Ask Your Question today
What is your opinion on gun control? Please choose from the first two answers if you're a US citizen. If you're from any other country, you can choose between the latter options.
| Guns make a country safer (US citizen) | 18 | |
| Only violent people buy guns, so it's better to ban them. (US citizen) | 7 | |
| Every man has the right to defend himself, I'm pro guns. | 42 | |
| I don't care how small your penis is, you don't need a gun! | 35 |
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
------
That's the obvious conclusion. Banning guns won't stop criminals from obtaining them illegally, but only prevent the honest citizens from defending themselves against these criminals.
A thief would be able break into whatever place he wants in confidence that he won't be shot at.
A murderer can go about killing people with zero risk to his own life.
Throughout history, whenever a country attempted a ban on guns, crime has increased.
------
That's the answer I gave last time:
http://isitnormal.com/story/is-it-normal-that-i-get-frustrated-at-pro-gun-control-people-121337/?fm=d
Can you please give me some statistics on how gun bans increase crime? I did some research on it, and I can't find anything that supports your claims.
"A murderer can go about killing people with zero risk to his own life."
You do know what cops are for, right? If you ban guns your country won't degenerate into lawlessness. Otherwise, the US would have a much lower crime rate compared to other countries.
It's true that criminals will be able to get guns, but it'll be way harder for them. The average criminal won't go around killing civilians, that's not profitable. Only lunatics do that. Those psycho's are civilians most of the time, so they don't have much access to illegal circuits.
If I recall it right, Bill Clinton once made a ten year law in the US where people weren't allowed to buy heavy firearms anymore. Cops were thrilled, since street gangs had a lot less firepower that way. So it does have a positive effect on street violence
But then the law expired, president Bush was pressured by gun lobbies so he wouldn't prolong it. As a result, crime rates went through the roof again.
"You do know what cops are for, right?"
When seconds matter, police are only minutes away. The average police response time is about 10 minutes. Lots of crime can take place in that amount of time.
"It's true that criminals will be able to get guns, but it'll be way harder for them."
Not necessarily. There are millions of guns already on the black market. Unlike drugs, each individual gun can be used tens if not hundreds of thousands of times. Also, the majority of gun crimes are committed by people with violent criminal records, so they aren't allowed to buy guns legally anyway.
"If I recall it right, Bill Clinton once made a ten year law in the US where people weren't allowed to buy heavy firearms anymore."
You do not recall it right. The bill banned "assault weapons," which are defined based on cosmetic features and not actual fire rate or round size. Most of them happened to be .223's. In fact, these guns fire rounds that are among the smallest and least powerful rifle rounds out there. A deer hunting rifle makes the .223 look like a slingshot.
The ban expired and was never renewed because it had no measurable effect on gun violence.
When you get rid of guns we still have knives. In fact a man tried to chop up a bunch of 6 year olds with a machete. Clearly no more guns is not going to stop the idiot with a machete.
Guns should be regulated not banned. Also simply banning guns is not going to stop crime.
Anything can be used as a weapon. Even a kitchen knife. Now if you start removing kitchen knives what goes next? Pencils? Now doesn't this sound like it has the potential of rolling out of control? Or maybe bats for things like baseball or cricket. Pretty sure you can kill someone with one of those. Oh and dont forget bombs. Which terrorists make out of household products.
So what else are you going to ban? If you really want to make sure people are safe you are going to have to take away a lot.
Anything flammable, anything sharp, anything that can be used to make a bomb, anything electronic, anything too heavy, everything you can find a carpenter holding, canes that old people use, most sports gear.
Yes some of this stuff is dangerous but how are we going to live? Oh and not to mention all meat factories must be shut down. You really expect us to function after that? We cant even fish if you take fishhooks away. Well maybe with catfish where you fish by letting them eat your arm.
So yeah the idea behind banning guns is incredibly unreasonable. Since we cant function if you take away every little thing that might create a possible danger.
Some stuff is dangerous. We need said things to function as we do. What are we going to go cat fishing, eat an entire fish every-time we eat since we cant cut it with forks or knives.
So yeah anyone who says yes clearly has not thought any of this through. That being said a gun held by someone untrained is very dangerous. So you should have a license if you own one.
Also not having a gun does not mean the rest of the world is going to follow this. If you have 3 country's that say "No gun" and a 4th that invades with machine guns you are all pretty fucked right?
If you really have the idea to make people "Safer" you have to look at everything. People are missing the bigger picture when they say guns kill. If I can kill you with a gun I can kill you with a bat or a knife.
Sure guns make it easier but simply removing the guns does not remove someone ability to kill. If someone is smart enough they will find a way. In fact in prison people make knives and shit out of spoons. Do you think those people have guns? No probably not.. but I would bet you anything they probably still have the ability to kill you.
Instead of simply noticing guns. Why not notice that their is crime period. Take the man from the jungle and you are not taking the jungle from the man. If you move a killer away from a gun he is still a killer. He still can find a way to kill you. As safe as you illusion yourself into thinking you are. He can still find a way. So we have to look at the big picture not one tiny little aspect and ignore everything else.
Also... It's easier than ever for criminals to get their hands on guns, now that they can be 3D printed...
http://www.gizmag.com/first-3d-printed-firearm/23473/
Criminals will have guns regardless of gun control, and if they want to kill somebody, I don't think the victim would feel any better if they are thrown out of the window. But if the person who's attacked have a gun they have better chances.
Yeah, but don't you think that's the police's job? I mean, in a shootout, everyone is panicking. It's often not completely clear who the assailant is, especially if multiple people are carrying a gun. I'm afraid that it makes things spiral out of control even faster. IMO, you should leave that kind of stuff to the police.
If you do get attacked, your odds are way better if you flee than if you fight.
Of course its the police job, but it takes the police about 5 to 10 minutes to arrive, while the situation might be a matter of live and death decided in seconds. If its a one on one situation, and the other person runs faster, you got no chance. If a man tries to rape a woman, a man generally runs faster than a woman. Of course never draw a gun if you got other choice, but in the end its the great equalizer. The perpetrator will have a gun regardless of the law, its the victim who would have worse chance to protect themselves. I live in Israel and many people here have guns, that's why there would never be such shooting in cinema, the perpetrator would get shot within seconds. I know in sitcoms there are many situations where the perpetrator breaks into a house and use the family gun against them, but in real life things are different.
There should really be more statistics about this.
In an ideal world, people would handle their guns responsibly. But it's just not like that. In your example, if the woman uses her gun she might miss him and hit an innocent bystander. Or worse, the criminal might see her gun, panic and kill her.
The perpetrator will not have a gun regardless of the law. They'd be a lot harder to come by, and unable to attain if you haven't got the proper connections. The ordinary rapist doesn't have any criminal connections.
I still believe that carrying a gun increases your risk of getting shot yourself. Sure, the police needs some time to get to the scene of the crime, but it's still safer than giving everyone a gun. Ordinary people panic in such situations, and that's when the shit starts hitting the ventilation system.
In an ideal world there would be no need for guns, but its not like that. Before receiving a gun you undergo some training in using a firearm, and if you're not blind and don't have Parkinson's disease its impossible to miss the rapist who is a couple of meters away from you or even closer, if he is farther than that you can always point a gun at him to make him stop, at closer range you can't take that risk because he might just snatch the gun, therefor you must fire a shot to subdue him. Also it is very unlikely that an innocent bystander will be nearby, the rapists try to attack a woman when she is alone, not when there are people around to help her. Seeing a gun pointing at you doesn't make you panic and jump, it makes you freeze in place because you realize very fast that if you make the wrong move this might be the last thing you ever see.
Drugs are illegal almost anywhere in the world, tell me honestly, is there any trouble acquiring them for any school kid who got a little money? While guns are sold legally at least there is some regulation and the organized crime can't can a part in it, but just like with the prohibition, as soon as guns become illegal the black market will start trading them, selling them without any regulations to anyone with money, some guns would be manufactured in underground factories and of course would have very poor safety mechanism to save on the production cost, not to mention the crime war over who controls this area.
The police can get to the scene of the crime once the crime have been committed, they will examine your body, and maybe later find the guy who murdered you or raped you, I fail to see how this would help you. Do you think a woman describing her rapist to the police is really better off than a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet? Criminals, unless they are professional assassins, usually attack those who they believe are defenseless, they are much less likely to attack a person if they think this person might shoot them.
You gave me some hypothetical theories, I can give you two examples that happened to two women I personally know, I already told this story here before, one woman who refuse to carry a gun, and she was raped, and another who always carry a gun and two men tried to rape her, one is dead, another one is in prison. Turns out its much easier for the police to locate a guy who is bleeding on the floor, the guy who raped the first girl was never found and probably raped other women.
Of course I agree that there should be strict regulations upon giving people guns. Every person must undergo a psychological evaluation, have decent vision and get proper training in handling a gun. In the world we live in you can't count on someone else to protect you, you must always be able to protect yourself, the police can only try to punish the criminal after they committed the crime.
Oh yeah, also, about the drugs:
It's way easier to get a hold of drugs than it is to get a hold of guns. Those school kids you're talking about might carry some weed, but it's not like they're dealing in AK's
Well, this is probably sensitive matter to you, because of the personal experiences. I only used the rape example when you brought it up. But don't you think that you could get the same degree of protection from pepperspray and a stun gun? It's non-lethal, so you don't risk getting a life sentence for using it.
Legalize and regulate.
In the US, the percentage of firearm related crimes committed by people who legally own their guns is pretty close to 0. That said, the US is a huge country, and even though there are bad areas, gun crimes are not entirely typical.
Make guns illegal and you are stripping law abiding citizens of their ability to defend their families and themselves. I don't approve of violence, but I also don't approve of punishing the entirety of this country because of the actions of criminals who usually don't even legally own the firearm.
Okay, according to what study do you claim that firearm related crimes almost never happen by people who legally own a gun? Crimes with firearms are through the roof in the US.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
I can't find any data of how much of these people owned legal guns. But to give a recent example: James Holmes owned his firearms legally.
As I posted in another comment, street gangs aren't well-armed in countries with strict gun laws. Sure, there are illegal routes, but it's a lot harder to have better arms than the police if guns are illegal.
There's no criminal organization that goes around killing random civilians. Only psycho's do that, and they usually have nothing to do with criminal organizations. They get their guns using legal methods.
One last tip: if you are being robbed, don't draw a gun. If you do that, they'll shoot you. If you stay unarmed, or you run, then you're not such a threat and they're way less likely to murder you.
I can't choose between the first two options. The truth lies somewhere in the middle of that.
I don't like any of the options you gave. For me I like the way my country does it, where you can have a gun locked up in your house (for hunting purposes), and you have to go through a lot to get a gun, you can't just simply go to a store give them your credit card and get a gun (someone I know from the states just went to a store and they gave him a gun, which is so idiotic). Especially with the connecticut shooting that recently happened.
It should at the very minimum be an very hard process to go through to own a gun. You should have a backround check, get lessons, and have a physiatric test. You have to go through a lot to get your drivers license, yet they'll let anyone own something that can kill.
Only Cop and military should be able to own it. That way it can not be sold to the public. However I think any other kind of weapon should be sold. I do think this would assure a lot less robbery’s.
I think that people have the rights to defend themselves...it's IN the Bill of Rights after all.
Other than that, I don't really have that much of an opinion on gun control.
Why on earth do citizens need handguns or assault rifles? They don't. Get rid of the supply. The US is gun crazy though.
"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million
Jewish people and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and
exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million."
This is why I do not like gun control laws!
Can I please see your sources for these claims? Your periods of 'gun control' overlap with the times those countries were at war. Of course there were a lot of people killed back then.
I would like to see sources as well, but the claim seeming to be made is that citizens were murdered by their government, and one of the first signs that you have a psychopath in power is restriction of guns to the elite. Usually establishing gun control by a regime that does not believe in peace, does not bode well for minorities. Just saying.
Wow, I have to disagree with you on that. If a nation's ruler wants gun control, he's not bound to be a psychopath. Otherwise there'd be a lot more havoc in the world. the European Union has pretty tight gun control, and I don't believe that all people in that union are psychopaths.
You didn't read my statement then. I said "restrictions of guns to the elite", not gun control. I also said gun control BY A REGIME THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN PEACE, does that apply to the E.U.? Not really, the E.U. isn't militant. I think the argument is tangential, and I didn't bring it up, but you just didn't seem to be getting the original poster's point: when common people's guns are taken away, historically it is a prelude to slaughter or repression. Slaves in the U.S. weren't allowed to own guns. Historically, you take away one group's ability to defend themselves for a reason, and it's usually by a psychopath. At least read my comments, I'm fine with disagreement, but not with being taken out of context.
The EU has its wars as well, though it's more peaceful than the US.
But what do you call an elite? The military? The police? Because in that case, I can't see much difference with the EU's gun policies. And it works, as long as you live under a democratic regime.
If by elite you meant an ethnic or socioeconomical group, then yes, I have to agree on that. I reacted because Keeping_up_with_da_kids calls that sort of stuff 'gun control'. And of course, that's not what people mean when they use that term.
This example may seem a little blunt, but I think that the US government is way more oppressive than the EU. And the US doesn't have any gun control. 'Gun freedom' is no guarantee for democracy, nor is it necessary.
Yes inevitably guns to citizens will be outlawed in the US (except to gun clubs)
I have no idea why the government there are happy for people to die and then to stop paying taxes.
I personally feel that US people are living in fear, either through guns or the church. Both very wrong.
It would only take one generation to stop this.
I vote No guns (or bullets worth a $1000 each, I like that concept)
I'm a medieval fanatic, I'd rather have a good old crossbow, they are legal for over 18's and can kill just like a gun
See? That's what I'm trying to point out. People buy guns because they want to kill stuff. If they wanted to defend themselves, they'd buy some mace or a tazer.
TASER's aren't legal in all states. And TASER's have been known to kill people, not often but they are not exactly "safe". Look, you clearly have made your mind up on this subject and I won't belittle your intelligence by arguing, but it's not as simple as you seem to think, and stats don't tell everything. And you're right, I think most guns are used for hunting, not for defense, but I find nothing wrong with this arrangement. But a huge part of American philosophy revolves around "balance of power" and "too much power corrupts", and it would just scare a lot of people if the right to own a gun was taken away. Most non-Americans I know seem to be under the misapprehension that a lot of Americans own guns and it's totally normal, but most people I know have never even fired a gun, and they are illegal in certain cities. It has nothing to do with being trigger happy but about the deeply rooted belief that if rules and rights don't extend to everyone, then the public is in danger of tyranny. You might think it's stupid that potentially dangerous people can get their hands on a gun, but as you so wisely pointed out, that's what the police are for. I find it more stupid that someone has to implicitly trust the goodness of certain people in power rather than having many legal options at their disposal.
‘‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.’’
— Mahatma Ghandi
true story.
If tasers have been known to kill people, you know that's not a point in favor of guns, right? The odds of survival are still way higher when you're being tazed than when you're being shot.
I've never had the belief that weaponry should be available to the general public. And that's probably something I'll never agree on with most Americans. But my opinion is not absolute.
There is no objective way to say what's right or what's wrong. Especially not when it comes to gun control. If there was, there'd be no need for this discussion. I can't deny that guns save lives in some cases, and gun owners can't deny that gun deaths play a major part in US crime rates.
Maybe you think stats don't prove anything, but I think they have authority to some extent. You can't dismiss stats as 'just numbers'.
About Ghandi's quote: this is about the time when Great Britain colonized India. If a foreign country invades the US to exploit it, then the public should be given the possibilities to fight back.
However, I'm astonished by what American citizens think of their government. I live in Belgium, and for me, it's unthinkable that a government is something you should fear.
If you allow me to criticize the US a little: I have my doubts about American democracy. Especially since presidency keeps shifting between two similar special interest groups.
How come that's something that never gets adressed? I'm mainly educated in European politics, so I know I'm not the right person to criticize the US. But... maybe if people started voting more for third parties, instead of just voting for who the media tells them to, then things could make a change for the better. With more political diversity, there's less need for US citizens to fear that the US will become a totalitarian state.
There's a pro-gun which makes sense to me, and I hear it pretty often: people want guns to protect themselves from the government. But in itself, that thought is horrible. A government shouldn't be like that. Maybe we should get the system to change, so it's almost impossible for one group to oppress the country as a whole.
I started this debate with my European mindset, which is probably why my opinion differs so much from US citizens. If the situation in the US is really that horrible, then you need a gun. But I find it hard to believe. I never thought things are so much different in your country from Europe.
But guns should only mean as a last resort. I feel that a lot of people don't think that way. They want to prepare for a possible civil war, but almost nobody is actively trying to prevent one.
I hope I'm making sense here, sometimes I forget we live on two different continents.
I actually appreciated this response, it was well-thought out. I will just reply with my thoughts and critiques:
I agree that guns cause a lot of pain and can be dangerous, but that really isn't the main issue for me. Many, many things can be misused and cause problems, but that usually signifies an underlying, greater problem. The fact that dangerous assholes use guns in horrible ways does not make guns any more or less than what they are: tools with deadly power.
I never discounted statistics, I took several statistics classes in college, I merely said that they don't tell everything. Stating the rate of gun crime in the US is valid, but your conclusions need to be backed up by a ton of data, no matter how valid is your source. Is the crime in the US mostly urban or rural? Minority or majority ethnic groups? Gang related? Alcohol related? I don't know, and I am guessing you don't either, that information may not even be available to the public. Unless you have a complete picture, how can you compare two completely different countries and point to gun laws as the definitive underlying cause? There are sooo many variables! Also, you didn't mention Switzerland; gun ownership is widespread and restrictions are more lax than in the US in many cases, but the crime rate is very low. Thus I think your conclusions about the relationship between gun ownership and crime in the US is flawed, or at least way over-simplified. I don't think the problem has anything to do with guns; I think we have a problem, and it is manifested in gun-related crimes. HUGE difference. If we took away guns tomorrow, the same people would start killing each other with shivs. We need to figure out the real problem, which probably has more to do with unemployed, under-educated men getting sucked into gangs, or a culture of "bad-assery" being cool (ridiculous), before we just start looking for an easy answer.
My Gandhi quote was supremely apt, because the US was also a British colony that was being exploited. When tensions started rising and people died in the Boston massacre, colonists started stock-piling weapons, and the British tried to disband the militias and take the weapons away. I don't want to over-extend the comparison, different continent, different time, different history, but this was my point: the American philosophy about government, self-defense, and self-reliance came out of a deep disdain for strong government and the deeply held conviction that when people have too much power, the little guy gets trampled. It seems silly now that the US is a huge and relatively successful country, but try to keep in mind that absolutely everyone here is descended from immigrants who arrived at the earliest in the 1600s, or they are natives who got screwed over by the immigrants. Everyone I know can trace a relative to either slavery, fresh off the boat from their home country (which apparently they thought was worth leaving, so they weren't exactly thriving there), western "frontier" people, or a native American reservation. I can trace relatives back to all four. Thus, even though it is completely academic and sort of sub-conscious, I think most Americans are very proud of our "scrappiness" and self-reliance. It's not like most of us really do fear our government or law enforcement, we just like having a safety net. Is that really odd? Guns are very effective tools at getting people to fuck off, and it's nice to have an ace in your back pocket so to speak. It maybe wrong, but still reassuring to many.
Lastly, the US is less urban than most first-world countries. Until pretty damn recently, people carried guns as a way of life, particularly while moving west. We still have huge game animals, and it was an absolute necessity for pioneer families into the 1800s. Of course, that is a laughably obsolete reason to own a gun now, but please don't discount the effect this fact has on the American psyche. Our great-great-grandfather needed a gun to survive, our great-grandfather used a gun, our grandfather learned how to shoot a gun. Trends don't just disappear overnight.
Perhaps a more valid comparison among countries with drastically different gun laws would be to examine the rate of "violent crimes", ignoring the number of deaths that resulted from these attacks. This is one interesting stat I found from The Telegraph (UK): "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population." Not a US source, mind :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
Maybe more people would be alive with stricter gun laws, and I would certainly applaud that, but I don't want to upset the American way of life and take away a right which was an integral part of our early "revolutionary" days, and take away the right of people to protect against tyranny, unless I am convinced that violence, not just gun crimes, would diminish. And I am not convinced of this at all.
Sorry I wrote a book, I am not trying to look like a smart ass, I just love debating with people who are polite :) Feel free to disagree and persist in your opinion, that's very American ;)
No need to apologize for the length. There's no way to write a short text about this subject without oversimplifying things.
I think you're right. Most pro-gun arguments I read are "Get offa mah gunz!" with nothing more to add to the debate. But this one was worth the read.
The problem is certainly deeper than gun ownership. Like you say: "We need to figure out the real problem, which probably has more to do with unemployed, under-educated men getting sucked into gangs, or a culture of "bad-assery" being cool (ridiculous), before we just start looking for an easy answer."
People are scared of the future, they don't have any certainties anymore. Your job, your income and your safety are things you can lose in a matter of days. Even well-educated people don't get a guarantee to a good life. Maybe that gun gives them the feeling that they still have something to say. That they still count.
I feel that there are more political parties out there who want to cultivate those uncertainties rather than doing something about it. Fear is excellent for drawing voters to you.
But how can we solve all that? I hope you know, because I don't. ;)
Oh well, if you want, you can always move to Europe. We have exquisite wine, cheese, beer and chocolate. :D
Where I live there is strong gun control, and I knew a lot of criminals who didn't own guns. Black market guns here are expensive and often have unknown histories making them pretty much an unviable option. People who do have them don't carry them as they are difficult to replace if you get caught with them.
There are still shootings and unlicensed firearms but I feel safer knowing there are countless dickheads who don't have guns that would if they were more readily available.
Criminals will always be able to get guns. Gun control only enables those criminals to have barely any resistance put against them.
Well next time you're being attacked in your own home, let's see how fast these cops can get to you. In all likelyness, the criminals would of already done what they wanted and left.
Yes, I've been robbed before. I let them take my stuff, and my insurance covered it. I got out of it unscathed, without using a firearm.
It's very dangerous to assume you can handle guns better than criminals do. You're needlessly bringing yourself in danger if you carry a gun.
...So your logic here is that you should just le yourself be a victim, because your insurance will handle it? What happens to the person that victimized the person? They will not always be caught, and insurance will not help everyone.
...so your logic here is that it's better to play action hero than to do things the safe way, even though your lawsuit and the psychological damage from killing someone is far more costly than getting insurance.
Sure, they will not always be caught, but sometimes they will. If you kill someone out of self defense, you might say it was an accident, but you have no guarantee that the cops will believe you. There's a good chance you'll end up in jail. Cowboy times are over.
Insurance will not help everyone, not the people who buy insurance, at least. But I think you're better off with buying insurance than buying a gun. Don't assume you're an action here who's capable of subduing the bad guys.
In a way I'm opposed to guns, but I think to ban them in the US would be really impractical and to do it would be dangerous. They're so much a part of US culture that they're considered a right and you can't take that away, at least not all at once.
I disagree to anyone who says that there's an easy solution; if the solution was obvious there'd be no debate.
I also disagree that the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) is being interpreted as it was meant to be. It was written in times when the US was at significant risk of foreign invasion and allowing citizens to carry arms to use against potential foreign threats was sensible. The US has changed a lot in the 200 years since it was passed and the Amendment is no longer relevant. I think the Amendment should not be interpreted as legalising any citizen to own a firearm because the Amendment was written in a completely different cultural context to today. It's one of many things I dislike about the concept of a rigid Constitution like the US Constitution (and the federal system, although it has many other advantages), but I won't rant and rave about that (now) :P
I support gun control in principle, but I think if it was to take place now in the US, it would need to be done very, very carefully and gradually. Of course any attempt to do so would be blocked by the Supreme Court :P
With the Illuminati on the rise, I think I'd like to be able to carry a few guns.
If the U.S. believes it is a safer country when everyone has the option to bear arms, why doesn't it make a safer world and allow every country to have nuclear weapons?
I mean, if you outlaw nuclear weapons, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons, eh? ;)
True. Guns are really ingrained in their culture though. I think that a lot of Americans live in fear. I'm in journalism school, so I watch news reports from various countries. It always baffles me how much fearmongering there is in the average US news broadcast. You'd think that nothing else happens in that country but murder and shootouts.
I get why they all feel like they need protection, but I believe that no one should have the right to own a gun. There's no person competent or stable enough to be allowed to decide over life and death.
Ugh, I can rant on and on about this subject. But I'm glad you feel this way about guns. :)
I was teasing in my comment (although also making a salient point). I have a real duality about guns because my scout leader personality would like to ban them but yet I love the idea of guns as machines. Not machines to kill people, just machines to expel rounds very quickly. There's something kind of beautiful about the machinery itself and the extended sense of power it must give you. More than ever, I wish wigsplitz was here to offer her opinion so we could have a bit of a debate about it.
So you have to have a small penis to equally defend yourself when your outmatched and being shot at? I've been shot at, and trust me I never wanted a gun so bad or ran so fast.
Numbers don't lie, look at Japan with 11 homicides in one year, want to know why? Because they don't have guns! Where there's no guns there's no shootings. Look at the numbers.
Yeah sure, if you ban guns the 'bad guys' won't get any, but then neither will the good guys. What if there's another civil war? The military (and everyone in the government) would have all the power and the people will be only left with sticks.
Seriously? You feel like you have to arm yourselves against the government?
And you people constantly criticize other countries for not being democratic. I know I'm quite blunt here, but maybe the US should fix their own problems before they go invading other countries.
Yes, because the government lies. Everyone does... especially if they have power. The government likes to grow and the only way it's going to do that is if it takes power from the people AKA take away the rights our fathers worked so hard to create. If they take the right to bear arms and if some civil war WAS to happen, the people would be defenseless.
And LOL@your overgeneralization. You assume that everyone in the US is going to be democratic? And I wish the US would fix it's problem and I wish we would stay out of other peoples business. America wants to be the super hero and save everyone, but we're just hurting ourselves.
About my overgeneralization: I'm talking about American politicians. That's the reason they bring up most to start wars. I never claimed the US is democratic. Your elections consist out of choosing between two eerily similar special interest groups. Doesn't look like a democracy to me.
But you can't overtake the military. They're still better equipped and have had way better training than the average Joe. If you want to change your country for the better, I suggest you motivate people to vote for third parties. So something will finally change in your country.
I can't tell you what to do, but if you hate your government so much, you should do something about it. Nothing can come from nothing.
You know, I wish I could change the country for the better. And they always say that one person can make a difference, but one person can't unless they have a billion dollars or they're famous. I'm never going to have either one. Neither can I motivate... I just suck at it.
Voting doesn't work either since it's the electoral college who votes for the president. However, they tend to side with the popular vote.
Further more, America isn't a democracy, it's a republic.
No, we can't overtake the military in any sense, however I'd rather fight them with guns then sticks (gives me more hope I guess?).
aaaaaaand last, but not least... why are we still talking about this? I hate arguing or 'debating' especially online.
Well, I'm not exactly sure. I am kind of for it because I can understand not having any other option if in danger, but on the side of that, I'm against it because it can end up in the hands of the wrong person. I guess, though, whether it was legal or not, bad people will still be capable of getting their hands on it. I'll vote for it, but I'm still a little on and off about it.
Shoot all the people who have guns, with guns, and then eject them into space along with the people who shot the people with the guns.
That's a drastic solution. But somehow this comment worries me less than some of the other things people write here. It's definitely an effective way to get rid of the violent scumbags.
People who own guns are violent scumbags? Gee, where are your sources? :-P
It was an exaggeration. Of course not all gun owners are violent scumbags, so there'd be a lot of collateral damage. Letting people with guns fight each other is not an ethical solution, it was just a cynical remark.
Since there's no way to objectively measure scumbaggery, I can't give you any sources on that. Statements like calling someone a scumbag are subjective. Statements like "a country without gun control has lower crime rates" are objective. And that's the sort of stuff you should give sources for.
You know, at first I thought your comment was a little harsh, but after reading the comments from these pro-gun guys...
Maybe you're right. Maybe we should put them all in quarantine, away from the sane people, and let them kill each other. They believe that the end justifies the means, so maybe we should apply that to them.
I mean, most of them don't even try to refute my points! When I ask them to back up their outrageous claims, all they do is downvote me and go back to dry-humping their AK's.
It's really horrifying how attached they are to their guns. It's like they believe they're all action heroes.