Its not an inherent right someone has because they're born.
It is. To say we have an inherent right to self defense and than say we don;t have a right to the best means of self defense, which presently is the handgun, is at best ridiculous.
unwanted said:
I'll also go out on a limb here and say that while I believe there is a place for legal civilian firearms ownership,
What place do you think that is?
Things like useless (except for confiscation) registries and mandatory training and licening aside, what would you let civilians use guns for? Hunting and target shooting? Home defense? Concealed and/or open carry?
army man said:
I firmly believe in the Castle Doctrine. In no state, as far as I am aware can you waste someone for just trespassing (unless they enter your home/car then it becomes something more--burglary).
No one should have a duty to retreat where they have the legal right to be. A law abiding person should never have to "retreat" from an unlawful agressor.
unwanted said:
If we have a choice between people being stabbed, and people being shot... you don't think we should go for the one where people are getting stabbed?
Actually, in contrast to what even a lot of "pro-gun" people might say, I do not think guns are a sort of genie we can't put back in the bottle and while we might be better off if their were no guns, we have to deal with their existence.
A world with common civilian access to guns is a better world. It's a world where the strong and many can't prey with impunity on the weak and few. In a gun free world the the law of the jungle prevails.
Laws against decent people owning and carrying guns are barbaric and frankly, evil.
broken said:
By having a system of registration, the police can quickly figure out if the gun used during the crime was stolen or figure out if these guns were illegal to begin with. This can eventually end trafficking by following these possessions to their source.
That's the theory, but it doesn't work in reality. Real gun registries have failed in the purpose of catching criminals.
unwanted said:
Not this again... simple numbers... out of the several hundred thousand instances of people breaking into someone else's home every year, how many of them are "with intent to do your family harm"?
Right, not this again. The insane idea we should trust the good nature of the guy who broke into an occupied dwelling.
If he had no intention of hurting anybody, he would have broken in when no one was home.
It's not a chance worth taking that he isn't willing to hurt anybody. I'm aware that most burglars don't try to hurt anybody, I am also aware that many do.
unwanted said:
So... how do you reconcile that with the fact that far more people die in your country due to firearms accidents or domestic violence than at the hands of "stranger murderers"?
Actually, firearm accident deaths are rare, and have actually gone way down as firearm ownership went up.
But yes, stranger murder is not the most common kind by all means, not just by guns. Most murders are gang and drug related or domestic violence.
But how does that change that there still "stranger" murders? Very many of them actually. How does that mean decent people should have their right to self defense abridged or removed?
What are we supposed to be reconciling, some morbid math where making it easier for violent criminals to prey on decent people is justified because it makes it harder for violent criminals to kill each other?
Banning guns would not make violent criminals and abusive signifigant others less violent. They'd just kill in different ways.
Also on domestic violence, many people are alive because they had a gun and didn't just rely on a piece of paper or the police to save them from a violent ex.