Gun Control Laws

Since Peace and War said to have a separate thread for it, here it is!

What are your guys' opinions on guns and how laws should control them?

 

I' ll just state that more guns = more gun victims, it' s a no brainer really, and leave this here :

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/o...urage-to-stop-this.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

 

That's just stupid--no one would listen to the law.

 

Not sure which law you' re talking about but ...

Yeah ... I don' t think so ...
I suppose my previous post was tl,dr for you so here, this is the part you want to read :

Anyway, in the articles I' ve read people are asking for security measures, but not necessarily retroactive ones. It means they would only apply from now on, any gun you already own would still be yours. That' s what we do with cars (or any other object really) every time a new security measure is passed.

 

Under the constitution in the second amendment, we have the right to bare arms. This is for self defense. Those who are going to break the law are going to use guns anyway seeing as they might go to jail already. If the person who is being robbed or threatened by fire arms, then they have a way to protect themselves. In the natural state, mankind is evil. Because of said evil, we need protection. You cant rely on the government or police force to aid you in a crisis that could be dealt with in a second by the push of a trigger. You have to have some way to ward off anyone who threatens your property or life.

 

Would you read that as a right to have a bazooka or an atomic bomb ? If your answer is no then you ARE for gun control. I' d be surprised to see anyone disagree with this. Even the NRA doesn' t, so the real question is not "are you for gun control" but "where do you draw the line ?"

If the characters of The Lord Of The Flies had guns, the book would be two pages long. xD
You like your right to have a gun ? Fine, but please stop asserting the more guns there are the safer you are, that' s just not true. All the statistics show the polar opposite.

Have you read the article I posted earlier ? It mentions security measures that did not involve banning guns and lowered the death toll in other countries significantly. I don' t think anyone is asserting a complete ban would be a realistic approach (at least not in the US), however I don' t think it' d be wise for your country not to lift a single finger either. There are in-between positions, all the statistics show they are less lethal.

 

How often does this actually happen? I've never heard of anyone saving themselves or others because they had a gun by them which they then killed the threat. I think it would be evidently obvious that there are a great more many cases of people killing others in murder than in self defense. Unless someone can prove me otherwise.
You know in this modern era, you'd think countries that allow firearms would be trying to promote non lethal defence measures, like stun guns, for defence. I'd be more for that then having gun shops.

Honestly I am glad to be in a country wth tough control on firearms. I've never had to worry about such a thing, I mean I know it goes on but not to such a high degree nor anywherre near as common. it's nearly non existent. I don't have to fear about drive bys, shootouts in the street, irresponsible citizens who use them for crimes or worse untrained citizens who don't know what they're doing with a gun.

This isn't 230 years ago. The world is nothing like it was back then. You may have the right to bear arms, America, but as humans you have the greater right not to fear murder from your countrymen. You should not give them the ease and worse the legality to do so.

 

The second amendment says we have that right because it is necessary to maintain a well-regulated militia for the good of the state. There are plenty of things wrong with this:
1. Militias don't exist in the way that the Constitution means.

2. The need for militia was written due to the Founding Father's fear of a tyrannical government. If the government was overstepping its bounds, then the people's militia would be able to fight back. Try that now with the Police, Army, Navy, Marines, National Guard, Air Force, and their specially-trained officers and soldiers, tanks, guns, drones, bombs, and other weapons. Militia is an obsolete concept with the way our government and society is now.

3. The key phrase in the Second Amendment is "Well-Regulated Militia." Regulated. I wonder if anybody who uses the Second Amendment argument either actually knows what it says or what regulated means. The Second Amendment is all for regulations and guns were pretty heavily regulated back then. If you're really interested in the type of regulation that they had back then, I'll be glad to reply with more information if you ask.

4. Guns did not exist back then the way they exist now. Guns could not hold up to 30 clips per magazine. I am completely sure that the Founding Fathers, if they had any idea that these guns would exist, would be pro-gun control.

5. Just because the Constitution gives you the freedom of something, it doesn't mean we get complete freedom of it. Under the First Amendment alone: We have Freedom of Speech, but we can't yell fire in a theater or bomb on an airplane, nor can we threaten the President. We have Freedom of Press, but we have a whole department of the government that's focused on laws for press. Freedom of Religion, but plenty of constitutional laws regarding religion such as the Johnson Amendment (though it was added in 1954 and wasn't specifically aimed at churches). Freedom of Assembly, but you can't protest military funerals and other events. Just because the Second Amendment gives you the freedom to bear arms doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't make laws regarding it.

6. No one (hopefully) wants to ban all guns. I, personally, understand self-protection and hunting, but there are certain guns out there that have no practical purpose except to kill. For the love of God, they're called ASSAULT weapons, not SELF PROTECTION weapons. Letting the ban on assault weapons expire was a horrible mistake of former President (W) Bush's administration. We can get into the specifics about which and how many guns people should be allowed to have, but that's not the point I want to make with this specific post.

7. Using the line "criminals will still use guns" is...well, in my opinion, stupid. Criminals are always going to break laws anyway, should we get rid of all of them? Whether you're for big government or small government, you can't seriously think that getting rid of all laws is a good idea? I hear people compare gun control with the war on drugs all of the time (for one thing: it's apples and oranges. One is meant to be used on others and the other is meant to be used on yourself). Yes, the war on drugs is a failing war, but can you imagine if we just let everyone do any drugs they want? People, with no restriction, would be buying them easily and using them whenever. Yes, people still do drugs and break other laws, but people also follow laws.

8. I really want to argue your man's natural state = evil and government won't help comment, but we'll save the political philosophy for later. I just want to state that the governments and police forces of the world have dealt with crises before and that's what they are there for. Do they have 100% success rate? No, far from it, but you can't say that we can never rely on them.

9. This is a matter of opinion, but you think it's right to shoot someone for threatening your PROPERTY? Your life, I can understand, but your property or their life? I've never understood this line of thought, especially since it usually comes from those who claim to be Christians or are against abortions and falsely use the label "pro=life," but threatening your property should not be reason for someone to lose their life, even if they're in the wrong.

 

That all depends on how strict or lenient the government will be in its execution. Some folks will always wipe their asses with the law and then some, but others can be kept in check if their wallets and/or freedom are being threatened by a strict enforcement.

 

There will always be a way to find an assult rifle or a machine gun thanks to the black market and underground dealers. It dioesn't matter if there are stricter gun laws because there will always be someone who breaks them. Shootings happen, deal with it.

 

So ? The less convenient you make it to obtain one the fewer people will actually go through the trouble to obtain one. You aren' t allowed to buy a rocket launcher, correct ? How often do you hear of someone building one himself/buying one on the black market and firing it in a school ?

By that logic pretty much every law ever is useless. Have you read the post above yours ?

Car accidents happen. We don' t shrug them away. We enforce measures, such as speed limits, that successfully decreased the death toll.

 

There will always be a way to do anything, but it is the difficulty of something that means whether your more or less likely to be succesful in it.
Picture buying an assault rifle, for example. Imagine first that owning one is legal, they are sold at locally, advertised gun shops. Now, it'd be easy enough just to go down there, give some cash and after the allotted days to register and check the firearm as your own, you have it.
Now imagine if it were illegal to buy one. Where do you go to find one? I personally would 't know the black market in London, sure there is one but how do i access it? The only way would be to ask around. I don't have many criminal acquaintances I could ask such a thing, or trust they'd tell me the truth. Who else can I ask, my friends and family, saying that i want to buy an illegal assault rifle. What justifies me buying an assault rifle? Handgun for protection maybe, could be seen as self defence, but an assault rifle?
But let's imagine I do know how toa ccess the black market. I find a supplier, a criminal, he charges five times the normal cost of an assault rifle, that he has likely obtained illegally. If he's ever caugh or arrested he might be able to identify me as a buyer, I would be arrested for purchasig and possesing an illegal item. I could br jailed for many years, unable to travel abroad, have a criminal background, my job opportunities are way down now. And what was it all for?

I doubt the average consumer would bother that hard with acquiring an illegal item they may never use or are allowed to have. Not to mention the cost of purchasing it and any criminal activity permanently stamped on my head.
It wouldn't be worth it. Stricter gun laws would be better than letting them as they are. The current law certianly isn't helping anyone, and when laws aren't working we work to improve them, not just give up on hope for the better.

 

Let's make rape legal then, seeing as it's been illegal for so long and there are still rapists.

 

ok i have said it before in a previous post so i'll just paraphrase. guns are needed because there are those who would intend on using them for harm we need to have a way to combat them. as i said in the nra discussion it matters little whether you are the universe master of martial arts a gun is still going to outclass you period discussion over it doesn't matter, compared to the power of a gun humans are worthless ants under a magnifying glass on a sunny day. and i understand that some people are for the ban on assault weapons but i ask why if a criminal has them shoudnt you or do you say that you are willing to risk being out matched and in a terrible uphill battle? the line can only be clearly drawn in favor of the innocent by moving it forward not backward (forward=loose back=strict) because we have to get to the point where what is banned is so widely impractical that theres no want for it by criminals im for an even field not a disadvantage. oh and if anyone is curious my idea on the proper uses for guns are as follows; the execution of criminals, protection of ones self or others, protection of ones freedom, protection of ones property/livelihood, and the protection of ones country aka war(although on this one i believe we should skip the fighting and go for bombs and just glass the place). not to go off topic but im for the legalization and taxation of all forms of drugs and prostitution world wide just make it 18 and up and taxed and poof there went the national debt in america near over night.

tl;dr: guns shouldn't be too heavily restricted as long as there is even the most remote chance that criminals could get their hands on unless they are wildly impractical like explosives which have little use besides military destruction.

 

I' ll leave this here.

 

You're making it sound like there would be a great deal of people would do this, when statistically speaking gun ownership restrictions has caused less gun crime and less gun carrying criminals. You wouldn't need to combat guns if they weren't so easily available for criminals to get their hands on.

This is wrong. Almost every martial art has now developed techniques to combat fire arms at point blank range. Most criminals when using a weapon to commit a crime use the weapon up close and in easy range for a martial artist to take down said individual. The type of crime where a gun is used to kill from afar is mainly murder and, to be honest, you'd be killed by said firearm before you even have the chance to use yours. The gun gives users the imagination that they are somehow invincible when in realty they are putting themselves in more danger by attempting to fire back at their assailant when they should simply flee.

When have basic civilians in America ever been raided or assaulted enough to need machine guns? That's never happened. Never would happen. Gang-on-gang warfare is where those assault rifles are being used, and not for defence but to kill and murder. The only time i've ever heard assault rifles being used by civillians is by gang members and gun nut serial killers. Do you know how many bystanders are killed by stray bullets from guns? And you want more people firig more bullets in their own streets? Just because it might mean you kill someone before they kill you? or either of you could kill your family, friends, neighbours simply because a bullet you used ricocheted into them?

A less dangerous, bloody and violent even field would be banning all guns. Your equality of field sounds more like a war zone. You promote that your own country should behave more like a warzone where people defend their homes from potential attackers using carbines and shotguns? You're actig like there isn't a government that is serving to protect you by that point, like there is no police service. Like everyone is in a personal anarchic state of their own choosing. You're just living in fear by that point, worryig that everyone and anyone has a gun and will use it.

What? Where do you live? are you gettin your ideas from the Somalia military? How barabaric and old are these ideas to execute someone like that?

You'd kill someone over some shiny jewellery and a TV? That just sounds more criminal than robbery to me.

There is so much wrong with this I don't even believe.... Alright this is off topic but i have to address. You give a civillian a gun in a warzone, that's bad on for so many reasons I could list, bu the maknt thin is you're making them a target to the enemy. You're foricbly conscripting people to be part of some rag tag in experienced militia. Your causing more of your own people to die. You're not saving lives. You're forgettig you have a military, which I may add is the largest, most costly military force in the world. America spends five times the amount of China, and more then the top 14 countries of military spending combined combined. You spend 11 times more then the UK! it's the biggest waste of money if its civillains don't even believe that it can protect them and have to by guns to protect them from foreign invaders...

If i think about it, if America was ever invaded by land (which stratergically is near madness) the orders from the enemy would likely be to kill any American civillains as they moved inland, because so many Americans own guns the invading army sees them as a threat. Unarmed civilians are only killed by the most brutish and barabaric enemies. Even wars have mutually agreed laws. Even wars should have some sliver of humanity and compassion in them, and care about the peopl'es lives your destroying.

What use does an assault rifle have but in the military?! There is no practical way to use a gun. The only thing a gun does is kill, is murder. No matter how you look at it, you're killing someone. It can't defend against bullets or heal wounds, it only kills. That's why people have them. So why should any average idiot joe have access to them?
There is a chance for anything to happen. There is a chance you could get your hands on Sarin poison. Does that mean everyone should have the chance to get it just because there is a slim chance?

 

Problem: Civilians being defenseless against black market guns.
Solutions:
A) Throw guns into the laps of friend and foe alike and see who comes out on top.
B) Restrict gun laws and actually prioritize hunting down the black market.
[sickeningly sweet Dora-The-Explorer-like voice] One of these doesn't actually solve or even reduce the problem. Can you find it? [/voice]

 

I don't think the governmen would have the power to forbade people to own guns because they have a permit. The government would have to get rid of the permits to get rid of the guns.

 

Then they make the old permits useless and require new permits to be taken out. Not tough to do, but costly in time and money but no where near that difficult.

 

The way I see it, if we were to have more gun restrictions, there would be even more resisting against those measures from citizens. When America prohibited alcohol, people created speak-easy's and bootlegging that got evidently got out of hand through affiliating with mafias and the like. I believe that there would just be more violence created if there were such measures considered, if that makes sense.

I think it's also partly due to how America sees itself as this "free" country and having the right to bear arms is an example of this identity. Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword whereas having this freedom creates negative consequences, further prompting our government to have these restrictions. In turn, citizens would see this action as taking away their mindset freedoms. Like President Obama said, there is a need for mental health institutions to be as easily accessible as getting a gun. Technically speaking this may fall under the same problem as our Health Care situation, but it's definitely something that people need to look into.