owning/having a gun is a choice, its not a necessity

I have not suggested banning guns, I am supporting gun REGULATION

because a gun in an unstable hand (whether documented or not) is more dangerous, IMHO, than them not having a gun at all because there is greater risk of harm to INNOCENT people the mroe tools of destruction are floating around....


you arent going to have fewer calories by baking more pies, thats the long and short of it

even if you want to make some of them just for decoration, the law of averages says,, the more bullets the more POTENTIAL for people to be harmed,,,

Laws effect law abiding citizens. Do criminals abide by laws msharmony? Regulation is just another word for law . . . right?

sure is

and laws with penalties deter people from doing things they may otherwise do

If I decide to kill someone, I won't be too worried about a law that says I can't use a gun to do it.

Im sure it wouldnt. Yet its nice that we try to set standards for the law abiding majority to try and uphold.

Nature granted us the right to own weapons, do Governments have the right to take away something granted by nature, without just cause?

Wow. You are interested in standards when people are dying.

You know my best friend may be alive if she was allowed by law to carry a gun without having to ask the government permission.

nature didnt grant 'rights'

rights are a man made concept to define those things they feel should be available to all merely for being human

The founding fathers would disagree with you.

its personal to you, so the debate is futile

I still believe they are too dangerous a tool to hand out indiscriminately

The way your mind works is interesting. You automatically assume that the Government has the right to decide who can or cannot own a weapon, despite the second amendment protecting our right to arms.

Its fundamental msharmony. In order for you as a person to protect yourself from another person who may be armed requires you to be prepared.

The second you allow a government to lay claim to who gets the right to defend themselves and who doesn't you have tossed away your liberty and pursuit of happiness for the concept of safety. You are not more safe, but if it makes you feel safe that is enough for you.

My best friend being murdered showed me that no one is safe. She was murdered in broad day light in a pet store. She was beat in the head with a fire extinguisher, she was raped, she had her life taken from her, and if she had been prepared she may still be alive.

This is true of ~12-20K people every year, this makes it more than personal. It makes it a fact of the environment. Ignoring these facts does not make you safer.

Yes it is a personal decision to carry a firearm, one that many people do despite the government telling them its illegal. I just regret that my friend was not one of them, she didn't want to carry a concealed gun illegally, and she kept putting off getting her permit.

So you can wishful think yourself into feeling safe, but understand that you live in a dangerous environment where violent offenders can find you in the best of neighborhoods and the police are minutes away when you have seconds to live. If you do nothing else know that is true.

I dont think there are absolute rights, just as there is a common sense element to the freedom of speech that doesnt allow people to yell fire in a crowded theater

there is common sense application to all 'rights'

our forefathers had a totally different reference point for what 'arms' were when they wrote the constitution

there is a failure to communicate here

noone is advocating for people to not have a right to own a weapon,
I advocate common sense REGULATION of weapons in our society

I am sorry for what happened to your friend, (I have been assaulted twice in my life though not to the point of dying)

had your friend been caught off guard, it would matter not what weapon she had

had she wanted a weapon, she could have gotten one if her life was the factor she was considering, going through a process would have been worth the safety,, I would i magine

in countries where guns are more restricted, often times, you find far lower numbers of gun crimes

so its not an absolute that arming more people will keep people safer,,,it just will make more bullets available to hit targets (whether the target is intentional or not)

Your right there is a failure, but its not communication, its comprehension.

There is not a regulation in existence that is not preventing someone from access to something.

When a tool is regulated what the government is saying is you are not allowed to have this tool without permission.

This is not true across the board.

The countries that have lower crime rates, had lower crime BEFORE the gun bans took place.

In every single case an armed population saw reductions in violent crime.

The examples of countries with low crime AND a gun ban had few guns before the ban, and low crime before the ban.

There is not a single example of a gun ban in a country with hi crime and large quantities of weapons reducing crime. This include regulation which just makes guns hard or expensive to get.

Gun regulation just makes protection unaffordable, or illusive. Do you really want the rich, or the determined to be the only groups with the means?

There is just no logic on the regulation side. It defies the constitution and all in the name of emotional appeals to the illusion of safety.

we will agree to disagree, both sides have their points, and there are no absolutes

there is no absolute correlation between higher gun ownership and lower gun crime anymore than there is an absoltue correlation between lower gun ownership and lower gun crime

our home has a gun, we are not rich, and we obtained it LEGALLY,,,

That is true, but what was the point of allowing people to own guns? It was for protection, right?

Doesn't that mean that our right to bear arms is a sliding scale? In other words, we have the right to own the prevailing arms of the time? What good is a single shot black powder rifle vs a Glock 9?

Do you also feel that your right to free speech should be limited to print, since the Internet, TV and Radio didn't exist when the Constitution was written? Or does the right to free speech expand to encompass new forms of media?

I will just repeat that I believe RIGHTS are to be applied with common sense and not as absolutes,,,,

so, even my right to free speech, requires common sense so that it doesnt infringe upon the rights of others,,,

a tricky balance to figure out, and not at all the simplistic issue people try to make a 'right' out to be,,,

I absolutely agree, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

But if I were to walk around town with a loaded handgun, how am I infringing on your rights? The basis for limiting my right to carry a handgun, is an assumption that I will violate your rights. What other right is preemptively infringed upon? Do I have the authority to prevent you from speaking, because you might say something to hurt my feelings? Do I have the authority to take your house or car, because you might use them to commit a crime? If not, then where does the Government get the authority to prevent law abiding citizens from being armed?

Actually, they only keep law abiding citizens from doing things. These laws with penalties have minimal affect on criminals.

A rapist will not think twice about raping you because there is a law against it. He will, however, think twice about trying to rape you if he thinks you might have a gun. Guaranteed.