Should the 2nd amendment (Right to Bear Arms) be Abolished?

[Valerie]

I have to ask, what age are you?? I am really hoping you are like 14 and that this is just the way you are raised. I would still worry about you but at least another few years before you have any power or responsibility in your life.

Anyway I beg of you to answer and reply to every thing I post in order to see just how your mind works.

1) That is not an accurate comparison. you can either a) compare a car crash to a gun shot or b) driving to owning a gun. What you said makes no sense

2) A car and a gun cannot be compared anyway. If you want to compare a gun to something compare it to a bomb. They both have the same purpose which is death and destruction.

3) You go on about total numbers but as many have said the ratio is far different. So Id just be interested in what you say on that as you keep ignoring it

4) You keep made the point that most guns are never shot. So why do you have them??

If I were fourteen, I wouldn't be able to legally purchase a firearm. A firearm and a car can be compared. Even assuming a gun is designed to kill, one should be concerned when a device meant only for transportation causes more death than a weapon. Even using the ratio rather than the total numbers, it shows that the device meant only for transportation nevertheless is just as deadly as the weapon.

I never said that most guns are never shot. I said most guns never are never shot at people, intentionally or otherwise. Even most people who draw a firearm in self defence never actually need to fire it. I have firearms for hunting and target shooting. I hope to never need to draw in self-defence, but if the need arises, the option to defend myself with whatever force is necessary and appropriate should not be removed.

[dupont2005]

If I were fourteen, I wouldn't be able to legally purchase a firearm. A firearm and a gun can be compared. Even assuming a gun is designed to kill, one should be concerned when a device meant only for transportation causes more death than a weapon. Even using the ratio rather than the total numbers, it shows that the device meant only for transportation nevertheless is just as deadly as the weapon.

I never said that most guns are never shot. I said most guns never are never shot at people, intentionally or otherwise. Even most people who draw a firearm in self defence never actually need to fire it. I have firearms for hunting and target shooting. I hope to never need to draw in self-defence, but if the need arises, the option to defend myself with whatever force is necessary and appropriate should not be removed.

Are you really this stupid or is this one of those "Everyone is an idiot but me" types of debate where you assume we're all stupid enough to not see how ridiculous all of your arguments are?

[Kees_L]

the device used for transportation causes much more death and injury than firearms. If you're interested in saving more lives, you should be more concerned about what actually causes the most preventable deaths.

That's just only gonna be nonsense due to being such, no matter how hard you want to be conflating things or muddy stuff up.

Yes lots of things can kill but that doesn't make them weapons of their own account. A car is still gonna be meant or primarily fit for driving or transport. Or trains or trucks filled with petrol or fumic acid. Electrical currents or powerlines have their purpose. Large or heavy objects from significant heights would prove fatal upon busy streets or how about fullgrown trees as tipping onto the craniums of wanderlusty silent types, they could be to make such scream no doubt. Even life itself would prove lethal effectively. Oranges inside tornadoes or amid hurricanes can feel like bricks into the face of newly weds!

Yet weapons would be weapons. Only weapons. Which is why only weapons define as weapons, strictly uniquely. And Assault weapons would amount to being a category within such. and what's discussed here is whether or not assault weapons or weapons in part or on the whole would make US society better or safer as getting either regulated or banned.

Take your time letting this sink in, but do hurry the hell up, since we'd already be at page funkton, and yet you don't seem to get it.

[Captain Clarkie]

Even using the ratio rather than the total numbers, it shows that the device meant only for transportation nevertheless is just as deadly as the weapon.

No, it doesn't, that's the point of the ratio.

[Walsh06]

If I were fourteen, I wouldn't be able to legally purchase a firearm. A firearm and a car can be compared. Even assuming a gun is designed to kill, one should be concerned when a device meant only for transportation causes more death than a weapon. Even using the ratio rather than the total numbers, it shows that the device meant only for transportation nevertheless is just as deadly as the weapon.

I never said that most guns are never shot. I said most guns never are never shot at people, intentionally or otherwise. Even most people who draw a firearm in self defence never actually need to fire it. I have firearms for hunting and target shooting. I hope to never need to draw in self-defence, but if the need arises, the option to defend myself with whatever force is necessary and appropriate should not be removed.

1) how??

2)no

3) wasnt the debate a few pages ago about how you should be shooting in self defence

4) get a new hobby

I think dupont is like an extension of me. Whenever I see a post and I think what Ill reply to it, I look down the page and there is dupont after posting what I think. very strange.

[Puppetmaker Grae]

what's the law on it over in the UK? if someone breaks into your home and you harm them (be it assault or with a knife or cricket bat #stereotype) is it considered self defense?

The law in the UK allows you to use 'Reasonable force' to defend yourself or others, however it does not define reasonable force, preferring instead to examine each case on it's individual merits. I can think of at least 3 local cases from the last 18 months or so, where someone has used lethal force to defend themselves, and the Crown Prosecution Service has found that they have no criminal case to answer.

[dupont2005]

1) how??

2)no

3) wasnt the debate a few pages ago about how you should be shooting in self defence

4) get a new hobby

I think dupont is like an extension of me. Whenever I see a post and I think what Ill reply to it, I look down the page and there is dupont after posting what I think. very strange.

I wouldn't be so anti-gun if the pro gun crowd weren't a bunch of mouth breathing extremists. I appreciate precision mechanics, and I do like how a gun functions. Same as how I like how a watch or a bicycle functions. Too bad so many people who like guns prefer them to be their safety net in some anti government race war paranoia that really puts me off.

[Valerie]

1) how??

2)no

3) wasnt the debate a few pages ago about how you should be shooting in self defence

4) get a new hobby

A firearm and a car can be compared based on likelihood of ever causing death or injury. The ratio is the same, which makes cars and firearms equally deadly. This means that cars fail to fulfill their purpose as transportation through improper use. Firearms most often do not kill people not because they're used improperly, but because most of them are not used for killing people at all. Now given the greater number of cars and car accidents worldwide, I'd say trying to save lives through stricter gun regulation while doing nothing about the vast number of automotive fatalities is like, as the saying goes, straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel.

The argument is that people should shoot in self defence only if they need to. Most people who draw in self-defence are able to stop and apprehend the criminal without firing.

As for new hobbies, I've got plenty. Anyway, this gets to one of the fundamental points of the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, which protect a right to bear arms, a right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and a right to privacy and security of persons and private property. If I'm not causing any harm and I'm not doing anything likely to cause any harm, what business is it of yours what I like to do? If I'm shooting safely and responsibly and abiding by the laws that already exist regarding the ownership, carrying, transportation, and use of firearms, it would help everyone involved to mind your own business.

[dupont2005]

It isn't about what causes more deaths. It's about what has zero positive contribution to society and what enables more disturbed individuals to go on spree killings.

[Walsh06]

A firearm and a car can be compared based on likelihood of ever causing death or injury. The ratio is the same, which makes cars and firearms equally deadly. This means that cars fail to fulfill their purpose as transportation through improper use. Firearms most often do not kill people not because they're used improperly, but because most of them are not used for killing people at all. Now given the greater number of cars and car accidents worldwide, I'd say trying to save lives through stricter gun regulation while doing nothing about the vast number of automotive fatalities is like, as the saying goes, straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel.

The argument is that people should shoot in self defence only if they need to. Most people who draw in self-defence are able to stop and apprehend the criminal without firing.

As for new hobbies, I've got plenty. Anyway, this gets to one of the fundamental points of the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, which protect a right to bear arms, a right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and a right to privacy and security of persons and private property. If I'm not causing any harm and I'm not doing anything likely to cause any harm, what business is it of yours what I like to do? If I'm shooting safely and responsibly and abiding by the laws that already exist regarding the ownership, carrying, transportation, and use of firearms, it would help everyone involved to mind your own business.

ummmmm...... like I....... uh....... ya.....???

[Puma]

It isn't about what causes more deaths. It's about what has zero positive contribution to society and what enables more disturbed individuals to go on spree killings.

Its still a false comparison. A vehicle used incorrectly, either thru negligence or recklessly, can cause injuries or deaths; a vehicle used correctly for its purpose by a properly trained driver following the rules of the road rarely causes injuries or loss of life. A gun used incorrectly, either thru negligence or recklessness, can cause injuries or death; a gun used correctly for its purpose by a trained, or only marginally trained operator, can cause significant injuries or loss of life because guns are designed to kill...that is its purpose.

[dupont2005]

Its still a false comparison. A vehicle used incorrectly, either thru negligence or recklessly, can cause injuries or deaths; a vehicle used correctly for its purpose by a properly trained driver following the rules of the road rarely causes injuries or loss of life. A gun used incorrectly, either thru negligence or recklessness, can cause injuries or death; a gun used correctly for its purpose by a trained, or only marginally trained operator, can cause significant injuries or loss of life because guns are designed to kill...that is its purpose.

Yeah that's why I mentioned contribution to society. Guns have a contribution, in the hands of police and military and whatnot. In the hands of morons I can't imagine what possible contribution they offer. Without vehicles on the other hand, there would be instant and catastrophic consequence. The number of people killed accidentally in traffic accidents would be eclipsed by the people who would die of starvation and disease if there were no vehicles on the road. Also, accidental death is going to happen regardless. It can happen with a gun, it can happen with a car, it can happen with a ladder. What can pretty much only happen with a gun or a bomb these days is a 90 pound autistic kid getting mad at his mom and killing 30 people. We banned bombs pretty much for that reason. The answer to 9/11 wasn't more box cutters on planes.

[Valerie]

As for positive contributions to society, is not meat in the freezer of a poor rural family not a positive contribution? Is taking kids out to a real shooting range or getting them outside to hunt not much more positive than letting them waste away playing Call of Duty at home? And is preventing or stopping crime not a positive contribution?

Bear in mind, I was not always armed or trained in self-defence. Consequently, I was vulnerable to most of the assaults I endured at the hands of unarmed men or men armed with only a knife.

[dupont2005]

As for positive contributions to society, is not meat in the freezer of a poor rural family not a positive contribution? Is not taking kids out to a real shooting range or getting them outside to hunt not much more positive than letting them waste away playing Call of Duty at home? And is preventing or stopping crime not a positive contribution?

Bear in mind, I was not always armed or trained in self-defence. Consequently, I was vulnerable to most of the assaults I endured at the hands of unarmed men or men armed with only a knife.

There are plenty of things besides killing animals a kid can do for fun. That's the kind of thing serial killers do for fun. Get your kid in Football. Also, all the big game is gone. Nobody survives off hunting anymore. NOBODY. Nowhere in America. Those who hunt do for sport, not for food. The food is simply a byproduct. They have to get all that deer turned into salami anyway because deer tastes like garbage. If you can't afford a bag of beans and a bag of rice, you can't afford an AR-15 either. Ham is about $1.20/lb. What's a box of .223 cost? Plus hunting license and butchery and the extra freezer and the power to operate it.

[Brian Cronin]

The Sandy Hook shootings were not a hoax. We won't be discussing whether it was here.

-Brian