continued question with firearm banning.?

Question

i just asked a question about whether firearms like handguns should be banned or not. i got some answers, and now i have some new questions.

1. the right to bear arms: 2000 and 1700 are two different time periods, why do people still believe "with guns we the people can stand up to the government" cr%p?

2. many of the answers say "guns protect people, if someone broke into ur house or rubbs u on the street, with a gun u can protect urself." my question is: first, isn't there a law stating u can use a gun to defend urself only if the other person has opened fire first? also, how can guns protect u in public places such as schools? lets vote, how many people has carried a gun to school? any school!

3. one of the answer talked about history. may i ask, does anyone know the difference between history and reality?

oh, by the way, Japan didn't invade US in WWII not because american citizens have guns, but because Japan was busy invading China and Southern Asia.

u haven't even answer my questions... i really don't care about gun control, because i know US will not even bother with it. i think firearms should be banned in the very beginning. right now i am just trying to kill time.

seriously, answers like "we have the right to bear arm", "if i have a gun, i can protect myself" are just foolish.

the only answer to "should firearms be banned" is "no, because it just won't happen."

have a look here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
see which nations have the highest rate of firearm related death, the nations with firearms banned or not banned?

oh, the second answer, great logic!!! u r a police officer, then tell me, am i allowed to carry a gun to a school? (im not a police officer)
what should i do if some kid had a gun and is pointing it at me? should i bluff him/her "I have a gun, don't shoot, or i can shoot back"?

unless every single american(over the age of 5) are carrying guns and walking around, or the arguement "guns protect me from other crazy people" will not work.

old fuzz, thanks for replying
1. a couple of the answer did state "guns will help people to overthrough the government if it goes bad." i was targeting them, not the amendment itself.
2. im not a law expert, u r right. however, about ur vt example. u r only right when "most of the students know their ways around a gun, can aim and shoot." but REALITY is not like that, is it? many people will freak when a gun is pointing at their head, their anxiety level goes way high, and they cannot think clearly. (when they can't think clearly, haveing a gun doesn't mean anything.)

3. sorry, i was targeting at one of the answers.

however, suppose, during wwii, USA and China switch location, would u think Japan would not attack? seriously, they didn't invade US first is not they think all american have guns, but they were strong enough to invade US.
3.
let me ask this, what would u feel, if all of ur grandson's school mates are carrying guns around?

skullhead bob , please check the websites i have listed, and do a comparison between countries w/ guns banned and countries without guns banned in terms of death rate and crime rate.

then make ur statements.

BikerChi... read my first addition details, then rethink what u have said. this time, make sure don't get too emotional and be sure to think clearly.

oh, and banning gun is not the same as not letting police officers carry firearms.

i am just making an arguement, i know banning gun in US is unpractical.

rec4lms, the school rifle team is different from students carry guns in school. what would u do, if someone is pointing ur head with a gun, r u going to get a rifle from ur rifle club, or from ur car? hunting rifles i am not too concerned with, is the handguns.

u seems to know how to hunt, then please tell me, which one is better to hunt with, a rifle or a handgun?

lets say it this way, there are two ways to fix US's gun crime problem.

way1, ban the damn guns, use extremely hash punishment to those who don't comply, and use extremely hash punishment to those who hurt others with a firearm. use death penalty if needed.

way2, make sure to teach the majority of people how to use a gun, and FORCE them to carry one everywhere, including schools.

see, both ways won't work...so the reality stays the same.

but heres something to think about. how about ban some of the really powerful hand guns? and let the people keep rifles (not semiautomatics) that can only fire maybe one or two shots before reloading.

Answer 1

You have several facets to your argument. Your first point states that 1700 and 2000 are different. But, how does that argument fare when applied to other amendments? Even now there are people who complain that the media only presents biased news reports and should be controlled to prevent this. They state that at one time the media was censored by the US administration, and this should be done again. But what is bias? For most people, they define it as hearing something other than what they agree with. And about standing up to the government? It is the same concept as the war in Iraq. Combat changes every few decades. In the 1830's, it was Napoleonic warfare where everyone lined up shoulder to shoulder and fired in volleys. In the 1860's, the introduction of the Mine' ball and the rifled musket allowed long guns to be loaded quickly (like a musket) and be very accurate (like a rifle). This created the beginnings of trench warfare and the tactics developed could be seen in WWI. WWII showed the development of armored warfare and moble combat. Today the model is gurilla (sp?) warfare. The US has actually taken very few losses, compared both to either the enemy or to previous conflicts. But the tactics are shocking to the US presence of mind. I could compare it to a boxer who beat the opponent into a bloody pulp, but will run away and loose the round because the opponent says boo.

Now, about guns on school property. At one time, many schools hosted JROTC's and firearms competitions. Many of the JROTC's had WWII rifles and they actually practiced with them. Same with the shooting sports. Today, the JROTC doesn't even require their students to run if they don't want to. Very few schools support shooting sports. However, during hunting season a lot of students will still bring their firearms on to school property. It will be stored in their vehicle so that they can go hunting right after school ends.

The difference between history and reality? OK, the other points were good, but this is just whiny. Yes, we learn from the past. Yes, just because we did something one way at one time doesn't mean it is always the best way. And paradigms can change. (We saw this with the airlines on 9/11: Airliners were instructed to cooperate with hostage takers so that they could get out of the situation safely. No more.)

Answer 2

1. The framers weren't talking so much about citizens protecting themselves from their own government as much as they were referring to the citizens forming militias to defend against criminals and outside invaders.

2, There is no law requiring that the bad guy get the first shot at you. Many states have passed laws incorporating the "Castle Doctrine". This law presumes that an intruder into your home presents a life threatening danger to you and allows deadly force to be used without criminal or civil repercussions.

As to those businesses and schools and some government buildings that do not allow concealed carry into the structure, it is short sighted nonsense. The Virginia Tech shooting is a classic example. The State has a concealed carry law but the short sighted liberals that run the school banned guns anyway. If one of those victims had had a gun the rampage might have stopped far short of 30 plus victims. Of course the liberals who made the original decision are not about to admit that their short sighted cowardice is responsible for the high body count.
I carry my gun everywhere. That includes the school when I pick up my Grand kids, my church on Sunday, and my prissy bank with the sign "gun free zone".

3. If you stay informed, do your research, and don't buy off on simplistic solutions; reality is easy. . .

Japan's decision not to invade the U.S. was made because Japan did not have the simple logistics to pull it off. They were also under the somewhat false notion that every American had a rifle tucked in their closet. China and Asia were simply closer and eaiser targets.

Answer 3

Once again you really should know something about what you are talking about before mounting an argument.

There is no law that says I have to let someone shoot at me before I shoot them. That would be crazy. The requirement is that I must have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. For example if an axe wielding lunatic announces that he is going to cut my head off and he begins to advance on me, I may shoot him.

I know the difference between history and reality. Japan invade the US (with guns....and bombs). They bombed Pearl Harbor, invaded Guam (a US territory), invaded Alaska, , invaded Wake (another US territory), and shelled the US west coast.

As for guns and the government.......I love my country but fear a government that is afraid of me owning guns.

Answer 4

the simple truth is banning guns does nothing but hurt people. i have guns in my house for hunting and home defence and have obtained them legally. if the government bans guns then that means people cannot buy them legally. that means criminals will buy guns ilegally and have the upper hand on the honest, law abiding citizens. thats the thing with criminals, they dont care about the law and will not care that guns are banned. what if someone with a gun breaks into your house and you are not allowed to own a gun? are you going to ask him to hold off on shooting you in the gut and raping your wife/daughter until you can call the cops (the only ones that will be allowed to have guns) and then ask him to wait till they get there so that way its fair? do you think the criminal would be polite enough to listen to your request? now on the other hand if you have a gun...... you are asleep. you wake up to a noise in your house. you get out of bed and get your gun. you go into the living room where you heard the noises. WHOA! ITS SOME GUY IN A SKI MASK WITH A GUN!!!!!! BOOM, BOOM, BOOM!!!!!! good job! you have successfully protected your family and now there is one less piece of crap in the streets terrorizing your city. do you see now why banning guns would be totally stupid.

Answer 5

Using your logic, maybe we should ban your free speech too, since it is no longer relevant in 2007. Your premise that you must be fired upon first is wrong, you must show a fear for your life or safety, depending on state. History has shown that an armed person is less likely to become a victim of a crime. And to answer your question, i carry my gun everywhere, even in schools.

Answer 6

WELL, since you think you have all the answers (which you do not - you are just close minded and WAY too emotional to think clearly), WHY are you even bothering to ASK anyone for their opinions??? CAN ANYTHING ANY OF US SAY SHAKE YOUR CONVICTIONS??

NO - so tell me, are you in favor of banning alcohol too? How would our armed forces fight wars? How would a cop protect himself from violent nut cases? WHO is going to go house to house and confiscate every-ones guns? HOW are you going to PAY for that? Are you going to increase the punishment for anyone who uses a gun in a crime? HOW are you going to FIND the guns that get hidden? WHERE are you going to put all the people who REFUSE to give up their guns? ARE you AWARE that MAJORITY have guns and will FIGHT to keep them?

Answer 7

you are one of those liberal ideologues that live in a fantasy world....I am a cop..I see the presence of firearms preventing violent crime almost every day....it happens..get over it...if you do not believe what happens when firearms are banned look at1.England2.Australia3.Canada..their people are at the mercy of the bigger,stronger thugs...no you do NOT have to wait until the other guys fires first..only until he threatens you...its called the "reasonable Man defense"...would a reasonable person have felt threatened in this situation?...."God Made Man..Col Colt Made Them Equal"..its the only hope a frail person ahs of defending their home and life against a thug with a baseball bat....and its legal whether you like it or not...get over it and move on...guns are here to stay...

Answer 8

I'll keep my Gun. You can keep your oppinion.
Sounds fair to me.
to your point on history Japan did invade the US the alution islands Alaska. Kiska island
so much for your reality Vs. History.