Gun control debate

fishin' wrote:

Quit parroting the Micheal Moore-esque stereotypes. Every American doesn't own a a gun and very few sleep with one under their pillow.

I didn't say all Americans sleep with guns under their pillows, I said "people," meaning "some Americans." But because the average American does not sleep with a gun under his or her pillow, I will now replace that with "many Americans own guns." OK?

"...there's still less crime here than there is in America, where many people own guns."

My point remains the same. Please focus on agreeing or disagreeing with the actual points I am making: do you or do you not agree that it seems irrational to say that crime has increased here as a result of our comparatively laid-back attitudes to crime, since our attitude has not suddenly changed, whereas the crime rates are changing?

Quote:

None of you? There isn't a single person in the UK that thinks they should be able to own a firearm to protect themselves? Do you want to retract that now or would you prefer to wait until I post a few dozen links to prove it wrong?

You could post some links if you like, but what's the point in being so pedantic? Obviously I was making a sweeping generalisation, you don't need to tell me that. I'm sorry, but that's how I tend to argue. Like I might say, "everybody seems to think [this or that]," when really I mean "many people seem to think [this or that]." It's just hyperbole.

The point is that it is very unusual in this country for a person to believe they need a gun to protect themselves. In America criminals are more likely to be armed, because guns are more available, and Americans therefore often feel the need for a gun to protect themselves from armed criminals. But here, guns are rare, and feeling the need for a gun for protection is very rare. As far as I know it is anyway, if you can provide some links which suggest that a significant number of English citizens believe they need a gun to protect themselves then please do so. I'm not interested in the odd BNP member who might think he needs a gun to protect himself from the "terrorist" asylum seekers "invading" our country.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

I'm saying that there is a minimum of one possible reason to use heroin that is legitimate.

when a person does something which causes them to enter an altered state where they can no longer make logical decisions, their actions could be dangerous to other people. therefore, allowing oneself to enter such a state is not acceptible, because they may or may not harm other people...it's almost randomness. but nonetheless, rolling a dice to see if other people get hurt is not ok...so even using heroin once to get a euphoria is not ok. also, when dealing with something with any level of addictive properties, it must be assumed that some level of self control will be diminished.

agrote wrote:

So could the illegalisation of guns! Heroin indirectly causes criminal behaviour, guns directly cause death.

guns INDIRECTLY can cause death. heroin has only 1 purpose: to cause someone to lose control of their body and get high. guns have many uses which are much more valid. many people require guns to survive.

agrote wrote:

Yep, and all you have to do to prevent ALL gun homicides is to prevent GUNS! No guns, no gun homicide, there'd be no such thing.

guns cannot possibly be banned, there is no point in trying to do that. when there are so many countries with their own laws, it is impossible to have all guns in all countries be illegalized...and as long as they are legal someplaces, criminals will be able to get them on the black market. i agree that restricting guns further or illegalizing them in the US would make it more difficult to get guns and certainly reduce the amount of gun related injuries...but the cost would surely be greater than the benefit. what is the cost? the cost is that we lose the freedom to own guns. and freedom is worth a few lives.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

when a person does something which causes them to enter an altered state where they can no longer make logical decisions, their actions could be dangerous to other people. therefore, allowing oneself to enter such a state is not acceptible, because they may or may not harm other people...it's almost randomness. but nonetheless, rolling a dice to see if other people get hurt is not ok...so even using heroin once to get a euphoria is not ok. also, when dealing with something with any level of addictive properties, it must be assumed that some level of self control will be diminished.

If somebody locked themselves in a padded room, with plenty of food and water, before shooting up, they would be no risk to others. obviously this is a ridiculous idea, and nobody ever does this, but it is POSSIBLE - it is possible to take heroin once and be safe about it. But of course heroin is dangerously addictive, and is therefore illegal, even if one person in a million might use it very safely. The purpose of this analogy is to show that guns, though it is possible to use them for legitimate reasons such as shooting bits of paper for fun, should be illegal (though perhaps not to scientists studying ballistics) because they are dangerous killing machines, just as heroin is a dangerously addictive drug. If you agree that heroin should be illegal, despite it being possible to use it legitimately, then what is the problem with illegalising guns?

stuh505 wrote:

guns INDIRECTLY can cause death. heroin has only 1 purpose: to cause someone to lose control of their body and get high. guns have many uses which are much more valid. many people require guns to survive.

No, guns are not Swiss army knives. They only do one thing - shoot bullets. you can use them to scare away muggers, or hunt duck, or shoot pieces of paper, but these all involve either shooting to kill something, pretending to shoot to kill something, or threatening to shoot to kill something. They only have ONE function! It's like telling me a glass has a number of different uses - you can use it to drink water, or drink beer, or wine, or use it to carry water from one place to another, etc. But really all a glass does is carry liquid. Equally, all guns do is shoot bullets.

stuh505 wrote:

guns cannot possibly be banned, there is no point in trying to do that. when there are so many countries with their own laws, it is impossible to have all guns in all countries be illegalized...and as long as they are legal someplaces, criminals will be able to get them on the black market. i agree that restricting guns further or illegalizing them in the US would make it more difficult to get guns and certainly reduce the amount of gun related injuries...but the cost would surely be greater than the benefit. what is the cost? the cost is that we lose the freedom to own guns. and freedom is worth a few lives.

I was taking the piss out of rufio, who suggested we "prevent theft," which is at least as difficult a task as ridding the world of guns, if not more difficult. You agree that illegalising guns in the US would "certainly reduce the amount of gun related injuries" - well good! That's what I'm trying to say: illegalising guns may not rid the world of murder, but it will help. I'm shocked that you think the freedom to own a lethal weapon is more important than "a few lives," I really can't see any logic to that at all - could you explain why you think that? I'm all for freedom, you know, but the freedom to own a killing machine doesn't seem all that important to me, I'd much rather be free to walk around naked.

0 Replies

Agrote writes:

Quote:

Obviously I was making a sweeping generalisation, you don't need to tell me that. I'm sorry, but that's how I tend to argue. Like I might say, "everybody seems to think [this or that]," when really I mean "many people seem to think [this or that]." It's just hyperbole.

Well it was obvious to me since I too tend to write like I talk, I too tend to use a lot of metaphors and exaggeration for effect and therefore easily recognize these in other people's writing. Just know that on A2K there are several closeted members of Nitpickers Anonymous who are unable to identify these and who will quickly jump to point out your transgressions. Smile

0 Replies

Hehe, okay thanks for the advice.

By the way, I'm off on holiday for three weeks tommorrow, so I can't continue this debate, I'm sorry. It's 8:27pm here (England) now, so if anybody makes a post in the next few hours I'll read and possibly reply, but otherwise I'm afraid I'm out, sorry!

0 Replies

Sure, preventing guns (if done successfully) would prevent all gun homicides. But even if that could be done, how would you prevent all other homicides? You can't ban everything, and anything can be misused. Why do you think people don't get murdered with kitchen knives all the time? I know what you're going to say. Because we have guns, which are so much easier. But everyone owns a kitchen knife, they wouldn't even have to steal one. You can buy one for not terribly expensive, and a lot less effort. And to hear you talk, even putting a gun into someone's hand gives them an insatiable bloodlust to go kill an innocent person. It's because a) No one kills anyone with kitchen knives in the movies and b) because we've all been taught the proper handling of kitchen knives since we were little children. No one's saying guns aren't dangerous just as no one's saying kitchen knives and pools and cliffs aren't dangerous. Life is dangerous. If danger bothers you, life isn't for you. You don't ban something because it's dangerous. You teach people not to use it dangerously.

0 Replies

I haven't seen any one talk about the # of people that are saved per year because of guns! Each year there are about 2 million gun defense uses. That means that there are far more many people who use guns in defense then in crimes. Don't forget there is a reason that the right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment, just as free speech is the 1st amendment!

Gun control facts

0 Replies

Actually, the second ammendment isn't really applicable. It basically says that every able person should have access to a gun so that when the state has to be defended by a militia made up of ordinary people like you and me, the militia can actually be effective. But we don't have state militias anymore. We have a standing army, and they already get weapons.

But that's not really the point.

0 Replies

Disagree, rufio. It could say, "French fries going well with ketchup, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", without changing the meaning. I realize I get no support on this from joefromchicago.

Good idea, Baldimo. I may have touched on the idea myself, but it's a tough one to quantify. A home owner in NYC, for example, who runs off a burgler with a pistol could end up with greater problems than the crook, if he cared to report the incident.

0 Replies

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, I'm ashamed to say. I'm, as always, somewhat ambivalent towards this issue.
On the one hand, I don't like the idea of everyone owning a gun one bit. I'm most definitely NOT for unrestricted access to guns.

But, there are I feel arguments to be made for the right to use firearms in certain situations. The issue of self protection has been named. Also, a question to wonder about is where this will end. If guns are outlawed, what next? Swords? Axes? Knives? How about martial arts? some people could and would argue that people with sufficient skill in certain fighting disciplines are lethal weapons as well. So what then? Outlaw them?
And other tools that can be used as weapons? Chainsaws? cars? pitchforks? pavement stones? Steel tipped shoes, or spikes? hammers?
The there is also the problem of those persons who are allowed, by law, to carry guns. Police, certain federal agencies and of course all soldiers. What to do about them? I have no answer for this, nor can I seen an end to the discussion.

The problem lies in the mind of the murderer, not in the gun he is carrying. I cannot deny that guns are designed for shooting and killing, but it doesn’t have to be used this way. But if somebody has a mind to cause harm on a person, innocent or not, that harm can be inflicted in many ways. Perhaps it will take longer, due to lack of a gun. By the same account, I could say such a death is uglier for a victim, simply because it takes longer. Is gun control not merely a debate that goes only skindeep, so to say, and doesn’t come the core of the issue? Besides, people that desire gun control dream of a society that is totally gun free. A nice dream, and as such also an illusion. As long as there are people who desire power and money above all else, and don’t shun any means to acquire them, guns will continue to exist. And they will be held by precisely those people that you most wish didn’t have them.

Naj.

0 Replies

Yes, roger, but I wouldn't expect that statement to back up my opinion on the matter, and I wouldn't ask anyone I was trying to convince to believe it had merit. We don't need the second amendment when we already have laws about private property.

Naj - no (that I know of) is arguing for unrestricted access to guns. Just some of us are opposed to restricting it further than neccessary.

0 Replies

New Mexico has always had an open carry law - you can wear a pistol just about anywhere other than into a courthouse or school building and a few other specifically restricted areas. Yet because of the social stigma attached, virtually nobody other than law enforcement officers actually wear a gun on their hips in public here. You could legally carry a handgun in your glove compartment or keep one in your desk drawer but, until last year, you could not carry a concealed weapon in your purse or on your person.

Then last year they passed a concealed carry law and to date several hundred (thousand?) folks have taken the required training and become licensed to carry.

Now the crooks don't know who is armed and who isn't. I haven't seen any recent statistics, but it seems like we don't see nearly as many news stories about carjackings, armed robberies, muggings, etc. as we did before. I'm guessing the incidents of this kind of crime are way down.

I don't believe there has been a single illegal incident involving any of these newly licensed citizens either.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Actually, the second ammendment isn't really applicable. It basically says that every able person should have access to a gun so that when the state has to be defended by a militia made up of ordinary people like you and me, the militia can actually be effective. But we don't have state militias anymore. We have a standing army, and they already get weapons.

But that's not really the point.

But it is the point. It is the 2nd Amendment that gives us as US citizens the right to have weapons. The Founders (not framers) of our country knew this was important. They knew that govt's could get out of control and not listen to the people. They knew that we would need to take back our country by force if need be. If the govt can take away our guns they make us weak and dependent on the govt for safety. I don't want to rely on the govt for safety.

The quickest way for a govt to control the people is to make the people defenseless. Those who want to take away our guns are suspect of controlling the American people. We can't fight the govt if they are the only ones who have weapons, and this makes us controllable.

If your leader and you want to rule with unmatched power, what is the first thing you do? You take away the people ability to fight you. This is what was done in the USSR and China when those communist govt's took over. Do you want that to be able to happen here!

0 Replies

No it's not. It's the gun laws in the individual states and the private property laws that give citizens the right to bear arms. We don't need an amendment to carry around kitchen knives - why do we need one for guns? The founders and others in the past also supported slavery, and the 18th amendment. We shouldn't honor everything we did - this is our America, not theirs anymore. Times change. The militia was not set up to counter the government, and people were never meant to carry guns so that we could all start a coup against the government whenever we felt like it. Our control over the government is through whatever sort of measly form of democracy we have, and that's it. We are not defenseless - we have a bill of rights (at least those which are still relevant anyway), which is more powerful than any weapon. We fight the government with the laws that bind it - free speech, due proccess, etc. If they truly wanted total control, they would take those first. Then they'll take the guns, only after the people have no power to stop them. We should be much more worried about the Patriot Act than gun control acts, in terms of our freedom.

The reason I think we have a right to own guns is the same reason we have a right to own anything and do anything with it as long as it doesn't harm another person. That's all there is to the issue, as I see it.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

We don't need the second amendment when we already have laws about private property.

Okay, rufio, let's see you reconcile these two statements (taken from two separate posts). The bill of rights is made up of the first 10 amendments, the second amendment being one of the first 10, of course.

rufio wrote:

We are not defenseless - we have a bill of rights (at least those which are still relevant anyway), which is more powerful than any weapon.

Ah, neither you, nor the supreme court, can declare a part of the constitution, which includes amendments, to be irrelevant. That can only be done by further amendment.

0 Replies

That's why I specified the ones that still apply. We still have one about not being required to house soldiers in our homes, but as no soldiers are trying to house themselves with us, it's rather irrelevant. It's not a matter who declares it so, it's a matter of what it actually says. The second amendment only applies in the case that there's a state militia. We have no state militia. Hence, second amendment does not apply.

0 Replies

Nope. Yes, it's a matter of what it says. It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Third amendment, by the way, says ". . . but in a manner prescribed by law." I do not see a guaranteed right disappearing simply because no one is trying to violate it.

0 Replies

Here is what Tench Coxe had to say regarding the 2nd amendment as submitted by James Madison: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

This is an excerpt from The Declaration of Independence:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

If there is a reason to remove the current govt what makes you think they would leave because they were asked to? Sure we could vote the people out of office but if they are entrenched what are we to do? Any one who would make it so that they should have to be removed from power wouldn't go as easily as that.

How do you think Hitler was able control the Jews? He continued a previous use of Gun control. This left the Jews unarmed and unable to defend themselves against his armies.

Have you heard of the slaughter of Christians in Rwanda from April-July 1994? The first thing Hutu did was making firearms illegal to own. Once gun control was enforced his armies went about the country slaughtering Christians wherever they could be found. The UN in it's with it's pro-gun control stance didn't do anything because it was a "civil war".

How would you feel if someone decided you life was worth more then theirs and tried to kill you? Would you like to be able to defend yourself? What about the use of guns in defense? There were several million of them reported; doesn't this make guns worthwhile in private hands?

0 Replies

Roger, the right not to have soldiers quartered in our homes does not go away if there are no soldiers trying to be quartered. In the same way, the rights of members of a "well-regulated militia" to bear arms does not go away if there is no militia. It simply does not apply. Just because "the people" were expected to act as a militia does not mean the amendment still applies to them when they are not - it was directed at them as the people making up the militia, not as citizens of the US.

Baldimo - the founders weren't as godlike as everyone likes to say. The system isn't a perfect counter, and the country isn't a perfect democracy. But the laws were meant to be used against the government, not guns, regardless of how effective they actually are. Frankly, if the US government decided to go to war with the people or a part of the people, there's probably not a lot we could do even if we ALL had guns. Hitler had a lot more weapons on his side than gun control, and in both of those cases, any laws that would have protected the people were already gone or had never existed. Would guns have been effective? Maybe in Rwanda. Probably not against Hitler, certainly not against the US military should it go that way.

I have nothing against owning guns so I don't know who the last part was directed at.

0 Replies

What?

rufio wrote:

The second amendment only applies in the case that there's a state militia. We have no state militia. Hence, second amendment does not apply.

What? Where did you get your legal training?

I guess you can "believe" what you want to believe concerning the Second Amendment. However, your belief concerning the application of the amendment itself is indicative of an uneducated populace concerning constitutional law.

Additionally, every able-bodied person is a member of the militia in the state where he/she lives....

What state do you live in?

0 Replies

Gun control debate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know