Gun Control Opinons (The real one)
- Thread starter knowltok2
- Start date
knowltok2
Deity
Good quotation Mr. Pres. I can go along with the sentiment, and with the idea, but I should like to try much firmer controls and standards before banning completely. I think it is within an enlightened democracy's power to still allow guns and maintain peace. If we say that it is not, are we not saying that the citizen cannot be trusted? The same in a sense can be said about drugs too. We do say that the citizenry is not smart, mature, wise, enough to handle crack cocaine. Personally I don't have a problem with that. This is not a world of absolutes, and personal freedom and responsibility do have limits, IMHO. However, those limits should only be put into place for the most serious of reasons, and should not be placed on in absolute form unless it is determined that it is totally necessary to use the absolute form.
If you couldn't guess, mine was opinion #4
If you couldn't guess, mine was opinion #4
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I agree with this, there can never be absolute personal freedom. There should be the most happiness for the most people possible. So if more happiness can be achieved by more people if firearms were banned then so be it. Here's some statistics to back up this point:
- A member of your family is 22 times more likely to die from gunfire if you have a gun in your house than if you don't.
- Fewer than 1 out of 4 crimes is committed while the victim is at home
- Among all the instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2% of the time are guns used to shoot the intruder. The rest of the time residents accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves - or burglars take the gun and shoot them with it.
- Each year 500,000 guns are stolen with many of these ending up in the inner city, sold cheaply or traded for legal or illegal goods and services.
- These stolen guns have caused a lot of deaths. Gunfire is the number one cause of death among young blacks.
- Black men between te ages of 15 and 24 are almost 6 times more likely to be shot to death than white men in that same age group.
So if you are concerned about your protection get a dog. If you want to reduce the number one cause of death among young black man, then don't buy a gun. Chances are that if you have a legally bought gun then you live in an area with a all-time low in crime. Basically firearms cause crime and death.
knowltok2
Deity
To an extent. Rights should not be heedlessly violated in this pursuit. That is the crux of the matter in truth. We are talking about a reduction in rights to increase happiness. This is not something to be entered into lightly, and I would suggest, not with an absolute step. Banning to me is a resort of a society that has conceded that it and its citizens cannot handle a freedom, despite all reasonable efforts. In my opinion, all reasonable efforts have not been made, and there remains much that can and should be done to curb violence of all kinds before banning guns is considered.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I wonder if you support the continued banning of illegal drugs (although that is for another thread). To ban something doesn't me that the citizens can't handle freedom. It means that some citizens are abusing that freedom which is reducing the happiness and freedom of others. With firearms being legal some people will use them for criminal purposes (I know that this will happen even if firearms are banned but I think you will agree that it will not be to the same extent) and therefore affect the freedoms of other citizens. Also I think there is a difference between the way you see firearms and the way I see firearms. You see them as a right to every free citizens. I don't consider them a right. It is the same way that I don't consider the driving as a right. Along these lines I suggest that only people qualified, i.e. have passed a firearm safety test, should be allowed to own a gun. They who have to keep that gun in a safe place, probably locked up. Also only certain people will be able to qualify to take the test, i.e. hunters/farmers/members of licensed gun clubs. This could be used as the first step in ridding society of firearms.
knowltok2
Deity
As far as drugs go, I am for legalizing pot and currently holding the line on the rest. I view these issues as fluid and not set in stone, and open to further future review. In a theoretical sense, I don't rule out banning, but I don't think we have come to a point where we have to say, "There is no way we can come up with that lets us maintain our society as we wish, and still have guns."
As far as gun ownership being a right...Two ways to look at that, maybe three. From a social contract viewpoint, everything is a right and freedom, and is only traded away in exchange for security or protection. Actually, as I view it, from that standpoint there is no such thing as a right. You can do whatever you want to, and there is no natural law decreeing that you can't. We as society impose those rules and laws and define what is a right and what is restricted. From the angle of what many of the societies of the world have defined as rights, you are correct to a point with the car example in that we view it as a privilage. However it is not a privilage that is restricted without sound reason. I have said before that I am not against tests and classes for gun ownership. I don't think that it should be seen now as a first step towards eventual banning though. I don't think we can determine now if that ultimate step in necessary.
To continue with the driving thing, while it may not be a right, we treat it somewhat as one because we try to restrict it as little as we think is possible. We would probably be safer to permanently remove the driver's licsense of anyone who broke any rule, but that would be excessive. To me, the same applies to guns. I'll agree that something needs to be done, but I don't think that a banning is what is required, especially since we haven't tried many other methods of reducing gun violence.
As far as gun ownership being a right...Two ways to look at that, maybe three. From a social contract viewpoint, everything is a right and freedom, and is only traded away in exchange for security or protection. Actually, as I view it, from that standpoint there is no such thing as a right. You can do whatever you want to, and there is no natural law decreeing that you can't. We as society impose those rules and laws and define what is a right and what is restricted. From the angle of what many of the societies of the world have defined as rights, you are correct to a point with the car example in that we view it as a privilage. However it is not a privilage that is restricted without sound reason. I have said before that I am not against tests and classes for gun ownership. I don't think that it should be seen now as a first step towards eventual banning though. I don't think we can determine now if that ultimate step in necessary.
To continue with the driving thing, while it may not be a right, we treat it somewhat as one because we try to restrict it as little as we think is possible. We would probably be safer to permanently remove the driver's licsense of anyone who broke any rule, but that would be excessive. To me, the same applies to guns. I'll agree that something needs to be done, but I don't think that a banning is what is required, especially since we haven't tried many other methods of reducing gun violence.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Yeah I drive on the left. Anyway, I don't think it is excessive to permanently ban someone who has say been well over the limit whilst driving. This shows a disregard for the rules, road safely, and the more importantly the lives of others. I do not feel comfortable allowing such a person to continue to drive (even after a ban) because they have shown what they are capable of. I know that our society is based on the principle of recovery and that a person can change. However for some crimes you get a life sentence, the same should be applied to driving bans.
What other methods would these be? To me it seems logical, to reduce gun violence reduce guns. To remove gun violence, remove guns. This is obviously way too simply but I think you get the idea.
---
What other methods would these be? To me it seems logical, to reduce gun violence reduce guns. To remove gun violence, remove guns. This is obviously way too simply but I think you get the idea.
---
What about the rebuttle "If you get rid of guns from law abidding citizens then only criminals will have them". What protection will there be then? Cops? They are not around all the time....So it isn't as easy as you make it sound.
What other methods would these be? To me it seems logical, to reduce gun violence reduce guns. To remove gun violence, remove guns. This is obviously way too simply but I think you get the idea.
---
What about the rebuttle "If you get rid of guns from law abidding citizens then only criminals will have them". What protection will there be then? Cops? They are not around all the time....So it isn't as easy as you make it sound.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Where do the criminals get the guns from? They get them from law abidding citizens.
knowltok2
Deity
Originally posted by MrPresident
Yeah I drive on the left.
This is an example of that dry British wit you mentioned in another thread, right?
What other methods would these be? To me it seems logical, to reduce gun violence reduce guns. To remove gun violence, remove guns. This is obviously way too simply but I think you get the idea.
Simple doesn't always mean best. There are many simple ways that we could reduce violence and death in our society, but we don't. Once upon a time the US tried to reduce the evils of Alcohol by banning it. In return, we got Al Capone, Bugsy Seigal, and organized crime.
That said, I am fine with reducing the number of guns. Increase the price, tax ammo more, require licenses, etc. I just don't want those to be seen as the first step in an inevitable ban. Let's try tougher restrictions and stronger enforcement before calling for a full ban.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Have you ever heard the phase "The simplest solution is usually the correct one". I don't really want to get into the whole prohibition thing (thats for a different forum) but I think the US government could have done a little more to enforce the ban. However that said the President at the time was one Mr Harding who was hardly free of corruption.
Back to the topic. It seems to me that you want tougher restrictions and better enforcement, like me. You want higher prices and taxes, like me. However where we differ is that this is all you want whereas I want a total ban. I think that is the essence of the difference between our two views, correct me if I am wrong. So our arguement should be about why you don't want a total ban and why I do want one. This seems a good point to bring in my old favourite, guns lead to crime. Guns do not stop crime, they lead to more crime. Legally bought guns are just as dangerous as any other type of gun because they can be stolen. If no guns were manufactured then no guns could be used in crime. This is totally unrealistic but I think you get the point.
ApocalypseKurtz
Man, myth, legend
knowltok2
Deity
You are essentially correct. My main reason for being against a ban is that I view it as unnecessary for a government to do. I believe in personal responsibility as a guiding principle, and while I can accept restrictions imposed by a government for good reason, a heavy handed approach that takes away all freedom in a particular area is not my first choice. I hold out hope that our society can find within itself the maturity to live with firearms as opposed to banning them completely.
We are simply going to have to agree to disagree because in essence, you have come to a conclusion that I could only come to after other methods have been tried. I view a banning as a last resort, not a first step.
ApocalypseKurtz
Man, myth, legend
Just for the record, mine is #2
Similar threads
