AD-17 - The Right to Bear Arms

[Discordia]

Originally the "right to bear arms" was needed because in the early days of the US people were totally self sufficient and they needed guns for hunting and protection. People still use them for the same thing but the demographics have changed. Á person living in the city is less like to use it to bring down a wild bear then they are to actually use it against another human being. I don't think that just banning people from having guns is the solution. I think we need stricter gun control laws. If you are going to own a gun you need to get a liscence and you need to be trained on how to properly use a gun. I don't think just anyone off the street should have a gun. I straddle both sides of the issue. You can't really tell who is sane enough to own a gun and who is not. Is it fair to ban people from owning guns because some people may potentially go off their rocker? Who is to say that certain people are right for owning a gun and certain people are wrong for owning a gun? Who is to say their purpose for owning a gun is right or wrong? You don't know what they will use the gun for in the future whether to kill animals or human beings.

[AptPupil]

People shouldn't have their guns taken away. If one right goes down the drain, all the others will follow. That being said, gun regulations should be modified heavily. I've heard people like Sean Hannity say that guns aren't dangerous, people are. That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. A gun is designed to kill. It discharges lead at super speed.

You do the math.

Sadly, a good portion of the pro-gun movement thinks this way. They see it as a neutral object. In my estimation, that's dangerous thinking. Like I said: guns were clearly designed to kill.

[irishdancer34]

Originally Posted by AptPupil

They see it as a neutral object. In my estimation, that's dangerous thinking.

I'm not sure what you mean by neutral. It is an inanimate object...

[AptPupil]

Originally Posted by irishdancer34

I'm not sure what you mean by neutral. It is an inanimate object...

Neutral as in being just like any other product.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by AptPupil

People shouldn't have their guns taken away. If one right goes down the drain, all the others will follow. That being said, gun regulations should be modified heavily. I've heard people like Sean Hannity say that guns aren't dangerous, people are. That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. A gun is designed to kill. It discharges lead at super speed.

You do the math.

Sadly, a good portion of the pro-gun movement thinks this way. They see it as a neutral object. In my estimation, that's dangerous thinking. Like I said: guns were clearly designed to kill.

The right to own slaves was legislated around the same time as the right to bear arms. We ended up fighting a war against ourselves to end slavery in this country and have spent over a century since that war trying to get it right. Some "rights" have outlived their usefulness. Slavery was one of them and guns, I think, are another.

[potterposse]

People should have a right to bear arms.

[unconvinced]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

The right to own slaves was legislated around the same time as the right to bear arms. We ended up fighting a war against ourselves to end slavery in this country and have spent over a century since that war trying to get it right. Some "rights" have outlived their usefulness. Slavery was one of them and guns, I think, are another.

I agree, what was appropiate for one centuary will not necissarily be required for another

[WitchHunter]

Originally Posted by Discordia

If you are going to own a gun you need to get a liscence and you need to be trained on how to properly use a gun. I don't think just anyone off the street should have a gun.

You already need a liscence, and not just "anyone off the street" can buy a gun, as there are background checks to make sure a potential buyer does not have a criminal record or a history of mental illness. Mandatory training is a good idea, though.

Originally Posted by AptPupil

I've heard people like Sean Hannity say that guns aren't dangerous, people are. That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. A gun is designed to kill. It discharges lead at super speed.

What that means is that a gun on it's own is nothing more than a piece of metal. It is not until someone chooses to use the gun that it becomes dangerous. For this reason, crime would be better reduced by focusing on the criminals rather than on the guns.

[potterposse]

Originally Posted by AptPupil

Originally Posted by AptPupil
I've heard people like Sean Hannity say that guns aren't dangerous, people are. That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. A gun is designed to kill. It discharges lead at super speed.

I agree with Hannity. It makes perfect sense. Someone has to be holding a gun in order for it to work.

Besides, this just proves the point a little more: The gun shouldn't be banned, the person holding the gun doing the crime should be banned from possessing a gun. Guns are useful, for example, farmers need them. Police need them for defense just like the military needs them to defend us. Good citizens shouldn't be banned from possessing a gun because some other idiot did wrong with it. Honestly, if more people owned guns, crime rates would be down because no one would want to mess with an armed person.

[AptPupil]

Originally Posted by potterposse

I agree with Hannity. It makes perfect sense. Someone has to be holding a gun in order for it to work.

Besides, this just proves the point a little more: The gun shouldn't be banned, the person holding the gun doing the crime should be banned from possessing a gun. Guns are useful, for example, farmers need them. Police need them for defense just like the military needs them to defend us. Good citizens shouldn't be banned from possessing a gun because some other idiot did wrong with it. Honestly, if more people owned guns, crime rates would be down because no one would want to mess with an armed person.

Guns are dangerous in an of themselves. Theoretically speaking, Witchhunter is right: a gun is merely a peice of a metal. But apply that to the real world and it's not just a piece of metal anymore: it's a device that makes killing easy. Some people talk as if they use their gun as a can opener.

[Tenshi]

People like police and hunter have guns for work-related reasons. Having a gun just for fun, is no valid reason. Your point that more guns will lower crime rates is [removed by staff]. The more guns are around and the more people use them, the more do people relate to them and are going to solve all problems by shooting others. Don't try to reason with other people, simply shot them. That's the way I see it.

I have the feeling that people think the world will fall down, when they don't have the right to own a gun. Our gun law was created many decades ago and we are still alive and kicking. Beside that am I not afraid to go on the street here, because I could be shot. Would I live in the USA, then that would be my biggest fear of all.

[potterposse]

NO, it means if you have to defend yourself becuase someone wants to hurt you first, why not protect yourself?

[AptPupil]

Originally Posted by potterposse

NO, it means if you have to defend yourself becuase someone wants to hurt you first, why not protect yourself?

In that case, a handgun will suffice. We don't need automatic weapons laying around, because some people are 'collectors.'

[potterposse]

Well, that's sort of what I meant. But, you can't stop people from owning more than one gun if they are licensed.

[AptPupil]

Originally Posted by potterposse

Well, that's sort of what I meant. But, you can't stop people from owning more than one gun if they are licensed.

Realistically you can't, but it doesn't help the problem when people make guns out to be a product like any other. If that was so, then why not have a whole department devoted to guns at Walmart?

And I'm not talking about the number of guns. I'm talking about the caliber. Some automatic weapons can cut a person in half. It has no place where people live.

[Tenshi]

Originally Posted by potterposse

NO, it means if you have to defend yourself becuase someone wants to hurt you first, why not protect yourself?

Do you live in constant fear that someone will come and kill you, that you need to keep a gun close by?

[WitchHunter]

Originally Posted by Tenshi

Your point that more guns will lower crime rates is absurd. The more guns are around and the more people use them, the more do people relate to them and are going to solve all problems by shooting others. Don't try to reason with other people, simply shot them. That's the way I see it.

Just having a gun does not turn people into killers. People own plenty of things that they could kill someone with, such as knives, baseball bats, or cars, but most people are not murderers.

I have the feeling that people think the world will fall down, when they don't have the right to own a gun. Our gun law was created many decades ago and we are still alive and kicking.

Where do you live? What works in one country may not necessarily work in another, as there are greater differences between countries than their stance on gun ownership.

Beside that am I not afraid to go on the street here, because I could be shot. Would I live in the USA, then that would be my biggest fear of all.

Despite what the media and the gun control advocates would have you believe, you aren't likeley to get shot randomly in most places. Obviously there are certain neighborhoods that are best avoided, but beyond that you can go about your day without fear of being shot.

Do you live in constant fear that someone will come and kill you, that you need to keep a gun close by?

Most people don't own guns because of a constant fear of being killed, but because it is best to be prepared for even the unlikeliest of events. And guns are more often used to scare off thieves than to fight killers.

Originally Posted by AptPupil

And I'm not talking about the number of guns. I'm talking about the caliber. Some automatic weapons can cut a person in half. It has no place where people live.

I assume that you are reffering to fully automatic weapons, in which case it isn't a problem. Fully automatic guns are strictly regulated, and rarley used in crimes. Although Hollywood likes to show gangsters tearing each other apart with Uzis and AK-47s, it simply isn't the case. Crimes comitted with fully automatic weapons are extremely rare.

[AptPupil]

Originally Posted by WitchHunter

I assume that you are reffering to fully automatic weapons, in which case it isn't a problem. Fully automatic guns are strictly regulated, and rarley used in crimes. Although Hollywood likes to show gangsters tearing each other apart with Uzis and AK-47s, it simply isn't the case. Crimes comitted with fully automatic weapons are extremely rare.

You're right. I was simply using the example as a means to show how the difference in caliber factors into the seriousness of the issue. When I say that a handgun will suffice, I am saying that when one is defending themself against a burglar, if they are shooting to kill, it will be an instinct kill. The kind of kill that a handgun can easily deal. Some people feel that for protection, they need the biggest gun they can get. In other words, guns that are alot of the time more suited for calculated kills. And then there is the whole issue of people thinking guns is some kind of hobby, an attitude which I find dangerous. This attitude stems out of the idea that a gun is no more dangerous than a crowbar. That's true in theory, but when applied to the real world, as far as danger level, guns are on a whole different playing field than bats and knives and etc.

[Hysteria]

NO, it means if you have to defend yourself becuase someone wants to hurt you first, why not protect yourself?

And shooting people is the only way to do that? The only time I would feel the need to shoot in self defence is if someone was pointing a gun at me first and even then I wouldnt feel comfortable shooting someone.

The self defence arguement is so... medieval. He has a gun, so I need a gun. From reading this thread it seems like a lot of people tend to think that they need a gun to protect themselves againt other people with guns. If guns werent so easily avaliable then perhaps this need wouldnt be so strong. If people want something for self defence, why not produce a gun-like weapon that will prevent someone from harming you but wont kill them? Theres no need to kill anybody in a situation like that.

[Alastor]

Let's not allow the temperature of this thread to rise now.