Gun Control (warning: heated arguments could happen)

I don't really like guns, but I wouldn't say I'm completely "anti-gun". I think background checks are good and guns should be regulated, and I also think it's very obvious that background checks don't take away the second amendment.

 

Then you should also be pro-murder, theft etc. or you're being inconsistent.
This is not meant as a personal attack, but this argument is fundamentally flawed.

---------- Post added 5th Jul 2013 at 08:53 AM ----------

No, it's an accurate one.
Your argument boils down to: We shouldn't ban X, because people will do X anyway.

It also allows for accidents and rage killings.

Because it's the same basic form of argument you're using.

 

Whatever Canada has going on with guns, I agree with.
I, Anti-gun, because if you restrict guns, and take away all assault rifles, I shall be happy. Or atleast make them harder to obtain, I'm meh with handguns.

 

Which isn't an argument against gun control in any way.

---------- Post added 5th Jul 2013 at 08:58 AM ----------

That's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Many countries in Europe have changed their constitutions. Just because it's the constitution doesn't mean it will destroy the country if you update it.

---------- Post added 5th Jul 2013 at 09:02 AM ----------

Whether your vegetarian or not is not a direct argument for or against gun control.
Secondly most robbery cases aren't equal, in the sense that you'll have a chance to draw your gun before the robber has pointed his at you or put a knife to your throat.
Thirdly Columbine had an armed guard, that did not help to prevent the massacre occuring there.
I'm not getting your reference to dogs.
And animal road kill is hardly an argument for gun ownership.

 

Tell that to the American conservatives.

 

I know, I know.

 

I am not crazy about the vote options so I am making my own. I am pro-gun enforcement but not anti gun. We need stronger policies

Foxface

 

Super-anti-gun. I've studied the phenomena and the pattern of violence and accidental killing is 80% higher in areas where people own guns for protection, there is a lot of psychology in the matter that will dammage and create violence. And the legilation of arming is from 1700 century and it needs to be removed.

 

I really don't like reading these heated arguments... But it seems I can't stop. I love conflict too much.

 

I put pro, but I think there should be restrictions. Background checks, mental health evaluations, etc. I also see no need for automatic weapons.

 

You know the "poll" is flawed from the start if gun control is immediately labelled "anti gun"

 

I'm not too knowledgeable about the arguments for and against and policies and all that, but I will say that we don't really have gun crime in the UK. We haven't had schools get all shot up.

 

There is a means for tweaking the Constitution. It's called an amendment. It has to pass through both houses of congress and be ratified by thirty-eight states. I think the last amendment to pass all the hurdles was to lower the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen. The ERA amendment was never ratified by enough states.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand the devotion you guys give to the constitution. It attempts to guard civil liberties, yes, but do you really think a simple document will prevent the government from abusing your rights if they decide to? So if there is something wrong with it, change it. That only makes it better.

I mean no offense by that. If any was caused, I apologise.

 

Every other developed country outside of the U.S. does perfectly fine with civilians not having access to guns of any kind.

 

Something to consider when citing gun deaths per person in the US and comparing it to other countries. We have a bigger problem of gang violence in this country than most other places. Most gun violence is caused by these gangs. Gangs have proven time and time again in Chicago and Washington DC that gun control laws will not stop them from acquiring firearms.

10 Most Deadliest Gangs Around The World

Of the 10 gangs in that article, 5 of them are US based.

Putting Gun Death Statistics in Perspective - Gangs Remain Key Unaddressed Problem in Gun Debate

Tighter gun legislation is not going to solve the violence and homicide problems in America, because these problems have a deeper cause than availability of guns. Tighter legislation will only make it harder for those of us that do obey the law to obtain means to defend ourselves.

 

I agree with you, and this is what completely throws me off. What makes the USA so different that we feel we need guns for protection from a variety of enemies where other countries do just fine? Personally, I feel our government would, at least in part, amass as much power over the people as it could without a violent uprising, so if the guns were gone, we'd be living in a fascist state.

Is it that governing bodies in other countries aren't as power-hungry, so people are more willing to trust them with restrictive gun laws?

 

And private gun ownership has stopped how many of these gangs? Or the murders they've comitted?

No one says it will. That's a straw-man. What it will do is make it harder for those people to get guns and decrease the possibility of guns of homeowners being involved in accidents or rage-induced violence.

And how often have those guns been succesfully used? Between 1 and 3,5% depending on the study.
Charts: Challenging the Myth That Guns Stop Crime | Mother Jones
http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf
Guns for Self-Defense: Myth Versus Reality | The Broad Side
More-over:

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down | Mother Jones

---------- Post added 5th Jul 2013 at 07:45 PM ----------

With all due respect, but that's a complete fantasy that private gunownership is preventing your government from becoming a fascist state.
Your government has nukes, tanks, fighterjets, drones, submarines, aircrafcarriers etc. etc. at their disposal. You really believe handguns and automatic rifles are a threat to that?

 

Yes, because they won't use all that crazy stuff on their own people, which are the source of their power. It wouldn't be a force-on-force contest like a classical war; it would be guerrilla attacks just like the terrorists are using, and all their gazillions of dollars in hardware haven't made a dent in them yet either.

The element of surprise and blending in with the populace are more effective tools than aircraft carriers if you're fighting an asymmetrical war.

*Not that it's really relevant, but generally we don't have automatic rifles either as they are so regulated as to basically be banned already. AR-15s are exclusively semi-automatic.

 

Linthras, those seem like great arguments for gun control not being anti-gun, in general which is what I thought this thread was all about.