There's nothing wrong with a person owning gun to protect them self, the problem lies in people killing each other. But there's always going to be murder and people are going to get hurt, there isn't much we can do but not be the one to go off and kill people for the hell of it.
"If I lived in USA and saw someone with a gun wrapped around his waist I'd be scared for my life."
your more likely to be raped back in sweden than shot by a gun owner in the US of A. Your fears are not justified, and based on rhetoric, stereotypes, more rhetoric.
Then we get into the 'psychos' comment, which againt, more like "terrorists", "communists", and other fear words, probably means your the one who is insecure.
You know, before terrorism even, calling someone a "psycho" was how you could lock them up legally without trials, lawyers, appeals, or even a good reason, except the single opinion of a man who wasn't smart enough to study neroscience in college.
At least I'm not arguing for banning a now legal thing because I'm scared of it, then have the nerve to call others "insecure", then threatening to put them in a classification of people to be locked up without due proccess.
Nope. A coward is a person that uses a gun to shoot innocent people around.
A person that is peacefully sleeping at home and confronts a robber who breaks into his/her house and uses a gun to protect himself is not a coward, he just does not know if the robber is armed or not.
I like guns, a lot, but I know better not going around gun totting like in the Wild West.
I Spain, were I used to live, you get in more shit for protecting yourself than the robber would get into if he would kill you in the robbing, our wonderful justice system
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. If there is someone in your house, it's the middle of the night, and you don't know them, why they are there, if they are armed, would you rather have a phone in your hand or a weapon?
Oh, that's easy. One, no reasonable person trusts the police. Two, the police aren't obligated to actually help you. Three, even if they do want to help you, they're not necessarily available in the timeframe you need them. Four, you may not actually be able to contact them when you need their help. Five, I don't believe the use of guns automatically becomes more moral or acceptable when outsourced to somebody else. Six, I think police are -too likely- to use their guns in a conflict. Seven, it is my responsibility, not somebody else's, to ensure my own safety. Eight, no reasonable person ever, ever, EVER trusts the police.
That's always amused me about the gun control crowd. They claim we're buying guns because we're so afraid, yet all we ask is to be left alone, while they launch into fear-mongering every time there's a shooting.
Take a look at what steps were taken in response to a SEVEN-YEAR-OLD with a TOY GUN:
I live on a cattle ranch 30 miles from the nearest form of law enforcement, medical assistance, animal control, etc. We have large predators that occasionally harass, maim, or even kill our livestock, which are the primary source of income not only for my family but for a large part of our community. We use guns to drive off or kill these predators before they can injure our animals. We've had a dog and some calves killed by coyotes, cats killed by bobcats, antelopes killed by a mountain lion near our house, and wolves have killed calves on a nearby ranch.
We also use our guns to kill smaller animals such as skunks, raccoons, and feral cats that invade our outbuildings (barns, silos, etc) because these animals will consume any available food, injure our domestic animals, and they can possibly be rabid or carry other diseases that could infect us or our animals. Trap and release does not work with these animals because they just find another building to raid, so they're either back in your barn in a few days or are in your neighbor's barn instead.
Finally, we use our guns to put down mortally injured animals. Sure, you could call a veterinarian, wait two days for him to find the time to come out and euthanize the cow with the broken pelvis, and then pay the vet half the amount of money you make from each cow you sell, but why would you when you can give her a much quicker end with a single bullet.
So, here are my thoughts on this: No, citizens do not need assault rifles, fully automatic weapons, sniper rifles, silencers, etc. for any reason. Yes, most citizens, especially those in urban areas, can get along just fine without owning any type of gun. Yes, people should have to go through an in-depth process that involves a background check in order to purchase a gun, and should have to pass a gun safety course in order to purchase a pistol or receive a permit to carry.
However, there is a part of the population that needs access to firearms, by which I mean repeating rifles and revolvers, in order to live and earn a living in the manner they have chosen. Insecurity and ego have nothing to do with it.
By what right, by what code, by what standard do you or anyone else get to decide what a person does and does not need?
Also, how many times does it have to be said that assault rifles (which are fully automatic weapons, by the way) and silencers are already regulated? And what is a sniper rifle in this context? Contrary to popular belief, a hunting rifle with a scope on it does not automatically become a sniper rifle.
Also, silencers actually do have practical applications for civilians. They can help protect one's hearing, shoot accurately (people tend to flinch in anticipation of the sound and recoil, both of which suppressors lessen), hunt safely without wearing hearing protection or dispose of pests/predators without disturbing others, among other things.
As far as I know, everyone who owns a gun is REQUIRED to undergo training on how and when to use it. Plus, with the average response time from police being about twenty minutes, so I'm told, everything would be over by the time they arrive. Also, criminals don't give a damn about gun laws, thus if anything one could predict the number of gun crimes increasing with the removal of guns, because they know they can get away with it.
And finally, citizens have a right to guns in order to protect themselves, not from criminals, but from the government. The second amendment was created in order to prevent another tyranny and keep the government in check. Thus, removing guns from citizens runs the risk of threatening, not just the lives of civilians, but their freedoms as well.
We have a constitution that garuntees us certain rights. for example the right to say what we want the right to not be forced to quarter soldiers the right to not be jailed without reason etc.... in order to make sure that these rights are protected we have the right to bear arms. in case our government ever did decide to throw out our founding documents and become a tyrannical, we have the ability to "uphold and defend the constiution of the united states."
That brings me to my next point. in a dicatorship the people are not allowed to own guns but there is a policeman on every corner. the soviet union was this way and it was a pretty safe society, crime wise anyways. but where do we draw the line between liberty and freedoms and safety? should we abondon all our rights for the sake of feeling that we are "safe"?
i am far from insecure, i dont own guns for protection i own them for hunting. i am incredily well versed in firearms safety and use and to usggest that because i have not been the state trooper school i am ignorant about my tools. im not a construction worker but im pretty damn handy with a hammer...
I don't have a problem with people owning guns, they should be educated on how to use them, store them and the likes. they got classes and due to certain acts you're suppose to follow but some seldom do and some can obtain guns without waiting periods and other guidelines. the 2nd amendment rights can still be in place, just need to do the proper protocol on such matters. blaming something (gun, video game, music, movies...bad parenting/lack there of) are just one more blame. Switzerland everyone has a gun and is military they are taught how to use the gun and so forth. Japan you have to pass a mental, drug and written exam but you can still own a gun but you have to fire it at a certain place. it's still possible. and truth be told, I am quite curious how the American government is going to pull guns from people, since they are suppose to follow guidelines and rules. although they aren't following the rules quite so much this election, but hey, anything is possible now !
Here is another point. What about Anders Breivik who killed 77 people in Norway. If it could happen in Norway it could happen in Sweden too. You may think Sweden is safe but all it takes is one psychopath that manages to skirt the system and place can go to hell quickly.
And when the police come to disarm someone and they resist and are shot and killed, does that make it better that a government approved person used a gun to kill someone? Seems like that would be an endorsement of gun violence. There are many more factors to this than simply blaming everything on access to firearms.
True, Sweden and other European countries have lower rates of gun fatalities than the U.S. Switzerland, being one of those, requires that every household have a weapon and has more or less the same amount of murders as the U.K., and while it might be bad form to say it, comparing the murder rates in a country like Sweden to the U.S. just on population alone doesn't hold water. And for all the laws that have been passed there are still gun murders in the countries with tight gun controls, not to mention murders committed by the police in the name of the law.
As far as not being able to stop a thief from robbing you when he already has his gun on you, I'd still like to ability to attempt to defend myself, rather than die helpless in an alley because it will make other people feel safe that I don't have the ability to shoot up a school...which also seems kind of shitty to assume that of people simply for owning a firearm. However, if an unarmed person was being robbed/raped/assaulted and I was able to stop it from occurring by owning a firearm, I think thats reason enough to do so.
Its been stated already that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to defend yourself from government tyranny, and it has also been noted here that if the government wanted a gun owner dead they could just "gas" them. This seems like more of a reason to disarm the government than it does the people, don't you think? It also bares repeating that many of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century also banned private gun ownership.
The world is a scary place with all types of madness, our president drops bombs from unmanned drones on children in Pakistan without so much as a pause, then weeps for those here who have been senselessly gunned down. The media reports about it non stop, and people think "Something must be done dammit!" and the answer from the president, the media and even people on this forum is to give up yet more of our rights in order to feel the sweet sweet rush of that trade off of a little liberty for security. And these tragedies do occur, with some regularity, and with quite a few of them being committed by people on one or more legally prescribed medications (gee no one wants to ban those) these people may have owned a car, which can be the cause of some fatalities, more fatalities than guns mind you (not banning those yet) and I'm willing to bet they had a phone book in their home (OH! Terror!) yet statistically, across the globe, you are safer today than ever before.
The average NRA member is probably better EDUCATED to use a gun than the cops. Cops are trained to shoot first and ask questions later while the average human being might actually hesitate in shooting. Also cops commit a lot of crime themselves in America and really can't be trusted. Nobody polices the police and they basically can get away with cold blooded murder.
The amount of murders, rapes, beatings, and thefts done by the cops in America is staggering. [link]
I could give you links to thousands of incidents but I will give you just one case to see if you can stomach it.
Woman calls 911, cops rapes her, then SHE gets arrested for assaulting a police officer. [link]
American cops have more in common with 3rd world dictatorships than it does with police in Sweden. When you let this reality sink in for a bit you will understand why American's cling to their guns as if their lives depended on it. Insecure People is not a state of mind but a fact of reality like saying food is for hungry people.
He who hesitates is lost...or in this case, dead. If you hesitate in a gun fight, that's all the time it takes for the opponent to fire one off at you. The NRA might be better educated about guns, but cops are trained to deal with a real-world gunfight.
And while there are a few bad apples among the police, the majority of them are normal, friendly, everyday guys.
To be fair, some of our saner states have the same view that you do. That anyone walking around armed that isn't a cop or soldier is someone you don't feel safe around, and that wanting to walk around ready to kill people is not a sane way to think.
Police states are expensive and unpractical to the feeling of being free. Self defense is a right and it only takes a armed criminal seconds to kill you with anything from a hammer to a machine gun.
More over the spectacial events like school shootings are done by men who otherwise have the know how to create means of death on a grander scale. Don't make them think, I would be more afraid of the nuts if you made them think more indepthly about his to best kill.
Gang violence and other big city violence is a result of our economic and social policies which place extreme stresses on a stressed population... Mental health programs can better help here than banning guns.
Finally as with gang violence... These are basically terrorist waging war upon eachother. They involve their families in this war by being a part of the gang and I have no sympathy for the deaths of the gang members families.
Want these deaths to end? End the gang wars by treating the gangs as what they are... Terrorist. Hunt them down, kill the gang members in their beds and leave the bodies behind.
on your first point with it only taking seconds, what use is a gun then considering most people will not have the time to react, think it through, pull it out and shoot let alone hit before they are killed.
it is a security blanket for some, others their right. At the end of the day, it is a right and that right regardless if it is logical or not, must be protected... Least another fearful person decides that my right to play call of duty ought to be stripped from me.
Our society is quick to blame everyone and anything but itself. We are quick to blame a machine, a thing, anything but our society and how it treats eachother.
The gears are broken. The machine needs an overhaul, not a tuneup.
"but there are electrical weapons if you think you'll be raped"
unless they make Tasers illegal like they did and currently do in the UK and it's commonwealth. not to mention Pepper Spray, many kinds of knives and just self defense in general...
as for insecurity, no... as for uneducated, no. you see to legally use a gun you need to take gun safety cources. I have my firearm certification because I want to hunt. more cops is more money something many counties, states and the country itself cannot afford. North Dakota could but north dakota isn't very violant anyways. we tend to be oblivius to that cause it's normal to us, and besides only really the cops show off their their handguns. most civillians conceal them "legally of course after taking a safety course as well" so you never know who has and who oesn't have XD. besides most people arn't stupid enoughf to pull it without good reason to do so. you have less people, a different cultural mindset, and it's cold over there, cold and criminals don't like mixing very well XD
You give a pretty good impression that the mere sight of a gun on someone's belt will make you piss your pants, leading you to demand their ownership be forbidden so you can feel like you've got a pair...and you're calling gun owners, who ask nothing more than to be left alone, insecure?
Most serious gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns either. Stricter guns laws will not affect the scenario. Second, a person who is intent on killing can do so without a gun just as easily as with one. What it comes down to is the people behind the violence. I think what would have been a more interesting thing to look at would be the metal health situation here. Back when institutions were open, someone like him who was considered a threat could be someplace where people could look after and treat him. Instead of running around out here with no supervision.
Don't need to use a gun like a cop. All I need to do is use a gun like a citizen defending himself.
You know what's even scarier than a gun wrapped around someone's waist? The knowledge that 40% of people here carry concealed firearms on a regular basis, and you'll never know who they are unless you piss them off.
Now, doesn't that make you a little more hesitant to try to hurt or steal from the people here?