Should Citizens be Allowed to Own and Use Guns?

[Kal]

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.

All methods of self-defense follow. If I have a God-given right to defend myself, and the government comes in trying to abridge that right, then I have a natural right to defend myself using exactly the tools they will be using. In that case, guns. Similarly, if a man breaks into my house and attempts to kill me with a gun, I have a natural right to defend myself with a gun.

That, and I don't think anyone (except maybe the NRA) disagrees with you in general; most of us don't think citizens need assault rifles for self-defense. But care needs to be taken before you use "it's safer this way" as justification for taking away weapons.

 

[GwJ]

Out of curiosity, do you agree with the "Eye for an eye" mentality?

 

[Kal]

Could you elaborate? It's obviously a loaded question, which I assume you're asking with the intent of arguing against a strawman. Naturally, this would be quite easy, since the question is also incredibly vague.

 

[GwJ]

What's loaded about it?

 

[Kal]

We all believe that people should be punished for their crimes, but at the same time we all think justice should take priority over vengeance. So there's no way to really answer that (vague) question without coming off as either cowardly or deranged.

 

[GwJ]

Similarly, if a man breaks into my house and attempts to kill me with a gun, I have a natural right to defend myself with a gun.

I'm only asking with regards to this statement so I can understand the intensity with which you'll defend that position.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

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.

I know nothing about weapons, lethal or non-lethal but I don't think it actually matters anyway. If it's possible to pierce somebody's head with a sharp bullet and kill him then it's also possible to fire something that doesn't cause the target to die but to make him lose consciousness or paralyze him or something similar. How is that ignoring the natural right of a person to defend oneself? Not only do I fail to see how opting for non-lethal weapons somehow limits that right but I also never mentioned to be anti-gun to begin with so why do you accuse me of "ignoring" it? I think non-lethal weapons should be promoted and generally given more access to. I have yet to hear a reason on why that shouldn't be the case. You have to give me a bit more than just telling me "they are not as effective anyways" to convince me that they area worse choice than actual guns.

 

[Bomber7]

In regards to the non lethal weapons. Let me say this: We realize that these devastating shootings were committed by those with mental instability, now how many actually killed themselves, I don't know, but getting to the main point. In the event they didn't kill themselves, would you really want them still alive with the potential to escape and do damage again? On the other side of the coin, if they kill themselves anyway, why should it matter if someone uses a lethal weapon on them and most likely kills them?

I can't speak for anyone here, but to try and answer your "eye for an eye" mentality. I strongly believe in justice being served, even if the given situation calls for a mass murderer, genocidal maniac, etc, to have their life taken away. I view it as, they just killed a whole bunch of people, what's the point of keeping them in jail for life? From my point of view (not speaking for anyone here), they are a threat to society so they aren't worth keeping around anymore. I want to be safe, I want the place I live in to be safe. I know it's not right to take a life, and that kind of decision is a really tough one, but someone has to make it. Ethically, I think it's just because you are making society better by removing a threat, especially one that's already caused damage. I hope you understand what I'm trying to get at here.

 

[Kal]

I'm only asking with regards to this statement so I can understand the intensity with which you'll defend that position.

I don't think I should be allowed to vaporize the guy with a self-guiding Bond-laser, but I have a natural right to shoot a man who comes into my house with the obvious intent of murdering me. I mean, how am I supposed to answer the question "how intensely will you defend that position?" It would really just be beneficial for you to elaborate, rather than having each post consist of one sentence.

How is that ignoring the natural right of a person to defend oneself?

Because, if the people are not armed with lethal force, they cannot defend themselves from the government. If criminals are better armed than law-abiding citizens, law-abiding citizens cannot defend themselves from criminals.

Not only do I fail to see how opting for non-lethal weapons somehow limits that right but I also never mentioned to be anti-gun to begin with so why do you accuse me of "ignoring" it?

Because you made the statement "your main argument is" and then proceeded to address only the issue of self-defense, and none of natural rights, despite the fact that "anti-gun control" is not a group of people who posit one collective argument.

I think non-lethal weapons should be promoted and generally given more access to. I have yet to hear a reason on why that shouldn't be the case.

I don't see what point you're making here; do you think that it's difficult for people to get a hold of non-lethal weapons? There isn't anyone opposed to gun-control who is going to claim that we shouldn't have access to less-lethal weapons, and it's generally much easier to acquire a non-lethal weapon than a lethal one (and also easier to legally conceal).

Anyway, going back to your earlier post, I am a little confused: are you suggesting that we simply arm people with non-lethal weapons, or are you asking that we forbid the possession of lethal weapons in favor of non-lethal weapons? Because I doubt there is a single person out there who is against gun-control but would disagree with the first sentiment. The latter sentiment, however, is problematic.

You have to give me a bit more than just telling me "they are not as effective anyways" to convince me that they area worse choice than actual guns.

The burden of proof is on you to show that non-lethal weapons are a sufficient substitute (and, more importantly, to explain which non-lethal weapons are sufficient, since arming people with pepper spray probably isn't what you had in mind). Keep in mind that less-lethal weapons are either close-range (e.g. pepper spray) or shoot with less force at a lower velocity (e.g. bean-bag rounds or rubber bullets).

Also, lethal weapons are not universally effective at stopping people. To expect less-lethal weapons to do so seems silly.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

honestly the non lethal options are also regulated surprisingly heavily. I know the pepper spray I carry in minnesota I can't bring with me when I visit in wisconsin because it contains mace in it which is not allowed in wisconsin.

Also almost anywhere that you aren't allowed to bring a gun, say schools, government buildings, and such also don't allow things like pepper spray, stun guns, or tazers.

But assuming you have free access to non means, they are no where near as effective as the lethal options. A tazer can literally only be used against one person, and is only one shot so you are out of luck if you miss that one shot. Stun guns can only be used in essentially hand to hand combat which is extremely dangerous cause they could just over power you.

Pepper spray is your best bet in my opinion because it can be used on multiple targets and at range. The only problem is it does not truly stop the target. It only really slows them down and there are some people who are just unaffected by it from what I hear.

for me the biggest thing for me with guns is they are by far the best way to stop someone who is trying to hurt you. Nothing else really gets the job done in the same way.

 

[theeboredone]

Are tranq guns just not that effective? You figure that would be one thing to promote, given they can be non-lethal AND they can knock an individual out.

Edit: NVM, google gave me the answer. Guess they are not effective as I thought they would be. Damn you, Metal Gear Solid.

 

[Battlecow]

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

In no way is that racist.

I'm looking at it from different angles trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion and I'm coming up blank

the vernacular I used was more accurate for white criminals than black (and not particularly realistic for either lol).

It's racist to assume that style and panache matter within criminal organizations? That cool or manly outlaws gain prestige among their fellows and a greater chance at advancement? It's kind of a weird theory, and I can see you disagreeing with it, but racist? You're really reaching.

 

[Kal]

In no way is that racist.

I'm looking at it from different angles trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion and I'm coming up blank

the vernacular I used was more accurate for white criminals than black (and not particularly realistic for either lol).

Somewhat disappointed I have to spell this out for you: you mention that someone might have to intentionally shoot worse just to appear stylistically cool by shooting in a way that has been popularized by American gangster and rap culture, then you seal the deal by writing "yo" (because nothing quite sells "I'm not racist" like poorly imitating the popular dialect and vernacular of another race).

It's racist to assume that style and panache matter within criminal organizations? That cool or manly outlaws gain prestige among their fellows and a greater chance at advancement? It's kind of a weird theory, and I can see you disagreeing with it, but racist? You're really reaching.

While I do appreciate the straw man, no, I am not referring to the general notion that "style and panache" matter (though really, I don't believe they matter outside of a sort of bare minimum, instead putting more value on core traits, management skills, and relationship to upper-management). I am referring to the notion that how you fire a gun (more specifically, whether you give up accuracy for style-points) impacts your progress within a criminal organization.

bored, tranq guns don't really exist for combat purposes. I mean, there's a reason anesthesiologists (thank you spell check) go to school for several years; any drug that will put someone to sleep either puts you into a coma or does pretty much nothing unless you get the precise dosage. In the case of a tranq gun, you'd need to know the person's weight pretty precisely to know how many times to shoot him.

Damn you, Metal Gear Solid.

This. Also Chuck went pretty all-out with those tranq darts.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Because, if the people are not armed with lethal force, they cannot defend themselves from the government.

Governments essentially claim a monopoly on force. How can lethal means defend you from the government better than non-lethal means do? The only difference is that you either end up killing members of the government or not.

Because you made the statement "your main argument is" and then proceeded to address only the issue of self-defense, and none of natural rights, [...]

I didn't address the issue of natural rights because not only is it irrelevant to the point I am trying to make but I also never disagreed with it in the first place. Nothing - and I mean literally nothing - I said so far has contradicted the idea that people have the natural right to defend themselves from harm or that guns are acceptable tools to provide said defense.

I don't see what point you're making here; do you think that it's difficult for people to get a hold of non-lethal weapons? There isn't anyone opposed to gun-control who is going to claim that we shouldn't have access to less-lethal weapons, and it's generally much easier to acquire a non-lethal weapon than a lethal one (and also easier to legally conceal).

I'm not an insider on the subject since I'm neither american nor do I know a lot about weapons. But just going by general media coverage one gets the impression that lethal weapons - guns in particular - get a lot of promotion and the general sentiment seems to be that "a weapon to defend oneself" is synonymous with "a gun to kill with if needed be". Unless I'm mistaken non-lethal weapons are not being promoted on a level anywhere similar to that and I'm not sure why. I think it'd be a good compromise solution for both parties as the natural right to defend oneself is granted while there's still an acknowledgement that there is a problem with guns in america [and let's be real - you really can't deny that there is, can you?] that people are interested in finding a solution for.

My point is that non-lethal weapons are not given enough attention to [something you didn't directly respond to though I made the point earlier already]. They are a viable compromise solution with more pros than cons overall and I don't think the government or the general public seems to be aware of it all that much. If the Obama adminstration is in favor of gun control in order to limit shootings then the promotion or even subvention of non-lethal weapons must surely be in their interest as well as they would achieve exactly that - a limit of gun related deaths - without limiting the rights of people.

The burden of proof is on you to show that non-lethal weapons are a sufficient substitute (and, more importantly, to explain which non-lethal weapons are sufficient, since arming people with pepper spray probably isn't what you had in mind). Keep in mind that less-lethal weapons are either close-range (e.g. pepper spray) or shoot with less force at a lower velocity (e.g. bean-bag rounds or rubber bullets).

This is the kind of weapon I had in mind:

If it's possible to pierce somebody's head with a sharp bullet and kill him then it's also possible to fire something that doesn't cause the target to die but to make him lose consciousness or paralyze him or something similar.

Now I know, I can't say whether such weapons actually exist or not but as far as I can tell there should be no reason on why they couldn't exist by now - unless, of course, non-lethal weapons are so out of favor that few seem interested in investing into that field. Which would be contradictory to assume, since my "theoretical solution" would be making investments in non-lethal weapons. So, what other reasons are there for non-lethal weapons to be less effective? I don't see how it's in any way impossible to create non-lethal weapons that are as effective as a lethal weapon. So by all means, please show me how non-lethal weapons are principally ineffective, compared to lethal weapons.

And even if they were less effective you'd still have plenty of pros: some people may be unable to shoot with a weapon they know might kill the target but they could dispose him with a non-lethal rifle. If such a scenario were ever come to pass a lot of harm could be prevented. Another big pro is that the target will not die in case of an accident.
Now, let's for a moment assume the following scenario with the idea in mind that you are still right about non-lethal weapons being less effective: another school shooting were to happen but this time around all the employees of the school [teachers, school caretakers, janitors] were armed with non-lethal firearms. Would you agree that the chances of preventing a tragedy would increase massively? Would you still claim that lethal weapons are better suited to prevent gun-related deaths in such a scenario?

 

[Kal]

If all you want is for the media to portray non-lethal weapons more, then great. I don't think anyone has a problem with that. But your initial post:

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.

reads to me as an attempt at replacing legal ownership of guns with non-lethal variants. Which means some clarity from the beginning would have probably prevented this entire argument. Because I think we all agree that, given two equally effective options at stopping violent shootings, we prefer the non-lethal approach.

However, you explain that "this is the kind of weapon I have in mind" and claim that this alternative is viable and has more pros than cons without doing any actual research on whether such a weapon is effective or whether it even exists. The burden of proof is on you to show that less-lethal weapons are equally effective (which would be difficult, since you don't seem to actually know anything about guns). Merely replying with a sort of pompous skepticism that I haven't shown that they are less effective is not going to change this.

But, if it makes you feel better, resolving this sort of situation always comes down to stopping power. You need to immobilize the target as quickly as possible. Non-lethal weapons are obviously less versatile at this, with some of the examples mentioned earlier by Bobwithlobsters. Of course, if we were to start arming teachers (a terribly ****ty idea, in my opinion), I would much prefer they be armed with rubber bullets or bean bag rounds over standard bullets.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

I don't know that much about non lethal rounds in guns but what research I have done has shown it to not be a viable alternative. I know one that people like to talk about is rock salt in their shotgun so it just hurts them, but when this was tested the effective range was a window that was like less than a foot. So it would only hurt them at 10 ft but any closer kills them and any father doesn't really affect them. I expect the same goes in large part with rubber bullets.

The only way I can see rubber bullets not either killing or just being ineffective is if they are massive projectiles like the size of a bean bag. That is the only way I can see that they could use enough energy to stop someone but not have it in such a small package that it just makes a nice hole.

I dont see how a weapon that uses 2 pound projectiles could effectively replace the much smaller size of firearms for personal protection.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

You're almost better off with a 1000FPS air soft gun at this point. All you're doing is slowing the guy down, and delaying your inevitable death. A gun cam save the life of yourself at the cost of another(less than ideal, but our best and only option as of now) or saving multiple lives at the cost of one(fair trade.)

Our only option right now is to use guns or take every single gun off the planet(impossible.)

 

[Battlecow]

Somewhat disappointed I have to spell this out for you: you mention that someone might have to intentionally shoot worse just to appear stylistically cool by shooting in a way that has been popularized by American gangster and rap culture, then you seal the deal by writing "yo" (because nothing quite sells "I'm not racist" like poorly imitating the popular dialect and vernacular of another race).

First off, "yo" is my standard form of address on these boards and I probably use it every other post. Secondly, the idea that the word yo can only be used by black people tells me that you've almost certainly never met one, Texas, whereas I live on the south side of Chicago and have two black siblings. Thirdly, it is not racist to say that the sideways grip (practiced by black, Latino, and, yes, white gangsters, to the best of my knowledge) is adopted out of a desire for maximum aesthetic effect. Do you think they do it because they don't know any better? That to me seems more racist than acknowledging that throughout history outlaw groups have often placed a high value on style and that one does not advance in such an organization through solid business sense alone.

This is not the 1990s and you can't win an argument just by using the word racist

 

[Mr. game and watch]

Wtf racism isn't even a thing now stfu we're not debating the right subject.

 

[Bomber7]

Get out of here Kal if you are going to try and make this a racial discussion. You've made it clear how immature you are and you can't have a general mature discussion with the rest of us.

PS- no one here is afraid of the "race card" the fact that you are playing it only makes you look like an ***.

 

[Kal]

Seeing as I've spent all but two posts debating the actual issue at hand (gun control), I think you are overreacting a bit. If you want to continue this discussion, Battlecow, we can do it in a PM. I didn't mean to shift the discussion off-topic, so I'm sorry for that. Initially, I merely meant to remark that Battlecow's comment was racist (not to suggest that the poster is racist). I did not mean to engage in a separate debate.

 

[Muhti]

Well I don't suppose racism is necessarily bad in a debate. (Unless you are completely biased) Since we're on the topic of it, Don Lemon of CNN points out that white men of the ages of 18 - 25 were behind most mass shootings:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...trol_should_we_start_profiling_white_men.html

He also says to also profile white men to prevent gun violence.

Just putting it out there....

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

I agree that whites do the majority of mass shootings but that profiling whites to prevent gun crime in general doesn't follow. If you look here http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm you see that african americans make up the majority of gun crime by a small margin. I do find the racial aspect of mass shootings interesting and I think it does maybe have a place in these discussions. Even it is just to argue that it is nothing but a coincidence.

Edit: I noticed an interesting thing on that site, almost 80% of poisonings are by whites. Just an interesting tidbit.

 

[Bomber7]

Just to bring it up to you guys, you are playing with fire here by bringing in race. The topic is should citizens be allowed to use/carry guns. We're talking about everyone in general no matter what gender, race, creed, etc. they are. Bringing up which race does the most mass or local shootings is immaterial to the discussion. The point is that shootings happen, so what should be done about it? I'm still a great proponent of citizen being able to defend themselves with guns. If you take a look at Australia, they banned firearms I forget how long ago, and now they face an increase in crimes most of which have involved guns themselves (ironic isn't it).

We've looked into alternative, nonlethal weapons, but those who did the researched reported that studies showed that they aren't really that effective. We just have to remember that a gun puts everyone on an even playing field no matter who we are. It doesn't discriminate between race, gender, age, creed, or any of that stuff. It's the same as us with our cars. It's a mere tool that we can choose to use everyday, but make no mistake, if you don't respect it, it will kill you and/or someone else.

 

[Kal]

If there is a reason for the higher incidence among whites, I would guess it's socioeconomic, but I know of no evidence in that regard. It could just be a coincidence.

If you take a look at Australia, they banned firearms I forget how long ago, and now they face an increase in crimes most of which have involved guns themselves (ironic isn't it).

A similar issue is going on in the UK, from what I'm aware. Switzerland, on the other hand, has universal conscription and requires everyone to own an assault rifle at home, but crime due to gun violence is almost non-existent.

You can find anecdotes in the opposite direction, of course; Japan has very strict gun control and very little gun violence, and America has very little gun control and quite a bit of gun violence.

 

[Muhti]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

Just wanted to bring this up.

Im basically undecided at this rate. Im just putting variables out there. But notice how some countries differ:

Turkey has more gun owners than gun violence, while Brazil on the other hand has more gun violence than owners.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

Yeah let's not discuss race. Where could that get us? "White men can own guns but black women can't."

Um. No.

We gotta get it poppin yo

 

[Bomber7]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

Just wanted to bring this up.

Im basically undecided at this rate. Im just putting variables out there. But notice how some countries differ:

Turkey has more gun owners than gun violence, while Brazil on the other hand has more gun violence than owners.

I've also heard there are some states/cites in the US that make you have a gun on you at all times and the crime rate is practically 0. That to me is very impressive, and as such it has to count for something.

 

[GwJ]

A state or city that requires you to have a gun on you at all times? Do you have a source on that? That's quite interesting.

 

[Pachinkosam]

In texas they let you use guns for self defense.

 

[Bomber7]

A state or city that requires you to have a gun on you at all times? Do you have a source on that? That's quite interesting.

It's something I've only heard, but I'll do some research on it later and get back to you on that.

 

[Kal]

You might be thinking of Kennesaw, Georgia, which passed the following ordinance in 1982:

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

If you are the "head of household," you are required to own a gun and maintain it (though the law is actually just unenforceable humbug). But I don't know of any American cities that require its citizens to carry guns at all times (and I doubt such a law would be constitutional anyway).

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/...ence-in-america-declining-over-last-20-years/ggg
Not sure about this site but it is using doj tables which is all I really wanted, but it shows that the gun crime rate has been falling for years. This includes murders and non fatal crimes. I'm not positive but I believe gun ownership has been on the rise during this time period if anyone can check that for me, that would be great.

Edit: looks like gun ownership hasn't been on the rise but been fluctuating between like 47% to 37% over the last like 50 years. No real trend that I saw.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/...ence-in-america-declining-over-last-20-years/ggg
Not sure about this site but it is using doj tables which is all I really wanted

Idk, looks like a load of hot air to me:/


I'd be interested to see if any cities have this ordinance of requiring guns.
I doubt any state does, because if it did everyone would use that state as a main example and not Norway.

 

[GwJ]

>hotair.com
>"looks like a load of hot air to me"

I see what you did there.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

I was hoping someone would catch it~

 

[Slatanata]

Why is this on smashboards. Take this debate to like I don't know face book or something

 

[Sucumbio]

This is the debate hall so you should expect to see all kinds of topics that have nothing to do with smash.

 

[Slatanata]

oh... well in that case I think, as long as the person isn't a screw up, guns are ok. They make people feel safer in their home, some people like to hunt. I don't personally enjoy them but whatever floats your boat I Guess

 

[GwJ]

When do you ensure someone isn't a screw up? Before or after they accidentally shoot someone? How do you determine if someone is a screw up and what exactly even is a screw up?