AD-17 - The Right to Bear Arms

[UAM]

From what I have gathered here those who are for the right to have guns say that they need them in case of burglaries or some other such event. Please correct me on that if I'm wrong. If you have a burglar would you instantly should them on the off chance that they would have a gun? Seems a bit harsh to me.

I see a need for guns in terms or hunting, but the average suburban family don't really have a use for one. I can understand the police having them, but the police are apparently struggling to keep up with the arsenal of guns that certain groups of people are amassing.

If people must have guns then there needs to be incredibly strict licencing laws and mandatory training to go with it. Yes, the training will teach people how to shoot properly and so more shots might hit their target, but with training there are probably going to be less accidental deaths or injuries.

[potterposse]

Guns do save more lives than they do killing them. Look, I said earlier that guns are a good defense, and I am sticking to that. But, half of you cannot tell me that you wouldn't defend yourself if you were in a very bad situation where you needed to hurt someone in order to live or save others like your family or friends. I know stuff like that can be unlikely, but it is still possible and you can't say it wouldn't happen to you because you have no way of knowing things like that. More and more crimes happen each day, but it isn't due to guns most of the time. It's usually due to dangerous crimmals like sex offenders being released. And even if some of the crimes were gun related, you can't ban guns for those who know how to use a gun and are responsible with the tool and are licensed with it. People use guns for things other than killing you know.

[Hysteria]

But, half of you cannot tell me that you wouldn't defend yourself if you were in a very bad situation where you needed to hurt someone in order to live or save others like your family or friends. I know stuff like that can be unlikely, but it is still possible and you can't say it wouldn't happen to you because you have no way of knowing things like that. More and more crimes happen each day, but it isn't due to guns most of the time. It's usually due to dangerous crimmals like sex offenders being released. And even if some of the crimes were gun related, you can't ban guns for those who know how to use a gun and are responsible with the tool and are licensed with it. People use guns for things other than killing you know.

It is natural to defend yourself and your loved ones but you dont need a gun to do it! Killing people shouldnt be self defence. If you want to protect yourself, harm your offender to prevent them harming you but 99% of the time there is no need to kill them.

[unconvinced]

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.

If defence is the only reason for owning a gun why does there always seem to be such an outcry in the US when people talk about tightening the laws on selling laws with tighter background checks etc, in order to make sure that guns are sold only to those who will use them properly.

What is the political feeling in the US as to the gun situation? Is it true that the pro-gun lobby has become so powerful that polititians actually fear to speak out against guns in case it puts their careers and future political works in danger?

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by UAM

From what I have gathered here those who are for the right to have guns say that they need them in case of burglaries or some other such event. Please correct me on that if I'm wrong. If you have a burglar would you instantly shoot them on the off chance that they would have a gun? Seems a bit harsh to me.

Originally Posted by unconvinced

If defence is the only reason for owning a gun why does there always seem to be such an outcry in the US when people talk about tightening the laws on selling laws with tighter background checks etc, in order to make sure that guns are sold only to those who will use them properly.

Because education is the last thing on anyone's mind when it is working off of emotion.
Such people calling for more laws are woefully ignorant that such laws already exist but aren't enforced.

Originally Posted by unconvinced

What is the political feeling in the US as to the gun situation? Is it true that the pro-gun lobby has become so powerful that polititians actually fear to speak out against guns in case it puts their careers and future political works in danger?

Not just the gun lobby.
Anyone trying to alter the Constitution will be intimidated just by making the attempt. (It takes a supermajority. Near impossible today.) Not just that, there will always be the fear of "which one of our freedoms will be next?"
Today "gun control" is merely a buzz term to pacify a congressperson's constitutents.

[WitchHunter]

Originally Posted by UAM

From what I have gathered here those who are for the right to have guns say that they need them in case of burglaries or some other such event. Please correct me on that if I'm wrong. If you have a burglar would you instantly should them on the off chance that they would have a gun? Seems a bit harsh to me.

It would usually not be necessary to shoot a burgler. In that situation a gun would be used to either frighten the burgler into leaving or to force them to hold still until the police arrived.

If people must have guns then there needs to be incredibly strict licencing laws and mandatory training to go with it. Yes, the training will teach people how to shoot properly and so more shots might hit their target, but with training there are probably going to be less accidental deaths or injuries.

This seems fair, but there would have to be a way for people who are already familiar with guns to avoid the class, such as a test.

Originally Posted by Hysteria

It is natural to defend yourself and your loved ones but you dont need a gun to do it! Killing people shouldnt be self defence. If you want to protect yourself, harm your offender to prevent them harming you but 99% of the time there is no need to kill them.

Unfortunatley, lethal force is sometimes necessary to preserve one's own life, and for the law to provide greater protection to criminals than to law abiding citizens would be counterproductive.

[AptPupil]

Originally Posted by potterposse

Guns do save more lives than they do killing them.

Where did you get that statistic?

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by potterposse

Guns do save more lives than they do killing them.

If I may...

The figure I believe mentioned earlier was 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

First source

Which Masterfroggy rebutted using info provided here by Prof. Hemenway.

And Prof. Kleck and Gertz rebutted that article here.

[unconvinced]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

Not just that, there will always be the fear of "which one of our freedoms will be next?"
Today "gun control" is merely a buzz term to pacify a congressperson's constitutents.

That I can understand actually, I suppose it's not unreasonable for Amercans to want to protect their constitution but how many of the people who use that argument really care about the constitution and how many just like their guns?

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

(It takes a supermajority. Near impossible today.)

Whats that?

[AptPupil]

Originally Posted by unconvinced

Whats that?

I think what Midnight means (and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to twist your words) is that you would need an almost absolute majority to ban guns entirely. Public opposition would have to be in the late 90 figures. It's nearly impossible today, because division is the very nature of today's political system.

[Rell]

Originally Posted by unconvinced

That I can understand actually, I suppose it's not unreasonable for Amercans to want to protect their constitution but how many of the people who use that argument really care about the constitution and how many just like their guns?

I am not very in favor of allowing people to bear arms - but my biggest fear in banning them would be that it might be easier the next time someone wanted to change something in the constitution or in the amendments.

[Midnightsfire]

*nods*

It would take a near unanimous decision in congress (both House and Senate).

Even those that favor banning are leery of altering the documents our nation built upon.

[makingmusic476]

Let's ban alcohol as well. Thousands upon thousands of people die each year due to alcohol related incidents.

People make stupid decisions regarding alcohol, and people can end up severely wounded as a result. The same goes for firearms. As the saying goes, "Guns don't kill people, people do." Ultimately, alcohol and firearm related injuries boil down to choices made by people. A firearm is merely a tool used to meet an end, and it could easily be replaced by a blade, a bat, or, hell, even a pencil if the person really had intent to harm/kill.

With all the problems that alcohol causes, does that mean we should just ban the substance? No. There is such a thing as "liberty" in this country (some of you may not know what that is, and I understand that, as it is becoming increasingly hard to find), and we shouldn't ban things just because they are dangerous if used in certain ways.

Here in New Orleans a child stabbed his best friend in a dispute over a backpack. His BEST FRIEND! Instilling a strong sense of morality upon our children is far more important than banning things like firearms. Teach people responsibilty instead of just locking them in a padded cell separating them from anything and everything that could be harmful.

There are many legitimate uses for firearms, and I don't think that they should be restricted simply because they can be abused. These many uses vary from protection, to hunting (and i'm talking hunting to eat, not hunting simply for a plaque on your wall), to just some excitement at the shooting range.

Of course, the chief reason firearms should always remain legal is stated in the Declaration of Independence:

"[...] whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

The US government has been increasingly violating the rights of its people ever since the days of Lincoln (somewhat even before), and it's not looking to stop anytime soon. One day our people will have enough, and quite possibly the only course of action will be armed insurrection. Not to mention the fact that the government could be emboldened by an armless people and start increasing their control at a quicker rate than ever before.

The power behind an armed people is immense. It helps ward against both internal and external threats, from the threats of foreign powers to the threats of our own government. To use an old saying, "Why is the US never invaded? Everybody's got a gun!"

Louisiana has the most lenient gun control laws of all the states in the Union, and, as far as I know, crime related injuries aren't any more numerous here than in any other state (aside from the actual city of New Orleans, but that's due to social issues more than anything else. Gotta love this city. )

[Tenshi]

Originally Posted by Rell

I am not very in favor of allowing people to bear arms - but my biggest fear in banning them would be that it might be easier the next time someone wanted to change something in the constitution or in the amendments.

Why would that be a bad thing?
The constitution was set up centuries ago, a lot of things changed till then and the circumstances are not the same like it was years ago.

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by Tenshi

Why would that be a bad thing?
The constitution was set up centuries ago, a lot of things changed till then and the circumstances are not the same like it was years ago.

Pesky things, words.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

As you can see, this denotes responsibilty that every free person bears in this country Whether he/she is aware of it or not.

Sure, a lot has changed since then. But when these words become "inconvenient" or merely something that "no longer applies" to this country, then the USA will no longer exist as a democratic republic.

[Caesar]

1.In light of recent events and what appears to be a daily occurrence in towns and cities across the US, do you believe that the right to bear arms can still be upheld or do you think it is time to toughen up gun laws?

Gun control is citizen control. Why does the government have the right to own all the guns and we don't? The reason the constitution gives us the right to bear arms is to not only protect ourselves from crime but from our own government if it turns tyrannical.

2. Is it necessary for a citizen to own a gun or guns?

Depends on where you live, some people don't like guns, I personally feel a lot safer with a gun in my home. If every citizen owned a gun crime would be a lot lower.

3. What situations do you believe are right for a person to use a gun in anger?
Not really sure what this question is asking, if someone is stealing his or her stuff they have ever right to shoot the person though I might not reccomend it.

4. If gun control is more a case of guns out of control, should the system as it stands be redeveloped into one of more collective responsibility? So for example, if you are a first-time gun owner, in order to own a gun and before you undergo a background check you must have one or even two sponsors, gun owners themselves with no criminal record, with a stipulation that the sponsors will be held in some way, accountable for the actions of the individual should the gun be used in anger?

What give the government control to regulate guns? A better way for this to work would be for some societies you live in (different neighborhoods) would require a special license from them after they've tested your psychological state and physical state to shoot a gun.

5. Should there be a psychological and other such evaluations in place for future gun owners to undertake? Maybe a program of training for all first-time gun owners?

Almost same answer as above, this defiantly shouldn't be done by the government, but a person on their property has every right to say you have to have a certain gun license to carry a gun on their property, oh the beauty of free market.

6. Should authorities do more to clamp down on the sale of guns privately or at specialised fairs that cater for gun owners?
No

7. If you do not believe the law needs changing or that guns should be regulated better, what solutions do you propose to combat events like these from ever happening again?

I think we need de-regulation, more people that own guns, the better.

All in all its pretty simple. O.K, nobody owns guns, the world is happy we can't shoot each other, oh no here comes along somebody that owns a gun, what are you going to do? Write a nice letter to them to please tell them to stop using a gun.

Gun regulation won't do anything, the bad guys are still going to get the guns and its better for you to own a gun yourself. If there is gun regulation the bad guys know they have a gun and you don't, if there isn't you might have a gun and its a bigger risk trying to commit a crime.

[Alastor]

If this has to be repeated on every other page, this thread doesn't seem worthy of keeping alive. Refers to post deleted as it was quite aggressive towards fellow members too.

Originally Posted by Alastor

ETA: I'm reopening this thread, asking you all to seriously conider this:

And please don't forget this either: How to have a pleasant conversation on any topic.

[Hysteria]

1.In light of recent events and what appears to be a daily occurrence in towns and cities across the US, do you believe that the right to bear arms can still be upheld or do you think it is time to toughen up gun laws?
I think guns should be far more difficult to come by than they currently are but you'd never get a complete ban.


2. Is it necessary for a citizen to own a gun or guns?
Absolutely not. Not a single person I know owns a gun and none of them have been a victim of any kind of gun violence or have been in a situation where a gun could have 'helped' them. Whilst I understand things are very difference in countries such as the US, I find it ridiculous that people feel the 'need' to keep a deadly weapon in their homes.


3. What situations do you believe are right for a person to use a gun in anger?
I cant think of a single situation where I would want or need to use a gun. I would rather have a weapon which would temporerally disable my 'attacker' rather than kill them. Firstly because I feel taking human life in any situation is 100% wrong, and secondly if an accident should occur I wouldnt have accidently seriously injured or killed myself or a loved one.


5. Should there be a psychological and other such evaluations in place for future gun owners to undertake? Maybe a program of training for all first-time gun owners?
I'd say so, but not done by the government. There should be an independent body.


6. Should authorities do more to clamp down on the sale of guns privately or at specialised fairs that cater for gun owners?
Yes. If people insist on owning guns they should do it properly. Go to a licenced dealer, do the paperwork, have the background check, learn how to use it and then take your deadly weapon home to your family.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by Hysteria

It is natural to defend yourself and your loved ones but you dont need a gun to do it! Killing people shouldnt be self defence. If you want to protect yourself, harm your offender to prevent them harming you but 99% of the time there is no need to kill them.

As a father of four that lives in a rural area, I am not prepared to take the chance that I can simply overpower and detain an intruder. If they are breaking into my home, they intend to do my family harm and me. I have no moral ambiguity on this subject. I will shoot to kill. I have more than simple property at risk and the intruder has forfeited any consideration by endangering my family. Their actual motives don't concern me one bit, by breaking in they have made themselves an immediate and imminent threat and I have not only the right, but the obligation to my wife and children to eliminate that threat quickly and with as little risk to them as possible. It is of no consequence to me if they are armed or not as I will not be attempting to determine that prior to shooting them. If they break into my home, they are dangerous and criminal and the faster they are eliminated as a threat, the safer my family and I will be.
For the record, I am 6' 3" 215 lbs and very strong. I am also trained in hand-to-hand combat and have fought more than once using that training. That said, if an intruder overpowered me, my family would be at the mercy of that person and I can think of nothing worse than that. If others want to place "equal value" on their family’s lives and safety with the life and safety of the intruder, that is solely their choice, but I can't and won't subscribe to that philosophy. If it were illegal to defend in such a manner, I would still rather be in prison than to have my family at the mercy of a criminal invader.

[unconvinced]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

As a father of four that lives in a rural area, I am not prepared to take the chance that I can simply overpower and detain an intruder. If they are breaking into my home, they intend to do my family harm and me

Just out of interest what are the laws in the US regarding shooting or attacking people who brake into your home? I know they are kinda murky in the UK and, unfortunatly, seem to favour those doing the braking in