Should Citizens be Allowed to Own and Use Guns?

[Muhti]

Alright hopefully this question won't get flamed

So, after hearing the news of people always being shot, it questioned me: Should citizens be allowed to use guns?

Whats bad about it?

Usually every time you flick onto the news channel and probably hear of a death report, let's say, receiving a bullet in their body. Now if the government would to turn around before that death and say, "give us your arms [weapons]". Now obviously they can't do that because of Amendment 2:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Now you've heard of Trayvon Martin, (hopefully ) and George Zimmerman. Now if this didn't happen, would Treyvon and his family be in shambles? Now you might be telling me George was a officer, but he wasn't, he was a neighborhood watchman. Now there are more examples I could touch base on, but there are MANY of them. (Shooting by Empire State Building, etc.)

Whats good about it?

Lets say there is a burglary in your house in the middle of the night, what do you pick up? Either

A. A hard object
B. a knife
or C. A gun

Now that's self-defense. If you were caught in a bad situation face-to-face with a maruader , yeah, why not use it? But those chances are very slim, what else could you use it for that's good? Hunting animals. Simple, but that's basically it.

1. Hunting
2. Self-Defense.

How does the government feel about it?

Well back in the 1770's - 1800's they approved it (otherwise it wouldn't be in the Bill of Rights)

But today's government?

Obama doesn't approve of it

[COLLAPSE="Proof"]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...sident-obama-says-hell-do-to-your-gun-rights/

[/COLLAPSE]


So that's all I have to say:

Debate!

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Are you saying that all guns should be banned? Phased out? Or that some guns should be banned? I'm going to assume that you're saying that guns should be banned.

I think that guns have uses, I mean let's say you're a game-hunter or a farmer or something like that. Surely, these folks have a legitimate reason to own a firearm. And it's not like every gun will cause a shooting, so if some people have innocent uses for firearms, then it's okay right?

What about explosives and the chemicals that you can make them from? I'm pretty sure you can synthesise bombs from chemicals that you can easily purchase. In fact, in the Oklahoma city Bombing, one of the main ingredients that the terrorists used was ammonium nitrate fertiliser, which I can buy at my local hardware store. Should Ammonium Nitrate be banned because it can kill people?

You've also said that Obama doesn't like it, which is an appeal to authority. Which is irrelevant.

 

[Claire Diviner]

One has to remember that a lot of the time, murders involving guns usually involve illegally owned firearms. Yes, there are murders involving people using legally owned ones, but one also has to understand that the U.S. isn't the only country where gun-related murders occur. I may not want a gun myself, but I can fully understand the reason of owning a gun, and yes, self-defense and hunting are legitimate reasons. All that said, if they want to ban, say, an Uzi, then I could see why, but as far as handguns or rifles go, why revoke that right because of the reckless choices certain individuals choose to do with firearms that they have no lisence to weild? If one bans guns, it's not like it will stop people from being in possession of it, and frankly speaking, it can be a blow to the economy, seeing as firearms are a legitimate business in the country.

 

[Battlecow]

I think that the second amendment captures a beautiful idea, and one that's very much a central part of the american lifestyle (even if it's usually bundled up with other stupid **** and dismissed as "'murica" stuff or whatever). The founding fathers didn't consider whether lives would be saved or crimes prevented by legalizing gun ownership--they did it because they believed in personal freedom and agency.

I'd argue that the idea applies today. Whether or not criminalizing the possession of firearms would save lives, I don't believe in it, because I like to have the ability, the right, to defend myself. If you take away guns, you're basically saying "well, if a maniac tries to kill you, you're dead unless there happens to be a police officer nearby. Good luck." By giving us the right to defend ourselves, you're putting our destinies into our own hands, which is what the american government should be doing.

there are reasonable limits, of course. There's no foreseeable circumstance where defending yourself and your family requires an assault rifle unless your name is John Mcclain.

 

[Dre89]

It kinda defeats the purpose though if the right to defend yourself entails more lives lost.

 

[Battlecow]

No, it doesn't. It preserves personal freedom at the (possible) cost of a few lives.

 

[Dre89]

A few? The difference in gun-related deaths between gun-legal countries and gun-illegal countries is enormous. I can't remember the stats, but I remember that a gun-illegal country had like 96 deaths a year, and America had like 11 000.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Brazil had around 34,600 gun related deaths in 2008.

 

[Claire Diviner]

How large or small was the gun-illegal country in relation to the U.S.? If it was roughly the same size as or bigger than the U.S., then you have a strong point. If the country was significantly smaller, than wouldn't one think that maybe there would be an unfair comparison in this case? Just thought I'd bring that up.

 

[theeboredone]

When it comes to one time murders, when you are in that moment, if a gun is not available something else will be used. Strangulation, blunt objects, knives, etc.

However, look at the recent stories that have been popping up. Some guy walking into the mall in Oregon and shooting it up. This morning, a school was shot up. Let's not forget the Colorado incident. If guns were outlawed, does the amount of deaths go down? Can an individual walk into a theater or mall with a knife or baseball bat and rack up that many casualties?

I don't mind if guns are allowed, but there needs to be far more stricter regulations on how they are obtained, let alone what kinda guns are allowed to be obtained. Take the Colorado incident for example, no way should someone end up being able to purchase bullets that could supply an army, let alone having some of the weapons and body armor he had.

 

[Muhti]

And how about that Conneticut shooting today?

Now if guns were cut off, that wouldn't have happened.

 

[Claire Diviner]

And how about that Conneticut shooting today?

Now if guns were cut off, that wouldn't have happened.

I mentioned in an earlier post that many guns are illegally owned. Assuming the shooter in question was using an illegal firearm, a gun ban wouldn't have changed a thing. You think a gun ban would reduce the amount of gang shootings in high gang activity cities? I say no.

 

[theeboredone]

A few? The difference in gun-related deaths between gun-legal countries and gun-illegal countries is enormous. I can't remember the stats, but I remember that a gun-illegal country had like 96 deaths a year, and America had like 11 000.

Are you talking about Switzerland? Just to clarify, we shouldn't just look at face value of the fact that one country has no guns, therefore it is a safer place. You have to take into account culture as well. For example, 20% of Swiss don't have a religion. We all know America, whatever religion you look at can get a bit antsy and in your face when it comes to that stuff.

 

[Battlecow]

First of all ugh that connecticut thing has me so ****ed up right now

Second of all, to those of you saying that it wouldn't have happened if we just banned guns, mexico has far stricter gun laws than we do. Take a look at a statistic some time and then come back and tell me that solved all their problems.

 

[Muhti]

I mentioned in an earlier post that many guns are illegally owned. Assuming the shooter in question was using an illegal firearm, a gun ban wouldn't have changed a thing. You think a gun ban would reduce the amount of gang shootings in high gang activity cities? I say no.

I never said I was on a side.

I was just putting a variable out there for the debate.

But hey, do you really think a father would've been on the news sobbing that her daughter died because of some socially awkward ***? (Excuse me)

Do you think 26 families (more than that obviously) would've been crying if the government was very strict on guns? I say no.

Would people be grieving because some guy came into a movie theatre with a gun and shot people? If it was a bat, he would've only injured one. But we also have grenades, involved in this dilemma as well, but, it would've been less causalities if the man didnt have firearms in the first place.

(Hmph, I guess I am on a side after all)

 

[Claire Diviner]

I never said I was on a side.

You didn't need to; you're obviously saying that banning/restricting guns would reduce gun violence.

But hey, do you really think a father would've been on the news sobbing that her daughter died because of some socially awkward ***? (Excuse me)

Do you think 26 families (more than that obviously) would've been crying if the government was very strict on guns? I say no.

Would people be grieving because some guy came into a movie theatre with a gun and shot people? If it was a bat, he would've only injured one. But we also have grenades, involved in this dilemma as well, but, it would've been less causalities if the man didnt have firearms in the first place.

What makes you believe the outcome of those incidents would have been different with stricter gun policies - banning or otherwise? If someone wants a firearm, they can very well get one. This isn't something I like sharing, given my relationship with him, but my brother has no gun license or training whatsoever, and yet he not only obtain a gun illegally, but the gun itself was unregistered. He went to prison when he threaten to "smoke" some woman in a drunken rage. The point is, even with guns banned, if someone wanted to get a gun for the purpose of committing another Columbine incident, there's really little in the way to stop them. All gun bans will do is make it illegal to own any gun - license or not; as if that ever stopped anyone before.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

The idea of of illegalizing guns is utterly ignorant.

Consider marijuana. Was illegal for Decades in all 50 states. California legalized it, and I highly doubt the number of pot smokers in Cali increased by any more than 10%. Illegalizing pot didn't keep it off the streets, nor will illegalizing guns have the same effect.

Illegalizing guns will do two things:
1. Take a form of self defense from innocent citizens
2. Make criminals wanting to shoot people have to only break one more law(as if that matters to them.)

Now we have innocent citizens without defense, and criminals still breaking the law.


"I want to shoot my ex girlfriend in cold blood, but it's illegal to own a gun, so I guess I can't buy illegally to murder her with."


Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Going to pop in to simply say that those who say that without guns people will simply resort to other methods is a huge presumption. There is a massive difference between guns and other methods of weapons, a psychological difference. I cannot see how every single person who is willing to shoot someone or even multiple people would transition perfectly into strangling someone or bashing their brains in. Many won't have this issue, but I'm saying that there is simply no way that we can just say all of them can do it, that is a huge assumption.

 

[Battlecow]

We're not saying they'll seek alternate methods, they'll just get guns. Switzerland--all of the guns, little gun violence. Mexico--very strict gun laws, all of the gun violence.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

^

The whole point is that a gun law will not keep guns out of the hands of anyone. And even if somehow it COULD, people COULD use an alternate means of killing, which isn't that hard. But that isn't the point we're making.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

At the moment it appears as if the debate seems kind of structureless simply because we aren't really debating in relation to a proposed solution to the problem of gun-violence.

So I'm going to put forward one:

Firearms licenses:

You need to apply with the police to obtain a license to own guns. In your application, there are certain categories which represent a legitimate reason for owning a gun (self-defence does not count, but things like hunting, sport, pest-control are considered legitimate). The kinds of gun are also restricted, no assault rifles or anything like that.

What this should do is reduce the number of guns in society by making it harder to obtain guns. With less guns in society there should a reduced rate of gun-crime.

In addition, with a reduced rate of gun-crime, I believe we would see a reduced rate of homicides and injuries from accidents. This is because a gun makes it much easier to kill or hurt people. Rates of accidental discharge will go down, as will homicides. This is because you are more likely to be killed by someone you know than in a home invasion perpetrated by strangers. This is why self-defence is not considered a legitimate reason for owning a gun. In fact, having a gun in your house does not make it any safer, in fact allows situations to rapidly escalate to the point where one of the folks in your house picks up said gun and uses to kill someone. Unless, you have the gun on you at every moment, someone else could easily pick it up and use it to shoot you.

To those that may say that if someone really wants to kill you, they'll use other means such as a knives, beating you to death etc. It's actually significantly harder to kill someone with these weapons than using a gun and it's much easier for the police to deal with the situation when they don't have a gun-wielding psycho on their hands.

To those that say that folks can easily get their hands on illegal firearms: How is legalising firearms going to address this problem? I believe that it will inflame the situation, as with more guns in society, more can be stolen, or resold etc. Additionally, not all crimes are committed using illegal firearms, think of Columbine and the Aurora shootings, the perpetrator used legal firearms, it would make it much more difficult for them if they had to buy firearms illegally, and they may not have even considered it an option.

Come at me bro.

 

[rvkevin]

Bob,

I have three points of contention.

One, I think you have made a great case for why gun owners should be legally required to store their weapons in a locked case or in a safe when not using them. It prevents anyone that is not registered from obtaining the weapon and thereby using it without authorization. This holds either for someone trying to steal it to put it on the black market or from another person in the household obtaining it in the heat of passion.

Two, I don't know why you think self-defense is not a serious reason for obtaining a gun. Protecting your own safety should be granted as much validity as a recreational activity, right? I think that people need to be reminded here, the police are not legally required to respond to you in an emergency; they only have an obligation to generally enforce the law. As such, you should always have the mindset that you are without help and plan accordingly. In any event, this holds especially true in spread out areas where the police response time is slower.

Three, the number of guns in a society is not the measure of how safe it is. It is the aptitude of the people who hold those guns that determine the number of gun deaths. For example, Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership and low gun deaths because they have mandatory military service and people who complete it keep their issued gun. They are trained responsible members of society so that doesn't cause an issue for them. As you've pointed out, its when those guns get into the wrong hands is when you have a problem. They also strongly regulate ammunition, requiring a background check for each purchase. So in Switzerland, its a little more complicated than just buying a gun on the black market. You could similarly regulate ammunition here, limiting usage to registered gun ranges or hunting grounds and limiting gun owners from having more than what is deemed necessary for a home invasion.

 

[prisonchild]

I think that the second amendment captures a beautiful idea, and one that's very much a central part of the american lifestyle (even if it's usually bundled up with other stupid **** and dismissed as "'murica" stuff or whatever). The founding fathers didn't consider whether lives would be saved or crimes prevented by legalizing gun ownership--they did it because they believed in personal freedom and agency.

I'd argue that the idea applies today. Whether or not criminalizing the possession of firearms would save lives, I don't believe in it, because I like to have the ability, the right, to defend myself. If you take away guns, you're basically saying "well, if a maniac tries to kill you, you're dead unless there happens to be a police officer nearby. Good luck." By giving us the right to defend ourselves, you're putting our destinies into our own hands, which is what the american government should be doing.

there are reasonable limits, of course. There's no foreseeable circumstance where defending yourself and your family requires an assault rifle unless your name is John Mcclain.

personal freedom? how free can a person be if they have to worry about getting shot going to school every day? how free can parents feel sending their children to school, the mall, etc. wtih all these shootings?

the second amendment said that arms were clearly for safety, but if they largely aren't being used for that purpose then haven't american citizens given up that right?


also i think the 'carry a gun for safety' mentality is *** backwards. if every american citizen carried a gun would that be the safest solution? i think the only reason one would need a gun to protect themselves is from somebody else with a gun.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

There are plenty of reasons to need a gun to defend yourself other than against another gun. first and foremost is disparity of force, six foot five inch 300 pound man tries to abduct a petite five foot 100 pound woman. She is supposed to defend herself how? Any type of melee weapon is out of the question. Maybe a tazer would work but better hope you dont miss.

 

[Battlecow]

personal freedom? how free can a person be if they have to worry about getting shot going to school every day? how free can parents feel sending their children to school, the mall, etc. wtih all these shootings?

the second amendment said that arms were clearly for safety, but if they largely aren't being used for that purpose then haven't american citizens given up that right?


also i think the 'carry a gun for safety' mentality is *** backwards. if every american citizen carried a gun would that be the safest solution? i think the only reason one would need a gun to protect themselves is from somebody else with a gun.

I really wish people didn't have to worry about any of that stuff. But they do, and they'd feel safer on average if they knew that they or authority figures were capable of protecting them and their families.

Plenty of people do use firearms for self defense (that one school shooting the Assistant Principal stopped, for example). You can't "forfeit" basic constitutional rights, either--that's a scary, scary road to go down.

 

[Grey Belnades]

Firearms licenses:

You need to apply with the police to obtain a license to own guns. In your application, there are certain categories which represent a legitimate reason for owning a gun (self-defence does not count, but things like hunting, sport, pest-control are considered legitimate). The kinds of gun are also restricted, no assault rifles or anything like that.

I like the idea. If this were to happen however, I'd imagine the FBI would make a database of it.

There are plenty of reasons to need a gun to defend yourself other than against another gun. first and foremost is disparity of force, six foot five inch 300 pound man tries to abduct a petite five foot 100 pound woman. She is supposed to defend herself how? Any type of melee weapon is out of the question. Maybe a tazer would work but better hope you dont miss.

Most new tazers have the little red dots to show you what you're targeting. Pepper/bear spray is also effective.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

Old man grey, I agree with you on the pepper spray as one of your best options. I have heard that some individuals something like one percent of people are just immune to pepper spray but the odds of that happening is pretty darn slim.

 

[prisonchild]

The constitution allowed citizens to carry arms the same time they allowed slavery, think about that for a second and tell me parts of the constitution aren't outdated.



PS one of those is banned now

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

I agree I think that the freedom of speach and the right to due process are so outdated. We should just scrap the whole thing... I don't agree with your logic. First off the constitution says right to arms but not right to own slaves. Slaves were no where in the constitution till they made it unconstitutional.

 

[Claire Diviner]

The constitution allowed citizens to carry arms the same time they allowed slavery, think about that for a second and tell me parts of the constitution aren't outdated.



PS one of those is banned now

I don't ever recall the U.S. Constitution mentioning slavery in any way. If you're going make that kind of a claim, I'd like to see a source that states so.

 

[Muhti]

I don't ever recall the U.S. Constitution mentioning slavery in any way. If you're going make that kind of a claim, I'd like to see a source that states so.

Somebody hasn't been doing their homework:

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/constitutiononslavery.html

Section 2 of Article 1 claims that only 3/5 slaves represent the state. This is on the constitution. There is also something else that's on the website I didn't mention.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Well, I stand corrected. Of course, slavery was seen as unconstitutional, seeing as slavery were the deprivation of rights of another human being (in this case, African-Americans). So then what would abolishing guns do? Deprive one's right to own a firearm. To my knowledge, owning a gun isn't exclusive to any one type of human being; so as long as said person is responsible enough to get a license, they have every right to own one. And what of those who already own guns legally with licenses to carry them? Sure, one could have said the same about slave owners, but then a gun isn't exactly a sentient being with feelings.

 

[Jim Morrison]

I'm really wondering if there are any statistics for how many people succesfully use guns to save themselves in life-threatening situations each year.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Just keep in mind here, that even if a law was passed to ban the ownership of firearms, one needs to remember one indisputable truth: criminals don't care for the law to begin with. Take this statement for what it's worth.

 

[Jon Farron]

Just keep in mind here, that even if a law was passed to ban the ownership of firearms, one needs to remember one indisputable truth: criminals don't care for the law to begin with. Take this statement for what it's worth.

That's a very good point.


It would be useless to ban firearms to prevent killers from getting one, because they'd just get one anyway one way or another. All it would do is leave the citizens even more defenseless.

 

[Battlecow]

The constitution allowed citizens to carry arms the same time they allowed slavery, think about that for a second and tell me parts of the constitution aren't outdated.



PS one of those is banned now

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know that in order for a country's constitution to be valid the country in question has to be perfect in every respect. They also hadn't invented penicillin; I guess since the people who wrote the constitution would have recommended amputation in the case of an infection their arguments are doubly invalid?

The constitution is the basis of our legal system and the most fundamental part of what makes America America. If you're going to simply do away with it (i.e. not simply make a constitutional amendment banning firearms but doing away with them without going through those channels) you're essentially overturning and illegitimizing America's existing government and legal system entirely. Think about it. The constitution's a really big deal, and you don't get to do away with it because Thomas Jefferson was an imperfect person.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

Why not just give everyone a gun?

If you draw yours on my I have one to retaliate with.
Why do ya think people in the south are always friendly and cordial to others? "An armed nation is a friendly nation." As the saying goes.

I'm not gonna be a jerk to you if you can shoot me, and I'm not gonna shoot you if you can fire back.

Teach teachers how to shoot, stick a 9mm in their desk under lock and key, and there.

That's why Switzerland has a low crime rate.

If we have mutual means for killing eachother, neither of us will try, and should we try, if I kill you your friends got a gun and can kill me. So why would I shoot you?


Also mental healthcare stuff needs to be improved on.

 

[Grey Belnades]

Why not just give everyone a gun?

If you draw yours on my I have one to retaliate with.
Why do ya think people in the south are always friendly and cordial to others? "An armed nation is a friendly nation." As the saying goes.

I'm not gonna be a jerk to you if you can shoot me, and I'm not gonna shoot you if you can fire back.

Teach teachers how to shoot, stick a 9mm in their desk under lock and key, and there.

That's why Switzerland has a low crime rate.

If we have mutual means for killing eachother, neither of us will try, and should we try, if I kill you your friends got a gun and can kill me. So why would I shoot you?


Also mental healthcare stuff needs to be improved on.

But that'll only work if common sense is present. I won't shoot you because you have a means to fight back and there's a chance the outcome will be fatal and I may die. However, there are events like road rage, hostle disputes, drunken family quarrels, heat of the moment...those things will sometimes overcome common sense because people can be overcomed with certain emotions and just act.

Also, if you give a gun to everyone, then are there people we don't give guns to?

I do agree with the need to improve the mental side of healthcare.

 

[GwJ]

@G&W - What is wrong with you?

 

[Battlecow]

He makes perfect sense. I'm not saying he's necessarily entirely correct but it comes down to numbers: Do guns as a preventative measure save more lives than they cost in road rage/heat of the moment incidents? It's an interesting question. I don't think we have the statistics to answer definitively one way or the other but we can look at examples of nations with few guns (UK) where shooting deaths are uncommon, or nations with lots of guns (switzerland) where they're uncommon as well; we can look at the failure of mexico's gun laws or the success of gun laws in many european countries.

I, for one, am against the banning of guns regardless, because of the personal freedom issues I've already covered. But I would support the need to register for firearms, etc.