News How can teaching gun safety in schools help prevent gun violence?

[B. Elliott]

My opinion is that the 2nd amendment was made to keep a well armed populace in case of government tyranny. That should be the *only* reason we have guns. In fact, I don't think people should even be allowed to use these guns within their own homes as self protection, because again the point of having the guns is not for self protection. Its to overthrow a tyrannical government. ANY use of a gun that's NOT for overthrowing the government should be illegal.

It's important to remember that gun ownership is the one human right which can ensure that other human rights will not be violated.

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/whyownagun_2.htm

 

[Cyrus]

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/whyownagun_2.htm

I don't follow how that quote differs from what I'm saying though.

 

[Jordan Joab]

No, no. They were absolutely RIGHT to give people in DC the right to have guns. As a native washingtonian, let me tell you this. If you think people in DC don't have handguns, illegally, then your NUTS. What people do, illegally, with their guns means nothing to me, because they are going to do it anyways. They are breaking the law, plain and SIMPLE. The answer is a combination of what we are both saying here. YES, you can buy a handgun. NO, you can't walk around town with it. In fact, you can't go ANYWHERE with it unless its to a shooting range and back. Thats the way it SHOULD be, in my opinion, and the laws in owning a gun should reflect that.

That's the problem. Not only do I have to worry about criminals with illegal guns but about private citizens with legal handguns. We can give private citizens the right to carry a "taser" or pepper spray for personal protection. Inner cities + handguns simply do not mix.

An individual that buys a handgun is not simply thinking about protecting his/her home. That person wants to protect him/herself everywhere, anywhere he/she goes. What happens when this law-abiding citizen is in a stressful situation? Can you trust this person to make the right decision? I believe Ivan Seeking mentioned he came close using his firearm in a few occasions. What if more people find themselves in those situations and make the wrong decision?

I believe many of these legal handguns carried by law-abiding citizens will make it out onto the streets and end up being used incorrectly. I guarantee you prejudice, fear, anger, etc. will make many people reach the wrong decision when dealing with regular day-to-day situations in big cities (crowded buses/subway, road rage, car crashes, etc).



Jordan.

 

[Cyrus]

That's the problem. Not only do I have to worry about criminals with illegal guns but about private citizens with legal handguns. We can give private citizens the right to carry a "taser" or pepper spray for personal protection. Inner cities + handguns simply do not mix.

I will dissect what you said. For the bold part, yes. But this is very important. They can buy all the hand guns they want (In the cyrus system). But they cant use them for personal protection. Meaning, it stays in the house for that day the government comes to take away your liberty.

If someone breaks into your house, you got to use that baseball bat or taser. Sorry, can't use the handgun.

An individual that buys a handgun is not simply thinking about protecting his/her home. That person wants to protect him/herself everywhere, anywhere he/she goes. What happens when this law-abiding citizen is in a stressful situation? Can you trust this person to make the right decision? I believe Ivan Seeking mentioned he came close using his firearm in a few occasions. What if more people find themselves in those situations and make the wrong decision?

They go to jail. Lots of people also get stressed and drink and drive and kill people. Were not going to outlaw alcohol or cars out of fear. Let's not do the same to guns. This is not a rational argument.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, what if I claim to be my own personal milita?

Even if one accepts that, it's still only a small part of the prefatory clause that you've covered.

 

[B. Elliott]

Even if one accepts that, it's still only a small part of the prefatory clause that you've covered.

It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/The government allows me to have a gun, therefore I do.

 

[Jordan Joab]

I will dissect what you said. For the bold part, yes. But this is very important. They can buy all the hand guns they want (In the cyrus system). But they cant use them for personal protection. Meaning, it stays in the house for that day the government comes to take away your liberty

You see? I agree 100% with the Cyrus system. The problem is the Cyrus system is not in effect. The Supreme Court system is. This is exactly where our new 2nd Amendment just kicked in. Now, individuals can use that handgun for personal protection.

If someone breaks into your house, you got to use that baseeball bat or taser. Sorry, can't use the handgun.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. I say, if this where to happen, use that shotgun you got under your bed.

They go to jail. Lots of people also get stressed and drink and drive and kill people. Were not going to outlaw alcohol or car out of fear. Let's not do the same to guns. This is not a rational argument.

Alcohol and cars were not made to kill people. Handguns were. This topic is going circles.

I simply want to know, how does granting law-abiding citizens the right to purchase and own handguns make us safer and more secure?



Jordan.

 

[WarPhalange]

Well, what if I claim to be my own personal milita?

Then you get shot by a SWAT team like in Waco.

 

[B. Elliott]

Then you get shot by a SWAT team like in Waco.

I would like to see a SWAT team shoot me for possessing a firearm because I could be called to form a milita. My lawyer would have field day with that.

 

[Cyrus]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/


The government allows me to have a gun, therefore I do.

But you have to admit that you quote the constution which gives you the right to have a gun to protect your liberty, yet you own a gun to protect yourself and your family. An ENTIRELY different reason. A robber is not trying to take your liberty, he wants your money.

 

[Gokul43201]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/


The government allows me to have a gun, therefore I do.

What's with the non-sequitur?

 

[B. Elliott]

But you have to admit that you quote the constution which gives you the right to have a gun to protect your liberty, yet you own a gun to protect yourself and your family. An ENTIRELY different reason. A robber is not trying to take your liberty, he wants your money.

The key is, you never know what the robbers intent is when approaches you with a gun. If approaches with a weapon which can be used to kill, I will not assume anything except that he intends to use it.

“The evidence of the natural rights of expatriation, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical”

- Thomas Jefferson.

 

[B. Elliott]

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/declare.htm


If someone threatens my life, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

 

[Cyrus]

The key is, you never know what the robbers intent is when approaches you with a gun. If approaches with a weapon which can be used to kill, I will not assume anything except that he intends to use it.



- Thomas Jefferson.

Sure, I know 100% that a robber is not trying to take away your liberty. He cant, he doesn't have that power. Only the government can do that to you.

Now he could kill you, in which case having liberty is trivial, but that's besides the point.

You have the right to protect yourself, but it can't be with a gun whose purpose of you having it was to protect your liberty from the government.

 

[B. Elliott]

What's with the non-sequitur?

What do you mean? I'm not familiar with that term.

 

[B. Elliott]

Sure, I know 100% that a robber is not trying to take away your liberty. He cant, he doesn't have that power. Only the government can do that to you.

Now he could kill you, in which case having liberty is trivial, but that's besides the point.

You have the right to protect yourself, but it can't be with a gun whos purpose of you having was to protect your liberty from the government.

If he is in the position to kill me, he is in the position to take away my life which the Constitution states I have a right to. The US government allows me to own a firearm to protect my life.

 

[Gokul43201]

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/declare.htm If someone threatens my life, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

If someone threatens my pursuit of happiness, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

Make sure you say to the cop that busts you for getting high before you blow his head off with your bazooka.

 

[B. Elliott]

If someone threatens my pursuit of happiness, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

Make sure you say to the cop that busts you for getting high before you blow his head off with your bazooka.

If a cop stops me, chances are I have broken the law.

 

[Gokul43201]

What do you mean? I'm not familiar with that term.

Actually it is worse than a non-sequitur (which is a statement unconnected to the previous statement). If anything, the annotation you quoted weakens, rather than strengthens your argument.

 

[Gokul43201]

If a cop stops me, chances are I have broken the law.

Correct. So, the legislature has the right to curb your pursuit of happiness.

 

[B. Elliott]

If someone threatens my pursuit of happiness, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

Make sure you say to the cop that busts you for getting high before you blow his head off with your bazooka.

There's no need to distort the wording in an extreme unrealistic manner. I have the utmost respect for police officers (which quite a few of my friends happen to be) and understand they're role which is to serve and protect.

 

[Gokul43201]

Incidentally, what would you do with an intruder that does not threaten to kill you?

 

[B. Elliott]

Correct. So, the legislature has the right to curb your pursuit of happiness.

Yes, but the legislature is not trying to take away my life, which I will defend at all costs.

 

[B. Elliott]

Incidentally, what would you do with an intruder that does not threaten to kill you?

Then I cannot use deadly force.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, but the legislature is not trying to take away my life, which I will defend at all costs.

But you quoted the Declaration, which gives you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why do you now get to single out only life from this list, and disregard the other guarantees?

 

[Jordan Joab]

If someone threatens my life, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns find themselves in stressful situations that don't necessarily threaten their lives yet they still erroneously conclude they are about to be killed?

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns are under stress/duress and decide that their handgun is the best option to resolve the matter?

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns start killing each other because they mistakenly believe another law-abiding citizen carrying a legal handgun might be a criminal?

Are we so paranoid that we need to start carrying handguns to "protect" ourselves when in reality we are simply increasing our risk of death? No, I don't think people are out to shoot other people but considering the ridiculous reasons why human beings have killed other human beings I don't think giving individuals access to handguns is a great idea.


Jordan.

 

[B. Elliott]

But you quoted the Declaration, which gives you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why do you now get to single out only life from this list, and disregard the other guarantees?

Because one has to use common sense. I'm not going to shoot someone because they made my unhappy, but I will shoot someone if they threaten my life. Happiness is personal idea, thought, opinion. Live is universal.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's no need to distort the wording in an extreme unrealistic manner.

But I didn't. I took your own words and switched out one of the guarantees of the Declaration with another one. It should hold just as much weight as your original argument.

I have the utmost respect for police officers (which quite a few of my friends happen to be) and understand they're role which is to serve and protect.

So now your argument for who you will shoot has to do with who you respect, rather than who takes away the rights given to you in the Declaration?

 

[B. Elliott]

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns find themselves in stressful situations that don't necessarily threaten their lives yet they still erroneously conclude they are about to be killed?

Then it was a bad decision and they risk being put in jail for making a bad decision.

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns are under stress/duress and decide that their handgun is the best option to resolve the matter?

Then they are arrested and will possibly serve jail time which will be determined by a jury.

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns start killing each other because they mistakenly believe another law-abiding citizen carrying a legal handgun might be a criminal?

Then they are arrested and will possibly serve jail time which will be determined by a jury.

Are we so paranoid that we need to start carrying handguns to "protect" ourselves when in reality we are simply increasing our risk of death? No, I don't think people are out to shoot other people but considering the ridiculous reasons why human beings have killed other human beings I don't think giving individuals access to handguns is a great idea.

Jordan.

There is a big difference between being prepared and being 'paranoid'. I have life insurance because I am prepared. I don't have life insurance because I am paranoid.

 

[B. Elliott]

But I didn't. I took your own words and switched out one of the guarantees of the Declaration with another one. It should hold just as much weight as your original argument.

Exactly. You switch out one of my rights. It is my decision on how to protect my rights.

So now your argument for who you will shoot has to do with who you respect, rather than who takes away the rights given to you in the Declaration?

Yes. I can choose to shoot someone who makes me unhappy if I feel like it. I can choose to shoot someone for looking at m e the wrong way if I choose too. The problem is, that I will then go to jail and then subsequently have my given rights stripped away from me.

 

[Gokul43201]

Are we so paranoid that we need to start carrying handguns to "protect" ourselves when in reality we are simply increasing our risk of death?

There can be no question of starting, since the practice of carrying personal arms for protection has been around for a long time. So you ought to rephrase that question.

 

[Gokul43201]

Exactly. You switch out one of my rights. It is my decision on how to protect my rights.

But when you make a logical argument, it needs to retain internal consistency. That is a pre-requisite for logic. I was pointing out the absurdity of your using the Declaration as the basis for making your case.

Anyway, you're missing the point that the Declaration of Independence doesn't really give you any rights. Your rights come from the Constitution and the Courts. Maybe I just didn't make the point clearly.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Then it was a bad decision and they risk being put in jail for making a bad decision.



Then they are arrested and will possibly serve jail time which will be determined by a jury.



Then they are arrested and will possibly serve jail time which will be determined by a jury.

And assuming more individuals obtain handguns, don't you think the chances of people making lethal bad decisions increases?

There is a big difference between being prepared and being 'paranoid'. I have life insurance because I am prepared. I don't have life insurance because I am paranoid.

I'm sure carrying a handgun is being prepared. That is, until the handgun owner makes a bad decision. I still don't get how more guns on the street make me safer.


Jordan.

 

[B. Elliott]

But when you make a logical argument, it needs to retain internal consistency. That is a pre-requisite for logic. I was pointing out the absurdity of your using the Declaration as the basis for making your case.

Anyway, you're missing the point that the Declaration of Independence doesn't really give you any rights. Your rights come from the Constitution and the Courts. Maybe I just didn't make the point clearly.

How is it not really giving me any rights?

 

[B. Elliott]

And assuming more individuals obtain handguns, don't you think the chances of people making lethal bad decisions increases?

Naturally so. Just as more people start driving, there will be more auto related fatalities. As more airplanes are built, there will be more crashes.

I'm sure carrying a handgun is being prepared. That is, until the handgun owner makes a bad decision. I still don't get how more guns on the street make me safer.

Jordan.

And many car owners make the bad decision to drive while intoxicated and end up killing someone. At that point their license is stripped away from them. When a handgun owner makes a bad decision, he is then putting his own rights at risk.

That is why I am a strong supporter of handgun safety courses. Everyone who intends to carry a handgun needs to attend a course. It teaches both when and how to properly use a firearm. Just as people should take a driving test before they are allowed to operate a vehicle.

 

[WarPhalange]

I would like to see a SWAT team shoot me

Really?

for possessing a firearm because I could be called to form a milita. My lawyer would have field day with that.

Yeah, but you'd be dead.

 

[B. Elliott]

Really?

My entire response, if you will...

I would like to see a SWAT team shoot me for possessing a firearm because I could be called to form a milita.

So again, a big yes.

Yeah, but you'd be dead.

When you don't separate my response into two sentences, it makes much more sense.

 

[drankin]

We all have the right to own firearms, including handguns in our home. This was always assumed and now affirmed. Whether we can carry them on the street or not, at this point, is determined by the state you live in. I currently exercise that right in Washington state and in the state I'm vacationing in right now, Alaska.

People have posted that they don't believe that I am safer for carrying my handgun on the streets. I'm not convinced.

If someone doesn't think they are safer with a handgun in their possession, no one is demanding that they get one! In most states you can legally if you want to, provided you meet the requirements.

There is no evidence that allowing those who have gone through the requirements of their state to be permitted to carry a firearm has caused the community to be LESS safe. NONE. But, as I've posted earlier, there IS evidence that individuals have been able to defend themselves with their guns because they ARE permitted to carry.

If you don't believe that the requirements to carry in public are "safe" enough, then push to increase the requirements. That is certainly fair in our society. But individuals should not be denied the opportunity to satisfy those requirements and be permitted, IMO.

 

[B. Elliott]

We all have the right to own firearms, including handguns in our home. This was always assumed and now affirmed. Whether we can carry them on the street or not, at this point, is determined by the state you live in. I currently exercise that right in Washington state and in the state I'm vacationing in right now, Alaska.

People have posted that they don't believe that I am safer for carrying my handgun on the streets. I'm not convinced.

If someone doesn't think they are safer with a handgun in their possession, no one is demanding that they get one! In most states you can legally if you want to, provided you meet the requirements.

There is no evidence that allowing those who have gone through the requirements of their state to be permitted to carry a firearm has caused the community to be LESS safe. NONE. But, as I've posted earlier, there IS evidence that individuals have been able to defend themselves with their guns because they ARE permitted to carry.

If you don't believe that the requirements to carry in public are "safe" enough, then push to increase the requirements. That is certainly fair in our society. But individuals should not be denied the opportunity to satisfy those requirements and be permitted, IMO.

I fully agree. I also wish those who choose not to carry a firearm would quit trying to have the Constitution reconstructed and therefore my gun-carrying right stripped from me. It is a futile attempt. If they do not agree with the Constitution, they can leave the country.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The Supreme Court basically told us that Americans have a right to own a handgun. How exactly does handgun ownership makes an individual and his/her property safer? This is simply the equivalent of a child covering him/herself with a bedsheet to ward off the evil monsters.
...
Please enlightment me, how does gun ownership make a person safer?

There have been examples that I see as appropriate in other threads on the same topic. Among them... Defense of your self, your family, your property, and your community during situations of civil disorder such as the Katrina aftermath and the LA riots where the ability of the government to protect you is significantly hindered. Another... People who live in out of the way places where law enforcement is not near at hand (which I believe Ivan does though I may be mistaken) may require means of defending themselves until the sheriff can arrive. In the case of Mr. Horn, had he the presence of mind, he could have just fired a warning shot letting the bandits know it would be a bad idea to come back and possibly even scaring them enough to drop the property they were attempting to abscond with. Theives, especially petty theives, tend to return repeatedly to any area that seems easy to steal from.

I don't own guns and have never even fired a real gun. I have been reluctant to even get myself an armed permit for the purpose of my job, to make more money. But I see sense in the argument for use in the situations I have mentioned above. Whether I would avail myself of the 'right' I am unsure.

My opinion is that the 2nd amendment was made to keep a well armed populace in case of government tyranny. That should be the *only* reason we have guns. In fact, I don't think people should even be allowed to use these guns within their own homes as self protection, because again the point of having the guns is not for self protection. Its to overthrow a tyrannical government. ANY use of a gun that's NOT for overthrowing the government should be illegal.

The problem is that, while this may be part of the intention, it does not state this anywhere in the constitution. The militia is actually outlined as a part of national defense in times of invasion, rebellion, and civil unrest. All men of age and in possession of arms may be called to duty for this purpose. I'm sure it would be easy to argue the legality of being "called to duty by necessity" as well (such as the examples of katrina and the LA riots I mention above). Even the Militia Act of 1903 recognizes both organized and unorganized militia.
The 2nd amendment does not outright state that it is to give the people the ability to defend against their government if necessary but I agree that it was, in part, meant to prevent such a necessity by decentralizing the military power effectively giving the people said ability. A sort of built in safeguard.


And to everyone arguing that those weapons granted citizens are not capable of overthrowing the government you may be right. But what of our ability to defend ourselves from the government if needs be? Without guns the military would more or less be able to walk right in and take control. Citizens with guns make this far more tricky and difficult. The government isn't going to send crack squads into take out every person holed up somewhere with a gun. Neither are they going to just carpet bomb the cities with such people in them. What would be the point in taking over just to blow apart all of your infrastructure, kill off a bunch of citizens, and burden yourself with a population of vagrant survivors? And maybe they would take out one city to try to make an example but I am fairly certain that while a great number of people (perhaps even myself included) would be cowed by such an act there will be a small yet significant number of people (mostly those with the guns) who will literally be up in arms over such a display.
And maybe they could win, or at least hol off until a regime change. Guerrillas won the Spanish Civil War against a military take over didn't they?

 

[Gokul43201]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Let me repeat that: "The significance of the militia", was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.''

Since this is no longer true. There is no longer a need for individual gun ownership. And since the SA justifies the right by stating the need, there is no longer a valid justification for a right to bear arms. Given that, your conclusion, that:

The government allows me to have a gun, therefore I do.

...is at the very least, poorly constructed.

How is it not really giving me any rights?

The Declaration is not legally binding in any way. If it were, slaves would have been able to sue for rights a long time ago. The Declaration of Independence is merely a symbolic document that mostly went unnoticed from the time of the signing to nearly a century later, when Lincoln said it was something the country ought to strive to follow.

We all have the right to own firearms, including handguns in our home. This was always assumed and now affirmed.

Blind assumption is useless.

I fully agree. I also wish those who choose not to carry a firearm would quit trying to have the Constitution reconstructed and therefore my gun-carrying right stripped from me. It is a futile attempt. If they do not agree with the Constitution, they can leave the country.

I'm sorry you are unable to see the problems with the construction of the Second Amendment, and choose to think it obviously gives you a right to carry arms. That is just patently false. It is far from obvious and has been debated endlessly by legal and Constitutional experts as well as the courts. Your own link to the caselaw annotation on the Second Amendment starts with the following sentence.

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.

So stop the dishonesty.

Incidentally, the first people that disagreed with the Constitution, were the framers of the Bill of Rights - Madison, Jefferson, Henry, Mason and others. They are the first people you'd have "leave the country".

 

[B. Elliott]

Let me repeat that: "The significance of the militia", was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.''

Since this is no longer true. There is no longer a need for individual gun ownership. And since the SA justifies the right by stating the need, there is no longer a valid justification for a right to bear arms. Given that, your conclusion, that:...is at the very least, poorly constructed.

This is still 100% true. What do you call the draft?

Whether you believe the Constitution should be changed or not, does not matter one bit. It still applies and I will continue to posses a firearm.

Sorry, Gokul.

 

[B. Elliott]

As soon as people with the same opinions as you are allowed to change the Constitution, this country will begin to fall apart. Interpret is as you will, I have possessed a firearm nearly my entire life, my father has possessed a firearm his entire life, the same as my grandfather, great-great grandfather, and his father before him.

And that will not change as long as I'm able to protect that right.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is still 100% true. What do you call the draft?

The draft does not produce a militia that serve the state with their own personal firearms. Are you even being serious here? And by the way, it's odd that you bring up the draft, which is possibly the most blatant violation of your right to life and liberty.

Whether you believe the Constitution should be changed or not, does not matter one bit. It still applies and I will continue to posses a firearm.

This is not about changing the Constitution. This is about interpreting it correctly. I've shown you, from your own link, that there is no consensus among the Courts on exactly what rights the SA gives you. Your choosing to portray this issue as unequivocal is either completely misguided or simply dishonest.

Sorry, Gokul.

You can say that after you've said your sorries to Jefferson and Madison and Henry.

 

[Gokul43201]

As soon as people with the same opinions as you are allowed to change the Constitution, this country will begin to fall apart. Interpret is as you will, I have possessed a firearm nearly my entire life, my father has possessed a firearm his entire life, the same as my grandfather, great-great grandfather, and his father before him.

When you decide to abandon rationality for mindless slogan pounding, there is no longer a meaningful debate to be had.

 

[B. Elliott]

When you decide to abandon rationality for mindless slogan pounding, there is no longer a meaningful debate to be had.

I'm not abandoning any rationality. It is not illegal for me to possesses a firearm, so I do.

How is that hard to comprehend?

 

[B. Elliott]

Actually, I haven't fired my .38 in quite some time. Or my 30-30. I think i'll go in the back yard and shoot off a few rounds for fun.

I love the fact that I can do that.

 

[phyzmatix]

Has a conclusion been reached as to whether or not more people arming themselves make the streets a safer place? Or whether arming oneself serves any purpose at all when it comes to increasing personal safety or decreasing the risk of personal injury during an attack by a criminal(s)?

I fail to see how this debate on the legality of owning/carrying firearms is at all relevant to whether or not carrying a firearm is to your advantage in a potentially dangerous, criminal situation.

Just because it's your right (?) to do so, doesn't mean you'll necessarily be any safer in your house or on the streets because of it, except possibly in a case of civil war or unrest where you can see the **** coming a mile away...

 

[Cyrus]

I fully agree. I also wish those who choose not to carry a firearm would quit trying to have the Constitution reconstructed and therefore my gun-carrying right stripped from me. It is a futile attempt. If they do not agree with the Constitution, they can leave the country.

I don't see this as any reconstruction of the constitution. Its actually sticking to what the constitution says. I see gun users as over-abusing the purpose of the 2nd amendment to carry guns around town for personal protection. No where does the constitution say you can bear arms for personal protection.

 

[sketchtrack]

Sometimes the criminals intend to kill their victims. A guy that lived in my town was killed a year ago in his home. The robbers kicked his door in , proceeded to beat his wife nearly to death with baseball bats, and then shot the guy several times, took all his money and left. They also never were caught. If he had a gun, maybe he would be alive today, and maybe his wife wouldn't be crippled for life.

Other incidents happen like that close to home sometimes as well, usually it involves criminals high on meth or something.

If guns are made illegal, then criminals will still get them, and they won't be registered, so there will be no tracing them. If they are legal, then those who get them legally will be registered and if they use them they will be traceable.

A person I knew was killed a year ago being stabbed to death. It started out because two illegal aliens at the age of 16 asked someone to buy them alcahol. They refused to, and so the kids stabbed him and ran. Another person chased after the kids, and the kids stopped and turned and stabbed him in the heart killing him. i'd like to see someone try to stab me when I have a gun on me.