I'll take first bite.

Who should be allowed to wear a gun? — Prishon

[...]a lot of problems are solved by the gun — Prishon

You've answered your own question. Pat yourself on the back and give yourself a treat.

ice — TheMadFool

I don't like icecream. Unless you come sit with me in the back. That I can treat you on one.

The gun empowers. — Prishon

Power to the people.

But to whom must we grant this shooting power? — Prishon

The U.S. does not grant this shooting power. This power is a Constitutional Right. The government is merely prohibited from infringing upon the right.

Who should be allowed to wear a gun (and use it)? — Prishon

The people.

grant — Prishon

I forgot this is an American site.

I forgot this is an American site. — Prishon

I don't know for sure, but I think every one from around the world is welcome to chime in on equal footing. I *think* (but am not sure) that there might be an English requirement. I like to hear what those from more civilized countries have to say.

P.S. Unless and until you figure out the "quote" thing, I can tell you that I will probably miss many posts you may be directing to me, or those wherein you have endeavored but failed to quote me.

this — Prishon

"Who should be allowed to wear a gun (and use it)?
— Prishon

The people."

I demand animals should be allowed too. So we can all kill each other. I have read there are 60 000 people killed each year by bullets. More than Corona has done. Corona leaves with the tail between her legs.

I demand animals should be allowed too. So we can all kill each other. I have read there are 60 000 people killed each year by bullets. More than Corona has done. Corona leaves with the tail between her legs. — Prishon

Hmm? Maybe you are right. Have more than 600,000 people been killed by guns in the same time frame that Covid has killed that number? (U.S.) If your number of 60,000 is right, then Covid has killed ten times as many people. Gun leaves with the tail between her legs.

legs — Prishon

"Hmm? Maybe you are right. Have more than 600,000 people been killed by guns in the same time frame that Covid has killed that number? (U.S.)"

60 000 per year in the US. In Holland (18 million people) about 100 each year. By whatever bullet.That would translate to 2000. Thirty times less! And why? Because guns is bussiness. One can make money with them.

It's a less massive killer but more persistent. If you look at 100 years it gives you 3 000 000 people dead. How many Corona victims are there in the US?

It's a less massive killer but more persistent. If you look at 100 years it gives you 3 000 000 people dead. How many Corona victims are there in the US? — Prishon

Okay, so the first thing you should do is admit you were wrong. Then we can ask if it's fair to compare 250 years of gun killings with 1 year of Covid. hmmmm? I think not.

Next, after totaling up all the gun dead, I like to do something you may not want to do: I deduct all the suicides, all the accidents, and all the killings of those folks what needed kilt. After all, the first two are not the gun's fault and the latter is a net positive. That leaves us with innocent victims. How many?

Regardless, that is all going down an unnecessary and irrelevant rabbit hole. The right to keep and bear arms is primarily designed to secure a free state. Not defense from criminal acts or hunting and whatnot.

It seems that a lot of problems are solved by the gun. — Prishon

I think the OP is being ironic.

Gun ownership, gun responsibility/irresponsibility, possession are all separate issues that get tangled together.

Here's my wish list - given that in the US guns are going to be a fact of life for a while - modeled after car ownership.

1) Ownership. Controlled and licensed. Successful completion of both education and training required.

1. a) National gun registry. All guns registered.

1. b) Control over types and capacities of guns. No ownership of guns inappropriate for stated purposes. Every gun owned, owned for a stated purpose.

2) Possession/carrying. Zero open carry except uniformed/authorized personnel. Concealed carry controlled and licensed, training and education required. Also, concealed weapons must not be visible or easily discernable. A weapon seen or easily detectable is on longer concealed, but is open-carry.

3) Transporting. Controlled and licensed. Education and training required. Arms being transported either locked away or disabled and taken apart.

4) Responsibility. Gun owners responsible for their guns at all times while owned, including what their guns might be used for.

5) Penalties for owners for violations. A range, depending on the violation but in all cases severe and understood to be severe, without exception. Including absolute responsibility for bullets and any damage they might do.

Some years ago a woman in the semi-rural town of Hermon, Maine was shot dead in her backyard by a hunter who claimed he thought she was a deer. That is, she was targeted and not killed by a stray shot.

"On a crisp, blustery day in 1988, Karen Wood, 37, a mother of twins, was shot to death in her backyard by Donald Rogerson, a local hunter who said he mistook her white mittens for the underside of a deer's tail." https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19901122&slug=1105518
https://newengland.com/today/living/new-england-history/karenwood/

The hunter was not indicted for anything. It's my view that being responsible for his bullet, he should have been automatically guilty of at least involuntary or negligent homicide, or worse.

Guns are serious. Too many irresponsible/incompetent clowns and cowboys have them. Let owners, as well as gum wielders, pay their part of the true cost of gun ownership in the US.

irresponsibility — tim wood

All your (well meant!) rules can be replaced by one rule: forbid the manufacturing as well as the possedion. Like drugs. Easy enough. The enforcement and maintenance of these laws can be assured with...guns! In the right hands they can serve as a means of liberations from these cowardly weaponry. If you like them and want to shoot there are vitual reality games and toy guns. If you like the real stuff, go live in the dessert with others who like it. It would get pretty crowded there I guess. But dont wear them in the middle of other people who dont like them and get paranoid because of them.

compare — James Riley

Now Im gonna do something you dont like. How many innocent people got shot? One is already to much. You might day that they are killed by the bad criminal lunatic and that thats the reason you wear them. Its indeed always a good idea to have one around... Thats how I thought some time ago. But like that the killing never stops. And you have to start with yourself. If you forbid the manufacturing it would helo. The gun seems like the American drug. And drugs are not allowed in the US. I have found that strange always. Drugs are firbidden in the US and guns are allowed. I know which one to forbid.

You might day that they are killed by the bad criminal lunatic and that thats the reason you wear them. — Prishon

Another thing I *think* we try to do here is not try and make the other person's argument for them.

Drugs are firbidden in the US and guns are allowed. — Prishon

Our founding father's didn't think drugs were a right. I suspect they didn't think drugs would help the people keep the government in check or secure a free state.

I believe everyone should have the right to carry a firearm, both to defend their lives and property and to dispose of despotism. Despots and criminals do not fear principle and moral arguments; they fear force, and the gun is the best way to deliver it.

drugs — James Riley

Ah! I think its getting more clear now to me. I didnt know about the founding fathers that they thought guns helped people keeping the goverment in check. But does that still apply today? I watched (from my cosy sofa) the happenings at the Capitol. One man was shor dead (?). They were prepared to shoot Pelosi. Is that what you mean?

criminals — NOS4A2

I think you are right to have the right to shoot despotes. But criminals? I wished they had shot that Trump guy. The Earth would be better off without him.

And you have the right to kill someone who wants to kill you. But someone breaking in in your house? Material things are no more than that. Things.Criminals wear guns too. Here in Holland no one is allowed. Neither criminals nor "normal" people. I feel a lot saver like that. You can kill someone with a knife too. But guns (and arms in general, like the Tsar Bomba) make it too easy. If I meat someone with a gun I ssy: "If you wanna shoot me, go ahead. The victory is mine"

Only killers should wear a gun. Unless it is one of those Swiss army guns that also opens cans and gets stones out of horses' hooves.

Ah! I think its getting more clear now to me. I didnt know about the founding fathers that they thought guns helped people keeping the goverment in check. But does that still apply today? I watched (from my cosy sofa) the happenings at the Capitol. One man was shor dead (?). They were prepared to shoot Pelosi. Is that what you mean? — Prishon

Yes, that is what I mean. Another example is the armed occupation of the State House in Michigan. You know why those Republicans, and the Republicans who assaulted the Capital, and Cliven Bundy's dad, et al, were not mowed down by crew-served, belt-fed automatic weapons fire, like BLM and Antifa would have been? It's not just because they were white. It's because they are armed to the teeth. That is why Ronald Reagan supported gun control in California back in the day: Blacks were arming up. Since then, the left, by and large, has forfeited their right to keep and bear arms. Thus, they must rely upon the good graces of government and people like Trump to not subjugate them. They must rely on the cops (with guns) and to protect them. They must hope the cops aren't with the fascists. The left must hope. That's all they have left. Because the fascists don't abide the rule of law.

That's not much of a victory in my mind. You're just an unarmed victim.

It is easy, and that's the point. Guns are an equalizer to might makes right. A frail old woman can instil fear into the most dangerous attacker.

Guns are an equalizer to might makes right. — NOS4A2

Lack of fear works just as well. Guns are only any good for killing and killing is only any good for instilling fear. Therefore, fear not and stay free.

House — James Riley

Huh? Ronald Reagan supported gun control? (its funny that although I dont live in the US and never have been there I still know a great deal of your country). Because it were the blacks demanding the right to wear arms?

I recently saw a great movie. Badlands with Martin Sheen and Sissy Spaceck. It is strange one sympathizes with a guy killing 10 people. But I pitied the dog that was shot by the "evil" father! He was claiming his right to live as he felt was right and killing all that came in his way felt quite Natural, to be honest.

Who should be allowed to wear a gun (and use it)? — Prishon

No one. Not even the police officers or military officials. It is so dangerous and just for carrying more weapons do not mean that you will have more security at all.

Because it were the blacks demanding the right to wear arms? — Prishon

They weren't demanding it; they were exercising it.

1mReplyOptions — James Riley

And rightly so. A pity that there was Ronald Reagan to take that away from them.

Lack of fear works just as well. — unenlightened

It works really well, under some circumstances. Like when the rule of law is still held in regard by the gun holder. If a person is afraid to use the gun because of potential legal consequences, then a person without a gun can carry the day.

Guns are only any good for killing and killing is only any good for instilling fear. — unenlightened

Guns are good for instilling fear in would-be despots.

A pity that there was Ronald Reagan to take that away from them. — Prishon

White privilege. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is sacred, except not "those people." When Ronny thought the blacks were getting uppity, he was fine with gun control.

Not even the police officers or military officials. — javi2541997

Who would enforce this? You know, if the Taliban had free range in the U.S., who is going to disarm them?

the — James Riley

Is that picture of you wearing a gun? I like that picture!

Is that picture of you wearing a gun? I like that picture! — Prishon

No, that is Robert De Niro in the movie Taxi Driver.