It's a trade off IMO.

The NRA is damn sure an over bloated monstrosity, but on a federal level, what other choice do you have.

Me personally I give a vastly larger amount of time and money to georgiacarry.org than the NRA, but until a national organization can come along that can think on a national political level, it's what we're stuck with.

From the Georgiapacking.org forums:

These lessons have not been grasped by any other national gun rights group that I've seen.

Would you expound on these statements?

What is absurd about the position that an armed civilian population makes for a healthier society than an unarmed civilian population?

What are the downsides that overshadow the benefits of responsible gun ownership?

click on the number next to one of the categories for how many votes it has

Should've said "always better," I'll concede that there are situations where an armed populace is the better option. I don't want to dig too deep here because basically the concepts become so broad that everyone is just speculating, but societies that outright lack weapons tend toward less violence (although there's a correlation/causation question here of course).

On the second issue, I said that there are times when the downsides outweigh the benefits, not that they always do. And - and this tactic is frequently use - you've shifted the goalposts here. The question is not about "responsible gun ownership." You've inherently eliminated the downsides by posing the question like that. The downsides include, at the absolute least, a rise in negligent homicides (I'm sticking to a very well documented one).

thx krm

Two issues here. First, responsible (legal) gun owners are the only ones affected by gun laws. Murder is a serious offense. So is much of the criminal acts you can commit with a gun. If an individual is willing to intentionally use a gun to take life, gun laws aren't going to deter them from procuring guns.

To negligent homicide, I agree firearms safety should be increased.

Be nice to teach real firearms education in the schools instead of the fear based "GUNS ARE BAD" message. We've clearly seen how well dishonest, fear based teaching works when we compare teen pregnancy statistics of areas that teach a fear based abstinence program over a true safe sex curriculum.

Yeah, I purposely put assault weapon rather than assault rifle. I didn't want a nit coming in complaining that an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle (it's not). I was going by the definition in the old federal assault weapons ban.

There aren't enough options available to give actual assault rifles their own category.

I am all for having a firearm to defend your home. Outside in the public, I don't want that.

First off, the argument that we have to equal the playing field with the "bad guys" is a terrible argument. It's not as if these "bad guys" with guns are going to be less likely to mug you if they know people are allowed to carry firearms. They will just make sure to pull their gun out quicker (before you even know what's going on). These "bad guys" will still point guns at the other "bad guys" who they know have illegal guns as well, so they won't be scared off by that.

Second, society isn't just "civilized people" and "nuts". Think about how many arguments and fist-fights break out on a daily basis in this country, especially in cities. When people get into escalated arguments, they are going off a lot of emotion not logical thought. If we allow guns outside the homes, those fists will be replaced by guns. It's incredibly naive to think the average person won't lose their temper and reach for guns quickly in the same way they gear up for a punch. You don't see many innocent bystanders victimized by a stray punch, but you see a lot hurt from stray bullets.

So basically, we'll have a lot more gun fights replacing fist-fights and in regards to dealing with the "bad guys," we'll just have more shoot-outs and innocent bystanders. It's stupid to think a criminal with a gun won't hold you up just because you have a gun. They pull their gun first, what are you going to do?

I disagree.

Looks like unarmed populations invite massive violence upon themselves. The greatest benefit that an armed civilian populace provides for its society is a check against democide and foreign invasion.

It is tragic when the lives of innocents are ended because of criminal and negligent gun owners but consider the benefits of living in an armed civilian population: discouraging democide and foreign invasion, and enabling individuals to protect their own families and property from criminals instead of relying on government agents who have no legal obligation to protect us.

I absolutely hate negligent and criminal use of firearms, but as far as I can tell, these downsides don't even come close to overshadowing the benefits of an armed civilian population. Still, it's important to actively work on reducing the effects of the criminal and negligent firearms users with expanded education on responsible firearms ownership and imo harsher penalties for negligent and criminal use of firearms.

That's nonsense. First, legal =/= responsible (negligent and reckless homicides are relevant here). Second, the presence of freely available legal guns provides channels for criminals to acquire them.

The second bolded comment can be George Zimmermanned away. There are plenty of situations where the presence of a gun, legal or not, increases the overall level of danger.

Lol @ incite upon themselves, but whatever.

This is something that is generally going to apply to destabilized areas almost exclusively. It's an argument that becomes less applicable over time. For now, let's talk about the United States in 2012, where foreign invasion is deterred by greater threats than widespread rifles, and the slaughter of the population by some sort of hardline military junta is roughly as likely as meaningful entitlement reform.

Education is almost always the best path for these sorts of situations, and putting criminal penalties on the table in situations where they are currently sparse is a good idea. One of those meets serious resistance from gun rights groups.

LOLNRALOL

Equating legal with responsible is pretty lol.

Even if all legal gunowners are responsible, the increased presence of legal guns inevitably leads to more illegal guns too.

That's irrelevant.

Show that taking my guns simultaneously strips guns from a criminal then you'll have an argument I'm interested in.

lol what?