NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously, what's the problem with the 2nd amendment? It does nothing really. Nothing compared to that portion of the Constitution that states that American citizens have the right to vote for whomever they choose to take a position in the government.

I say that before you worry about Americans with guns, you worry about Americans that pick out members of the government.


How many people has the government killed in relation to the amount of people killed by gunshot wound in America?

Because the Europeans know that if they invade us we can kick their 'arses' all the way back across the atlantic WITHOUT using our military...
Or not :P
(IT WAS A JOKE. I know that if I dont add this, somebody is going to take that way out of proportion and start accusing me of Nazism and so forth.)

Domestic violence always takes precendence over foreign violence in the eyes of the citizens of any country. Which is perfectly reasonable when you think about it. Sure, I may not agree that isolationist policies are good, but I can understand why people would think that way.

Why people have a problem?

Jeff Cooper, who is pretty much the pope of armed self-defense, came up with the term "hoplophobia", or phobia of weapons... damn if I have not observed that many times.

I have reached the conclusion that it is not rational, it falls in the same category as fear of spiders. Yes, there is a kernel of possible danger, but their response is utterly unreasoning terror.

Arguments about statistics of crime, self-defense and accidents bounce completely off. For most people, it is a gut conviction, and you're not gonna change that with numbers.

Arguments about "what would you do if you were in a tough spot", bounce off because people cannot *really* imagine it. Usually you get some response like "I'll use my brains to get out of it without unnecessary violence". Which is a great plan A - assuming there is a plan B for when it doesn't work.

The two ways that people change their minds is if they go to the range, or after a close-up experience with violent crime. The first one works because familiarity dispells fear, because of the friendly atmosphere and good (responsible, safety-conscious, *normal*) role models, but most importantly because it gets people to think of this as something *they could do*... the gun in their imagination is not necessarily threateningly pointed at them, now there's another mental image of a gun in *their hand*. The second, and very unfortunate, way works because many people, after a traumatic situation, get mad and want to get even... somewhere between "this will not happen to me again" and "I wish some bastard would try that again so I can shoot his balls off".

An interesting insight from Rachel Lucas:

Think about it. "Having a gun would make me think about WHY I have a gun. That would make me think about the bad things that might happen to me that I would have to fight off with a gun. I don't want to think about bad things happening. Therefore I will not have a gun. And nothing bad can ever happen. And if something does, I will call 911 and the 911 fairy will come and stop it before I get hurt."

"Yes, child, but what will the 911 fairy USE to stop the bad person?"

"Don't talk about that. That's different."

These people don't really have a problem with guns per se. They would think nothing of invoking the power of a gun, as long as it's in the hand of somebody else -- the police. It isn't guns they fear, as much as it is responsibility.

Seems like a lot of second amendment debates these days. The 2nd amendment makes sense if we were all rural farmers like back in the day, and have to fight off indians. But in urban society it kind of sucks, I have had enough people try to mug me with knives/barehands and guns make the problem worse.

Still I have to agree with the gun nuts though, we are better off with them, just in case this country actually goes fascist one of these days, which I don't exactly consider a remote possibilty they would be useful to you know topple the government. Of course all the rightwingers would have all the guns which would suck.

But in urban society it kind of sucks, I have had enough people try to mug me with knives/barehands and guns make the problem worse.

No, they make it better.

If I had to fight off a couple of muggers that were armed the same as me, I would *prefer* that everyone was armed with guns. Knives would be second choice, and unarmed would be last choice by far. Why? Because if everyone had guns, they would not try anything... they don't usually have a death wish you know. Even if they did try something, I am a good shot, and the random mugger is definitely not. Advantage: me. With knives, everyone involved in a fight will almost certainly have major injuries (been there, done that). Most people would not rush cold steel though. Advantage: draw. With bare hands, it's mostly a matter of mass and numbers. Advantage: them.

Of course if guns were illegal, and as I am a law-abiding person, that creates the very unpleasant possibility of me being unarmed vs criminals with guns, which would *truly suck*. But I will probably fight anyway, with whatever is available.

I don't really have a problem with people owning guns so long as they know how use them (and how not to use them) and so long as they aren't pointing them at me. Frankly if I was in a tight spot I don't think i could kill the other person even if I had a weapon. Humans aren't actually built to kill each other, that's why the military have to train their soldiers to be able to do it, you tend to have empathy for the person your shooting at.

No, they make it better.

If I had to fight off a couple of muggers that were armed the same as me, I would *prefer* that everyone was armed with guns. Knives would be second choice, and unarmed would be last choice by far. Why? Because if everyone had guns, they would not try anything... they don't usually have a death wish you know. Even if they did try something, I am a good shot, and the random mugger is definitely not. Advantage: me. With knives, everyone involved in a fight will almost certainly have major injuries (been there, done that). Most people would not rush cold steel though. Advantage: draw. With bare hands, it's mostly a matter of mass and numbers. Advantage: them.

Of course if guns were illegal, and as I am a law-abiding person, that creates the very unpleasant possibility of me being unarmed vs criminals with guns, which would *truly suck*. But I will probably fight anyway, with whatever is available.

Yeah but the problem is you ussually can't carry guns to school or work or the mall or wherever you are going. Plus muggers ussually just want what is ever in your wallet. Call me a pussy but I'd rather just hand over the $20 or $30 than get into a full blown gun battle.

Yeah but the problem is you ussually can't carry guns to school or work or the mall or wherever you are going.

Any why the heck not?

Plus muggers ussually just want what is ever in your wallet. Call me a pussy but I'd rather just hand over the $20 or $30 than get into a full blown gun battle.

If you're willing to get into one, there wouldn't be one. It's like poker.

You probably should consider that they will probably keep right on doing that, working up the courage for worse stuff. Much better to have them be utterly terrified even of robbing you, so that they do not even consider anything worse.

Besides, you may not, but there will always be a few people (like me) who would, and that would just keep them guessing.

Yeah but the problem is you ussually can't carry guns to school or work or the mall or wherever you are going. Plus muggers ussually just want what is ever in your wallet. Call me a pussy but I'd rather just hand over the $20 or $30 than get into a full blown gun battle.

93 percent of robberies in the US are committed without a gun.

Here where I live, you can carry a gun openly, or easily get a concealed carry permit (provided you're not a felon, of course).

So I carry. It's helped me twice.

I don't have a problem with the Second Amendment, but I do have a problem with people/groups viewing it as more important than the First Amendment.