I wish my gun sucked, it just kinda lays in the closet, hmmm.section9 wrote:
Guns suck if anything this game should teach people how stupid war is.....don't get me wrong I enjoy playing the game frustrating as it is at times but who in their right mind would want anything to do with the military or guns after playing these games?
I'm guessing you won't appreciate that I intended to go turkey hunting this thanksgiving with my M95 My friends quickly put a stop to that idea so there was no turkey hunting for me, oh well. (Not that there'd be any turkey left after a .50 cal shot).kilroy0097 wrote:
However I really do not see the need for a Hunter to go out with a heavy assault rifle to hunt deer. Is something of this killing power honestly justifiable when hunting?
I don't necessarily feel safer at home with the guns that I own (M95, USP), I just see them as weekend toys more than anything. It's a little discouraging how easy it was to aquire these two in the USA, since it seems that anyone that meets the age requirement could go and buy one. A friend convinced me to get a silencer for the usp though and that took some nice background checks, registrations, etc. so that made me feel a bit safer that not just anyone can buy one.
I feel like even if there were better laws, and even if there was more control, guns are still out there and people will still own them. If it's not guns, i'm sure criminals can find other methods to gain an advantage over their victims (knives, tasers, whips, nunchucks...), and if the intention is to kill, there are many ways to acomplish that too. So somehow I think no matter what happens, there is no solution to this problem... but hey, I have no problem being able to own them while I live in the USA.
Rifling the barrel is EASY once you see how. You think Dam thats how they used to do it. EASYBurning_Monkey wrote:
Rifleing the barrel would be a little tough. I don't have the machinery for that. But most everything else I have on hand. And the Mythbuster guys have built rockets before, prior experiance goes a long way when building stuff.freebirdpat wrote:
The Mythbuster guys made a rocket in 48 hours, I am guessing if you had the resources available on you already, you could probably make a SMG in under 24 hours.Burning_Monkey wrote:
I've never thought about it like that, but yeah, I could probably make a pretty nice SMG in a couple of days.
GUN CONTROL...I control mine and you control yours but just because you do not like them leave mine alone.
If you're allowing Michael Moore to form your views on anything, I feel very sorry for you. You want truth?MurrayP wrote:
Bowling for columbine greatly formed my views on gun control.... although i'm not done watching all of it yet, very intresting movie.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts … Screen.pdf
Everything in there is verifiable. Half the things in Moore's movies are blatant lies. He doesn't fact check; you should.
Really? I might have to look into this a little more. I've been kicking around an idea in my head for a while and wouldn't mind giving it a try.Horseman 77 wrote:
Rifling the barrel is EASY once you see how. You think Dam thats how they used to do it. EASYBurning_Monkey wrote:
Rifleing the barrel would be a little tough. I don't have the machinery for that. But most everything else I have on hand. And the Mythbuster guys have built rockets before, prior experiance goes a long way when building stuff.freebirdpat wrote:
The Mythbuster guys made a rocket in 48 hours, I am guessing if you had the resources available on you already, you could probably make a SMG in under 24 hours.
Owning a gun should be a privialage, not a right.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
http://www.a-human-right.com/Tyferra wrote:
Owning a gun should be a privialage, not a right.
Just a suggestion, read through that site and then see if you still feel the same way. I just don't get why some people feel I don't have the right to protect myself and my family.
I think that would be a better graphic if it read "But a parent can't be legally armed to protect her future." Or something along those lines.
Someone else said something similar to me about it and I eventually found out its' because he automatically assumes that a gun carrying parent would be the father. Mothers are just as likely and just as capable of protecting their children as fathers; guns are the reason.
God created men, Sam Colt made them equal.
God created men, Sam Colt made them equal.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Why do liberals think any one who has a firearm is a redneck? You get a redneck from long hard hours spent outdoors, usually working. I think most Liberal's problem is, they know their own limits, Know they couldn't handle a high stress situation, Are pissed that you can. I don't want you to be able to do or accomplish any thing they can't. They also get upset when you are having fun, which unfortunately for them is often. Viagra is the Last nail in the Liberal Democrat Coffin. Why would they want to stay Liberals or democrats any longer than they have to?
PS the Word we have for Liberal Democrats / welfare types is Rabbit people.
PS the Word we have for Liberal Democrats / welfare types is Rabbit people.
Actually Greenie, thats not entirely true. There are hevy laws in place but you can own both Pistols and rifles as long as they are not semi auto or auto. You require licences, cannot have a criminal record, and can only carry pistols under lock and key too and from a gun club. Rifles same deal, except you can also use them on properties....Greenie_Beazinie wrote:
But if guns are removed and heavily regulated then the loser wont have any access to guns. Here in Aus we cant own a gun (unless its a .22 or 2xbarrel shottie on a 200 acre+ property) and no pistols. We have a large brawling culture, and as a negative theres alot of fights and bashings - but i rarley hear of shootings.bluehavoc8686 wrote:
A noble and idealistic view, but when guns have been removed from citizens in various countries in the past, the government no longer has any restraint and if moral negligence is applied, serious problems occur. I agree that fighting with the fist is a chivalric idea, but unfortunately, the looser tends to be a bitch and go and get guns so then what do you do? Let him shoot you?Greenie_Beazinie wrote:
IRT - bluehavoc8686 .. pretty much everyone is biased on everything. There's no such thing as neautral opinions.
IRT - Topic: I don't see any need for guns.. they don't contribute to quality of life or help with much. If people want to be macho and defend themselves they should learn to fight with their fists. I don't mind sport shooting though, but I think the weapons should be under lock-down at the local firearms club.
As for bias, sure everything is bias to a certain degree as polling and statistics teaches us, but in this particular case, the facts are not fact, but rather what one man views as a realistic approach to gun control.
My parents are the VP and Secretary of the SSAA (Sporting Shooters Association of Australia) same as the NRA.
OMG FeloniousMonk how right wing are you!
I thought I was a bit of a right winger in a group of friends who are all lefties and you make me want to vomit.
I thought I was a bit of a right winger in a group of friends who are all lefties and you make me want to vomit.
By the way, what a biased site!FeloniousMonk wrote:
http://www.a-human-right.com/Tyferra wrote:
Owning a gun should be a privialage, not a right.
Just a suggestion, read through that site and then see if you still feel the same way. I just don't get why some people feel I don't have the right to protect myself and my family.
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_support.jpg
It's funny, really. On a forum devoted to firearms I'm thought of as a liberal because I refuse to support any Republican that tries to ban abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and continues the war on drugs while on more liberal forums I'm seen as a conservative because I don't like socialist programs, government overregulation, or gun control.IronGeek wrote:
OMG FeloniousMonk how right wing are you!
I thought I was a bit of a right winger in a group of friends who are all lefties and you make me want to vomit.
Basically, both sides think of me as an extremist because I'm right in the middle and all I want is to be free. Brilliant.
In saying what I said, you shouldn't simply be able to have a gun simply because you are born an American, (or other nationality which supports such legislation.)
I am all for people protecting their families, but as most people know, the statistics speak against that, (i.e: you're twice as likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.)
I'm not for security guards carrying guns to protect money either.
In New Zealand, even the Police don't carry firearms on their person. They are availiable to them, (they keep them in the cars,) but they don't wear them. As long as I can remember there has only been two incidents where people have been shot by police in my lifetime, (18 years,) one fatal, a stupid mistake by the officer involved, and one just the other day, which was not fatal. There have only been two random violent shootings, one when I was very young by a mentally instable farmer, and one last year which resulted in a death. To be honest, there have been a few fatal errors for hunters who have failed to follow one of the seven rules of firearms; they did not identify their target, and this has lead to a few accidental deaths over the years. These occurences have dropped as people are finally realising that Deer are colourblind and it dosn't matter if you wear a bright orange camoflage jearsy.
In New Zealand, owning a gun is a privilage. To own one, you have to go through a course about gun control, and earn a licence. A licence without endorcements such as mine, you are able to buy and carry, (not in public,) hunting rifles. With endorcements, you are able to buy pistols and even automatic weapons, but you have to get police endorcement and follow some very strict chriteria.
To store a gun, you keep your ammunition in a seperate place from your weapon, which if applicable, has it's bolt action removed. If a gun is to be used for self defence, use it as a hitting weapon, not as a shooting weapon. They are just as likely to protect you, if not more likely to protect you then firing at an intruder.
These rules have kept gun violence and accidents to a minimum here. I think it should be obvious to Americans that, as the highest place for gun related deaths, (outside a war zone,) their current legislation is simply not working.
I am all for people protecting their families, but as most people know, the statistics speak against that, (i.e: you're twice as likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.)
I'm not for security guards carrying guns to protect money either.
In New Zealand, even the Police don't carry firearms on their person. They are availiable to them, (they keep them in the cars,) but they don't wear them. As long as I can remember there has only been two incidents where people have been shot by police in my lifetime, (18 years,) one fatal, a stupid mistake by the officer involved, and one just the other day, which was not fatal. There have only been two random violent shootings, one when I was very young by a mentally instable farmer, and one last year which resulted in a death. To be honest, there have been a few fatal errors for hunters who have failed to follow one of the seven rules of firearms; they did not identify their target, and this has lead to a few accidental deaths over the years. These occurences have dropped as people are finally realising that Deer are colourblind and it dosn't matter if you wear a bright orange camoflage jearsy.
In New Zealand, owning a gun is a privilage. To own one, you have to go through a course about gun control, and earn a licence. A licence without endorcements such as mine, you are able to buy and carry, (not in public,) hunting rifles. With endorcements, you are able to buy pistols and even automatic weapons, but you have to get police endorcement and follow some very strict chriteria.
To store a gun, you keep your ammunition in a seperate place from your weapon, which if applicable, has it's bolt action removed. If a gun is to be used for self defence, use it as a hitting weapon, not as a shooting weapon. They are just as likely to protect you, if not more likely to protect you then firing at an intruder.
These rules have kept gun violence and accidents to a minimum here. I think it should be obvious to Americans that, as the highest place for gun related deaths, (outside a war zone,) their current legislation is simply not working.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Most certainly. It's biased because that guy believes the same thing I do; defense of one's own life and liberty as well as the lives and liberty of one's family is by far the most important thing in the world. Biased or not, would you like to dispute anything it says?IronGeek wrote:
By the way, what a biased site!FeloniousMonk wrote:
http://www.a-human-right.com/Tyferra wrote:
Owning a gun should be a privialage, not a right.
Just a suggestion, read through that site and then see if you still feel the same way. I just don't get why some people feel I don't have the right to protect myself and my family.
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_support.jpg
Last edited by FeloniousMonk (2005-12-01 21:52:30)
Michael Moore is the biggest fucking douchebag in the worldMurrayP wrote:
Bowling for columbine greatly formed my views on gun control.... although i'm not done watching all of it yet, very intresting movie.
fucking thank youFeloniousMonk wrote:
If you're allowing Michael Moore to form your views on anything, I feel very sorry for you. You want truth?MurrayP wrote:
Bowling for columbine greatly formed my views on gun control.... although i'm not done watching all of it yet, very intresting movie.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts … Screen.pdf
Everything in there is verifiable. Half the things in Moore's movies are blatant lies. He doesn't fact check; you should.
Again you fail to note that a large number of those gun related deaths are the deaths of criminals. You're right, current legislation is not working; the areas in our country that have the strictest gun laws are the ones with the highest crime rates. Vermont requires no licence to carry a concealed weapon and it's one of the safest states in the nation. Washington D.C. is a city where any and all private gun ownership is outlawed and it has one of the highest murder rates in the country. Florida relaxed many restrictions in the past few years in terms of gun control and crime went down.Tyferra wrote:
These rules have kept gun violence and accidents to a minimum here. I think it should be obvious to Americans that, as the highest place for gun related deaths, (outside a war zone,) their current legislation is simply not working.
You're absolutely right, current legislation does not work. Current legislation is keeping people from being able to defend themselves and prevent crimes. Do you realize that for roughly every 2000 Americans there's only one on duty police officer? Excuse me if I feel more comfortable knowing that if someone breaks into my home I have a better chance of protecting my family than if I wait fifteen minutes for the police to arrive.
Besides, ours is a nation born from sacrifice in a revolution. Protecting one's liberty is equally as important as protecting one's life. I watched the ABC special about Pope John Paul's life today and during the scenes showing Poland being invaded by the Germans I wondered how different things might have been had the people of those toppled nations been armed.
wat the fuck is your problem? wars have been fought and men have died for their country for centuries and centuries, my brother is in afghanistan and hes proud of wat he does. war is an artform and a privelage to serve ur country. if i had the choice to go to afghanistan or iraq i would take it and hopefully i will when i join the Army in a year. i hope u rethink ur ideas on war and support our troops or i hope someone fucking lays u out in the streetsection9 wrote:
Guns suck if anything this game should teach people how stupid war is.....don't get me wrong I enjoy playing the game frustrating as it is at times but who in their right mind would want anything to do with the military or guns after playing these games?
Last edited by shspunkrockr (2005-12-01 22:34:17)
FeloniousMonk:
More deaths my friend. If Poland had means to defend itself, the German army would of had more of a reason to shoot back. More deaths on both sides, as the German army would have won, and the Holocaust in Poland still would have taken place.
Which is kind of how it is in America. People can defend themselves, which gives those who wish to hurt them, more reason to shoot and kill people. People shooting both ways means people are killed on both sides.
Consider this: If an armed offender walked into my house and decided to steal my things, and I have a gun. By your definition, I will defend myself by shooting this person, thus protecting myself, my family and my posessions. He is dead, or badly injured, nevertheless, no longer a threat.
Or, as I go for, or pull out a gun, the offender gets the better of me, and shoots, either injuring/killing me or one of my family. He then gets away with what he had come for in the first place.
Consider the alternative: The offender sticks me and my family at gunpoint so he can steal my things. No incident, he gets away with some of my material posessions. No-one is hurt so far. He has had no reason to hurt me. Posessions are posessions, and are not all important.
Have you noticed that in this way no-one has gotten hurt, nether me, my family, nor the offender, who may not have even had any ammunition for his weapon?
Maybe he was there, not to steal, but commit murder? Highly unlikely. What good would shooting unarmed victims do him? He wasn't threatned by them, the only outsome is that a person is dead and he is in a shit-load of... well, shit.
Only a very, very few people barge in simply for the sick pleasure of wanting to hurt someone. So few that I'm starting to believe this only happens on the silver screen. They want items, they want money, but hurting someone is never an option because it does not help the offender one bit. Only unless the attacker feels threatned does he hurt anyone, and his victim having a weapon is the only way he feels threatned.
I finish by saying that I agree whole-heartedly about your definition of Michael Moore, but don't blame him. He is only after all, and by his own definition, a Stupid White Man.
More deaths my friend. If Poland had means to defend itself, the German army would of had more of a reason to shoot back. More deaths on both sides, as the German army would have won, and the Holocaust in Poland still would have taken place.
Which is kind of how it is in America. People can defend themselves, which gives those who wish to hurt them, more reason to shoot and kill people. People shooting both ways means people are killed on both sides.
Consider this: If an armed offender walked into my house and decided to steal my things, and I have a gun. By your definition, I will defend myself by shooting this person, thus protecting myself, my family and my posessions. He is dead, or badly injured, nevertheless, no longer a threat.
Or, as I go for, or pull out a gun, the offender gets the better of me, and shoots, either injuring/killing me or one of my family. He then gets away with what he had come for in the first place.
Consider the alternative: The offender sticks me and my family at gunpoint so he can steal my things. No incident, he gets away with some of my material posessions. No-one is hurt so far. He has had no reason to hurt me. Posessions are posessions, and are not all important.
Have you noticed that in this way no-one has gotten hurt, nether me, my family, nor the offender, who may not have even had any ammunition for his weapon?
Maybe he was there, not to steal, but commit murder? Highly unlikely. What good would shooting unarmed victims do him? He wasn't threatned by them, the only outsome is that a person is dead and he is in a shit-load of... well, shit.
Only a very, very few people barge in simply for the sick pleasure of wanting to hurt someone. So few that I'm starting to believe this only happens on the silver screen. They want items, they want money, but hurting someone is never an option because it does not help the offender one bit. Only unless the attacker feels threatned does he hurt anyone, and his victim having a weapon is the only way he feels threatned.
I finish by saying that I agree whole-heartedly about your definition of Michael Moore, but don't blame him. He is only after all, and by his own definition, a Stupid White Man.
Last edited by Tyferra (2005-12-01 22:32:51)
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Hmm... maybe your right and American's are just violent assholes...FeloniousMonk wrote:
Again you fail to note that a large number of those gun related deaths are the deaths of criminals...Tyferra wrote:
These rules have kept gun violence and accidents to a minimum here. I think it should be obvious to Americans that, as the highest place for gun related deaths, (outside a war zone,) their current legislation is simply not working.
J/K
I know a lot of Americans and they're good mates to me, also you Americans on here arn't bad. I just enjoy debating with you.
Edit: Just going back to that poster you put on FeloniousMonk, I find the tagline interesting: Save lives. Kill before they can kill/hurt you. It dosn't save a life as such, just protects the one that matters.
I find the image of mothers picking their kids up from kindergarten while sporting Assault Rifles in their handbags, chatting to their friends, ("Oh that's a lovely colt, (coat... geddit?) where did you find it?,) funny... is that wrong?
...This is irrelevent to my previous argument. Just a side-note.
Last edited by Tyferra (2005-12-02 00:44:28)
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Those who favor greater restrictions on firearm ownership and availability believe all, or some subset of:
* There is no fundamental right to own firearms
* Gun control legislation will reduce violent crime
* Guns are more dangerous to the owners than to intended targets because most gun related deaths are a result of domestic violence, accidents, and suicides
* Guns are of little use as self defense for the typical owner because in incidents where a hostile encounter with an armed criminal occurs, the criminal is usually more experienced and skilled with his/her weapon, also criminals may act in groups
* Even against unarmed criminals, the presence of a gun serves more often to escalate the likelihood and/or severity of violence
* Citizens have no need to own guns to protect themselves against crime because government is tasked with that obligation
* Citizens of First World countries today have no need to protect themselves against their governments if they are vigilant and confront government wrongdoing before violence is necessary, or that even if such a need should arise, it would be hopeless to take up individual small arms against the modern military technology that a government could bring to bear.
* Guns, being devices implicitly designed to kill, raise the level of violence in any disagreement between people. Can kill becomes the highest level of arbitration in conflicts
Those who favor maintaining or extending the private ownership of firearms believe all, or some subset of:
* Owning firearms is a fundamental right
* Government should not be empowered to interfere with an individual's right to own firearms as long as the individual is not harming or intimidating fellow citizens
* Guns in the hands of the law-abiding populace decrease crime
* Citizens have a right to self-protection
* An armed populace decreases the overall risk of violent crime; widespread ownership by the law-abiding is a deterrent to criminal intent
* Law-abiding citizens have a responsibility to provide their own protection because governments cannot be held civilly or criminally responsible for failing to provide such protection
* Carrying a firearm makes one more safe, not less safe; for the same reason that police forces carry firearms, criminals do not expect an armed victim.
* An armed populace is a deterrent to excesses of government; the threat of violent revolution by the people keeps government's power in check
* Existing gun control laws are sufficient if only government would enforce them
That is from Wikipedia. Personally I think that anyone that uses a gun in a criminal behavior should get life in prison. Sadly the justice system, and frankly the society we live in is quite flawed so that we have to put limits on things for the bleeding hearts.
* There is no fundamental right to own firearms
* Gun control legislation will reduce violent crime
* Guns are more dangerous to the owners than to intended targets because most gun related deaths are a result of domestic violence, accidents, and suicides
* Guns are of little use as self defense for the typical owner because in incidents where a hostile encounter with an armed criminal occurs, the criminal is usually more experienced and skilled with his/her weapon, also criminals may act in groups
* Even against unarmed criminals, the presence of a gun serves more often to escalate the likelihood and/or severity of violence
* Citizens have no need to own guns to protect themselves against crime because government is tasked with that obligation
* Citizens of First World countries today have no need to protect themselves against their governments if they are vigilant and confront government wrongdoing before violence is necessary, or that even if such a need should arise, it would be hopeless to take up individual small arms against the modern military technology that a government could bring to bear.
* Guns, being devices implicitly designed to kill, raise the level of violence in any disagreement between people. Can kill becomes the highest level of arbitration in conflicts
Those who favor maintaining or extending the private ownership of firearms believe all, or some subset of:
* Owning firearms is a fundamental right
* Government should not be empowered to interfere with an individual's right to own firearms as long as the individual is not harming or intimidating fellow citizens
* Guns in the hands of the law-abiding populace decrease crime
* Citizens have a right to self-protection
* An armed populace decreases the overall risk of violent crime; widespread ownership by the law-abiding is a deterrent to criminal intent
* Law-abiding citizens have a responsibility to provide their own protection because governments cannot be held civilly or criminally responsible for failing to provide such protection
* Carrying a firearm makes one more safe, not less safe; for the same reason that police forces carry firearms, criminals do not expect an armed victim.
* An armed populace is a deterrent to excesses of government; the threat of violent revolution by the people keeps government's power in check
* Existing gun control laws are sufficient if only government would enforce them
That is from Wikipedia. Personally I think that anyone that uses a gun in a criminal behavior should get life in prison. Sadly the justice system, and frankly the society we live in is quite flawed so that we have to put limits on things for the bleeding hearts.