Should people be allowed to purchase and use guns
- Thread starter Dr.Gonzo
- Start date
SirCharles
Member
google usually does the trick
Should some people be allowed? yeah why not, if they are going to use them for hunting and recreational shooting, or maybe keep it in their home for protection...
Should guns be allowed on school campuses? I don't think so, it's probably not a good idea
Should most civilians be allowed to carry a concealed weapon? Again, I don't think its a good idea...
Do guns kill people? yup.
Do idiots with guns kill people? Yup
Do idiots have the ability to buy guns? Yeah, and they shouldn't
Would unnecessary murders like the Travon Martin case happen if gun control was stricter? They'd definitely be reduced
Should guns be allowed on school campuses? I don't think so, it's probably not a good idea
Should most civilians be allowed to carry a concealed weapon? Again, I don't think its a good idea...
Do guns kill people? yup.
Do idiots with guns kill people? Yup
Do idiots have the ability to buy guns? Yeah, and they shouldn't
Would unnecessary murders like the Travon Martin case happen if gun control was stricter? They'd definitely be reduced
TechnoPotamus
Active member
do you mean to tell me that forks aren't responsible for fat people? you mean to tell me fat people could do something about it? OH MY GOD EVERYTHING I KNOW IS WRONG
Of course.
Dumbass.
So much this. Do you actually think that someone who is born a full on sociopath is going to be dissuaded from a violent crime because of the repercussions or proper education
On another note, I think that part of the problem surrounding gun control these days is naivety. Violent gun related crimes are going to happen whether guns are legal or not. Do you actually think that someone who is bent on killing someone would decide not to go through with it because a gun is too hard to acquire? No.
I think that once people realize that gun crimes are going to happen no matter how hard we try to restrict gun carry and usage, we will see a drastic increase in the number of citizens that use concealed carry permits, and use handguns for personal protection. Guns will come over the border no matter how hard we try to control it, and they will always ALWAYS be in the hands of someone who really wants it.
Just remember, if you're not carrying a weapon to defend yourself in that one-in-a-million chance that you need it, the person intent on harming you is.
On another note, I think that part of the problem surrounding gun control these days is naivety. Violent gun related crimes are going to happen whether guns are legal or not. Do you actually think that someone who is bent on killing someone would decide not to go through with it because a gun is too hard to acquire? No.
I think that once people realize that gun crimes are going to happen no matter how hard we try to restrict gun carry and usage, we will see a drastic increase in the number of citizens that use concealed carry permits, and use handguns for personal protection. Guns will come over the border no matter how hard we try to control it, and they will always ALWAYS be in the hands of someone who really wants it.
Just remember, if you're not carrying a weapon to defend yourself in that one-in-a-million chance that you need it, the person intent on harming you is.
Dr.Gonzo
Active member
yea, my english teacher said he wanted us to pick a definite side. As of now im still wondering which side to pick, you guys bring up some amazing points, and i'll defiantly be taking some of them into account when i get down to writing this thing in the next couple hours, i've got till Wednesday to write a rough draft so still lots of time.
hunting doesn't require a handgun though, most people use a form or rifle or large shotgun.
Take something like this, for example
http://lubbockonline.com/texas/2011-03-16/senate-approves-letting-texans-keep-guns-car-work#.T3ieRexWqyw
There is little reason to have a gun in your car at the workplace. What good is it if it's not on your person? Would people, after being fired/aggravated/harassed at work be tempted to go out and bring it into the workplace and shoot up the place? Obviously these are hypothetical questions, but to me, it doesn't make sense.
Take something like this, for example
http://lubbockonline.com/texas/2011-03-16/senate-approves-letting-texans-keep-guns-car-work#.T3ieRexWqyw
There is little reason to have a gun in your car at the workplace. What good is it if it's not on your person? Would people, after being fired/aggravated/harassed at work be tempted to go out and bring it into the workplace and shoot up the place? Obviously these are hypothetical questions, but to me, it doesn't make sense.
Dr.Gonzo
Active member
also true, i've seen two guns in my life, one is a 20mm rifle i shot at a buddies cottage of mine, it was really controlled and his dad was educated and taught me all about how and when to shoot it and i felt comfortable doing so. the other one i saw, was in a sketchy friend of a friends waistband, that was scary.
ehh, I don't think you can say that for every case. For most, sure, but there is always the person who, while waiting to acquire a gun, has time to think about their actions and change their mind.
Some people who have very violent and irrational outbreaks can go on a killing spree, but what if a gun was not readily available to them in the heat of the moment? I know people who can get very angry and possibly consider harming someone else before calming down and realizing how awful it would be.
Some people who have very violent and irrational outbreaks can go on a killing spree, but what if a gun was not readily available to them in the heat of the moment? I know people who can get very angry and possibly consider harming someone else before calming down and realizing how awful it would be.
corona
Active member
but making it more difficult for the average person to get a gun significantly lowers the number of gun crimes.
the stats on this speak for themselves, take a country like US where any joe blow could walk into a store and buy a gun and compare their firearm murder rate to a country where getting a gun isn't nearly that easy.
US homicide rate per 100,000 using fire arms is 4.55
Canada, for example, where guns are much more difficult to obtain it's 1.58
the argument that "if someone wants to kill another person they're going to find a gun anyways" is very flawed. same with the argument "well if we all had guns on us these crimes wouldn't have happened in the first place". incredibly backwards logic. and like I said, the numbers speak for themselves.
the stats on this speak for themselves, take a country like US where any joe blow could walk into a store and buy a gun and compare their firearm murder rate to a country where getting a gun isn't nearly that easy.
US homicide rate per 100,000 using fire arms is 4.55
Canada, for example, where guns are much more difficult to obtain it's 1.58
the argument that "if someone wants to kill another person they're going to find a gun anyways" is very flawed. same with the argument "well if we all had guns on us these crimes wouldn't have happened in the first place". incredibly backwards logic. and like I said, the numbers speak for themselves.
Forkstealer
Member
Here's how I think about guns.
Regardless of how illegal you make it to have a gun, or a permit, or to sell guns, criminals will always be able to get access to them. Criminals break laws, so it doesn't make any difference to them what kind of regulation you put out there. Laws only matter to law abiding people, so that's the demographic that loses the ability to keep and bear arms when gun control laws are tightened, not criminals.
I, and I hope most people, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people and less in the hands of those who would use them to commit crime. By regulating guns, we only really prevent the former group from getting them. This idea can be most easily grasped by picturing a school campus. A student who is going to shoot up the school doesn't care that he isn't allowed to bring a gun to school. A student, teacher, or administrator who would be willing to defend others using a gun would be deterred by such a rule. What we create by tightly controlling guns is a population that is very vulnerable to violence because it is unable to defend itself.
This all is not to mention all the juicy quotes that you could get from founding fathers and the second amendment about guns.
As a counterargument, I would engage in some light fearmongering. Bring up statistics about gun violence, say that smart regulation would decrease violent crime and lead to a safer atmosphere. Imagine if everyone at school was packing heat. Would you feel more safe or less safe? Someone who hasn't been around guns very much would not feel safe at all in such an environment. Say that guns make it very easy to make a stupid mistake with permanent consequences. Use a slippery slope argument. How much firepower is one person allowed to have? A handgun? An assault rifle? A howitzer? A nuclear weapon? At some point government has to step in and say that there is a point at which the destructive capabilities of a weapon outweigh it's usefulness for recreation and self defense. Where you choose to draw that line is up to you.
Regardless of how illegal you make it to have a gun, or a permit, or to sell guns, criminals will always be able to get access to them. Criminals break laws, so it doesn't make any difference to them what kind of regulation you put out there. Laws only matter to law abiding people, so that's the demographic that loses the ability to keep and bear arms when gun control laws are tightened, not criminals.
I, and I hope most people, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people and less in the hands of those who would use them to commit crime. By regulating guns, we only really prevent the former group from getting them. This idea can be most easily grasped by picturing a school campus. A student who is going to shoot up the school doesn't care that he isn't allowed to bring a gun to school. A student, teacher, or administrator who would be willing to defend others using a gun would be deterred by such a rule. What we create by tightly controlling guns is a population that is very vulnerable to violence because it is unable to defend itself.
This all is not to mention all the juicy quotes that you could get from founding fathers and the second amendment about guns.
As a counterargument, I would engage in some light fearmongering. Bring up statistics about gun violence, say that smart regulation would decrease violent crime and lead to a safer atmosphere. Imagine if everyone at school was packing heat. Would you feel more safe or less safe? Someone who hasn't been around guns very much would not feel safe at all in such an environment. Say that guns make it very easy to make a stupid mistake with permanent consequences. Use a slippery slope argument. How much firepower is one person allowed to have? A handgun? An assault rifle? A howitzer? A nuclear weapon? At some point government has to step in and say that there is a point at which the destructive capabilities of a weapon outweigh it's usefulness for recreation and self defense. Where you choose to draw that line is up to you.
corona
Active member
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf
It's 2008 data, but it's still quite accurate.
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf
It's 2008 data, but it's still quite accurate.
howlongcanausern
Active member
there's something scary about a government, who at one time let its citizens have guns, takes them away
Flying~Squirrel
Active member
the more you try to control it the more available it becomes in the black market. the same amount of guns will exist regardless of regulation, and if the government isnt handing them out then someone else will be.
JamesR
Active member
This is issue is very simple to solve. That's not to say it's easy, because there's a lot of cultural and psychological baggage that people bring to the argument. Let's look at it objectively.
Let's say you don't want people to own and use guns. Such a law is only enforceable if you allow certain individuals to own and use guns. Right off the bat, you have a logical contradiction. It cannot be both a virtue and an evil to use guns, just as 2+2 cannot equal both 4 and 5.
Therefore, either nobody can own guns, or everyone can own guns. Now, because people want guns, it is only logical and philosophically consistent to allow everyone to own guns.
"But wait!" you ask, "what if the majority of people want a minority of people to use guns to make sure everyone else doesn't?" Well then, you have run into another problem. If you are to say that what the majority desires is morally good, then rape or murder is perfectly justified if the majority wishes it. If three men are in a room and two vote to kill the third, then according to the argument that what the majority wants is good, it's moral to kill the man against his preferences.
The only just solution is to allow all people to own guns. That is not to say that there can't be consequences for what people do with guns. If guns are used to initiate the use of force against others, social sanctions are most definitely in order because they are violating the non-aggression principle that allows them to freely own guns in the first place.
If one is unable to reconcile the arguments put forward above and still persists in arguing that gun ownership should not be allowed, then they should bow out of the debate because their opinions are just that, opinions, not based on any kind of objective logic or reason.
Let's say you don't want people to own and use guns. Such a law is only enforceable if you allow certain individuals to own and use guns. Right off the bat, you have a logical contradiction. It cannot be both a virtue and an evil to use guns, just as 2+2 cannot equal both 4 and 5.
Therefore, either nobody can own guns, or everyone can own guns. Now, because people want guns, it is only logical and philosophically consistent to allow everyone to own guns.
"But wait!" you ask, "what if the majority of people want a minority of people to use guns to make sure everyone else doesn't?" Well then, you have run into another problem. If you are to say that what the majority desires is morally good, then rape or murder is perfectly justified if the majority wishes it. If three men are in a room and two vote to kill the third, then according to the argument that what the majority wants is good, it's moral to kill the man against his preferences.
The only just solution is to allow all people to own guns. That is not to say that there can't be consequences for what people do with guns. If guns are used to initiate the use of force against others, social sanctions are most definitely in order because they are violating the non-aggression principle that allows them to freely own guns in the first place.
If one is unable to reconcile the arguments put forward above and still persists in arguing that gun ownership should not be allowed, then they should bow out of the debate because their opinions are just that, opinions, not based on any kind of objective logic or reason.
doing some research and its surprising to find that many states don't require you to register any gun. I feel like that would help a lot in keeping track of what guns are out there and who they are owned by...
State of Texas:
Handgun murders (2010): 581
Registration Required? No
State of New York:
Handgun murders (2010): 135
Registration Required? Yes
State of Texas:
Handgun murders (2010): 581
Registration Required? No
State of New York:
Handgun murders (2010): 135
Registration Required? Yes
bustinthejus
Active member
Lol Americans.
Anathema
Active member
this is how i try to look at it. you realistically have two scenarios, since ownership of weapons is really an all or nothing thing. i.e, you can't use the argument that "stupid people shouldnt be allowed to have guns" because there's no objective way of determining whether or not someone is stupid. you either allow people to certify themselves and purchase guns, or you don't. stupid, smart, vengeful, spiteful, responsible, clumsy people all included.
scenario one: everybody has the right to purchase and own a gun for self defense
in this scenario, you have:
- accidental deaths as a result of incorrect gun use
- confrontations that escalate to the point where people are getting shot
- the occasional situation where having a gun prevents crime or acts as a deterrent in some sort of heated situation that could have otherwise resulted in something much worse.
scenario two: nobody has the right to purchase and own a gun for self defense
in this scenario, you have:
- fewer accidental deaths as a result of incorrect gun use
- confrontations that escalate now no longer have the potential to turn into a gun fight
- the occasional situation where not having a gun has prevented someone from adequately defending themselves and resulted in a crime.
so lets look at the pros and cons. in scenario one, you have an awful lot of situation where having guns is a bad thing, and the occasional positive situation where having a gun might be used for good (a deterrent that aided in preventing a crime). in scenario two, you have an awful lot of situations where NOT having guns is a good thing, except for the occasional situation where not having a gun has resulted in you not being able to protect yourself.
so we need to ask ourselves, is it better to have the occasional criminal act committed because people don't have guns for protection, or is it better to have a ton of deaths as a result of guns for that one time where it might be used for good?
logically, i'd say that putting a gun in every home would be far worse than having no guns in any home. if you really want to protect yourself, do so by avoiding potentially dangerous situations, not by arming yourself to walk through the ghetto at 2:00am. and if you really feel that unsafe or threatened in your own home or neighborhood, to the point where having a gun helps you sleep at night, maybe you should a) consider moving, or b) consider a simple alarm system.
there are tons of ways you can prevent or deter crime without needing to flash a piece, so the fact that so many americans feel that they need guns to feel safe is only reflective of their own insecurity and sick desire to challenge someone and threaten their life to gain the upper hand in a confrontation.
that's my two cents on the matter, any way. i honestly feel like if i had a gun, it would only make things worse. i'd rather have some dude steal my wallet, than whip out a gun to protect myself and turn a simple robbery into a gun fight to the death. and i trust my own ability to be defensive and diffuse a situation without needing a gun. once in a while, do people get killed? sure, but do you really think guns are going to save you? if someone wants to kill you, they will. again, once in a while having a gun might be positive, but that doesn't overshadow the fact that there are so many more situations where having guns are a negative thing.
i should also add that im not talking about owning guns for target shooting. we even have that in canada. my brother has a couple rifles that he goes to the range with pretty often. this is strictly ownership of weapons by the public for self defense.
scenario one: everybody has the right to purchase and own a gun for self defense
in this scenario, you have:
- accidental deaths as a result of incorrect gun use
- confrontations that escalate to the point where people are getting shot
- the occasional situation where having a gun prevents crime or acts as a deterrent in some sort of heated situation that could have otherwise resulted in something much worse.
scenario two: nobody has the right to purchase and own a gun for self defense
in this scenario, you have:
- fewer accidental deaths as a result of incorrect gun use
- confrontations that escalate now no longer have the potential to turn into a gun fight
- the occasional situation where not having a gun has prevented someone from adequately defending themselves and resulted in a crime.
so lets look at the pros and cons. in scenario one, you have an awful lot of situation where having guns is a bad thing, and the occasional positive situation where having a gun might be used for good (a deterrent that aided in preventing a crime). in scenario two, you have an awful lot of situations where NOT having guns is a good thing, except for the occasional situation where not having a gun has resulted in you not being able to protect yourself.
so we need to ask ourselves, is it better to have the occasional criminal act committed because people don't have guns for protection, or is it better to have a ton of deaths as a result of guns for that one time where it might be used for good?
logically, i'd say that putting a gun in every home would be far worse than having no guns in any home. if you really want to protect yourself, do so by avoiding potentially dangerous situations, not by arming yourself to walk through the ghetto at 2:00am. and if you really feel that unsafe or threatened in your own home or neighborhood, to the point where having a gun helps you sleep at night, maybe you should a) consider moving, or b) consider a simple alarm system.
there are tons of ways you can prevent or deter crime without needing to flash a piece, so the fact that so many americans feel that they need guns to feel safe is only reflective of their own insecurity and sick desire to challenge someone and threaten their life to gain the upper hand in a confrontation.
that's my two cents on the matter, any way. i honestly feel like if i had a gun, it would only make things worse. i'd rather have some dude steal my wallet, than whip out a gun to protect myself and turn a simple robbery into a gun fight to the death. and i trust my own ability to be defensive and diffuse a situation without needing a gun. once in a while, do people get killed? sure, but do you really think guns are going to save you? if someone wants to kill you, they will. again, once in a while having a gun might be positive, but that doesn't overshadow the fact that there are so many more situations where having guns are a negative thing.
i should also add that im not talking about owning guns for target shooting. we even have that in canada. my brother has a couple rifles that he goes to the range with pretty often. this is strictly ownership of weapons by the public for self defense.
Caspaaa
Active member
heres what i think
1. Concealed weapons should be banned except for Military/Law Enforcement purposes.
2. Licensed gun owners should be required to have their firearms license on them if the gun is on them, so technically you can be arrested if you are holding a gun you borrowed from you friend, even if he has a license.
3. Weapons should be kept locked up somehow, whether that means in a full out safe, or locked in a cabinet. This should be a law.
4. Ammunition should be kept SEPARATE from the locked up guns.
5. You must pass a mental health examination before obtaining your firearms license.
of course, many of these things are nearly impossible to enforce.
1. Concealed weapons should be banned except for Military/Law Enforcement purposes.
2. Licensed gun owners should be required to have their firearms license on them if the gun is on them, so technically you can be arrested if you are holding a gun you borrowed from you friend, even if he has a license.
3. Weapons should be kept locked up somehow, whether that means in a full out safe, or locked in a cabinet. This should be a law.
4. Ammunition should be kept SEPARATE from the locked up guns.
5. You must pass a mental health examination before obtaining your firearms license.
of course, many of these things are nearly impossible to enforce.
JamesR
Active member
What gives some individuals the right to force other individuals to receive certification?
In your first scenario, sure those things may happen, however they are irrelevant. All scenario one directly implies is that certain individuals are not using force to keep other individuals from owning guns. That doesn't mean that anybody will buy guns, it just means that coercion is not involved. The result of a non-coercive environment is a separate debate.
Scenario two is impossible. People want guns, that's the reality we have to deal with. If someone doesn't want someone else to own a gun then they would be required to use a gun or else they would literally be bringing a knife to a gun fight. But no matter the weapon they use, they would be initiating the use of force in order to steal from the other person or to prevent them from obtaining a gun which is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
Arguments from effect don't matter. This is fundamentally a question of morality which is: Is it moral to initiate the use of force against other human beings? As the initiation of the use of force is immoral, it is immoral to use force to prevent others from owning guns,
What people do in a non-coercive environment is a separate matter and must be addressed as such.
In your first scenario, sure those things may happen, however they are irrelevant. All scenario one directly implies is that certain individuals are not using force to keep other individuals from owning guns. That doesn't mean that anybody will buy guns, it just means that coercion is not involved. The result of a non-coercive environment is a separate debate.
Scenario two is impossible. People want guns, that's the reality we have to deal with. If someone doesn't want someone else to own a gun then they would be required to use a gun or else they would literally be bringing a knife to a gun fight. But no matter the weapon they use, they would be initiating the use of force in order to steal from the other person or to prevent them from obtaining a gun which is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
Arguments from effect don't matter. This is fundamentally a question of morality which is: Is it moral to initiate the use of force against other human beings? As the initiation of the use of force is immoral, it is immoral to use force to prevent others from owning guns,
What people do in a non-coercive environment is a separate matter and must be addressed as such.