The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[Genersis]

After seeing this topic becoming quite prevalent in the Death Penalty Thread, i decided i'd post my views on it too...then thought "Fuck it, i might as well start a thread for it.":tongue:
The following is what i was going to post:

Well i might as well post my view on gun rights:

1)Guns are extremely dangerous. All it takes is one shot to kill someone.
So while taking their guns away, wont cut crimes, it will hopefully make it harder to kill someone.(Or a group of people even)

2)I've seen quite a few people say they need guns to protect themselves from the state/government/police.
Really? I find that a really unlikely event to occur. If they do decide to kill ya, you are out numbered and out gunned, unless your going to rally a load of friends.
The only other way i think they could mean this, is that they feel the government may try and wipe the people out or become totalitarian, and without guns they couldn't defend themselves. Which i also think is a kinda crazy idea.

3)I've also seen people say something like:"People will just get guns by other illegal means"
Yes, they will. A whole lot less people.
Only people who know of these illegal means or are very determined to get a gun could get one. Rather than just being able to(I'm not sure how the system works but) take a test and buy one/use the one they had hidden at home for self defence.

4)If the people have the right to carry guns, it means both criminals and civilians have too. And it also means all police require guns to stop anyone doing anything, as anyone could be carrying a gun.
It means any situation could escalate to blood shed.
Without the right, the only people who can get hold of guns are the people who know how to get them illegally and the armed response force of the police. Hopefully reducing gun crime, fatalities and injuries by a fair amount.

5)As the US is already saturated with guns, so to speak, it's impossible to get rid of all of them all from the general population. Especially something the person paid for and legally owns.
So to be honest, it's nigh impossible to get rid of them now. :redface:

So yeah.
I feel it's a bad idea having the right to carry a weapon so lethal.:frown:
I also i feel not much can be done in countries where it is legal already.:redface:
(Sorry for the wall-o-text.)

[Almac]

[COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"]Hi Genersis, I was going to post a new thread about guns but you got there before me! You see, we are English/British and so brought up with strict anti-gun policies in place for generations, and so it should be.
Those who get shot dead in Britain by the police for having a gun in public do not get any sympathy from me that's for sure. The only people in Britain who should have guns are sports-people, Huntsmen, farmers, Police and the Armed services.
[/COLOR]

[pellaz]

-the gun laws vary somewhat from area to area, for example New York City may have tighter gun laws.

-if a government gives you a right "right to carry arms" why scoff at it, almost always its likely to be the other way.

-citizens with a criminal record for example are restricted.

all that being said a society makes its own rules, all done at random but it defines a culture that works at some level. so to tighten gun laws, one could theoretically be more lax in other areas.

a recent change i dont agree with is many areas have a situation where citizens can carry a concealed weapon. what is the big difference? well there is no social stigma and everyone's grandmother will have one while going grocery shopping.

anyways things are what they are, likely not be able to change them now.

[jaxc]

After seeing this topic becoming quite prevalent in the Death Penalty Thread, i decided i'd post my views on it too...then thought "Fuck it, i might as well start a thread for it.":tongue:
The following is what i was going to post:

Well i might as well post my view on gun rights:

1)Guns are extremely dangerous. All it takes is one shot to kill someone.
So while taking their guns away, wont cut crimes, it will hopefully make it harder to kill someone.(Or a group of people even)

2)I've seen quite a few people say they need guns to protect themselves from the state/government/police.
Really? I find that a really unlikely event to occur. If they do decide to kill ya, you are out numbered and out gunned, unless your going to rally a load of friends.
The only other way i think they could mean this, is that they feel the government may try and wipe the people out or become totalitarian, and without guns they couldn't defend themselves. Which i also think is a kinda crazy idea.

3)I've also seen people say something like:"People will just get guns by other illegal means"
Yes, they will. A whole lot less people.
Only people who know of these illegal means or are very determined to get a gun could get one. Rather than just being able to(I'm not sure how the system works but) take a test and buy one/use the one they had hidden at home for self defence.

4)If the people have the right to carry guns, it means both criminals and civilians have too. And it also means all police require guns to stop anyone doing anything, as anyone could be carrying a gun.
It means any situation could escalate to blood shed.
Without the right, the only people who can get hold of guns are the people who know how to get them illegally and the armed response force of the police. Hopefully reducing gun crime, fatalities and injuries by a fair amount.

5)As the US is already saturated with guns, so to speak, it's impossible to get rid of all of them all from the general population. Especially something the person paid for and legally owns.
So to be honest, it's nigh impossible to get rid of them now. :redface:

So yeah.
I feel it's a bad idea having the right to carry a weapon so lethal.:frown:
I also i feel not much can be done in countries where it is legal already.:redface:
(Sorry for the wall-o-text.)

1. cars are also very dangerous, so does that mean we should ban cars(plus one of the biggest school massacres in us history was committed without any firearms).
2.thiers more armed civilians than thier are military and security forces.
3. your partely right, but how will a law effecting only civilians stop criminals from buying gun illeagally( especially know the mass majority of people won't be armed.
4. anybody with a criminal history ( at least in the u.s.) cant purchase a firearm by an leagal means and generally it would only turn into bloodbath if no one is able to fight back or defend themselves.
5. and yes we are saturated with firearms(majority of them leagally owned and purchased).

[Pix]

Just my addition:

1. Guns saves millions every year from home invaders, rapists, and criminals who will have guns regardless of the laws, and this includes the elderly, women, and gays who have been saved against much bigger assailants who attacked knowing they were stronger and believing their victim unlikely to be armed.

A few mass shootings were also stopped by someone in the crowd being legally armed, btw, though most mass shooters choose "gun free zones" for this reason. One mass shooter in Texas targeted a Luby's because Texas law forbid legal firearms where alcohol was sold and the shooter waited 2 hours for 2 cops to leave before his rampage so he was counting on his victims being unarmed. Many of those died had guns in their vehicles outside where they could do no good. And before anyone comes up with the all too common claim that if they'd been armed they'd have shot each other in the crossfire, I'd just like to leave this true incident as an example of what can happen when someone armed tried to prey on innocents who are also armed: dead stupid. There are other examples, too, but feel free to find another true incident where armed defenders shot each other in the crossfire when defending against a would be mass murderer or other violent criminal.

2. Mass murder can be more deadly without a gun. Some of the knife massacres in China and Japan have been more deadly than most of our shooting sprees because knives are silent (but when people hear shooting they know to duck, run, hide, etc), there's a lot more accuracy so those stabbed are often more likely to die (whereas many mass shooters miss the majority of time, and even when they wound someone it's far more likely to be superficial), and can be used in stealth (like one mass stabber snuck into a boarding school and slit throat after throat while the boys were asleep, killing nearly every single one).

Again, some mass murders were stopped by someone who was legally carrying a gun. Also, be glad the mass shooters have no imagination, as there are far deadlier ways (that more might think of if guns are banned) to kill a lot of people. I'm not gonna give anyone ideas (though it would be easy), but I'll say 2 words that I hope get my meaning across: Timothy McVeigh. (Speaking of which, the poster above me mentioned our deadliest school massacre that didn't use guns, which was the Bath School massacre.)

3. If guns were fully outlawed then the guns they got on the black market would become more police and military issue (as some already are, btw) rather than the kind for civilians, as would their ammo (currently illegal for civilians due to their armor piercing qualities), so they would become more dangerous. Much more importantly they would be embolden and feel confident in attacking their supposedly law abiding victims (even armed criminals fear their victims being armed and typically flee, even when it's 1 grandma who pulls a gun on 4 better armed thugs). That means even though fewer people would have guns, the few who did would use them a lot more so gun violence would actually increase, not decrease, and become more deadly due to the quality of guns & ammo.

And violence in general (knife violence, rape, etc) would also increase for the same reason. In effect, violence would likely rise as it has in many other countries that banned guns. And btw, as a general rule (exceptions exist both ways, and just to be clear I don't think guns/gun control are the primary reason for this either way), violence tends to be much higher when its hard to get a gun legally (such as Illinois) and much safer where it's easier and socially acceptable to get and use guns (such as Vermont). A particularly dramatic example was Arlington and Washington DC, urban areas separated only by a bridge and with radically different gun laws (until a few years ago) and most of the violent crime took place in Washington DC where it was illegal to have a gun (though because they're so close I'm sure the criminals of Arlington got themselves to Washington DC to commit their crimes).

*****

That said, I realize there's a very dark side to our gun culture (and I can share about some really scary people I met at a shooting range) and I support a lot of measures like waiting periods, mandatory safety courses, and background checks. There are a lot of gun accidents that are just plain stupid (and actually our police are some of the worst offenders), though usually these accidents affect mainly the gun owner and not anyone else (though other family members are hurt all too often). And I'm very cynical of the NRA and not only do I believe the 2A would be of little use in resisting a totalitarian state (though in the extremely unlikely event of our being invaded it would probably prove to be a very good thing), but I think a clear majority (note, I'm NOT saying "most") of NRA types would be willing Quislings to keep the rest of us in line, especially if it were some fundamentalist Christian Republican as POTUS that called them to help him put down resistors against the totalitarian power he had seized.

But I am pretty sure that making an actual gun ban would make things go from bad to worse and that efforts to curb violence need to be made elsewhere, like more effective social programs against poverty, being much more careful regarding psychiatric meds (most mass shooters had either just started new psyche meds or were just coming off of them), reserving space in our prisons for our true predators (whereas now they'll even let murderers and rapists go to make sure some kid busted smoking pot can serve his "minimum sentence"! And speaking of which, turning pot smokers into felons destroys their ties to the community and puts them with true predators which means they'll be pressured into becoming dangerous themselves when they weren't before), treating the drug problem as a medical issue than a legal issue (which should help decrease addiction and at the same time cause most drug cartels, and the criminal gangs they support in the USA, to wither away--I'm thinking of like Portugal's drug policies that have greatly improved their society--and btw, taking the billions of annual tax dollars from the war on some drugs might mean universal health care, including for drug problems, is finally possible), and a host of other things, especially our culture (including through our popular media and our government and schools that let jocks bullies nonconformist kids) that says, "violence works." (I'm not a pacifist saying violence never has a place, but for all too many people in the USA, including in the government, it seems to be the preferred option instead of a last resort and glorify it rather than regretting its necessity.)

[ToddYoung]

Most democracies do without guns rather nicely - and with fewer crimes and murders.

[colinmackay]

Gun ownership is a difficult subject. The arguments on whether it is better one way or the other are often emotional rather than factually based... And even with evidence cited, there can always be found evidence to support the opposite.

For example gun crime in the USA is quite high compared to most western counties. Gun ownership is also high compared to most western counties. Therefore gun ownership increases gun crime. Right? What about Switzerland which has the highest gun ownership in the west... And one of lowest rates of gun related crime.

It's a difficult subject and I know that my view that gun ownership should be outlawed is prejudiced on the fact that I dislike guns. I hated even toy guns as a child.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Inchante]

Honestly, I think blaming guns for violence, increased violence etc. Is a cop-out. There is a problem when you blame an inanimate object for a social issue. Banning a tool is no way to solve the problem.

[Genersis]

I don't feel banning guns will cut crime.
As Inchante said, it's down to people that violence happens, not the weapons.
I just thought guns were more lethal than other things that could be used as weapons, so i assumed that having less guns would make crimes less likely to be lethal at the very least.
Looks like i could be wrong.
Fair enough.

As i said though, it's really too late to do anything about it in the US now anyway. It's down to regulating now.

1. cars are also very dangerous, so does that mean we should ban cars(plus one of the biggest school massacres in us history was committed without any firearms).
...

Cars aren't made and used for the sole purpose of wounding and killing others though, are they?

[jaxc]

Just my addition:

1. Guns saves millions every year from home invaders, rapists, and criminals who will have guns regardless of the laws, and this includes the elderly, women, and gays who have been saved against much bigger assailants who attacked knowing they were stronger and believing their victim unlikely to be armed.

A few mass shootings were also stopped by someone in the crowd being legally armed, btw, though most mass shooters choose "gun free zones" for this reason. One mass shooter in Texas targeted a Luby's because Texas law forbid legal firearms where alcohol was sold and the shooter waited 2 hours for 2 cops to leave before his rampage so he was counting on his victims being unarmed. Many of those died had guns in their vehicles outside where they could do no good. And before anyone comes up with the all too common claim that if they'd been armed they'd have shot each other in the crossfire, I'd just like to leave this true incident as an example of what can happen when someone armed tried to prey on innocents who are also armed: dead stupid. There are other examples, too, but feel free to find another true incident where armed defenders shot each other in the crossfire when defending against a would be mass murderer or other violent criminal.

2. Mass murder can be more deadly without a gun. Some of the knife massacres in China and Japan have been more deadly than most of our shooting sprees because knives are silent (but when people hear shooting they know to duck, run, hide, etc), there's a lot more accuracy so those stabbed are often more likely to die (whereas many mass shooters miss the majority of time, and even when they wound someone it's far more likely to be superficial), and can be used in stealth (like one mass stabber snuck into a boarding school and slit throat after throat while the boys were asleep, killing nearly every single one).

Again, some mass murders were stopped by someone who was legally carrying a gun. Also, be glad the mass shooters have no imagination, as there are far deadlier ways (that more might think of if guns are banned) to kill a lot of people. I'm not gonna give anyone ideas (though it would be easy), but I'll say 2 words that I hope get my meaning across: Timothy McVeigh. (Speaking of which, the poster above me mentioned our deadliest school massacre that didn't use guns, which was the Bath School massacre.)

3. If guns were fully outlawed then the guns they got on the black market would become more police and military issue (as some already are, btw) rather than the kind for civilians, as would their ammo (currently illegal for civilians due to their armor piercing qualities), so they would become more dangerous. Much more importantly they would be embolden and feel confident in attacking their supposedly law abiding victims (even armed criminals fear their victims being armed and typically flee, even when it's 1 grandma who pulls a gun on 4 better armed thugs). That means even though fewer people would have guns, the few who did would use them a lot more so gun violence would actually increase, not decrease, and become more deadly due to the quality of guns & ammo.

And violence in general (knife violence, rape, etc) would also increase for the same reason. In effect, violence would likely rise as it has in many other countries that banned guns. And btw, as a general rule (exceptions exist both ways, and just to be clear I don't think guns/gun control are the primary reason for this either way), violence tends to be much higher when its hard to get a gun legally (such as Illinois) and much safer where it's easier and socially acceptable to get and use guns (such as Vermont). A particularly dramatic example was Arlington and Washington DC, urban areas separated only by a bridge and with radically different gun laws (until a few years ago) and most of the violent crime took place in Washington DC where it was illegal to have a gun (though because they're so close I'm sure the criminals of Arlington got themselves to Washington DC to commit their crimes).

*****

That said, I realize there's a very dark side to our gun culture (and I can share about some really scary people I met at a shooting range) and I support a lot of measures like waiting periods, mandatory safety courses, and background checks. There are a lot of gun accidents that are just plain stupid (and actually our police are some of the worst offenders), though usually these accidents affect mainly the gun owner and not anyone else (though other family members are hurt all too often). And I'm very cynical of the NRA and not only do I believe the 2A would be of little use in resisting a totalitarian state (though in the extremely unlikely event of our being invaded it would probably prove to be a very good thing), but I think a clear majority (note, I'm NOT saying "most") of NRA types would be willing Quislings to keep the rest of us in line, especially if it were some fundamentalist Christian Republican as POTUS that called them to help him put down resistors against the totalitarian power he had seized.

But I am pretty sure that making an actual gun ban would make things go from bad to worse and that efforts to curb violence need to be made elsewhere, like more effective social programs against poverty, being much more careful regarding psychiatric meds (most mass shooters had either just started new psyche meds or were just coming off of them), reserving space in our prisons for our true predators (whereas now they'll even let murderers and rapists go to make sure some kid busted smoking pot can serve his "minimum sentence"! And speaking of which, turning pot smokers into felons destroys their ties to the community and puts them with true predators which means they'll be pressured into becoming dangerous themselves when they weren't before), treating the drug problem as a medical issue than a legal issue (which should help decrease addiction and at the same time cause most drug cartels, and the criminal gangs they support in the USA, to wither away--I'm thinking of like Portugal's drug policies that have greatly improved their society--and btw, taking the billions of annual tax dollars from the war on some drugs might mean universal health care, including for drug problems, is finally possible), and a host of other things, especially our culture (including through our popular media and our government and schools that let jocks bullies nonconformist kids) that says, "violence works." (I'm not a pacifist saying violence never has a place, but for all too many people in the USA, including in the government, it seems to be the preferred option instead of a last resort and glorify it rather than regretting its necessity.)

AMEN BROTHER!!!!! sorry coulnd't resist:tongue: