Guns - Debate and Education

Extra stuff 1. It's true that the 2nd amend does not guarantee access to gun ownership but there is also a grey area do to a few papers you sign after turning 18. If you sign the Selective Service paper then you are auto put into a militia of the people. You are now part of a militia and the draft or Selective Service is clear that you have been entered in. So in a way you could argue that you are part of a militia you have excess to any weapon a militia could have. 2. Shotguns and handguns have trouble getting passed armor form lvl 3-4 and there is no shotgun slug or handgun that can get passed a good set of lvl 4 armor so you need a fast round and an assault rifle can get passed the armor but not over penetrate. If the person does not have armor then it will pass but have a high chance of damaging but not killing the person as long as you only pop them 3 times or so. With a shotgun it can do to much damage and kill them with on shot. 3. High mags mean nothing a guy that wants to kill a lot of people will just carry a lot more rounds with pre filled mags. 4. Suicide is ok with me as living can be worse to these people and they will just kill them selves slowly if you take there gun away. It also increases the chances of them hurting others like suicide via police or burning there apt down. Now how I feel about it well we are way less violent now then ever and nothing we do will end gun violence it will always be to high even if it's one death a year. I fear a day where humans lose there teeth and become to peaceful. We need to understand that there is a happy medium and that you can't have your cake and eat it to. We will find new weapons and new ways to abuse them and that will lead to death but also great innovation that in the end will save more. Maybe one day in the future where we are all hive mind or have taken all of space we will have no need for weapons but I really really don't think that will happen. Now education problems are all becasue people are paying for it. If you just don't go or if everyone stops getting grants and paying for school then the price will drop and it will be cheap. Eco 101

2nd Amendment only covers muskets = 1st Amendment only covers things printed on a printing press and things that are hand written

The funny thing is assault rifles and high mags aren't even that big of a deal. In almost every state it's legal to own a long barrel rifle and that means a bolt action 50 cal that can go past light car armor and lvl 4 armor. And the only restricted ammo type is explosive but most would use AP or IN rounds. Anyone with basic welding or mil training can make home made thermal bombs or pipe bombs. Now this kind of thing would require dedication to pull off but if you restrict one low level method people will put more energy into the more damaging methods like large guns and explosives to compensate.

I haven't been as active around here at all let alone this forum but my views on this issue and my love for the shooting range go on! I'm glad that others around here agree or have similar views. I still would not be opposed to dissent (as long as its solid dissent and doesn't fall into the same fallacies of most anti-gun rights "advocates")

I'm going to post an essay (a piece of writing I did not author myself and will give credit to who it seems to be is the author) that pretty well aligns with my view on why carrying guns is a good thing and should be encouraged. While I do not 100% agree with every little thing (In my opinion it is a liiiiiiittlleee just a little too black and white) but the premise is so on point In case it is a bit tl'dr just read the last paragraph it is a great summary and good for a "quick take". ----------- "Why the gun is civilization" - Marko Kloos Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act. ------- For the intents and purposes of this writing I interpret reason to encompass anything that one would do to persuade another without force or malicious/harmful pressure and force to mean the obvious plus other serious threats that may not necessarily have direct harm on the person the threat is made against. A little black and white but I generally agree that in order to impact another's actions we either use force or reason (that just about anything could arguably fit into one of these two categories but I am open to a third option - that isn't pure neutrality).

As much as I love reading long texts and quotes from ex-soldier and now washed up Sci-Fi author who equal guns with civilization- I have to disagree there with you Napalm-kun. Well let´s not say disagree completely but the whole topic is wanky in its roots. Furthermore the quote is giving me just two options to see the world black and white. Force or persuade. Since the world is not a Mass Effect game (not saying that it isn´t an awesome game series just to get back to the sci-fi aspect of the quote). It´s in my opinion an odd and one-sided view of the world or a country. The whole quote just opens up to me a range of questions and seeing just 2 opportunities in general is a bit unrealistic. Don´t you think?

That is why I firmly believe in Open-Carry, a gun should be a Deterrent before being required to perform any other function. The idea of having a strong method of Defense on your side whenever you feel you are in danger allows you to both defend yourself and help others from ever being a Victim. The use of force should always be a last measure but when it does occur it should be done with as great effect as possible. Yes the world is not a Video Game, people treating it as such gives all Firearm owners a bad name and Rep. That is why background checks are also needed. The issue we currently face is that background checks are a long and overly-complicated process without a real standard approach.