Discussion Gun control

[M3J]

Problem is, while people use guns to kill, guns actually make it easier to kill more people. I don't get why the other side can't understand this. With a gun, you can kill more than three people in less than thirty seconds without even going up close to them, whereas with a knife you''d have to get up close and hope they don't know how to defend themselves or can't. It's frustrating that the republicans refuse to compromise or work with the other side on this, instead they'd rather be paid off by NRA to do nothing but send thoughts and prayers.

It'd be harder for criminals to get guns illegally though, and it'd make it more likely for them to get caught.

 

[xi0]

Problem is, while people use guns to kill, guns actually make it easier to kill more people.

But making guns illegal doesn't mean criminals won't have them. Certain types of firearms definitely increase the amount of people someone can kill, but if you believe the second amendment should exist, you can't remove them completely. Plus, the majority of gun crime that happens is with handguns, not other high-powered weapons.

 

[z.5]

But making guns illegal doesn't mean criminals won't have them.

But, at the expense of beating a very dead horse, this excuse is a rather poor one at best. It could easily be pushed to anything you like - we shouldn't have any laws, as criminals will break always them.

As far as arguments go, there are much better ones for people who want guns than this one.

One of my biggest issues with the 2nd amendment (other than me not thinking that the vast majority of people should be trusted with guns) is that if its purpose is to protect 'the people' against 'a tyrannical government', then it fails miserably.

Even with all the guns you guys have, a tyrannical government could still out gun you very, very, easily (and I am not just talking about conventional handheld firearms).

 

[M3J]

But making guns illegal doesn't mean criminals won't have them. Certain types of firearms definitely increase the amount of people someone can kill, but if you believe the second amendment should exist, you can't remove them completely. Plus, the majority of gun crime that happens is with handguns, not other high-powered weapons.

I never implied otherwise, though. I even said that it'd make it harder for criminals to get guns, not impossible. If you're gonna buy a gun illegally, you're more likely to get arrested than you are if you bought it through an actual vendor, no?

I don't believe the second amendment should exist as it is, but it is also foolish to remove guns completely in this country as well. And while that is true about handguns, you still can't commit mass murder with a handgun. Why do we even need anything bigger than a handgun anyway?

High-powered weapons just aren't necessary. Even if these people were to defend themselves against the government, they do realize the government has bombs, nukes, tanks, and all that shit, right?

 

[Nemispelled]

But, at the expense of beating a very dead horse, this excuse is a rather poor one at best. It could easily be pushed to anything you like - we shouldn't have any laws, as criminals will break always them.

It's true that criminals will always break the law. But what about ordinary civilians?

The purpose of laws is to give regular citizens the "right" to defend themselves. It's not to allow or prevent criminal's actions. Offenders will break the rule either way, but laws are there to serve the innocent.

The truth is, criminals will always exist. Limiting weapons will not solve the issue because they are "criminals" for a reason. They go out of their way to obtain illegal weapon parts and use them against society.

By allowing the 2nd amendment, you leave criminals with a degree of uncertainty about whether it's wise to commit a crime or not.

One of my biggest issues with the 2nd amendment (other than me not thinking that the vast majority of people should be trusted with guns) is that if its purpose is to protect 'the people' against 'a tyrannical government', then it fails miserably.

Even with all the guns you guys have, a tyrannical government could still out gun you very, very, easily (and I am not just talking about conventional handheld firearms).

I think that the idea of protecting 'the people' from a 'tyrannical government' only applies to a historical perspective.

In this day and age, the 2nd amendment is more useful in self-protection against domestic crime and violence. Back when there was a fear of a "tyrannical government taking control", the general population was fairly small.

But the population has grown to 323.1 million in recent years... so most of the concern lies within the populace rather than the government.

Although, I do agree with you that the government could out gun us very easily, if they wanted to.

 

[z.5]

Limiting weapons will not solve the issue because they are "criminals" for a reason. They go out of their way to obtain illegal weapon parts and use them against society.

It's about ease of access.
Sure, criminals will always be able to find a way to obtain weapons, but the harder you make it the fewer criminals will have access.

Also, it isn't like the police are entirely incapable of catching someone trying to obtain a weapon.

By allowing the 2nd amendment, you leave criminals with a degree of uncertainty about whether it's wise to commit a crime or not.

Is the crime level that much lower in the USA, than countries where firearms are harder to obtain?

Are criminals in countries where guns are banned truly less cautious about committing a crime?

If anything, it wouldn't be that hard of an argument to suggest that those kind of thoughts mean that criminals will always aim to be armed in the States, as they never know when they will not need a weapon to fight off their target (should they also have a weapon).

This kind of thinking would increase the chance for a fatality during a crime, now lower it.

Now, I don't necessarily believe that is the case, but neither do I believe having everyone armed serves as that strong of a deterrent for criminals.

 

[xi0]

But, at the expense of beating a very dead horse, this excuse is a rather poor one at best. It could easily be pushed to anything you like - we shouldn't have any laws, as criminals will break always them.

As far as arguments go, there are much better ones for people who want guns than this one.

Well, that's the problem. The excuse doesn't need to be amazing when the second amendment exists. And despite what happens, I'm not opposed to the second amendment myself, even though I've never own a gun. The issue really isn't as solvable by banning guns. Canada has one of the highest guns per capita in the world, yet they have no where near the same amount of gun crime as the US. We have 3x as many guns per capita as them, but I digress.

One of my biggest issues with the 2nd amendment (other than me not thinking that the vast majority of people should be trusted with guns) is that if its purpose is to protect 'the people' against 'a tyrannical government', then it fails miserably.

Even with all the guns you guys have, a tyrannical government could still out gun you very, very, easily (and I am not just talking about conventional handheld firearms).

Yeah, it's clearly outdated. Plenty of scholars agree that it exists to make sure militias would be legal. Guns were far more "necessary" to every day life 250 years ago, not just as a means of defense.

But in reality, it's not about whether we think it fails in serving it's purpose really IMO. Plus, statistically, gun crime on the whole has been on a downward trend for a while now. I think there are definitely ways to reduce it further without infringing on citizen's rights, but that's hard enough to accomplish, let alone amend the constitution.

 

[z.5]

The issue really isn't as solvable by banning guns.

Oh, for sure - and my point was never that a ban on guns would solve gun crime.

Personally, I just feel that arguments such as 'but I like guns' are far superior (and less disingenuous).

I think there are definitely ways to reduce it further without infringing on citizen's rights

Your current rights.

There are many things you could 'have a right to', which you currently don't.

You [not necessarily you personally] just deem that the right to bear arms is a right which should be unalterable - had you previously lacked the right to own firearms, you may not be so fixated on instigating and protecting that right - nor might it seem such an abhorrent notion for the government to desire you lacked the right.

 

[Nemispelled]

It's about ease of access.
Sure, criminals will always be able to find a way to obtain weapons, but the harder you make it the fewer criminals will have access.

Also, it isn't like the police are entirely incapable of catching someone trying to obtain a weapon.

Maybe so, but I happen to think that a law would only limit the ease of access for regular citizens.

As far as I know, laws have been put in place to make certain drugs illegal, yet nothing is stopping rule-breakers from manipulating the system and having easy access to it.

Illegal activities take place on a daily basis, the only difference is that innocent civilians are rarely affected because they are granted with the option of taking matters into their own hands.

And true, the police is still a pretty effective organization at countering crime, but they can only do so much when a criminal is knocking on people's front doors.

Is the crime level that much lower in the USA, than countries where firearms are harder to obtain?

Are criminals in countries where guns are banned truly less cautious about committing a crime?

If anything, it wouldn't be that hard of an argument to suggest that those kind of thoughts mean that criminals will always aim to be armed in the States, as they never know when they will not need a weapon to fight off their target (should they also have a weapon).

This kind of thinking would increase the chance for a fatality during a crime, now lower it.

Now, I don't necessarily believe that is the case, but neither do I believe having everyone armed serves as that strong of a deterrent for criminals.

I think it depends on the demographics. I agree that the US still has a substantial amount of crime, even with weapons legalized.

Other countries are built on discipline at an early age, so that might explain why their crime rate is so low even with firearms banned.

But since the US gives a large amount of freedom to its citizens, many of them will go out of their way just to obtain illegal items such as drugs/guns (resorting to stuff like the black market).

While deterrence may not work in every case, it acts as a reliable barrier for law-abiding citizens.

 

[kkck]

Honestly, every time I see this sort of thing happen I get more and more convinced gun control laws won't actually change much for the US. It's just that.... US folk like their guns too much. You see all those gun lovers and you hear them talking about guns and I don't know what is more asinine; the idiotic idea that guns somehow defend you from the government or how when those folk talk about guns it's like they are talking about their penises. Someone with 30 guns sounds and acts like he effectively owns 30 functional penisis. US does have a gun problem but it is not due to a lack of gun control laws but rather it is because of a cultural deficiency which makes you LOVE guns. Gun control will eventually come to the US but it won't be the solution to gun control. When the culture starts turning against gun gun violence will likely decrease as a result and as a symptom of that gun control will follow... Other places have cases of gun control working (britain, australia are well known) but those are places where people to begin with didn't have the cultural deficiency that made them gun nut jobs hence the idea of guns becoming even less available was appealing and worked for them in general.

 

[M3J]

Maybe so, but I happen to think that a law would only limit the ease of access for regular citizens.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Nemispelled]

What's wrong with that?

In areas with a high presence of crime, it would give normal citizens the option to defend themselves.

If a mother wants to protect herself and her two kids, I think she should at least be given the opportunity to do so. For people living in a rundown or poverty-stricken neighborhood, a gun might help them avoid living in constant fear.

 

[M3J]

It can also escalate things. How would they be able to defend themselves if the bad guy pulls a gun out of nowhere, and the victim has no way to defend him/herself? Like, one move would = three bullet holes in their body.

It likely would, but in reality it might not make a difference. THat's the problem.

 

[SharkBait]

There is no need to change anything in regards to current recreational gun use in America. There are other areas where regulations should be focused such as stopping childhood hunger and betting the water infrastructure network.

 

[xi0]

There is no need to change anything in regards to current recreational gun use in America. There are other areas where regulations should be focused such as stopping childhood hunger and betting the water infrastructure network.

Those two things obviously have their merit, but neither of those things have anything to do with addressing this topic.

 

[NORI]

My question for people in favor of citizens owning guns is, 'Why is it just the U.S?"

I see alot of arguments here revolving around the concept of self protection and while I do agree that having a firearm handy could potentially save your life, I'm also more in favor of the concept that the risks outweigh the benefits for letting firearms be so widely dispersed in the U.S. As far as first world nations go, America has proven time and time again that we have a gun issue and thus far, guns have not been banned. So out of all the first world countries, we're the one with the biggest issue with shootings and we're also the one that's most lax on gun control. I mean, it's really a no-brainer.

Removing guns from the U.S. is something that would take time, but it's definitely do-able and would make things like mass-shootings incredibly difficult for the offender to achieve. Could they still get guns? Probably, but it's a massive deterrent when you can't waltz down to John's Gun Shop and buy a pistol with a meager background check. The answer to defending yourself from people with guns being to just have more guns is ridiculous and doesn't solve the issue whatsoever.

 

[M3J]

Those two things obviously have their merit, but neither of those things have anything to do with addressing this topic.

He is deflecting to other subjects he doesn't care about to take attention away from the fact that guns do need some sort of stricter control.

 

[Reebi]

Why do Americans need guns for defending themselves? If one doesn't trust his/her neighbours, one doesn't need to shoot them to scare them away. Owning guns doesn't mean less people would commit less violent crimes, it means more people own deadly weapons that takes less than a second to kill someone. Like toddlers shooting parents or people shooting at an effing hurricane!!! Stupid people shouldn't own guns. There are many stupid people in the world; therefore many people shouldn't own guns.

 

[Nemispelled]

I agree that owning a gun doesn't necessarily rid your neighborhood of crime.

It's simply a matter of having the option to protect yourself and the people that you care about. Nobody wants to be the victim. Especially for people who are living in impoverished areas, it would be a great relief to know that you have the power to defend yourself if a criminal knocks on your door.

I wouldn't put all my faith in the police because that requires actually picking up a phone to call them and then waiting for them to arrive.

Yeah, of course, there's no point for somebody to own an automatic AK-47 or fancy M249 LMG... but civilian firearms can actually be quite useful for self-defense if the populace is properly educated.

 

[xi0]

Why do Americans need guns for defending themselves? If one doesn't trust his/her neighbours, one doesn't need to shoot them to scare them away. Owning guns doesn't mean less people would commit less violent crimes, it means more people own deadly weapons that takes less than a second to kill someone. Like toddlers shooting parents or people shooting at an effing hurricane!!! Stupid people shouldn't own guns. There are many stupid people in the world; therefore many people shouldn't own guns.

Why is it legal for Canadians to own a gun?

I agree that many people shouldn't own guns (even most people), but when talking about legal gun ownership, it's a tight-rope act to enact laws that wouldn't have their constitutionality successfully challenged.