Should Citizens be Allowed to Own and Use Guns?

[rvkevin]

Since several people are pointing to Switzerland as possible evidence that guns are a deterrent to shootings, I think they would find the following thread informative.

http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/u5fzh/ima_request_a_citizen_of_switzerland_willing_to/

A couple key takeaways. The Swiss have a mandatory draft*. As a result, most people have a gun. They are not allowed to carry this weapon in public loaded with few exceptions. One requirement for concealed carry is "stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger" so exceptions are mostly for people who have to deal with criminals: police officers, security, etc. When transporting the weapon, they must have the ammunition separate from the gun and their transportation must be direct. In other words, if they are transporting their gun, they are going to or from the shooting range, gun dealer, hunting grounds, etc. Testimonials from Swiss people say that they merely store it in the closet until they are forced by law to go to the shooting range for their annual test, a chore they dread as much as we dread jury duty. They may not even have ammunition at their house** (There was a bill to ban ammunitions in 2007, but I'm having trouble finding out if it passed). They don't have the corresponding gun culture that we have, they don't carry their gun for self-defense and they rarely use it for any other purpose than for official purposes. If you want to say that arming the teacher with a gun will plausibly deter shooters, pointing Switzerland is not a good example since the teacher wouldn't even be able to legally carry it in the classroom. If you want to say arming everyone will create mutually assured destruction on an individual scale, then Switzerland is not a good example since only special people qualify to carry guns in public.

*The idea is that should the country ever go to war, they will have a population ready for it. However, since Switzerland is neutral and no one thinks they are on the verge of war, this exercise is largely seen as a chore.

**One commenter says "The keep-your-rifle-at-home thing is a relic from the cold war where a likely scenario was that you'd have to shoot your way through "the enemy" to get to your barracks. However the only time the ammo you had at home got ever used was in family dramas (the husband going berserk and shooting wife/kids/himself) so we no longer recieve any ammo to take home."

 

[Battlecow]

But you have to admit--gun ownership is not the problem there. Perhaps our concealed-carry laws should be stricter, but those of us who answer affirmatively to the basic question--should citizens be allowed to own guns--finds a very appropriate champion in switzerland.

 

[rvkevin]

But you have to admit--gun ownership is not the problem there. Perhaps our concealed-carry laws should be stricter, but those of us who answer affirmatively to the basic question--should citizens be allowed to own guns--finds a very appropriate champion in switzerland.

If that is all what gun proponents want, then I would agree with them. However that is not what is being argued. People are saying to arm the teachers, everyone in every movie theatre, etc. because then someone would be in a position to stop the shooter. In Switzerland, the hypothetical of the average citizen spotting a shooter and then responding with their own weapon to save a bunch of people is a fantasy because they wouldn't be able to do that unless they are in the business*. For everyday activities, it is illegal for the average Joe to even bring their weapon out in public (which includes teaching or going to the movies). And it may be illegal to carry ammunition at the same time as the gun** making Switzerland's open carry completely disanalogous to the US's. I don't think many gun proponents would be happy with such a situation, but whatever. The bottom line is that if you agree that we should follow the Swiss, then the answer is more gun control, not less.

*Which basically means, if you want to be able to defend yourself with a gun in public, become a police officer or the equivalent. This basically makes it illegal for the average Joe to carry a live gun in public. People aren't arguing for this, they are arguing for more people to carry guns in public for the use of defending themselves, which is the exact opposite of what Switzerland has instituted.

**I didn't initially know whether the requirement for transportation that said that ammunition has to be separate meant that the gun simply couldn't be loaded or you couldn't be in possession of ammunition. It might be the latter given one commenter, which would destroy the point behind the right's argument: "From what I have read (I've been to Germany a few times to visit my wifes family but have only spent a few hours in Switzerland) they are allowed to carry their rifle to and from the firing range and home, etc, but they can't carry magazines or ammo while traveling. The guns are basically inert when out in public, so no one bats an eye at them."

 

[Mr. game and watch]

There's nothing wrong with me.

It works. I'm pretty sure 80%(random statistic assumption, don't hold me to it) of the people in TX have a gun in their car as they drive.
Shoot, I'm 16, and I got to the range a lot and shoot with my dad.

It works. The issue will not go away, that is, the issue of criminals aren't going to follow gun laws, they're criminals. Following the law isn't really their thing.

And law abiding citizens would lose their gun, get no self defense, and the criminals win. Sure, throw em in jail for owning guns, but they likely won't get caught without shooting someone, and at this point the gun laws were pointless.

Innocent, law abiding citizen dead, criminal, who still has a gun, alive.

 

[rvkevin]

It works.

Said with no evidence to back it up.

I forgot to add in my previous post: it's even debatable of whether the Swiss have the best gun laws since while they have fewer gun deaths than the US, they still have more when compared to other developped nations. If you want to explain their lack of crime, it would probably be better to look at their economic inequality (or lack thereof), social mobiity, educational opportunites, social safety net, etc. People in Switzerland don't break the law because they have good opportunities. It's not simply a matter of the US having more bad apples, our environment causes apples to go bad.

Edit:

There's nothing wrong with me.

I'm not saying there is.

 

[Jon Farron]

There's nothing wrong with me.

I'm pretty sure 80%(random statistic assumption, don't hold me to it) of the people in TX have a gun in their car as they drive.

*raises hand*

Everyone in our family has a gun and pepper spray hidden in our bedroom for self defense ICE, of course it's unloaded though. (Ammo is next to it)

 

[Dre89]

I don't really understand the point of guns. You won't be able to respond to an emergency situation if you have to get the ammunition and load the gun first.

I understand that it stops children and the like using it, but an unloaded gun seems like it would only be used for offensive purposes.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

There are 2 handguns, a shot gun, and 2 rifles(one from WWII which is a family heir loom. My great grandfather actually took the weapon off a German soldier after killing him)

All loaded and ready to go. I know where they are.
Someone breaks in, I'm fully capable of protecting my mom or my brothers/father should they be unable to reach any weaponry.

Taking our guns would mean us losing that security, that heir loom, and that hobby me, my dad, and my brothers enjoy to spend time together on(shooting range.)

To take all this away in attempt to maybe make it a little harder for a criminal to kill someone, or make said criminal have one more law reaming by his name. It just doesn't seem worth it.
When I'm raising a family I'll definitely want guns, not just for self-protection, but protection for the whole family.

Again, the best we could possibly do is punish those who sell guns without running a background check. Anything else would just not end well.

 

[Jon Farron]

I don't really understand the point of guns. You won't be able to respond to an emergency situation if you have to get the ammunition and load the gun first.

I understand that it stops children and the like using it, but an unloaded gun seems like it would only be used for offensive purposes.

Well think of it this way.

I'm in my room 90% of the time I'm home (upstairs) if I hear someone breaking in, I quickly load the gun, and call 911. If the robber comes upstairs, I'm ready to defend myself. The key is to try to NOT engage the criminal unless it's absolutely necessary. I'm lucky we haven't been broken into yet, but our next door neighbor's house was broken into while she was at home a couple months ago. (there was no cars on the driveway so it appeared to be empty) Know what she did? She pulled out a gun and the robber went running for his life. The robber did not have a gun.

Now if the guns WERE banned, I think that would only INCREASE the chances of getting robbed etc, because the criminals would know you have no self defense.

 

[GwJ]

Well, there are other ways to defend yourself than guns and I'm sure if guns were banned, increased efforts would be made to develop specifically-nonlethal weapons.

Not saying that's what I prefer, jussayin.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

But still, why make it harder for me to defend myself and easier for the criminal to rob me?

 

[Bomber7]

It's a great privilege owning a gun, other than a right because I think we are the only country in this world that is as accepting about guns compared to the rest of the world (emphasis on "compared to"). Guns are a part of the American culture, it always has been, and I think it will continue to be. In more recent times, we've seen the horror of what guns can be. Honestly I'm saddened when I hear about a shooting, no matter if it's small or even large like the one we more recently are hearing about on the news. I've seen many people say this, but our gun culture needs to change. I feel there aren't many people who know basic gun knowledge or even how to respect one. I feel, instead of putting more restrictions on guns, or even confiscating them, we put forth and effort to educate more people on the power of a gun, the good and bad effects it can have, and why it should be respected because of this.

I've heard many people talk about "gun control", but I've never heard any definition of "gun control", other than the feds taking away all registered guns. Here's the problem with that, and I know it's been said before; once all the registered guns are gone, that leaves the unregistered guns which are usually in the hands of criminals and last I checked, it's a dumb idea to bring a knife to a gun fight. The gun creates an even playing field for all of us. It puts an old women on the same playing field as a young and strong brute. Though just for humor's sake, let's say all the guns in this country disappear, humans will find other ways to kill each other, we will do it with our fists if we have to. The gun, just makes it easier to kill each other. If someone wants to make the argument "Well if we didn't have guns, no one would die.", that's somewhat true, but let's refer back to my previous sentence. People kill each other with cars everyday, should we look into taking away cars and make people ride bikes? But wait, we can just run over people with bikes so let's just make them walk. Let's just start eating with our hands because we can stab each other with forks and knives (spoons if you are that talented). If you want to confiscate guns on the basis that they kill people and guns are that much of a threat to you, then I'm all in favor of confiscating anything that could potentially kill someone like a car, or a fork or a knife, because, like guns can be a threat to someone, they are just as much of a threat to me.

TL;DR- Guns aren't bad, they don't kill people, people do. The gun is highly disrespected and only viewed negatively when it actually does more good by being an instrument of protection than destruction. Guns are amazing and our gun culture needs to be improved so more people come to respect the gun. Once we lose the right to own a gun, we will never get it back. We know this, it's like losing a privilege to do something, once you lose it, you never got it back.

 

[rvkevin]

I've heard many people talk about "gun control", but I've never heard any definition of "gun control", other than the feds taking away all registered guns.

I already mentioned one measure of gun control earlier in this thread that is not taking away all registered guns. It was making gun owners secure their firearms in a safe when they are not using it so its harder to steal. Believe it or not, but this isn't required everywhere. If the whole point is keeping guns in the hands of responsible people and out of the hands of unauthorized users, then I don't see why anyone would be against this gun control measure.

 

[Bomber7]

That's a nice idea but it does have its flaw. Lets say you do keep it in a safe, it does you no good if

1) it's unlocked, anyone can have access to it
2) if it is locked and all your guns are in there and something happens and you need immediate access to them ie, you're being robbed (granted, I'm confident most people don't have a gun safe in their bedroom, though it'd be useful to have in the event your version of gun control did happen)

Though just to be clear, when you mean guns, are you including side arms like pistols too?

 

[Battlecow]

If that is all what gun proponents want, then I would agree with them. However that is not what is being argued.

Did you read the OP? That's all that is being argued in this thread. Should citizens be allowed to own guns?

I'm not against assault weapon bans, bans on teflon bullets, etc. I'm just arguing that citizens have the right to keep and bear some type of arms.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

I already mentioned one measure of gun control earlier in this thread that is not taking away all registered guns. It was making gun owners secure their firearms in a safe when they are not using it so its harder to steal. Believe it or not, but this isn't required everywhere. If the whole point is keeping guns in the hands of responsible people and out of the hands of unauthorized users, then I don't see why anyone would be against this gun control measure.

now why specifically a safe? Wouldn't a trigger lock be just as good or a locked closet? And where is it not against the law to have guns accessible to those unfit to have them be it minors or those with mental problems?

 

[Bomber7]

That's also another issue in itself. I know it sounds silly to say, but officially classifying if an individual is mentally sound enough to own a gun could be abused and just out of spite, some mentally sane people could be branded by psychological experts as mentally unsound. Though just try not to take a bite out of this post too much, I don't want to derail the conversation.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

Like a brick, a gun is amoral.

With a brick, you could smash in a jewelry store window and rob the place.
Or, you could bash someones brains in.

Or, you could lay one more brick in effort to build a home for a homeless man.

The effect of the brick relies on the man holding it, and the same goes for a gun. Banning guns is not the answer, but we do need better mental healthcare and make more salesmen run background checks before selling firearms.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

Why do we need more background checks? The people who commit gun crimes obtain their guns illegally the vast majority of the time anyways already. How is making life more difficult for the people already following the law going to stop lawer breakers from continuing to break the law?

I do agree that background checks should be made as a general rule but considering that its already the general policy with only some exceptions I dont see how this is the issue that would solve the crime problem.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

It's just a compromise.
I certainly agree with you, and as I've been saying this whole time, making guns illegal will solve nothing.

But I'd rather stricter background check laws than any no-gun laws.

There's no way to solve the issue of crime. Man is evil. There will ALWAYS be crime and man will always be ultimately selfish enough to rather kill someone else to prove a point/take some valuables/get revenge. No law or enforcement can stop that. That's why gun laws are silly.

 

[theeboredone]

Did anyone watch the NRA conference today? It was terrible from beginning to end. Fact checkers already had a field day with whatever he had to say. Sometimes, I was wondering even if HE was sure of what he was saying. As if this was the first time he had seen the speech.

Also, interesting article and perspective from Mother Jones. It is true that there is no evidence that having a firearm with you on hand would help/prevent injuries.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

 

[Bomber7]

It is true that there is no evidence that having a firearm with you on hand would help/prevent injuries.

help/prevent injuries to you or others?

It can prevent injury to you in the event of self defense given the right circumstances.

No, it can't prevent injury because if you are on the receiving end, well obviously you will get hurt or killed.

I fail to see where there is any lack of evidence that would support that having a gun on hand would help prevent injury. It's really a common sense thing. But depending on the situation (like self defense), yeah, obviously someone is going to get hurt or killed, whether it be the oppressor, the oppressed, or both.

 

[theeboredone]

The article, and also what I'm getting at is not a situation if someone comes into your house. I'm talking more along the lines of mass/public shootings. Even if you can carry a concealed gun, the shooter is still going to hurt plenty before he is stopped. In our country's history, anytime a civilian has neutralized a shooter, the shooter had already done what he wanted, ran out of ammo, or the civilian himself ended up getting hurt. All stated in the article.

Columbine had a security officer. Didn't do much in preventing casualties.

 

[Bomber7]

Just food for thought to understand my logic:

If you are, let's say, in public, and everyone around you is carrying a gun, would you be likely to pull some crazy stunt like that? With everyone with a gun, the threat would be neutralized much quicker.

A school isn't exactly as public of a place as lets say a shopping mall.

In the event of a school shooting, yes, more damage will have been done as opposed to some place like a mall.

Also of course for a place like a school, one security officer isn't going to do the slightest bit of difference. Though imagine how things would have been different if there was more than one person on that campus with a firearm. Yes, I'm sure some people would have still died, but less would have.

 

[theeboredone]

Now we're becoming situational though. Imagine if everyone or many were armed in the Colorado theater incident. In the dark, do you really know who you are shooting at?

Also, not to get into the minds of most of these shooters, but I do think that when they decide to go on some form of mass shooting, they have already embraced the fact that they are going to die somehow, someway. So even if someone is at a park with everyone armed, the shooter is not going to stop until he/she is dead. Less casualties? Most likely, but at the same time, it's not going to stop these people.

And another bit of food for thought, what if a citizen trying to defend himself accidentally kills/hurts another innocent? What are the repercussions for that?

Edit: I was listening to NPR last night, and it just reaffirms my belief that you cannot just have "strict" gun control laws and have that be the solution. Brazil has some of the strictest gun control laws, yet the country is one of the leaders in Gun violence. Everyone carries a gun in Pakistan, yet their gun violence rate is lower than the US. We can't just look at the Swiss with their ban and follow their method.

I just think culture has to be taken into account when making these laws. Otherwise, things will go wrong in some shape or form.

 

[Bomber7]

I've talked with people about the Aurora shooting before. They had the same question "How are you going to shoot in a dark theater?"

Last I checked, you can still see enough in a theater to where you could identify the shooter and neutralize him. though didn't the shooter in aurora have smoke bombs, and other special breaching equipment too? I think he did which makes that shooting a special case because what common citizen walks around equipped like Rambo?

Also, I apologize if it seems like I'm making this discussion situational, but I just want to make sure that among the general conversation, we don't apply any one concept to anything related to guns when there are going to be exceptions.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

A bit late but here goes:

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.

Why not just make it more difficult to obtain guns in the first place? It's more enforceable and easier.

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.

I don't not believe that owning a gun legally suddenly makes one safer. Unless you keep it in a locked safe as you mentioned earlier, it can easily be used against you. If it is in a locked safe than in an emergency, it will difficult to use.

And I don't think that is a healthy mindset when it comes to firearms. Carrying firearms and threatening to use firearms often can inflame a situation which may be already dangerous. In the event of an armed robbery, the average citizen is not trained to deal with a fire-fight. The police on the other hand are, so instead of doing something stupid and putting your life in danger, perhaps it would be far better to call the police to the scene.

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.

So what are you advocating in this situation? Everyone performing mandatory military service to address the ridiculous number of shootings in the USA? Or perhaps it would be better with fewer guns such that there aren't as many people who need to be trained.

 

[Bomber7]

^ A lot of what you just said goes back to what I had mentioned in an earlier post.

Most people don't have respect for a gun. I'd bet that it's lack of education/understanding about guns. I've grown up around guns my whole life and even took a hunter safety course so I've grown to appreciate and respect guns. As such I have knowledge of how to use a gun, safety measures that must be taken, etc. I don't think it would hurt for us to start encouraging people to become more educated about guns. Even if we all can't be trained to be police officers or soldiers, gun wielding citizens can be taught how to fire their gun accurately and be taught self defense plans for just about any situation they may run into.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

Did anyone watch the NRA conference today? It was terrible from beginning to end. Fact checkers already had a field day with whatever he had to say. Sometimes, I was wondering even if HE was sure of what he was saying. As if this was the first time he had seen the speech.

Also, interesting article and perspective from Mother Jones. It is true that there is no evidence that having a firearm with you on hand would help/prevent injuries.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

This study is inherently flawed and greatly misleads the reader. If you dig into their study and look at their methodology http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map they specifically include only mass shootings where the shooter killed 4 or more people. This by it's nature is excluding the mass shootings that were stopped early and saved lives because by their nature didn't have a death toll over 4 people. You talk about how the nra guy is not got his facts right but then you quote a source without checking how they got their data...

I know their was a big mall shooting just recently that made the news because no one was killed. The man ended his own life almost immediately once he was confronted by a concealed carry holder who did not even fire at the shooter do to the chances of hitting someone else in the mall.

 

[Kal]

^ A lot of what you just said goes back to what I had mentioned in an earlier post.

Most people don't have respect for a gun. I'd bet that it's lack of education/understanding about guns. I've grown up around guns my whole life and even took a hunter safety course so I've grown to appreciate and respect guns. As such I have knowledge of how to use a gun, safety measures that must be taken, etc. I don't think it would hurt for us to start encouraging people to become more educated about guns. Even if we all can't be trained to be police officers or soldiers, gun wielding citizens can be taught how to fire their gun accurately and be taught self defense plans for just about any situation they may run into.

It has a lot to do with the media as well. Most people think a car door or a grocery aisle will protect you from bullets, that shooting a car's gas tank causes it to explode, that a silencer will make a gun go "peep peep" instead of "BANG BANG." And most of these myths are because of movies and TV shows that depict guns unrealistically.

 

[Dre89]

People also think that holding a gun sideways like a gangster actually works.

 

[Kal]

I mean, it's not like the gun stops working, or is any less functional. You just lose accuracy when you tilt a handgun sideways. It's sometimes beneficial when firing over cover (if using a riot shield, for example) to hold your gun "gangsta style."

It also looks ****in' cool.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

Off topic tho.





I think we can all agree that, in accordance with the OP, citizens SHOULD be allowed to Own and Use Guns. Taking that from citizens is obviously not the right answer, if such an answer exists.

 

[Battlecow]

Sometimes looking cool matters more than accuracy

completely serious, I imagine "shooting like a ******" would lower your social standing and likelihood of advancement within your criminal organization of choice. Aesthetics, yo.

 

[theeboredone]

This study is inherently flawed and greatly misleads the reader. If you dig into their study and look at their methodology http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map they specifically include only mass shootings where the shooter killed 4 or more people. This by it's nature is excluding the mass shootings that were stopped early and saved lives because by their nature didn't have a death toll over 4 people. You talk about how the nra guy is not got his facts right but then you quote a source without checking how they got their data...

Plausible. I can understand that.

I know their was a big mall shooting just recently that made the news because no one was killed. The man ended his own life almost immediately once he was confronted by a concealed carry holder who did not even fire at the shooter do to the chances of hitting someone else in the mall.

Are you talking about the Portland, Oregon Mall shooting? The one that took place before this recent Newtown one? The way you're describing the incident completely goes against the one I've heard, unless we had another mall shooting.

I forgot where I read this, but apparently Gun Shows allow for non-licensed gunmen to sell guns to those without licenses. Easy for anyone to walk in and buy one, especially those with a criminal history. A state tried to make the process of obtaining a gun at Gun Shows stricter, but NRA was strongly against it for one reason or another.

Dunno, on paper, seems like it would be smart to not just have the ability to buy guns without a license at gun shows.

I don't want to cite this article, because it was not the one it read. However here is the info on what I'm talking about.

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole/gun-show-loophole-faq

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I have two questions for pro-gun people:

1.) Your main argument is that people need guns to protect themselves from other people with guns and that school shootings could possibly be prevented that way. Does it have to be shotguns though? Is that the only option? What about non-lethal weapons? Wouldn't that be much more effective? Fatal accidents could be prevented, regulation wouldn't need to be as strict as for "real" guns and criminals could be officially convicted in court, which takes away a lot of the perverted attraction of the shooter going down in history.

2.) If it's true that it's not the guns that kill people [which I don't disagree with] this still kind of begs the questions why such shootings seem to happen in america a lot more than in other places. Statistically there is no indication that there's a direct relationship between the amount of citizens owning a gun and the number of gun related crimes in the same country. Since the possession of guns isn't the reason for why such incidents occur in america more often than many other places we still have no answer on what is the reason for it - which is a pretty serious problem.

 

[Kal]

1.) Your main argument is that people need guns to protect themselves from other people with guns

It's more about protection in general. It would be prudent for you to read up on natural rights in this case.

and that school shootings could possibly be prevented that way. Does it have to be shotguns though? Is that the only option? What about non-lethal weapons? Wouldn't that be much more effective? Fatal accidents could be prevented, regulation wouldn't need to be as strict as for "real" guns and criminals could be officially convicted in court, which takes away a lot of the perverted attraction of the shooter going down in history.

Less-Than-Lethal weapons are generally not as effective anyway (as an aside, I am curious: what do you know about Non-Lethal Weapons?), but you are ignoring one of the main arguments: it's a natural right for a human to defend himself. The government should be securing our rights, rather than abridging them. It also ignores the potential for lethal weapons to be a deterrent, though I am unaware of any hard-evidence in this regard.

2.) If it's true that it's not the guns that kill people [which I don't disagree with] this still kind of begs the questions why such shootings seem to happen in america a lot more than in other places. Statistically there is no indication that there's a direct relationship between the amount of citizens owning a gun and the number of gun related crimes in the same country. Since the possession of guns isn't the reason for why such incidents occur in america more often than many other places we still have no answer on what is the reason for it - which is a pretty serious problem.

I think it's cultural; the "American Dream" is a bunch of nonsense. The dream doesn't work out for 99% of Americas, and some very small portion of that population decides that everyone else should pay for it.

It's also, obviously, related to mental health.

completely serious, I imagine "shooting like a ******" would lower your social standing and likelihood of advancement within your criminal organization of choice. Aesthetics, yo.

In all seriousness, this is just less-than-subtle racism.

 

[GwJ]

You said it's a natural right to defend oneself. I agree in general, but you don't have a natural right to all specific methods of defense.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

If you endanger me and my family, I should have full justification of taking your life. It boils down to you die or I, and my family, die. Frankly, I refuse to let us come to a place where it's either you get kinda hurt, or I and my family die. I cannot let that happen.

If anything, one should be required to be trained to use a gun and be declared mentally stable and lawfully clean. Now, if I know and respect a firearm, and I am now ok to own one, and I get one and leave it where a child can access it, and he does and hurts himself or someone else, I should be held fully responsible.

But to answer your questions, Gheb, we do need guns, and there's nothing wrong with a shotgun. Most mass shootings are done with a handgun anyway. The CT one was.
If I'm limited to a 9mm the whole clip is going in your face if you're endangering my household. It is fully justifiable to kill in this context.

2, it doesn't beg that question. People who shouldn't get their hands on a gun and can do it anyway. That's the state of our morally unstable country.

 

[GwJ]

If you endanger me and my family, I should have full justification of taking your life.

I don't think that's the case at all. If someone's endangering you, you have justification to take action until they are no longer endangering you. That can be death sometimes, but not always.

And even if someone kills your family, that's not necessarily justification to kill the person. If they're no longer hostile or a danger, then that's just taking your revenge out or going on a vengeance strike.

Also, note the justification != natural right.