My family has always stressed gun safety and proper use of firearms. Since my father was a teenager, he has owned guns for hunting and range shooting. I had my first gun when I was born (a first birthday present from my father) and have grown up with guns. My sister and I have always been encouraged to be comfortable with using them for target shooting and hunting, and have been instructed to never use them against another human unless it is a dire situation.

My parents are now divorced, and my father lives in the mountains, half an hour away from the nearest sherriffs office, and half an hour from the nearest hospital. If you call the sheriff, it takes two hours for one of the two county deputies to report. We carry a pistol with us everywhere, because there are alot of strange people that live up there.

A couple months ago, we came home from a backpacking trip in the Grand Canyon to find our house had been burglarized, and all of our rifles stolen. Good thing we still had our shotguns locked up in another gun safe...the sheriff took 3 hours to come investigate. In the mean time, we had to sit in that house, in the dark, and wait.

In cases like these, where people live out in the middle of no where, and law enforcement barely enforces, it is imperative for the people to carry guns to protect themselves and their homes. In addition to this, many people get through the year on game meat (deer, quail, pheasant, turkey, duck). These are the two examples in my life that I just thought I'd bring up. Sean_330 made some really good points :)

I can understand the debate over how much gun ownership should be regulated, but to ban guns completely?? That just doesn't make sense to me.

Guns don't kill people, but it's a hell of a lot easier to kill someone with a gun then with a stick.


-Andy A.

It's fairly easy to kill someone with a stick don't count it out. You could probably kill a person with a good whack to the head.

"The National Rifle Accociation says that guns don't kill people, people do. But I think the gun helps. I think it helps, I think just standing there and going BANG!, that's not going to kill too many people is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart, BANG! BANG! BOOM! BANG! RAT-A-TAT! BANG!" - Eddie Izzard

Sure you can kill somebody with a stick, but you have to be REALLY CLOSE to them to do it.

You can't attach a scope to a stick and make a long-range sniper-stick to whack someone in the head from 200 meters away.

You don't see drive-by stick whacking.

I don't think "Stop! I've got a STICK!" is really going to scare a criminal.

I'm sure a bank robbery wouldn't go so well if you threatened the teller with a stick. "Give me the money, or I'll whack you with this STICK!" or pass them a note that says "I have a STICK, and I'll WHACK you with it if you don't give me the money!"

Can you see the police saying "Put down the stick, and come out with you hands UP!" No!

I think a school tragedy would be avoided if two misguided students burst into a classroom weilding STICKS.

Why don't you go try to hunt a deer with only a stick and see how you do.

Okay, you stand there, and I'll take my metal baseball bat and see how many blows to the head you can withstand before you die. Or how about the ribs? How many ribs can I break before your lungs fill up with fluid and you die?

Okay, so maybe you won't just be standing there. You will defend yourself. But that baseball bat is gonna hurt no matter where it hits you, even if it's the hands.

Just kidding, of course. It's only hypothetical.

What about a crossbow? Those can be rather accurate. They can also be home-built. Same with compound bow. Are we going to ban those too? Crossbows have triggers, and it's possible to hit a target from many yards. Granted not as far as a gun, and not as accurate when moving, but just as deadly, if not more deadly.

Andy, Amy, and MBiddy covered a lot of the thoughts I have about this issue.

For the record, I don't think banning guns is any kind of reasonable solution. On the other hand, I don't think they should be freely available to anyone on the street.

I'm not well versed in current gun related legislation, but I believe that both enforcement of current laws and perhaps the creation of more regulations is a perfectly viable solution to any sort of problem.

Now for a little about me. I don't own a gun, and no one in my immediate family owns a gun. I may be a stupid idealist, but I don't see a dire need for guns in modern society. The only real purpose that I see guns have is to kill things, whether they be animals or people (neither of which I explicitly approve of), and I really doubt I'll ever have the want or need to kill anything, ever, so I seriously doubt I'll ever own a gun...

My general opinion about everything is that education is key.

<edit>

Regarding the baseball bat and the crossbow...

A gunshot to practically any body part would most likely be a lot more effective, and easier, than a baseball bat, though I do realize that you can kill a person with practically any object.

I'm not sure exactly how many premeditated murders were committed with crossbows (homemade or otherwise [I'm not counting the Middle Ages :p ]), this year (or any other year, for that matter), but I'm willing to bet a very small amount of USD that gun related deaths far outnumber them...

</edit>

Beware: Gracious Professionalism does not follow.

Like yourself? :rolleyes:

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms:
In other words, the federal government has NO BUSINESS IN THIS MATTER!

The federal government is not given the power to regulate guns so they do not lawfully have the power to make the laws they are making!

The fact that this is even a point of discussion confuses, saddens, and angers me. Our gov't has infringed on way too many of our rights and needs to be changeds

Think on this, if all or most of the people have guns, would you ever want to rob someone? And if you think that a good pistol is useless in self defense you really need to rethink that.

Hey its the constitution its just vague enough to say that the federal government can pass any laws it deams neccessary. It's called the elastic clause. Thus as long as the judicial section of the govenrment agrees that the law is constitutional they can do what they need to do. Remeber the constitution says you can have guns:) but it doesn't say that there can't be laws regulating how you buy guns.Ahh yes but there is a little problem. Having a gun doesn't mean your not going to stop everyone from comitting crimes.. If that logic actually worked than it should have stopped all crime because all cops have guns. Plus if you use a pistol on a person that is unarmed in self defense then your going to be in a lot of trouble.

Don't generalize the Constitution, it is about the worst thing you can do, it is how it has been so abused lately.

"Elastic" Clause:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I don't see anywear in the constitution where the federal government is given any power over the peoples guns. Thus the powers "vested by this Constitution" do not give the power, so it doesn't exist.

And you are right it doesn't say specifically that there can't be laws regulating guns, but it does say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
i.e. The states could make gun laws, but not the federal gov't.

I said the general public. And yes all cops do have guns, and how many crimes are commited against cops? (not very many.) Did I ever say you should use a gun in self defense against an unarmed person? Anyone trained in gun use and safety would not do that. Unless they feared for their life and were unsure of what the assailant had.

Here is what we should do. Pass the laws controlling gun acess. Then sort it out later.

um it's also sort of my point that the Constitution has been badly abused, or did you miss that?

and you think the Consitution gives the gov't the right to regulate guns?

Actually that's not my writing it's called the 10th amendment.

Woops:). Never mind your right. Of course we could always fix that with another amendment:). Of course that still doesn't stop me from saying that we should pass strict gun laws.

That's what amendments are for. And I am sure gun laws will be passed, just cause something is not supposed to be done hasn't stopped them in the past.

When the rights and safety of the many is impinged on by the rights of the individual, unfortunately that means that there will be regulation to try to create a balance between the two. When the clause in the constitution about guns was put in, it also meant that guns and there restriction then came under the control of not only the state but the federal government. Guns without regulations impinges on the rights of the many, because if certain guns were legal it would be easier for there to be mass killings. Gun laws in some cases are there for one reason, to protect the wellbeing of the user as well as of the public. While I respect your opinion that guns shouldnt be as heavily controlled I cannot agree with it.
People have the right to expect some degree of safety in their country. Regulations on the construction and creation helps insure that they are safe for the end user to use. Gun laws on who can own a gun try to keep guns out of the hands of those who have commited violent crimes before this point. You cant say that the government has a say on some parts of the constitution but not on others.