Gun rights

[#1 bro]

Gun control, what do you think?

This is one topic that I actually think I disagree with the rest of the forum on, so hopefully a debate that is at least somewhat two-sided will ensue.

I am against gun control, despite the fact that I don't really ever plan on owning a gun. The ban on assault weapons I don't see as a huge issue because whether they're banned or not, criminals will get them, non-criminals won't. However, I am definitely against the banning of handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc.

A few reasons why:

1: The somewhat cliche saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" remains true. A lot of anti-gun advocates I think are somewhat worried about the idea that, in theory, any given person on the street could be carrying a gun and, at any moment, decide to shoot you! But human beings are fragile, death can strike at any moment, and, assuming that you're not extremely rich and/or famous, anyone with sufficient motivation could probably kill you! This is a fact of life, and banning guns won't change it - we will always have cars, steak knifes, chainsaws, even our bare hands.

2: If handguns were to be made illegal, criminals (and excessively paranoid people) would still have no problem getting them (for example, how many people do you know who smoke weed?) Ordinary people would not be able to say the same, which would make us easier targets for criminals, who could march into a bank, stick up a gun, demand money, and know that no one else in the room would be armed. Having a lot of people in a space holding guns does not make for a dangerous situation; it is far more dangerous to have one man with a gun against a room full of unarmed people. It is for this reason that there will never be an NRA convention shooting spree.

3: It's in the Bill of Rights. Of course, this only applies to Americans, but in the US, the right to bear arms is right in there in the second amendment. The second amendment! The only thing listed higher than it is freedom of speech, and we all know how important that is. And let's be honest: the militia interpretation is bullshit, and I think deep down inside, all gun control advocates know it. Admittedly, it is not impossible to get rid of this amendment, but the fact that the American way of life is largely based on a document that explicitly states "you have the right to own a gun" is something that should not be taken lightly.

4: If our guns are taken away, then it will be very easy for us to be controlled. It is the first step on the way a police state. This is the reason for the second amendment - the founding fathers knew that the threat of revolution was very healthy for the country and that if the people were not armed on equal terms with the militia, the government would become too strong. This is the central argument that the gun rights debate revolves around, and it is the reason that I, a fiercely anti-authoritarian person, oppose gun control. If we take away guns from the people, then we must also take them from the police.

5: At its core, this is just another debate of freedom vs. safety - a very common theme in our society today. I, for one, will almost always choose freedom.

How about you?

 

[Aisling]

I'm not sure what the rest of the forums think about this, but I actually agree with you. 1, 2 and 4 resonate with me the most. 2 could possibly be used as a counter to 4, I could imagine, though... Like, "If criminals can still get guns then we can still rebel if we need to when our gun rights are taken away", or something like that, but that's not an actual reason to ban guns, just a justification... or something like that. If that makes sense.

tl;dr I would like you to know I agree and felt like I should probably bring more to the table than the fact I agree

 

[NegativeVibe]

1: The somewhat cliche saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" remains true. A lot of anti-gun advocates I think are somewhat worried about the idea that, in theory, any given person on the street could be carrying a gun and, at any moment, decide to shoot you! But human beings are fragile, death can strike at any moment, and, assuming that you're not extremely rich and/or famous, anyone with sufficient motivation could probably kill you! This is a fact of life, and banning guns won't change it - we will always have cars, steak knifes, chainsaws, even our bare hands.

I agree with this. Also, people are going to obtain guns illegally anyway if they want them badly enough - they'll find a way, so it may be better for people to be able to defend themselves. If you can't have a gun, then you're at risk from being hurt by those who have obtained one illegally.

So I agree; I'm against it.

 

[opaltiger]

1: The somewhat cliche saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" remains true.

And yet guns make it much easier for people to kill people.

A lot of anti-gun advocates I think are somewhat worried about the idea that, in theory, any given person on the street could be carrying a gun and, at any moment, decide to shoot you! But human beings are fragile, death can strike at any moment, and, assuming that you're not extremely rich and/or famous, anyone with sufficient motivation could probably kill you! This is a fact of life, and banning guns won't change it - we will always have cars, steak knifes, chainsaws, even our bare hands.

Steak knives are useful for things other than killing people. So are chainsaws. It's true that people can murder other people in all sorts of way, but why on earth does that justify legalising even more potential murder weapons?

2: If handguns were to be made illegal, criminals (and excessively paranoid people) would still have no problem getting them (for example, how many people do you know who smoke weed?) Ordinary people would not be able to say the same, which would make us easier targets for criminals, who could march into a bank, stick up a gun, demand money, and know that no one else in the room would be armed. Having a lot of people in a space holding guns does not make for a dangerous situation; it is far more dangerous to have one man with a gun against a room full of unarmed people. It is for this reason that there will never be an NRA convention shooting spree.

I've always found this argument a bit lacking. For example, in the UK, knife crime is a lot more common than shootings; so obviously, the criminals aren't finding it all that easy to find guns. The only reason this is true in the US, I think, is because a lot of guns are legal in the first place.

3: It's in the Bill of Rights. Of course, this only applies to Americans, but in the US, the right to bear arms is right in there in the second amendment. The second amendment! The only thing listed higher than it is freedom of speech, and we all know how important that is. And let's be honest: the militia interpretation is bullshit, and I think deep down inside, all gun control advocates know it. Admittedly, it is not impossible to get rid of this amendment, but the fact that the American way of life is largely based on a document that explicitly states "you have the right to own a gun" is something that should not be taken lightly.

I hate repeating myself, but the Bill of Rights was written in the eighteenth century. There are better mechanisms to prevent the creation of a police state than "let's arm everyone". And no, I don't think the militia interpretation is bullshit. The amendment is worded terribly and doesn't make much sense to me in the first place, though.

If we take away guns from the people, then we must also take them from the police.

Okay. And the army, too.

5: At its core, this is just another debate of freedom vs. safety - a very common theme in our society today. I, for one, will almost always choose freedom.

So... why do you find the ban on assault weapons acceptable? Surely there is no fundamental difference between "it is legal to own this gun which can kill people" and "it is legal to own this bigger gun which can kill even more people".

 

[Chopsuey]

I'm not sure what the rest of the forums think about this, but I actually agree with you. 1, 2 and 4 resonate with me the most. 2 could possibly be used as a counter to 4, I could imagine, though... Like, "If criminals can still get guns then we can still rebel if we need to when our gun rights are taken away", or something like that, but that's not an actual reason to ban guns, just a justification... or something like that. If that makes sense.

tl;dr I would like you to know I agree and felt like I should probably bring more to the table than the fact I agree

More or less this.

I'm completely against it, just by nature and how I grew up. Guns are just part of life here. You use the for fun, sport and hunting. Having them plucked away isn't something I'm planning on anytime soon. Or ever, actually.

Gotta agree with opal on the Police thing, though. You mentioned that criminals would still be able to obtain firearms, so why should the Police have none to fight back with? Riot shields and Tear Gas won't be killing people too often.

 

[Pwnemon]

What the heck?

Am I actually in a majority here? I'm almost scared.

Yes I disagree with gun laws. Zeta is much more eloquent than I am so instead of ruining his beautiful argument by trying to add to it I'll just sit here and nod my head, but I have one thing to say to opal:

Know what else was written a long time ago? Shakespeare. Are you saying his work isn't relevant?

 

[Tarvos]

Shakespeare was a POET. He wrote a work of art. This is completely different from a set of laws that govern people.

Seriously you are bad at context

 

[Minish]

Reading your arguments, all I can think of is how gun control is exercised here in the UK and how little gun crime there is here as a direct result. Therefore, I will always support gun control.

Know what else was written a long time ago? Shakespeare. Are you saying his work isn't relevant?

Know what wasn't written a long time ago? Twilight. Are you saying that that work is relevant?

 

[Pwnemon]

Cirrus, according to a friend in the UK, they have dickbuttloads of knife and other such crime there instead, which was one of Zeta's points.

Also, I just wanted to say that there's usually a section in the back of this online newsletter about somebody who saved his own life through use of a gun. I may copy paste it in this thread once in a while, but today I'll just tell you about this.

A nut in Silver Springs, Maryland, decided that Discovery Channel had something wrong with it. (Before you all suggest he was some tea partier lunatic I'll just say he wasn't right here.) Anyhow, he decided that he's gonna hold up the store/hq/whatever it was of Discovery Channel with a gun. He rounded up hostages and could very well have killed a few people, except one guy was paying attention in Boy Scouts and shot the dude as soon as he pointed the gun at somebody. Had all the people been disarmed somebody probably would have died.

 

[Murkrow]

Cirrus, according to a friend in the UK, they have dickbuttloads of knife and other such crime there instead, which was one of Zeta's points.

The thing is, if you have a gun you can kill people at a distance and it's probably easier to kill more than one person, with a knife it's easier for the police to subdue you.

A nut in Silver Springs, Maryland, decided that Discovery Channel had something wrong with it. (Before you all suggest he was some tea partier lunatic I'll just say he wasn't right here.) Anyhow, he decided that he's gonna hold up the store/hq/whatever it was of Discovery Channel with a gun. He rounded up hostages and could very well have killed a few people, except one guy was paying attention in Boy Scouts and shot the dude as soon as he pointed the gun at somebody. Had all the people been disarmed somebody probably would have died.

Had all of the people been disarmed, there wouldn't be a threat in the first place. I know that that isn't the case every time but it is here.

 

[Bluberry Bat]

And had gun control laws been in effect he wouldn't have had a firearm in the first place. The thing you're missing is that not every 'villain' or 'crook' is some super-spy with underground connections and training on how to use the things. Most people who hold up these places are everyday loonies and shmucks, and if guns were illegal in the first place, 99% of them wouldn't have access whatsoever. The average person doesn't use nor have access to underground and illegal dealings which, when firearms are illegal, is where they're acquired.
Beyond that, you can't just pick up and fire a gun - that's why there are shooting ranges. Like anything, they require practice and finesse, and someone untrained is more likely to hurt themselves than others, considering aim, control and kickback factors. If guns were illegal, it would be difficult to impossible to train to use them at all, meaning once again, the average shmuck robbing a mall won't have any access.

Noone is going to stop humans from being pitiful, violent, petty beings - but control laws give them less tools in which to easily harm people with. Yes, European countries have a lot of knife crime, but compare their shooting statistics as well as casualties. Anyone can flail a steak knife at someone - but knives aren't pick-up-and-play in the connotations of a fight, either, and it removes the ability of someone to have total control of an entire room, for example. If someone on the other end of a bank lobby makes a run for it, a knife-wielder would have to either let them go or chase them down to melee range, whereas a gun wielder would just take shots at them. And yes, they can take a hostage, hold them in a neck lock and threaten to slit their throat - but someone can just as easily hold someone in a neck lock and threaten to break their neck. Anyone can do this to anyone, in fact, but it doesn't mean they /will/.

Also, comparing literature to historically unstable government is missing the point entirely. Have you ever heard the phrase 'Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it'? Shakespear and Militia States are in this way, almost polar opposites - where Shakespear is history in written form, the Militia and Police State issues are history we've moved past repeating.

 

[Karkat Vantas]

I'm alright with people owning guns, but for the sole purpose of self-defense, really. (I'm against the hunting of animals for sport, just in case one of you feels like asking.)

@ opal: The reason why assault weapons should be illegal when pistols/insert-reasonably-small-gun-here shouldn't is simple.

In the case that you need to kill someone for whatever reason, you do not need an assault rifle to do so when a regular handgun would do the job just fine. Honestly, the only reason you'd ever need an assault rifle is if you wanted to go on a shooting spree... and that's precisely why gun laws are in effect. In the case that a loony does get out and uses a legally bought gun, they aren't going to be able to do much damage.

 

[Pwnemon]

Lil Dawgie, I'll let someone a little more intelligent respond to your post in whole, but food for thought: 99 percent of weed smokers don't have fancy connections either.

 

[Dannichu]

I am so for gun control laws it's not funny. I can't find a convincing argument for allowing people to run around armed willy-nilly, it's madness.

In 1998, the US, there were 15.22 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people. In the UK, there were 0.46. [source]

Okay, I hear you say, people in places with gun control laws just use other ways to kill each other? Yes, but the methods are clearly less effective - Western Europe has a homicide rate nearly six times less than that of North America.

 

[ultraviolet]

Shakespeare. Are you saying his work isn't relevant?

what the hell are you trying to say here? People don't read Macbeth and then think 'hmm, maybe it's a good idea to seek advice from witches'. Of course it's not relevant, except for the very basic themes of jealousy and love and such. But it hardly matters because Shakespeare is predominantly fiction, and even when it's not, it's certainly not governing society. It's kind of riciulous when a law is out of date with society, isn't it?

I'm all for gun laws because I get the impression that people are always going to seek an advantage over other people - like how more semi-automatic rifles keep being legalised for civilians to use. Guns are controlled here and the only time I've ever seen a gun pulled was on a farm to shoot a fox. :| I've never been in a situation where I've wanted to have a gun with me, and I've never seen anyone have them except for the police, and a few farmers (who need them).

 

[opaltiger]

Lil Dawgie, I'll let someone a little more intelligent respond to your post in whole, but food for thought: 99 percent of weed smokers don't have fancy connections either.

I live in a country where both guns and marijuana are illegal. Off the top of my head, I can think of about five people I could potentially buy weed from - and I don't even smoke it. I can't think of a single place I would go should I want to buy a gun for whatever reason.

Guns don't grow on trees, you know.

 

[PK]

i am very much in favor of gun control laws, and i think opaltiger said the reasons why best.

 

[Minish]

Cirrus, according to a friend in the UK, they have dickbuttloads of knife and other such crime there instead, which was one of Zeta's points.

Yes, I saw that. However, knife crime is a totally different kettle of fish to gun crime, isn't it? It has its own set of problems, and as Dannichu said, homocide rates are very much lower than those in the USA. The thing with a gun is that even if you're not particularly skilled in using one, there's a much higher chance of killing your victim than with knives. While knife crime here is bad, all I can say is at least it's not gun crime.

A nut in Silver Springs, Maryland, decided that Discovery Channel had something wrong with it. (Before you all suggest he was some tea partier lunatic I'll just say he wasn't right here.) Anyhow, he decided that he's gonna hold up the store/hq/whatever it was of Discovery Channel with a gun. He rounded up hostages and could very well have killed a few people, except one guy was paying attention in Boy Scouts and shot the dude as soon as he pointed the gun at somebody. Had all the people been disarmed somebody probably would have died.

Do you really think such a story is going to win the hearts of a forum who mostly disagree extremely strongly with capital punishment? We want to prevent as many needless deaths as possible.

Gun hostages like that don't happen in the UK as a result of gun control. Surely, then, gun control is a good idea? If both parties had a knife, the guy could have been incapacitated without having to kill him - and then, he could be arrested.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

I'm in favour of gun control but I think the police force should be armed. I live in a country where the police force isn't armed and when they have to deal with criminals toting guns they're more-or-less fucked until one of the armed special squads turns up.

As I have often stated "If you completely ban guns from a society, all you end up with is well-armed criminals and dead police officers."

 

[surskitty]

I'm in favour of gun control but I think the police force should be armed. I live in a country where the police force isn't armed and when they have to deal with criminals toting guns they're more-or-less fucked until one of the armed special squads turns up.

As I have often stated "If you completely ban guns from a society, all you end up with is well-armed criminals and dead police officers."

I don't know much about Ireland, but I know police brutality is a major issue in many parts of the US, and I can't imagine that people having guns that they 'accidentally fired' helps at all..

I can't see disarming police officers as well as everyone else to be a good idea, since if guns have been readily available recently, it'd be easy for criminals to get them, but I do think they should be gradually disarmed. At least taser abuse is less deadly. It's probably not taken as seriously, but given that people can get away with murder....