Should people be able to own firearms for self-protection?

[FreakyLocz14]

I think they should. Vulnerable groups like the elderly and LGBT people would benefit from heightened 2nd Amendment rights for self-protection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkeSrDgdTQA&feature=feedu

Discuss.

 

[Steven]

I think they should, if they have no previous criminal record, pass a psych test, and take proper classes.

 

[Livewire]

People have a right to own small caliber guns. I think the clauses listed above are more than fair and need to be mandatory. However, extended magazines and assault weapons are to be excluded. A civilian has no proper justification for needing either of those. It needs to stay heavily regulated, as it should be, and it definitely doesn't need to be "heightened" whatsoever.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

People have a right to own small caliber guns. However, extended magazines and assault weapons are to be excluded. A civilian has no proper justification for needing either of those. It needs to stay heavily regulated, as it should be, and it definitely doesn't need to be "heightened" whatsoever.

Civilians should also be able to own firearms that are designed for hunting. Hunting is a pastime that is a part of our nation's history.

I'm against heavy regulations on our civil rights and civil liberties, so I guess we will agree to disagree on that issue.

 

[Jack O'Neill]

People have a right to own small caliber guns. I think the clauses listed above are more than fair and need to be mandatory. However, extended magazines and assault weapons are to be excluded. A civilian has no proper justification for needing either of those. It needs to stay heavily regulated, as it should be, and it definitely doesn't need to be "heightened" whatsoever.

Before you say any more, I'd like you to define "assault weapon" first. There are significant differences between the technical definition and the legal definition, and I'd like to know which one of those you're using.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

This is pretty much what I would say. That way, people just can't waltz in and say "I need a gun for "protection."

If somebody really wanted a gun for illegal purposes, the law will not deter them. There are ways to get guns illegally. Over-regulation only prevents law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns.

 

[Livewire]

Before you say any more, I'd like you to define "assault weapon" first. There are significant differences between the technical definition and the legal definition, and I'd like to know which one of those you're using.

Firearms that would have been previous banned under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Flash suppressors, Pistol grips, folding stocks and attachments for grenades, etc. I do understand that the legal terminology as termed by the federal government and the actual technological definition don't exactly jive well. Point is, I don't think that any random joe should be able to get his hands on Kalashnikovs and Uzi's or other high powered weapons capable of killing or maiming many people on a single clip. Now for qualified individuals, who know what they're doing with such a weapon, yes.

If somebody really wanted a gun for illegal purposes, the law will not deter them. There are ways to get guns illegally. Over-regulation only prevents law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns.

Not when actual production of the guns is regulated. Less guns can get on the street, if their is less of them being produced. Illegal acquisition of guns, or criminal activities being carried out by said guns, also wouldn't be such a problem if the laws surrounding their sale were observed a little more stringently. Jared Loughner couldn't have killed shot Gabby Giffords if the gunowner who sold it to him had used a shred of common sense.

 

[Shining Raichu]

I think people should be allowed to own guns for self-protection, because it can be hard to feel safe in the world we live in. That said, America is incredibly gun-crazy and there are a lot more murders in America than there are in most other Western countries. Here in Australia, it is incredibly difficult for a civilian to get a firearms license, and very very few people own a gun. The fatality rate is noticeably lower.

So yeah, if people want a gun they should be able to have one, but if the reason they feel they need a gun for safety is that other people have guns, then that's incredibly telling, and it might be worth considering going in the opposite direction.

Civilians should also be able to own firearms that are designed for hunting. Hunting is a pastime that is a part of our nation's history.

This I can't get on board with. I'm against restricting civil liberties as much as the next person, but I'm also incredibly against killing animals for sport (how senseless) and even more against allowing something so cruel just because it's part of history. The Holocaust is a part of history, and I think we can all agree we don't want that to happen again.

 

[Jack O'Neill]

Firearms that would have been previous banned under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Flash suppressors, Pistol grips, folding stocks and attachments for grenades, etc. I do understand that the legal terminology as termed by the federal government and the actual technological definition don't exactly jive well. Point is, I don't think that any random joe should be able to get his hands on Kalashnikovs and Uzi's or other high powered weapons capable of killing or maiming many people on a single clip. Now for qualified individuals, who know what they're doing with such a weapon, yes.

You do realize that cosmetic characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with the weapon's actual lethality, right? You do realize that "assault weapons" under any definition have only been used in a very tiny percentage of crimes even before the 1994 ban, right? You do realize that handguns are used in the overwhelming majority of gun-related crimes, right? You do realize that socioeconomic factors have a much greater influence on crime rates than availability of weapons, right?

The original National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 were already more than sufficient in limiting access to "assault weapons." All the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did was pander to fearmongers like yourself by banning cosmetic features that have no effect on actual lethality while ultimately doing very little to actually lower crime rates. A semiautomatic Uzi is basically an unusually large and cumbersome pistol. At 3.5 kg and 47 cm with the stock fully collapsed, a full-size Uzi is easily more than twice the size of most semi-automatic pistols; for comparison, a standard Glock 17 is around 18 cm long and weighs just 625 g unloaded. Likewise, a semiautomatic AK-47 would just be functionally identical to a "non-assault" weapon like the SKS; the only difference would be that the SKS has a 10-round fixed magazine that I have to charge with a stripper clip, while I can just change out the magazine on the AK. It's perfectly legal for me to own the Glock and the SKS, and you'd be just as dead if I shot you with either of them.

If you really want to reduce gun crime in the United States, you introduce more stringent ownership requirements, and you make a concerted effort to mitigate the other factors that influence crime (poverty, poor education, et cetera). Banning weapons based on appearance as opposed to actual function will do nothing.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Not when actual production of the guns is regulated. Less guns can get on the street, if their is less of them being produced. Illegal acquisition of guns, or criminal activities being carried out by said guns, also wouldn't be such a problem if the laws surrounding their sale were observed a little more stringently. Jared Loughner couldn't have killed shot Gabby Giffords if the gunowner who sold it to him had used a shred of common sense.

Loughner didn't have any prior firearms related convictions. What legislation could you possibly come up with that could have kept him from getting a gun without banning all guns entirely?

Regulating the production of guns can only make them safer, but it can not keep them off the streets. People obtain guns in various illegal ways, including stealing them from others who may or may not have obtained them legally, and smuggling them in illegally. You're living in La-La Land if you believe that gun laws keep guns out of the hands of anybody but law-abiding citizens.

Many of the cities and states that have the strictest gun laws also have the highest rates of gun-related crime. Ever heard of Detroit?

 

[Esper]

I should stay away from this thread because I say something I'll regret.

Gun ownership provokes confrontation where there might otherwise be none.

You do realize that socioeconomic factors have a much greater influence on crime rates than availability of weapons, right?

Ah, so we should improve people's socioeconomic standing and get rid of guns. Tackle the problem from two sides. I like this idea.

Loughner didn't have any prior firearms related convictions. What legislation could you possibly come up with that could have kept him from getting a gun without banning all guns entirely?

I don't see a problem with that suggestion.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I don't see a problem with that suggestion.

The Constitution has a problem with that suggestion, though.

And even if guns are completely banned, there would still be a black marker for them. Disarming the citizenry when criminals will remain armed is a foolish idea.

 

[Frostweaver]

Last thing I need before potential corrupt cop (who obviously got guns), is a man who thinks that he's better than the potentially corrupt cop, armed with a gun.

///

Weird sentence aside, no I do not support it. I fully understand that correlation is not causation, but just why does America crime rate skyrocket compare to Canada and one of the *many* difference is that canadians can't possess a firearm for self-defense as easily as americans ._.;;

Also, instead of wondering about if it's ok to have a gun to protect ourselves, can we spend at least equal amount of time wondering how to make the world safer to begin with so we don't need guns to protect ourselves? =D


EDIT: about the idea of "people will get guns illegally anyway, so might as well allow it", consider it this way. It's probably more likely for someone to rob the bank of its money if the money is left wide open, in comparison to at least putting the money inside a safe. True that they may break open the safe, but at least it's an obstacle and deters at least *some* people away from that thought of committing the robbery. Likewise, the obstacle in obtaining firearms aid to deter someone from using firearms in an assault.

Oh and let's not always think of guns as weapons used by gangs. Consider family violence or arguments... fights break out, and people just grab the closest thing they have due to fits of rage. Easier to run from the knife than the gun heh.

 

[Jack O'Neill]

I should stay away from this thread because I say something I'll regret.

Ah, so we should improve people's socioeconomic standing and get rid of guns. Tackle the problem from two sides. I like this idea.

Don't put words in my mouth. If you actually bothered to read my entire post instead of just cherrypicking points you agree with, you will note that I never advocated getting rid of guns entirely. I am in favor of improving people's socioeconomic standing, yes, and I am in favor of stricter ownership requirements, but I certainly do not support banning guns entirely. Turns out you did say something you'd regret after all.

Also, here's some food for thought: Finland and Switzerland have extremely high rates of gun ownership, and yet gun crime in those countries is extremely low. They're obviously doing something right if they can control gun crime while still having high gun ownership rates.

 

[Esper]

Don't put words in my mouth. If you actually bothered to read my entire post instead of just cherrypicking points you agree with, you will note that I never advocated getting rid of guns entirely. I am in favor of improving people's socioeconomic standing, yes, and I am in favor of stricter ownership requirements, but I certainly do not support banning guns entirely. Turns out you did say something you'd regret after all.

Also, here's some food for thought: Finland and Switzerland have extremely high rates of gun ownership, and yet gun crime in those countries is extremely low. They're obviously doing something right if they can control gun crime while still having high gun ownership rates.

No sense of humor.

So what are Finland and Switzerland doing that places like America aren't? And is it something that places that have strict gun laws and low gun crime aren't doing as well?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Last thing I need before potential corrupt cop (who obviously got guns), is a man who thinks that he's better than the potentially corrupt cop, armed with a gun.

///

Weird sentence aside, no I do not support it. I fully understand that correlation is not causation, but just why does America crime rate skyrocket compare to Canada and one of the *many* difference is that canadians can't possess a firearm for self-defense as easily as americans ._.;;

Also, instead of wondering about if it's ok to have a gun to protect ourselves, can we spend at least equal amount of time wondering how to make the world safer to begin with so we don't need guns to protect ourselves? =D


EDIT: about the idea of "people will get guns illegally anyway, so might as well allow it", consider it this way. It's probably more likely for someone to rob the bank of its money if the money is left wide open, in comparison to at least putting the money inside a safe. True that they may break open the safe, but at least it's an obstacle and deters at least *some* people away from that thought of committing the robbery. Likewise, the obstacle in obtaining firearms aid to deter someone from using firearms in an assault.

Oh and let's not always think of guns as weapons used by gangs. Consider family violence or arguments... fights break out, and people just grab the closest thing they have due to fits of rage. Easier to run from the knife than the gun heh.

American cities that have strict gun laws have much higher rates of gun-related crime than those with reasonable gun laws.

The problem with people getting guns illegally is not that people will have them, but it's that the people who don't obey the law will the be the ones who have them. If you obey the law, you won't have a gun if they're banned. That makes you vulnerable to the armed criminals.

When I say reasonable regulations, I'm talking about background checks, proficiency tests, requiring the purchase of a safety device, registering the firearm with law enforcement, and tougher sentences if a gun was used in the commission of a crime. Outright bans of any sort are never reasonable, and the Supreme Court agreed with me last year in the case McDonald v. City of Chicago. There was also a federal gun case in D.C. in 2008. Both D.C. and Chicago have very strict gun laws, yet they have some of the highest rates of gun-related crime in the country. This goes to show that strict gun laws are counterproductive.

 

[Jack O'Neill]

No sense of humor.

So what are Finland and Switzerland doing that places like America aren't? And is it something that places that have strict gun laws and low gun crime aren't doing as well?

Finland has extremely strict ownership requirements for firearms. If you want more details, here's an English translation of the Firearms Act of 1998, which should cover everything you'd want to know. It should also be noted that Finland also has a highly comprehensive social security program and one of the most successful educational systems in the entire world.

Switzerland, on the other hand, is admittedly a very unique case. The Swiss Armed Forces are militia-based, and all personnel are expected to keep their service weapons with them at home; once their period of service has ended, militiamen can elect to retain their service weapons (in the case of assault rifles, they have to be converted to semi-auto before being given back to the owner, naturally). As for private ownership, Wikipedia actually does a decent job of describing the relevant details; if you want to read the source documents, though, you better learn how to read French. I'll admit that I don't know as much about how welfare and education work in Switzerland, though.

 

[Rogue planet]

Like I've said in previous threads, I have no problems with the current gun laws here in the UK. I'm not going to go into detail, because anyone who's interested can look them up for themselves. In short, they're very strict and mean that the UK has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world, as opposed to the USA having one of the highest in the world. I think that alone just says a lot about how the current gun laws in the USA need changing.

The majority of people in this country aren't responsible enough to be trusted with a gun. On the other hand, just because the majority shouldn't have one doesn't mean the minority should be ignored (applies to many situations, imo). If someone is intellectually capable of using a firearm appropriately then the tests in place really shouldn't be that much of a hassle to them, and they'd appreciate the need to have them in place.

Like Jack O'Neill said, don't underestimate the lethality of a handgun. Just because it's a smaller gun doesn't mean it can't kill you easily. Another thing which makes them a lot more dangerous is how handguns can be easily concealed. If somebody is walking down the street with a rifle in their hands, they're not going to be able to hide it with ease, so they're probably not going to get far without being apprehended. I'd feel safer if people were allowed to own larger guns, but not handguns.

I'll admit that I don't know as much about how welfare and education work in Switzerland, though.

Let's just say it's not that far off from being on the same level as Finland.

 

[twocows]

People should be allowed to own firearms for protection and carry them in public provided they've undergone training for proper use and a thorough background check. I firmly believe that if every morally upright citizen carried a gun and was trained in its use, there would be a lot fewer criminals out there.

 

[Ghost]

That seems like a good idea. Registration would have to be a requirement and a bane on certain weapons should listed.