Should the USA ban guns?

[gimmepie]

I still don't understand how people here are having trouble with understanding the simple logic that less gun availability is equal to less shootings in the long run.

I also fail to see how seizing firearms of gang members is a bad thing. First and foremost, you talk about hundreds of thousands of dead cops. Some cops might die in the line of duty sure, that comes with the job. But you're acting like there's going to be a letter sent three weeks in advance

Dear Mr. Gangmember

We are sending you this letter to you to inform you that we are aware that you are in possession of illegal firearms and drugs and are probably in some way connected to several violent crimes. As a result of this your home is going to be subject to a raid precisely three weeks from today (Thursday the 17th of March) at approximately 7:15 in the evening.

If the time of this raid is inconvenient to you and you would like more time to flee the state or dispose of evidence, please call your nearest police precinct and inform us that you would like to reschedule the raid.

Yours Truly
Constable Failcop​

What actually happens in a raid is a shitload of police officers armed with very nasty guns and wearing kevlar show up at your house out of nowhere (maybe waving around a warrant, they will have one somewhere). They then kick your door down, walk in there shoot you if you reach for a gun and arrest you if you don't. Furthermore, I think you vastly overestimate gang thugs in comparison to highly trained police officers who are literally trained to do their job as efficiently and safely as possible. That's more or less how they work here, I assume they go similarly in the US. I've even seen a couple, lucky me.

Honestly, can we stop pretending that even a ban on guns will result in all out war. It would go a shitload smoother than that and chances are it will simply be tighter control on guns and a crackdown on illegal guns, not an all out ban.

Then, when it is harder to get a gun legally, the prices of guns on the blackmarket will go up. Here, where we have very good gun control laws, the price of some weapons on the black market reaches like $30 000. Obviously this wouldn't happen over night, but supply and demand is still a thing to criminals and the harder guns become to obtain the more they'll want for them.

It is literally that simple.

 

[curiousnathan]

It's not about striping the rights of "innocent law-abiding citizens" but more about ensuring public safety in the long run and reducing accessibility as a whole.

 

[Livewire]

The 2nd Amendment, in its original context, did not affirm individual gun ownership rights, it merely granted a power to the states to raise militias, in the era in which local state/colonial governments were petrified of a federal government taking over and installing a new monarchy, which was a very real fear in 1789 Anerica. So yes, it's archaic, and can't really be extrapolated to 2016/contemporary needs of the state when the language of the amendment is that vague on supposed "individual" rights to gun ownership.

 

[Jetfire]

It's easy for the people who haven't been in life threatening situations, where protection is needed, to just spout the need of no guns. Same goes for politicians, who do not know first hand the daily struggle of living among misguided individuals.

Since some have been comparing America to other countries..

As for Australia, Australians do have a legal right to use a gun for self defense. I was under the impression they were banned. It even seems that hunters can obtain a license at age 10, with the permission of an older licensed user. 200+ homicides per year.

Take a look at Serbia, long automatic, semi automatic and combined firearms, special weapons, or anything equipped with silencers are illegal. However, it seems its citizens still maintain a remarkable stock of illegal weapons. 60+ homicides per year.

Though the UK does have a gun ban. It's possible to acquire one but apparently it's very rare. 30+ homicides per year.

If you're going by statistics, then yes you're right. Less guns = less violence. However, these countries are lacking the fools we have in this country. The everyday shootings are fools who represent streets, a color, or some weird philosophy. The rare mass shootings are fools that lost their sense of reasoning or whatever their problem maybe.

I'll gladly give up my firearm the day the initial problem is solved. What is that problem? Well, it trickles down to so many things. Racial inequality, community segregation.. so many things. Crime and death is higher is poverty stricken areas. That's the reality folks.

What do these people in those areas believe? That its them against the world. That they were born into a fight. "**** the police"? They're constantly blaming the "white man" and they wholeheartedly believe that they're being brought down. How could they not? Their surroundings are shit. This is for another topic.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

It's not about striping the rights of "innocent law-abiding citizens" but more about ensuring public safety in the long run and reducing accessibility as a whole.

Did you you not comprehend Benadryl's post or something? Public safety? Reducing accessibility as a whole? Only for law abiding citizens so its about stripping the rights of innocent law abiding citizens if only criminals have access to firearms.

You people seem to be extremely misguided on how criminals obtain their firearms, it's easy for them. It is absolutely hysterical.

@Gimmepie, gang leaders are rich (or the ones involved with the trades) so no matter how expensive the guns got they'd be able to cover the charge. they stack millions.

@Gimmepie.. Explain to me how that is not 1 Hypocritical and 2 tyranny?? Saying we can't have guns is hypocritical and forcing to seize them even by damaging others property is tyranny. I hope the government pays for any damages done to my home or any injuries they caused during the raids and if I can't have a gun as a law abiding citizen I don't want police to have guns nor do I want politicians protected by people with guns.

 

[Somewhere_]

You weren't threatening anybody. You weren't using your property. You did not act. The only thing relevant is that you had the property. How can I accuse you of threatening violence when literally all that you did in the example was possess that very dangerous vial?

As you can see, I continue to assert my argument that it is in fact the public interest that is overriding your right to your property in that case. I don't mind if you take a couple of days to answer.

If I am aware the vial is very dangerous, I am threatening to violate property rights. This can be dealt with in a court case by be being sued. Its like if I was polluting another's property- I must reimburse the victim, but because I cannot possible reimburse everyone in the world, the only way to make up for this is to properly dispose of the vial.

I still have the right to my property, and no one else does. However, the property cannot be used to violate others' property- their bodies (death). So this example does not show how public interest overrides my right to my property, or how they own my property.

 

[Kanzler]

If I am aware the vial is very dangerous, I am threatening to violate property rights. This can be dealt with in a court case by be being sued. Its like if I was polluting another's property- I must reimburse the victim, but because I cannot possible reimburse everyone in the world, the only way to make up for this is to properly dispose of the vial.

Yes, but you're not polluting anybody or doing anything. I thought I made this clear. Your only relationship to this dangerous vial is that it is your property - you own it and it is physically in your posession.

I still have the right to my property, and no one else does. However, the property cannot be used to violate others' property- their bodies (death). So this example does not show how public interest overrides my right to my property, or how they own my property.

Again, you're not using it. This is not an example of property being misused, because there is no use involved. You're trying to weave around the issue with these technicalities, but I think it is obvious that there is simply no use involved. You possess something and you're sitting on it, that's all.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

@Kanzler. Does the government have the right to take your property no matter what it is? Which would be classified as theft if it's not theirs. (Me and Badsheep are both Libertarians and believes in freedoms of our own choices, property, etc and no one else can enforce it (government) as it's a violation of our property or privacy). So we're asking you, why do they have the right to seize our property? The item is irrelevant, it's still our property.

 

[Kanzler]

@Kanzler. Does the government have the right to take your property no matter what it is? Which would be classified as theft if it's not theirs. (Me and Badsheep are both Libertarians and believes in freedoms of our own choices, property, etc and no one else can enforce it (government) as it's a violation of our property or privacy). So we're asking you, why do they have the right to seize our property? The item is irrelevant, it's still our property.

I'm not making that argument at all, and it's quite simple to see that I'm not.

The argument I'm making is that the right to property is not infinite - there are times that your right to property is checked by something else.

If the item is irrelevant, then I suppose you would say that the government does not have the right to take the humanity-destroying super virus vial.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

If the item is irrelevant, then I suppose you would say that the government does not have the right to take the humanity-destroying super virus vial.

Yes. It's my property therefore they don't have the rights to it. As I said, the item is irrelevant. Taking it would be a violation of my property and belongings. Do we have the rights to confiscate the nuclear power the government owns that would kill all mankind? No. Why should they have the right to take a citizens belongings?

 

[Kanzler]

Yes. It's my property therefore they don't have the rights to it. As I said, the item is irrelevant. Taking it would be a violation of my property and belongings. Do we have the rights to confiscate the nuclear power the government owns that would kill all mankind? No. Why should they have the right to take a citizens belongings?

But the government has the responsibility to protect the security of the people it represents. Are you saying your right to your property always trumps the government's ability to protect its own people?

 

[Somewhere_]

Yes, but you're not polluting anybody or doing anything. I thought I made this clear. Your only relationship to this dangerous vial is that it is your property - you own it and it is physically in your posession.



Again, you're not using it. This is not an example of property being misused, because there is no use involved. You're trying to weave around the issue with these technicalities, but I think it is obvious that there is simply no use involved. You possess something and you're sitting on it, that's all.

It is self defense to take the vial, so it is justified for it to be taken from me. Regardless of my intentions to hurt others or not. Its existence threatens to violate others' property rights, whether I intend to hurt others or not.

You are right- I am not using it. This is like if I owned a tree on my property that will inevitably fall on my neighbor's house and damage the property. In this case, I would have to have it removed despite me not using the tree. The neighbor has no right to the tree- only I do, which is why i have an obligation as a property owner to make sure my property does not damage others' property.

 

[Kanzler]

It is self defense to take the vial, so it is justified for it to be taken from me. Regardless of my intentions to hurt others or not. Its existence threatens to violate others' property rights, whether I intend to hurt others or not.

You are right- I am not using it. This is like if I owned a tree on my property that will inevitably fall on my neighbor's house and damage the property. In this case, I would have to have it removed despite me not using the tree. The neighbor has no right to the tree- only I do, which is why i have an obligation as a property owner to make sure my property does not damage others' property.

There's a lot of talk about property, but where does people's lives and safety come into this? Surely your obligation to make sure your property does not damage other people's lives comes before damage to their property.

 

[Jetfire]

There's a lot of talk about property, but where does people's lives and safety come into this? Surely your obligation to make sure your property does not damage other people's lives comes before damage to their property.

Ok, let's say you and your family live on the countryside. Where your neighbors are about a mile apart. You own an adequate size of property and a firearm. Federal law kicks in and prohibits the use of guns nationwide, your guns are now confiscated. Ok, it's for the greater good.

Now let's suppose a thief or a bear shows up at your property and your family is in immediate danger. The most you can use is probably a knife or a shovel. Most likely someone is going to be severely hurt or even possibly killed. Was it really for the greater good? Did this specific family benefit from the gun ban?

We can come up with so many scenarios but do you see how "protection" can mean life or death for some?

 

[Somewhere_]

There's a lot of talk about property, but where does people's lives and safety come into this? Surely your obligation to make sure your property does not damage other people's lives comes before damage to their property.

I apologize for not explaining properly. I own myself, and my body is my property. So when I say, "having the vial threatens property rights," I am "it violates self-ownership, or their lives." So basically my body is my property, so I can tattoo it, or whatever. But in the same way I cannot use it to harm others (outside of self defense) because it violates their right to self-ownership, or property.

So dont think I sound cold lol. xD

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

But the government has the responsibility to protect the security of the people it represents. Are you saying your right to your property always trumps the government's ability to protect its own people?

No the government is to control not to protect. They rob the US citizens for their own benefits, they seize US citizens property, they create pointless laws to make a quick buck off US citizens. They don't give a fuck about the citizens. They only care about money and power, everything else to them is irrelevant. Why do you think they constantly send us to war while they sit back and watch as we get killed for our so called 'freedoms' when they just want to strip them anyways? So yes the right to my property trumps the governments ability to protect because they don't give a shit if we die or not. If you don't make 6 figures pay you don't even exist. They feel they need to get in everyones privacy and feel they own our property, which is why the government shouldn't be in existence. They only exists to conquer and control, that's it.

 

[Kanzler]

Ok, let's say you and your family live on the countryside. Where your neighbors are about a mile apart. You own an adequate size of property and a firearm. Federal law kicks in and prohibits the use of guns nationwide, your guns are now confiscated. Ok, it's for the greater good.

Now let's suppose a thief or a bear shows up at your property and your family is in immediate danger. The most you can use is probably a knife or a shovel. Most likely someone is going to be severely hurt or even possibly killed. Was it really for the greater good? Did this specific family benefit from the gun ban?

We can come up with so many scenarios but do you see how "protection" can mean life or death for some?

Okay, I'm going to come out on this central issue so my arguments cannot be distorted further.

The US should not ban guns.

Okay. I can now argue a certain point without anybody construing what I mean is "therefore the US should ban guns.

The fact of the matter is that, to use Bernie Sanders' phrasing, "no major country in the world" bans guns. In Germany, you can obtain a license for a gun. In China, you can obtain a license for a gun. In Norway, you can obtain a license for a gun. In the United Kingdom, you can obtain a license for a gun. In Russia, you can get a license for a gun. The only place I know of where you definitively cannot get a gun is in North Korea, although they're way past gun rights.

Yes, the fact of the matter is that all the major countries in the world allows you to obtain a gun on a needs basis. Because there are legitimate needs, such as self-defence in a less-than-accessible region and hunting. Almost all major countries recognize that.

So to finally address the topic of the thread, no, the US should not ban guns. I am against the debate question as it is currently formulated.

But the point is that there's always a tension between the collective interest and the individual interest, in this case between the security of the community and the right to possess a firearm. The right to possess certain objects should be protected to the point that it presents an undue risk to others. We might disagree at which point something becomes an undue risk, but I think no one in their right mind would disagree that there is a balance between public and private interests - no one right is paramount to all others.

I apologize for not explaining properly. I own myself, and my body is my property. So when I say, "having the vial threatens property rights," I am "it violates self-ownership, or their lives." So basically my body is my property, so I can tattoo it, or whatever. But in the same way I cannot use it to harm others (outside of self defense) because it violates their right to self-ownership, or property.

So dont think I sound cold lol. xD

I'm not sure if that's how property rights work. I mean, you could make that assertion, but it has no legal meaning. I do not think what you are saying reflects the legal reality.

No the government is to control not to protect. They rob the US citizens for their own benefits, they seize US citizens property, they create pointless laws to make a quick buck off US citizens. They don't give a **** about the citizens. They only care about money and power, everything else to them is irrelevant. Why do you think they constantly send us to war while they sit back and watch as we get killed for our so called 'freedoms' when they just want to strip them anyways? So yes the right to my property trumps the governments ability to protect because they don't give a **** if we die or not. If you don't make 6 figures pay you don't even exist.

This is way off base, demonstrates zero understanding of my last post, and leads me to question whether or not you're here to discuss something in good faith.

 

[Somewhere_]

I'm not sure if that's how property rights work. I mean, you could make that assertion, but it has no legal meaning. I do not think what you are saying reflects the legal reality.

The law cannot dictate property rights because government breaks property rights all the time (whether one says that is justified is a different debate). To claim it does would be fallacious.

Property exists because we own ourselves and the product of our labor, so by mixing our labor (homesteading) with raw material, land, water, etc, it becomes our property. Because it is our property, we can trade it or do whatever with it so long as it does not violate anyone else's property (self-ownership and property).

Its a whole long explanation, so I attempted to sum it up here.

 

[Kanzler]

The law cannot dictate property rights because government breaks property rights all the time (whether one says that is justified is a different debate). To claim it does would be fallacious.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. You don't "break" a right? The government does not always uphold your right to property, sure, but it also to a certain extent guarantees those rights. I don't see what's fallacious about the fact that rights are guaranteed to a limit.

Property exists because we own ourselves and the product of our labor, so by mixing our labor (homesteading) with raw material, land, water, etc, it becomes our property. Because it is our property, we can trade it or do whatever with it so long as it does not violate anyone else's property (self-ownership and property).

Its a whole long explanation, so I attempted to sum it up here.

I recognize that as the labour theory of property, but I don't know if that carries any weight legally speaking. Furthermore, I think this:

Because it is our property, we can trade it or do whatever with it so long as it does not violate anyone else's property (self-ownership and property).

Is excessively narrow. You could conceivably violate somebody's rights, but that wouldn't necessarily involve violating someone else's property. That too would be wrong, wouldn't it?

 

[Somewhere_]

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. You don't "break" a right? The government does not always uphold your right to property, sure, but it also to a certain extent guarantees those rights. I don't see what's fallacious about the fact that rights are guaranteed to a limit.

Violate, not break haha. How can an entity that violates property rights to "guarantee" property rights uphold property rights?

[/QUOTE] I recognize that as the labour theory of property, but I don't know if that carries any weight legally speaking. Furthermore, I think this: [/QUOTE]

Rather than simply labor theory of property, property is an extension of ourselves. We own the effects of our actions (by replying to me you affirm this), and property is the mixing of our labor with the land. Legality has nothing to do with this because, like I said above, that is fallacious.

[/QUOTE] Is excessively narrow. You could conceivably violate somebody's rights, but that wouldn't necessarily involve violating someone else's property. That too would be wrong, wouldn't it?[/QUOTE]

No one has any rights outside of self-ownership or property. Any other "right" cannot be delegated by any individual or majority of individuals, and it violates either of these two rights. Self-ownership means freedom of speech, what you can do with your body, etc.

What other rights are you talking about that can be violated? And can you expand on how this is excessively narrow?