Gun Control (warning: heated arguments could happen)

Guns are specifically designed for and serve practically no other purpose than killing/inflicting damage.
The other things you mentioned don't. Rather flawed analogy. You don't need your gun at home if you only have one for hunting.

 

If that's the case, then why are people not running out to ban archery equipment? And if you say because they require more skill to operate, I'm going to get you've never shot a gun.

 

I am in favor of background checks on all gun sales, and a ban on assault rifles. Of course, banning assault rifles and having universal background checks wouldn't come close to eliminating gun violence. But something needs to be done.

Anyone who thinks that universal background checks and a ban on assault rifles is an attempt to take away our Second Amendment rights isn't very good at critical thinking. None of our rights are absolute - like speech, or the Fifth Amendment. The Second Amendment should be no different.

 

Because in most countries where guns are outlawed, bows and other projectile weapons are also outlawed.

I wasn't. I'm no more in favor of people having bows in their house than guns.
All thing equal though, guns take less skill and time to kill than bows.

---------- Post added 4th Jul 2013 at 09:20 PM ----------

Not to mention that the 2nd ammendment actually refers to an armed militia, not armed houses/civilians in general.

 

Yeah, I thought about adding that option, but I didn't know what to call it LOL

I forgot to state my stance of all of this. I'm pro-gun. It's unconstitutional to ban guns in the U.S "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."

The town I live in doesn't have its own police department and the nearest police department that has jurisdiction over my town is about 10 minutes away. Also, I'm sure the robbers would be smart enough to cut the phone lines and break our cell phones so I would be helpless. Also, criminals don't really follow the law so they would illegally obtain guns, or keep the gun in they were banned.

I'm in favor for the government to be involved with civilians, but there are some things that the government can't help you with and there's a small chance for the U.S to be a fascist state.

For example, China is a very oppressive country and corrupt officials could evict you out of your home and destroy your home with no problem and reason at all. If you have a gun, you could protect you (and your family) from being evicted. Hitler established gun control toward targeted minorities in 1938 and the law applied to all the countries he invaded. That's to ensure the targeted groups are helpless to fight back.

I'm all for stricter gun regulations to ensure only the law-abiding citizens can only have access to them. I don't see the reason for civilians to have pump-action shotguns or machine guns. Handguns would be more ideal for civilians.

 

I will concede that a gun does take less time to gain accuracy with but it still takes some skill.

I am absolutely astounded that projectile weapons are outlawed in other countries.

 

I get the whole "you can kill anyone with anything" argument, but knives and hammers were not made to kill people. Guns were made to kill people, one of their biggest purposes is to kill people. We have spent trillions making sure we have better guns to kill people with.

Shooting somebody with a three cent bullet is easy. Anybody can do it, it isn't personal. It doesn't take a second thought to do it. You can be in a heated argument and get somebody killed because once you pull the trigger there is no stopping it.

We are getting to the point where people can be killed so efficiently and easily that there needs to be more regulation on it. I'm sorry if you feel like your right to own an automatic weapon is being infringed upon by somebody else's right to live but it has to stop somehow.

Hunting is a sport, you do not need to hunt in today's age. Having a gun period puts you at an incredible advantage over the animal. Is it REALLY a sport anymore if you blow the poor thing's head off with a finger?

You can't hide a bow and 30 arrows in your pants. You can't take out 50 people with a bow and 30 arrows. It takes longer to pull out a bow and notch and arrow than it does to pull a gun and press down on the trigger.

 

I totally agree with everything you said, except this line. For most home defense, a shotgun is preferable to a handgun because of penetration, specifically through walls. A short barreled 12ga shotgun with a soft-packed 00-buck shot will stop an intruder without going through a wall, which is very important if you have children or live in an apartment. Personally, I keep a 20ga double-barrel Fox with pheasant loads, for the same reasons stated.

 

I bolded the keywords.
Everyone and their grandmother having guns is not the same as a well regulated militia.

That's a problem of not having adequate law enforcement coverage, not an argument in favour of personal gun ownership.

Then whe shouldn't illegalise anything as someone who really wants to do it will do it anyway.
Law against murder doens't stop murder for example.

With all due respect, do you seriously believe you'd stand any chance against the Chinese or US army with a handgun? Or even an automatic rifle?

 

I'm very opposed to gun control. Laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. Criminals do not care. If guns are banned, I guarantee you that criminals will still have them. My husband and I got into a discussion on this subject, and he told me, "The only thing that might be keeping that person from breaking into your house is the fact that they don't know whether or not you have a gun." Besides, in Ohio, (if I recall correctly) it is legal to kill a person who breaks into your house as long as they don't get off your property alive. Yeah, it's a scary thought, but we have to be able to defend ourselves. Allowing citizens to own guns may not be a fool-proof crime deterrent, but it's important that people have to be able to defend themselves because, if no one at all has guns, and someone breaks into your house, it's ultimately your strength against theirs. And if you're, say, a little old lady, you'd better be a black belt and own a badass cane.

However, I do not think that the average person should have access to things like assault rifles. Hand guns, hunting rifles, and compound bows are fine, but no one actually needs an AK-47 or anything like that. I also think that places selling guns should have to do background checks on the people who want to buy guns from them.

In conclusion, I would personally love to own a handgun. Just something small for emergencies. I don't hunt, so I don't need a rifle.

OK.... That's my pretty excessive two cents.

 

Like I said, it does take skill, but considerably less than archery.
More-over I'm against the posession of any form of (ranged) weaponry by civilians.

Yet those countires don't have higher murder or gun related death rates.

 

Yeah guys, just state your reasons for being pro-gun or anti-gun. I don't want you guys to be so heated and I don't want this thread to be locked.

 

pro-gun yo
how else are the proletariat gonna liberate ourselves

 

I tend to think more about strict ammo control/regulation.

Monitor/moderate components rather than the whole. :3

 

Why the hell do we need weapons that can shoot through walls and make somebody's head unrecognizable?

Regulations would need to be made for normal people, and the manufacturers. Unless you live in the Bronx or an area similar I doubt you need more protection than a hand gun can offer.

 

Sorry but this is a severly flawed argument.
We don't make laws based on the likelyhood of whether criminals will abide by them.
Laws against murder also don't stop murder from happening, yet we still have those.
Same for laws against drugs, pedopornography etc.

But your husband isn't representative for criminals.
Columbine had an armed guard, but that didn't stop the killing there. Nor has the presence of guns detered other murders mass, or singular.

Disgusting law imo. Self-defense I can agree with. Killing someone merely for being on your porperty or stealing something is quite literally overkill.

There's a difference between self-defense and killing someone merely for being on your property.

Statistics give us a different picture:

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down | Mother Jones

 

I live in the UK, and guns are mostly illegal here. But you can bet your bottom dollar that my house is protected.

 

Here's an informational page for everybody to consider.

It's got lots of facts and the sources to back them up. I didn't see it making any judgement on the data presented, just a basic layout of some facts for your consideration.

I will say a few things about it, though: some of the data seems old, but when compared to the charts that go back a few decades, it's understandable why they present the older data. Also, bear in mind that a lot of these points are raw numbers, not rates. The population in the US ranges from 220,000,000 in 1977 to 310,000,000 in 2012, so most of those numbers as rates would be quite small.

 

Fourth Amendment*

Thanks again, EC, for not letting me edit a post. :tantrum:

 

Pro-gun because I think that queer people, women, and people of color should be able to defend themselves against the people who are attacking them physically.