| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Gun Control | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 16 2007, 05:56 PM (2,102 Views) | |
| Anastasia Moyet | Apr 16 2007, 05:56 PM Post #1 |
|
Member
  ![]](http://209.85.62.24/11/88/0/p85187/pip_r.png)
|
In the wake of the shooting at Virginia Tech I thought this would be as good a time as any to debate the issue of gun control. Gun laws vary widely from country to country so this centres on the need for tightening gun laws in principle. 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 side of the issue? Should guns be banned? Is there any reason to NOT ban them? Some would say it is a their right to have a gun? Should we change the law to not allow citizens guns if they want? Should certain types be banned? |
 |
 
|
| Where are my legs gone? | Apr 17 2007, 02:32 AM Post #2 |
|
Yawn!
|
im not living in the U.S so none of this law stuff really affects me. But i have a hunch that if firearms were banned except for people in The police and the Army then guncrime would go down quite significantly. |
|
|
|
| OcelotJay | Apr 17 2007, 06:52 AM Post #3 |
|
Purple > Everything
|
We have strict gun laws in the UK and even we have gun crime. The trouble, however, isn't really the guns. I'll admit I'm no fan of guns and would rather not see them become incorporated into British society in the same way but there are other countries where you can equally purchase guns but the crime rate is relatively low. The trouble isn't the weapon, it's the people, the society, the culture, and all they entail. If you take guns off the shelf it won't stop gun crime - reduce it perhaps but I suspect it would be quite some time before the vast number of guns in households are rounded up for good. Even then you will have people importing and buying them illegally; laws don't stop people who purposely go out of their way to murder. Take away guns and what follows? Knives. Stabbing would merely replace gun crime (I'm not sure though in comparison which of the two has a higher rate in America). Either way, weapons exist and can be brought into existence and little will stop crimes ensuing. I do agree with tight gun laws - if you're going to allow people to own weapons you should at least do your best to not give matches to the ticking time bomb. In terms of rights...meh. I'm all for protecting yourself and your home and family, and if you live in a gun state then I can see why you'd want one but I can't say I'm particularly bothered about that. People seem more concerned with defending their right to keep a gun (or take them away) than actually tackling the problem when it comes to gun crime, which is separate from gun ownership anyway. But that's how society is and why crimes are so prominent. We couldn’t care less. As long as we can fight it off when it comes to the crunch, we'd rather wait until we're actually at the bridge than anticipate it and do something about it. But then, burning bridges is to be expected in an arsonist society. 
|
|
|
|
| Bluezone777 | Apr 17 2007, 07:29 AM Post #4 |
|
Member
|
The problem is not having laws for gun control but having those laws enforced strictly and properly. all gun control does is make it harder for a law abiding citizne to obtain a gun but for the criminals it does nothing. think of it this way... if you are going to buy a gun to kill people well do you really think they give a crap about some gun control law. they will do whatever it takes to get those guns. not saying we shouldn't have gun control but make it as hard as possible for those who shoudln't have guns to get them and not make it hard for the ones that should be able to get them to have them. perhaps allowing someone in that school to legally have a gun on them. maybe the professors or some actual security there that is armed. it might have made all of the difference in how bad it ends up if someone was able to put a bullet into those gunman. |
|
|
|
| Gladstone | Apr 17 2007, 10:32 AM Post #5 |
From nothing, everything.
|
I must ask, why the heck are guns still legal in the USA? I find it a most rediculous notion. So it says you are allowed to bear arms in the constitution? The constitution that was written how many years ago? The constitution is wrong. In the UK and Australia guns are illegal.
75% of guns used in US gun crime are illegal, but these start as legally bought guns from shops anyway, rarely any are smuggled in from other countries. "We need guns to defend our families", is rediculous, if guns were illegal the crime would never happen in the first place. The only people who should be fighting the criminals are the police, not the public. To be honest I find a culture that includes alot of guns to be rather primitive. For sporting achievments its fine, but why do you feel the need to have severals guns in your house. Its does not make a good society. |
|
|
|
| Aaron | Apr 17 2007, 04:04 PM Post #6 |
Aaron MD
|
No it [The constitution] is not wrong. Look at the case of a recent Utah mall shooting MANY lives were saved because a law abiding gun carrying citizen USE his GUN to DEFEND his life and OTHERS by exchanging fire with the gunman, he keep the gunman at BAY until the SWAT team was able to take care of the situation. DEAD WRONG. Crime would still happen, if a person is determined enough to go to a public place and shoot it up there is nothing stopping him from getting a gun illeagly, we NEED to WAIT for the police to come, why wast precious time that would save lives by delaying the gunman. The BBC reports that since guns have been banned in the UK gun crime has been up by about 40% http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm areas that have banned guns tend to have higher levels of crimes. Oh and the campus at Va. Tech banned guns it did not stop it from happing, heck by federal law guns are banned in schools yet look at all the school shootings. In schools WE ARE SITTING DUCKS. So by BANNING guns from the hands of LAW ABIDING citizens you are giving the criminals the advantage. There is a reason why gangs and other criminal groups like the idea of banning guns. There is a reason why shootings never happen at gun shows. A gun does not kill people, idoits, morons, and criminals do. Also taking a jab at the impulsive debate most murders are planned in advance, even if it was impulsive what about knifes? A knife can kill, so why are people not worried about some one about breaking then wielding a knife to kill people? The fact again is that murder is hardly impulsive but is planned in. |
|
|
|
| Gladstone | Apr 17 2007, 04:20 PM Post #7 |
|
From nothing, everything.
|
And where did the gunman get his gun from? A shop selling guns?...
Its hard to get guns ilegally. True, gun crime exists to a certain extent, but its much better that there are no guns, and very little gun crime, than everyone having guns and there is more gun crime but some of the time someone with a gun can deal with the situation.
That information is out of date, gun crime has since fallen. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf
Because guns are legal and people can easily get hold of them.
As I said earlier, it is very hard to get guns illegally, I read somewhere that someone working for the police in America had never seen an illegally bought gun, they'd all been bought legally from shops etc. Yes criminals will get guns, but the government should be stopping that, not you walking down the street with a hand gun in your pocket. What needs to happen is all guns need to be removed from the society, the government need to work harder to stop guns getting into the hands of criminals. |
|
|
|
| Deltasix | Apr 17 2007, 04:29 PM Post #8 |
Me
|
It should be illegal NOT to carry guns, especially in schools and public places. Its downright immoral not to, because you're just making it easier for someone else to bring in a gun and shoot, and for you not to be able to do anything about it. If there is one place we need to start mandating guns, its schools. I mean, look at your average elementary school. How many guns are in there? 3,4, perhaps 5 max?!?! What if some freak decides to come in and shoot someone, how are these kids supposed to turn the entire world into a shooting gallery?[/sarcasm] I bet I can cite more examples when guns have done harm in the hands of citizens than where they have done good, Aaron. Ya wanna try? Your post sounds surprisingly like the words of Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America. Like, almost word for word. Or at least mirrors the same thought process that people who want schools to not be gun free zones use. I gotta say, nothing will make me feel safer in a public school than knowing everyone has a gun. What could possibly be wrong with a totally vigilantly society. ?
They sure do help. But you're right, guns don't kill people. Its just the bullet ripping through the human body that does. |
|
|
|
| Paper | Apr 17 2007, 05:18 PM Post #9 |
|
Member
|
I understand that guns can be used to keep gun criminals at bay. This logic is absurd though. If the criminal couldn't get hold of guns, then there wouldn't be a need to have guns to stop gun crimes in the first place. Gun crime would still happen, but at a much reduced rate. Why not sell tasers and other non lethal weapons that can be used to temporarily but not permanently harm people in the aid of self defence? By allowing people to have guns you are giving out the wrong message that guns are some how good. This leads to a culture where gun firing is expected to be practised. The reason gun crime is relatively low in the UK is because guns are illegal. This sub consciously leads to a sort of mass agreement that guns are not considered a way to kill people. The constitution argument is stupid argument. In my opinion, it is a problem with the constitution. When laws cause problems, usually you fix them. Aaron's data on gun crime in the UK is out of date by about 6 years. Gun and knife crime here is falling: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm There is bound to be an initial rise in gun crime, since people don't have guns to keep gun criminals at bay. This is why America has to phase out guns rather than ban them. Perhaps the UK made a mistake in this respect. Knifes are some what less dangerous than guns, since they have to be used at close range. This gives the victim a better opportunity to defend himself and identify their attacker. You can't ban knifes, but you can ban guns. What would you rather an idiot have, a gun or a knife? Not to sound disrespectful, but it seems absurd that with all the "guns for defence" available in the US, that 33 people needlessly died at that university? What happened to the great "let's use guns only to defend ourselves" stance there? |
|
|
|
| The Mustang | Apr 17 2007, 05:19 PM Post #10 |
|
When the rich wage war it's the poor who die.
|
The problem with everyone carrying a gun is. Who's to say one person can't just decide to shot another? I mean, they'll have their gun but one of the original gunman shoots while that person goes to grab it. He might be caught a little faster because than he'd have a bunch of guns pointed at him but that's still one death. I could see how it could stop shootings like Virginia Tech but to say its not immoral to carry guns just sounds plain weird. Killing is the immoral and main thing here, such as in early European society, there was no rule or law against it but people didn't do it because it was immoral (except in certain cases) which is how it should be in today’s society. So the real thing here is: Guns are not immoral, killing is immoral. EDIT: Wait I think I just put myself in a paradox. 
|
|
|
|
| Paper | Apr 17 2007, 05:24 PM Post #11 |
|
Member
|
One could suggest that guns are simply shown off to compensate for something else  I'd hate to go to a school where everyone has guns. 
|
|
|
|
| Aaron | Apr 17 2007, 05:51 PM Post #12 |
|
Aaron MD
|
I was not saying that we should be having guns in schools and such but poiting out the flaw in the "If guns are banned here it will not happen" statement.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page...T20061206b.html Myths of gun control http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_19_05_JS.html http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2097 No even in Pre WW1 UK before guns were banned the UK still had a very low crime rate.
Guns were banned on the campus. Guns are needed to protect the criminals that use them for harm, again a gun is only a tool it is not good nor evil it depends on the person using it. The Right to bear arms is there also so the citizens can fight back againts a corrupt and triananical goverment and to ensure our liberalities are not infringed on. What about the Swiss?! Every house there has a gun and ammo since until a year or two ago after people were released from required military service the goverment gave the people there guns, yet they have a low crime rate. |
|
|
|
| stamps | Apr 17 2007, 06:33 PM Post #13 |
Motormouth
|
Guns are great, I love my gun, and I'm not gonna give it up anytime soon, people are just ignorant. Gun control isn't the problem its the people. Like others have said people who want to go shoot people aren't gonna give a #### about no gun laws and won't have a problem getting one. People have the right to defend themelves their family their friends and their property, with deadly force if necessary here in texas, so why would I just let some other person have the upperhand? I'm gonna make it even. |
|
|
|
| LABaller | Apr 17 2007, 06:39 PM Post #14 |
Latino Heat
|
Half the logic I've viewed wouldn't stand at all in the neighborhoods that I've come from. In low class neighborhoods with gang violence, guns are a necessity to live. |
|
|
|
| Paper | Apr 17 2007, 06:59 PM Post #15 |
|
Member
|
Very correct my mistake. What I actually meant to say is that the use of guns is illegal and results in harsh prison sentences.
So you'd support the 9/11. After all, it was just a citizen fighting back against what they considered a corrupt and tyrant government. Did they have a right to do this since they are apparently at liberty to kill people if they feel that they need to exercise their so called liberties?
It's to do with the Swiss culture. American culture is nothing like Swiss culture. You're right, it's people who are the problem. But you can't really change that, all you can do is make getting guns difficult. By doing so, guns become a less popular method for crime. Switzerland has twice the crime rate of the UK. http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Java Hut · Next Topic » |
3:47 AM Jan 6