How Do You Feel About Gun Rights?

[Xyan]

Guns are unnecessary unless you hunt for food.

Owning guns as deterrence to crimes only adds to the viscous cycle of societal mistrust resulting in even more crimes. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind."

Guns should exist solely for sports recreation at designated ranges, shooting at dartboard-like targets. That is about all I agree to for such weapons.

 

[rhawn]

I don't need no weapons, my hands are my weapons.

 

[Camikaze]

Wow, that neutral observer is pretty incredibly neutral. I'm only a moderately neutral person, and I think it's less bad for the attacker to get killed, if only because the 'attacker' surviving is more likely to lead to more than zero other people getting killed by the 'attacker' in the future. I mean, this is why police carry pistols, right?

Police are law enforcement officers. Their job is to enforce the law, and in their duties they may need a weapon to carry out this goal. Normal citizens are not law enforcement officers, nor should they be. The whole concept of justice would be violated if the law was taken into the hands of civilians.

But I think you're failing to account for the possibility that the gun in the hands of the person being 'attacked' (why are we putting ' ' around that word?)

Whoever is described as an attacker is subjective, hence the inverted commas. For instance, if you shot someone who is bashing someone else with a pipe, then I would call you an 'attacker', whilst most people would probably not. For a better example, in criminal cases, I believe it is often argued that self defence was the motive. The word attacker would be subjective in this case as well, and so I put the word in inverted commas to qualify my use of it as a universal term.

doesn't necessarily result in the attacker being shot. In fact more often than not the trigger doesn't get pulled - and this is true for both police and private law-abiding citizens.

Well, yeah, I think that this is true, but my argument is more (it mayn't not have been so far (I can't remember exactly what my argument is), but I'll realign)) that arming the general population creates more problems than it solves, not that it doesn't have uses in some situations. Here is an example.

Guns are unnecessary unless you hunt for food.

Owning guns as deterrence to crimes only adds to the viscous cycle of societal mistrust resulting in even more crimes. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind."

Exactly. The idea of vigilante justice is not a sound one.

 

[Ace of Gold]

Yeah guns are good. Make them legal, but expensive, so the crazy bums cant buy them and kill everyone.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah guns are good. Make them legal, but expensive, so the crazy bums cant buy them and kill everyone.

Are you saying that only poor people are crazy? And is it somehow better if sane people kill, as opposed to 'crazy bums' killing?

 

[warpus]

Americans are going to hate me for this, but I feel that the 2nd ammendment is outdated as a concept. The main reason it was created was so that "the people" could stand up against their government if it ever got too corrupt (or totalitarian, or whatever). Well... there's no way anyone's "standing up" against the U.S. army, so unless you start selling tanks to "the people", the 2nd amendment is kind out.. outdated.

Having said that, some people should be allowed to have guns.. such as.. well.. maybe hunters? cops? soldiers?.. collectors?

 

[GoodGame]

And Toby Keith is saddened that a thread about gun rights doesn't have a single mention of DC v. Heller.

We'll have to buy Toby some whiskey then.


I think any CFC-OT opinion regarding the US Constitution should be given a disclaimer: subject to rulings by the SCOTUS.

 

[Ace of Gold]

Are you saying that only poor people are crazy? And is it somehow better if sane people kill, as opposed to 'crazy bums' killing?

No, Im saying most of the people that are going on killing rampages are poor or lower middle-class. It would solve alot of problems if those people cannot afford to buy guns then.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Just in case somebody didn't know, Churchill 25 is a bleepin' moron and is in no way capable of expressing a rational thought. Don't take anything he posts to mean anything, especially not the opinion of the pro-gun rights stance.

Not to mention the irony of the juxtaposition of his last statement and his avatar.

Moderator Action: Infraction for flaming. Pls watch it. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Martacus]

having skipped most of the debate, my view is that private citizens should have rights to most small arms (excluding full-automatic machine guns and the like), provided they can prove their responsibility with said arms. I wouldn't want National Guard troops going to fight without training; why would I want potentially irresponsible owners carrying guns around?

 

[Ace of Gold]

Just in case somebody didn't know, Churchill 25 is a bleepin' moron and is in no way capable of expressing a rational thought. Don't take anything he posts to mean anything, especially not the opinion of the pro-gun rights stance.

Not to mention the irony of the juxtaposition of his last statement and his avatar.

Ok when there is another killing spree, I'm blaming it on you redneck.

Moderator Action: No name calling pls. Infraction given. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Why would regular citizens want to own a gun for? Besides for game hunting and other military services

To act as counterpoint to government tyranny.

 

[Infantry#14]

guns should be allowed, but ban the lethal ammunitions. Start using tranquilizer guns (or bowgun, how awesome is that)

 

[Bugfatty300]

Further, that's all you have in the past 100 years? Pathetic. Have you or any of your gun owning friends done anything remotely related besides chat up how necessary guns are to ensure rights?

Many served in the military overseas. IglooDude, Bronx Warlord right here on this forum.

Why don't you ask those gun owners what they have done for this country instead of trolling lil'ole me?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Lets just skip all the BS and really get to the main reason why people own guns. They think it makes you look like a tough guy/girl. And it does, when you're a bikini girl with a machine gun. In all other occasions results vary. This is clear when people have their picture taken when they have a gun in their hands. They all turn into Clint Eastwood wannabe's

 

[Bugfatty300]

Nope. I own guns because they are interesting, cool and fun and pretty nifty self-defense tools. I don't really care what they make me look like to others. No one even sees me with my guns unless I post a pic on the internet and that is 99% just to make some anti-gun folks role their eyes.

 

[Dachs]

Exactly. The idea of vigilante justice is not a sound one.

Strawman. Purchase and possession of firearms for deterrence or self-defense is not equivalent to actively using those firearms to take the law into one's own hands.

 

[Camikaze]

Strawman. Purchase and possession of firearms for deterrence or self-defense is not equivalent to actively using those firearms to take the law into one's own hands.

Ah, but in this situation,

Ok so your saying if I saw someone beating up someone you loved really badly with some sort of pipe and I shot them you would have a problem with that? If I had an encounter with a violent person that I should not defend myself?

the possession of a firearm is equivalent to vigilante behaviour. You are not defending yourself, as such, and therefore, by virtue of technicality, you as a third party are adjudicating the lawful nature of an act which you are not an intrinsic element, and acting on that adjudication. i.e. you are taking the law into your own hands.

I am following the logic that if you buy a firearm for self-defence, you are going to use it. If you buy it for deterrence, that is a different story (in terms of vigilante behaviour). But I happen to believe that killing someone in self-defence is equivalent to taking the law into one's own hands.

 

[Dachs]

Ah, but in this situation,

the possession of a firearm is equivalent to vigilante behaviour. You are not defending yourself, as such, and therefore, by virtue of technicality, you as a third party are adjudicating the lawful nature of an act which you are not an intrinsic element, and acting on that adjudication. i.e. you are taking the law into your own hands.

Yes, in that situation. Probably should've made it clearer that you were responding to him specifically.

I am following the logic that if you buy a firearm for self-defence, you are going to use it. If you buy it for deterrence, that is a different story (in terms of vigilante behaviour). But I happen to believe that killing someone in self-defence is equivalent to taking the law into one's own hands.

And American law partially disagrees with you. The danger of arguing with Americans about that sort of thing, I suppose...they do stuff differently.

 

[Camikaze]

And American law partially disagrees with you. The danger of arguing with Americans about that sort of thing, I suppose...they do stuff differently.

I'm pretty sure that this doesn't apply in Australia, i.e. you cannot kill in self-defence, but I'm more arguing over the morality of it. THOU SHALT NOT KILL!