Gun Control, who needs it?

[Greadius]

Originally posted by MrPresident
My first thought is how can you be completely sure that only the law-abiding citizens get the guns?

Completely irrelevant. Thousands of illegal guns are all over the world, if someone REALLY wants a gun they can get one. We are talking about law-abiding citizens, since they are the ones that would be most effected by banning guns.

Originally posted by MrPresident
I know people will say that this scearnio is unlikely will think about all those stressed-out workers going mad, students unhappy at school and the mentally unstable who slip through the system. In this situation a gun (whatever kind) would do far more damage than a knife.

Yes, a few people completely loose touch with reality and go on shooting sprees. Yet, I challenge you to find a single shooting spree in which no gun laws were broken.
If you can, I will support the outlawing of guns.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Also my final point is about keeping a gun at home as defense. The intention of someone who does this is fine, e.g. to protect themselves and/or their families. However if a burglar enters your home they usually go for your property rather than you (that's why they go for empty homes). So when you attack a burglar you are protecting your property not your family. You have to ask yourself is your property worth a human life because if you confront a burglar with a gun then that is what your are risking.

If it were only that simple... so when someone breaks into your house are you supposed to kindly ask them if they intend to hurt you, and if they say no just go back to bed? Or perhaps sneak out of your home, in your sleeping clothes, in the middle of the night, persuming the criminal isn't blocking the closest exit.
Completely impractical.

Originally posted by MrPresident
America is in a deadly cycle, you can't get rid of guns because people need guns to protect themselves from other people will guns. If no-one had guns then people wouldn't need a gun to protect themselves from other people will guns. Do you see the irony?

No, we can't get rid of guns because the right to keep them is in the Constitution, which requires an obscene majority to agree with a position.
You probably don't know many legal gun owners personally; perhaps you should ask them why they own guns. I doubt you would get a response that involved protection from other people with guns.
I can't answer, I don't own a gun and never would unless someone tried to take away my right to.

 

[Austin IronFist]

Just try to take my guns away from me! :shottie:

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Yes. I believe in gun ownership, and gun use against those who threaten you, your family or property. Anti-gun laws, like those in Australia, take the guns away from the law abiding people, whilst the criminals keep theirs.
I don't really go for the prevention of tyranny line, but it does lack relevance to ones situation.
The Swiss model is an interesting one that has worked well, apart from one recent aberration.

 

[MrPresident]

No, we can't get rid of guns because the right to keep them is in the Constitution, which requires an obscene majority to agree with a position.

The constitution doesn't give people the right to bear arms. It says as part of a well-regulated state milita. I may not know much about a state milita but someone keeping two pistols and a rifle at home doesn't sound like a well-regulated state milita. If you are going to bring up the constitution arguments at least do it in a well thought out way. Here's a question I just thought of, do the American police force support the right to bear arms. It has to make their job a lot more dangerous. Speaking from an English stand-point most of our police don't carry guns and have never done so. And I wouldn't say Britain has more crime than America (I known recent figures suggest a rise in car crime and thief but only in London and it is mainly because of seriously low police numbers - a recruitment problem related to pay).

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Greadius
Like the people in Tianemen Square?

And I still haven't heard an answer to the question: if a responsible, law abiding citizen owns a gun, what is the arguement to take it away from them?

No.

I'm thinking of the people in Serbia.

Anyhow, the example of China is flawed,
China has a history of people's revolts, and if the
democracy supporters in Tianemen Square had guns
there would still be a massacre!

The military ALWAYS has more guns.

Armed uprisings are really dependent on the nations's
political and military situation.

Do you think the people of the USA could otherthrow
George W Bush by force and handuns?

Give it a try and see who wins...my moneys on the US Marines.

 

[CurtSibling]

I think only the military should own guns.

But in the real world...
Anyone who wants a gun should be checked out by the cops
first.

The problem is that the cops don't always have accurate data on
an individual, and maybe they they don't care anyway...
until something criminal happens.

And who is to say law-abiding Mr Jones wont freak out after and
argument with his wife and shoot everyone at his local school/wallmart?

I fear it's an unsolvable problem in the USA.

Humans are too unpredictable, I distrust gun-freaks.
If you have a gun fixation , just stay away from me, ya weirdo!

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
As long as we have battling hyperlinks, here's a reprint of an article that appeared in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology put out by Northwestern University School of Law to illustrate my point.

I'm quite happy you have taken some time to find information to prove your point. I agree that what you said is completely backed up by this article. This article shows that there are many cases in the US were guns are used in defense and these uses are beneficial for the gun-user. However this article is very one-sided: they have only looked at the defensive use of guns and how good this has turned out. There has not been taken into account that there are many accidents happening with guns.
I see the whole owning-a-gun-issue as this: there is an equation in which you have to take various things in account. First there are positive sides: defensive gun use. Then there are negative sides: gun accidents. When you take the whole equation into account then you will find out gun-ownership is not beneficial (as is shown by the article I provided).
I accept that we will never agree on this issue and therefore I am happy to live in a country where it is illegal to own a gun as you are happy to live in a country where it is legal to own a gun.

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz
You fool

If you really have to use such words in a discussion to prove your point why bother to be in a discussion anyway.

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz I'm not talkng about the middle ages. Even if the government took away the peoples' right to bear arms, the police and federal officers would still carry firearms. The people need to have this fundamental right to protect themselves against state tyranny. Governments themselves do not always make the right decisions; the people need to have the necessary power to hold the government accountable for it's actions and to revolt if the need be

I trust my government and if I don't trust them anymore I choose another government at the end of their term. I live in a democracy so I have that right and I don't need a gun to make the government act the way I like them to act, the only thing I need for that is my vote!

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by civ1-addict

If you really have to use such words in a discussion to prove your point why bother to be in a discussion anyway.


I trust my government and if I don't trust them anymore I choose another government at the end of their term. I live in a democracy so I have that right and I don't need a gun to make the government act the way I like them to act, the only thing I need for that is my vote!

Good post!
And every word true...

 

[Mr Spice]

Effective weapons against tyrrany:

1. Education
2. Freedom of Speach
3. Independent media
4. Laws that are equal for all citizens
5. Strong and independent courts
6. Free elections

Or, in short, a well developed and civilized society. "Easy access to firearms" is not even on the top hundred.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Greadius
Completely irrelevant. Thousands of illegal guns are all over the world, if someone REALLY wants a gun they can get one. We are talking about law-abiding citizens, since they are the ones that would be most effected by banning guns.

That would be all well and good if it weren't for the fact of the huge amounts of accidental deaths by legal guns. Not too mention that it gives any piddly little criminal good access. Not all criminals can easily aquire guns. Not all of them are professionals.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Do you think the people of the USA could otherthrow
George W Bush by force and handuns?

Give it a try and see who wins...my moneys on the US Marines.

Since we're speaking hypothetically, if W did something that would warrant enough people grabbing their guns to overthrow him I think the Marines would be on the side of the people, not President.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
I think only the military should own guns.

How idealistic. Maybe in 100 years.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
And who is to say law-abiding Mr Jones wont freak out after and
argument with his wife and shoot everyone at his local school/wallmart?

And what if he doesn't? I don't like the idea of making laws based on what-ifs. I'm looking for a well reasoned arguement as to why law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to have guns. What-if they begin breaking the law would obviously removed the from the law-abiding citizens category.

Originally posted by Mr Spice
1. Education
2. Freedom of Speach
3. Independent media
4. Laws that are equal for all citizens
5. Strong and independent courts
6. Free elections

Isn't it ironic how we rely on the government to protect and maintain all of these? I suppose that means that since your best methods of protection against tyranny are controlled by tyrants you're out of luck.

Originally posted by civ1-addict
I accept that we will never agree on this issue and therefore I am happy to live in a country where it is illegal to own a gun as you are happy to live in a country where it is legal to own a gun.

The greatest statement of reason in the whole discussion. :enlighten
Sums up the whole arguement for me. I hope I'll never have to own or use a gun, but I like the idea I can if I want to.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Greadius
Since we're speaking hypothetically, if W did something that would warrant enough people grabbing their guns to overthrow him I think the Marines would be on the side of the people, not President.

How idealistic. Maybe in 100 years.

B]

Greadius, I think you miss the subtle sarcasm in my post.
Obviously the American people would not try to oust anyone,
And the marines swear loyalty to the US govt, not the people,

And also if you cared, to read my post properly,
You might have noticed after my sentence about the
Military only having gun, I said;
"But in reality"
Is this too subtle for you?
Well, let me put it in Floridian terms,
"I am realistic that guns are proliferated through most nations,
Legally or not."

Do you think I am some hair-brained idealist?
If so, you are mistaken beyond belief!

So get off my case, I know people in the states NEED their guns.
I just worry that controlling guns is problematic,
and controlling some of the people with guns is impossible...

 

[BlueMonday]

It's a good thing we don't carry guns on this forum. Otherwise things might get a little ugly.

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by civ1-addict
I accept that we will never agree on this issue and therefore I am happy to live in a country where it is illegal to own a gun as you are happy to live in a country where it is legal to own a gun.

On this quote I agree with Greadius. I am more than happy to live in a society where there is strict gun control and more importantly a society where there is not a culture of dependence on guns which represents a society that is scared of it's self.

Democracy must be defended, by force, against the sort of mindless fanaticism the Bin Laden's of this world represent, but ultimately the greatest weapon in defence of democracy is the knowledge that, however imperfect, democracy is the best means of human governance yet devised.

 

[MrPresident]

Isn't it ironic how we rely on the government to protect and maintain all of these? I suppose that means that since your best methods of protection against tyranny are controlled by tyrants you're out of luck.

You are missing the point of living in a democracy. The government maintains these but the people maintain the government. Every 4 or 5 years the people decide on the performance of the government and if they didn't like it then there is a new government. As Jefferson once said, democracy is like having a legal revolution every 4 years.

I'm looking for a well reasoned arguement as to why law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to have guns. What-if they begin breaking the law would obviously removed the from the law-abiding citizens category.

You have every right to demand a well reasoned argument (spelt with one e by the way) as a law-abiding citizen cannot have a gun. Because it a free society you don't need a reason to make something legal, you need one to make it illegal. Well like me ask you why do you think it is illegal to go above a certain speed when driving a car? All drivers have to pass a test and are therefore the government thinks them good enough to drive a car. Most drivers would be just as able to control a car at 50mph, 70mph, even 100mph. So why would a government said to its people you cannot drive quicker than this speed? Is it because no matter how good a driver someone is accidents happen (either there faults or someone elses). And isn't it better to crash at say 50mph than at 100mph.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Lots of people from the United States seem to be claiming their right to vote is enough to maintain the government, yet the USA is 139th in the world in voter turnout, with only 48.3% of eligible voters actually voting since 1945. These statistics show a trend of apathy among Americans conercing their own political process. Americans have lost faith in their politcians, so they either vote for someone who does not share their views, or they do not vote at all. Americans need to take back their government and make it what it should be: government by the people. Anti-gun laws would just be another attempt by the government to silence it's people and deprive them of their power to make it's government accountable and change it if necessary. Even if new laws were passed to make possession of any firearm illegal, people would still find a way to obtain these weapons.

Here is the link for voter turnout stats:
http://www.idea.int/voter_turnout/voter_turnout_pop2.html

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Perhaps my approval of the right to own a gun stems from my disapproval of my own government. If I lived in a nation where I had no major problems with what my government was doing, I would have no qualms with gun control. I myself do not own a gun and probably never will. Still I will support the right to own a gun in this day and age.

 

[Greadius]

Have you ever considered that apathy isn't necessarily a bad thing? More like an affirmation that, in general, the government is doing a good job and there is no need to change it?

It would go much further to explain why turnout raises and falls... like raises considerably when people are disatisfied with the government (Vietnam War era, 1980 election), and lowers when people think the government is doing a fine job (1996).

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Greadius
Have you ever considered that apathy isn't necessarily a bad thing? More like an affirmation that, in general, the government is doing a good job and there is no need to change it?

It would go much further to explain why turnout raises and falls... like raises considerably when people are disatisfied with the government (Vietnam War era, 1980 election), and lowers when people think the government is doing a fine job (1996).

I disagree entirely. I believe the current low voter turnout is due to people realizing that all politicians are controlled by money, and it doesn't matter who is put into office; they all are crooks. So lots of people are dealing with this by just not voting, since there is usually no third option.