|
|
Post by andrewlj2002 on Aug 2, 2008 20:17:03 GMT
Many people die every year from gunshot wounds, many who arguably would not have died if a gun had not been available. Removal of guns would certainly curb a lot of the impulsive murders that we see, but what about the threat to civil liberties? What balance should there be to protect citizens from both themselves and from oppressive government? Is the liberal availability of guns overall a positive or a negative and what are the consequences of each polar side of the issue? (Borrowed from Proboards Support) |
|
|
|
Post by Gamoc on Aug 4, 2008 13:52:08 GMT
Banning guns would be unconstitutional in America. the right to bear arms is in the second ammendment and banning that would just be another way to go for the freedom of speech and stuff like that. Guns are also meant for protection, and if you ban them, people are still going to get a hold of guns and use them to murder, still. Therefor banning guns is a horrible idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by person on Sept 3, 2008 10:43:19 GMT
I live in Australia and we have good gun laws. Having the laws has not lead to impinged freedom of speech. We don't have a constitutional right to bear arms, and because we don't all have guns, we don't need guns to protect ourselves. Basically, we don't shoot each other, making the place a lot safer on the whole really. I don't know if people in the U.S. realise or not, but the rest of the world are really shocked/appalled/scared by the number of guns they have. Saying that they are 'for protection' is crazy, because they clearly make the place -less- safe. And I don't know if they realise that 'U.S.A' does not equal 'America'. 'America' includes everything from Chile to Canada. Anyway, back on topic, for what reason would you need a gun? Here, if you have a legitimate reason, say, for hunting, or clay-shooting, or I don't know, then you apply for a permit and there you go. You can't have a gun without a license, the same way you can't drive a car without a license. It makes the place safer, and we're all quite thankful of it; no one is demanding the right to carry a people-killing thing, because we prefer ourselves and the people around us to stay alive. maybe an amendment to that amendment might be a good idea  |
|
Ziggy
Full Member
It's gonna make me spaz like bobcats on booze
Posts: 237
|
Post by Ziggy on Dec 17, 2008 0:54:28 GMT
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is only as deadly as you make it, and how do you do that? the motivation behind owning it or using it. If your motivation is murder, the gun is used to Purposefully hurt and kill people. If your motivation for having one is protection the gun is used to defend your life and others you are protecting from people who are there to hurt you or them. I wont say if I have one or not but I would not be the type to just kill someone who was on my property. Warning them to leave is good enough, if they persist tell them you will call the police. if it is clear they are threatening your life let them know you are armed, if they does not phase them and they keep coming feel free to unload on them. That’s how I’d use a gun.  |
|
|
|
Post by LonelyArtist on Dec 21, 2008 16:24:26 GMT
In America (and I feel fine saying "America," as it is an accepted colloqial term for both Americans and other people in the world) we need a license to get a gun, don't we? I think there should be limits to the freedom to bear arms. Like, a hunting rifle should be allowed, and maybe a handgun, provided there's rules like you can't keep it loaded unless you need it. And things like machine guns are unnecessary, as they are for killing people. People with a recorded history of gun crimes should not be allowed to own a gun, at least not the kind they used in their crimes. ((shrugs)) As for people outside of the U.S. being scared of guns, well, they don't have to come. It's not like we can bring it outside our borders.
|
|
Teri
Junior Member
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. - Mark Twain
Posts: 61
|
Post by Teri on Jan 26, 2009 15:31:13 GMT
Alright, let me add a Canadian's opinion in here. =)
I understand that in America, you have the Right to Bear Arms. Let me ask you this: Why do you have that right? Do you all really need to carry around guns? Banning firearms doesn't impinge on our rights at all.
This is true, I guess, to a certain extent. But you know, someone can be a perfectly good, ethical person who happens to own a gun (because it is apparently their right). Let's say this guy's girlfriend broke up with him for another man. He gets mad and, on an impulse, goes to the man's house and shoots him. If he hadn't had access to a gun, that wouldn't have happened because he is normally a good person, but at that moment he was really angry and wasn't thinking straight. My point is, even perfectly good people can snap, and if they have access to firearms when they do, then no wonder America's murder rates are so high.
This is true. I honestly can't figure out why you guys figure it's a human's right to carry around a gun...
Now, that's taking it a bit far. No one is going to do that. But as I said, it only takes something like a messy breakup to make someone snap.
Aha. How do the people who would re-enforce this law determine if someone "needs" the gun? When you do ever need a gun?
|
|
|
|
Post by LonelyArtist on Feb 17, 2009 4:02:39 GMT
Aha. How do the people who would re-enforce this law determine if someone "needs" the gun? When you do ever need a gun? An example of needing it would be if you heard someone creeping around in your house. You'd have the gun on one side of your bed, see, and the bullet on the other. You load the gun and point it at the door, in case someone tries to get in. People would try to take advantage of it, I know, by saying that they needed it to kill someone on the streets or something 'cause he took his money. But it's really an issue on what you're willing to sacrifice. On one hand, there's this girl who could get raped and murdered if she couldn't shoot the man in her house. On the other, by allowing her to have a gun, others would be allowed to have one and they would then take advantage of it by killing other people. So...what's more important? I personally think that the girl is entitled to protection, but it's ultimately up to our government. If they think that they can sacrifice one girl for the sake of the country as a whole, well...I can't really stop them. I know what you're thinking already. "Well, she couldn't be murdered if the guy didn't have a gun." Yes she could. There are knives. They kill. They kill much slower than a gun, true, but they kill. Painfully. And slowly. Heck, that's the solution! Disband guns! If knives are used to kill, the victim still has a chance to crawl to a payphone to tell the police who killed him. Because he will die before he hangs up. Obviously a lot of this is tongue-in-cheek. I'll let you decide what's said seriously. |
|
Teri
Junior Member
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. - Mark Twain
Posts: 61
|
Post by Teri on Mar 17, 2009 20:37:27 GMT
Yeah, but you said that these guns should be allowed. So, like I said, how does one determine whether someone will need a gun when they're applying to be registered for one? Does that make any sense... ?
No, I wasn't thinking that. =P I'm not stupid, other things can kill besides guns. xD
People are going to get murdered whether everyone has a gun or not. My point is that entitling everyone to a gun just for "protection" is senseless. We don't all become equally matched just because we're all carrying around guns. Have you ever heard the song "Let There Be Guns" by the Arrogant Worms? xD
|
|
|
|
Post by LonelyArtist on Mar 19, 2009 23:31:58 GMT
You wouldn't have to have a need when you applied for the gun, necessarily. You just couldn't use it. I know it's ambigous, but a gun should be available to a person, at least in his or her own home. Denying that it isn't needed for protection is denying that there are bad people n the world. Some people WILL abuse their right to have guns, but some people won't, and it's the latter that makes us need to allow people that right. I wasn't calling YOU stupid, or anyone in particular.  I've just heard the argument said that only guns kill people so many times that I needed to clear it up in the argument. I have not heard the song. I agree that disallowing the CARRYING of guns is a reasonable action (I personally don't have much opinion either way), but being able to have one is so important. [slightly unrelated] I'm not entirely sure America's crime rate is caused by guns. I think it might have started mostly with the prohabition, which I know started large-scale organized crime. Does anyone know an article shedding light on to this? It's been bugging me for a while... |
|
Teri
Junior Member
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. - Mark Twain
Posts: 61
|
Post by Teri on Apr 2, 2009 16:09:07 GMT
lol I know. =D
There was an article in our weekend newspaper about gun control in Canada vs. the US, but I don't have it anymore. It was really interesting...
|
|
WAAAAGH!!![/b][/color][/size]
I've just heard the argument said that only guns kill people so many times that I needed to clear it up in the argument.