How Do You Feel About Gun Rights?

[Camikaze]

And its still easy for the bad guys to get their hands on all the nice illegal weapons.... I'll grant we haven't had a repeat performance of Port Arthur but its really just a matter of time before someone else with some issues decides to do it again, automatic weapons or no your still going to cause serious damage against unarmed people. Gun controls are great for mitigating some of the lethality... but its not ever going to stop determined people doing what they want. You need other safeguards preferably active ones not passive gate-keeping systems.

I live in Western Sydney, so yeah, I'm aware that there is still gun crime.

But safeguards are going to do a hell of a lot more than having no gun control laws. I haven't ever tried, but I imagine it would be a lot harder to get your hands on a gun now, than fifteen years ago. But my general point was that giving everyone the right to have a gun is certainly not going to help anything.

 

[CaptainF]

I think Americans have a right to guns, but they shouldn't.



I reckon they should restrict everyone to a jagged bottlecap, or perhaps a pointy stick. But then again, giving everyone pointy sticks probably wouldn't be a good idea.

I think one of the only good things John Howard did for Australia was institute strict gun control.

Really, what purpose does owning a gun serve? How can it possibly be used for good? And don't tell me it's in case of a foreign invasion, because if the American army can't stop any invaders, then the USA is screwed anyway.

How about you tell me why I can't own a gun?

How is owning a gun in and of itself a bad thing?

Does owning a gun mean I'm going to use it to commit crimes?

 

[Camikaze]

How about you tell me why I can't own a gun?

How is owning a gun in and of itself a bad thing?

Does owning a gun mean I'm going to use it to commit crimes?

There is no use for a gun that doesn't involve some sort of injury, or fatality (shooting for fun has nothing to do with it- the constitutional amendment was not designed to let people use a shooting range). I would say that is a reasonable reason to stop people from owning guns. Owning a gun indicates that you would use it. Otherwise, why would you have a gun? Using a gun is obviously a bad thing, because it involves injury or fatality. Causing an injury to or killing someone is committing a crime.

 

[CaptainF]

There is no use for a gun that doesn't involve some sort of injury, or fatality (shooting for fun has nothing to do with it- the constitutional amendment was not designed to let people use a shooting range).

Yes, but the constitution was designed to let us own guns.

I would say that is a reasonable reason to stop people from owning guns. Owning a gun indicates that you would use it. Otherwise, why would you have a gun?

What's bad about using guns? What about hunting game is bad or shooting guns for the hell of it?

Using a gun is obviously a bad thing, because it involves injury or fatality.

wrongwrongwrong.

Causing an injury to or killing someone is committing a crime.

Self-defense doesn't apply?

 

[Harbringer]

Guns are a deterrent, allowing me to own a gun means that when someone breaks into my house, I am more likely to be prepared for the event, making me less likely to get robbed. Also, people aren't perfect, self defense with a pistol duel at noon is however.

 

[Arwon]

I live in Western Sydney, so yeah, I'm aware that there is still gun crime.

But safeguards are going to do a hell of a lot more than having no gun control laws. I haven't ever tried, but I imagine it would be a lot harder to get your hands on a gun now, than fifteen years ago. But my general point was that giving everyone the right to have a gun is certainly not going to help anything.

Actually Howard's reforms, for all their sturm und drang, amounted to a recategorisation of some types of weapons into higher and more restricted classes of firearms. They certainly didn't institute massive new controls or fundamentally change the gun ownership regime in this country. As I understand it, they basically amounted to bullying Tasmania and Queensland into changing their licensing laws to move more firearms into restricted categories under the pre-existing license system.

 

[Masada]

But safeguards are going to do a hell of a lot more than having no gun control laws. I haven't ever tried, but I imagine it would be a lot harder to get your hands on a gun now, than fifteen years ago. But my general point was that giving everyone the right to have a gun is certainly not going to help anything.

Anyone with some degree of patience can get a legal firearm (although not necessarily legally acquired). The gun control laws that exist are seldom effective in the face of anyone determined to do something untoward with firearms. If the law is more of an annoyance than prohibitive in of itself. If that fails there's always the illegal market to go to.

I don't think anyone is saying here that we should be giving firearms to inmates or anything of the sort. But to require that a right should confer something 'good' is really not such a good angle to take. You could make the same argument about knifes given that in Australia knifes seem to pose a greater danger than firearms. If I were looking to kill someone a knife would be my first port of call... no improper use of a firearm, illegal discharge et al to add to my sentence.

In all honestly, I don't see why Americans have such big issues about legal firearms. Gun controls and automatic weapons bans don't seem to me to make a measurable difference in the proliferation of illicit weapons in your country which seem to generate the majority of the problems. In any case it makes exponentially more sense for criminals to use illicit or illicitly obtained weapons in all circumstances. No amount of regulation is likely to curb the inflow of guns from elsewhere, Australia of all places has some serious issues with the availability of illegal firearms (fancy a rocket launcher, AK47 or automatic pistol) despite having strong gun laws, a rigorous customs service and being an island with no land borders.

@Arwon

The NT was also one of the pressured states.

 

[Camikaze]

Yes, but the constitution was designed to let us own guns.

Maybe so, but the constitution was designed at a time when America was under actual threats, and so well-armed citizenry and militias were needed. Advocates for gun rights are taking the inherent purpose of the second amendment and twisting it.

What's bad about using guns? What about hunting game is bad or shooting guns for the hell of it?

Well, I think shooting animals is immoral, when done for fun. As for shooting guns for the hell of it, what would be wrong with just allowing shooting ranges to have an array of guns available to use when you go there?

wrongwrongwrong.

Hmm. Compelling argument.

Care to explain?

Self-defense doesn't apply?

Now, let's think, what would you have to defend yourself against? Other guns, perhaps? And why would other people have these guns? That's a toughie.

Besides, what is wrong with defending yourself with a knife. I advocate knife ownership over gun ownership, as a knife can serve useful purposes, like cutting food, for example.


@Masada- NT isn't a state.

 

[CaptainF]

Well, I think shooting animals is immoral, when done for fun.

What about bow and arrows? Is that somehow more acceptable?

As for shooting guns for the hell of it, what would be wrong with just allowing shooting ranges to have an array of guns available to use when you go there?

I don't want to have to go to a firing range. It's impractical, especially where I live. Why can't I just go out in the backyard with my buddies and some 12 gauges and blast the crap out of old computer cases (great fun, by the way)?

Hmm. Compelling argument.

Care to explain?

You're saying that everytime I fire a gun, it causes injury.

Firing range?

Now, let's think, what would you have to defend yourself against? Other guns, perhaps? And why would other people have these guns? That's a toughie.

Other people might have guns obtained illegally. That's the problem with gun laws, only outlaws get the guns ultimately.

Besides, what is wrong with defending yourself with a knife.

Hmmm...are you serious?

Let's see:

Having to put myself in extreme proximity to my attacker, thus putting myself at greater risk of bodily harm. There is also the chance that the knife could fall into the hands of the attacker, in which case I'm screwed. As well as the chance that the knife will be rendered almost useless if the attacker has a gun.

As opposed to:

Having a gun, and neutralizing said attacker from a safe distance.

I advocate knife ownership over gun ownership, as a knife can serve useful purposes, like cutting food, for example.

Yeah, that knife'll sure cut up some carrots right quick.

 

[Riffraff]

It's very funny to see how many of you US-boys think that owning guns will somehow protect you from the government.

On topic: Guns should be allowed on principle but as I'm a pragmatical guy I'd say it works better when they are restricted. This of course not referring to the US specifically here.

 

[Camikaze]

What about bow and arrows? Is that somehow more acceptable?

I think when most people kill animals with bows and arrows, they do so for food. It wouldn't be any more acceptable if done for fun.

I don't want to have to go to a firing range. It's impractical, especially where I live. Why can't I just go out in the backyard with my buddies and some 12 gauges and blast the crap out of old computer cases (great fun, by the way)?

Because this is exceptionally dangerous. And this is pretty much the mildest thing that you can do with gun ownership. So from that is can be inferred that it is insane for a government to allow their people the right to own a gun.

You're saying that everytime I fire a gun, it causes injury.

Firing range?

Earlier in my post, I had ruled out the firing range as part of my scope. And use on a firing range is pretty much the only use of a gun that won't cause injury or death.

Other people might have guns obtained illegally. That's the problem with gun laws, only outlaws get the guns ultimately.

Murder is against the law, and yet people murder anyway. Just because something is illegal, doesn't that it won't happen. But it also doesn't mean that it should be legalised- like murder.

Having to put myself in extreme proximity to my attacker, thus putting myself at greater risk of bodily harm.

I do realise that some people are incapable of throwing, but I'm guessing most of the population would be able to do so.

There is also the chance that the knife could fall into the hands of the attacker, in which case I'm screwed.

Of course, there is absolutely no chance that a gun could fall into the hands of the attacker.

As well as the chance that the knife will be rendered almost useless if the attacker has a gun.

Pretty much anything you have will be rendered useless against a gun. If you have a gun, for example, if they fire, they are going to kill you anyway. If you fire first it isn't self-defence. It is murder.

Besides, the amount of times that having a gun would be advantageous is far outweighed by the amount of times a gun is used for bad.

As opposed to:

Having a gun, and neutralizing said attacker from a safe distance.

As said, if they have a gun, they are going kill you not matter what weapon you have, unless, of course, you are committing murder by attacking them first. Their intent to kill you cannot be fact until they actually do so, or attempt to do so.

Yeah, that knife'll sure cut up some carrots right quick.

Just to clear things up, my post should've been more along the lines of: I do not advocate the right to own any weapon (of which Prehistoric Sea Monster Leviathan Knife is one). If people need to defend themselves, an ordinary kitchen knife will do just as much as a gun. So why can't people just use them instead?

 

[capslock]

How can you organize a militia if noone has any weapons? It doesn't make sense, we have the right to own guns, period.

 

[mitsho]

I'm Swiss. We have a conscript army in which more or less half of the boys participate. Every member of the army has to take his weapon home. So in more or less every Swiss household, there is a firearm in the basement. Many of the suicides or deadly tragedies that are not that well planned are executed with those guns. Guns shouldn't be that spread in society.

pros:
- freedom of every single one.
- feeling (!!!) "secure"
- use as a hunting tool

cons:
- easiest way to kill someone
- Security should be provided by the government. Self-justice is bad.
- guns not really needed in our modern society except for hunting. (Even the police should use it only real seldomnly) --> hunting should be made possible somehow (or should'nt some greens think!)

 

[Camikaze]

I'm Swiss. We have a conscript army in which more or less half of the boys participate. Every member of the army has to take his weapon home. So in more or less every Swiss household, there is a firearm in the basement. Many of the suicides or deadly tragedies that are not that well planned are executed with those guns. Guns shouldn't be that spread in society.

pros:
- freedom of every single one.
- feeling (!!!) "secure"
- use as a hunting tool

cons:
- easiest way to kill someone
- Security should be provided by the government. Self-justice is bad.
- guns not really needed in our modern society except for hunting. (Even the police should use it only real seldomnly) --> hunting should be made possible somehow (or should'nt some greens think!)

I thought I read somewhere on the internet about a referendum soon in Switzerland on this issue. Is that happening?

 

[PiMan]

The only reason I see for most people to own guns is for collections, so you can have antique guns and even antique bullets if you really want. Just don't put the latter in the former.

 

[mitsho]

I thought I read somewhere on the internet about a referendum soon in Switzerland on this issue. Is that happening?

It is an initiative, not a referendum, started by a women's magazine (yes! ) with the help of the Society for a Switzerland without an army (GSoA) and some left MPs. It specifically calls for a duty for every canton (=state) to store these army guns centrally in a "arsenal". It forbids to take those arms home. Some Cantons already do this (the city canton of Geneva) although it actually is unconstitutional... (PErhaps they have already made a step back again because of that, I'm not sure). In any case, it is a highly disputed issue. It will be voted upon sometimes late this year or next year. (not sure)
(the contra arguments are: if we do that, it doesn't make sense even to give each soldier his own arm, because it defeats the original purpose - of getting to the barracks easier in a case of war/make guerilla tactics easier; the costs of storing and the time needed to go take the arm every time you need it would be too high - which actually the GSoA doesn't mind )

 

[GoodGame]

I recently had an argument with a friend of mine about guns and gun rights here in the United States. He insisted to me that "guns are evil" and that the 2nd amendment did not give an individual the right to own a gun.

Are inaminate objects evil? Sounds like transferrence: http://www.bartleby.com/196/132.html

The notion that we can transfer our guilt and sufferings to some other being who will bear them for us is familiar to the savage mind. It arises from a very obvious confusion between the physical and the mental, between the material and the immaterial. Because it is possible to shift a load of wood, stones, or what not, from our own back to the back of another, the savage fancies that it is equally possible to shift the burden of his pains and sorrows to another, who will suffer them in his stead.

Or just direct your friend to the NRA: www.nra.com

 

[Shekwan]

I used to beleive in gun control, but now I'm not so sure. With effective regulation, the type of gun ownership seen in the US could work. However implementing effective regulation is another story.

I do believe though that it's a small price to pay (not being allowed to own guns) to live in a far less violent society. Armed or not, an angry populace will always be able to overthrow the government, so the militia bs is redundant.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

How can you organize a militia if noone has any weapons? It doesn't make sense, we have the right to own guns, period.

Well I suppose you could have an armory for when you need to become a militia. I like this idea better than everyone being able to own AKs and bazookas and stuff; handguns and hunting rifles should be able to be owned privately, but really, who needs the heavy stuff unless you're fighting a war?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

When I was younger, I was confused about the Americans because why would they need a constitution to have short sleeves? ("bare arms")

Sorry, just thought someone would get a laugh out of this...

I think it needs to be regulated, but not overbearingly. Like you need a license to drive a car, and if you drive a car badly, you lose your license. (Speaking of which, I read somewhere that Tom Petty isn't allowed to keep or use guns because he "went crazy" shooting at trees. I don't know how true it is, but the thought of it makes me lulz.)