How about gun control? - Politics Forum

Topic: How about gun control?

Hate to start this, since I won't be around to finish it, but what are everybody's views on gun control? Should all guns be melted down, and the metal used to build playgrounds for our children while we all hold hands and sing John Lennon's "Imagine"? Or should it be compulsory for all citizens to own guns, with the penalty for living your house without your gun being a bullet in the leg (credit: Christopher Titus)?

#1 Aug 26th 2007, 4:00pm

I think we should all sing John Lennon's "Imagine," just because it's a good song.

On gun control, however, I think that people have the right to bear arms, but we should have limitations on what type of arms are available to the average citizen, and have special restrictions on people that are deemed unfit to bear arms.

#2 Aug 27th 2007, 8:23am

Isn't that a contradiction though? You have the right to bear arms but we're going to put stipulations on your rights?

I like the system we have in Australia where it's not a right but a privilege.

#3 Aug 28th 2007, 2:56am

Well, it's not like we can run around the streets waving tommy guns at eachother (anymore). I think the right to bear arms is for the purpose of self-defense, which I approve of.

#4 Aug 30th 2007, 4:23am

All rights have stipulations. The right to free speech, unless you threaten the president, the right to bear arms, unless you're gonna run through the streets shooting people.

#5 Sep 04th 2007, 8:48am

The right to practice your religion freely, unless said religion involves rituals of human sacrifice or cannbalism... Stuff like that.

But about the right to bear arms- let me play devil's advocate here. It's not *entirely* clear whether the clause in the Constitution that lists that refers to individuals, or state militias. The question has been asked- If the founding fathers knew that in a hundred years, guns that could fire more than once before being reloaded would be invented, would they have wanted any individual to be able to possess them?

Personally, I think they would; the founding fathers were slave-owners from places like Virginia, and George Washington himself ran a still that made upwards of a hundred gallons of whiskey a year. They were red-necks. If they were alive today, they'd be all about mudslingin', Lynyrd Skynyrd, and shotguns.

Of course, that doesn't mean all of their ideas were great; take, for example, the little issue of "is it okay to own other human beings as property?". We now see that they were kind of off on that one. Just because they would have been all for gun ownership doesn't mean it's the best practice in our modern world.

The issue has come up several times in this topic, that people should have a right to bear arms to defend themselves. That's all well and good; that's my stance. But let me play devil's advocate again. What happens when the guy who bought his gun for self-defense loses his job, gets dumped by his girlfriend, and gets really ** off in traffic? He's ready to snap, and he's got a gun.

That's the problem I've always seen with the "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" mentality. How many people do you think buy their guns with the intent to commit a crime? And how many buy them for "legitimate" reasons, and then still, somehow, have them on hand when they've had too much to drink and find their girlfriend cheating on them, and snap? What to you suggest to combat that, apart from insanely Draconian penalties for anyone who commits a crime with a gun?

#6 Sep 04th 2007, 10:13am

I don't know. All I can say is that nothing is perfect. I'm sure there's a middle ground somehwere....but I can't really find it. I usually have an answer....but I really don't. All I see is this: Either you take away the right/ability to defend oneself by outlawing guns, or everybody has access to a murder weapon.

The best you can do is outlaw the ownership of certain kinds of guns, such as automatic or semi automatic weapons...or other more dangerous firearms.

#7 Sep 06th 2007, 2:20pm

showcreator

How bout we keep our middle ground where we don't outright ban them but don't pass them out to anyone who wants them? Seems people can't ever have moderation anymore. It's either all or nothing these days.

#8 Mar 14th, 4:52am

Right. I agree. Should there be any restrictions on the weapons anyways?

#9 Mar 19th, 3:44pm

Why is it one of our rights to bear arms if we're going to argue if we should allow people to bear arms? It's kind of against the constitution if you ask me...

#10 Apr 24th, 8:43pm

Why assume that the Constitution is perfect? Maybe the Founding Fathers meant something else, or maybe they were downright stupid and made a mistake when they said, debatebly, that every single person should have a bazooka no matter what they're going to do with it.

#11 Apr 25th, 1:55pm

Kumquat21

When the founding fathers wrote that, we were in revolution. The country was also unstable for many years to come. They predicted this, and thought that having arms was the only way for the supporters of the government and revolution to keep the peace - or so is my theory anyway. I read something good about that. I'll try and find it. My way of stating things is all jumbled up.

What is the actual wording of the right to bear arms? I've also heard that the wording was funny and really, it was a matter of commas . . . I really don't know, but now I'm curious! =)

#12 Apr 28th, 2:21pm

There are two versions, the voted upon version and the released version.

Congressional version-

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Released version-

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, from how I interpret this, it's saying that for reasons concerning the security of freedom, people are allowed to keep and bear arms. This is me using modern english, thought. This is over 225 year old legal text, and, not being a lawyer who has been in practice for over 225 years, I can't put my money down on my interpretation. But, even if the reason is irrelevant, the right is still there, so it should be respected.

#13 Apr 29th, 6:20pm . Edited Apr 29th, 6:24pm

exactly. If the constitution was so wrong, they would have changed it by now.

#14 Apr 29th, 7:00pm

...Ever heard of the "amendments"? There have been 27.

#15 Apr 29th, 8:43pm

Then why haven't they changed this specific right? Is it wrong for american citizens to be able to defend themselves? I still beleive that if someone abuses the right to bear arms, that they should get punished, but this right is so people can defend themselves.

#16 Apr 30th, 6:00am

#17 Apr 30th, 6:00am

I'm a bit divided. I'm not American, but Swedsih. Sweden is like totally socialistic and guns are not allowed. In my opinion, weapons shouldn't exist (how original). But I'm an idealist. I'm also a libertarian, which means that I think that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want. But really... I mean... guns? *raises eyebrows* Why would you want'em unless you intend to use them? And since using them's illegal it really shouldn't make a difference.

#18 May 07th, 12:31pm

How exactly does one abuse the right to bear arms? By using them? And should we really allow people the chance of using a fully automatic weapon in the middle of a crowded city? Or worse, a rocket launcher? Should there be any restrictions on this? What about people that have previously shot people-on purpose-and were convicted of murder? Can somebdy have this right taken away from them for ANY reason, including the afromentioned ones?

#19 May 07th, 1:31pm

Well, as a libertarian I believe that people have certain rights (think DoI). Using a gun against someone else would deprive this person of her rights, therefore it is wrong. I'm not against guns for hunting. As I said, this is one of the questions I'm really divided in. The basic reasoning is guns = hurting people = bad. But I am also against a "big brother" society, I think people should have as much freedom as possible. And as for people previously convicted for violent crimes, I think they shouldn't be allowed guns. We lock them up, which is depriving them of freedom, so there shouldn't be a problem to take away their guns.

#20 May 08th, 8:44am

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you all think guns are inherently bad. How so? The primary function of a gun is self-defense. Anybody ever wonder why mass shootings always happen in gun-free zones, but never in shooting ranges?

And let's work backwards from your "basic" reasoning. If hurting people=bad, then why allow any weapons? Get rid of swords, get rid of hammers, get rid of knives, get rid of heavy things, get rid of pointy objects. If you don't want to ban those things, because of the "impossibility factor", then, through basic reasoning, guns should be allowed.

#21 May 08th, 5:58pm

I see your point, but the only purpose of guns are shooting them, where hammers can be used for other things as well. I don't really think that all guns are wrong, ti's the common usage I don't like. As I said, I think this is a really tricky issue and I'm not at all sure.

#22 May 09th, 8:57am

Guns have legitimate, legal uses as well. Target shooting, hunting, self defense...

#23 May 09th, 9:12am

Yes, of course. But if that's why you want them, why would it be a problem if you had to have a license?

#24 May 09th, 9:15am

Licenses? What about licenses? This is the first it was brought up; who said I was against licenses? Now, mandatory registration, on the other hand...

#25 May 09th, 9:24am

No-one. What about mandatory registration?

#26 May 09th, 9:26am

I don't believe mandatory registration of firearms should be... mandatory... I really could have phrased that better.

#27 May 09th, 9:31am

Explain for a poor swede... What's mandatory?

#28 May 09th, 9:32am

You know mandatory; mandated, proscribed, or required by law?

#29 May 09th, 9:34am

Got it. Well, that does seem sensible.

#30 May 09th, 9:35am

Yeah, let's make it a law that all gun-owners must register as such. I mean, it wouldn't be particularly enforceable against actual criminals,but as the first step to take guns away from all legal owners when they're outlawed, it's perfect!

#31 May 09th, 9:39am

By the by, that was sarcasm. Patronizing sarcasm.

#32 May 09th, 9:40am

showcreator

I still fail to see how taking guns away from legal law abiding citizens will help to reduce crime. Crooks don't usually show concern for the law so I doubt outlawing guns will stop them from getting them. Plus, if not a gun, then something else. What, will you outlaw everything that can be used to kill somebody?

#33 May 09th, 9:44am

I am a liberal. So I think everyone should be allowed to do what they want. I guess that includes owning guns. But I just can't get into my head why you'd want a gun?

#34 May 09th, 10:38am

Dude, have you ever been to a shooting range? Ever fired a gun? Firing something like a Colt Python or the Smith and Wesson Model 29 is so much more fun than you could imagine if you haven't done it. It's like... ok, say that for the space of time it takes you to empty those six rounds, *you are God*. Only without the responsibility, or even the option, of using that power for anything but destruction. So... it's like it's *better* than being God.

#35 May 09th, 10:54am

Well, you sure make it sound kind of fun... But I've never been the gun-type. Too scary.

#36 May 09th, 10:55am

Jesus you guys...talkative little group, aren't we? What'swrong with keeping track of items that make it VERY easy to kill someone. Sure, anything could be used to kill someone, but guns were designed to kill. A gun is more dangerous than many of those other things that could be used to kill someone. Not all...but I would say, and this is a generalization...that guns are more dangerous than a lot of common objects that could double as a death machine. So why is it so bad to keep track of who owns one? And Disturbly, you haven't answered about gun control...does everyone deserve the right to a gun?

#37 May 09th, 12:53pm

Yes.

#38 2 days ago, 10:08am

I think the point we're missing here is the kind of guns we let people own.

Self defense is the most prevalent reason for households to own a gun, yes? Why would anyone need a sawn off shotgun for self defense? Are hollow-point bullets necessary for protecting your family from an intruder? No.

Regulating gun ownership would be the best next step.

#39 2 days ago, 7:08pm

Exactly right. CD, any reponse?

#40 2 days ago, 6:04am

The way I see it, I'd rather not let the government have more control than it needs to on something that is a right of ours. I beleive people should have the right to own and possess a gun, though they shouldn't have the right to abuse it. It should only be used for self- defense reasons, such as someone breaking into your home, or threatening you or your family. If the gun is used for any reason other than that, then they should be punished and their lives put into the hands of the judiciary system. The right to owning a gun is somthing that is necessecary for self defense until all threats are removed. And I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

#41 2 days ago, 7:40am

Although, controlling who owns a gun and registering and all that...

I never really looked at that. I mean, if they're only going to be used for self- defense, why does it matter if we let the government make a nice little list of who buys a gun? You still get one, and you still have the right to use it in times you need protection. Now, if they start making restrictions on who can and cannot buy a gun, that's when I begin to disagree.

#42 2 days ago, 7:49am

This is only in response to Midnight in Eden: The irony of your statement is that either a sawn-off shotgun or a pistol loaded with hollowpoints are both weapons nearly ideally suited to self-defense; both offer a maximum amount of fragmentation and stopping power, but low penetration, thus far decreasing the risk of a stray round going through a wall and hitting a family member or neighbor. The fact that they're also perfectly suited as assault weapons is distressing, but coincedental. An even better option for self defense is the Glaser Safety round; if you're not familiar with its principals, google it? Unfortunately, the kind of horrific damage it deals also makes it perfect for more anti-social uses. However, any of these three are far safer to use against a home invader than a rifle, or a shotgun loaded with a deer slug. Thus, if we're allowing guns for self-defense, the types of ammo that deal the most vicious damage (apart from Magnums and cop killers) are the ones we must needs keep.

#43 Yesterday, 4:32am

In response to ID: Sorry not to reply on the "should everyone be allowed to own guns question"; I seem to have missed the post where you asked. Anyway, I believe everyone should have to right to own a gun, provided they're of legal age to do so, haven't been convicted of a violent felony, and don't have a history of mental illness. As for my problem with mandatory registration, my main beef is that, at least within the United States, it won't really accomplish anything. There are about two-hundred and fifty million guns in this country according to the most recent numbers I've seen, and a good portion of them are not registered to any owner, and thus nearly untraceable. Even if a law was passed requiring owners to register them retro-actively, it would be nearly unenforceable. Second, requiring all guns owners to register would most likely entail passing laws that all transactions must be recorded, making purchases between private collectors complicated to the point of practical impossibility, and impede a person's ability to purchase a gun at a show, flea market, etc. Purchasing a gun is hard enough as it is; furthermore, legislation has made it increasingly difficult to buy a gun for the past fifty years (they used to be sold by mail, for God's sake; I have the old Sears catalogue to prove it!) while crime rates have not increased in any way. If new gun legislations didn't decrease the number of shootings last year, I don't believe they will next year. Finally, I don't like the idea of mandatory registration because it's the first logical step to disarmament. If a government wants to take away the guns, they have to who owns them (at least who owns them legally), right? Normally, I don't subscribe to slippery slope arguments, but we have a very clear precedent for this sequence of events in Great Britain. Registration, followed by confiscation. Not if I can help it; as long as my NRA membership lasts (lifetime, incidentally), I'll gladly contribute to the massive lobby that opposes measures like that.

#44 Yesterday, 4:56am

Ooops; typo^; meant to say there was no correlation between stricter gun laws and a "decrease" in crime. Sorry that last one was unreadible; damn fp, making me post in a single lump...

#45 Yesterday, 4:59am

What about other weapons? Swords and such.

#46 Yesterday, 8:39am

Exactly my point in my earlier post. If you take away guns but don't take away swords, knives, and other sharp, pointy, or otherwise threatening objects, then why take away guns?

And guns will be the most useful in a Zombie invasion. =)

#47 Yesterday, 1:27pm

Okay. So Disturbly is arguing that we should inflict horrific damage on intruders? Okay. I think I'm out of this argument. I don't agree and to be honest the whole NRA membership thing did make me vomit a little bit in my mouth.

#48 Yesterday, 4:17pm

Midnight: No, I'm not arguing that we *should* inflict horrific damage on home invaders (although if someone breaks into your home and threatens your family's safety, I see relatively few reasons to hesitate to do so); I'm pointing out that the types of ammunitions that are best suited to home defense happen to inflict terrible, terrible wounds. In that situation, the most important qualities for a bullet are low penetration (so the round doesn't go into your neighbors' living room or worse, your daughter's bed room) and high stopping power. I was merely addressing your statement that a person interested in home defense has no business with a sawn-off shotgun or hollowpoint bullets. When you said that, you were displaying your ignorance of ballistics and ammunitions; as per your "the whole NRA membership thing did make me vomit a little bit in my mouth" comment, good job, you've graduated to *aggressive* ignorance.

#49 Yesterday, 3:58am