Firearms

Since recently it has become a hot topic, I thought it would be interesting to talk about it.
Things to keep in mind:
The 2nd amendment, makes bearing firearms a right, but not an absolute right. Just like freedom of speech, where you cannot scream "fire" in a public area, there are rules, to govern firearms.

How far though, should firearms be controlled? I personally think citizens who have a clean record, and stable mental capacity, should be able to purchase, and use firearms on their own behalf.

The morals of criminals
If criminals are willing to murder and steal, don't you think they will use guns regardless if they are illegal or legal. In the inability to fix the violent aspect in crimes, people often shift to the instruments used. "If we remove the instruments used, we can prevent the crime" Is the logic they use, which again has flaws since, it relies on the fact that the criminal will not use these instruments, if these instruments are illegal. The reasonable person who owns firearms responably are taking the consequences for the actions of other individuals.

Constitution
Then 2nd amendment (The right to bare arms) was debated on the grounds of whether this was an individual right, in Districk of Columbia V Heller they did just that, with the court deciding it was an individual right. In McDonald V Chicago, the court incorperated the 2nd amendment using the 14th amendment, so that the right to bare arms also has to apply to the states.

A last resort, self defense mechanism.
Whether it be a thief trying to break into your house, or someone trying to mug you. The right for self defense is something important to think about when discussing gun control. If you make guns illegal how will the average citizen protect himself from criminals. Surly he can not rely fully on the policy system.

The ability to provide for ones family in a rural area.
In many parts of the US, a family obtains it's food supply by hunting. With firearms being the main choice of weapon. One can however say that a crossbow, or bow and arrow is also applicable for this cause. To use these other tools however requires more experience and skill to use properly.

Crossbows also have the potential of killing someone, so logically if one wants to make firearms illegal on the bases of it's danger, then one should also look at crossbows, and hammers (Hammers being a popular blunt object used in murders). Of course one could argue that hammers, and crossbows can not murder on a large scale. With this logic however, one can not turn a blind eye to the idea of a single fire pistol, or shot gun, which also do not have the propensity of large scale murder.

Legality
What would the government do with all the license that are already issued, and all the guns that are already legally owned in the US, if firearms where made illegal.

/////


A couple of points I wanted to quote from a different thread, but didn't want to go off topic.

SwiftSign said:

Less people would have died if cinemas had security guards or people were bulletproof vests in their day to day lives. Both things unlikely to happen but both, IMO, better than millions of people being in the possession of guns in their day to day lives.

Click to expand...

First off, where I am from (NYC) all the cinemas I go to, have at least two body guards. Secondly, you make a logical wager, better to have this then that. But this wager, comes with two assumptions. One if firearms are accessible, everyone would obtain it, and second that millions of people would be qualified to get them.

Mr. X said:

I'll ask this.

When was the last time we had a person go crazy, in this country, and kill numerous people with missiles and RPG's? To the best of my knowledge, never. Know why? Because those are illegal to own, illegal for civilians to purchase, and next to impossible for your garden variety whack-job to obtain.

Click to expand...

Missiles?! The lack mobility of full powered missiles, is the reason you don't see wide spread use of them. RPG's are also single fire weapons, that are large, and very hard to conceal. Even if guns and RPGs were made illegal to own, the 'wack-job' would still chose guns to obtain illegally, over RPGs because of those reasons.

Edit - Something else, the whole more guns on the street and how it will reduce crime?

Spoiler:

Guess what country decided to put a lot of weapons on Mexico's streets? And guess what happened because of it? Yep. Lots. Of. Murders. More guns on the street for them, and as most sane people would suspect, more bodies. I suppose that you could argue that this helped aspects of the Mexican economy... I hear that the body-bag, coffin, and funeral industrys have had a big boost in business.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to fast and furious? Which was a flop because they didn't tag the guns right, and it fell into the hands of drug cartels.

I do not support an absolute right of gun ownership, I just hope people can look at a problem from all the angles, including the ones they disagree with.

~NarutoActor

One can kill with pretty much anything if someone really wanted to.

I don't blame guns, knives, pencils, farming equipment, broken bottles, baseball bats, vinyl records, Kevin Federline's album, teddy bears, or anything like that. I blame the people who chose to abuse the privileges that have been given to them in the name of making others suffer.

And with that, have fun with this topic, my fellow tetrapods.

CarcharOdin said:

And with that, have fun with this topic, my fellow tetrapods.

Click to expand...

Oh, I will.

The one thing to say about this is, guns don't kill people, & neither will anything else, provided that nobody gets a handle on them. If nobody grasps a firearm, then it is mostly harmless. Rather, the blame should be pinned not on the weapons themselves, as these people are just going to find another way to kill people - there are really so many ways to kill someone that it's absolutely ridiculous; it can almost be considered a miracle that the human race has survived to this day. The blame should go on the person that actually held that weapon, & thus that person should be blamed for the death of another, not the weapon by itself.

With that all said, the only thing that gun control laws will accomplish is keeping firearms off the hands of law abiding citizens - criminals don't give a damn about the law, they'll find other means to obtain one (ever heard of something called the Black Market?) or of course, redesign their plan so that they don't need one. Knives can kill people as well, but really, the government can't outlaw the owning of these, as they're used in everyday life. Lastly, it's even possible for people to kill someone with just their bare hands, provided if they're strong enough. However, the government can't ban all forms of strength training. That would be outrageous! How are people going to move heavy equipment without the help of machinery? They have to be strong to do that.

The point is, the government can't ban everything that has the potential to kill someone, as it's not going to stop people from killing each other. Thus, I see very little point in gun control.

I don't defend guns or gun ownership and yes, I know the guns in those awful shootings were obtained legally. Personally I feel that it shouldn't be quite as easy to get a gun as it is now. People like that that go and shoot up schools or movie theatres are probably not mentally right, as people that are don't just go out and shoot others. There needs to be a thourogh criminal and mental health background check with psychiatric evaluations before a person is able to purchase a gun. This would make it so normal ordinary citicizens can purchase firearms but crazy people can't get access to them easily and harm themselves and others.

The guy in Colorado owned every single gun legally. It's what he did with them that has made this a hot topic again.

Other than making sure guns are legally owned, there's nothing else that can be done. It's been said this guy (I refuse to use his name as I'd rather people remember the victims) did what he did just to make some sort of statement. He initially wanted the guns for other purposes perhaps, like hunting (I don't know), and then decided he was mad as hell (sorry Hikari, not the joke kind) and couldn't take it any more. He felt he needed to shoot and kill people to make a point (about bad theater security? Violence in movies? I dunno). You can't predict that when the guns are bought legally.

In any case, if I may bring this up in this thread, what I found extremely tragic among the 12 victims is the story of one Jessica Redfield, who was almost standing in the exact area someone else was killed at during the Eaton Center incident back in June in Toronto. 6:23 p.m. is when the shots rang out there; she changed her mind at 6:20 from sushi to a hamburger. The guy killed was by the sushi place.

She could have been killed there. And got a second chance. Now it's ended. God clearly wanted an aspiring sports broadcaster with him in Heaven and was going to get it.

Her last tweet proclaims the movie (the Batman one) starting in 20 minutes.

Cyclone

I don't know much about guns, but it seemed he legally bought some big guns with tons of ammo. Now, the only argument I ever hear pro-guns is "what if I need to defend myself". What I don't understand is why you need some big-ass shotgun and such to 'defend yourself'.

I think if we're going to continue allowing buying guns to be legal for the sake of DEFENSE, the power and ammo capacity of the guns needs to be lowered. You don't need to kill an intruder.

But I think big, powerful guns are so pervasive in the world of today that it would not be possible. :/

The 2nd Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution and not applicable to anyone who isn't American/living in America. In other words, most of the world. Even in this English speaking community we have a lot of people from Canada, the U.K., Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and other parts of the world where gun laws are different.

"People will find other ways to kill people so it makes no sense to ban guns because it won't save lives."

Arguments like these rely on a lot of assumptions. Rather than go into all of them, I'll just say there are a lot of factors that go into determining how deadly something is and a something's potential deadliness should be how we determine what's reasonable to limit people's use of. Among other things you would on a list of what makes something dangerous would be "ease of use" and "likeliness of causing serious damage." It takes a bit of muscle to swing a hammer or slash with a knife and then you have to be near someone to hurt them. Even then you're not necessarily going to hurt them badly. Guns fire quickly, do a lot of damage, and you can be standing a considerable distance from them. There is no sensible comparison between guns and knives, and hammers, and crossbows, and whatever other non-gun example you have.

Guns may sound like an unpleasant subject, but you'll sure be glad to have one if a burglar decides to pay a visit to your house.

Autistic Lucario said:

Guns may sound like an unpleasant subject, but you'll sure be glad to have one if a burglar decides to pay a visit to your house.

Click to expand...

Or you can go hide and call the police, and wait for them to arrive. Or you can use pepper spray or, as it was mentioned before, a tazer to immobilize them while the policemen arrive. The large majority of countries in the world don't have weapons lying around the shelves in your regular supermarket and yet most of them have much lower criminality levels than the US.

In fact, I'm going to theorize: as some people have said, criminals who want to murder people have several ways to kill, and there are ways to buy illegal guns in the black market. But the point is, your regular John Smith who feels like shooting people around in the UK will have a fun time trying to put his hands on a gun- meanwhile, his suspicious dealings could be spotted by the police, or he could just give up after looking at the giant barrier standing between regular folks and guns. In the US, he only has to pay a visit to the shop near his house and buy everything he needs to murder anybody on his way just a few minutes after proposing the idea.

In short, if you give a gun to everybody who asks for one, you are more likely to get people shot at than if you don't. Period.

But I think it's also a matter of mentality- I mean, here in Europe, I have never seen people say "I wish I had a gun" when they have been robbed or anything, and firearms are something horrible and dangerous most of us wouldn't dare to have around- I guess that, had I seen my dad using one since I was 5, I would think that guns are a natural thing to have at home, near the fridge and the washing machine.

Autistic Lucario said:

Guns may sound like an unpleasant subject, but you'll sure be glad to have one if a burglar decides to pay a visit to your house.

Click to expand...

Not when you accidentally shoot yourself or a family member.

You'd shoot someone for stealing? You'd put yourself at risk, create and then escalate a confrontation that wasn't even necessarily violent, for some material things and not just hide or leave?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/...hat-steps-on-my-property/#.UBIHQtV334E.reddit

Anyway, I've got a solution that will solve most problems with crazies getting guns.

Gun owners must get a yearly psychiatric examination. If they have any mental issues that may cause them to use guns in a incorrect manner, then they are not allowed to own buy, or own, guns. If they are a gun owner and fail the psychiatric exam, then they will be legally required to surrender all guns until the time that they can prove that they are mentally fit to own, or use, them. Failure to do so will result in permanant loss of gun ownership privilages, and the person will also have to serve 1 year in prison per weapon owned. If a person forgets about the required yearly evaluation, then they will be fined $1000 per gun owned, and have all guns seized until completion of the required mental exam. (If the exam is not completed within 30 days, then the seized guns will not be returned) If a person uses the weapons in a illegal manner, then current punishments will apply.

People that sell guns will be required to confirm that the person is mentally competent enough to own guns, and if they fail to do so (Even if the person doesn't use the gun for illegal actions) then they will serve years in jail equivalent to the amount of guns they sold that person. If people are shot and/or killed and the person that sold the gun is found to knowingly have sold the gun to a person who failed, or never underwent, the required psychatriac evaluation then the person who sold the gun will either A) Pay all of the victims medical expenses related to the gunshot(s) or B) Serve 5 years in prison per person injured. In the case of a person or persons being killed, then the person who sold the gun will serve 10 years in jail for each person killed.

This would solve a lot of issues. It would ensure that only the mentally fit are able to legally obtain guns, and it would impose harsher penalties to people who knowingly sell weapons to a person who may, or will, use the weapons in a illegal manner.

I've only ever seen firearms when I was on holiday. Police had gun holsters.

I personally don't like guns, and I believe they should be rented/ restricted only to certain areas for hunting.
I just don't like the thought of gun ownership at all.. people abuse it too much.

>_> Either that or make bullets really, really, really expensive so people think twice about firing rounds.