Right to Bear Arms

[Cross]

Well, if people had the right to bear arms, some people would kill, but others with guns would kill the killer killing people. So it's kinda like this:

More killers, less killed.

 

[Gunn]

And I've heard it as both hydrogen hydroxide and dihydrogen monoxide, as well as a couple of other ways.

I hope you have heard of the DHMO Research Division as well.

 

[G-Klav]

Complicated question, even though it might seem like an easy one.
I don't think anyone should have the right to bear arms, because a person with a gun might shoot someone.
I'm not saying everyone is a maniac, but in the end it comes down to this: A maniac with a gun, is much more dangerous than a maniac without one.
Heck, a maniac with a gun is even more dangerous than a 'sane' person with one.

And a person who, for some reason, snaps and has a loaded gun is dangerous. And everyone might snap, for any reason.

But if you have a license, go ahead and buy one, but it should be pretty hard to get one.
You can't shoot someone without a weapon. Think about it. Those 11,000 murders a year in the US says a whole lot.

Edit: And I'm talking from personal experience. I'd love to have a gun, but as one of my friends said: "Don't take this the wrong way, but you're the last person in the world, except for me that I'd want to see running around with a loaded gun."

 

[Red1530]

Think about it. Those 11,000 murders a year in the US says a whole lot.

Ask this question, how many of those murders were committed with a firearm and also how many murders were prevented with a firearm.

 

[Cress Albane]

I believe that only people at least the age of 16 can carry a gun. If not 16, then 18. Either way, the Constitution allows it and I'm sticking with that.

 

[Weatherman Kiyoshi]

In my opion, the whole sytem is... odd.

If a 16 year-old wants to get a gun, They have to get parental permission...? You think thier parents are going to give them the permission to use it?

I Think it should be raised to 21 where they will be less convinced to use it to kill someone.

 

[G-Klav]

Ask this question, how many of those murders were committed with a firearm and also how many murders were prevented with a firearm.

Or I'll ask this question: How could a firearm prevent murders?

Because I can't see how it would do that. I'd say that murderers are in fact people in the wrong place at the wrong time *with* a firearm.

Would a murderer be scared if his victim had a firearm? He'd probably just be happy if you had a loaded firearm in the garage, then he wouldn't need to bring his own, and he could put it back on the wall and nobody would know what happened.

 

[Arcanine]

Right up front, I support the right to bear arms.

(and a pretty good size rant coming up, I might say things more then once, if I do don't mind it)

I never will understand the whole reason behind "Lets ban guns because they kill people.". Here is how it goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
And it is true, you can't find much of a use for a gun other then... well shooting something or someone. But that isn't enough of a reason to ban all guns. I mean you'll find more deaths a year by car wrecks, or swimming pool drownings. You don't need a gun to kill, if I wanted to kill someone I won't have to go get a gun to do it. I know how to kill someone with a bat, I know how to kill someone with a knife, a car, a log, hell I even know how to kill someone with a straw (you know, the kind you put in your drink and you drink with it). Should we ban all them as well? I mean more deaths comes form car accidents then shootings, so we should ban cars because the death rate is higher. Someone will come along and say "Them things have uses, guns are just used for shooting", and like I said, you can't find a reason for a gun other then shooting. But just about anything you can think of can be used to kill. So why stop with guns? Why not ban golf clubs or base ball bats, or knives, or anything else (you can kill with your hands)? Just because a gun can kill without being up close isn't a good enough reason, I'm sure bows can shoot pretty far.
So why should we ban guns? All of you that say "No one should have a gun" why should we ban guns (and don't say "Because it kills", a fricken plastic bag can kill)?
Why should we have guns? If someone broke in my house, and lets say they had a knife, or something other then a gun. I don't want to take my chances up close fighting that person. And if they did have a gun I want mine so I at least have a chance.

There's a town close to where I live, it's called Kennesaw (do a Wiki search on "Kennesaw Georgia"). They do things a little different. Not only do they drive a Camaro Z28 (it's a fast sports car) for their cop car, but one of their laws is that every head of the household has to have a gun (everyone but criminals, someone with a mental or physical disability, or someone that doesn't have the money to own one). In other words, 99% of the homes in Kennesaw has a gun under it's roof. And you can even get permits to carry a gun with you (you just can't go in a gov building, or a bank with it, and you got to have it out where everyone can see). The crime rate in Kennesaw is very very low. Because if someone breaks into a house in that town there is a good chance that robber isn't going to come out.

I know some think "Well if a 10 year old gets their hands on a loaded gun then it might be lights out for them.". And that's where parents come in. I've grown up around guns, hand guns, shot guns, rifles, and there was 3 things I was always thought.
1: Don't ever point a gun at someone (unless someone breaks in or whatever), doesn't matter if it's loaded or not, you DO NOT point it at anyone.
2: You respect it, you don't treat it as a toy, you don't play around with it.
3: You do not touch a loaded gun unless dad is around.
We've never had to have a safe for the guns, never had to put locks on them, they've never had to hide them, or anything like that. Me and my brother knew we weren't go play around with a gun. And all of my cousins and friends are the same way, and they all had pretty much the same rules. None of us are dead from playing around with a gun, none of us has ever shot anyone because we wanted to play around.
If someone buys a gun (lets say this family has never had a gun, or grown up around them), and if they have kids, they need to teach them kids not to play around with a gun. And "maybe" buy a safe for the gun (to me, if you're a non-hunter the whole point of a gun is self defense, having a gun locked up in a safe isn't a good idea if someone breaks in), or put it somewhere the kids can't get their hands on. Yes, it's that simple.

I do admit, not everyone should own a gun. And the laws on buying one should be tougher, and anyone under 21 shouldn't be able to buy one (I think GA law has it where you have to be 21, it's that or a license, I can't remember). Guns aren't for everyone, if someone is always drunk they shouldn't have it, if someone doesn't respect it or treats it as a toy they shouldn't have it, if someone works at a very high stress job they shouldn't have it (I know with them things you can't regulate it, but to me, them are reasons why people shouldn't have one).
But why stop people from protecting themselves? Because banning all guns will stop criminals from getting their hands on them? Nope, if a criminal wants a gun they can get one, it doesn't have to be legal.

I just see no reason to ban guns. I mean sure, maybe me growing up around them has changed my mind. But all a gun is is a tool, a tool to protect you and ones around you if needed. I see no reason to take that away from someone.

 

[Ariolander]

Yea like about guns don't kill people. People kill people. If someone really wanted to inflict violence and possibly kill another person then they don't need a gun to use it.

What I do however support is proper gun education. Before my uncle would take me out shooting he drilled me and drilled me on gun safety. Everyone is worried about the accidental deaths of OMG "What if a kid got a loaded gun?". One of the first things they teach you in guns saftey is to store your gun and ammo seperatly or both in a proper gun safe. Sure my uncle keeps a loaded gun in the house for self defence since it isn't the best area but it is by no means in a place a child could ever get their hands on it especially since he babysits my cousins a lot.

If guns were the problem how can it be that our neighbor to the north Canada has more guns per capita than we do and they have none of the issues we do? In case of criminals they get one on the black market where you can't get one for self defence legally. Guns are just the final step in a murder. I mean guns are onlt the final step in gang violence . Rather than removing the guns why not remove the root of the problem and the gangs themselves rather than the tools that are only a means not the cause of the violence.


My personal opinion is that we should make it legal if not manditory for every person to carry a gun. If you knew or didn't know of the other person had a gun on his person I think you would think twice before shooting or commiting any crime for that matter.

 

[Red1530]

Right up front, I support the right to bear arms.

(and a pretty good size rant coming up, I might say things more then once, if I do don't mind it)

I never will understand the whole reason behind "Lets ban guns because they kill people.". Here is how it goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
And it is true, you can't find much of a use for a gun other then... well shooting something or someone. But that isn't enough of a reason to ban all guns. I mean you'll find more deaths a year by car wrecks, or swimming pool drownings. You don't need a gun to kill, if I wanted to kill someone I won't have to go get a gun to do it. I know how to kill someone with a bat, I know how to kill someone with a knife, a car, a log, hell I even know how to kill someone with a straw (you know, the kind you put in your drink and you drink with it). Should we ban all them as well? I mean more deaths comes form car accidents then shootings, so we should ban cars because the death rate is higher. Someone will come along and say "Them things have uses, guns are just used for shooting", and like I said, you can't find a reason for a gun other then shooting. But just about anything you can think of can be used to kill. So why stop with guns? Why not ban golf clubs or base ball bats, or knives, or anything else (you can kill with your hands)? Just because a gun can kill without being up close isn't a good enough reason, I'm sure bows can shoot pretty far.
So why should we ban guns? All of you that say "No one should have a gun" why should we ban guns (and don't say "Because it kills", a fricken plastic bag can kill)?
Why should we have guns? If someone broke in my house, and lets say they had a knife, or something other then a gun. I don't want to take my chances up close fighting that person. And if they did have a gun I want mine so I at least have a chance.

There's a town close to where I live, it's called Kennesaw (do a Wiki search on "Kennesaw Georgia"). They do things a little different. Not only do they drive a Camaro Z28 (it's a fast sports car) for their cop car, but one of their laws is that every head of the household has to have a gun (everyone but criminals, someone with a mental or physical disability, or someone that doesn't have the money to own one). In other words, 99% of the homes in Kennesaw has a gun under it's roof. And you can even get permits to carry a gun with you (you just can't go in a gov building, or a bank with it, and you got to have it out where everyone can see). The crime rate in Kennesaw is very very low. Because if someone breaks into a house in that town there is a good chance that robber isn't going to come out.

I know some think "Well if a 10 year old gets their hands on a loaded gun then it might be lights out for them.". And that's where parents come in. I've grown up around guns, hand guns, shot guns, rifles, and there was 3 things I was always thought.
1: Don't ever point a gun at someone (unless someone breaks in or whatever), doesn't matter if it's loaded or not, you DO NOT point it at anyone.
2: You respect it, you don't treat it as a toy, you don't play around with it.
3: You do not touch a loaded gun unless dad is around.
We've never had to have a safe for the guns, never had to put locks on them, they've never had to hide them, or anything like that. Me and my brother knew we weren't go play around with a gun. And all of my cousins and friends are the same way, and they all had pretty much the same rules. None of us are dead from playing around with a gun, none of us has ever shot anyone because we wanted to play around.
If someone buys a gun (lets say this family has never had a gun, or grown up around them), and if they have kids, they need to teach them kids not to play around with a gun. And "maybe" buy a safe for the gun (to me, if you're a non-hunter the whole point of a gun is self defense, having a gun locked up in a safe isn't a good idea if someone breaks in), or put it somewhere the kids can't get their hands on. Yes, it's that simple.

I do admit, not everyone should own a gun. And the laws on buying one should be tougher, and anyone under 21 shouldn't be able to buy one (I think GA law has it where you have to be 21, it's that or a license, I can't remember). Guns aren't for everyone, if someone is always drunk they shouldn't have it, if someone doesn't respect it or treats it as a toy they shouldn't have it, if someone works at a very high stress job they shouldn't have it (I know with them things you can't regulate it, but to me, them are reasons why people shouldn't have one).
But why stop people from protecting themselves? Because banning all guns will stop criminals from getting their hands on them? Nope, if a criminal wants a gun they can get one, it doesn't have to be legal.

I just see no reason to ban guns. I mean sure, maybe me growing up around them has changed my mind. But all a gun is is a tool, a tool to protect you and ones around you if needed. I see no reason to take that away from someone.

Yea like about guns don't kill people. People kill people. If someone really wanted to inflict violence and possibly kill another person then they don't need a gun to use it.

What I do however support is proper gun education. Before my uncle would take me out shooting he drilled me and drilled me on gun safety. Everyone is worried about the accidental deaths of OMG "What if a kid got a loaded gun?". One of the first things they teach you in guns saftey is to store your gun and ammo seperatly or both in a proper gun safe. Sure my uncle keeps a loaded gun in the house for self defence since it isn't the best area but it is by no means in a place a child could ever get their hands on it especially since he babysits my cousins a lot.

If guns were the problem how can it be that our neighbor to the north Canada has more guns per capita than we do and they have none of the issues we do? In case of criminals they get one on the black market where you can't get one for self defence legally. Guns are just the final step in a murder. I mean guns are onlt the final step in gang violence . Rather than removing the guns why not remove the root of the problem and the gangs themselves rather than the tools that are only a means not the cause of the violence.


My personal opinion is that we should make it legal if not manditory for every person to carry a gun. If you knew or didn't know of the other person had a gun on his person I think you would think twice before shooting or commiting any crime for that matter.

I can see you have both grown up around firearms because both of you are the only ones that have mentioned the common sense safety rules on how to use a gun. Also is see Ariolander has found the main flaw in the gun control arugment about if you reduce crime if you make it hard to own a firearm. I would like to see what our founding fathers ment by

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.

I think it means that people do have the right to bear arms do civilian activities like hunt and in case of invasion, defend against invasion

 

[Melody]

This is how I see it.
Invasion being Defined as:When unauthorized person(s) enter your home or your area of residence with malicious intent directed at you or your immediate family or at your community/country
Also, I feel that guns should remain legal simply because you have the right to defend yourself. I agree that those who disrespect guns should have theirs taken. Especially the criminals who misuse them. Guns arent the problem. They are only a tool of self defense.
It is societies job to make sure that everyone undeerstands that it's not ok to use a gun on another person unless they are threatening your life or invading your home.

 

[Apathetic_Yen]

Of course it's our right! Our founding fathers didn't make that law for us to bring down. In fact, I seriously believe that if we did ban guns, our crime rate would go up why? Well it doesn't take much effort to smuggle a gun across the border, and knowing that more people would be totally defenseless is totally asking for it.

 

[Bomberman]

The right to bear arms is necessary to protect yourself from the government.
Think about it. The military could easily overthrow the government. It happens all the time in Africa, it could easily happen here. Congress would be too afraid to do anything.
Meanwhile, you can't do anything about it because they have the guns and you don't.

 

[Apathetic_Yen]

Seriously, if we banned guns, we may as well ban bows, baseball bats, safty pins, any means of being able to killed by anything. Banning guns aren't going to solve our problems.

 

[Cherrim]

I'm not sure since I'm not well-educated on this.

Personally, I don't see why anyone should be allowed to own a gun. Law enforcement, sure...but having a gun just for "protection"? I don't see the appeal. :\ Really, right now all I support are stricter gun laws though, I suppose. Like I said, I don't know enough actual statistics or anything to have a proper opinion.

 

[Jaimes]

Thankfully I live in England and we are glad as everthat guns are illegal (with a few exceptions).

To people who go out regularly, who actually carries a gun with them for protection? Very few I guess. As it stands, a criminal would be more likely to have a gun than a peaceful individual.

Since very few guns are allowed them here (pretty much only secuirty services) we have no problem against using guns to protect ourself, since police are here to do it for us and hardly any criminals have them available.

The most we have to worry about is knife crime and most of these are stopped. In Europe there is a significantly lower rate of armed robberies and assaults compared to countries where guns are legalised.
In short, without guns, Europes crime rate is lower than yours. If we introduced them it would only go up.

 

[Red1530]

Thankfully I live in England and we are glad as everthat guns are illegal (with a few exceptions).

To people who go out regularly, who actually carries a gun with them for protection? Very few I guess. As it stands, a criminal would be more likely to have a gun than a peaceful individual.

Since very few guns are allowed them here (pretty much only secuirty services) we have no problem against using guns to protect ourself, since police are here to do it for us and hardly any criminals have them available.

The most we have to worry about is knife crime and most of these are stopped. In Europe there is a significantly lower rate of armed robberies and assaults compared to countries where guns are legalised.
In short, without guns, Europes crime rate is lower than yours. If we introduced them it would only go up.

You are in denial because the facts are just the opposite.

• The number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled since 1998
• There were 11,084 recorded firearms crimes in 2005/2006 - up 0.12% on previous year
• London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands account for 54% of recorded incidents

Source:https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6372717.stm

I do have to mention the gun murders did drop a third in 2006 from 2005 to be fair. But in my opinion if the United Kingdom adopted more lax gun laws, crime overall would be reduced. I also suggest you read this article about gun laws.

 

[Toothache]

As a Brit, I live in one of the few countries where the police force doesn't carry guns as a standard thing (although there are armed response units and so forth). Gun crime is increasing over here, but it's not nearly as bad as the US. Wanna guess why? Mainly cos there's less guns here. Ok, you can get a gun licence, unless you have a criminal record or something.

As much as I think there are too many people in the world, I don't want people to die by anything other than natural causes. So obviously, I'm in favour of less guns. There's a huge debate over here whether the police should carry guns all the time, which would just make the criminals become similarly armed and we'd end up as bad as the US for gun crime rates.

 

[Jaimes]

You are in denial because the facts are just the opposite.

• The number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled since 1998
• There were 11,084 recorded firearms crimes in 2005/2006 - up 0.12% on previous year
• London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands account for 54% of recorded incidents

Source:https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6372717.stm

I do have to mention the gun murders did drop a third in 2006 from 2005 to be fair. But in my opinion if the United Kingdom adopted more lax gun laws, crime overall would be reduced. I also suggest you read this article about gun laws.

I was comparing the after effect of introducing guns to the UK, I never once said in my post that gun crime was decreasing in the UK due to arms laws.

Since 1998, the population of England has also increased by over 3 million, it is expected that crime rate would increase likewise. It is decreasing rapidly with recent schemes on the streets.
I didn't exactly see the reason of the last point (just shows you can retype out all of a column from BBC news:)). I also live in the London area, and almost all gun crime occurs from poorer outstretches or in areas where the population is mostly immigrants from countries where guns are more accessable.

As peaceful individuals, very few in the UK would actually choose to use a gun and shoot dead a robber or carry a gun with them when they go to the city. After the person is shot/killed/maimed/whatever what happens to them next? This happened in 2001, when a farmer with a gun shot dead a burgular. Although however, he was originally convicted to life imprisonment, later change to manslaughter.
In the UK, this is pretty much the only case where a legal gun owner has used a weapon in self defence or to protect his property. Even still the cases of legal guns being used for 'good' purposes are far outweighed by those using them for bad.
Put it this way though, who is more likely to be in possesion of a gun? A criminal or a homeowner? Common sense would say a criminal, since they would be in need of it more than other.

Concerning that link you posted, it was a somewhat stimulating read, but hardly an effective point. In the 3 domestive evidence parts, it is countered by "it isn't working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia", something UK doesn't exactly have access to. Also the unwillingness to hand in weapons, shows that people were not expecting criminals to do likewise, hardly an available situation here since there are a lot fewer guns.

I was comparing the gun crime rate between UK and US however:

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings), a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon. The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms (75% of which were illegally obtained).New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 8 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.

From a wiki article

And again with this data comparing UK and US:

UK is lower than US. Noticeably S.Africa is ridiculously high, but it is in a crisis.
Another notable point though is Switzerland, where 1 gun per household is law. Their significantly lower rate is probably due to the fact their crime rate is miniscule and people there are overall quite nice :D This shows to me that gun crime in general is influenced by other crime around it. Since crime rates in the UK can be expected to go up overall, this increases my point on why I am comfortable with the strict laws.

To summarise what I believe, is that with society is at the moment and if there were more relaxed gun laws in UK, it would only make weapons all the more accessable to people who intend to use them for the wrong reasons.

 

[NocturnLeader]

Legal age around MA/Ri is 18 plus you have to have a License to Bear Arms.