NarutoActor
The rocks cry out to me
- 1,974
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 30
- Brooklyn/Marlboro
- Seen Apr 2, 2016
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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
Last edited: