US Supreme Court upholds individual right to gun ownership

[Asher]

As far as crimes of passion...eh..maybe. Still I think that an angry wife/husband will just as easily pick up a lamp and crash it across someones head as they would shoot them.

The crimes of passion will likely still happen, but a lamp to the head is not on the same scale as a bullet to the head...wouldn't you agree?

[MOBIUS]

Stupid American dumbass anachronistic laws allowing more stupid dumbass Americans to shoot each other and get killed...


Wait, hang on a second...

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
Only 9,326 people murdered per year. How many severely injured? How many braindead? How many paralyzed?

How many people are affected by this?

Jesus, only 9,326. Do you have any concept of life at all, or the value of it?

In 2000, 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental injures from guns in the US.

How many deliberate and accidental injuries and deaths from vehicles?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Straybow

How many deliberate and accidental injuries and deaths from vehicles?

You're not making the argument that guns are essential to modern American life and economy as vehicles, right? Right?

What a childish argument, honestly. The idea isn't to ban all things that can hurt someone, it's to ban things whole sole purpose is to inflict harm.

[Will9]

Asher, you have yet to answer this question, how will you protect yourself from a criminal with a gun if guns are banned?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Will
Asher, you have yet to answer this question, how will you protect yourself from a criminal with a gun if guns are banned?

I wouldn't point a gun at a criminal with a gun pointed at me. The last thing I'd want is a shootout.

I think it's a particularly stupid question, honestly.

To clarify, I think law enforcement should continue to have firearms. Just not civilians.

[Will9]

Who said the gun was being pointed at you?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Will
Who said the gun was being pointed at you?

So how would I protect myself from a criminal with the gun if he wasn't pointing the gun at me? That seems like a pretty stupid question, no?

If the criminal isn't using the gun on me, what's the point of it?

[Will9]

Just because the gun isn't being pointed at you doesn't mean a criminal doesn't mean the criminal doesn't want to shoot you.

[Theben]

You're actually less safe if you have a gun in your house than not, according to stats. You'd be better off slapping ADT and NRA stickers on your windows and bumper as well as good outside lighting, plus a large bowl of water out back with "KILLER" scrawled on the side.
While don't mind people being able to own guns, I think theyshouldn't have most. Especially pistols.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Will
Just because the gun isn't being pointed at you doesn't mean a criminal doesn't mean the criminal doesn't want to shoot you.

So you're asking me how I could defend myself against a criminal with a gun when he's not using the gun on me.

Well, I'd take the gun from him. Maybe I'd whack him with a bat. Maybe I'd kick him in the nuts. Maybe I'd just give him what he wants.

I sure as hell won't point my gun at someone. That's the best way to get shot, to escalate a situation.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Jesus, the whole handguns and rifles will stop a tyrant is the dumbest argument ever (slight, and I stress "slight", exaggeration). That dream was over when technology decided to keep on moving forward. Unless, though, you believe bearing arms means allowing private citizens to have tanks and nukes and stuff.

I can just imagine these lunatics rubbing their hands together waiting for Britain to come under tyranny saying "if only they hadn't banned handguns!". I can see them like Marxists sitting around saying "It's going to come! One day, you'll see!!"

I was interested in the majority's take on this. According to the excerpt that I posted, it seems that the founders were also concerned about only certain government-related groups having power of arms (not just the armies under a tyrant executive). Consider the possibility of the Senate having its own paramilitaries acting internally against a defenseless public, as happened sometimes in Rome.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles

So you're asking me how I could defend myself against a criminal with a gun when he's not using the gun on me.

Well, I'd take the gun from him. Maybe I'd whack him with a bat. Maybe I'd kick him in the nuts. Maybe I'd just give him what he wants.

I sure as hell won't point my gun at someone. That's the best way to get shot, to escalate a situation.

I guess I need to describe the situation. Someone has a gun, wants to shoot you, but can't see. There is no way to sneak away or sneak up on the person. Would you rather have a gun?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Will
I guess I need to describe the situation. Someone has a gun, wants to shoot you, but can't see. There is no way to sneak away or sneak up on the person. Would you rather have a gun?

If they can't see, why is this a problem? If I had a gun and there's no visibility what good would this do me?

There's no situation at all you could give me where a gun makes sense to me. If the guy has a gun, all me showing my gun will do is escalate the situation and possibly cause panic in him, to kill me or shoot me when he wouldn't otherwise. If he doesn't have a gun, I could just take him out by other means.

How ****ing lazy are you, or incompetent are you, if the only resource you can possibly think of for self-defence involves a gun? This is part of the problem in the US, you resolve conflicts with guns because you guys don't know anything else.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Stupid American dumbass anachronistic laws allowing more stupid dumbass Americans to shoot each other and get killed...


Wait, hang on a second...

Wow, you're more predictable than RoboCon.