• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Should Citizens be Allowed to Own and Use Guns?

Slatanata

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
19
Location
Brewster NY
3DS FC
4425-2033-3295
Well first you got to make sure they don't have any mental diseases or history of crime and have a license and then they can have it. I know its a pretty ****ed up thing to just trust someone with a gun but its the only way. Also if we just strait up took away guns it would violate our second amendment right and no matter what anyone who wants to harm someone with a gun will find away to hurt someone with a gun. It's ****ed up but that's the way our world is.
 

Warlock*G

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
1,953
Location
Québec, Canada
3DS FC
0146-9477-0226
I'll answer with a question: why should law-abiding citizens have to obey a law that prevents them from procuring guns, which would put them at the mercy of criminals and criminally-disposed people, who will no doubt violate that law?
 

DJDave189

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
245
NNID
DJDave157
As long as the person doesn't have any mental illness or any criminal records I see no problem with a person owning a gun, as long as the person is following the law and is not crazy.
 

Tino

Smash Hero
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
7,212
Location
Spartanburg, South Carolina
NNID
FaustinoRojo10
3DS FC
5284-1678-8857
Switch FC
SW-6232-2426-8037
As long as they're not crazy with murderous intent, then I see no problem with that as long as they have a permit or something to be allowed to own a gun.
 

Ikiimoni

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
19
If I find out a friend of mine owns a gun or a person they are living with owns a gun, it immediately puts me on edge. Guns aren't meant for flashing around like toys or putting on a shelf. I think that people should go through rigorous mental examinations to make sure that they're stable enough to use firearms suitable for self defense. Of course, police should have more privileges, but go through much more rigorous physical training and mental examination. If this was to be reality, unauthorized gun sales could be a serious crime, because there wouldn't be any mental examination. I'm all for self defense, but there's something called excessive firearms. It's when your friend has a rocket launcher in his garage.

Actually, what does he think that's gonna be used for? Self defense? Hunting? I don't think so.
 

Capita

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
140
Location
Houston, TX
NNID
n1ntendogamer
What I'm going to say has likely been said in some form or fashion, but whatever.
What we must realize is that not only have guns served to be a great protection for our society from criminals and other mischief, but the second amendment also serves to be the greatest protection to our constitutional rights.
First, we must realize that most of the tragic shootings that cause the outcries for more strict gun regulation have occurred within the last decade in establishments where guns are not allowed. The best example off of the top of my head is the Aurora theatre shooting where the shooter went to a theatre that was neither the largest theatre nor the closest theatre, which may have been possible incentives. Instead the shooter went to a theatre where he had little to no chance of being stopped at the scene.
Source: http://www.gunfaq.org/2013/04/aurora-and-the-gun-free-zone-theory/
There has always been a negative correlation internationally between gun ownership and violent crime. If you look at North and South Dakota, two states with some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country, you'll notice that they have some of the lowest violent crime rates in the country. As opposed to D.C. with perhaps one of the worst crime rates in the United States, with a crime rate above the national average and some of the most strict gun laws in the country.
Source: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/StatebyState.cfm

If I find out a friend of mine owns a gun or a person they are living with owns a gun, it immediately puts me on edge. Guns aren't meant for flashing around like toys or putting on a shelf. I think that people should go through rigorous mental examinations to make sure that they're stable enough to use firearms suitable for self defense. Of course, police should have more privileges, but go through much more rigorous physical training and mental examination. If this was to be reality, unauthorized gun sales could be a serious crime, because there wouldn't be any mental examination. I'm all for self defense, but there's something called excessive firearms. It's when your friend has a rocket launcher in his garage.

Actually, what does he think that's gonna be used for? Self defense? Hunting? I don't think so.
The purpose of the second amendment isn't for hunting or self defense. Rocket launchers are not even used for crimes either as it is a very ineffective tool to use to commit crimes. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect us from tyrannical government. With every dictatorship, the first step taken almost always is to disarm the public, because once the public is disarmed, there is nothing stopping governments from infringing on the rights of its people and massacring them.

I'm going to end this post off with a quote from Stefan Molyneux, one of my favorite modern-day political philosophers.
If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. You'll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up families, just to take away guns. So it's not that you're anti-gun, because [...] you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns, so you're very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is of course so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking) should be allowed to have guns. So there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,908
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
The purpose of the second amendment isn't for hunting or self defense. Rocket launchers are not even used for crimes either as it is a very ineffective tool to use to commit crimes. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect us from tyrannical government. With every dictatorship, the first step taken almost always is to disarm the public, because once the public is disarmed, there is nothing stopping governments from infringing on the rights of its people and massacring them.
Then the second amendment clearly hasn't aged very well. Even if you have the right to own and operate something like an AC-130 (and believe me, anyone I know who wants one of those really should not get one), do you have the cash to pony up to buy one of them? How about a fleet of them? How about a surveillance satellite? Predator drones? The changes in how war is waged and the technology required has made essentially any past meaning of the second amendment as an anti-tyranny device completely meaningless.
 

Capita

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
140
Location
Houston, TX
NNID
n1ntendogamer
Then the second amendment clearly hasn't aged very well. Even if you have the right to own and operate something like an AC-130 (and believe me, anyone I know who wants one of those really should not get one), do you have the cash to pony up to buy one of them? How about a fleet of them? How about a surveillance satellite? Predator drones? The changes in how war is waged and the technology required has made essentially any past meaning of the second amendment as an anti-tyranny device completely meaningless.
In that scenario, it would be even more ridiculous to give up any sort of firearm. Just because advancements in warfare have happened over the past years doesn't mean we should give more ammunition in strengthening government by disarming the public by any means. Any sort of armed militia will be hard to disarm, and it is most definitely a lot harder to disarm individuals in an a armed militia rather than individuals who go out of their way to give up their firearms. The point of allowing us to keep and bear firearms is that whenever are government gets tyrannical, we will be able to have some resistance to fight the oppressive government. No matter the circumstances. Just because our government is heavily equipment doesn't mean we should give up any basic rights and liberties to live in a police state.

Even if there was no point in arming ourselves against tyrannical government, there is still no good reason people should not be able to own things such as semi-automatic weapons when they aren't even used in 5% of gun crimes.
 
Last edited:

spamwichx

Smash Cadet
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
37
Location
ice hell
NNID
samantharrgh
we should ban firearms from dumb people that think it's 100% okay to take pics of their kids holding guns. hell. i wouldn't even let a gun near a baby. kids already get bombarded with violent crap as it is. they shouldn't be touching guns until way when they have enough cognition and insight to use them.
 
Last edited:

Sucumbio

Smash Giant
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,133
Location
Icerim Mountains
It's' interesting but my manager bought a pistol for her 6yo grandson. In big hunting states gun culture is widespread and totally normal even though it'd be unspeakable for the same thing to happen in a major metropolitan. These kids begin hunting with their parents and older siblings at very young ages. Some families approach the subject in an almost ritualistic fashion, complete with drinking your first kill's blood, wearing blood tattoos, etc.

That said there's a strong disconnection and yet also strong similarities between inner city gun violence, gangs, and backwater Deliverance - styled hunting clans. One is treated as a war zone, militant and equally socialized through culture and familial ties, and the other while still incorporating the same methods of indoctrination revolve around barbarism rather than conflict. What makes things so dangerous is when conflict arises and guns are present. I think stricter gun laws won't be adequate. They either need to be totally outlawed or relegated solely to hunting grounds and sport ranges. This idea that a firearm is necessary for home defense is only legitimate so long as guns are allowed to be carried in the first place.
 

spamwichx

Smash Cadet
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
37
Location
ice hell
NNID
samantharrgh
i went hunting with my dad when i was little but i never touched the gun, dad only let me hold his gun until i was well over 18 and he taught me to face the barrel upwards when holding the gun and how to turn on safety. when i knew that guns aren't play things. people are just DUMB. d-u-m-b.

does america have police come over randomly to see if you're storing guns correctly too? we do. they usually do it once a year in aus.
 

Capita

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
140
Location
Houston, TX
NNID
n1ntendogamer
does america have police come over randomly to see if you're storing guns correctly too? we do. they usually do it once a year in aus.
Our constitution prevents such totalitarian actions. We try to not be a police state.
 

MetalGearMonster

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
4
It's' interesting but my manager bought a pistol for her 6yo grandson. In big hunting states gun culture is widespread and totally normal even though it'd be unspeakable for the same thing to happen in a major metropolitan. These kids begin hunting with their parents and older siblings at very young ages. Some families approach the subject in an almost ritualistic fashion, complete with drinking your first kill's blood, wearing blood tattoos, etc.

That said there's a strong disconnection and yet also strong similarities between inner city gun violence, gangs, and backwater Deliverance - styled hunting clans. One is treated as a war zone, militant and equally socialized through culture and familial ties, and the other while still incorporating the same methods of indoctrination revolve around barbarism rather than conflict. What makes things so dangerous is when conflict arises and guns are present. I think stricter gun laws won't be adequate. They either need to be totally outlawed or relegated solely to hunting grounds and sport ranges. This idea that a firearm is necessary for home defense is only legitimate so long as guns are allowed to be carried in the first place.
You truly have no idea how the world works do you? Nobody allows a criminal to do anything. They do what they want. Guns don't have to be legal for criminals to get them. I could buy one made straight out of a make shift warehouse. People manufacture fully automatic guns, as well as any other type of weapon, illegally on a large scale. I'm going to ignore your insult on another culture and heritage no matter how rude it was. Instead, let me explain why banning guns everywhere would be a problem. Have you ever had to call an officer to your aid? How long do you think that takes? I can tell you without a doubt it's not faster than the time it takes for the criminal committing the crime to end your life. So imagine if guns were allowed nowhere. That would be a field day for a criminal now wouldn't it? Them knowing they have absolutely no chance of getting shot when breaking into a home. Just like how, if you would notice, most mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Now that's strange isn't it? They must not have read the sign or maybe they read it as saying "Easy target". I call for mandatory armament and gun classes for all citizens if you want gun crime to go down. Good thing you are not a boxing coach concerned about your fighter getting hit. You would probably suggest trying to take both boxers arms off. Good look convincing the other boxer or even your own to be disarmed. If you are concerned about the high amount of unstable people in this country then you can look to big pharma for that as well as a lot of other corporations fueling the problems of the world. All these bull anti-depressants do nothing but destroy a persons psyche. We have extreme problems in this world and people think they are doing good by supporting disarming law abiding citizens. What a load of ignorance.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Giant
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,133
Location
Icerim Mountains
You truly have no idea how the world works do you? Nobody allows a criminal to do anything. They do what they want. Guns don't have to be legal for criminals to get them. I could buy one made straight out of a make shift warehouse. People manufacture fully automatic guns, as well as any other type of weapon, illegally on a large scale. I'm going to ignore your insult on another culture and heritage no matter how rude it was. Instead, let me explain why banning guns everywhere would be a problem. Have you ever had to call an officer to your aid? How long do you think that takes? I can tell you without a doubt it's not faster than the time it takes for the criminal committing the crime to end your life. So imagine if guns were allowed nowhere. That would be a field day for a criminal now wouldn't it? Them knowing they have absolutely no chance of getting shot when breaking into a home. Just like how, if you would notice, most mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Now that's strange isn't it? They must not have read the sign or maybe they read it as saying "Easy target". I call for mandatory armament and gun classes for all citizens if you want gun crime to go down. Good thing you are not a boxing coach concerned about your fighter getting hit. You would probably suggest trying to take both boxers arms off. Good look convincing the other boxer or even your own to be disarmed. If you are concerned about the high amount of unstable people in this country then you can look to big pharma for that as well as a lot of other corporations fueling the problems of the world. All these bull anti-depressants do nothing but destroy a persons psyche. We have extreme problems in this world and people think they are doing good by supporting disarming law abiding citizens. What a load of ignorance.
So your stance is that the possibility of a household being armed with guns serves as a stronger deterrent against possible home invasion than a household without? First let me ask you this: why is it that in other countries where firearms are NOT mass produced or mass marketed, this isn't a problem?

Oh, and whom did I insult?

Also what about the issue of accidents? Or worse, when citizens try to defend themselves instead of running away, and end up in jail because of it. Or injured or killed! I don't think it makes sense to be perfectly without defense. Security details for instance would make more sense. An increase in police presence. Citizens should not be taking home and personal defense into their own hands because they lack the proper discipline amd training to do so effectively and safely. Look at the latest shooting in a mall, the major casualty was the one "hero" toting their gun instead of fleeing like everyone else.

Bottom line this isn't the Wild West anymore. Guns should only serve as a sport item or for hunting. Any other application belongs under military use. Even the 2nd amendment says this: a well - regulated- militia (the National Guatd). There's no meaningful regulation outside of the military, not when, as you also pointed out, it's so easy to obtain firearms.
 

MetalGearMonster

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
4
So your stance is that the possibility of a household being armed with guns serves as a stronger deterrent against possible home invasion than a household without? First let me ask you this: why is it that in other countries where firearms are NOT mass produced or mass marketed, this isn't a problem?

Oh, and whom did I insult?

Also what about the issue of accidents? Or worse, when citizens try to defend themselves instead of running away, and end up in jail because of it. Or injured or killed! I don't think it makes sense to be perfectly without defense. Security details for instance would make more sense. An increase in police presence. Citizens should not be taking home and personal defense into their own hands because they lack the proper discipline amd training to do so effectively and safely. Look at the latest shooting in a mall, the major casualty was the one "hero" toting their gun instead of fleeing like everyone else.

Bottom line this isn't the Wild West anymore. Guns should only serve as a sport item or for hunting. Any other application belongs under military use. Even the 2nd amendment says this: a well - regulated- militia (the National Guatd). There's no meaningful regulation outside of the military, not when, as you also pointed out, it's so easy to obtain firearms.
Well first off which other countries are you referring to? You insulted a culture, calling it barbaric, because it doesn't fit within the lines of a culture that you feel is right. Also what accidents are you referring to? People have car accidents on a daily basis. Should we ban cars or just keep them for sport? Sorry, but I won't give up my rights and my safety, seeing as i don't trust a police officer to just be there, because idiots exist in the world. Idiots will always exist but it doesn't mean we should trade rights for security. Also yes, A household that is known to have a firearm is extremely less likely to be broken into. You are also more likely to survive a home invasion if you hold a firearm and know how to use it. That is common sense that I shouldn't have to bring up. You seem to forget that everything is not clean cut or "black and white". You cannot say what happened at some mall determines how we should defend ourselves. Why not look at all the home invasions that turned out for the better because they owned a fire arm. I find it weird you are using what happens at a mall to justify not owning a firearm at your house anyway. These are two different scenarios. Also I doubt you know the training and discipline of every gun owner out there. Most of them have the training and, if you haven't noticed, a lot of our officers seem to lack efficient training. I am not saying every officer doesn't know what they are doing but they are not perfect just because they wear a badge. Most of these gun owners are veterans and retired officers as well so that is kind of a contradicting argument. Also militia doesn't refer to your government ran army. Militia is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency or to fight against the army in a rebellion. The national guard is a branch of the army and not a militia. The militia is the armed citizens of the states. We have tons of regulated militia all around the states and the 2nd amendment is there to insure us the right to fight a tyrannical government. Want to guess what else could be considered a militia? All of these gangs that already have stockpiles of guns and ammunition. Guess what they see when they look at a gun free zone? Easy pickings. Your arguments make no sense. Go get a gun and learn how to use it before your country falls because no country lasts forever. They may need an extra soldier in that militia the 2nd amendment gives us a right to partake in.
 

Holder of the Heel

Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
8,850
Location
Alabama
NNID
Roarfang
3DS FC
1332-7720-7283
Switch FC
6734-2078-8990
Introducing such weaponry to society could have a negative impact that creates a greater degree of incidents than the amount we were trying to prevent in the first place, it would be nothing more than an experiment on a very large scale for no one actually knows for sure things would improve and not the reverse. My fear is that there is not just an obvious correlation between what someone can do and will do which can be good and bad; it goes deeper than that: there's a strong correlation between what can be done and what someone wants to do. The way people react to adversity, even carry themselves around in public, it would all change and I believe in an undesirable way for the development of society in terms of diplomacy and comfort and the individual's ability to cope or properly adapt to situations.

Not to mention the all too common consequences from whimsy or emotional outbursts, these all will have increased odds of going from a bad memory or insignificant squabble to a life changing, or life ending event, be it from others, or even self-inflicted, intentionally or not. This discussion is born from the mentally affected, extremists, criminals, etc. The focus should be the source and understanding it. Bringing in every day people, our culture, to use as a deterrent can blur the line between the two just enough to make us worse off overall in my, perhaps naive, opinion.

Also I'm unconvinced from the anti-tyrannical argument. How could a tyrant be born with democracy and the separate branches of power? Isn't all of that designed around the concept of preventing a dictator, let alone one that we couldn't get rid of with the system without resorting to waging revolution with guns? If we're still afraid of it happening, the guns aren't the concern, it's the government in place and that's what needs to be rethought. Logically speaking, if we were given guns, we'd immediately go with revolution to shoot off the hand that gave them if we couldn't otherwise convince them to change given that we're asking for them with reasoning that effectively implies intrinsic injustice in how they run our country.
 
Last edited:

Capita

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
140
Location
Houston, TX
NNID
n1ntendogamer
Introducing such weaponry to society could have a negative impact that creates a greater degree of incidents than the amount we were trying to prevent in the first place, it would be nothing more than an experiment on a very large scale for no one actually knows for sure things would improve and not the reverse.
I assume you're referring to assault weapons, and if that's the case, assault weapons are nowhere near the main cause of gun related deaths.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
Also I'm unconvinced from the anti-tyrannical argument. How could a tyrant be born with democracy and the separate branches of power? Isn't all of that designed around the concept of preventing a dictator, let alone one that we couldn't get rid of with the system without resorting to waging revolution with guns? If we're still afraid of it happening, the guns aren't the concern, it's the government in place and that's what needs to be rethought. Logically speaking, if we were given guns, we'd immediately go with revolution to shoot off the hand that gave them if we couldn't otherwise convince them to change given that we're asking for them with reasoning that effectively implies intrinsic injustice in how they run our country.
Even the 2nd amendment says this: a well - regulated- militia (the National Guatd). There's no meaningful regulation outside of the military, not when, as you also pointed out, it's so easy to obtain firearms.
First, the national guard is mainly a reserve unit for the actual United States military, and it serves to be a militia to protect us from foreign attacks. However, the second amendment isn't there for protection from foreign invaders, self-defense, or recreational uses. It's meant to be a deterrent and defense from tyrannical government, therefore a government run militia wouldn't make much sense in that context. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the right for private citizens to protect themselves from similar governments the founding fathers had left. All tyrannical governments throughout history have had some form of gun regulation (if not outlawed outright), because the only thing stopping a government from becoming tyrannical is its people. Tell me, without the second amendment, who's to prevent tyranny from coming out in the first place? Who's to prevent a tyrannical government from infringing on our basic constitutional rights? Who's to prevent a tyrannical government from chipping away at our republic? Who's to prevent our nation from becoming an Orwellian police-state? The answer is, without guns, not a single entity is capable of preventing such a thing.
 
Last edited:

Holder of the Heel

Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
8,850
Location
Alabama
NNID
Roarfang
3DS FC
1332-7720-7283
Switch FC
6734-2078-8990
I assume you're referring to assault weapons, and if that's the case, assault weapons are nowhere near the main cause of gun related deaths.
No, why are you making that random assumption? None of what I said requires assault weapons in particular.

First, the national guard is mainly a reserve unit for the actual United States military, and it serves to be a militia to protect us from foreign attacks. However, the second amendment isn't there for protection from foreign invaders, self-defense, or recreational uses. It's meant to be a deterrent and defense from tyrannical government, therefore a government run militia wouldn't make much sense in that context. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the right for private citizens to protect themselves from similar governments the founding fathers had left. All tyrannical governments throughout history have had some form of gun regulation (if not outlawed outright), because the only thing stopping a government from becoming tyrannical is its people. Tell me, without the second amendment, who's to prevent tyranny from coming out in the first place? Who's to prevent a tyrannical government from infringing on our basic constitutional rights? Who's to prevent a tyrannical government from chipping away at our republic? Who's to prevent our nation from becoming an Orwellian police-state? The answer is, without guns, not a single entity is capable of preventing such a thing.
Within that paragraph you quoted I already gave my answer to that question.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Giant
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,133
Location
Icerim Mountains
Our system of checks and balances essentially eliminates the possibility of one man or even one group of completely destroying the country. And some random person in a home compound with a shed full of ARs does not equal "well regulated." This idea that citizens should be armed to prevent the possibility of a government take over is frankly asinine. It's paranoia at best and irresponsible.

Also there's no reason a criminal could know which homes are armed and which aren't. In many situations the use of deadly force is not legal, anyway. Furthermore there is the fact that a clear majority of mass shootings and spree killings are perpetrated by individuals who acquired their firearms legally.

While I may agree a total elimination of firearms from the general populace would be logistically difficult, I find that the other recourse, which is to simply increase regulations, is not working. It could work but NRA lobbyists keep such laws strictly in favor of gun manufacturers and retailers.
 

ENAZ

Smash Cadet
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
26
Location
Canton Ohio
If guns were illegal, then only people who break the law would have guns. of course guns being legal makes it easier to get a gun, but crack is illegal, and i could get it any day of the week if i really wanted to. the point is, making guns illegal would not really accomplish anything.
 

kiteinthesky

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
902
I dislike the strong bent toward banning mentally ill people from guns and argue that not only is doing so discrimination against the mentally ill, but is unhelpful and dangerous.

The idea is based on the bigoted stereotype that mentally ill = violent and unstable, and this simply isn't true for several reasons:

The negative association we have in our society of mental illness and violence causes very high stigma and discrimination against people with those conditions and discourages undiagnosed people from seeking treatment for fear of having that label put on them which has serious negative consequences. Stripping mentally ill people of their second amendment rights would just be another very big, very valid reason for undiagnosed people to avoid treatment, making the problem worse. We need comprehensive and compassionate treatment for the mentally ill in our society, not laws taking away their Constitutional rights and pushing them further down a path toward second-class status.
 
Last edited:

ENAZ

Smash Cadet
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
26
Location
Canton Ohio
rather t
I dislike the strong bent toward banning mentally ill people from guns and argue that not only is doing so discrimination against the mentally ill, but is unhelpful and dangerous.

The idea is based on the bigoted stereotype that mentally ill = violent and unstable, and this simply isn't true for several reasons:

The negative association we have in our society of mental illness and violence causes very high stigma and discrimination against people with those conditions and discourages undiagnosed people from seeking treatment for fear of having that label put on them which has serious negative consequences. Stripping mentally ill people of their second amendment rights would just be another very big, very valid reason for undiagnosed people to avoid treatment, making the problem worse. We need comprehensive and compassionate treatment for the mentally ill in our society, not laws taking away their Constitutional rights and pushing them further down a path toward second-class status.
rather than mental illnesses causing violence and gun crime (though this could be considered one of them) drugs/addictions lead to most gun crimes and bad situations. drugs ruin peoples lives in so many ways, and people with good lives rarely do major crimes
 

Capita

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
140
Location
Houston, TX
NNID
n1ntendogamer
No, why are you making that random assumption? None of what I said requires assault weapons in particular.
You consistently stated that you feared what can be done, therefore it lead me to assume that you were referring to assault weapons as you did indeed infer that "introducing such weaponry to society could have a negative impact."
Within that paragraph you quoted I already gave my answer to that question.
The reply was still relevant and within context.

Our system of checks and balances essentially eliminates the possibility of one man or even one group of completely destroying the country. And some random person in a home compound with a shed full of ARs does not equal "well regulated." This idea that citizens should be armed to prevent the possibility of a government take over is frankly asinine. It's paranoia at best and irresponsible.
It doesn't change the fact that government over time could grow to ignore such principles. It's not going to be one executive stripping arms from the American people, just like it won't take one executive to unbalance the political scale, rather it would take a big government coalition to infringe upon such principles and disarm the public of their only protection against totalitarian government.
Also there's no reason a criminal could know which homes are armed and which aren't. In many situations the use of deadly force is not legal, anyway.
Self-defense is legal for the most part in the United States. That's one of the many added benefits: It serves to be added protection against a criminal when there is no time for the police to react.
Furthermore there is the fact that a clear majority of mass shootings and spree killings are perpetrated by individuals who acquired their firearms legally.
This variable is largely irrelevant due to the fact that criminals would still have access to such weaponry beyond the law. Just a brief look at Europe shows large black markets for firearms due to the illegal demand there is for a firearm.
I believe a more relevant variable is the fact that most shootings that have prompted elected officials to support gun regulation, have all occurred in private areas where guns aren't allowed to be carried. Had an armed, law-abiding citizen been at a single one of those shootings, there is a large possibility that such shootings wouldn't have occurred in the first place.
 

kiteinthesky

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
902
This variable is largely irrelevant due to the fact that criminals would still have access to such weaponry beyond the law. Just a brief look at Europe shows large black markets for firearms due to the illegal demand there is for a firearm.
I believe a more relevant variable is the fact that most shootings that have prompted elected officials to support gun regulation, have all occurred in private areas where guns aren't allowed to be carried. Had an armed, law-abiding citizen been at a single one of those shootings, there is a large possibility that such shootings wouldn't have occurred in the first place.
To be fair, according to my source about half of mass shootings were committed by people who were legally able to acquire a gun, while a quarter were prohibited possessors and the other quarter is unknown.

Also only a quarter of mass shootings actually take place at gun-free zones.

[Source]

Though to be perfectly honest I have read of many cases of people intervening and stopping crimes using firearms, yet popular media either doesn't acknowledge these cases at all or tries to discredit them. They'll often argue that people who try to intervene will only make the problem worse, which itself is highly presumptive and speculative with scant evidence behind it. This Mother Jones article cites two cases where this happens, while it discredits several legitimate instances of people stopping mass shooters with reasoning such as the civilian was an off-duty cop or Marine without arguing while ignoring that many gun owners are cops or military to begin with, the mass shooter supposedly was done shooting even though that's unfalsifiable and irrelevant because the shooters would have escaped if not for the civilians, the list goes on and on. I cannot find a single actual study examining the issue, just very biased articles from both sides of the debate that list several examples of this phenomenon happening and using them to bolster their side.

I don't think this is about firearms because the arguments against people intervening apply regardless of whether one is armed or not. It's not about guns. It's about this vile, cowardly idea that only official authority figures are allowed to save other people, whatever the cost, and an implicit belief that intervening in an emergency situation isn't about genuine concern for other people but about prestige and the assertion of dominance, because intervention is a sign of dominance, and we all know we can't let regular people have any kind of power, agency or control in our society.

If you, the reader, don't believe me, poll pro-gun and anti-gun people and ask them about their attitudes toward intervening in an emergency. I would bet you dollars to donuts that the pro-gun people would be gung-ho about handling the situation, right there, themselves, while the anti-gun people will argue that regular people are too stupid or ignorant to help and should wait for a dominant member of the tribe to help regardless of the fact that the victim could die without any kind of immediate assistance. They will even do this when people intervene in mass shootings and stop them while unarmed (by tackling the assailant or whatever). Have you ever seen a nightly newscast about some brave individual stopping a crime that has a cop or another authority figure telling you, the audience to never do the same thing or you'll get hurt? That's a manifestation of this disgusting attitude that I personally find abhorrent.

And it'll never occur to anyone that teaching everyone at least the basics of what to do in those situations in high school, including firearms training where students who pass get their gun license much the same way as teens in middle school get their boating licenses, would appease the anti-gun people while promoting the (what I believe is the morally correct) worldview of the pro-gun people, but who cares about nuance?
 
Last edited:

the.tok

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
130
Location
Brussels, Belgium
3DS FC
2767-0503-3415
I think this question cannot be treated as generally as it is being done here.

"Should citizen be allowed to own guns" : if you keep the question that way, meaning any gun,everywhere anytime, I think the answer is obviously a big no.

The culture and initial situation has to be taken into acount on a country by country basis, as well as the number of guns already in circulation.

For countries where gun are currently strictly regulated, and where very few guns are on the streets, such as France, Belgium, UK, Germany (the black market is nowhere close to making guns as common as in the US, even for criminals) I would argue that it would make no sense to suddenly stop gun control.

I think it would only put more guns on the streets which we don't need. In those countries, the rate of homicides in much lower than in the US and having less guns on the streets does help.

But for countries where those guns are already everywhere, that is a tougher question to answer. The priority is to remove as many illegal owned guns from bad hands as possible, but easier said than done.
I fail to see how giving guns to eveyone solves the problem though.


And for the cultural side, it is very hard to understand for me when I've always lived in countries where guns are not really part of the culture.

To me a gun is something that kills, I fail to see why anyone would want one, it doesn't seem civilized to me, but I accept that other cultures see things otherwise, just like Yemenites carry that big knife around all the time.

I think this is the main thing : are you willing to pay the price of making something dangerous more common for the freedom of having it for the cases where it can be enjoyable?

Every society makes thoses choices based on the risk/reward. Some countries ban alcohol, which to me seems bad because it is an important part of my culture. I can see why some US people don't want gun to disappear. I think of all the pro-gun people I've met, roughly 80% are from the US, so that seems to be more of an issue within US culture. Is the "safety" point that relevant in that debate? Genuinely asking.
 

FairyLip

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Aug 2, 2015
Messages
111
Location
US/CT
NNID
SmoothJazz
Nope. Less guns means less guns. The only time I'd support is for heavily technical, hard-to-use, non-automatic sports rifle, or a shooting range. In self-defense, you should try to do minimal harm to your attack to avoid escalating the situation, Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws nonwithstanding.

Also, look at the UK. Banned guns, very little gun violence (even with police).
 

Murlough

Euphoria
Joined
May 2, 2015
Messages
2,713
Location
Tennessee
NNID
Murl0ugh
3DS FC
4828-8253-7746
I'll answer with a question: why should law-abiding citizens have to obey a law that prevents them from procuring guns, which would put them at the mercy of criminals and criminally-disposed people, who will no doubt violate that law?
Pretty much this. Making it illegal for citizens to own guns would only prevent people who OBEY THE LAW from having them. Criminals will have guns either way because they don't care what is illegal.

If guns somehow are taken from every citizen then that solves nothing. People will just start using knives and bows.
 
Last edited:

Foxus

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
620
NNID
Greatfox1
Gun control is just a bad idea all around. With that on air shooting that occurred within the last week in Virginia, it really backs the need for universal background checks and mental health evaluations prior to getting a handgun. Had that been in place, most likely Vester Flanegan never would have gotten a gun, because he was sick in the head.

That aside, I firmly believe in the right to bear arms. Gun control only invites more violence and tragedy into the equation. Armed citizens-good citizens that is, make a community a much safer place to be in.
 

M15t3R E

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
3,061
Location
Hangin' with Thor
The criminally insane will manage to procure firearms whether or not guns are outlawed. If banned, every law abiding citizen would be at their mercy.
We need better education on gun awareness and safety, better and more proactive psychiatric evaluations for most citizens and more thorough background investigations for those purchasing firearms, and more laws on the books that prevent private sales. I think this should be agreeable to any logical person.
 

the.tok

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
130
Location
Brussels, Belgium
3DS FC
2767-0503-3415
Nope. Less guns means less guns. The only time I'd support is for heavily technical, hard-to-use, non-automatic sports rifle, or a shooting range. In self-defense, you should try to do minimal harm to your attack to avoid escalating the situation, Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws nonwithstanding.

Also, look at the UK. Banned guns, very little gun violence (even with police).
US does have a lot more death by shooting than other similarly developped countries, but I wonder what are the reasons behind that. Stricter gun control seems relevant, but I doubt that is the only reason, I don't know enough of US society to pinpoint the reason : any idea if it is not about gun being more openly available ? Is it just a more violent society overall ?

I don't see why any country should legalize gun. I really don't think it would decrease violence. The question only remains for the very few countries that do not have real gun control like the US.

Pretending legalizing guns makes a country safer does not seems backed by any evidence of any kind though, so I don't see why any country would make this move. The whole "prevents tyranny" argument does make more sense IMO, though sometimes tyrants can be supported by the people, even elected ;-)

Food for thought :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns
And cops ;)
 

SSG SAX GAMER

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
190
Location
Bay Area
I think they should without having gun control laws and here's why.

1) People usually think that since guns would be more accessible there would be more shootings. I don't think this is true because I can't imagine a scenario where someone would want to shoot up a place like a school but they decide not to and do something else because it's illegal to get a certain gun. I think that in the end people would end up getting these guns illegally.

2) Just because it can hurt people that shouldn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed at all. Certain knives that aren't used for the kitchen are all legal to have home even though they can kill people, knives like karambit.
 

SimonBarSinister

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
1,361
Location
Northwest US
NNID
SimonBarSinister
3DS FC
2406-5996-7869
It's not the abundance of guns that's the problem. People are the real issue. A gun is fundamentally neutral on its own (much like any other inanimate object). It can't do anything until someone gets their hands on it. What happens afterward depends on who wielding it. People are essentially variables, and as such, it's impossible to know what they're going to do or what they're thinking (unless they have a noted history).

That's why I firmly believe the law-abiding majority has an indisputable right to use firearms for their (and their families') defense (and other lawful purposes) with minimal interference from any gun control actions. Gun control laws are only "feel-good" measures. They have no substance to them because the only ones these laws actually affect are the law-abiding, not the criminal element. Criminals aren't going to respect the law anyway (much like certain politicians), they're criminals. They will always find a way to obtain arms illegally, with or without gun control efforts.

when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns
Precisely.

what's the difference
A criminal with a gun and a badge is still a criminal.

The whole "prevents tyranny" argument does make more sense IMO, though sometimes tyrants can be supported by the people, even elected ;-)
Because sometimes people are stupid enough to support future tyrants without knowing what they're bargaining for. For better or worse, people NEED to be armed against such eventualities because, more often than not, it's what comes to pass. As that old saying goes, "Tyrants always support the laws, before destroying them". Over here in the US, the government would love nothing more than to abolish the Second Amendment, because they know once that is gone all other rights of the people will follow suit, since the people would no longer have any means to protect their rights. And then we're faced with the very situation the Founding Fathers suffered through: being under the heel of a power-hungry, totalitarian government, with the people having absolutely NO rights. But trying to outright get rid of the Second Amendment would only cause the people to retaliate against them, so they've been trying to chip away at it slowly.
 
Top Bottom