huge problem, and without police interventions there would be many more deaths...

        2. tammybarnette profile image59
          tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph, I haven't seen anything unconstitutional or unordinary about the proposed securities.

  5. paradigmsearch profile image92
    paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago

    Both pro and anti gun memes.

    http://now.msn.com/pro-gun-memes

  6. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago

    Miltary and law enforcement firearms and accesories need to be only in military and law enforsement hands. If Billy Bob wants to shoot a machine gun, enlist. You don't need a military assault weapon to defend your trailer, I mean home.

    1. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If the manufacturers of those weapons are perfectly willing to sell them to individuals not in the military, what grounds is there for preventing individuals from buying them? What grounds is there to force individuals into military service in order to defend themselves?

      You haven't presented any evidence to suggest that one doesn't need a military assault weapon to defend one's home. But, one has to ask, is it any of your business? Only the individual has the ability to ascertain one's own 'need'. Is it the government's business to prohibit items on the basis that nobody 'needs' them?

      1. tammybarnette profile image59
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        But nobody needs junk food either, and we are one fat and diabetic country...OOOHHH, but I forgot, those big corporations own the McDonald's, etc, just like they own the weaponry....

        1. taburkett profile image61
          taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          what's next - I have to call the local electric company to see if I can make coffee?
          the government eliminated physical activity in school so the teachers do not have heart attacks.
          the parents created the fat and diabetic country.
          now, I must adapt to the governments requirements again so they can claim that they saved me from myself.
          I can see the loss of great individual freedoms here.
          but that is just what tyrants want - more control and less individual freedom

          1. tammybarnette profile image59
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Did the parents create fast food? oh and I love my coffee but it's bad for me too...I also use to be a frowned upon smoker...Actually Michelle Obama created an entire agenda for healthier children and our schools still insist upon a PA class...is that wrong? Should our children be less indoctrinated, should we stop forcing them to go to school and learn and exercise, is this an infringment on their rights...oh, I forgot, they have no rights until they are of voting age...that must be why the lives of the 20 children is not as important as your rights to assault rifles, now I understand.

  7. 82
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    Freedoms are eroded over time.  If I knew that I could give up guns similar to the AR-15 in order to protect gun rights in perpetuity, I would do so.  The problem is that Washington doesn't see it that way.  If you give an inch, they want to take a mile.  That's why I support no additional gun banning.  Enforce current laws, and leave our gun rights in place.  Fix our judicial system, help mentally ill people, put security in schools, realize that much of our problem originates with parenting or a lack there of, and leave our gun rights in place.

    1. LucidDreams profile image83
      LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why are you so afraid of gun laws? Why are you so concerned about losing your gun rights? I get that many people here are big pro-gun advocates, but what is scaring you so much? Is it the government take over thing?

      1. Shadesbreath profile image90
        Shadesbreathposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ever heard of a corrupt police department? Corrupt government? Do think that humans in power tend to crave more power? Is there at least any historical precedent of that, even if only once or twice in the course of human history?

        1. Reality Bytes profile image92
          Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But police are trained professionals, they can be trusted!


          Hans Walters Murder-Suicide: Las Vegas Police Officer Allegedly Shot Family, Burned Home, Killed Self

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 … d%3D260881

        2. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Stop with the making sense, Shades.  You know how that just annoys me.

        3. tammybarnette profile image59
          tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And how will your guns protect you? If the government took over they would only need to shut down our infrastructure, banks, etc...So, how will our weapons fix this...or is it more likely that we would all panic and shoot one another for the last loaf of bread? I mean just look how well we all get along...Are we suddenly going to become united and enlightened and join together as some perfect military movement? I have never heard the rest of the arguement and I am curious as to how this works after the suppossed tyrranical take- over...

      2. 82
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Today, we lose gun rights.  Tomorrow, we lose freedom of speech.  Then, what's next.  It's not just that I'm worried about losing gun rights; I'm worried about losing additional rights too.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's a phony slippery slope argument.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It's not that we WILL lose our other rights, it's that we wouldn't be able to defend them(besides, we have been losing our other rights already) if we didn't have the right to bear arms.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You mean we are losing our rights e.g., a woman's right to choose?

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's a straw man. It's not the woman's right to choose to kill human cells that aren't her own.

                Our right to privacy, due process, and life have all been threatened by our government.

                among others.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  A tea bagger through and through.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If that makes you feel better. I figured you wouldn't be OK with the government saying that it can arrest you, take your possessions, and even kill you without due process.

  8. 82
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    I find it ironic that the same administration that brought us Fast and Furious wants to have gun control.  Seriously?

  9. 82
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    We should have put up a sign saying "No Guns Allowed" in Benghazi.  That would have helped.  I'm certain of that.

  10. A Driveby Quipper profile image60
    A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago

    What guns? The ones like I have.

  11. taburkett profile image61
    taburkettposted 3 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7604489_f248.jpg

    1. LucidDreams profile image83
      LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This is the 2nd time I have seen this photo posted in a gun related thread. Does every pro-gunnie have this same photo already downloaded to their computer for fast and easy usage?

      The photo is kind of funny to be honest, a criminal pointing a rifle at you, then what? You say "hold on" let me get my gun tough guy'!

      1. 59
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Does every anti-constitutionalist think I am unarmed?

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        A chance is better than no chance. Surprisingly, people are able to draw on someone who is already aiming a gun at them(untrained, average Joes) and save their lives.

        Most of the time though, it doesn't come down to that, a gun is used to stop a threat before it gets to the point of 'he's pointing a gun at my head'.

      3. taburkett profile image61
        taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        the assumption that one would be unarmed is a false perception.
        As one who carries 24/7 - I do not expect any problems from an activity like this.
        And, when I do take action, innocent children and other adults will be protected and saved.
        But, if we allow the government to remove guns from the innocent citizens, only the criminals will have guns.

        1. tammybarnette profile image59
          tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How does that work, I mean everything already owned would be grandfathered in and the limit of new manufacturing would only be a limited number of rifles...so how is it only criminals will have guns?

  12. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago

    Only in the US is where the obsession with guns has gone beyond rediculous. People are more conserned over their gun rights than the rights they actually lost over the Patriot Act. What's wrong with this picture?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Shocking ignorance. You think the Government Inc would allow you to own an assault rifle it that was actually any threat to their drones? Smokescreen that is swallowed by the Christian Right every time.

      "Here, have a gun, then the Government is no threat to you." lol lol Oh - look at at them lovely profits.......

      1. 59
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You managed to get Christianity into the post, you do have a special talent.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Just telling the truth. Not good for you? Isn't that the political party you represent?

          1. 59
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think your obsession with Christianity is hilarious, please by all means obsess on.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry if the truth bothers you.I can see why that would not gel with your morality. Odd how I know you are a Christian I guess. lol

              But hey! Great job on attacking me personally instead of addressing my point. wink

              1. 59
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I don't think mentioning your obsession is a personal attack very sorry if you feel that way. Nothing you write bothers me at all, laughter is good for the soul, and you do make me laugh.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Good oh. Obsession with guns you mean? Once again - great job on the distraction. lol

                  1. 59
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you developing an obsession with guns now or just trying to combine Christianity and guns? I mean its ok, just wondering. My obsession is my Constitutional rights, whether its freedom of speech or the right not to incriminate myself, right now its my second amendment right that is under assault so I guess I'm focused on that.

                    Would you rather me just let them take whatever right they don't think I should have? Gee Mark, that doesn't sound like you, you're a scrapper, I thought you could understand freedom.

    2. 59
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I went to your hubpage expecting to find something you have written about the Patriot Act since it concerns you so much, didn't find anything. Must not concern you.

    3. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, the fact that we can't seem to keep our government from taking our rights away is exactly why our gun rights are so important.

      1. tammybarnette profile image59
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        But Jax, you did not feel that way during the election when R/R wanted to take away women's rights? Or is it because you only mind if it concerns you personally?

  13. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Mark, do you know how often citizens use guns to protect themselves in the US?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No - I don't know how often citizens claim they used a gun to protect themselves in the US.

      1. LucidDreams profile image83
        LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Uh oh....here it comes! I think of the Movie theater shooting and imagine a room full of gun toting "good guys" accidentally shooting even more innocent victims. Yeah a good ol shootem up like the wild west days, EXACTLY what we need more of!

        1. 59
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Recently in San Antonio Texas just that very thing happened, an armed citizen took out the bad guy.

        2. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Except for the fact that your hypothetical is both irrational and contrary to reality...

          People manage to defend themselves, and others, all the time. Private citizens have a MUCH higher hit rate than the police.

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        1.5-4.5 million times a year. You can look at the data yourself, both private studies(highly praised, even by anti-gun researchers), and government studies agree.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting - so - there would be another 1.5 - 4.5 million murders a year? Or is that entire families that would have been killed? Shocking. Say as many as 20 million extra murders that were prevented? Well - you have certainly convinced me there are too many guns available - thanks. That is really shocking. Why is your society so violent do you think?

          1. 59
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There are other crimes committed by people using guns that aren't murder you know? Car jackings,robberies.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I know - there is a lot of gun crime that is not murdering people. Do you think the easy availability of guns has anything to do with that?

              1. 59
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I think the lack of morals and values of people have much more to do with it. I think the coddling of criminals and trying to understand what makes them tick instead of a lengthy prison sentence has a lot more to do with it.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So - easy access to guns has no effect on gun crime, it is all about lack of morals and values and coddling of criminals. OK - interesting perspective. What do you base this opinion on?

                  1. 59
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah as a matter of fact it has more to do with crime than the availability of guns. There is also more crime done where guns are not involved!

                    What say you?

                  2. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Would you then expect that making guns easier to get and carry around would make violence worse?

          2. LucidDreams profile image83
            LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Just take a look at all the guns that make USA their home! I know I know, people will kill people with knives and bombs if we take their guns away. Heard it all before!

          3. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Those aren't all murders. They are murders, rapes, muggings, burlaries, etc.

            Why would the fact that more people defend themselves with guns than bad people kill people with guns convince you that they are a bad thing?

            I already explained much of why our society is so violent. You didn't respond.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No you didn't. You said this:



              And I asked you why your society is more violent. You didn't answer.

              Why the need to lie? sad

              1. 59
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I answered your question.

                Why the fear of responding?

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Fear? How so?

              2. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't lie. Read the part in bold. Poverty tends to lead to violence. Outlawing goods leads to black market activity, and therefore violence. Gangs are largely a result of the previous two, poverty and illegal goods.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That was not in response to my question - I asked the question after you posted that.

                  So poor people and illegal guns are the problem? Wouldn't you rather eradicate poverty and remove the illegal guns then?

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If I say X, and then you ask me about X, it's perfectly fine for me to say I've already addressed that.

                    Poverty and DRUGS(which is what I was referring to), are a huge problem. People in poor urban centers are 8-9 times more likely to commit crimes or murder.

                    I would love to eradicate poverty, and removing illegal guns would be awesome too. If you want to talk about that, I'm happy to, but those are different topics than removing legal guns.

  14. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago
  15. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    The internet makes me sad. I truly wish I could find a place, somewhere, anywhere, where there are more than a couple people capable of having a real discussion.

    1. 59
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There is, but not in the U.S. we suck! Ask Mark if you don't believe me.

  16. tirelesstraveler profile image87
    tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago
  17. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    A mental  health Test to own a gun ? Idiotic !.......Who would perform the actual tests , the same ones who do the regulating now ?  Law enforcement ?  Judges who are soft on crime , with an agenda ?  The health care system that operates and removes the wrong leg ? You ?  Who hates guns anyway ? ........what this culture needs is to fix itself first....yes ?.......
    .Some qustions on the test :

    - Do you ever feel the need to shoot someone or at least near them  ?
    -Do you hate your father or mother?
    -What does this image make you think of ?
    -Do you masturbate to pictures of AR-15s ?
    -Have you ever shot your own toe off ?
    -Anyone elses?
    The more of these threads I read the more I shake my head .......hey I know
    -Do you know what your kids are doing right now ?

  18. SoManyPaths profile image61
    SoManyPathsposted 3 years ago

    Biden says you should own a shotgun over an assault rifle.

  19. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Biden is so stupid he couldn't hit a target with a rifle , he needs buckshot!

  20. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Justice Department Statistics

    Gun homicides per year-------------30,000
    Justifiable gun homicides per year---200

    These numbers would seem to indicate that the NRA greatly exaggerates the number of incidents in which guns have been used for self-protection.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No, they would indicate that citizens don't justifiably kill people very often with their guns. Nobody is going around saying citizens kill tens of thousands of bad guys a year.

      Also, your number is low. FBI has its limited reporting(only catches some 3/4ths of events) at 278.

  21. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Ralph , you seem an expert at picking and choosing your statistics and so your to need to your cause ,  what about all of the thwarphed attempts repelled by a homeowner with a gun ...The ones you don't even hear about ,happens alot around here anyway ? Listen  ......don't worry when the shyte hits the fan in America , you can run to my house for protection !  If your consciience bothers you so that you cant hold a weapon you can reload for me !....lol

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Do you have better figures? I read about various kinds of Detroit area shootings in the morning paper every day--drive by shootings, drug shootings, accidental shootings, the I96 highway shooter, murders and so forth. I only see a few a year on justified shootings or incidents where guns prevented a crime.  There are a few but not many. I don't think there are any reliable statistics on cases where guns prevented a crime or protected someone. The gun killing statistics strike me as pretty accurate.

      1. 59
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Here are some more to add to the few you know about.

        According to Dr. Gary Kleck, criminologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America," a book used by many in the gun debate, 800,000-2,500,000 crimes are stopped by guns each year. The numbers are from different studies.

        http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_crim … gun_owners

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Kleck has been discredited. He's not an objective researcher on guns. From what I've read he starts with his conclusions and tailors his "research" to support them.

          Criticism

          "A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, claimed that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns.[14] Kleck claims that Hemenway's own surveys confirmed Kleck's conclusion that defensive gun use numbers at least in the hundreds of thousands each year, and that a far larger number of surveys (at least 20) have shown that defensive uses outnumbered criminal uses;[15] however, the Hemenway study just cited gives no such figure and says in its conclusion, "We might expect that unlawful 'self-defense' gun uses will outnumber the legitimate and socially beneficial ones." Critics, including Hemenway, respond that these estimates are difficult to reconcile with comparable crime statistics, are subject to a high degree of sampling error, and that "because of differences in coverage and potential response errors, what exactly these surveys measure remains uncertain; mere repetition does not eliminate bias".[16] In another article, Hemenway notes that Kleck has armed women preventing 40% of all sexual assaults, a percentage he considers unlikely because few women go armed. In the same article, Hemenway notes that Kleck's survey shows armed citizens wounding or killing attackers 207,000 times in one year, contrasted against the total of around 100,000 Americans wounded or killed, accidentally or intentionally, in a typical year.[17]

          "Various studies have found that defensive gun uses occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that found by Kleck. In the article "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, the authors quote the National Crime Victim Survey as finding 108,000 DGUs per year. One section of the article compares the U.S. crime rate to the number of DGUs reported by Kleck and Kleck-like studies and concludes that their estimate of the DGUs is improbably high.[18] An article published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics says, "In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes ... On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft."[19]"

          [From Wikipedia.]

          1. 82
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            . . .and Harvard is neutral and unbiased? 

            Still, I appreciate statistics rather than misplaced emotion over topics like this.

          2. jmbowen2012 profile image61
            jmbowen2012posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Am I seriously reading this? People arguing over a topic when they're getting research from WIKIPEDIA? If you had any less sense in your head, you wouldn't have a head left! Where are you getting statistics from?
            Are you blind to the fact that all largely-hyped statistics at any given time can be changed, whether or not they come from [fill in the blank].gov or wikipedia.org? I believe so. Any “statistics” you read are not solid fact when they're coming from the government.
            Let me guess, you also watch Fox news and believe everything you see!

  22. SpanStar profile image59
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    The link to this video is bound to have some people wishing they can go to school with this or chase that bad guy in the hood with this.

    http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/all/F … ht/#423276

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wow! can I buy one at my local WalMart? We heard a strange noise in our back yard the other night. I like the automatic light feature.

  23. taburkett profile image61
    taburkettposted 3 years ago

    according to the FBI statistics, only .1% of all murders have occurred by use of rifles.  But the government wants to eliminate them. 
    Why - to disarm the public?

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7615787_f248.jpg

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7615788_f248.jpg

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not a big fan of "rendering unto Caesar," then? lol

      1. taburkett profile image61
        taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There is but one God - that I follow as the light.
        He provides my strength and my righteousness.

        2 Timothy 3 New International Version (NIV)
        3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
        6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

        10 You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11 persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You could have just said "no". lol

          Did you not understand the question?

          1. taburkett profile image61
            taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            it appears that you do not understand or accept my description of  'no'
            so, it appears you need to seek further wisdom about the nature of honorable men.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So - you didn't understand the question?

      2. 59
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You are?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I am not claiming to be living the way Christ lived. Sorry you didn't understand. Not surprised though.

          1. 59
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            My question is valid though. How did you manage to turn this into a religion thread?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              LAWL

              1. 59
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I know your forte is getting the religious stirred up and not speaking on guns so I can understand you turning the conversation that way but isn't it considered hijacking a thread? I will wait for something understandable to reply to.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  K then. lol lol

                  1. 59
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No game, don't want to mix it up anymore I see. I understand your reluctance given your last performance. Have fun.

  24. taburkett profile image61
    taburkettposted 3 years ago

    A:  all guns that I can afford to purchase.
    It is my responsibility to protect myself, my family, my neighbors, my community, and my nation.

    B:  no paperwork will ever protect the innocent victims because the criminals do not respect laws.

  25. freefitness profile image59
    freefitnessposted 3 years ago via iphone

    The water gun

  26. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Disgusting!  "Selling a new generation on guns"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/us/se … ns.html?hp


    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7619657_f248.jpg


    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7619720_f248.jpg

    1. 59
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Oh my, how horrible. Do you think the 10,000 films or video games they will see and play will give them a better educations of firearms? There will always be guns Ralph, they are not going away.

    2. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If you have firearms in the house like many Americans do, then it might behoove you to teach firearms safety to your kids otherwise an accident might occur. It's just common sense to expose them to the weapons you might have in order to remove their curiosity and prevent accidents. I say take them out shooting until they are sick of it.

      1. 59
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Bruce Willis can teach them, the new die hard is coming out soon.

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's cool, but I don't watch "R" rated movies. They glorify too much violence, sex, drugs, etc... Too much cussing too.

    3. SpanStar profile image59
      SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good point Ralph,

      Isn't it funny that our laws don't trust adolescents behind the wheel of a car. Insurance company raised their rates when adolescents become old enough to drive. Yet and still some of us encourage and want to put the power of death in those same hands.

      1. 59
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Can't own any type of gun before you are at least 18.

        Goodbye.

        1. SpanStar profile image59
          SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Are you saying kids don't kill with guns???

        2. LucidDreams profile image83
          LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "Can't own any type of gun before you are at least 18.

          Goodbye."

          While this may be true, kids kill eachother and themselves each day with their parents guns. That's really sad!

    4. taburkett profile image61
      taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I guess you believe that children should simply be victims.
      Maybe that will work in your utopia world, but in the real world, the criminals still have guns even when the law has been written and signed.
      Criminals beware - my children and grandchildren know how to defend themselves.

      1. SpanStar profile image59
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I believe a civilized society should not continue to perpetuate a barbaric society. When the only solution one can come up with as it pertains to dealing with disputes, issues is to develop the mentality of gunfighters, mobsters then we as a society, as adults as parents have failed.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          +++

        2. taburkett profile image61
          taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Again you speak of utopia, not reality.
          It would be nice if all parents would succeed in creating a moral society - but the real facts show that this will not occur in my lifetime.
          I live in reality where criminals attack law abiding citizens.
          In the real society, we must continually develop your so called "gunfighters" to protect those in society who cannot protect themselves from the real life criminals.
          Many people fail to operate in the real world.
          This creates more risk for society as the number of incapable innocent victims increases.
          It is the increased lack of capability to protect oneself that has caused much of the growth in immoral criminal actvity.

          1. SpanStar profile image59
            SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If I were to accept your perspective on the issue of how to deal with conflicts then I would have to conclude that the peacemakers such as Gandhi from India and or Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. approach was wrong when it came to making change in people's lives. I take from your suggestions and the like that both of these gentlemen should have had a bandolier of bullets hanging from their chest and the automatic firepower to make their point.

            1. taburkett profile image61
              taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              historical records concerning the 2 men you seem to idolize state that they were peacemakers who did not believe in carrying guns themselves.
              furthermore, history indicates they were both assassinated by guns.
              On January 30, 1948, Gandhi was shot while walking to prayer.
              On April 4, 1968, King was shot while standing on a hotel balcony.
              While you wish to talk about their demise as if their deaths justify anti-gun rhetoric.
              Nothing could be further from the truth.
              People who disarm law abiding citizens fail to recognize that assassins take no risk when confronting an unarmed individual.
              Both Gandhi and King are proof of this point.
              So are the unarmed innocent victims that were killed during 2012.
              As a security specialist I can assure you had their been a law abiding armed guard on the scene of the 2012 activities, the evil results would have been much different than the reported happenings.
              When confronting an evil person with a weapon, the only possible solution for the victim is an equal or better weapon.
              While i would like all that evil to desist, I live in the real world where I know the drug lords, street gangs, terrorists, irrational deranged individuals, and other evil will exist regardless of my desire for it to cease.
              Therefore, i will continue to carry enough fire power 24/7 to protect myself and many around me should a situation present itself.
              However, I do not intend to indicate that you should do the same. 
              You should always be permitted your personal choice.
              That is what is great about this nation.
              You can choose to not carry, and I can choose to protect you or anyone else because I choose to carry.
              If I can save one person by being responsible, then I have completed my chosen goal.

            2. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Gandhi and Martin Luther King, as pacifists, were both naturally against gun-control.

  27. andralynnRN profile image61
    andralynnRNposted 3 years ago

    I believe that as law abiding Americans, we should have the right to own any arms we chose. Owning guns is a right given to us by our forefathers. The government can take our guns away, and then we will not be able to protect our family, our property from those who get guns illegally. I am a nurse. I work in the inner city. I see crime almost daily and what gangs do with guns. I know at times innocent people are shot from guns in peoples homes. I get that kids sometimes get a hold of parents guns and the outcome is unthinkable. Those who commit crimes are NOT getting their guns legally. What they use for crimes are stolen, bought on the black market, etc. In Akron OH, the police just reported that on average, they are taking 2 illegal guns off the streets per day. What is it like in a bigger city? We should have the right to protect ourselves. Until the goverment eradicates criminals from having guns, I will keep mine.

  28. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Truthfully there is soo much ignorance on the part of anti gun people ! Its soo obvious that all of you , not only know nothing about guns but that neither do you understand even the basics of human nature !.........How can you not look at the absolute "freakin mess " ,for lack of  better words , that our criminal justice system alone , is In !   And stilll,! think that by elilminating "assault weapons"  from our existance is going to stop such idiousy on the part of fruitcakes !  But then ........even some of you are fruitcakes !

    1. LucidDreams profile image83
      LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That is just plain non-sense that only people like yourself would actually believe in! yes, us aniti gun people are fruitcakes, "if you say so" but we are not the only one with a problem, you live in this crazy world also.

      The only thing is, seems as if your answer to every problem is......."DONT TAKE AWAY MY GUNS! Now that's a fricken fruitcake type of belief system if I ever heard one.

      1. taburkett profile image61
        taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7604489_f248.jpg

  29. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    "Dangerous Gun Myths" NY Times Editorial

    "... But there is a more fundamental problem with the idea that guns actually protect the hearth and home. Guns rarely get used that way. In the 1990s, a team headed by Arthur Kellermann of Emory University looked at all injuries involving guns kept in the home in Memphis, Seattle and Galveston, Tex. They found that these weapons were fired far more often in accidents, criminal assaults, homicides or suicide attempts than in self-defense. For every instance in which a gun in the home was shot in self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides.

    "The cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is “a particularly strong risk factor” for female homicides and the intimidation of women...."


    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opini … hs.html?hp

    1. SpanStar profile image59
      SpanStarposted 3 years ago

      Having a gun outside the home can be costly also.

      http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/Tonig … new#424073

      1. taburkett profile image61
        taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        like Ron White says - "you can't fix stupid."
        the individual must fix this for themselves.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

      AMERICAN SNIPER AUTHOR SHOT TO DEATH AT TEXAS SHOOTING RANGE
      "... Mr. Kyle, 38, author of the best-selling book “American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History,” was with a struggling former soldier on just such an outing on Saturday, hoping that a day at a shooting range would bring some relief, said a friend, Travis Cox.

      "But the Texas authorities said Sunday that the troubled veteran turned on Mr. Kyle and a second man, Chad Littlefield, shooting and killing both before fleeing in a pickup truck.

      “Chad and Chris had taken a veteran out to shoot to try to help him,” Mr. Cox said. “And they were killed.' "

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/ch … ed.html?hp

      1. SpanStar profile image59
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ralph,

        This is indeed tragic, it seems as though we can never get enough of killing.

        I'm sure you're aware of that saying "guns don't kill people do." Well I have never heard of someone being killed by giving them the evil eye nor have I heard someone being killed simply by thinking about them being killed. It stands to reason that in order to kill someone one must have some sort of instrument be at their hands or the most popular weapon the gun.

        1. 82
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Guns are used in killing.  There's no denying that.  They are also used for sport and self defense.  Taking guns away may or may not save lives; it may even result in more murders, as people might not have the weapons necessary to protect themselves.  It will certainly mean that my rights have been eroded.

          1. SpanStar profile image59
            SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It is sad that this violent society which we live in did not happen on its own, we created this society and to compound the problem we feel our rights are more important than other people's lives.

          2. Paul Wingert profile image79
            Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            NRA says more guns! A good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun! LMAO! Chris Kyle and his buddywere killed at a shooting range! So much for their retarded comment! Oh, I forgot, the NRA is all about guns sales since a good portion of their Board of Directors are tied to the gun industry! Screw those idiots.

            1. taburkett profile image61
              taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              good guys with guns die when they let their guard down - even the most decorated sniper.
              you may wish to let your guard down - I do not.
              America is on the brink of destruction, the world is at the same point it was prior to WWII - crazy leaders in major parts of the world.
              like many who jump to emotional conclusions the current press on this situation leaps to spread irrational statements about gun violence.
              PFCKF

    3. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

      Here's one for you anti gun fools , eliminate every gun in the world and then sit down at the tv and watch a mass murderer  use some  other tool to accomplish his mission!  And he will too , want the truth in statistics look at the shootings in Chicago last month alone  ! They have gun ban laws in afeect ! While your at it check out L.A. s gang shooting  death rates !    Even D.Cs .   Is one style of gun , all the anti-gun people can focus on .  "assualt weapons "  in the gun world   ---- is equal  to mini skirts in the dress world  ! Just one "look" of a dozen or more !   A lot of you here in this thread really need to muture UP- wards instead of down !

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "eliminate every gun in the world and then sit down at the tv and watch a mass murderer  use some  other tool to accomplish his mission"

        Yes, but remember that it's far, far easier to stop someone from killing with a sword or a bow-'n-arrow than it is to stop him from killing with a gun.

        1. taburkett profile image61
          taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          your hypothesis is slightly flawed.
          it is not far, far easier to stop someone from killing with a sword or a bow-'n-arrow.  otherwise, all those who perished from those tools in the past would still be alive after the attack.
          a weapon of any sort is more difficult to defend against if you do not have the same or better weapon.
          the best defense is a good plan that provides real security.
          besides, no criminal ever follows the law.

        2. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Actually NO Zellkiiro,  what about  a Malotov cocktale !  A propane tank and a match , a pipe bomb ???

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What about an automatic rifle he printed off at home?

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Nobody is making rifles with a 3d printer. Unless he wants to blow his own hand off.

    4. TheKemist profile image82
      TheKemistposted 3 years ago

      I think in America they are to far down the line and if you un-arm the population then it leaves the government in total control with all the guns, and as America work on two different laws and to be honest it is a country that is forced together through an alliance, it would be scary for a lot of people to give washington all the power.

    5. taburkett profile image61
      taburkettposted 3 years ago

      let's see now - the last time a criminal followed the law was --------- never.

    6. taburkett profile image61
      taburkettposted 3 years ago

      definition of statistics:
      1) a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data
      2) a collection of quantitative data

      validity of statistics:
      the degree that a concept, conclusion or measurement is properly supported and corresponds accurately to the real world.

      DOJ crime information:
      only includes reported crimes where investigations are concluded.  any act that is not investigated is no currently included by the statisticians because they are not recorded as a ciminal investigation.

      this means the real world information is not being used to report the safety provided by individuals who carry guns.

      the best statistic is the one that means I will walk away in a safe condition when confronted by a criminal with a gun.

    7. taburkett profile image61
      taburkettposted 3 years ago

      I wonder what the citizens in Germany said when the Nazis started their campaign to register all weapons?

    8. oldhorse profile image80
      oldhorseposted 3 years ago

      I'm routing for people should be allowed to own muzzle loaders:

      1) It matches the founding father's understanding of "bearing arms".

      2) They make a really satisfying bang when they go off.

      3) You can only kill one person before you have to reload and someone has a chance to tackle you; it's more sporting.

      4) Gun nuts are a really humorless bunch and a proposal like this will get them really lathered up and spouting all sorts of absurd cliches.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        1 - Congress had already ordered 100 rifles that could fire 8 bullets in 5 seconds with 1 trigger pull. Just FYI, automatic rifles were already there.

        2 - So does a canon. I demand a canon!

        3 - Well, how about a law where you have to give your gun to someone who attacks you, that would be even more sporting!

        4 - Cliches don't kill people, People cliche people! Or something like that.

    9. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

      My recomendation---- , All of you who don't see the need for guns in your home ,  Please run to your neighbors house ,who has one,  for protection against , burgulars , tyranical governments ,  invading forces ,  and ask him to save one or two of his {proposed ]  ten round magazine to protect you and your over -freedom  entitled family!....Im sure he'll sacrifice his family  for yours !

      1. LucidDreams profile image83
        LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There are some people on this site seriously obssessed with their guns! Is gun obssession one of those mental illnesses that should be looked into?

        1. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Lucid dreams ,No more than the obsession of the rights of too much  freedom of speech that you sir expound upon !   Watch out for those soap boxes they can trrip you up !

    10. 60
      jabagwellposted 3 years ago

      Personally I think that all guns should be allowed. Honestly I could care less if my neighbor owns a highpowered fully auto assault rifle with a full combat load (7 30 round mags). Thats the way he wants to live his life, so be it. If I think he is a danger to me or my family A) move. B) buy my own gun, learn to shoot it, and shoot back if he goes on a rampage on my front lawn. The beauty about this country is that we have the ability to choose how we want to live, be it law abiding or law breaking. Because of that we must trust in our judicial system and law enforcement to take care of those that choose to break laws.

      Gun laws will not accomplish one little thing. Prime example that not one person has a rebuttal for yet, is drug use. Drugs are illegal...period. Federal law prohibits the use of narcotics without a prescription and for a use that is not intended by a medical provider. But that does not stop drug dealers on the streets from selling cocaine, marijuana, heroin, meth, acid, shrooms, aderol, pcp...the list just goes on. Go to a poor neighborhood and I guarantee there will be multiple people that "got what chu need." The law still says its illegal, drugs still have the potential to kill people, and yet people still sell them, which means there are obviously buyers, and people that use them. Guns are really no different. Make a law that takes any type of gun away and the people that are law breakers will disregard and drive on. The law abiding citizens will do the right then and because of that could potentially be at a disadvantage if a law breaker pulls an illegal gun against them.

      I know that in my house if someone breaks in I want them to know that I have an assault rifle that I am very well trained with, shoot well with and will open fire at will to protect my family and my land. To me gun laws are ridiculous and pointless. Period.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sounds like you've been watching old "All in the Family" videos!
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM

    11. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

      See the real problem is in the question ! -"what kinds of guns should our government allow us ?....."
      The question should be "What more will the  ' people' allow this government to control ?.....see what I mean , you people need to catch up !

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No, it's what kinds of weapons will our government prohibit, consistent with the 2nd Amendment, e.g., military style weapons, large magazines, .50 caliber rifles and armor piercing bullets, none of which have a use for anything but killing people. And how will the rules be enforced for a change.
        Proponents of gun control are willing to seek a reasonable, practical middle ground. NRA and some gun nuts are opposed to any regulation.

    12. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

      Ralph , As if that were the cure all !  It has not worked yet , Check crime stats in D.C. , Chicago , in New York too !   Massachussets , Californica , come on board the good ship  reality, Ralph ......You will never regulate or legislate  insanity by creating new law !  You know that too!  But hey ,  may as well dodge the real  important issues .....Thats the  great liberal way !

     
    working