Why nearly all guns have to go

Post Reply New Topic

:P
Yes, the saying is the other way around, but in practice, a knife is often times massively overpowered compared with firearms. In some cases, a flashlight is more dangerous as well. So much of it comes down to what is the best tool for the job and what you can effectively use.

A good chunk of wild West shootouts wound up with all rounds being fired without anybody being shot as they rarely got the practice to be good at it due to how expensive bullets were at the time.

There's an elephant in this room.

People who consider themselves societal rejects, whether justified or not in feeling that way, often need something to cling to as a way to compensate. Libertarianism, Objectivism, Gun Worship, and other extreme views are typical. Unfortunately we sometimes see this happening on this forum.

That being said, there is a lot that can be done while allowing people to retain the kind of firearms that are actually appropriate for hunting, target practice and self defense. Although, in the latter case, you've got serious psychological damage if you think that a firearm is a good choice for self-defense in modern America. That's really only appropriate if you're in a warzone or in the back country where bear spray isn't enough. A nice knife and/or flashlight is far more effective than a firearm in most of the cases where one would need one otherwise.

But another scenario is that, the person can be triggered by an incident at school or work, or even in their personal life such as coming home unannounced and finding another man with their girlfriend, and in a state of rage they go for the gun (either in the next room in the latter case or a quick 10 minute drive in the former) which is ready for use, then blast away. If the gun wasn't there, or if it required some effort to ready it for use, perhaps the murder(s) wouldn't have happened.

TBH keeping a gun for self defense should be allowed only if the individual can present an extremely compelling case for doing so. Simply claiming they live in a sketchy neighborhood isn't enough. They would have to show proof that somebody had targeted them for revenge however in that case the person threatening them should be taken into custody. I suppose in situations where gangs are involved you might have a case where somebody fears retribution from a gang and has good reason to think they are coming after them, but the local authorities are unable to do much about it.

I personally believe the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution should be repealed, however I don't see how anybody on the Supreme Court could read that to mean that the Framers of the Constitution expected Americans to rely on firearms for self defense. Which means the SC is probably not doing what it was constituted to do either. New Constitution, anyone?

Because after America defeated the British there was inter-American conflict between Federalists and the rebels, so they made the 2nd amendment to appeal to the rebels to convince them they would still have the right as individuals to bear arms, but also could be called to do militia duty to fight for the State.

Rural area here where most people have guns for hunting.
I never saw the use for tactical weapons.The only time I have use a gun was some target practice and to put down several deer infected with CWD.
Chronic wasting disease.It was better than trying to beat them in the head with a rock.One was an antlered buck so could have horned me.
I see guns as tools.Some see them as a device to murder innocent people.
I’m in favor of gun control.

If they had to resort to to something like that to reach an agreement then the time for a constitution might not have yet arrived. Sort of like having a one night stand then suddenly deciding you have to get married.

This is what people call common sense gun control. Guns in the hands of people who need to use them as tools, and responsible people who use them for sport/target shooting. But not in the hands of people who are f*****g nuts and have a high propensity to use them to injure or kill others.

I am also anti-Libertarianism, large or medium size corporations need to be controlled by the State.

The overall vibe of America was to create a nation of freedom free from British tyranny. The intent of 2A is aligned with that vibe.

If say, a radical leftist suddenly banned all guns tomorrow, it wouldn't mesh well with that vibe, since that automatically gives a monopoly of power to the American government.

Some people say "common sense gun control" but its not common sense if 81% of Americans don't agree with the definition of common sense gun control.


This is magical thinking. For instance if there was some policy for that, Eliot Rodgers probably would have passed the written test and got guns anyway. You usually determine if someone is a lunatic after the fact, hence such policies would have a high rate of failure, hence society would demand more and more extreme gun control measures, such as a total gun ban. Because a "common sense" assault rifle ban, while unconstitutional and a form of radical left extreme gun control, also does nothing to prevent mass shootings, if anything they make mass shootings easier since handguns are easier to conceal than assault rifles, hence gun control measures would become more and more extreme.

I think here is a legitimate reason for having guns but it depends on the circumstances.

I'm in the UK so I obviously never come across guns very often but it doesn't bother me when I finally do see one (or use one).

Gun saturation in an entire country would bother me however. In a country with a lot of guns, I would actively seek out buying a gun myself to counter everyone else with a gun.

You need to consider that, if a person keeps any sort of gun for "self-defense", they probably keep it loaded and easily accessible, doesn't matter if the NRA cautions against that. We all know what sort of tragic outcome can result from that. Consider what happened to Reeva Steenkamp at least if we believe the official story.

But another scenario is that, the person can be triggered by an incident at school or work, or even in their personal life such as coming home unannounced and finding another man with their girlfriend, and in a state of rage they go for the gun (either in the next room in the latter case or a quick 10 minute drive in the former) which is ready for use, then blast away. If the gun wasn't there, or if it required some effort to ready it for use, perhaps the murder(s) wouldn't have happened.

TBH keeping a gun for self defense should be allowed only if the individual can present an extremely compelling case for doing so. Simply claiming they live in a sketchy neighborhood isn't enough. They would have to show proof that somebody had targeted them for revenge however in that case the person threatening them should be taken into custody. I suppose in situations where gangs are involved you might have a case where somebody fears retribution from a gang and has good reason to think they are coming after them, but the local authorities are unable to do much about it.

I personally believe the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution should be repealed, however I don't see how anybody on the Supreme Court could read that to mean that the Framers of the Constitution expected Americans to rely on firearms for self defense. Which means the SC is probably not doing what it was constituted to do either. New Constitution, anyone?

And that's precisely how the gun industry markets the sale of guns & ammo to anxious fearful people.. making them believe that only by buying guns & ammo can they feel safe and secure to sleep at night... even if statistics prove time & time again that more guns make people less safe as more guns = more gun violence of all kinds.