azzaman333
meh
I don't think gun rights go far enough. Everyone one should have a pistol surgically implanted into their hand.
Question about guns
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
BAD bad idea! Those damned phantoms with their hand cannons are just a pain in the butt. nonononono.
ZeletDude
The Lion
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,490
Although I wouldn't describe myself to be on the left, I am certainly way left of you, so I'll answer:
Generally, none at all. Those who can show that they need a type of gun (e.g. hunters needing a hunting rifle) can apply to get a permission for that type of gun.
Yes, absolutely.
Unless you want everyone (including Iranians) to have access to nuclear weapons, you have to agree that the right to self-defense does not include the right to own every available tool for self-defense. And weapon control is not an issue of personal morality, but public safety.
Personally I think if there is the legitimate need for a private person to arm himself, there has already been an institutional failure that allowed such a situation to arise. So my idealistic response to the self defense angle would be none at all. Guns for "recreational" use, like hunting, can easily be kept outside of private households.
More realistically, if you are going to need self defense, I think a handgun already serves you well. So rifles or even automatic weapons are totally unnecessary and only increase risks without increasing safety. Along with this, there should be strict controls of who gets weapons of any kind (no violent convicts or people with psychological conditions), as well as laws that prevent improper use and unnecessarily dangerous situations (no concealed carry, no "stand your ground", no right to intentionally kill burglars, and in general proportional response).
I think the whole "we need to be able to field a militia" argument is hilariously outdated, both against foreign invasions or their own government, considering what modern militaries are capable of.
What do I care about the US constitution?
More seriously, I think the second amendment has no place in a modern day constitution. I can see a reason for it in the context of the time it was written, where the whole militia thing was more relevant military, but that's it. I don't think there is a natural right to bear arms, that supercedes the usual considerations of where it would be reasonable to limit rights for the overall benefit of society.
But even so I don't think my more "moderate" position (second paragraph above) contradicts the second amendment. As long as you are allowed to bear arms, it's not infringed upon. It doesn't say you can bear any kind of arms you want, in any way you want. So the government is perfectly able to legislate that. It definitely doesn't guarantee automatic rifles and concealed carry nonsense.
What has innocent until proven guilty to do with it? This is not a court setting, but safety legislation. It's like saying we should allow six year olds to drive cars because they haven't committed a crime yet - it'll still result in danger for everyone around them. And so on. This whole concept isn't applicable here at all.
For the right of self-defense, I already addressed that above. If gun control doesn't mean to take literally all guns away, you're not denied self-defense. The government would only impose limits on you to prevent unnecessary risks.
And it's not about enforcing personal morality. "Live and let live" doesn't mean everyone can do what he wants. Personal liberty ends where the liberty of another person begins, and if widespread gun ownership brings risks to the whole society, it's necessary to step in so those who don't own guns are "let live" - in this context even in the most literal sense.
For your alcohol question, could you please respond to the same question with regards to hard drugs like heroin? It's quite obvious that dangers have to be weighted. To me it seems also obvious that guns are more dangerous than alcohol.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
123) I'm pragmatic and don't really have a stance one way or the other in regards to morality (because most pro-gun guys usually cite the Second Amendment like the Constitution was some kind of religious text). It is the wrongest way going about it. Don't think about what is most right, think about what works better. And from what I've experienced, that's the main argument of the pro-gun people. "It is my right to protect myself." The problem is, it doesn't really protect yourself anyhow when everyone has so easy access to gunfire until proven guilty with something. What the solution then? Leverage the differences and give a gun to every newborn in case someone shoots you? Do you think that ensures security with the weak, the dim-witted, the upcoming criminals being handed a free weapon?
Decrease gun control => More safety for all? In America? I doubt it. Get a stronger social support bureaucracy first so you can lift the poor better out of their traps. Wealthier people tend to be less violent due to higher education etc. Unless insane, but that's not something I wish to answer to. I don't have a problem with the fat cat having a gauss rifle, but I see an issue with the impoverished kid with nothing to lose.
Decrease gun control => More safety for all? In America? I doubt it. Get a stronger social support bureaucracy first so you can lift the poor better out of their traps. Wealthier people tend to be less violent due to higher education etc. Unless insane, but that's not something I wish to answer to. I don't have a problem with the fat cat having a gauss rifle, but I see an issue with the impoverished kid with nothing to lose.
mangxema
I
I'm trying to be nice here, but that sounds like Wild West fantasy. You have to understand that to most people, the idea that at any moment anyone could kill anyone else is a hellish nightmare. When you're in a society, you lose some of your freedoms as part of the deal, much like you have to make compromises sometimes when you have a roommate.
I also think you are vastly underestimating the number of innocent people who would die. Sure, maybe the shooter dies too, but maybe they don't care.
Disgustipated
Deity
All handguns should be illegal. Their only purpose is to kill humans. Yes I know you can hunt with handguns, but that doesn't mean you should. It's hardly the optimum hunting weapon. All semi automatic rifles should be illegal too.
The only thing that should be legal is bolt action rifles, and hunting shotguns (no combat shotguns) and only if you live in rural areas (to protect against wild animals such as mountain lions and bears). I see no reason why a city dweller needs a gun.
Yes I know my plan is completely unfeasible. Because the criminals would have the weapons, and no one else would. My plan would require the government to go door to door and confiscate all weapons (except as mentioned above) from every single citizen to ensure the criminals don't have guns.
The only thing that should be legal is bolt action rifles, and hunting shotguns (no combat shotguns) and only if you live in rural areas (to protect against wild animals such as mountain lions and bears). I see no reason why a city dweller needs a gun.
Yes I know my plan is completely unfeasible. Because the criminals would have the weapons, and no one else would. My plan would require the government to go door to door and confiscate all weapons (except as mentioned above) from every single citizen to ensure the criminals don't have guns.
Fear the Cereal Killer and his minions.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
A handgun can stop a mountain lion? No, really, I'd like to know how this is possible.
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
And another five bullets in there for good measure.
Mountain lions are not actually larger than men....
Actually, the more powerful of handguns will even kill bear.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Since my homeland has a of illegal weapons ranging from pistols to rpgs and even tanks. Making them illegal wont solve anything, so its better legal.
squadbroken
King
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2009
- Messages
- 716
Arm the poor, disarm the rich
Mosher
Mushroom dad
Socialist from Maine here, I believe that firearms should have almost no restrictions beyond limiting their availability to people convicted of violent crime and mentally ill people.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Okay then.
Forgive me, I was working under the assumption that people don't have aim assist.
I have no idea how I would verify that. I imagine there aren't many experiments where scientists fire handguns at bears. Google tells me that that isn't the case, but I don't consider that authoritative.
