Absolutely it is applicable, now more than ever. Our right to bear arms has been the cornerstone of securing every other right that we have. If we lose that we lose our ability to provide security in all other manners of our lives.
Alot of people have guns that aren't legally owned though
Yeah, and look at what the gun ban in Chicago is doing! Law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves against criminals, the murder rate in that city has increased to almost 15% since Daley started that!
We don't need more laws limiting firearms, we need laws keeping them out of the wrong hands.
I'm glad I live in Texas where nobody in their right mind would try to take away my rifles...
I think there is already a thread on this, but it is probably a few pages back by now...
It is a right. Plane and simple basic right. We are promised it as citizens of America. It keeps the government from becoming totally oppressive, it allows you to defend yourself, and it is even used in sport. Take this away, and you take away the watchdog of freedom.
It would effect the economy negatively, gun salesmen would go out of business along with many sporting stores that sell hunting equipment. In the long run it may increase the power of crime that will create a small negative impact.
I did a bit of personal research. Turns out that America has a higher muder rate than Canada (and it's per 100,000 so you can't argue population differences). Here's the fun part, Canada has laws restrciting fire arms. Also, your constitution was written over 200 years ago when the British were still a threat to your livelihood, not to mention your country was founded on gun toting rebels. So, you have this gun mentallity engrained into you, you believe you have a right to defend yourself, which you do, but if you shoot someone for stepping on your lawn while they are no threat to you, who's the one to blame?
Alot of people have guns that aren't legally owned though
If they took away our right to bear arms you do realize these people would still have guns right?
As for my opinion, if they took away our gun rights, I would not be too pleased. As in, I would march to D.C. and hold a massive protest. Guess what? Hundreds of thousands would join me. And if that didn't work, well I guess my career as a future convicted felon is secure. I'm going to have guns, whether the law says I can or not. If somebody broke into my house, I'd much rather shoot them instead of stab them, because stabbing gives me a very high risk of injury to myself.
Anyways, it's still applicable in our day and age. In fact, more so. Murder rates are going up, along with gun crimes. Criminals will still get guns one way or another, but civilians wouldn't. So we'd essentially be sitting ducks.
There have been many cases of mass murder that if just ONE person had a gun, dozens of people would still be alive. That's why gun laws are retarded. A criminal could just walk into a coffee shop and start putting bullets in everyones head, but no one in there would have a gun to stop them.
I prefer concealed weapons. At least then they won't kill you first.
Turns out that America has a higher muder rate than Canada (and it's per 100,000 so you can't argue population differences)
By three. 1 per 100k in Canada, 4 per 100k in America. Wow, real difference.
Culture is a major part in murder rates. While not a good resource for statistics, most of the murder shows that I've seen that were based off of the average murder took place in ghettos. Now, America has more people living in ghettos than they entire population of Canada, and within ghettos, there are gangs. If you look at cities with gang problems, their murder rates far exceed national averages in both America and Canada. In America, this is more exaggerated because we have more of these ghettos.
Anyways, contrary to popular belief, America does have gun laws. Anything that can spark overkill is illegal. (AP rounds, machine and submachine gun [these can be acquired, but it's quite difficult], etc.)
By three. 1 per 100k in Canada, 4 per 100k in America. Wow, real difference
If you do the math, and compare that to Canada's population of 33 million then you realize that 4X more Americans die, which is a big difference.
Anyways, contrary to popular belief, America does have gun laws. Anything that can spark overkill is illegal. (AP rounds, machine and submachine gun [these can be acquired, but it's quite difficult], etc.)
I know. I did a law seminar on the differences between our two countries. America has gun laws but they do very little to stop gun violence. Canada has gun laws which help prevent such things.
If someone robs a bank or your house, it is actually cheaper and probably better to just have a pocket knife. I don't know the EXACT statistics, nor do I know where I read this, but I think that most people who rob homes don't have the gun loaded, for fear that they not only will get charged with robbery if they get caught, but also murder.
I think that if they can't restrict all guns, I think pistols and shotguns should be the only arms someone would need.
As for hunting, I think hunting should be illegal, period. Killing animals for the sole purpose of adrenaline, I could never do it.
I do realize there are people who use arms responsibly, but there are also people who use them irresponsibly. I read that one of you said the crime rate in Chicago increased after the ban, but that doesn't make any sense. Why would a gang member kill more people just because guns are banned there? It's not like they won't be able to still use them illegally.
I do know that some Scandinavian country (Sweden or Norway) does not allow even police officers to use guns and somehow they enforce the law. There are very significant culture differences between us and them, so I think it would be easier to enforce it over there, as they don't have very dangerous gangs like us.
I think it should be left to the individual state to decide whether arms should be banned, with NO opposition from the Federal Government.
I wish states had more rights to do certain things without National Supremacy.
No system is perfect. But the fact we do a better job than most is a testament to the fact our system works. At least we make the attempt instead of simply saying "Oh look we have a right to kill people." My favourite part? The NRA "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Our average person murder rates are about the same, which is not very high.
Um...proof? Pretty sure Canada has a lower murder rate.
As for hunting, I think hunting should be illegal, period. Killing animals for the sole purpose of adrenaline, I could never do it.
You act as if the meat is wasted. A majority of the people eat the meat, myself included. It also helps keep population in check. I have much more to say about it, though it is a different thread...
I do realize there are people who use arms responsibly, but there are also people who use them irresponsibly. I read that one of you said the crime rate in Chicago increased after the ban, but that doesn't make any sense. Why would a gang member kill more people just because guns are banned there? It's not like they won't be able to still use them illegally.
Let me help you with this.
The "Bad guys" don't obey the law. The "Good guys" do. You pass a law banning guns, and the "Good guys" are the only ones effected. It is a lot easier killing an unarmed person, now isn't' it?
I think it should be left to the individual state to decide whether arms should be banned, with NO opposition from the Federal Government.
The government is the main reason we have the Right to Bear Arms, the founding fathers were always thinking that we were one day going to have an oppressive government. Taking that right away is something most dictators do when they come to power. If my state took away gun rights, I would see that as the first step to an oppressive government...
You act as if the meat is wasted. A majority of the people eat the meat, myself included. It also helps keep population in check. I have much more to say about it, though it is a different thread...
I guess you have a point. Now answer me this, why have the deer populations increased by 20 million in 100 years?
The "Bad guys" don't obey the law. The "Good guys" do. You pass a law banning guns, and the "Good guys" are the only ones effected. It is a lot easier killing an unarmed person, now isn't' it?
I suppose, but what motive would a gang member have to kill someone who is not related to their gang in any way?
The government is the main reason we have the Right to Bear Arms, the founding fathers were always thinking that we were one day going to have an oppressive government. Taking that right away is something most dictators do when they come to power. If my state took away gun rights, I would see that as the first step to an oppressive government...
I thought the first one was 'let me appoint all the government officials so the make laws in my favour.'
I never said "take away national supremacy entirely." I said the government should allow the states to choose if they want certain rights, not the unalienable rights such as freedom of speech and other things.
Having the right to arms isn't necessary, pocket knifes are just as effective in close combat, especially if they have a gun to your head.
I guess you have a point. Now answer me this, why have the deer populations increased by 20 million in 100 years?
Several reasons, for example there predators are dwindling in number. I would assume that is the main reason.
I suppose, but what motive would a gang member have to kill someone who is not related to their gang in any way?
Money. Need I say more?
I never said "take away national supremacy entirely." I said the government should allow the states to choose if they want certain rights, not the unalienable rights such as freedom of speech and other things.
What is different between freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms? They are both basic freedoms. I get that you do not want to wipe out national supremacy entirely, but I am saying that national supremacy should defend our basic rights, such as the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech.
Having the right to arms isn't necessary, pocket knifes are just as effective in close combat, especially if they have a gun to your head.
If they have a gun to your head than a slice of baloney is just as effective as a mini-gun. Let me give you an example. Lets say someone broke into your house and started kidnapping your kids. If you had a gun under the pillow you could simply shoot him if he is armed or threaten him if he isn't. A gun is effective even when it is not fired. He would give up and you could point the gun at him until the police arrive, or of course if he is armed then you may need to shoot him, having the same effect of you being safe. Now lets have the same scenario, this time you have a butcher-knife. This time he can fight you, especially if he is armed. I would assume he would have little fear from even a large knife, as he would probably have at least a pocket knife. Now you can easily receive damage and the chance of a non-violent solution dwindles.
