Forums → WEPR → What do you guys think about gun-control?
| 82 | 22621 |
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
It's in the Constitution. The Second Amendment. Therefore, people should have the right to own a gun.
It's in the Constitution. The Second Amendment.
Not a reason. Just because it's written down somewhere doesn't make it true or right or necessary or the best choice.
I do agree that people should be able to own guns, but I also think that people who aren't responsible enough to have them shouldn't have them.
Let's have some facts, here:
Over 90% of gun crimes use pistols. Therefore, it is pointless to ban rifles and shotguns, including assault weapons and anti-materiel rifles.
55% of gun deaths are people opting out of the program. That means there is at least a ten point spread between violent criminals and those who no longer wish to inhabit the earth.
75% of gun crimes are committed by those under the age of 21. Remember the pistol statistic? The minimum age to own a pistol of any caliber is 21. Therefore, they are already committing a crime just by possessing it.
There are an estimated 300,000,000 guns in America, most of which are legally owned. How many murders are committed with guns in America? About 9,000 per year. After some quick math, this equates to 0.003% of guns in America are used for murder.
We have what can be called a 'gun culture.' We will have guns, legal or not. There are so many guns, in fact, that no matter how you look at it, it is impossible to eradicate guns. Not only would it be insanely expensive, but most people would just end up not doing it. Go to a redneck's trailer and try to take his shotgun he uses for duck hunting? Leave in a body bag. Period.
Convicted felons are not allowed to possess guns. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by convicted felons, either as juveniles or adults. There is a small minority that are not convicted felons, of course.
Gun laws are for retarded monkeys. You know what my 18th birthday present to myself is going to be? An AK47. Will I use it to kill anybody? I highly doubt it.
Burglars being shot? Check
You say it like it's a bad thing. If I find a burglar in my house, or they're breaking in while I'm home, the last thing on earth they will see is the barrel of a shotgun. It's my property, and my life, or that of my parents, and I have every right and will, whether legal or not, use lethal force on anyone who does not belong on my property and whose sole intent is felonious activity. I will not lose a wink of sleep over it, either. I'm just glad I live in a state that practices Castle Doctrine, and I have that right as protected by state law and constitution.
Really? I'd have thought the burden of proof would be on the people asserting the claim that they need a gun.
Yes, the burden of proof is on you. Ownership of property is a fundamental human right--it's assumed already that our right to own things is not limited. You are claiming gun ownership must be limited, so it is your job to show why.
I'm not saying that most gun owners commit gun crime but that a statistically significant number of gun owners do - even compared to other countries that have laws allowing gun ownership by private citizens.
What you are saying is that there is enough gun crime for it to be statistically reliable for us to assume gun owners have bad intentions in relation to their gun(s). I am saying that that is BS. According to the Guardian (who used the FBI as their source), the USA overall has a gun murder rate of 2.84 per 100,000 people, 41.67 per 100,000 for robberies, and 44.78 per 100,000 for assaults. Wikipedia says (citing a book ISBN 0-8157-5311-X, if you care that much) that about 25% of the USA's ~300 million people are gun owners. That's 25,000 per 100,000, or 75 million people. Now then, how in the world is that statistically significant enough to assume a gun owner has bad intentions when he or she buys/owns a gun?
There's a difference between guns and chairs in that a chair has a single, reasonable and pre-defined purpose - to be used for the purpose of sitting. People may decide to stack their chairs in a heap or something but the majority of chairs are used to sit.
How does that make guns any different? All you're saying is that chairs have a purpose. It's non sequitur until you show how that makes chairs different from guns, and furthermore how that makes Zeno's analogy invalid.
Also, why should gun ownership be considered a 'right' at all? It's a privilege and should be treated as such, not as some entrenched right.
You are objectively wrong. Property ownership is a fundamental human right as defined by the UN, and as we're arguing about the USA, I can cite the 2nd amendment. According to the Constitution, gun ownership is a right. Once again, it is your job to show that it should be limited because the burden of proof is on you, as was established earlier.
I love guns. I love the 5th amendment.
Second Amendment. You're not helping your case here.
Also, pHacon wanted to say something, but didn't want to log in. So, I'm posting it for him.
pHacon says:
Rights entail duties. As a person has a right to keep a weapon, the government has a duty to make sure that person isn't too much of a danger to himself or others, and it being a right, won't pass any laws to take the ability of ownership from someone.
Oh, and firearms don't make a person any more dangerous. They just mean a person can do the damage faster. If someone wants to kill someone, they won't not do it just because they don't have a gun, and having a gun won't make them do it. Tools are just a means of transferring energy with less work done.
Once again, not my words, just being the messenger here. Please don't shoot me.
Not a reason. Just because it's written down somewhere doesn't make it true or right or necessary or the best choice.
It's not just written down somewhere. It's written down in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Without the constitution, you would'nt have the freedom of speech, press, or religion. Or the right to keep and bear arms. You would not be posting on this thread without the Constitiution.
First of all, I ask that people please know what they're talking about before they speak. Both sides of this debate already think the other is moronic; don't perpetuate the stereotypes.....
I am an avid shooter. I grew up shooting guns. I qualified as a Marksman as per the US Armed Forces guidelines regarding JROTCs. I have shot guns of six different action types, 14 different calibers/gauges and three different classifications (possibly four). I have a great deal of experience and knowledge of this subject.
The basis of the Amendment
America in 1787 was the newest country in the world, having staged a bloody rebellion against the most powerful nation in the world just 11 years ago. They had many more enemies than friends, being surrounded on two sides by enemies (Britain owned Canada to the north, to the West were the American Indians); the threat of raid (a common occurrence) or British invasion (which would happen a mere 25 years later) were quite real dangers. It is also true that the military of the time was not nearly strong enough to defend the nation from Britain at this time. The majority of American combatants in the Revolution were militia, not trained military forces. This is why the Amendment specifically points out the need for a militia: they really did need one. Given the fighting style of the British and the Indians, there was absolutely no chance that America could have survived on any weapon other than guns.
Other nations' attempts at heavy gun control
I will not rest heavily on this point because, as was shown with the Switzerland comments, this seems to fall on deaf ears.
Australia had long been known for it's exceptional marksmen. Despite this, they enacted a ban on guns. During this period, reports of violent crime had a marked increase. After a change in government, this was appealed, causing violent crimes to return to their regular rate of incidence. After another change of government, the ban was reenacted, though at a lesser degree, and has since been in place. After this, the rate of violent crimes increased once again. The reason for this: criminals are more likely to commit crimes if they believe they will get away with it. If you believed a house had a gun in it, would you be as willing to burglarize it? Take away the threat of the gun and more criminals will be willing to take the risk. This is also seen when a house is known to have a home security system installed. It is not the use of guns to kill criminals that is most effective, but the mere possibility of there being a gun completely negating the crime in the first place.
Second off, when the Nazi's came to power, one of the first things they did was to take away the citizens' right to own weapons. This was to remove their ability to resist the oppression that would soon come. As stated before, "It is dangerous when the government has guns and the people do not." (I'm sorry, but I do not remember who here said this.)
My stance on modern gun control
I support gun control, but only in moderation and to an extent. I fully support certain bans, such as that on fully automatic weapons, anti-materiel weapons (destructive devices) and a few other particular items. Despite this, I also believe we have taken this control just a bit to far, such as with bans on pump action shotguns in California. Anybody that knows anything about gun action types, has shot several shotguns or has played any war game with a semblance of realism knows that semiautomatic shotguns shoot a hell of a lot quicker than a pump action will. Despite this, law makers deemed pump action shotguns to be much more dangerous than a semiautomatic. If you look at half of the regulations in place, you will see that the people that decide what is and isn't legal to use know absolutely nothing about what they are making laws about.
My proposed solution
I know that any attempt to have a mass repeal of gun control regulation will be met with a media **** storm, so instead I will suggest that our Senators and Representatives be educated on what guns can actually do. I believe a mandatory hunter's/gun owner's safety course followed by an optional set of shooting lessons should more than fix the problem, thus bringing gun control to a balance. All of the truly dangerous guns will be illegal, but the rights of the people and needs of the nation will be upheld.
Thank you for taking the time to read all of this.
My philosophy is simple, anything is okay as long as it's not being abused. If something is being abused, the abuser must be the one to lose his rights, not everyone else. I don't believe in sacrificing rights to protect people as long as other solutions are out there.
No truer words have been said in this thread thus far.
I love gun control as in gun control implemented by the owner of the gun. i.e. being safe by being sure all weapons(except those being used for self defense)are un-loaded before being stored, being sure that the safety is in the "on" position and simple things like that.
However I DO NOT believe the government should be able to take away firearms without a good reason such as the owner having a criminal history.
My family, my mother's side especially, as always been brought up with guns but I think people having the ability to buy guns and being able to carry a gun around (not in sight of course) leads to too much violence.
The gun crime in many European countries is far less than in America and this is due to the fact that it is illegal in most European countries to acquire a firearm unless you have a special permit such as a hunting permit. Even this is still highly monitored and regulated after a man was murdered by a huntsman about thirty years ago.
I'm not saying that you're average person is going to shoot random people but the legal flow of guns makes it easier for small gangs to use them which leads to more gang conflict and more death.
After 9/11, dozens of Muslims were shot in the streets because people took measures into their own hands.
I know we all have rights but guns lead to so much violence. That said, knife crime is relatively low in the US but high in places such as Great Britain.
The government should not impose laws limiting my right to protect myself and my property. Laws should not protect the armed thug, for example that breaks into my house simply because I didn't get there while the door or window was breaking. This is current NC state law and many of its citizens are fighting to win back the "castle" rule that allows homeowners the right to protect themselves, family, home and property with any means neccessary from anyone who unlawfully tresspasses.
The government has the right to require "range" time and instruction to learn how to properly shoot, clean and store all types of firearms. There are many hunting and shooting clubs in NC and some are in the county I reside. We even have women's clubs. It could be mandatory for citizens to be an active member of a club with picture IDs updated much like a driver's license? I would be very aggreeable with this type of requirement as long as it's reasonablly priced and enforced.
Just because I have the right to own firearms means I still need to use my judgement on when to use it for protection. This isn't a right to be taken lightly and you don't always have to shoot just produce the gun is usually enough to stop a wouldbe attacker.
With Law Enforcement being busted for narcotics in my county I need to be able to protect myself and I'm thankful I have the right to do so as protected by the 2nd Amendment.
The Constitution of the United States is just as sound in its wording and meaning as it was the day it was adopted. Many have criticized it saying it's old fashioned and should be rewritten but when you take the time to read each amendment that has been adopted it becomes clear that it's a complete and viable document.
The government should not impose laws limiting my right to protect myself and my property.
There are no guns in the UK and we've turned out fine.
Just because someone has broken into your house, that doesn't give you the right to shoot him.
There are no guns in the UK and we've turned out fine.
Just because someone has broken into your house, that doesn't give you the right to shoot him.
Generally people don't fire right away, they point a gun at the criminal then call the cops. But if they have to fire, they fire.
In a situation where seconds matter most, the police are minutes away.
As for the UK, I think it's a shame that it takes strict government regulation to make sure nobody has guns. It's good that most people from the UK are comfortable with this though, I suppose, because it means they live in a society they're comfortable with. However, I'm not comfortable with strict gun control. I don't want to be that dependent on government.
Now, here's some food for thought. In the US, many people irrationally criticized everyone involved with the Tea Party movement for being gun-toting rednecks. I won't comment on the ridiculous redneck remarks, but it's true that a majority of activists in the Tea Party Movement were against gun control.
The Tea Party Movement has been peaceful and there have been little to no violent crimes throughout the whole movement. The protest was peaceful.
In the UK, the government stated that they can't afford to pay for everyone's college tuition, and that they'll have to cut back on how much money they give the students. The students protested with violence. They started fired, flipped over cars, and vandalized innocent people's shops because they wanted to blame everyone who was more successful than themselves.
Understand, I'm not saying that guns were the reason why the American protest was more peaceful, or that the lack of guns were the reason why the students resorted to violence. What I am saying, however, is that it's possible to have a civilized society with guns, as much as it's possible to have a violent society without guns.
Obviously not every protest in which guns are legal are peaceful, it took one man with a single gun to take out a few of our presidents, but the over whelming majority of gun owners are responsible. In a country where guns are legal, you don't see people running around everywhere with guns shooting everything that moves.
Gun Cotrol
1) Two hands
2) Controlled Breathing
3) Steady trigger pull
@ BritHennerz
Just because someone has broken into your house, that doesn't give you the right to shoot him
I agree, owning a gun legally and taking the necessary written and range testing to qualify to purchase a concealed carry license does not give me or anyone else the right to just fire away.
Here's what I said above in my origianl comment.
Just because I have the right to own firearms means I still need to use my judgement on when to use it for protection. This isn't a right to be taken lightly and you don't always have to shoot just produce the gun is usually enough to stop a wouldbe attacker.
Remember that the gun control laws that the UK has, and the way things stand now, aren't the result of a single act - they're the result of a set of steps of increasingly tight control that people got used to over a number of years. We're comfortable with the way things are because successive generations didn't really notice the changes and it's only when you look back over the last century that you see the full effect.
Also, I was at the student protests over University tuition fees that you mentioned, seeing as I'm a student and my union called on me to be there - and I can tell you that the vast majority of people causing the damage at the student protests were NOT students but rather people in their mid-20's and beyond that were looking for an excuse to get violent without getting caught. In fact, seeing as the protest took place in London, which saw a great deal of rioting a little while after the protests - I wouldn't be above suggesting that the same people were involved in both.
You must be logged in to post a reply!