Forums → WEPR → What do you guys think about gun-control?
| 82 | 22617 |
I think we should have as little gun control as possible because the second amendment saysâ¦
AMENDMENT II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This pretty much means to things
#1 we need firearms to defend ourselves from our government (if it gets to oppressive)
#2 we need firearms to defend ourselves from other people (like in ww2 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor they could have easily invaded America and could not have been stopped until Nevada )
I think there should be almost no gun control what do you think?
- 82 Replies
I have to agree with you toemas, I happen to aprretiate my guns. Even at the age of 18 me and my family love the fact we are allowed to protect ourselve. And the simple fact the goverenment keeps trying to take away all our rights, i wish i knew why but im not a narrow minded government employment.
I think that the USA should get rid of that amendment, in fact, I think they need a severe constitutional rewrite to bring it in line with the UK and a coupla other European countries. I seriously think that guns shouldn't be available to the public to own unless they have a real reason (like hunting).
It isn't just about whether you have guns around or not. The UK has a low number of guns in domestic use and has a low murder rate 9by guns). USA has a high number of guns and a much higher murder rate by guns. Buuuuuut.... Canada has a high gun ownership and Switzerland the highest (if i recall correctly) and both have a low murder rate by guns. It's not just the availability of guns it's the people who are using them. If they just banned guns it wouldn't reduce the murder rate to levels like in UK, Canada or Switzerland. you'd need to educate people and have programmes in place to sort out problems.
i do NOT want gun control to come and take our guns it would be so sad but since i'm in the U.S.A. they're protected by the fifth amendment
I am a strong supporter of the 5th amendment. (I love guns)
I don't want gun control. The government is taking away our rights, one by one...
Why should you have guns? Why do you need them? The UK brought in gun controls slowly, over the years phasing out gun use to only the most necessary or valid of reasons, and we don't see any problems with it.
Your constitution and most of the following amendments are stupid pieces of paper written hundreds of years ago - they should be taken from wherever they're kept and then shredded, burn and scattered into the sea. The USA needs a constitution that brings it in line with the rest of the world, people should have fewer freedoms in certain areas for their own good, it's only common sense. Things work out great in the UK and, like the colony that it once was, America should learn from us and take our direction. I'm sick of this 'special relationship' being a one way street - it's time you did something for us and got yourselves sorted out.
(By the way, before any of you get on my back about this, I'm merely taking the most counter-whatever-you-guys-are-saying stance that I can think of in order to spark debate - what I'm saying doesn't necessarily reflect my own views).
I like the position that the magician and comedian, Penn Jillette, takes when it comes to creating solutions. When there's a problem, we should always try to seek out solutions that don't limit one's own freedoms before we do anything else. Obviously when a woman is being ***** or if someone has a gun to their head, force is needed. When it comes to things such as building libraries, we should try to take a different approach. Keep in mind this is all paraphrased.
So let's apply what I just said to guns. Is it possible to decrease crime (in general) without resorting to more gun control? Why do gun crimes, or rather crimes in general, happen in the first place?
I think that the USA should get rid of that amendment, in fact, I think they need a severe constitutional rewrite to bring it in line with the UK and a coupla other European countries. I seriously think that guns shouldn't be available to the public to own unless they have a real reason (like hunting).
I see no reason what-so-ever to make it illegal for someone to collect guns. I see no reason what-so-ever to make it illegal for someone to shoot guns for fun. Some reasons that people own guns are so they can hunt or to protect themselves, but it's none of the government's business why someone owns a gun as long as that person isn't infringing on other people's rights.
If a person must present a reason to own a gun that is acceptable by the government, such as self defense and hunting, then we're merely taking the approach that all people are guilty unless proven innocent. In this case, each person would have to prove that they have good intentions for owning a gun before being allowed owning one.
I don't care if someone likes shooting or not, there are shooting stands for that; and I won't question the right to possess arms per se.
But you American are real gun-nuts, and that's the only reason you need that amendment. Protection, militia? A pretext, nothing more. The gun lobby? Overpowered imo.
Here in Switzerland, if we have a gun at all, it's as much as one rifle, the army rifle at home, for those who are in the army and decide to take it home (except maybe for a few gun nuts who have permissions). There's even a tendency to abolish that and make the army store the weapons in arsenals.
Did we ever need those rifles to protect ourselves? No, never. Were there any bigger shootings? I remember only one, during a parlament session. Maybe one or two minor cases. In none of those situations would a civil have had any opportunity or time to help with a private weapon.
Now let's look at America. School shootigns? Check. Burglars being shot? Check. People getting shot for trivial reasons because the gun owner is crappy at anger management? Check.
Again, I won't say that it is bad per se to own weapons. I'm just saying I believe that such a gun liberalism/fanatism causes more trouble than it is supposed to solve.
Citizens need guns because when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. Certainly there will be accidents, and certainly those are tragic, but at the end of the day, just because someone else was careless or reckless with their weapon does not mean I should be stripped of my means to protect my family. As the fairly-old-now adage has it, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Restrictions merely rip them from the law abiding citizenry.
people have the right to have what they want in their home i will admit there needs to be more limitations other than needing a permit for a fully automatic weapon but still people take it overboard you only have two hands if they do put limitations i would be all for it just not get rid of them permatly
Why shouldn't it be the business of the government to at least be made aware of why someone is choosing to possess a deadly weapon?
What's wrong with assuming that, given the high amount of gun crime that goes on the USA, the citizens have bad intentions and should prove otherwise before being able to get a weapon?
I'm still not seeing why the 'law abiding citizenry' need guns in the first place - the UK seems to manage more than admirably without firearms in the hands of the general public.
And if it's a case of 'what a person has in their own home is their own business' then where does one draw the line exactly? Should we allow a person to amass a veritable armoury of weaponry without at least looking into their intentions for keeping it - if not limiting just what and how much they can have?
killersup's aunt would have died if she would not have guns.pluss killersup hunts,shoots trap,other crap so don't take away guns
If a person must present a reason to own a gun that is acceptable by the government, such as self defense and hunting, then we're merely taking the approach that all people are guilty unless proven innocent.
Going to have to argue this.
Having a set criteria or standards to have something doesn't assume that everyone is guilty. However, guns ARE easily capable of inflicting harm, thus you can't have everyone running around with them because they may well be irresponsible. As it's the government's job to protect it's people, this is a necessary part of society in that we place restrictions on things.
We don't let 13 year olds drive. Why not? It's not because we assume they'll go Grand Theft Auto and starting running everyone down they see. It's because a car can be dangerous and requires a higher level of responsibility and attention than what most 13 year olds possess.
Why shouldn't it be the business of the government to at least be made aware of why someone is choosing to possess a deadly weapon?
The same reason we don't question people when they buy knives or sign up for classes so they can train to fight or use weapons.
And if it's a case of 'what a person has in their own home is their own business' then where does one draw the line exactly? Should we allow a person to amass a veritable armoury of weaponry without at least looking into their intentions for keeping it - if not limiting just what and how much they can have?
Sure. I believe people should be allowed to collect weapons. It would be wrong to deny someone the right to collect weapons simply because they don't plan on using them to hunt or keeping them for self defense.
Let's consider a few questions:
* What areas in the US have the highest gun crimes?
* How many people own at least one gun?
* What percentage of gun owners commit gun crimes?
* What causes people to commit gun crimes?
* Where do most criminals who commit gun crimes buy their guns?
If you live in the country where every other household contains a gun, you're probably fairly safe. If you live in the ghetto where gangs use guns to maintain control of their territories, you're probably going to witness quite a few gun related crimes. I see no reason why a community of good people who are responsible should lose their rights so that criminals break the law. We shouldn't punish innocent people because of the sings of others. We should find ways in which we can reduce crimes without reducing freedom.
I'm still not seeing why the 'law abiding citizenry' need guns in the first place - the UK seems to manage more than admirably without firearms in the hands of the general public.
If more law abiding citizens carried around guns, we would probably be more safe from those who wish to do others harm. Regardless, just because people can live without something doesn't justify the act of taking that something away. I'm sure people could do well without soda and violent video games, but should those be outlawed as well?
I'm not arguing that people need guns, or that they should have guns. I'm arguing that people should be allowed to have guns for their own personal reasons as long as the guns aren't being used to infringe on the rights of others.
Let's say that a law is in place that requires citizens to provide a reason for owning a gun before they can acquire one. This will only hurt gun collectors, people who are highly unlikely to use a gun for illegal purposes. If a gun collector does use a gun to commit a crime, he's going to likely use a legal weapon. People who want guns to hunt or for self defense will probably have a harder time buying weapons, especially if they already have guns. In fact, these people may even be limited to the number of guns they own. What about criminals? Criminals will still be able to purchase guns legally by lying about their intentions. If a criminal wants to have a collection, he's going to buy guns from the black market. Most importantly, the criminal may buy a gun that isn't registered from the black market anyway, which means they're bypassing the law completely.
Creating a law in which a person must provide a reason for owning a gun only hurts innocent people. Criminals aren't hurt at all.
You must be logged in to post a reply!