What's next, squirt guns? LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIAiQ5zFgA4&mode=related&search=

What kind of gun shall we ban next, squirt guns? How about cap guns?

>>1
Ban politicians who sell out the human right of the 2nd amendment.

Anything that resembles a gun should be banned.  That includes the state of Florida.

>>2  Win!

>>2
Ban all politicians for great justice.

>>5
Some people have to be politicians.

>>2
Hardly a human right, just something government gives you, can be taken away, through constitutional amendment. 

>>7
Its a human right, any logic you use to refute this right will in turn question any human rights. Shooting or shooting someone however, is not a human right. But the right to gun ownership is and always will be

>>8
Why should owning a gun be a human right?
If owning a gun is a human right, is owning anything else then also a human right? Child porn? Other things which are illegal to own, ie. drugs?

>>9
Child porn can’t be compared to guns for obvious reasons that I won’t explain. But drugs are in the same moral category, that’s why I support drug legalization (almost everything). Another common concern is where does it end? If you can justify a population with guns why not just make it nukes? Well the difference is nukes are a public good, or a public evil depending on your world view (this may sound familiar if you took economics in college). A nuke cannot be used in a way that only benefits or harms you and/or your enemy (even if no one dies you still get fallout) that’s why it can only exist under public control and not private.

owning a gun is in the american consitution. american constitution != the human rights.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html

this is a link to the human rights. the one you'll most likely refer to is article 17:

Article 17

   1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
   2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

now, if there is a law, set down by a government etc. which lives up to the human rights, banning guns, then you will not be arbitrarily deprived of the property which is your gun.


 

>>10
We are talking about human rights, not about what's good for society or not.
Human rights must be absolute or they have no fucking meaning.
Anything less than an absolute can be taken as flawed, meaning there is good reason to discredit it.
Restricting the "human right" to own a gun is compromising it, making it not absolute, thus, fucking meaningless.

Kinda funny how the USSR was a member of the UN for it's existence after WWII huh? Kinda how that collectivization of property that violated "human rights" wasn't under the Soviet System a violation of their constitutents human rights.

Crying "human rights" is an appeal to an authority history has proven the powerful care little about.  QQ nub, you don't have a right to your guns as much as you have a right to breathe clean air, although that latter one will be written off as a "choice".

I could go on but your fucking face got fucking pwned by
>>11.

>>12
The USSR was a vicious totalitarianism, it violated human rights as a means of exercising control.

Look, dumbasses with BB guns make my health insurance rates go up. I have to PAY when they shoot someone in the eye.  Either fine idiots extraordinarily for shooting someone (intentionally or not) or outlaw BB guns.  I'll accept either solution.

>>9
Yes, they all are, imo.  The only exception is possibly CP (child porn), because some could argue that you must violate someone's rights in order to get it.  I'm not sure about this one.  As for something that you don't need to violate someone's rights to own? Yes, it's a human right (such as guns or drugs). 

>>14
Then don't buy health insurance you stupid faggot.  Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to.  On the flipside, in the case of a gun owner, politicians would essentially be putting guns to the person's head, or using force or coercion of some kind to keep them from exercising their right to own bb-guns.

>>15

Guns kill people. That's what most of them do, and why most of them are made. Isn't that a severe violation of other person's rights? Anything whose sole purpose is to kill (and I mean another human being, sport hunting weapons would be alright to own) should not be legal to own.

>>17
Guns don't kill people.  People kill people. 

>>17
"Isn't that a severe violation of other person's rights?"

Peaceful gun ownership does not violate anyone's rights.

>>17
"Anything whose sole purpose is to kill (and I mean another human being, sport hunting weapons would be alright to own) should not be legal to own."

I disagree.  There are indeed times when killing someone is legitimate, at least to give you one reason.  Self-defense is entirely justified.  If I have a concealed firearm, and some nut that just jumped in through my livingroom window comes running at me with a knife, I have every right and justification in blowing his brains right out with my trusty .45 in order to keep him from harming me or my property.

>>18
People don't kill people.  Frogzilla kills people.

If guns kill people, pencils mispell words.

>>20

But then, if guns were legal to own, anyone breaking into your house is probably going to be holding a gun himself. Granted, there is an illegal weapons black market, but petty thieves performing burglary, and any of your average everyday criminals would not have access to them. The only possibly legitimate reason for owning a gun for self-defense is for self-defense against an oppressive government, or any other tremendous force that the average human being cannot stand up against; however, I think we could set up something so we could only have access to guns only during times of crisis. I simply don't think guns are necessary for everyday situations, especially when there are alternative, non-lethal methods for self-defense, and that by banning guns you reduce access to them for the irresponsible, stupid masses.

>>20


you seem to be getting things mixed up a tad.

self defense != shooting someone in the face with your gun.

if some nut comes running towards you with a knife you could also punch him in the face, grab your own kitchen knife, pick up the nearest bar chair and hit him with it, any of these things which hurt him, would be done in self-defense and thus be justified. this has nothing to do what-so-ever with owning guns.

>>24
No, he just wants to see the criminal not dead, but arrested, guns have no gradient for "force submission" only "shoot/don't shoot"

>>22  Classic.

>>17
"Anything whose sole purpose is to kill (and I mean another human being, sport hunting weapons would be alright to own) should not be legal to own."

Defense of liberty and freedom becomes nearly impossible without private ownership of firearms.  It is a necessary deterrant to tyrannical and or genocidal governments.  You should see this movie: 
http://www.jpfo.org/ib-orders.htm

>>24
Right, and doing any of those risks my life, health, and property.  I should not have to take that risk, nor should anyone else.  Shooting someone as a means of self-defense is totally justified. 

Oh, and to spice up this debate, here's a nifty little fact sheet I came across: 
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

>>24
You are a 65 year old female with a replacement hip and a 22 year old male nut comes running at you with a knife. How do you intend to dodge the blade, wrestle the knife off him and whack him over the head with a chair?

>>27 I should not have to take that risk, nor should anyone else.

YES LETTING PEOPLE OWN GUNS INCREASES THE GENERAL SAFETY OF THE POPULATION BY OVER 9000%

>>28
Mace? A taser? We have the technology to disable a person without doing permanent injury, or killing someone. The self-defense argument is ridiculous. Think about it. If guns were legal, why would he be holding a knife? He would, in all likelihood, have a gun himself. Now you have a 22 year old male with a gun already drawn and pointed at you while the lady would be fumbling in her purse to get her own out. Who is the winner there?

>>26
Yes, weapons are a deterrent to bad governments. But do we necessarily have to keep guns in a home, do we have to let the general public have access to guns at all times? Couldn't we store them in a local privately owned armory? Couldn't we ban people from owning guns outright, yet have a way to make it available in times of crisis?

>>3
ha ha ha

>>30
Your statement is based on the assumption that I am an idiot and I find that offensive. Of course if there were non-lethal alternatives then they would be more popular for home defense

Mace doesn't drop someone to the floor, tasers hurt like fuck but only drop someone 10% (usually not adrenaline and crack fueled nutcases) of the time, cannot penetrate hardenned leather armour (as thick as a belt) and cannot be heard from 500 metres across the entire neighbourhood. It is also larger and more clumsy to operate than the best snub nose or medium size handguns. You also forget that if someone is violating someone's liberties it doesn't matter if they die or not, as long as the victim's liberties are not violated to any greater extent. This is called justice.

>>32 *claps*

>>30
Good luck protecting your freedom from an abusive government with a taser.

>>33
>>32
WAY TO FUCKING READ ONLY 10% OF MY POST

>>30
"Yes, weapons are a deterrent to bad governments. But do we necessarily have to keep guns in a home, do we have to let the general public have access to guns at all times?"

If you don't have it in your home & ready to go at any time you might be about to be harassed or violated in some way, it can't really help you much.

"Couldn't we store them in a local privately owned armory? Couldn't we ban people from owning guns outright, yet have a way to make it available in times of crisis?"

Not really.  There are numerous problems here.  If all the guns are stored at local privately owned armories, rather than in homes, this means people are: 

1.  Less likely to be able to access them in an emergency (what if they aren't expecting it? If one had used that logic in Nazi germany, I could easilly see Hitler stationing troops just outside the armory, preventing any of his citizens from getting their guns to protect themselves from the coming mass murder.

2.  In general a nuisance.  Sports shooters and others shouldn't have to drive to an armory just to shoot off their guns. 

3.  Due to the nuisance factor, there will likely be far fewer people involved in shooting sports, and thus fewer people with firearms proficiency, and thus fewer people who are going to be an effective deterrant to tyranny.  Having a populous that is proficient with and uses firearms regularly is better than one that simply has them, although granted, simply having them would be better than an flat-out ban.

Also, if people can't keep them in their homes, they can't use them for self-defense in a time-sensitive emergency.  If a crackhead with a knife jumps in through the window, you can't tell him 'oh wait just a minute while i drive down to the armory to get my gun, then we can finish this little dispute.'

Telling someone where they can keep their gun also amounts to an infringement upon their property rights.  Property rights entail the right to both use and disposal as the individual sees fit.  If he owns a gun, he should be able to keep it where he wants.  I see little issue with people keeping guns in their homes anyways.  What do you have against it?

>>35
I have problems with viewing it as an effective defense against home invaders -- as stated, letting the home owner own a gun means letting criminals have guns too, so you end up with an even worse situation than a society that has banned guns, and as stated, I don't think black market weapons will end up in the hands of petty thieves and other unprofessional criminals.

I said in an earlier post that sport hunters should be allowed to keep their guns, since they aren't using it to commit murder.

I don't really see a problem with the armory idea, besides you pointing out technical problems that could be dealt with if it were actually implemented. It would obviously be heavily guarded to prevent the scenario you predicted. Besides, it wasn't a heavily thought out idea, just a plausible solution to the problem concerning the freedom to defend against the government that would also improve the safety of everyone within society.

It is simply the idea of a gun, and any other lethal weapon, that bothers me. To have it available to the public is to have it available to bad-minded people who would only use it to hurt others. And what would be its purpose outside of that? What is it going to do besides hurt other people? Is a gun useful for anything else? Not really.

>>36
"I have problems with viewing it as an effective defense against home invaders -- as stated, letting the home owner own a gun means letting criminals have guns too, so you end up with an even worse situation than a society that has banned guns,"

Um, the USA has allowed people to keep guns in their houses, and I don't think we are worse off than we would be with an outright gun-ban. 
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

"I said in an earlier post that sport hunters should be allowed to keep their guns, since they aren't using it to commit murder."

The problem there is that after you are done passing god knows how many irritating laws (like your idea of keeping guns at some sort of collection point for pickup when you want to use them), nobody (or hardly anyone) will be interested enough in the sport that they will want to go through all the bureaucracy that they will want to do it.  Even as it is, there are a lot of people who don't own guns because it has become too much a pain in the ass thanks to gun control laws.  Adding more laws will only add to this, and this is one reason not to add more laws, but to take laws away.

"I don't really see a problem with the armory idea, besides you pointing out technical problems that could be dealt with if it were actually implemented."

I don't see any suggestions for dealing with said problems yet.

"It would obviously be heavily guarded to prevent the scenario you predicted."

If the government can prevent criminals from getting them, it can prevent YOU from getting them in an emergency.

"Besides, it wasn't a heavily thought out idea, just a plausible solution to the problem concerning the freedom to defend against the government that would also improve the safety of everyone within society."

Plausible? Not in this country in this day and age.  I have little doubt that there would be a revolution in the USA if some political party told people they were going to have to store their guns in a government facility rather than their homes.  (Not necessarilly a violent revolution, but more likely a political one.)  I can only imagine how resoundingly the party who imposed that idea on the nations gun owners would be defeated in the following election.  Not only would it be a nuisance, it is indeed implausible.

"It is simply the idea of a gun, and any other lethal weapon, that bothers me."

That much is evident.  A lot of gun-control advocates are those with irrational fears of guns, much like you describe.  I'd like to recommend you go to a firing range sometime... buy or rent a gun, and try firing off a couple rounds.  Many find that, following this experiance, guns are no longer so frightening, but are actually quite fun to use.  Become acquainted with guns.. go to a firing range a few times.

"To have it available to the public is to have it available to bad-minded people who would only use it to hurt others."

Bad-minded people who would use them to hurt others are likely to find some way or other of hurting who they really want to hurt whether guns are legal or not.  If you make guns illegal, there are always other ways.  Almost anything can be turned into a deadly weapon depending on how it is used.

"And what would be its purpose outside of that? What is it going to do besides hurt other people? Is a gun useful for anything else? Not really."

This is just the typical sort of attitude I have come to expect from the anti-gun side.  You say that guns aren't useful for anything much but hurting people. 

Lets pretend for a minute I don't like the taste of ice cream.  Your comment above is like me saying I don't see much of a use for ice cream, and given the number of people who suffer heart trouble every year, we should ban ice cream.  From my standpoint, ice cream doesn't do much but serve to hurt people. 

Might not be the best of examples, but that is really how I view your comments there.  *YOU* don't see guns as having many uses outside of hurting people.  Does this mean I don't see any uses for guns outside of hurting people? Just because you don't like something or don't see a use for something doesn't mean other people think like you do.  Not all people are the same.  Some people can't even express their reason for wanting a gun, they just do.  They just want it.  And to me, that is plenty.  Nobody should have to explain why they need a firearm in order to have one.  Should I have to explain to you why I need a baseball bat in order to have one? Baseball bats can be used to seriously injure or even kill people. 

Many people simply like to own guns.  Many people like to shoot recreationally (such as shooting soda cans or bottles in their backyard).  Some people just want to collect them.  Some people feel safer owning them, and just want them to feel safer. 

Believe it or not, there are literally millions upon millions of americans who fit into one or more of these categories, and just because a few bad people use their firearms in an irresponsible manner does not justify collectively punishing every gun owner in america with thousands upon thousands of irritating laws, regulations, and/or gun bans.

And what of the people who have died, not because of legal guns, but because of not having the 2nd amendment? No, I'm not talking about the 170 million ++ people who were murdered by their governments this past century.  I am talking about people right here in the USA - deprived of castle doctrine laws, and right to carry laws.  In certain states, such as wisconsin or illionois, with either severely restricted right to carry (almost never issued), or else 'no issue', there are of course, thousands upon thousands of crimes.  You see them on the news frequently.  Ask yourself:  had those victims had concealed firearms with them, how many might have survived? Granted, not all of them would have made the choice to carry, but I think that the very least we should do is enable them to carry if they want to.  Rather than campaigning for gun regulation, I think you should campaign to make sure those last states without right to carry GET right to carry.  Think about all the victims whose lives have been spared or saved by right to carry, and think about the massive injustice perpetrated against the populations of these states by  the politicians in their action of preventing their citizens the means to defend themselves from attackers.  THIS is where your energy should be directed - getting these people the means to free them from being victims - not campaigning for more gun control. 
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18
http://www.nraila.org/images/rtcmaplg.jpg

>>34
Wrong. As I have already proven, you are an idiot. The reason you think we haven't coverred your entire argument is because you cannot be botherred to analyse our points in context to the points we are criticising. I will be nice an do the thinking for you, but don't expect everyone to be as nice and me in the real world.

1: Guns are easier to use, therefore victims are more likely to be able to defend themselves.

If we take your example into account... Fumbling around in your bag for a pistol to defend yourself is less difficult than fumbling around in your bag for a bottle of mace. For a start a makarov can shoot through a bag and if you hit his leg it will take him down. Mace can do neither of these.


2: Having a few privately owned armouries makes it easier for the police to destroy an entier region's arms supply. We should have 300 million privately owned armouries. 1 per person, if they want a gun. Also crime can be committed in public places so we must permit firearms to be taken into public places.

The bottom line is:  people die, and there isn't squat you can do about it.  This is a fact of life.  People die, and there isn't anything you can do about it.  Gun-control supporters just can't seem to get over this fact.

I thought that the 2nd ammendment gave the right for well regulated militias to carry arms, not private individuals.
Countries outlawing gun ownership (Sweden, UK, Japan etc) are generally safer (less violent crime) than the US.
Another way of looking at it is that the gun consumers should pay for the associated costs (accidents, pollution etc) of allowing guns. It could be a VAT on the gun and ammo price, but the gun lobby would prolly not like this, because they are in the pocket of the gun companies.
People kill people, but the gun helps.