i don't know, to me, owning a gun or guns doesn't scream freedom to me. my friend on facebook recently posted a "someone go to the shooting range with me" others responded, why do you need someone to go, his response, "it's the policy, so people don't kill themselves" i found that extremely laughable because how would 2 people make a different if one had a gun.

also, regarding illogical thinkings, Ad Populum aka the fallacy Appeal to Popularity

example -

1 - Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2 - Therefore X is true.

and just because other countries are more lenient by stating the facts something like "everyone over at xxx countries has a gun" does not make a logical reason that to own a gun is a good or even a right choice.

Owning a gun doesn't scream freedom, you're right. But a government founded on principles of freedom, which at its founding established a freedom to own firearms, trying to pass laws to disarm its citizens, screams the opposite.

I've been to lots of shooting ranges around the country, and I've never heard of a two person rule. People go to gun ranges solo regularly, myself included. Deaths at gun ranges are insanely rare.

Don't even get me started on logical fallacies :)

You're right that popularity doesn't make something logically correct. I don't see where this has been used on either side of the argument so far in this thread, though.

if i'm mistaken, looks like the majority of the people in this thread believe owning a gun is correct and/or right. which is why i had to bring that up. also because i believe everyone's opinion is somewhat biased no matter who you are, including myself and my own points and views.

and in regards to the shooting rule, my buddy is in Irvine, CA but i didn't ask which shooting range.

but i really like this arguement, no flames, just real people talking real opinions.

Very fair answers, and I didn't intend to sound hostel, just with no Z and 500 posts almost all in the lounge, you have to admit it sounds like someone trolling. Just because you don't have yours yet, doesn't mean you have to avoid the other areas of the website.

John

Well, I think it's true we have more pro- than anti- gun posters in this thread. But again, that shouldn't be a deciding factor in anything.

And of course, everyone is biased. The idea of "unbiased opinions" is hogwash. There's such a thing as unbiased evidence, but never unbiased interpretation of that evidence.

Well, California is somewhere I've never fired a gun. I don't even take my guns on trips to California, the laws there are too strict. More than half of the weapons I legally own here in TX are flat-out illegal to possess there. I'm really hoping the recent Heller decision by the supreme court will eventually lead these gun-restricted parts of the country to finally slacken their gun laws back down to something reasonable. There are still lots of follow-on and appeals cases to go through in the wake of Heller before it really starts having big effects though.

Prior to the Heller case, while the historical evidence on the meaning of the second ammendment (such as the other writings of its authors, the federalist papers, etc) was pretty clear, there was a lot of debate in this country about the meaning of the second ammendment. The anti-gun lobby was playing semantics games and trying to say that it only applied to the military due to the phrase "well-regulated militia". In the Heller decision, the US Supreme Court finally (for the first time in history) gave a direct answer to that question, and settled the matter legally. The second ammendment does in fact protect individual gun ownership.

More info here: District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ohhh nice find. plus rep for this.

Most of the points in that paper are defending common-sense gun legislation, which is a component of the also uncommonly restrictive gun laws that currently exist in DC. The purpose of the ammendment is to force DC's hand in rewriting the law to be fair and in line with the laws of most states. For example: Nobody seriously wants people with criminal records to be able purchase a firearm for instance, on either side of the debate. That just happens to be a component of the bad law, and both sides would want it to continue to be a component of a rewritten law.

The part of the law they're trying to undo by forcing a rewrite is that currently, DC residents can't own handguns at all (well, technically they can, but they have to apply for a permit from the chief of police, who never grants it unless you're someone very very special). DC residents *can* own simple shotguns and long rifles under some very restrictive circumstances, one of which was (before Heller struck it down) that the gun had to be stored disassembled and locked up, preventing any chance of defensive use.

Given that in a rewritten and NRA-approved version of the law, most of the measures being highlighted in that paper would still be part of the law, there's not much to debate. Many other states have most of these basic restrictions in place re: criminal records, registration of guns, importation controls, etc. For that matter most of these matters are also regulated by federal law anyways.

The only point they raise that gun-rights advocates would want to see dropped is the first one, regarding "high capacity ammunition magazines" and "assault weapons". There was a federal assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004. It had no effect on crime and was allowed to sunset. Basically, virtually none of the gun deaths in the US, statistically speaking, are caused by assault rifles. The few that are, are invariably caused by unregistered assault weapons which are owned by criminals who aren't allowed, by federal law, to even buy a simple handgun or bolt-action hunting rifle (and another law or ban does nothing to stop these people).

Assault weapon bans remove rights from the law-abiding citizens while having no effect on crime. Further, assault rifles are effective defense tools. Every deputy in my local sheriff's department carries an AR-15 in their trunk. There's a reason they do that: it's a very effective tool in some situations, even for the good guys. Going back to my point about police response times: if it's effective for them, it's effective for us too.

[QUOTE=arcticreaver;61195]and in regards to the shooting rule, my buddy is in Irvine, CA but i didn't ask which shooting range.QUOTE]

I live in southern california and have been to outdoor ranges on multiple occasions and there is no two-man rule whatsoever. I honestly cant speak for indoor firing ranges though.

Hey Chubbs, out of curiosity, what are the gun rules across the pond?

I don't have overly strong opinions on guns, but I'll throw my .02 in anyway.
When you wanted to drive, you had to prove competency, i.e. a road test. Why? Because you could kill someone.
However, you can just go buy a gun. I believe to purchase a gun, you should have take both a knowledge test, and a physical test to show competency and gain a license. And I'm not talking about concealed weapons permits, I mean buying a gun at all.

It's a fair point to make, for sure. It's much easier to get reasonably-minded regulation passed, than to outright ban things.

Personally, I'm not in favor of regulation of this sort, mostly on the grounds that it's a slippery slope that leads to suppression of gun ownership down the line. In theory, if I could trust a government to enact reasonable regulation and stick to it, there would be no problem. However, there are many examples in history where gun regulation started out soft and got progressively harder until the entire population was effectively disarmed. That's usually right about the time a crazy dictator took over and enslaved everyone, or worse.

Ask a holocaust survivor someday how they feel about gun regulation, bans, and rights.

Edit: to complete that point, here's a direct quote from Hitler:

I do! As long as they didn't use a gun in a crime! Or beat someone to death, or knifed someone! People like Wesley Snipes, Martha Stewart, they served time. According to law, they can not own, nor posses a firearm. I do not think that is right. They were imprisoned for tax evasion, and miss handling stocks, not robing a bank with a gun! Do you see where I'm going with this?
I do not believe in dis-arming a man/woman! Give a person a chance to protect and defend them selves and their loved ones!

Well, the current federal law only draws the distinction at the felony line. Felony record = no guns. They don't care what type of crime it was. However, individual felons can petition to regain their gun rights, and sometimes do. It would be nice if the law were more specific (violent felonies).

California you have to take a test, no pass the test, no buy the gun!