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

[Azureth]

It's amazing how so many people (Ignorant Europeans mostly) really think having guns will make tons of people go on killing sprees. I remember a guy telling me how in the 80s kids would put their rifles in their lockers to go hunting after school.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

It's amazing how so many people (Ignorant Europeans mostly) really think having guns will make tons of people go on killing sprees. I remember a guy telling me how in the 80s kids would put their rifles in their lockers to go hunting after school.

They seem to think that changing the law will deter people who don't obey the law for some reason.

Maybe that's how it works in Europe, though.

 

[Livewire]

It's amazing how so many people (Ignorant Europeans mostly) really think having guns will make tons of people go on killing sprees. I remember a guy telling me how in the 80s kids would put their rifles in their lockers to go hunting after school.

"People can't commit gun crimes if they can't get their hands on a gun in the first place"

 

[Rogue planet]

It's amazing how so many people (Ignorant Europeans mostly) really think having guns will make tons of people go on killing sprees. I remember a guy telling me how in the 80s kids would put their rifles in their lockers to go hunting after school.

It's amazing how so many people (ignorant Americans mostly) really think that having bad gun laws doesn't result in a ridiculously high rate of gun crime. I remember a guy telling me that in the 80s they'd go on killing sprees after school, so that must be the case everywhere!

 

[Dawn]

You have proved nothing.

Don't tell me, show me. I believe I gave evidence that you can't just shoot people because they break the law and that pretty much everywhere accepts this to some degree. "GREATLY" would be a misnomer. It's really not all that extreme of a change in the big picture of things.

However, the difference between shooting a non-violent thief in your home and shooting a violent one is not something I feel we should be ignorant towards.

So, I've actually been convinced we need tighter gun laws, sadly. At least, in regards to how they can be used.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

"People can't commit gun crimes if they can't get their hands on a gun in the first place"

So your solution is to make it so that only criminals can get their hands on guns? Gee, what a swell idea!

It's amazing how so many people (ignorant Americans mostly) really think that having bad gun laws doesn't result in a ridiculously high rate of gun crime. I remember a guy telling me that in the 80s they'd go on killing sprees after school, so that must be the case everywhere!

You're right. That's why many American cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest rates of gun crime. We sure do need to cut back on the bad gun laws.

Don't tell me, show me. I believe I gave evidence that you can't just shoot people because they break the law and that pretty much everywhere accepts this to some degree. "GREATLY" would be a misnomer. It's really not all that extreme of a change in the big picture of things.

However, the difference between shooting a non-violent thief in your home and shooting a violent one is not something I feel we should be ignorant towards.

So, I've actually been convinced we need tighter gun laws, sadly.

We were discussing whether or not you can shoot somone who breaks into your home. The answer to that depends on the situation and when you are legally justified depends on what jurisdiction you are in. Of course you just can't shoot somebody you see jaywalking.

It seem like you're the kind of person who would sympathize with a home invasion burglar rather than a frightened home owner. Please, say it ain't so. Whether or not a theif is shooting can change in a second, and it could be too late for the home owner by then.

 

[Livewire]

So your solution is to make it so that only criminals can get their hands on guns? Gee, what a swell idea!

Do you actually have a valid antithesis to that point, or just more bad sarcasm? When you control the production of a product, you control every economic aspect of it. If less guns can get into criminal hands, less crimes can be commited. Econ 101 honey. Notice how areas with extensive social programs and community development have less gun crimes. You kill crime (including gun crimes) with education and social benefits, and more comprehensive and effectual restrictions. And don't give me the "stricter gun laws = more gun crimes" arguement because that's not irrevocably true, and not a entirely true representation of gun crime statistics. Also, cities like New York, Chicago, LA, etc, have more gun crimes simply because they're cities of several million people, so more people means the potential for more crimes, and not becuase of the liberal bias you seem to think is everywhere these days. Basic math.

 

[Rogue planet]

You're right. That's why many American cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest rates of gun crime. We sure do need to cut back on the bad gun laws.

Oh well, guess America's just all gun crazy! No point in changing the law then, it's too late to save them now.

But the law of a city can hardly be compared to a nationwide law. But I guess I don't know what I'm talking about, as I am an ignorant European. I'll just enjoy my gun-free society.

 

[Ray Maverick]

No, only because
a) they might not be able to use them guns properly.
b) you don't always know what a man can do with a gun in his hand, even if he's the son of the president.
c) who guarantees us that people that turn 18 won't use their gun to become criminals?
d) it's too risky 'cause it practically gives anyone the possibility to blow people's minds. Literally.

In anyway, people having guns will increase criminal activity.
though I could use a gun right now

 

[Mr. X]

So, in other words, in order to reduce gun crimes were going to allow people to obtain a wider varity of guns? Thats almost as stupid as giving a drug addict the keys to a pharmacy.

Regular civilians have to need for guns other the hunting... Which, is basicly, murdering defenceless creatures without provocation.

 

[Nick]

I wish there weren't such things as firearms, but since there are, I do believe that people should be able to own them for self-protection. It's comforting to know that if something were to happen - God forbid - that there was a sure-fire way to attempt to prevent something terrible from happening. I don't know how I feel about screening people or not. Those screened and declined could very well run into a situation when and intruder enters their home and threatens their safety, whereas at the same time, those who were approved for guns could use them for more than just self-protection.

 

[twocows]

Do you actually have a valid antithesis to that point, or just more bad sarcasm? When you control the production of a product, you control every economic aspect of it. If less guns can get into criminal hands, less crimes can be commited. Econ 101 honey.

If guns were illegal, criminals would just import them. It's no different than the "war on drugs," really.

Notice how areas with extensive social programs and community development have less gun crimes. You kill crime (including gun crimes) with education and social benefits, and more comprehensive and effectual restrictions. And don't give me the "stricter gun laws = more gun crimes" arguement because that's not irrevocably true, and not a entirely true representation of gun crime statistics.

That's true. Social programs take care of the root of the problem. They make crime something that isn't necessary just to get by. Better social programs is the correct way to go, not outlawing guns.

Also, cities like New York, Chicago, LA, etc, have more gun crimes simply because they're cities of several million people, so more people means the potential for more crimes, and not becuase of the liberal bias you seem to think is everywhere these days. Basic math.

Those cities have a higher proportion of gun crimes, not just a higher number.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Do you actually have a valid antithesis to that point, or just more bad sarcasm? When you control the production of a product, you control every economic aspect of it. If less guns can get into criminal hands, less crimes can be commited. Econ 101 honey. Notice how areas with extensive social programs and community development have less gun crimes. You kill crime (including gun crimes) with education and social benefits, and more comprehensive and effectual restrictions. And don't give me the "stricter gun laws = more gun crimes" arguement because that's not irrevocably true, and not a entirely true representation of gun crime statistics. Also, cities like New York, Chicago, LA, etc, have more gun crimes simply because they're cities of several million people, so more people means the potential for more crimes, and not becuase of the liberal bias you seem to think is everywhere these days. Basic math.

On the contrary, communities that benefit heavily from social programs suffer from the most gun violence. Public housing projects are infamous for gun violence, gangs, and drugs. Residents there are regularly receiving food stamps, cash aid, HUD housing assistace, etc. These cities also tend to have very strict gun laws. Despite these strict gun controls, the gangs seem to have no problem obtaining firearms.

Also, gun crime statistics are often reportered per capita, which takes into account population differences.

Oh well, guess America's just all gun crazy! No point in changing the law then, it's too late to save them now.

But the law of a city can hardly be compared to a nationwide law. But I guess I don't know what I'm talking about, as I am an ignorant European. I'll just enjoy my gun-free society.

You hit in right on the nail. America and Europe have different cultures in regards to guns. That plays a huge factor in the necessity for gun rights.

So, in other words, in order to reduce gun crimes were going to allow people to obtain a wider varity of guns? Thats almost as stupid as giving a drug addict the keys to a pharmacy.

Regular civilians have to need for guns other the hunting... Which, is basicly, murdering defenceless creatures without provocation.

Murder is "the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought." You cannot possibly murder any creature other than a human being. Hunting is a sport that people have enjoyed for generations.

 

[Livewire]

On the contrary, communities that benefit heavily from social programs suffer from the most gun violence. Public housing projects are infamous for gun violence, gangs, and drugs. Residents there regularly receiving food stamps, cash aid, HUD housing assistace, etc. These cities also tend to have very strict gun laws. Despite these strict gun controls, the gangs seem to have no problem obtaining firearms.

So you're saying that social welfare programs cause gun violence..Yeah... You're blaming the wrong thing here. Poverty breeds violence and crime. Social welfare programs are designed to combat poverty, not exacerbate it. As mentioned earlier, you combat gun violence with social programs and tough gun laws. Your argument is that stereotypical nonsensical conservative garbage the gets spewed by the pundits at Fox News. Obviously, criminals can still obtain guns becuase the current guns laws, which are relatively weak, clearly aren't working. How many times have you ever heard of people being denied a gun when they've tried to purchase one, and then, how many murders and shooting sprees do you see on the evening news? Exactly. Your argument that "nobody can get guns except the criminals" is all hot air. Gun sales spiked since 2009, as 7 million people filed background checks in order to purchase weapons, which isn't even close to the real figure as many states don't require background checks in order to purchase them. So it's more likely that over 10 million have either filed to, or have purchased guns since 2009. Nice try.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/13/guns-nra-america-obama-virginia

Not to mention, Gangs can't get a hold of guns if A, restrictions are enforced, and B, gun salesmen don't cut corners when selling them, like not doing a through enough background check. Look at Jared Loughner, who waltzed right into a gun shop and purchased the extended magazines and ammunition needed for his deadly rampage, despite the fact that the man was (and still is) a raving lunatic. Any right mined person can tell he was disturbed, and still nothing was done.

 

[Dawn]

It seem like you're the kind of person who would sympathize with a home invasion burglar rather than a frightened home owner. Please, say it ain't so. Whether or not a theif is shooting can change in a second, and it could be too late for the home owner by then.

Use my own words instead of your interpretation if you will. c: Mine are more likely to be accurate to my thoughts.

First of all, I didn't say that a home owner has no right to use a gun to threaten a burglar. However, a burglar should have a chance to give themselves up without getting shot, and frankly if the home owner has a gun trained on them, and they don't have a gun trained on the home owner, and they manage to shoot first, it was the home owner's fault for not properly being ready to shoot. If you don't know dang well how to use a gun you shouldn't have one in the first place, let alone be able to try and compensate for it by shooting as quickly as possible. If people want to protect themselves by fighting, they need to learn how, not trust some tool to do all the work for them.

The answer to this is simple. The home owner should not be allowed to shoot until some form of remotely aggressive actions are taken by the burglar against them, such as approaching or reaching for something without permission.

Just because I can, I'm going to create a story for you to demonstrate why it's wrong for a home owner to be able to shoot anyone who breaks into their home.

There is a homeless man. He's poor and he can't afford food. His health is in poor shape and his hygeine is terrible. He goes and breaks into a house because he's desperate for food, using a blunt object to break a window. The home owner lives alone and owns a gun. He hears the noise and goes to investigate, catching the homeless man stealing and eating food in his kitchen. The homeless man didn't realize someone was home, and didn't bother carrying the blunt object inside. He is not physically healthy enough to stand a chance in a physical fight, and just sort of freezes up like a deer in headlights. This is not a perfect world, so the home owner is kind of a jerk, so he shoots and kills the homeless man without a word, and simply claims he thought the homeless man was dangerous. The homeless man had no intention of murder. He probably couldn't have done it if he tried.

Am I missing something? This is supposed to be fair or reasonable? Looks like a morally abominable case of people falling through the cracks in the law to me.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So you're saying that social welfare programs cause gun violence..Yeah... You're blaming the wrong thing here. Poverty breeds violence and crime. Social welfare programs are designed to combat poverty, not exacerbate it. As mentioned earlier, you combat gun violence with social programs and tough gun laws. Your argument is that stereotypical nonsensical conservative garbage the gets spewed by the pundits at Fox News. Obviously, criminals can still obtain guns becuase the current guns laws, which are relatively weak, clearly aren't working. How many times have you ever heard of people being denied a gun when they've tried to purchase one, and then, how many murders and shooting sprees do you see on the evening news? Exactly. Your argument that "nobody can get guns except the criminals" is all hot air. Gun sales spiked since 2009, as 7 million people filed background checks in order to purchase weapons, which isn't even close to the real figure as many states don't require background checks in order to purchase them. So it's more likely that over 10 million have either filed to, or have purchased guns since 2009. Nice try.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/13/guns-nra-america-obama-virginia

Not to mention, Gangs can't get a hold of guns if A, restrictions are enforced, and B, gun salesmen don't cut corners when selling them, like not doing a through enough background check. Look at Jared Loughner, who waltzed right into a gun shop and purchased the extended magazines and ammunition needed for his deadly rampage, despite the fact that the man was (and still is) a raving lunatic. Any right mined person can tell he was disturbed, and still nothing was done.

Let's lay off the personal attacks, please.

Is it a mere coincidence that inner cities where many residents are collecting benefits from social programs and have strict gun laws have much higher rates of gang violence than areas that value the civil rights of their citizens who actually work for a living have much lower rates?

Social programs continue the cycle of poverty by creating dependency on those programs. That is besides the point, though. That argument needs its own thread.

No law will stop gangs from getting guns. Do you seriously think that gang bangers waltz into gun stores and purchase their firearms that way? They obtain them illegally on the black market. We all know that prohibition or heavy regulation of a product or service that is in demand drives up its presence on the black market.

Jared Loughner didn't have any convictions for a gun-related crime on his record. What law could have possibly alerted the gun store owner besides outright banning guns?

Use my own words instead of your interpretation if you will. c: Mine are more likely to be accurate to my thoughts.

First of all, I didn't say that a home owner has no right to use a gun to threaten a burglar. However, a burglar should have a chance to give themselves up without getting shot, and frankly if the home owner has a gun trained on them, and they don't have a gun trained on the home owner, and they manage to shoot first, it was the home owner's fault for not properly being ready to shoot. If you don't know dang well how to use a gun you shouldn't have one in the first place, let alone be able to try and compensate for it by shooting as quickly as possible. If people want to protect themselves by fighting, they need to learn how, not trust some tool to do all the work for them.

The answer to this is simple. The home owner should not be allowed to shoot until some form of remotely aggressive actions are taken by the burglar against them, such as approaching or reaching for something without permission.

Just because I can, I'm going to create a story for you to demonstrate why it's wrong for a home owner to be able to shoot anyone who breaks into their home.

There is a homeless man. He's poor and he can't afford food. His health is in poor shape and his hygeine is terrible. He goes and breaks into a house because he's desperate for food, using a blunt object to break a window. The home owner lives alone and owns a gun. He hears the noise and goes to investigate, catching the homeless man stealing and eating food in his kitchen. The homeless man didn't realize someone was home, and didn't bother carrying the blunt object inside. He is not physically healthy enough to stand a chance in a physical fight, and just sort of freezes up like a deer in headlights. This is not a perfect world, so the home owner is kind of a jerk, so he shoots and kills the homeless man without a word, and simply claims he thought the homeless man was dangerous. The homeless man had no intention of murder. He probably couldn't have done it if he tried.

Am I missing something? This is supposed to be fair or reasonable? Looks like a morally abominable case of people falling through the cracks in the law to me.

You've swayed me, to an extent. I agree that if the burglar surrenders themselves, then the home owner should let law enforcement deal with the situation. I also agree that they shouldn't shoot in a way that could possibly kill if the burglar is not armed. You can shoot to stun, use a blunt object to a reasonable extent, use a taser, pepper spray, etc.

Home owners should be able to use some level of force to protect their property from theft or damage. That doesn't necessarily mean deadly force. If the homeless man you speak of is caught by the homeowner and surrenders peacefully, then the police should be called.

 

[Jack O'Neill]

You can have all the laws in the world, and they won't do a damn thing unless you actually enforce them. For instance, look at Mexico, where gun laws are extremely strict on paper (namely, civilians are prohibited from owning military-caliber rifles or handguns in calibers larger than .380 ACP or .38 Special), and yet you can easily obtain an AK-47 or a 9mm handgun like a Glock 17 or Beretta 92 for dirt cheap if you know where to look, while the cartels can obtain far heavier weapons (up to and including high explosives) than those on a regular basis. Before anyone here says that the United States is the main source for illegal weapons in Mexico, keep in mind that legal private ownership of automatic weapons and "destructive devices" (grenades, rocket launchers, et cetera) is already heavily regulated in the United States as per the National Firearms Act of 1934; for such weapons to cross the border from the United States, they would have to have been stolen first. Of course, the cartels also steal weapons directly from the Mexican Army and the Federal Police, and they smuggle in weapons from other places like Guatemala. Criminals can and will always find a way to circumvent the law, as the Mexican cartels regularly demonstrate; even with draconian gun ownership laws, they can still obtain illegal weapons in large quantities.

In contrast, I've already mentioned the examples of Switzerland and Finland, where they still manage to have gun ownership rates second only to those of the United States while having gun crime rates far lower than those of the United States. In Switzerland and Finland, one must first obtain a firearms acquisition permit from the local police force before actually purchasing a firearm; such permits are issued only at the discretion of the police and can be denied or rescinded if the applicant fails a background check, fails to provide a valid justification for ownership, and/or is shown to be psychiatrically disabled or otherwise a safety risk. Of course, it also helps that Switzerland and Finland have extremely strict enforcement of their gun laws.

 

[Dawn]

You've swayed me, to an extent. I agree that if the burglar surrenders themselves, then the home owner should let law enforcement deal with the situation. I also agree that they shouldn't shoot in a way that could possibly kill if the burglar is not armed. You can shoot to stun, use a blunt object to a reasonable extent, use a taser, pepper spray, etc.

Well, yeah! I just don't trust home owners to try and give people chances! >.< I mean in a realistic situation there are plenty of real jerks out there and being robbed isn't going to make them any nicer. So I honestly think that chance to surrender needs to be mandated by the law.

Home owners should be able to use some level of force to protect their property from theft or damage. That doesn't necessarily mean deadly force. If the homeless man you speak of is caught by the homeowner and surrenders peacefully, then the police should be called.

Well, y'know, I mean continuing to damage your house or steal your stuff may be considered an aggressive act that could constitute shooting, but even then are home owners going to be allowed to shoot to kill in that circumstance?

Another question, what if the thief simply runs? He doesn't make any aggressive moves, but he just abruptly /runs/ away. What then?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Another question, what if the thief simply runs? He doesn't make any aggressive moves, but he just abruptly /runs/ away. What then?

If he (or she) runs away, and did not have any of the home owner's property with them, I'd say they should just let it go and call the police. If they do have some stolen property, you could always just shoot them in the foot.

You can have all the laws in the world, and they won't do a damn thing unless you actually enforce them. For instance, look at Mexico, where gun laws are extremely strict on paper (namely, civilians are prohibited from owning military-caliber rifles or handguns in calibers larger than .380 ACP or .38 Special), and yet you can easily obtain an AK-47 or a 9mm handgun like a Glock 17 or Beretta 92 for dirt cheap if you know where to look, while the cartels can obtain far heavier weapons (up to and including high explosives) than those on a regular basis. Before anyone here says that the United States is the main source for illegal weapons in Mexico, keep in mind that legal private ownership of automatic weapons and "destructive devices" (grenades, rocket launchers, et cetera) is already heavily regulated in the United States as per the National Firearms Act of 1934; for such weapons to cross the border from the United States, they would have to have been stolen first. Of course, the cartels also steal weapons directly from the Mexican Army and the Federal Police, and they smuggle in weapons from other places like Guatemala. Criminals can and will always find a way to circumvent the law, as the Mexican cartels regularly demonstrate; even with draconian gun ownership laws, they can still obtain illegal weapons in large quantities.

In contrast, I've already mentioned the examples of Switzerland and Finland, where they still manage to have gun ownership rates second only to those of the United States while having gun crime rates far lower than those of the United States. In Switzerland and Finland, one must first obtain a firearms acquisition permit from the local police force before actually purchasing a firearm; such permits are issued only at the discretion of the police and can be denied or rescinded if the applicant fails a background check, fails to provide a valid justification for ownership, and/or is shown to be psychiatrically disabled or otherwise a safety risk. Of course, it also helps that Switzerland and Finland have extremely strict enforcement of their gun laws.

That's all fine and dandy, but the United States is organized differently. We have 50 different states that can have gun laws that vary from very strict to very generous, and various local government with their own laws. Switzerland and Finland also have a culture that is naturally more civil than the United States. Where I do concede that Live Wire is right is when he said that poverty leads to more violent crime. Many poor people here turn to street gangs, drug dealing, and robbery to earn money. Those activities also involve the use of guns that were most likely obtained outside of the eye of the law.

 

[mysterious_man]

Yes, i think people should be able to on guns, because, what if a mugger tried to mug you, he/she pulled out a knife, and said "Gimmie' yo money, or i'll shank you so bad, youll die, and i'll still take yo money!" What would you want to do?
Option A: do what he/she says
Option B: die
Option C: Shoot him/her
I would pick 0ption C!
For two reasons, one, im broke, and two, im broke!!! I want to live! It's a short life! Don't make it shorter!