# Gun Ownership In The Usa

## Should the public ownership of guns be prohibited in the US

• ### NO

• Total voters
82
cristo
Staff Emeritus
The don't put up cans at a firing range :rofl:
I know; I figured this needed a light-hearted comment!
I'd put a veteran from a gun range that has never shot anyone against any common thug who has. The thug doesn't have a chance.
Well, I say the thug needs the urge to kill a man and one lucky shot. Anyway, we're both just speculating here, aren't we!

siddharth
Homework Helper
Gold Member
It is absolutely not ridiculous for folks to be able to defend themselves at a university. That doesn't even make sense. "You've come here to learn, but while learning you are completely helpless to defend yourself against gun toting madmen, sorry". That's rediculous.
That's because you normally don't expect gun toting madmen in universities?

As I said before, it could be argued that if there's a hypothetical situation where many people in universities had guns to defend themselves, there would also be much higher probabilities of gun toting madmen in universities.

Last edited:
Can you honestly say if you were planning a break-in and you valued your life at all and you were given a choice between 2 houses, one with guns and one without that it wouldn't matter either way?
No, but a typical house breaker is not a normal person. They usually have a problem that needs fixing via Money. Having a gun or not probably doesn't register. Look honestly I dont know if you are right or not, that is why I want to see some data, because to me I dont think it really makes such a difference.

Averagesupernova
Gold Member
No, but a typical house breaker is not a normal person. They usually have a problem that needs fixing via Money. Having a gun or not probably doesn't register. Look honestly I dont know if you are right or not, that is why I want to see some data, because to me I dont think it really makes such a difference.
On the average, the typical house breaker still values his life. I'm not sure if stats exist for this sort of thing. I'm beginning to suspect you are asking for data that you suspect does not exist in order to not be proven wrong.

I wouldn't say guns are useless in overthrowing the government. Any militia would have some real problems against a well trained military in an open field. A million guns in a million homes is an entirely different story. It would make holding any ground very difficult, requiring far too many soldiers for the amount of land they intend to control. Far more importantly however, it is the Constitution itself that helps prevent this sort of thing.
1000 People with hand-guns is easy meat for a well train Tank unit. Thats my point, 250 years ago you would have had a point, but now you need other mechanisms in place to stop the paranoid dictator scenario.
This is also my opinion. Having checked a little on the internet I can see that gun sales in the US rise dramatically when gun related crimes rise in an area. For example, gun sales in New Orleans after the crime resulting from the chaos created by hurricane Katrina.
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/mar/27/gun-sales-soar-big-easy/
That isn't to say that guns are never useful in home defense, but I worry that people like this woman who claim that they feel more confident because they purchased a firearm concern me. Sure, she is more confident, but is she really more safe because she has a firearm when other means of home defense are more effective? I think she bought the gun to alleviate her fears, which is a mistake IMO.
Yes I would agree with that, its a very macho masculine ideal to think, *I'll just blow his head off when he comes on my property* Although it might make me as a man feel better it doesnt mean that it is effective.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. American society can be violent in any case, whether there are guns or not. Our culture in many ways encourages aggressive and violent behavior. A ban on guns won't make us a more peaceful society. Or are you speaking of situations like what happened in New Orleans where there is lots of crime in an area and the population arms themselves and the result is a lot of guns in a high crime area? I'm skeptical that a ban on guns would be effective in preventing crime in a situation like that in this country.
I mean that there seems (IMO) to be a correlation between the availability of Guns and how violent a society you live in. But I will give you that, Western (not just America, but is very apparent in America, due to Hollywood) Society is violent, and is very masculine in that seance.
Not entirely. New amendments have been made since the original was drafted and one amendment was repealed. The Constitution has changed and so is not itself above encroachment. What is above encroachment is the right to liberty that the document represents. I would hope that Americans value their right to liberty above the safety of government. The second amendment is so vital in this regard because it is the lynchpin between our liberty and the governments authority over us. This is the biggest hurdle to any gun ban in this country.
OK, but why do Americans seem to think that gun ownership is such a massive liberty they must have/need, and removal of it provokes such emotional no-logic rants.... and then on the other hand the patriot act eased pass your congress. Which is more of a eroding of liberties than not carrying a gun-- which is harming society.

Thank you for a thoughtful response, Qudos.

Last edited by a moderator:
On the average, the typical house breaker still values his life. I'm not sure if stats exist for this sort of thing. I'm beginning to suspect you are asking for data that you suspect does not exist in order to not be proven wrong.
No I am not.. What we could do, is look at the amount of House breakins per person in a country that has a ban on public ownership of guns, for the sake of owning a gun, and America. I just havent been able to find that Data...

Hey.. why dont you read my posts... Then I wouldnt have to re-explain time and time again.. I know why it was written like it was, but it is now defunct, thus it is not a reason to allow people to continue to carry arms, when they are not effective in the remit of that Law!
No, its not. The constitution, not a single part of it, is "now defunct".

Yes I am calling everyone who buys and carries guns selfish in the respect that it is harming the whole community
Bull-s. No, its NOT harming the whole community. Its the Irresponsible gun owners that are harming the community.

:rofl: Told you so? That is simply just a ****ing lie, and you know it!.. Yet more attack the poster rubbish, very very weak!
Just answer the questions and try and be civil for once.
Yes, you were way out of line in the VT thread ranting your crap about guns. That was not the place for it. So like I said, get some class.

Why do you think this, because the rate of house-robbings in America is far less than in the UK (for example). Please give some reasons why you say this.. I havent ever seen any data to back that up.
I'm pretty sure his statement is fairly accurate. The problem is that the burglar rarely knows if he has a gun or not. Unless the burglar has a personal connection to the target, or has actually seen him with a gun, he will never know.

This Harvard study shows no finding of homes with guns to home without guns being robbed more, probably because the robber does not know which home has a gun or not. It does state that homes where someone is home and armed there is much higher chance of homicide than homes without guns. I can't quote the site, but here is the link. There are lots of interesting findings and sources are listed.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/pdf/litreviewfirearmdeaths.pdf [Broken]

This site http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nburglary08.html [Broken] is from the FBI. It shows that most home robberies occur during the daytime (while people are not home) and most businesses are robbed at night(while they are closed.) In general, a burglar just wants to get your stuff and get out without any conflict.
Offense Analysis
Among those agencies that reported burglary statistics for all 12 months of 2002, the data showed that forcible entry burglaries accounted for 62.8 percent of the burglary offenses, unlawful entry comprised 30.8 percent, and attempted forcible entry accounted for approximately 6.5 percent. (Based on Table 19.)

The majority of burglaries, 65.8 percent, were residential, and the remaining 34.2 percent were of nonresidences, such as stores, offices, etc. A review of burglary data in which the time of the offense was known showed that most residential burglaries, 61.7 percent, occurred during daytime hours, and most nonresidential burglaries, 57.7 percent, occurred at night. The time of occurrence for 24.1 percent of burglaries was unknown. (Based on Table 23.)

Losses due to burglary totaled an estimated $3.3 billion in 2002, with an estimated average value of$1,549 per offense. Residential burglaries averaged $1,482 per offense, and nonresidental burglaries averaged$1,678 per offense. (Based on Table 23.)

Last edited by a moderator:
-Guns, especially the type Joe Average buys from his gun shop, are no use in overthrowing the government.
-Guns are not even the best way to protect your own property (A fundamental building block of Capitalism).
-Society in general seems to be more violent the more guns that are in circulation
-Gun ownership is a right by the constitution and thus beyond encroachment.
-(1) Then give everyone an appropriate weapon like in Switzerland.
-(2) Who cares, then dont use one to protect your property, thats NOT THE POINT OF HAVING THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN.
-(3) There you go again with that "seem's" nonsense.
-(4) If you want to get rid of guns, change the constitution-oh wait, your not a US citizen and thus have no say...sorry.

No, its not. The constitution, not a single part of it, is "now defunct".
So are you asserting that your owning of handguns is the mechanism that will stop a dictator taking over America?
Bull-s. No, its NOT harming the whole community. Its the Irresponsible gun owners that are harming the community.
Yes I know its the irresponsible owners that are harming society, so we agree that having guns available to the pubic does harm society? Of course the pubic is made up of both Irresponsible and responsible people.
Yes, you were way out of line in the VT thread ranting your crap about guns. That was not the place for it. So like I said, get some class.
No I was not out of line that was a thread the same as this one debating the need of Guns in society with that awful event as a backdrop. YOU are out of line, by ad homming and letting your emotions get in the way of having a civil conversation. You never know you (as may I)might learn something from this debate.

I'm pretty sure his statement is fairly accurate. The problem is that the burglar rarely knows if he has a gun or not. Unless the burglar has a personal connection to the target, or has actually seen him with a gun, he will never know.
Right, so it becomes obsolete, and not a valid reason for allow the population to have hand guns for protection of property.

I think we just come back to the point---> We want guns so we will have them! There isnt a *good* argument that shows society is better for the public being armed, and I would say there is a strong case that society is actually more unsafe when the public has easy access to guns.

-(1) Then give everyone an appropriate weapon like in Switzerland.
-(2) Who cares, then dont use one to protect your property, thats NOT THE POINT OF HAVING THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN.
-(3) There you go again with that "seem's" nonsense.
-(4) If you want to get rid of guns, change the constitution-oh wait, your not a US citizen and thus have no say...sorry.
Actually dont bother next time... Sorry I was hoping we could have a intellectual debate, not some *clown* off..

Anttech said:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry
I wouldn't say guns are useless in overthrowing the government. Any militia would have some real problems against a well trained military in an open field. A million guns in a million homes is an entirely different story. It would make holding any ground very difficult, requiring far too many soldiers for the amount of land they intend to control. Far more importantly however, it is the Constitution itself that helps prevent this sort of thing.
1000 People with hand-guns is easy meat for a well train Tank unit. Thats my point, 250 years ago you would have had a point, but now you need other mechanisms in place to stop the paranoid dictator scenario.
You miss the point. What I'm speaking about is the same edge the american rebels had over the English in the Revolutionary War. It's the reason the Allies are having such problems maintaining control of Iraq. With tanks alone any military would crush a militia in an open battle. The problem is that they cannot control the populace as long as they are armed. You hide weapons and snipe one soldier and run away. You wait for one military truck and set up a roadblock in front of it and take or destroy their equipment and supplies. You set explosives in areas where you think they will come and then make a reason for them to go there. To fight a more powerful enemy you need to create fear and erode their morale and take away their ability to strike back. You don't stand in a big group and let them roll over everyone with tanks.

Check out the movie Red Dawn. It's a fictional scenario where the Soviet Union invades the U.S.

Averagesupernova
Gold Member
What we could do, is look at the amount of House breakins per person in a country that has a ban on public ownership of guns, for the sake of owning a gun, and America. I just havent been able to find that Data...
That's not really good enough since Americans are Americans and Europeans are Europeans. (For example) We aren't the same people to start with. You need a control group. I am not saying that a crook will find out if a house has a gun or not and make their decision. I am saying that the possibility that a house has a gun is a deterent. The same way a security system is a deterent. It quite likely keeps some people from ever getting started in crime and burglary.

turbo
Gold Member
US citizens continue to buy firearms and increase the number of firearms in circulation. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 1994 2004. That's an average of 6 million background checks a year for people wanting to buy a gun through the retail market. Accompanying this increase in the number of privately-owned firearms is a decrease in the number of violent crimes. From the FBI "Crime in the United States" report:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_01-01a.html [Broken]

As many people here have suggested, the incidence rate of violent crime shows a negative correlation with gun ownership. Honestly, if you wanted to mug someone or pull off a car-jacking, would you rather do it in NYC, where the populace is effectively disarmed, or in Houston, where the right to carry concealed weapons is heavily used?

Last edited by a moderator:
Averagesupernova
Gold Member
I'll also argue for guns because while we may not prevent a dictator from taking over or attempting to take over, post revolution it would certainly be an advantage.

I think Iraq is a different kettle of fish. People there are committing suicide and taking as many coalition as possible.

I understand what you are saying, but I dont understand the thinking behind the 2nd amendment, was it to protect your country against the government or against being invaded? If it is the latter, I dont see the added value considering the size and might of the American Military.

Averagesupernova
Gold Member
Read my last post Anttech. It may not prevent either the government or an invasion but it could certainly protect the people post-takeover. Not only that, the same thing goes for a takeover here in the US as Iraq. We could go in and wipe out everything that moves but that would be kind of pointless right? Someone could come in here to the US and do the same thing but what is a country without people?

drankin
I think Iraq is a different kettle of fish. People there are committing suicide and taking as many coalition as possible.

I understand what you are saying, but I dont understand the thinking behind the 2nd amendment, was it to protect your country against the government or against being invaded? If it is the latter, I dont see the added value considering the size and might of the American Military.
If we were to have a civil war, I could easily see a lot of the American Military defecting and bringing over military equipment. I could see alot of the state run national gaurds joining the rebelion. You understand, as another American serviceman posted, they serve to protect the Constitution first. Not all military personel are going to do that, of course, but it would not be the entire US military against it's own citizens. And, I'd much rather have gun than not. I will not be disarmed, ever.

And, I'd much rather have gun than not. I will not be disarmed, ever.
Yeah I get the picture, doesnt make any (read: absolutely none) sense to me, but I get the picture: You all want your guns, and guns and more guns

I just wish you would all admit that there is no social benefit to having them, its just you want them they make you feel good about (something)

So are you asserting that your owning of handguns is the mechanism that will stop a dictator taking over America?
Did I ever say people should only have handguns? Is it true thatp people only have hand guns?

Yes I know its the irresponsible owners that are harming society, so we agree that having guns available to the pubic does harm society?
No, we dont agree.

Of course the pubic is made up of both Irresponsible and responsible people.
So why dont you RECOGNIZE this fact instead of making generalizations that EVERYONE shouldnt be allowed to have a gun? Clearly, you DONT recognize this.

No I was not out of line that was a thread the same as this one debating the need of Guns in society with that awful event as a backdrop.
Yes, you were/are out of line.

YOU are out of line, by ad homming and letting your emotions get in the way of having a civil conversation. You never know you (as may I)might learn something from this debate.
How can I debate someone that does not LISTEN to what I tell them? Do I have to smack you in the face with the constitution as to the REASON why we have guns? Or are you going to argue non stop about how "theres no more reason for having guns, your not going to do anything like overthrow anybody with guns.......etc etc etc".

drankin
Yeah I get the picture, doesnt make any (read: absolutely none) sense to me, but I get the picture: You all want your guns, and guns and more guns

I just wish you would all admit that there is no social benefit to having them, its just you want them they make you feel good about (something)
I admit that I do want my guns. I won't say that there is no social benefit. Disarming citizens wouldn't work here. It works there, and that's great. There is a lot of history as to why we are so passionate about retaining our firearm rights. We wouldn't be America without them and we don't want to be oppressed by a government nor an individual who is armed while we are not. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Makes for a snappy catch phrase but is very overly simplistic. By the same logic nukes don't kill either so every country should have them and yet the US is adamant this shouldn't happen.

This makes for a better argument but is somewhat nullified by how easily Americans rolled over for Bush, trading freedoms for questionably improved security vis a vis The Patriot Act.

Agreed which is why it is galling to cynical Europeans when many Americans appear to believe their gov't acts on moral imperatives i.e. bringing democracy to downtrodden people when the rest of the world knows Iraq was about oil.

Yet the number of Americans killed through acts of terrorism are very small compared with either of the causes you have listed and yet look at the expenditure and freedom sapping practices the US public have accepted to avoid a repeat.
The US doesn't want people to have nukes because those countries are enemies of the US. So that doesn't really make sense, of course I don't want someone I'm enemies with to have the means to kill me.

The Patriot Act is an infrigement of rights yes, but it was passed in a state of panic. It will be removed.

An act of Terrorism is an act by FOREIGN nationals. If your uncle Ralph accidently shoots Uncle Tom, thats not as big a deal as if some person decides to kill Uncle Tom because they can.

Evo
Mentor
Sorry, but I see the same arguments repeated over and over. This thread is not going anywhere.