Do you think that the US should change the constitution to ban firearms?

[RZAL]

Sorry, buddy. You're sorely mistaken. There's a background check and a 10-day waiting period to buy a gun here in the U.S. It's not like you can just go down to the corner drugstore and pick one up.

That depends on state laws, check out ATF website.

 

[kmack]

fact is, we need to do something, though redneck illiterate america has a hard-on for literal interpretation of the Constitution, and the NRA has a very powerful lobby, so it's hard enough to get a law passed to prevent suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms (that's right, its legal for a suspect on the federal terrorist watch list to buy a gun at walmart 48 did it last year), so an absolute ban will never, ever happen.

 

[Calanen]

I posted a report in another thread showing that a million people a year in the USA defend themselves with firearms.Thats a million people who would be dead or injured without their guns. The figures that are often cited as how many people are killed by guns in the USA are distorted to - because that includes the amount of people killed by law enforcement and by citizens in self-defence.

For a person not having guns is good for the state - but as an individual its not good. It means you are likely to be one of the people who did not defend themselves, being unable too, and are therefore, dead.

 

[Solaris]

Youre more likely to shoot a member of your familiy, than of an intruder. Does the gun still amke you feel safer? What about all thoose kids that shoot up their schools? Its a lot easier to blame some game than to ask why a gun was available to him. Why do you think you need guns to be safe? More guns are used to commit crime than to prevent it, excluding the police.

You have to get it into your mids that GUNS DO NOT MAKE YOU SAFER. If you havea gun, then it is likely the person who is attackign you does too. Thus the chance of you or the assialant dying is quite high, whereas ifneither have a gun, like in the UK. Thne one person might get a bit bruised up, but no deaths.

 

[short recoil]

whereas ifneither have a gun, like in the UK. Thne one person might get a bit bruised up, but no deaths.

I'll make sure to give that a thought when i visit a relatives grave who died from being mugged.

I have also had a relative die from being shot with a shotgun, however i do not blame the shotgun, i do not think it should be outlawed.......the gun did nothing, the person did.

What is it with humans that they can never blame themselves, if they crash the car its "never their fault, it was a faulty something or other" or "oh im fat because i have a gland problem, not because i eat high fat food and sit on my ass all day"

A safe human with a gun is safe.
A dangerous human with a gun is dangerous.

They should Stop the problem at the source not just take away a small part of the problem........rather than scapegoating and wondering why the gun crime is still rising despite gun bans.....a criminal goes against laws by definition, gun control does not stop them having a gun seeing how basic a gun is.

 

[The Monkey]

...and a dangerous man without a gun is not harmless, but way more safe that he would have been of he had a gun.

Yes, it's true, people kill people, but they need means to do it. If they can't get hold of a gun, what do they do? They will probably get a knife. And it's hell of a lot easier to escape/caugh a man with a knife than a man with a gun. And why do you need a gun for "protection" it the crooks don't have any guns?

 

[KoreBolteR]

guns make it easy for the "people who kill people".

EDIT: and how long will Kmack be banned for?

 

[Calanen]

Originally Posted by Fat Tony!
Even if someone breaks into your house you shouldnt shoot him, the person is still a human being.

Seriously some people need a dose of reality. If some junkie breaks into your house - what are you going to do? Ask him to politely leave? Will he let you live so you can identify his face to the police? If this 'human being' ties you up so he can rape your wife in front of you or your daughter - should you still put the firearm away?

Reality check people. If someone is in your house that is not supposed to be there - you have split seconds to do everything you can to render him incapable of doing you further harm. If that includes shooting, wounding, beating, with whatever you have available you better do it. Because if you do not, you will just be the short report on the evening news 'Police today found a house ransacked with a man dead inside who appears to be the resident. It is likely he disturbed home invaders.' And aint no1 gonna care that you were the nice guy who did not use his firearm to defend himself.

 

[Calanen]

Kmack got banned?

/me puts on his Queen single of 'Another One Bites the Dust'.....

 

[The Monkey]

Seriously some people need a dose of reality. If some junkie breaks into your house - what are you going to do? Ask him to politely leave? Will he let you live so you can identify his face to the police? If this 'human being' ties you up so he can rape your wife in front of you or your daughter - should you still put the firearm away?

Reality check people. If someone is in your house that is not supposed to be there - you have split seconds to do everything you can to render him incapable of doing you further harm. If that includes shooting, wounding, beating, with whatever you have available you better do it. Because if you do not, you will just be the short report on the evening news 'Police today found a house ransacked with a man dead inside who appears to be the resident. It is likely he disturbed home invaders.' And aint no1 gonna care that you were the nice guy who did not use his firearm to defend himself.

The population has no right to act like a police force of its own. Of course you have the right to stop him but you have no right to kill a man who has only commited a crime that gives about one to two years. And, as I've claimed before, if you ban guns and make them very hard to get, then there's a little that he has one. If he tries to rape your wife/daughter, then it's a totally other matter.

 

[Razor]

The population has no right to act like a police force of its own. Of course you have the right to stop him but you have no right to kill a man who has only commited a crime that gives about one to two years. And, as I've claimed before, if you ban guns and make them very hard to get, then there's a little that he has one. If he tries to rape your wife/daughter, then it's a totally other matter.

British law states that a home owner can use any force that they deem reasonable to protect themselves, their family and their property. If some guy pulls a knife on me, i am going to take him down, whether that means grabbing a knife and stabbing it in his chest or just slicing off his arm, i will take him down. If i had a gun to hand, i would just use the gun to shoot him in the legs or the shoulders, if he keeps on coming, i will shoot him in the stomach.

 

[Razor]

I'll make sure to give that a thought when i visit a relatives grave who died from being mugged.

I have also had a relative die from being shot with a shotgun, however i do not blame the shotgun, i do not think it should be outlawed.......the gun did nothing, the person did.

What is it with humans that they can never blame themselves, if they crash the car its "never their fault, it was a faulty something or other" or "oh im fat because i have a gland problem, not because i eat high fat food and sit on my ass all day"

A safe human with a gun is safe.
A dangerous human with a gun is dangerous.

They should Stop the problem at the source not just take away a small part of the problem........rather than scapegoating and wondering why the gun crime is still rising despite gun bans.....a criminal goes against laws by definition, gun control does not stop them having a gun seeing how basic a gun is.

Agree 100%.

 

[GhostFox]

Of course you have the right to stop him but you have no right to kill a man who has only commited a crime that gives about one to two years.

That depends.

If he comes running into your bedroom in the middle of the night and you shoot him and hit him in the leg and he falls down and starts to cry, you have no right to kill the man. He's obviously no longer a danger to you.

However if he comes running in and your shot hits him in the chest and he dies, I don't see how anyone could say you did anything wrong.

It doesn't even have to be a gun. I don't own a gun, but I do have an aluminum baseball bat. If someone breaks into my house they face a good chance of catching that bat on the back of their head. They may suffer a fractured skull, they may even die. And if I killed someone I would feel terrible afterwards. But at the time my only concern would be to make sure that the guy goes down and does not get back up. I don't know if he is armed or what, so I'm not giving him a second chance.

 

[short recoil]

The population has no right to act like a police force of its own. Of course you have the right to stop him but you have no right to kill a man who has only commited a crime that gives about one to two years. And, as I've claimed before, if you ban guns and make them very hard to get, then there's a little that he has one. If he tries to rape your wife/daughter, then it's a totally other matter.

I'm sorry but i am sickened by your post, the police are the same as normal people, people are the same as police............i HATE it when people think everything should be left to the police....like civilians and police are two different things.

The peoples protection is supposed to be the reason the police are there, if the people can protect themselves they should do, just like the police.

Soceity has gone down hill, you do not have a community spirit like you used to..........

I would NEVER 100% trust my life to someone else, it is silly.......
If i feel threatened, i will nullify that threat........it would not be my intention to kill someone who threatened me....i would nock them out, tie them up and call the cops......if it was their intention to kill me or my family i would kill them.

Why make yourself less able to defend yourself?
After all at the end of the day what is most important to you is your own and your families lives........it is your nature, why else would you bother living?

 

[The Monkey]

British law states that a home owner can use any force that they deem reasonable to protect themselves, their family and their property. If some guy pulls a knife on me, i am going to take him down, whether that means grabbing a knife and stabbing it in his chest or just slicing off his arm, i will take him down. If i had a gun to hand, i would just use the gun to shoot him in the legs or the shoulders, if he keeps on coming, i will shoot him in the stomach.

Yes, of course if your life is threatened, you have the right to do almost everything. But imagine this scenario: You are in your house and you don't notice that some unarmed man is breaking in. Suddenly you see him going through your stuff, and he tries to flee, but you stand in the way. Now here you do have the right to stop him from fleeing, but not the right to kill him. I think most people agree with this, right?

 

[short recoil]

Yes, of course if your life is threatened, you have the right to do almost everything. But imagine this scenario: You are in your house and you don't notice that some unarmed man is breaking in. Suddenly you see him going through your stuff, and he tries to flee, but you stand in the way. Now here you do have the right to stop him from fleeing, but not the right to kill him. I think most people agree with this, right?

The houseowner has to make a desicion to risk personal injury and try and stop him, or let him go.

The criminal will do ANYTHING to avoid being caught so they will be a danger, if he has broken into your house he is in the wrong.

This is one of many "soceity complexes" that are so annoying........which do you do, let him go or fight him?

In the animal world it would be fight him straight away.......with laws that go against instincts you will always have problems.

 

[The Monkey]

The houseowner has to make a desicion to risk personal injury and try and stop him, or let him go.

The criminal will do ANYTHING to avoid being caught so they will be a danger, if he has broken into your house he is in the wrong.

This is one of many "soceity complexes" that are so annoying........which do you do, let him go or fight him?

In the animal world it would be fight him straight away.......with laws that go against instincts you will always have problems.

The human being is not an animal anymore, we're far beyond that. One of the main things that seperate us from the animals is that we don't act entirely on instincts. Yes, I would probably want to kill that bastard, but from a third-person-view, he doesn't deserve to die "just" beacause he broke into someone's house, does he?

 

[short recoil]

The human being is not an animal anymore, we're far beyond that. One of the main things that seperate us from the animals is that we don't act entirely on instincts. Yes, I would probably want to kill that bastard, but from a third-person-view, he doesn't deserve to die "just" beacause he broke into someone's house, does he?

From what i have seen from humans we are definetly animals.

Problems like this are here because of the stupid mess of human morals/laws/ways of thinking and instincts.

The person breaking into the house wants goods/money to help his drug addiction or feed his family, the houseowner dosn't want his stuff stolen that he has earned.
The houseowner wants to retain his goods and punish the criminal for breaking in.
The criminal wants to avoid getting caught and probably avoid a confrontation (unless he is some kind of killer)

Conflicting goals

Of course the family of the criminal will be devistated if he is killed, "oh he was such a good boy really" e.t.c, but if the family was broken into they could do the same.

The mess of soceity throws up so much to complicate it, "oh you killed someone who was just breaking in" ......."you could have let him go" .......then is there any point in even getting out of bed if someone breaks in? ....because if the burgalar sees you that might be the start of the confrontation?

Of course if you let people do as they please it is anarchy...back to the animal laws.

It is impossible to ever have it perfect, each human will react differently.

 

[GhostFox]

he doesn't deserve to die "just" beacause he broke into someone's house, does he?

He may not deserve it, but I wouldn't wait until he shot me or not to determine if he was a threat. To a certain extent you are forefitting your life when you commit a crime, because you need to understand that the consequnces for yourself could be fatal.

I wouldn't intentionally injure someone whom I knew to not be a threat, but by the same measure I would assume anyone breaking into my home was a threat and take steps pre-emptively.

 

[The Monkey]

He may not deserve it, but I wouldn't wait until he shot me or not to determine if he was a threat. To a certain extent you are forefitting your life when you commit a crime, because you need to understand that the consequnces for yourself could be fatal.

I wouldn't intentionally injure someone whom I knew to not be a threat, but by the same measure I would assume anyone breaking into my home was a threat and take steps pre-emptively.

Then you're braver than me, I would run like there was no tomorrow No seriously, in Sweden, where guns are banned and is very hard to get hold on, I never fear to be threatened by a gunman, and therefore I don't need to get a gun to protect myself.

 

[short recoil]

Then you're braker than me, I would run like there was no tomorrow No seriously, in Sweden, where guns are banned and is very hard to get hold on, I never fear to be threatened by a gunman, and therefore I don't need to get a gun to protect myself.

But you would need a knife to defend yourself in a knife fight?......a knife fight usually ending up with 2 people injured/dead rather than just 1 with gun fight

In britain we have 3 times the number of knife deaths than gun......not good

again its not the fact of owning a weapon its the fact of the intention to kill.

If they now ban knives what will it be next, fist and stick murders?.........put out fire at source rather than the tip of the flames.

 

[ChareltonHest]

Hey buddy, The 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting!

It isn't about duck hunting anymore than the 1st Amendment is about playing Scrable. We have arms for the sake having the ability to use force to defend our rights...particularly against a Gov't who trieds to take them away.

Criminy! We just had a Thread here about Firearms, please read my posts there.

BTW, you could change the constiution, but we would still have the right. Rights don't come from documents or from man(Gov't). Rights come from God; "self-evident".

The 2ndAmd was put in place not to give us a right, but to make it clear to the goverment that it must respect this vital right. The 2ndAmd is a restriction: A restriction of government.


C.H.

 

[ChareltonHest]

Correction: A restriction on government


C.H.

 

[Pericolos0]

i love the episode of family guy where his neighbor accidentally shoots charlton heston.

neighbor: "omg! the safety wasnt on"
ch:"don't worry, its your right as an american citizen *dies"

 

[Calanen]

The regard you display for your fellow man is striknig, to say the least. Be uncharitable, fine, but perhaps be a bit understanding?
No, you're poor it must be your own f*cking fault. Sure.

Until you have someone with a weapon coming at you - or someone you care about - don't sit on your high horse saying how you would be so understanding and considerate. At the very least, unless your doors are unlocked (not likely) burglars have housebreaking implements such as crowbars and jimmy's, or a screwdriver all of which can easily kill or maim you.

its all fine and well to have oh so much compassion until you found a strange man in your daughter's bedroom in the middle of the night. Then tell me how you'd be the good samaritan.

 

[Calanen]

British law states that a home owner can use any force that they deem reasonable to protect themselves, their family and their property. If some guy pulls a knife on me, i am going to take him down, whether that means grabbing a knife and stabbing it in his chest or just slicing off his arm, i will take him down. If i had a gun to hand, i would just use the gun to shoot him in the legs or the shoulders, if he keeps on coming, i will shoot him in the stomach.

Bad strategy to shoot someone in the legs or shoulders. You will miss and they will be on u in a second unless you are one good quickdraw. Thats why police are told to aim for centre of mass - the chest.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Cause of Death/Age Range All Ages Under 1 Yr 1-4 yrs 5-14yrs 15-24 yrs 25-34 35-44
Total Number of Deaths 2,403,351 100% 28,035 1.2% 4,979 0.2% 7,413 0.3% 3,1307 1.3% 40,451 1.7% 89,798 3.7%
Major Cardiovasular Diseases 936,923 39.0% 636 2.3% 234 4.7% 362 4.9% 1,309 4.2% 3792 9.4% 16,624 18.5%
Malignant Neoplasms 553,091 23.0% 92 0.3% 420 8.4% 1,014 13.7% 1713 5.5% 3916 9.7% 16,520 18.4%
Chronic Lower Resperitory Dis. 122,009 5.1% 36 0.1% 51 1.0% 139 1.9% 190 0.6% 296 0.7% 930 1.0%
Diabetes Mellitus 69,301 2.9% 4 0.0% 6 0.1% 26 0.4% 162 0.5% 623 1.5% 1,926 2.1%
Influenza and Pneumonia 65,313 2.7% 289 1.0% 103 2.1% 87 1.2% 189 0.6% 364 0.9% 1,068 1.2%
Alzheimers 49,558 2.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.0% 6 0.0%
Motor Vehicle Accidents 43,354 1.8% 168 0.6% 651 13.1% 1,772 23.9% 10,560 33.7% 6,884 17.0% 6,927 7.7%
Renal Failure 3,6471 1.5% 152 0.5% 11 0.2% 19 0.3% 78 0.2% 221 0.5% 701 0.8%
Septicemia 3,1224 1.3% 274 1.0% 99 2.0% 63 0.8% 100 0.3% 280 0.7% 877 1.0%
Firearms 28,663 1.2% 13 0.0% 46 0.9% 377 5.1% 6,575 21.0% 5,789 14.3% ,5358 6.0%
NOTE: Firearms Statistics Include Gang Warfare, Self Defense Shootings and Criminals Killed by Police