Gun Rights v. Gun Control | A look at the facts.

[Swazi Spring]

I am posting this to discuss and inform people on the fundamental human right to bear arms. There are quite a few lies and uninformed statements that some unsavory individuals have been throwing around as of late and as a citizen of this great country, it is my duty (as well as your duty) to fight this propaganda. Always remember that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and that "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Lets start by looking at the empirical data, shall we? gun control advocates like to go make bigoted and misinformed statements, alleging that Europeans "have no guns and thus they have no crime." While it is true that some European countries do have lower violent crime rates than the United States, all of the evidence shows that guns have absolutely nothing to do with that. In fact, the data shows that violent crime, including homicide, has been drastically on the rise since the implementation of gun control. For instance, the United Kingdom is known for it's draconian and anti-freedom gun control laws. The first of these laws in recent times was the Gun Control Act of 1968, which introduced strict restrictions on gun ownership and required firearms be registered. This law has been a complete and utter disaster and not only are the people less free, but violent crime rates (including homicide) have skyrocketed and continue to skyrocket. The homicide rate rose 52% since the law was enacted and it continues to rise. In 1997 the British government completely banned handguns, after forcing all owners to register their guns with the 1968 law, this again resulted in violent crime (including homicide) rates skyrocketing and continue to rise. In fact, after the 1997 handgun ban, homicide rates have risen by 15% since the law was enacted. In fact, the countries in Europe that have the lowest crime rates are the ones that have the most gun owners and/or least strict gun laws, such as the Czech Republic, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.

Gun control isn't just a failure in other countries, it's a failure in America as well. In the United States, every time gun control has been implemented, it has failed miserably, made us less free, and empowered criminals. Take for instance the handgun bans in Chicago and the District of Columbia, which have been struck down as unconstitutional. Handguns were completely banned in the District of Columbia in 1976, this resulted in violent crime (including homicide) rates skyrocketing. In the District of Columbia, homicide rates in the District of Columbia rose by 73% since the law was enacted.. Chicago banned handguns in 1981, this resulted in violent crime (including homicide) rates skyrocketing. In Chicago, homicide rates rose by 40% since the law was enacted.

Now lets look at the fundamental human right to concealed carry, shall we? Currently every state except Illinois and the District of Columbia have concealed carry and both of those states are currently in the process of allowing concealed carry, seeing as how not allowing concealed carry violates the United States Constitution (and Illinois Constitution). Concealed carry has been hailed as a massive success, not only for those who love freedom, but also for lowering violent crime (including homicide) rates. Concealed carry has drastically lowered homicide rates everywhere that it has been implemented. Every study conducted shows that the right to concealed carry has saved many lives and has taken virtually zero. In fact, concealed carry has even begun to spread to other countries, such as Canada, the Czech Republic and Israel.

Lets look at what gun control advocates mean when they talk about "big scary assault weapons;" the first thing that pops into your head is probably that they are talking about fully automatic rifles, however, this is not the case. These so-called "assault weapons" that gun control advocates always talk about banning are nothing more than so-called "assault" modifications to guns, such as bayonets and pistol grips. It doesn't cover fully automatic firearms at all, which were previously banned under the Hughes Amendment. All of the evidence shows that fully automatic weapons are used in virtually no crimes. Statistics show that prior to the Hughes Amendment there was not a single instance of a fully automatic gun being used in the commission of a crime. It wasn't until AFTER fully automatic weapons were banned that a crime was committed with one, and in that incident, nobody was killed (other than the two bank robbers). The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 and absolutely nothing bad happened like gun control advocates claimed.

Gun control advocates try to mistakenly say that Barack Obama "supports gun rights" and/or that he "isn't anti-gun rights," even though all of the evidence shows that he is perhaps our most anti-gun rights president in American history. gun control advocates only claim that he is "pro-gun rights," because they want to trick ignorant people into thinking he isn't a horrible person who hates guns and freedom. Throughout Obama's political career, he has made various anti-gun rights statements and support anti-gun rights bills. Barack Obama said that he supports banning semi-automatic guns and increase firearm restrictions. He also said that he supported banning handguns and concealed carry. Obama voted in favor of holding firearm manufacturers responsible for murders. Obama also said he would renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and immediately upon being re-elected, he had his congressional Democrat friends introduce a bill to renew it. Obama also said he believes people living in "inner cities" shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Obama cosponsored a bill that only allowed citizens to buy one gun a month. Obama also said he supports requiring guns be registered and licensed. Obama said that he believes that local gun bans do not violate the Second Amendment. Obama also said that he would consider supporting a ban on buying ammunition online. This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of all of the anti-gun rights statements Obama has made and the anti-gun rights bills he has supported.

Gun control advocates try to claim that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not refer to an individual right, but instead refers to the right of individual states to form militias (such as National Guards). This claim is completely false and has been disproved many times. First off the rights of the states to form militias is already protected under Article I of the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment is as follows: "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." As you can see, the Second Amendment does allow for the creation of a military force, which makes sense, since you need a national military to defend your country. However, the Founding Fathers separated the right to form a militia from the right of the people to bear arms. Note the grammatical separation and note how it says the right of the people, as opposed to the "right of the militia."

Every legal reference in history to the right to keep and bear arms has referred to it as an individual right. The first recorded use of the 'right to keep and bear arms' comes from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which referred explicitly to an individual right. Fourty-four of the fifty states protect the right to keep in their state constitutions and this right refers to an individual right in all fourty-four of them. The right to keep and bear arms has always referred to an individual right in other countries constitutions as well. Islamic law also calls for governments to respect for the individual right of the people to bear arms, though this right is not generally respected by Muslim countries in practice. The Second Amendment does not create any new rights, it only protects a pre-existing natural right that all sapient beings have. This has been proven time and time again by the Founding Fathers, the United States Supreme Court, John Locke and countless classical liberal philosophers.

Now lets look at United States case law and legal precedent for the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in general. As previously mentioned, the first recorded legal usage of the right to keep and bear arms comes from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Prior to the formation of the United States, the Thirteen Colonies also had a long-standing history of having a right to bear arms, which included the right to self-defense. Prior to the United States Constitution being formed, states that had declared their independence from Great Britain had protected the right to bear arms in their state constitutions and it included the right to self-defense. For instance, the 1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania states that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." When the United States Constitution was being drafted and ratified, the Founding Fathers stated explicitly that the right to bear arms was a right of the people, not a "right of the militia" as some gun control advocates claim. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers wanted to require every free citizen to own a gun, viewing it as a civic duty. I will provide a list of these quotes from the Founding Fathers towards the end of this post.

Interpretation of the Second Amendment has always been that of recognizing it as an individual right. In fact, it was most commonly interpreted as a right that cannot under any circumstances be restricted or limited. Even foreigners held this view, including William Blackstone, who wrote about it in his Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Second Amendment uses the term "shall not be infringed," which not only states that the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing natural right, but also that it shall not be infringed upon. In fact, the only real criticism levied against the Second Amendment, was by those who thought it didn't provide enough protection to the right to bear arms. St. George Tucker and William Rawle, two lawyers and abolitionists (and in the case of Tucker, a Virginia Supreme Court justice) were among those who criticized the Second Amendment for not protecting the rights of gun owners enough. Tucker and Rawle argued that the Second Amendment needed to have provisions in order to help the poor be able to exercise their right to bear arms; they viewed this as difficult under the current laws, seeing as how many poor people couldn't afford firearms. Joseph Story, an early federal Supreme Court justice wrote in his work, Commentaries on the Constitution, that: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Story also wrote that the right to bear arms is a natural right. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that all restrictions placed on the federal government also apply to state and local governments. One of the main reasons this amendment was added to the Constitution was because former slave states would often times refuse to allow freed slaves to bear arms, which violated their rights as protected under the Second Amendment.

It wasn't until the late 20th and early 19th century that socialists and so-called "progressives" tried to re-interpret the Second Amendment to mean a collective right to form state militias. Dred Scott v. Sandford ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, however it also ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to slaves. United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois and Miller v. Texas ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, however, it also ruled that the First and Second Amendments only limit the federal government. United States v. Miller ruled that that: "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," which is to say that the people consist of the militia. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez ruled that the Second Amendment (and the Bill of Rights in general) was an individual right that also applied to non-citizen aliens. United States v. Lopez ruled that the so-called "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990" violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. United States v. Emerson, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago reaffirmed that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right that applies to state and local governments, as well as the federal government. Moore v. Madigan ruled that the ban on concealed carry in Illinois violated the Second Amendment and was thus unconstitutional, requiring Illinois to adopt concealed carry.

Lets also take a look at what the Founding Fathers had to say about the Second Amendment and right to bear arms:
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." -Thomas Jefferson

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;" -Thomas Jefferson

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character." -Alexander Hamilton

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -John Adams

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " -Noah Webster

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tenche Coxe

"[The new government] shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." -William Symmes

"[A standing army] if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" -Theodore Sedwick

"[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it." -Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." -Patrick Henry

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?" -Patrick Henry

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..." -George Mason

"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zacharia Johnson

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." -Virginia delegation to the constitutional convention

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -Albert Gallatin

"[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded." -Roger Sherman

As you can clearly see, gun control is not only a failure, but it also takes away our freedom and is unconstitutional. What can we do to lower violent crime rates then? That is a good question and the answer to the question doesn't include gun control. I believe we should primarily focus on the causes of violent crime, as opposed to focusing on the symptoms. We need to overhaul our public education system and work to eliminate poverty. As for guns, we should protect the right of the people to bear arms, including the right to concealed carry. We should also bring back firearms classes in public schools, these classes would teach our young people about gun safety and responsibility.


Sources
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
https://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html
https://supreme.justia.com/us/116/252/case.html
https://supreme.justia.com/us/307/174/case.html
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
https://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/153/535/case.html
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.americanbar.org/content/..._PetitionerAmCuHeartlandInst.authcheckdam.pdf
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stor...ow-concealed-carry-saves-many-lives-takes-few
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/research-concealed-carry-and-guns-save-lives-95307939.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/12/20121218132050819.html
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

 

[Zakamutt]

I don't live in your great country. I also think you're pretty silly in general.

 

[Swazi Spring]

I don't live in your great country. I also think you're pretty silly in general.

The great thing about gun rights is that it's universal and all sapient beings have the right to bear arms.

 

[Crazed_seal2]

The right to bear arms isn't a fundamental human right. We don't have it here in Australia, and nor do many other nations. Australia is doing just fine without guns.

The United States needs to start acting like European nations because Europe has done everything before.
It's time to man up.

 

[Zakamutt]

The great thing about gun rights is that it's universal and all sapient beings have the right to bear arms.

Not sure if troll or serious.

 

[Nuclear]

Apparently this bullshit is a copy paste that has been spreading on several forums

http://www.pcgamer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=241525
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1240092-Gun-Rights-A-look-at-the-facts
http://www.wcreplays.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143389
http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=65746203&f=119&o=0
http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=74062
http://www.christianforums.com/t7709740/
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2204851
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=145911

So yeah...

Edit: also see this
List of countries by firearm-related death rate
USA at 12, exceeded almost only by third world countries.

 

[Magtheridon96]

^It's satisfying to not see Lebanon on that list.

Although this seems like the work of a bot, Swazi Spring is a legit person. :v

 

[Nuclear]

Maybe he is one of the NRA deployed goons.

 

[Crayons]

basically what OP is saying

"the right to bear arms = the right to bear guns, automatic and semi and high-powered"

if I was an insane maniac trying to leave a mark on this world and I had a crossbow I probably won't be able to send 20 kids to their graves.

 

[Orcnet]

The great thing about gun rights is that it's universal and all sapient beings have the right to bear arms.

^bare arms not a bear silly

also my country does not do such motive mainly because of corrupt maneuvers and if this will be approve in some cases the country I live in will end up on a massive gang or civil wars

 

[fladdermasken]

if I was an insane maniac trying to leave a mark on this world and I had a crossbow I probably won't be able to send 20 kids to their graves.

If you were an insane maniac trying to leave a mark on this world, what's stopping you from getting firearms? Legal restrictions?

Sure sucks going to jail strictly for gun possession when you just murdered 20 kids.

 

[Crayons]

If you were an insane maniac trying to leave a mark on this world, what's stopping you from getting firearms? Legal restrictions?

Sure sucks going to jail strictly for gun possession when you just murdered 20 kids.

*sure sucks going to jail strictly for gun possession before being able to murder 20 kids.

+ if that legal restriction regarding firearms reduces the chances of mass murder then it is an ok for me.

^bare arms not a bear silly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

 

[Dr Super Good]

You are aware that most of the people on this site do not live in the United States of America?

As a citizen of the United Kingdom I strongly encourage the banning of all firearms outside of special liscenced use (which is very difficult to get) like we have here.

 

[Nuclear]

If you were an insane maniac trying to leave a mark on this world, what's stopping you from getting firearms? Legal restrictions?

Sure sucks going to jail strictly for gun possession when you just murdered 20 kids.

What percentage of gun accidents and crimes are caused by "insane maniacs"?

 

[DZerpic]

Hi everyone!
The poster is evidently a bot/troll (trollbot?) but the matter discussed is not to be taken lightly. The banning of firearms is good. Making guns hard to come by for the civilian population keeps, and would keep (in the case of the US), things like this from happening so often.

But the goverments shouldn't stop there. The problem is not that guns kill, they are just machines. The problem is in the minds on men, the society. Morals and Ethics have lost importance rapidly in the last century and that's absolutly NOT good.

I feel that violence has risen way too much way too fast in the last couple years and it is frightening.

Note that I'm not referring solely to localised incidents like the one of recent discussion. I'm also talking about wars, cases like the most recent events in the Ghaza border.

 

[Dr Super Good]

The poster is evidently a bot/troll (trollbot?) but the matter discussed is not to be taken lightly.

If you look at his post pattern he is not a robot. Too much interactivity.

 

[Jazztastic]

Explain how banning fire arms would do anything to stop gun violence. Try to explain it.

In 20 minutes of work within the tor browser I could have a fully automatic weapon mailed piece by piece to my house from 20 different countries, completely untraceable. It would be an unmarked, unregistered firearm (already illegal and the FBI still can't stop it). Banning guns won't stop me from ordering a rifle off of the silk road forums, or other similar sites.

More over, do you want a ban on all rifles, military style rifles, all guns, handguns, or what? All the liberals are pushing for bans on "military style assault rifles". The funny thing is that hunting rifles can sometimes have far higher calibers than the rifles used in the military. Also take a look at recent kill counts, 26 killed with two handguns in Connecticut, 2 killed with an assault rifle at the Portland mall.

There are over 331,000,000 registered fire arms in the continental US alone. If you ban those weapons, how will you collect them? Are you going to walk up to a man and demand he lays down his means of protection? And that's just registered. There are millions of unregistered guns floating around in the hands of gangs, and organized crime.

Banning guns is idiotic, but trying to enforce a gun ban would be impossible.

Plus consider the following; if there had been 5 concealed carries in that movie theatre James Holmes would probably have been shot and killed before he finished killing those innocent men and women. If all the teachers had been trained and armed in firearm use Adam Lamza probably wouldn't have reached his full kill count.

I'm all for arming the masses.

 

[Dr Super Good]

If all the teachers had been trained and armed in firearm use Adam Lamza probably wouldn't have reached his full kill count.

Which brings me to the counter argument I raised in another thread...

Why should one have to take militry training to be a teacher?

In 20 minutes of work within the tor browser I could have a fully automatic weapon mailed piece by piece to my house from 20 different countries, completely untraceable.

In the UK the ordering of any gun part would trigger a customs investigation when it tries to enter the country. You will receive the part but shortly also a visit from law enforcement to arrest you for illegal firearms.

There are over 331,000,000 registered fire arms in the continental US alone. If you ban those weapons, how will you collect them? Are you going to walk up to a man and demand he lays down his means of protection?

The UK did that when it introduced its fire arm policies. Even muskets and historic guns were taken and destroyed or atleast rendered unusable. Although there are more people in the USA it is perfectly viable.

There are millions of unregistered guns floating around in the hands of gangs, and organized crime.

Which has been allowed to happen under old gun law policies. Are you going to check every gun you see for it being legal? As you said there are 331 million registered guns in the USA, a few million unregistered guns are drowned by all those.

Banning guns is idiotic, but trying to enforce a gun ban would be impossible.

The UK has tried and succeded. Those who are allowed guns need very diffiuclt to get (and expensive) permits. You are not allowed to carry a fire arm in public even if you have the liscence to own one. Even the poliece carry guns only in extreem situations (armed robbery or fire arm incidents). Although there are illegal guns, they are much easier to spot as you know there is a high chance any gun you see is illegal. Are you really saying the USA is so usless that a small country like the UK can do things it cannot? I highly doubt that is the case.

Plus consider the following; if there had been 5 concealed carries in that movie theatre James Holmes would probably have been shot and killed before he finished killing those innocent men and women. If all the teachers had been trained and armed in firearm use Adam Lamza probably wouldn't have reached his full kill count.

What a world that would be. Having to stay aleart 24/7 and be ready with your gun to shoot people who will try to kill you with their gun. Where does this sound famailiar? Oh yeh animals do exactly that watching out for predators 24/7. We are not animals, we are humans so there is no need.

 

[Skycraft]

If they are going to ban guns they should just ban overpowered weapons like shotguns, automatics and the such. A handgun is pretty much as lethal as a knife and you see those everyday.

Do you want to ban knives too?

 

[Coolty44]

Its funny though.. When you actually delve into WHY the 2nd amendment was created, you'll find that its real purpose was to actually help people defend their villages from the British by creating a right that could not be limited by law.

Nowadays, Americans have more guns in their houses then they do toilet paper rolls. I mean, every time theres a shooting, someone always stand up and says "Well, it would have never happened if the other person had a gun!". Really? If you didn't allow every Tom Dick and Harry to have a gun then nobody would need a gun to defend themselves.

Yes, there is the fact that there is probably millions in unregistered weapons, but really, that's your own fault, and that's something that you're probably going to have to deal with for 20 some odd years when and if you start banning guns. But again, oh well, it's the US's fault for breeding a culture that can order a custom made gun online and have it shipped to your front door in 5-7 business days.

 

[fladdermasken]

*sure sucks going to jail strictly for gun possession before being able to murder 20 kids.

How did you manage to get caught before you even used it?

"Hey, look at this cool new trench coat I bought. Double-breasted with 10 front buttons, and the lining is super soft against my naked chest. Did I mention I smuggled this .22 Rimfire last week?"

Law is a deterrent at best. A promise of consequence. It doesn't smite the gunman in the act, it slaps him on the wrist after months worth of criminal procedures.

+ if that legal restriction regarding firearms reduces the chances of mass murder then it is an ok for me.

You know what reduces the chances of mass murder on a large scale? People. Armed people. People equipped for self-defence. If I knew people around me were liable to carry a weapon, I'd be dead stupid before I pulled my own.

What percentage of gun accidents and crimes are caused by "insane maniacs"?

Did you read th part I quoted? That's what I responded to. When someone make an analogy about an insane dude with a big ass gun, well, gotta play the part.

Anyways, chance favors the prepared mind. As people grow experienced carrying and handling a firearm, and live in a society that accepts it, I wager accidents will drop steadily. Now what if gun safety and refresher courses were mandatory throughout public schooling? What if we let people grow into their new clothes instead of forcing it over their heads?

Which brings me to the counter argument I raised in another thread...

Why should one have to take militry training to be a teacher?

You're twisting it. The question should be "why should one want to learn how to handle firearms?"

Answer: For all the reasons we have been trying to convey. That's basically the point of it all.

What a world that would be. Having to stay aleart 24/7 and be ready with your gun to shoot people who will try to kill you with their gun.

Not really. First, people are the most dangerous thing near you anyways. Second, if everyone had guns, to actually pull a weapon, on a whim or otherwise, would be crazy risky and inherently stupid. Fear of consequences has always kept a huge majority of people in check.

---

I'm going to leave something Hakeem posted way back. Not gonna lie, it's pretty awesome.

Person	No guns	No gun control
Good	Swell.	At least my fellow citizens and I can shoot bad people when they come up.
Bad	At least I can still use <X other weapon. Probably a gun anyway>.	Damn. Everybody's just waiting for me to slip up.
Zen	I might be shot by a bad guy.	I might be shot by a good guy.
Paranoid	I need a gun so a bad guy doesn't shoot me.	I need to get the guns away from everybody because one of them might shoot me.
Hunter	Guns spoil good meat. Razor sharp arrow heads are the only true way to destroy life.	I can kill so much more with this baby than that savage can.
Very Experienced Person	My dad got shot when I was five. If we had a gun we could have saved him.	My dad got shot when I was five. At least we got the bastard who shot him.
Logical	Well, if you look at it from a logical point of view, you'll come to the conclusion that gun control is a good thing.	Well, if you look at it from a logical point of view, you'll come to the conclusion that no gun control is a good thing.
Logician	Look at the table.	Didn't you hear me? Look at the damned table you bloody illogical moron.
Dick Cheney	I don't have a gun. You're hallucinating from the shock of being shot.	Sorry, I thought you were a quail.
Officer	Step away from the kitten and put your hands behind your head! I said step away from the kitten!	I can see I'm not needed here.
Zombie	>	D;<

 

[Dr Super Good]

You're twisting it. The question should be "why should one want to learn how to handle firearms?"

Except it is totally unnescescary skill if there were no guns in the first place.

How many high school shootings happen in the UK? How many in the USA? How many per capita in the USA compared to the UK?

Biggest problem we have hear is a knife, but you can still defend yourself against knives without needing your own.

Not really. First, people are the most dangerous thing near you anyways. Second, if everyone had guns, to actually pull a weapon, on a whim or otherwise, would be crazy risky and inherently stupid. Fear of consequences has always kept a huge majority of people in check.

Too bad modern day games and movies have softend people that some feel no effort in killing a real person even for the first time.

 

[Nuclear]

overpowered weapons like shotguns

Shotgun is a hunting weapon.

Let me raise this important point;

Oh golly gee, I could order a gun from this shady place without getting caught!

That is such an asinine argument against gun control. What percentage of people could manage to do that? And it's not about criminals, how many school shootings have been committed by experienced criminals? Yeah... Many shootings are done by people who have problems and unstable state of mind. Those people aren't going to order any gun with tor when they are having a sudden burst of rage.

I'll just throw this recent example which gained some media attention in my country;
http://yle.fi/uutiset/two_dead_7_injured_in_hyvinkaa_shootings/6136158

he acquired the weapons used in the shootings from acquaintances.

So the shooter basically took his acquaintance's gun and went on spree. Yeah, if the guns weren't there, he would probably have ordered them with tor browser and waited for the postage time, and hoped that the package wouldn't be caught on the x-ray scanner, and after the guns might have arrived, he would still be having that burst of rage.

 

[Greenwhy]

I haven't read this whole thread tbh. I see someone else mentioned Australia. We suffered a massacre (Port Arthur massacre) in 1996 which provided the impetus for our strict gun laws. There have been no massacres since then and there were 14 in the same time period before 1996. You can still get a gun if u can demonstrate the need (control of feral animals etc) or for use at shooting ranges if you can demonstrate your commitment to gun safety. There is still a black market and people still die but there are no massacres.....

Having said all that I don't think there is much point in comparing countries because there is such a massive culture difference. Also, there are many safe gun owners in the US I am sure.

Personally I like the gun control here in Australia but I think the main thing for the US would be to curb the availability of automatic weapons. I also think there should be a longer waiting time and other controls like that.

 

[DZerpic]

Ever heard of nuclear deterrence? Cold War, US had nukes an the USSR had nukes. Neither one of them wanted to use them because they were afraid the other one might respond the same way. Result: For more than 40 years everyone lived in fear of getting nuked.

It's stupid. And it'd be the same if everyone had a gun. Cases like Newtown's would still happen. Except it'd be a shoot out, the civilians wouldn't have proper trainning because not everyone wants to undergo proper trainning or has the time.

Civilians could kill civilians by mistake. Family members could kill the killing civilian in revenge and that would be a complete chaos.

That kind of deterrence doesn't work. If everyone had guns it would be total anarchy. And that's why there's law and law enforcers. Ok, I guess you could get gun parts from all around the world and have a functional assault rifle to shoot people with but, I for one, wouldn't know how to do it and I bet there's a very high percentage of people that also wouldn't.

The problem is what makes a man WANT to kill 20 kids at a school. You don't solve the problem by having everyone with a gun, you'd probably make it worse.

 

[fladdermasken]

Ever heard of nuclear deterrence? Cold War, US had nukes an the USSR had nukes. Neither one of them wanted to use them because they were afraid the other one might respond the same way. Result: For more than 40 years everyone lived in fear of getting nuked.

Yeah that's deterrence. Result: Neither one of them wanted to use them.

Cases like Newtown's would still happen. Except it'd be a shoot out, the civilians wouldn't have proper trainning because not everyone wants to undergo proper trainning or has the time.

In public shootings, how do you figure one bad guy with a gun against heaps of unarmed civilians is better odds than if he pulled a gun among heaps of armed civilians? Wouldn't he be gunned down before having done anywhere near as much damage?

Civilians could kill civilians by mistake.

Anyways, chance favors the prepared mind. As people grow experienced carrying and handling a firearm, and live in a society that accepts it, I wager accidents will drop steadily. Now what if gun safety and refresher courses were mandatory throughout public schooling? What if we let people grow into their new clothes instead of forcing it over their heads?

Family members could kill the killing civilian in revenge and that would be a complete chaos.

That can happen in a society with gun regulations too. Think about it. We covered this at least a couple times already. If you're so adament about revenge you are willing to empty a clip in someone's face, no gun control in the world is going to stop you exerting it.

I for one, wouldn't know how to do it and I bet there's a very high percentage of people that also wouldn't.

I wager 20 minutes on google. You don't know because you're not interested in finding out, not because you can't get the information.

The problem is what makes a man WANT to kill 20 kids at a school.

Not just carrying a firearm, that's for sure.

Many shootings are done by people who have problems and unstable state of mind. Those people aren't going to order any gun with tor when they are having a sudden burst of rage.

It's not usually a sudden burst of rage. Most shootings I have heard of have been people bringing a firearm for that purpose, not happening to have it on their person and empty it on a whim. That takes planning at least to the point of actually finding a gun and bringing it with you.

Except it is totally unnescescary skill if there were no guns in the first place.

There are always guns.

A. You can't ban guns because people use them for hunting.
B. Gun trade doesn't stop. It's only out of legal hands. Where there's demand there will be supply.

Too bad modern day games and movies have softend people that some feel no effort in killing a real person even for the first time.

What if they held the gun to their own head?

 

[DZerpic]

Today, in my city there were multiple sackings to, mostly, super markets. The vandals clashed several times with law enforcement units. Sadly, three people died. But still, all the looters had against the cops was just a bunch of rocks.

Imagine the tragedy if they had easy access to guns.

I'm not in the US or you probably would've heard it in the news. And in my country, Argentina, you need very special permits to get guns. There are other ways of course, but all you may see are some crappy handguns. And, of course, you better not get caught walking the streets with an illegal fire arm.

Had the civilians used their legally and easily acquired guns against the police, the law enforces would've had to respond in a similar fashion.

There were only three sad deaths.

I'm just trying to relate a practical, empirical situation because I had been adressing the subject with only theory and I doesn't seem to be getting, at least me, nowhere.

 

[Dr Super Good]

A. You can't ban guns because people use them for hunting.

Which should be banned as well. There is no need to Hunt anymore thanks to modern day farming techniques. If you want to hunt go run out nacked and try and restle a bear as that is the only real way to do it. If you want to behave like an animal then do so but do not expect to use human engineering to do so as that is for humans.

B. Gun trade doesn't stop. It's only out of legal hands. Where there's demand there will be supply.

Yes but the effort needed to get a gun will drasticly increase. Low criminals who currently are armed with guns will not be able to aford an illegal gun due to the premium associated with the black market. They will thus have to use other kinds of weapons such as much less dangerous Knives which are easier to deal with.

Premium criminal orginizations will still use guns, but they will do so more carefully. As soon as a gun is used once to shoot someone it is known as a wanted gun so loses most of its value. Thus these orginizations will drop gun use on a daily baisis to save money.

What if they held the gun to their own head?

They end up like all other guys who go on a killing spree and end up killing themselves by shooting themselves in the head.

 

[Nuclear]

Which should be banned as well. There is no need to Hunt anymore thanks to modern day farming techniques. If you want to hunt go run out nacked and try and restle a bear as that is the only real way to do it. If you want to behave like an animal then do so but do not expect to use human engineering to do so as that is for humans.

I have to point out that this is false in so many places. If mooses weren't hunted, it would cause significant rise in moose related driving accidents. So hunting them saves more lives than hunting accidents take. I don't know about other places, but here we regularly eat meat that is hunted instead of grew in farms (I haven't heard of moose or deer farms anyway).

 

[Radicool]

Shame on me for not reading that, lol. However I live in Australia. Nobody carries guns. I dont feel I need a gun to be safe. I'm not saying Australia is a great place. Simply put, I'm happy with our gun laws.

I think America would be a better place if people didn't walk around with a gun in their pocket. I remember somebody telling me a suburb somewhere (to be specific, lol) where nobody locks their doors at night. Its really a nice thing to hear trust to that degree. It's just that change is a difficult thing for people.

 

[Blackhole]

http://news.yahoo.com/firefighters-shot-dead-upstate-ny-fire-150346447--abc-news-topstories.html

Firstly a school of kids, now firefighters. Tell me why should these mother ****ers live, why should death penalty remain abolished and why should there be no gun control and tighting up who gets the gun at all. This is what happens when too much freedom is given.

http://news.yahoo.com/pro-gun-rights-us-petition-deport-piers-morgan-130319681.html

Now, gun-rights activists are fighting back.

Gun rights activists? Screw you, find other ways to defend yourself. Moronic population.

 

[Nuclear]

http://news.yahoo.com/firefighters-shot-dead-upstate-ny-fire-150346447--abc-news-topstories.html

Firstly a school of kids, now firefighters. Tell me why should these mother ****ers live, why should death penalty remain abolished and why should there be no gun control and tighting up who gets the gun at all. This is what happens when too much freedom is given.

http://news.yahoo.com/pro-gun-rights-us-petition-deport-piers-morgan-130319681.html



Gun rights activists? Screw you, find other ways to defend yourself. Moronic population.

So now this is a death penalty debate? I'll tell you why, it's uncivilized, stupid, brutal and innocent people will die.

 

[Swazi Spring]

It's nice to see some stimulating conversation have been generated from this. Thanks everyone for (mostly) being respectful in the thread.

Also, I am not a bot or a troll. I'm just active on a number of forums. I did write my original post myself, after having done extensive research on the subject. I did not copy-paste the work of someone else.

 

[I3lackDeath]

I cleared the thread and separated the discussions --> Hunting: Necessity or Luxury.

Please, stay on topic here in the future.

 

[Nuclear]

It's nice to see some stimulating conversation have been generated from this. Thanks everyone for (mostly) being respectful in the thread.

Also, I am not a bot or a troll. I'm just active on a number of forums. I did write my original post myself, after having done extensive research on the subject. I did not copy-paste the work of someone else.

Even though I don't agree with you on this issue, I have to salute you for sparking this discussion.

 

[Total_Warrior]

Society is made up of retards who have a passion for scapegoating. The NRA is now blaming video games for the Sandy school shooting. What the fuck? There has NEVER been an incident like this because of violence in video games. Sure we all find killing in video games entertaining but that doesn't mean that we are going to go out and kill people. People constantly have to put the blame on something. Like if someone shot 5 people because his eraser ran out then fuck we might as well just blame it on erasers and ban erasers everywhere right? Now people are arguing about fucking gun control. It's not the gun's fault. It's the person who's wielding it. It's YOUR own fault.

 

[Jazztastic]

Society is made up of retards who have a passion for scapegoating. The NRA is now blaming video games for the Sandy school shooting. What the fuck? There has NEVER been an incident like this because of violence in video games. Sure we all find killing in video games entertaining but that doesn't mean that we are going to go out and kill people. People constantly have to put the blame on something. Like if someone shot 5 people because his eraser ran out then fuck we might as well just blame it on erasers and ban erasers everywhere right? Now people are arguing about fucking gun control. It's not the gun's fault. It's the person who's wielding it. It's YOUR own fault.

Prove there isn't a link between violent video games and violent crime.

 

[Zakamutt]

Prove there isn't a link between violent video games and violent crime.

Prove there is.

 

[I3lackDeath]

There has not been any scientific proof (yet) that playing brutal videogames causes violent behaviour - the only thing that could be observed is that we judge and perceive violence differently, depending on whether it happens virtually or in reality.
People who DO have violent urges, related to such video games, usually already have psychological problems beforehand.
Therefore, this whole issue can be viewed as one of many influences, and it's not right to blame it all on videogames due to lack of justification, proof and reasoning.

This just always has to come up when discussing gun control / gun related violence.
I hope you won't board this train too much, as it could potentially derail this discussion - there are so many more areas that have to be considered when discussing gun control, and the relation (if existent) between virtual and real violence would be deserving of a separate thread.

 

[Jazztastic]

Prove there is.

I'm actually on his side but it's best to be skeptical. Everything I've found points to no link, but there are other people inside this thread even (DSG) who support that there is a link.

13lackdeath it's very relevant because of the NRA saying video games causing violence, so it's not even close to derailing.

 

[I3lackDeath]

I'm actually on his side but it's best to be skeptical. Everything I've found points to no link, but there are other people inside this thread even (DSG) who support that there is a link.

13lackdeath it's very relevant because of the NRA saying video games causing violence, so it's not even close to derailing.

I said that it can potentially derail this discussion, I did not state it does or that it is irrelevant - it is, but also just one of many aspects in this discussion.

It is only natural that the NRA took this up. What I dislike is their shortsided view on this matter, using it as nothing but a scapegoat.

 

[dracemia]

I've always found that Gun debate bring reasonable liberals and conservatives to the table, where it represent the core idea of both side.

Pro-Gun arguments are usually "For self-protection", which represent the conservative's general beliefs that humans are inherently evil and will commit crime once given a chance and vice versa for the liberals. I'm not saying it's wrong to be real or to trust in people.


Back to the current discussion, there have been numerous attempt at attacking videogames for inducing violence in my country. Not something severely extreme like the Sandy Hook incidents but the concerns are directed at the youth population.

GTA was banned in my country after an 8th grader robbed a cab driver knife-point, the media kept insisting that the kid imitate the act of robbery from GTA where he'll get money by robbing people.

Yes, that is incredibly stupid way of linking 2 things together.

However, in the instance of GTA and it's contents, It proves that most violence shown in gaming and other media are re-enacted from real life situation.


My statement would be "Videogames did not invent violence and crime. They exist in human society since the dawn of civilization. These violence are all around us, everywhere globally, locally and even within a household.

Access to guns enable these violence to inflict fatal injuries when they happen."

 

[Ender]

My biggest issue with gun control is that unless you have the right to defend yourself you do not have the right to be free.
think about it if you have no way of defending yourself, your property how can you possibly be free? what stops someone from taking away your undeniable rights? the government? your neighbor? what happens when its the governments? what happens when its your neighbor? I may be paranoid, but, The whole reason My country, America, was able to gain its independence was that pretty much everyone had a gun and knew how to use one.
Lets look at it from a different angle, whats to stop someone from murdering people with a knife? what if this person is big and immensely strong? Lets be honest the Whole Conneticut thing could have been managed with a knife, or a bomb made from common household items, such as salt or potash.
Besides which he could have gotten the gun on the black market which he would have if he had meant to get away with the whole thing¹

The only gun murder gun control will stop is crimes of passion, and even then the number murders won't decrease that much, instead you will have knife and blunt object murders go up.

and finally in my defense of guns I will tell you the classic story of Joe and Bob. The Government issued a proclamation telling everyone to turn in their guns. Joe did so immediately, he was a law abiding citizen. Bob on the other hand didn't, he had gotten his gun on the black market, so they didn't know he had it. Bob looked at this proclamation as the government way of giving him easy people to rob. ²


1: gun registration etc.. makes guns bought the right way very easy to track
2:I would also like to point out that it is very hard to carry a cop around with you, and I would also like to point out that police response is minutes to slow in most cases.
I would also like to point out that people armed with sticks and stones never win against people armed with guns, when the people armed with said weapon aren't afraid to use it.

Access to guns enable these violence to inflict fatal injuries when they happen."

people have been killing people for a very long time.
Its very easy to kill someone with your bear hands, a gun is easier true, but still, its not that hard to kill someone with your bear hands, or with a knife, or with a car, or with a stick, a rock, dental floss.

 

[dracemia]

Ender, first of all. Kudos.

That is precisely all the arguments used to halted most anti-gun arguments in one post. Extremely well-constructed.


I know that half of the anti-gun arguments are based solely on trust and in reality, there're always going to be people who exploit these gaps for even the littlest of things.

Yes, the gun restriction will reduce the fatality occur to the victims in many cases and yes, there'll still be illegal guns owners and criminals who'd threaten the welfare of the populace easier when defensive weapons for homeowners are reduced to butter knife. It's not going to be easy to just educate the next generation against violence when the current and previous one are still stuck within the circle of violence.

But if not starting now, then when ?

I know this won't make a good point but, we have to start believing in people. Believe that human are not inherently evil and are capable of overcoming their greed with personal virtue.


The whole gun-debate is right here. Whether to start trusting people, while realistically, some will lose their lives in the process...

or

Continue living with this never ending circle of violence-made-easy. Humans are fragile, biologically... and with guns, a bullet is all it takes.

ps. lol death by dental floss

 

[GhostThruster]

Watch bowling for columbine. It's a horribly biased documentary, but it raises a lot of good points. It doesn't stop at 'guns are bad', it factors in stuff like America's paranoid culture, and also its highly capitalist society.

 

[Strikest]

People are violent creatures by nature. Why arm them? If people need to defend themselves, there are plenty of nonlethal alternatives. The fact remains that there is absolutely no need for guns. Why kill someone when you can disable them just as easily with a stun gun? It's the 21st century for God's sake, there's much better technology for disabling human beings without the need of taking human life...We don't have to stick with such medieval instruments of murder to defend ourselves.

 

[Ender]

@Strikest, the stun gun you are talking about is a tasar right? you'll probably miss and you will need to fire it. A shotgun on the other hand won't miss and you probably won't need to use it, the threat is enough.

We don't have to stick with such medieval instruments of murder to defend ourselves.

What would you use instead of a Gun? (also you are letting your Bias show way to clearly)

 

[Nuclear]

Where I live Tasers aren't allowed if you don't work as a guard or in a similar profession. Here's a thing; keep your house locked properly and people won't sneak in.

 

[Ender]

@Nuclear keeping your house locked up properly doesn't do you any good, the only thing a lock does is keep an honest person honest.

 

[Nuclear]

Then why do people use locks? If we take the mentality that "they're going to do it anyway" and "that doesn't stop them" on everything, then we can just throw every safety measure out of the window. I'm fairly sure that locks do help people keeping their possessions safe...