2nd Ammendment Rights: Should Guns Be Banned?
 

With the recent wave of sniper attacks, school shootings, and continous terrorism threats, shoud the constatution be ammended to ban guns?

I'm opening the floor to everyone. I know there more to this topic than meets the eye, so there's a clear floor.

Anyone?

I am not a fan of guns by any means, but banning guns is going to cause more trouble than leaving them...

There is no way you can find every single gun in this country and take it away from them. Basically, the police would have to go door to door and rip everyone's house apart looking for guns..

Also, if you took guns away from people, you know the Black Market will make a fortune smuggling in guns from the underground. Anyway, even if by some slight chance that they take every gun out of this country you should think about this: If a frustrated man who had his gun taken away from him gets a new gun from the black market goes on a shooting rampage, well you know what happens next....

Banning guns in the United States would be a win for the Black Market

And the black market supports drugs, and, as the propaganda goes, drugs support terrorism.

We'd be doing the opposite of our intentions.




Just another reason to take away our rights. To date, we've lost the 4th ammendment, 5th ammendment (somewhat), and now possibly the 2nd ammendment.

Hmmmm... how about let's just sell the Bill of Rights to the government for $1 while we can still make a profit on it?

Hey you only lose your rights if you let them.:p

The mere act of owning a gun harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.

Guns are inanimate objects, they can not act by themself. Put the responsibility for the action where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. When a gun owner is responsible and uses their gun safely, no harm, no crime. When a gun owner is irresponsible and uses their gun to commit a crime, hold them responsible and punsih them severly for imparing the rights of another.

A gun dosn't commit a crime, a person does.


As for drug money supporting terrorism, that is not propaganda. The propaganda is the spin put on it. The government's "Every peaceful recreational user helped pay to crash a plane into the WTC" or the "Prohibition makes prices artificially high, making it lucrative to criminals"

Take a lession from prohibition, both alcohol and drugs.
In both cases, once banned, use increassed and the price skyrocketed. Turf wars and violence were brought by those selling them to protect their profits.

In both cases, all laws designed to prevent people from having them failed. Banning guns will not stop gun ownership.

A quote from a great American statesman, patriot and lover of freedom comes to mind.

"Those who give up essential liberty, to preserve a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin

That rings just as true today as it did 200 years ago.


Wetzel

Guns in many ways should and shouldn't be banned. They should b/c there are many "accidental" deaths that happen b/c of them. the reason why they shouldn't is b/c guns is the main use of protection for police, and other high level protection services. as for personal ownership. u should be required to have a valid license to carry a gun in your home. no license no gun. im not a big fan of guns either, but they are useful when used correctly. the sniper in washington is a perfect example of why the guns should be taken away. hes a nut case and must be stopped before another inncoent person is killed by his stupidity

I'm going to have to vote yes, but I m both ways on the idea:

1)There is no place for guns in our modern society. They are are not effective in self-defense, and they never cause any good when someone yeilds them, for whatever reason.

(The only time they are effective is in law enforcement.)

2)Can they be banned, no, banning would cause more harm than good. Between the money on the black market, and the psycological factor of them being a forbidden item (like with drugs), makes them desierable to the ignorant.

Like in previous posts in this thread I am in limbo when it comes to whether or not guns should be banned. If guns were banned it would be sort of like a Fahrenheit 451 thing going on. There would be no way of knowing who does and who doesn't have a gun so it would just be waisting more tax money by going around searching for them all.

Personally I dont think all guns should be banned. However I think that there needs to be more gun training, as well as education for every student how to disarm and make a gun safe should you come across it. Guns will not just vanish when you wish for them to...so banning them all together would be an ineffective solution. However banning semiautomatics...that I dont think would be a horrible thing to do, because semiautomatics are convertable into full automatics. Then again....I did my senior project on the topic, and actually talked to both sides. The people against the gun restrictions made some very good points along the lines of what needs to be done is more training, not taking them out of hands and making them forbidden fruit

It would be rather counterpruductive to ban all guns in the country, the biggest example being the police departments. If all guns were banned, it is true that black market sales would be exponentially increased. With illegal guns on the streets, if legal guns were banned, would an officer armed with a nightstick and a slingshot stand a chance against a gun wielding shoplifter? While I in no way promote the use of guns as a solution to any situation, i do believe there are too many conflicting and different opinions floating around to easily come up with a solution to the problem. There are those who say to ban guns violates the freedoms this country is based on, while others insist less guns=less death. I agree with most in saying firearm education should be implemented, although there's no guarantee that even with proper training, a gun can't and won't be turned on another human at any given time, for any given reason.

Just my two and a half of a haypenny cents.

Well actually the seconed amendment only protects your rights to have a gun to defend your country. Gun activists try and use that to say that the US shouldn't pass strict gun laws but that is never what the 2nd amendment was for. I don't think we should ban guns but we should pass good laws.

Yeah, but if we have no guns how can we protect our rights?

No, I'm not implying that we immediately resort to violence. But in the past, situations have arisen where the only solution is to fight (WWII/Civil War/American Revolution/etc).


"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."


Our nation stands for the rights of the individual. If our rights are being taken away, then isn't our nation, and its duties to protect these rights, being comprimised? A nation with little or no rights doesn't sound like America to me. Therefore, we must defend our nation and therefore our rights.

Well actually I never said we should ban guns but it is a fact that the framers of the us constitution were influenced by the revolutionary war. You can tell when they made it up that they were living in a differnt time frame than we do today. Come on when is the last time you had a court case deal with the third amendment. I wouldn't mind a national database of gun markings for each gun and who buys them. It would be very easy to do.

74% to 17% to 9%... It's refreshing to see.....

Personally, I am not a big fan of guns. I have seen numerous shootings during my EMT internship in the inner city part of LA and see all the bad they can do. they destroy lives and terrorrize people.


If you make owning a gun a criminal offense then only criminals will own guns: That might seem self-obvious but it is the truth.
That said i do not agree with banning guns for several reasons.
Many people collect guns for fun. Additionally people rely on guns for protection especially in wildland-urban interface areas where they might encounter dangerous wildlife.


If you outlaw guns a black market will be formed: The truth about the black market is that its goods are more dangerous, more powerful, and more deadly than the alternative. The guns purchased on the black market are not your normal 9mm or 45. Instead they are often fully automatic assault rifles. there is in the United States a flourishing black market for guns and outlawing guns would only serve to expand this market with its goods being more powerful than the guns we are used to today.


Guns dont kill people, people kill people: Sure people use guns to kill other people, but knives, cars, needles, shovels, box cutters, screwdrivers, glass, baseballs bats, hockey sticks, and numerous other common items have been used to commit murders as well. It does no good to ban an object that without a user, poses no threat to anybody.

Legitimate groups use guns: Hunters, law enforcement, private security, and many other groups have a legitimate need for guns and banning guns would adversely affect those groups. How effective would the police be if they had to stop a robbery with their own hands with no gun to back them up. The criminals would still have guns but the police would be even less able to protect you.

Sure guns cause problems in a modrn society but so does everything else. Banning guns would create more problems than it solves.

My family has always stressed gun safety and proper use of firearms. Since my father was a teenager, he has owned guns for hunting and range shooting. I had my first gun when I was born (a first birthday present from my father) and have grown up with guns. My sister and I have always been encouraged to be comfortable with using them for target shooting and hunting, and have been instructed to never use them against another human unless it is a dire situation.

My parents are now divorced, and my father lives in the mountains, half an hour away from the nearest sherriffs office, and half an hour from the nearest hospital. If you call the sheriff, it takes two hours for one of the two county deputies to report. We carry a pistol with us everywhere, because there are alot of strange people that live up there.

A couple months ago, we came home from a backpacking trip in the Grand Canyon to find our house had been burglarized, and all of our rifles stolen. Good thing we still had our shotguns locked up in another gun safe...the sheriff took 3 hours to come investigate. In the mean time, we had to sit in that house, in the dark, and wait.

In cases like these, where people live out in the middle of no where, and law enforcement barely enforces, it is imperative for the people to carry guns to protect themselves and their homes. In addition to this, many people get through the year on game meat (deer, quail, pheasant, turkey, duck). These are the two examples in my life that I just thought I'd bring up. Sean_330 made some really good points :)

I can understand the debate over how much gun ownership should be regulated, but to ban guns completely?? That just doesn't make sense to me.

Guns don't kill people, but it's a hell of a lot easier to kill someone with a gun then with a stick.


-Andy A.

It's fairly easy to kill someone with a stick don't count it out. You could probably kill a person with a good whack to the head.

"The National Rifle Accociation says that guns don't kill people, people do. But I think the gun helps. I think it helps, I think just standing there and going BANG!, that's not going to kill too many people is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart, BANG! BANG! BOOM! BANG! RAT-A-TAT! BANG!" - Eddie Izzard

Sure you can kill somebody with a stick, but you have to be REALLY CLOSE to them to do it.

You can't attach a scope to a stick and make a long-range sniper-stick to whack someone in the head from 200 meters away.

You don't see drive-by stick whacking.

I don't think "Stop! I've got a STICK!" is really going to scare a criminal.

I'm sure a bank robbery wouldn't go so well if you threatened the teller with a stick. "Give me the money, or I'll whack you with this STICK!" or pass them a note that says "I have a STICK, and I'll WHACK you with it if you don't give me the money!"

Can you see the police saying "Put down the stick, and come out with you hands UP!" No!

I think a school tragedy would be avoided if two misguided students burst into a classroom weilding STICKS.

Why don't you go try to hunt a deer with only a stick and see how you do.

Okay, you stand there, and I'll take my metal baseball bat and see how many blows to the head you can withstand before you die. Or how about the ribs? How many ribs can I break before your lungs fill up with fluid and you die?

Okay, so maybe you won't just be standing there. You will defend yourself. But that baseball bat is gonna hurt no matter where it hits you, even if it's the hands.

Just kidding, of course. It's only hypothetical.

What about a crossbow? Those can be rather accurate. They can also be home-built. Same with compound bow. Are we going to ban those too? Crossbows have triggers, and it's possible to hit a target from many yards. Granted not as far as a gun, and not as accurate when moving, but just as deadly, if not more deadly.

Andy, Amy, and MBiddy covered a lot of the thoughts I have about this issue.

For the record, I don't think banning guns is any kind of reasonable solution. On the other hand, I don't think they should be freely available to anyone on the street.

I'm not well versed in current gun related legislation, but I believe that both enforcement of current laws and perhaps the creation of more regulations is a perfectly viable solution to any sort of problem.

Now for a little about me. I don't own a gun, and no one in my immediate family owns a gun. I may be a stupid idealist, but I don't see a dire need for guns in modern society. The only real purpose that I see guns have is to kill things, whether they be animals or people (neither of which I explicitly approve of), and I really doubt I'll ever have the want or need to kill anything, ever, so I seriously doubt I'll ever own a gun...

My general opinion about everything is that education is key.

<edit>

Regarding the baseball bat and the crossbow...

A gunshot to practically any body part would most likely be a lot more effective, and easier, than a baseball bat, though I do realize that you can kill a person with practically any object.

I'm not sure exactly how many premeditated murders were committed with crossbows (homemade or otherwise [I'm not counting the Middle Ages :p ]), this year (or any other year, for that matter), but I'm willing to bet a very small amount of USD that gun related deaths far outnumber them...

</edit>

Beware: Gracious Professionalism does not follow.

Like yourself? :rolleyes:

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms:
In other words, the federal government has NO BUSINESS IN THIS MATTER!

The federal government is not given the power to regulate guns so they do not lawfully have the power to make the laws they are making!

The fact that this is even a point of discussion confuses, saddens, and angers me. Our gov't has infringed on way too many of our rights and needs to be changeds

Think on this, if all or most of the people have guns, would you ever want to rob someone? And if you think that a good pistol is useless in self defense you really need to rethink that.

Hey its the constitution its just vague enough to say that the federal government can pass any laws it deams neccessary. It's called the elastic clause. Thus as long as the judicial section of the govenrment agrees that the law is constitutional they can do what they need to do. Remeber the constitution says you can have guns:) but it doesn't say that there can't be laws regulating how you buy guns.Ahh yes but there is a little problem. Having a gun doesn't mean your not going to stop everyone from comitting crimes.. If that logic actually worked than it should have stopped all crime because all cops have guns. Plus if you use a pistol on a person that is unarmed in self defense then your going to be in a lot of trouble.

Don't generalize the Constitution, it is about the worst thing you can do, it is how it has been so abused lately.

"Elastic" Clause:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I don't see anywear in the constitution where the federal government is given any power over the peoples guns. Thus the powers "vested by this Constitution" do not give the power, so it doesn't exist.

And you are right it doesn't say specifically that there can't be laws regulating guns, but it does say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
i.e. The states could make gun laws, but not the federal gov't.

I said the general public. And yes all cops do have guns, and how many crimes are commited against cops? (not very many.) Did I ever say you should use a gun in self defense against an unarmed person? Anyone trained in gun use and safety would not do that. Unless they feared for their life and were unsure of what the assailant had.

Here is what we should do. Pass the laws controlling gun acess. Then sort it out later.

um it's also sort of my point that the Constitution has been badly abused, or did you miss that?

and you think the Consitution gives the gov't the right to regulate guns?

Actually that's not my writing it's called the 10th amendment.

Woops:). Never mind your right. Of course we could always fix that with another amendment:). Of course that still doesn't stop me from saying that we should pass strict gun laws.

That's what amendments are for. And I am sure gun laws will be passed, just cause something is not supposed to be done hasn't stopped them in the past.

When the rights and safety of the many is impinged on by the rights of the individual, unfortunately that means that there will be regulation to try to create a balance between the two. When the clause in the constitution about guns was put in, it also meant that guns and there restriction then came under the control of not only the state but the federal government. Guns without regulations impinges on the rights of the many, because if certain guns were legal it would be easier for there to be mass killings. Gun laws in some cases are there for one reason, to protect the wellbeing of the user as well as of the public. While I respect your opinion that guns shouldnt be as heavily controlled I cannot agree with it.
People have the right to expect some degree of safety in their country. Regulations on the construction and creation helps insure that they are safe for the end user to use. Gun laws on who can own a gun try to keep guns out of the hands of those who have commited violent crimes before this point. You cant say that the government has a say on some parts of the constitution but not on others.

Um, I don't see that anywhere, it was meant to list a right that the people had, not a power of the govt.

Those who have commited crimes before is a different argument all together, they have given up their rights by committing the crime. I didn't say the govt has a say on some parts but not on others, I'm saying that the 2nd amendment does not list a power of the federal gov't and no where in the Constitution does it even imply that the federal gov't has the right to regulate guns.

I'd love to talk more, but I gotta get ready for school.

I think that there's an important fact no one has mentioned yet. Canada has roughly the same number of guns per capita as the US, but the number of gun related illnesses is in the range of 1/10th that of the US. Obviously, the mere possession of guns doesn't cause deaths. The main difference has to be in the people that own guns or in the environment they live in.

Gun related illness? I think you were looking for crime. And I would agree, we are in a poor environment, the main problem with guns is that people do not train their kids (or maybe even themselves) in the proper use of guns. I for one have never even touched a gun I didn't know how to load, unload, fire, and use the safety on. It keeps everything safe. And the rule is: "never point a gun at something you do not intend to kill."

The gun amendment is just that, an amendment to the constitution. This gives the right to the federal government to change amendments, an example of this in action being prohibition. I really dont believe that violent crime criminals should be considered a different issue because the laws and restrictions pertaining to them does not mean they have to have all their rights taken away because of their crime after they have served their sentence. Things like the mandatory wait period before buying a gun DO have reasons in them for why they exist. Its for the very basic reason to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, ie those who have committed a violent crime. They were created in order to allow this country to better enforce laws made which relate to criminals and their treatment.

This whole section and the case in question does not really give a full defining definition to what is impinging on rights and what isnt, but it provides a glimmer of illumination as to what possibly COULD be impinging on rights. The courts at this time have not really decided one way or another on what infringes the second amendment and what does not

Also in the original written constitution the amendment in question read as so:

There is supposed to be no comma after Arms as well as none after militia. While this might seem to be a small point, it also changes the definition of the whole amendment in question. Also please note that the right to bear arms is also contingent with the fact that it has to be justifiable as for use in a militia.

As long as the ability to keep and bear arms is not infringed on, I dont believe that there is a conflict of interest in the regulation of getting guns. When arguing about whether guns should be regulated or not, please keep in mind the context of the clause provided.

Furthermore lets explore the definition of well regulated as it was defined at the time of the constitution.
Laws created that make guns which have been modified from their original use and therefore become dangerous for the user illegal are not against the constitution, as the gun would not be functioning as it would have originally been expected to.

You cant reasonably argue that all legislation on guns and the possession and ability to have them at the national level is against the second amendment. To do so is to take parts out of the amendment and not consider the whole as it would have been defined at the time it was written and ratified.

The amendment implies nothing about guns being justifiable for people who are not well trained and versed in their usage, as somebody who is untrained yet still owns a gun and is still able and LEGAL to use that gun, would not be able to well contribute to a well-regulated militia as it was originally meant.

Ive seen many many people who are against gun laws ignore the part of the second amendment which says that"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, " which implies that the whole amendment is about the topic of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA and everything thereafter pertains to that fact. If the weapon in question is not something that would fit that part of the constitution, there is nothing wrong with the banning of that weapon.

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

This implies that it is to protect the states from tyranny of the federal gov't, b/c a militia would be state run. So in this day and age, could you fight against a tyrannical federal gov't which has assault rifles and rocket launchers with pistols and shotguns? I would think not. I'm sorry I didn't respond to all of your points, I really am not feeling too well right now, and don't have the patience to write out everything.

History
 

When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.

George Washington

Quote
 

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty's teeth.

George Washington

Ashlee...This dosn't make sense to me.
The amendments to the Constitution carry the same weight as the rest of the constitution. To change an amendment requires another amendment. Article 5 of the Constitution gives the Federal government the right to change amendments, not the gun amendment.

It also doesn't matter how it was suppose to be written, what matters is how it was actually written and accepted.


Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~
I nitpick sometimes.
Accuracy is important.

This is an interesting point. In the past few minutes, I've looked at more than five different transcriptions of the Second Amendment, and only one of them had the wording (placement of the commas) the way you describe. This is the version I find most convincing, considering it's hosted by the U.S. National Archives & Records Administration. The wording you describe, Ashlee, does not make sense in proper English.

However, none of this changes the fact that the amendment in question implies the existence of a "well regulated Militia [sic]". I, for one, don't believe that there many "well regulated" militias, except for, perhaps, the National Guard.

I believe this amendment should be clarified and restated because of the fact that the time in which the concept of needing a "well regulated" militia for the protection of our homeland has passed.

Don't let them do it
 

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of firearms is the goal."
- Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, December 10th, 1993 [Associated Press]

So you trust people in Washington D.C. to protect you?

And anyways, the militia is not so much meant to protect the country but the states from the federal government. Read some more about your founding fathers and you'd see what they really thought.

I would much rather employ due process rather than a firearm. If the FBI (or another federal agency) were to raid your house, would you start shooting? Do you feel that any state in particular has been abused by the federal government?

True, as would most gun-owners. But, someone threatening your life sure doesn't want to employ due process, and then, a gun can be helpful for self-defense. Afterall, if a crimnal merely knows you have a gun, some confrontations can be avoided. I believe it was FDR who said "speak softly and carry a big stick."

Also, I believe you are missing the point. The second amendment gives us all a right to bear arms, and it gives us one reason (the well regulated militia) that we have that right. I for one don't believe that a well regulated militia is the ONLY reason we should have the right to bear arms, and I'm sure the framers didn't either. That being the case, just because you are of opinion that the justification clause (the well regulated millitia part) no longer holds, that is not a reason in and of itself to ban guns. I have yet to hear a logical reason why guns should not be allowed.

For now, I'll skip over the debate about wheater or not the second ammendment is an individual right or not, and even ignore the argument that the nullification of the justification clause should cause the nullification of the operative clause (the one that gives us the right to bear arms). Instead, I'll pose a question: Why do you believe guns should be banned? What reason can you give that would impel one to give up his liberty to bear arms?

Stephen

Here's some info to chew on while you debate this topic: Bowling for Colombine. Michael Moore created this whilstle blower movie that won numerous awards about America's obsession with, well, guns.

NOTE: This movie is not indorsed by Chiefdephi.com, Chief Delphi, Team 384, or Joseph M, nor does all the topics discussed are believed by them. Thank you.

http://www.mgm.com/ua/bowlingforcolumbine/

Just something to chew on.

Well, I just looked at the flash intro, and it looked like a bunch of liberal propoganda. I don't see how ANY of the info in it relates to the topic at hand. Yes, it gives you a few statistics on the amount of gun homocides in America. So what? Have we reached the point where a few dubiosly presented statistics are reason enough to abondon our liberties?

I know you gave your disclaimer, but I'm having trouble finding how any of that information is relevant to the banning of guns.

Stephen

The idea was to throw something out there that provoked some thought rather than "I have a gun! I'm safe!" and "I don't and I'm safe!" debate now.

Call it liberal. But you have to question why the NRA had a rally near Colombine 10 days after.

BTW, it is very liberal at the into, so I would just watch the movie. So much so I choked on it.

My complaint is that the flash intro (I don't have the means to watch the movie right now) was not inteded to provoke thought. It was made to scare poeple into believing what the creator of the intro wanted them to think. The intro gives statistics on gun homocides in various countries, but they are useless without knowing the population, percentage of population owning guns, and gun-laws in those countries. Call me skeptical, but I don't trust selectively presented, incomplete statistics. Also, I question the usefulness of the statistics, even if they were complete and trustworthy. I'd wager to bet that the detaining of all citizens into padded prison cells would drastically cut down on accidental deaths. Does that mean we should give up our liberties because statistically speaking we would be safer?

I know nothing of this rally, but have you thought that maybe they NRA was bright enough to realize that there would be a call to ban guns, and they were holding a rally to sway public opinion because they value their rights?

Stephen

PS. I'm still waiting for someone to give me a reason to ban guns.

You won't get one from me. I'm not pro-banning guns, but I am pro-regulation, and enforcement of current laws.

<edit>
err... and pro-clarification, as I said before...
</edit>

So am I Foto. As srawls said, the intro was crap. I hated it too. It offerend NO, and I mean NO, un biased info. Did they include the high rate of suicides in Japan. Nope.

We all seem to have neglected the 14th amendment (including myself)

I believe I have implied that the states have power to regulate guns, whereas the federal government does not. This seems to imply that all rights of the citizens cannot be infringed upon by the states or federal government. Thoughts?

This implies that the state cannot impose laws or such that interfier with life, liberty, and the persut of happyness. Guns, eeeh. Also, privalages doesn't apply to guns, guns are a privalage, but voteing is a privalage that they were talking about. Being able to have as many kids as you want is privalage. Owning a gun is one we have abused.

U need to think this over again.

"Privalages doesn't apply to guns, guns are a privalage" [sic]

Go see tihs movie Bowling For Columbine

that was just posted!

Let me reorganize my words. I'll post tomorrow. I need sleep.

Also MattK...

I POSTED THAT ALREADY!!!!!!

MattK:

Please pay attention to what's been previously said in a thread before posting.

Sry man, my bad, my bad.


as I said beafore, great minds think alike

Yes, guns should be banned under my opinion. Too much killing out there.

There definitely would be complications if guns were banned in the US.... but I truly think there would be a huge decrease in shooting deaths.

In Canada it is illegal to own a firearm (unless you are a law enforcer) - of course this doesn't prevent people from obtaining guns if they really really want to (i.e. black market) - but the numbers show that there are alot less shooting deaths in Canada than in the US. And you wouldn't really need a gun for personal protection, because without a whole bunch of guns floating around, you would have less to protect yourself from.

I would not be so quick to shed your rights, if I were you! Let me bring your attention to what I said in a post above:

I'd wager to bet that the detaining of all citizens into padded prison cells would drastically cut down on accidental deaths. Does that mean we should give up our liberties because statistically speaking we would be safer?

Stephen

Well liberties are one thing, but I'm not sure if guns are a essential factor in the functioning of a society. You don't exactly need a gun to live, or go to work, or what not. They are primarily weapons, above all else - and if society can function without guns (such as in places like Canada), why not take the next step to reduce deaths and lower crime rates?

What happens if the government in Canada suddenly becomes undesirable (communist, whatever) What are the citizens going to do?

What happens if a bear (or a criminal) forces his way into your house in Canada?

-Joel

Well, I'm not sure if junk food is an essential factor in the functioning of a soceity. Besides, there are too many obese people dying, if we got rid of junk food, we could save lives!

You see? The government cannot deny us something, merely because it is not nescasary for a functioning society. For guns to be banned, there must be some moral wrong in simply owning a gun. And besides ... do you trust the government to determine what is nescasary for a functioning society? I sure don't! You said yourself "I'm not sure if guns are ..." Well, how sure does one have to be before something is banned?

I'm going to cut myself short on this argument, because there really is no viable argument for banning guns. Now, those crying 'restrictions' have a good point (even driving is restricted!), but that is another argument, and I am of the mind that the less restrictions the better. But, perhaps that argument will come out in another post.

Stephen

I can absolutely see what you're saying, but when was the last time you saw a vicious murderer torture and kill a person using twinkies, ding-dongs, and non-low-fat ice cream?

Guns have no use other than injuring and killing living things, whether they be humans or animals, and I'm just not down with that.

True, however vicious murderers do use guns and other weapons, and if you don't have one, you are at a serious loss for power when they attack you. However, if you have a gun, things are suddenly evened out. There are plenty of statistics out there showing that criminals do not attack people that they believe have a gun or know have a gun, and that they can easily get one even though it is illegal for them to have one.

Did anyone see the Jackass movie? Odd example but, if there's an alligator in your house, how afraid would you be? I personally wouldn't be, cause it would be a dead alligator very quickly.

Unrelated Note: Alligator is yummy.

Umm ... have you heard of the "twinkie defense" :)
Sorry, I couldn't resist ... just trying to throw in a little humour.

But, as far as the law is concerned, only murder is a crime. Killing is justifiable in some circumstances. So, unless you move to make injuring and killing all things a crime (to include self defense, and hunting), then I don't see your point.

Also, don't forget using guns for sport (w/o killing!). Indeed, archery, swordsmenship, karate ... all these are concerned with "injuring and killing" but they have a sport aspect as well. Should we ban them also?

Stephen

Let's look at some facts
 

From the CDC: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

1999 American Mortality Statistics:

Suicides:
Firearm Related - 16,599

Homocides:
Firearm Related - 10,828

Death due to Unintentional Injury:
Firearm Related - 824
Motor Vehicle Related - 40,965

Total Deaths:
Firearm Related - 28,251
Motor Vehicle Related - 40,965

Conclusion:
Let's ban cars and trucks.
Wait...
That would create outrage and would be doomed to fail.
...
Ok, then lets start with some additional restrictions on them and work our way up to a total ban over a twenty year period.
Sounds good.
Uhm.....

No, those are also different, just like motor vehicles. Lemme try to summarize what I'm trying to say:

Reasons to ban guns:
1) they are commonly used as devices for killing, unlike swords, bows, pencils, junk food, etc.

2) of all the commonly used devices to hurt others, guns are the most lethal (the others including baseball bats, knives, etc)

2) when people kill others with guns, it's generally not an accident. Vehicle-related deaths, or death by electrocution, etc, are mostly accidents, results of poor technique/negligence.

3) aside from law enforcement, society doesn't require guns to function - this is shown in other countries where firearms are banned.

And just as a sidenote, when I made previous references to Canada, I wasn't trying to say that Canada is "better" or whatever than the US. Just making comparisons to support my points - in case anybody was offended, or felt that I was being obnoxiously patriotic. :)

There's a reason why it's amendment #2.

If #1 is in jepardy, an armed citizenry can overthrow what would otherwise become a dictatorship.

I leave off with a quote from Robert Heinlein.

"A monarch's neck should always have a noose around it -- it keeps him upright. "

;) :D

Ok, I'll try to go point by point.

SO? I don't see your logical connection here. And please, instead of killing, say murder. Let me try to explain. This is how I see your argument: "Object X is often used in Crime A, so we should ban Object X"

Now, if the ONLY use for a gun were use in a murder, I MIGHT see your argument a little clearer. But as it stands, there are many uses for guns. And might I ask: What is so morraly wrong with owning a gun, that it justifies criminal punishment? If I own a pistol, am I somehow a bad person, unfit to function in society?

Again, I fail to see any argument here. Because guns are leathal, and they are commonly used to hurt others, they should be banned? (And who decides what is MOST leathal, and once guns are out of the scene, then something else becomes most leathal ... do we ban that too?). You see, just because guns CAN be leathal, and CAN be used to hurt others does not mean that is ALL they do. And it most certainly does not mean that the mere act of owning a gun is morally wrong and cause for criminal punishment.

And when they kill others with guns non-accidentally ... IT'S ALREADY A CRIME! Why then make owning a gun a crime?

Oh, I see. So our government does not trust us with guns, but we trust our government with guns. Riiight.

Stephen

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but in Canada firearms are not illegal but are subject to greater regulation.

In fact, some of the data from Canada supports the pro-gun argument. Canada has 7 million+ guns, but very few gun-related homicides. This would seem to indicate that the gun violence problems tend to be more of a societal issue than a gun issue.

You know, I've been rolling the whole, "guns are primarily used for killing" concept around in my head today. I've come to this conclusion...

There are times when KILLING a man is a darn good idea. Furthermore, in critical situations, taking the life of someone who threatens your own is nothing short of essential. Firearms are pretty good at getting that job done. The founders of our nation knew this.

That's why our right to keep and bear arms is so clearly spelled out in our constitution. It's one of the things that keeps us free. It's one of the most robust firewalls we have against tyranny. An armed nation is a free nation. Because if it came down to it, we could fight to defend ourselves against oppression.

What would the Brits do if their government turned communist? Protest? Sing songs and wave signs?

Let me know what you think.

-Joel

Well I'm coming to this discussion late but I've read the earlier notes so hopefully I will not repeat too much.

Myth: Firearms are not good for self-defence:
Fact: Fireams are used by regular people to prevent crimes as much as twice as often as they are used to commit crimes.

Myth: If you carry a gun it is most likely to be used against you.
Fact: If you do not carry a gun and you do not resist at all or you resist with fists you are much more likely to be hurt and hurt badly than if you use a gun.

Several countries have more guns per capita than the US and have lower crime rates. Switzerland comes to mind first. And there most homes have machine guns. Not most homes that have guns. Most homes period. In fact the government there sells ammo cheap and people can buy surplus tanks and artillary (fully operational).

Crimes of violence (rape, assault) are more common in Brittan than in the US. Most burglaries in the UK happen when people are home. Very few burglaries in the US happen when people are home. US crooks worry about getting shot. Crooks in the UK don't have that to wory about. I don't know about you but if someone is going to break into my house I would rather not be there.

BTW look up your local state Constitution and see what it says about the right to keep arms. In New Hampshire it says "all persons have the right to keep and baer arms in defence of themselves, their families, their propertyand the state." Sounds pretty clear to me.

And it's not that old either. That amendment is article 2-A and took effect in 1982. I voted for it myself. :)

Accidental deaths are way down in the US over the last 40 years. The reason? A group called the NRA has been doing a lot of training. BYW not only is the rate of gun accidents down the total number of them is down. And this is will an increase in both population and the number of privately owned guns.

NRA also trains more police officers every year than any other organization.

Someone talked about an NRA meeting 10 days after Columbine. Did anyone tell you that it was planned several years in advance? It was the regular annual meeting of the NRA. Not having that meeting would have been like not having the FIRST Championship because someone had been killed by a robot.

BTW tobacco and alcahol both kill on average 5 to 7 times as many Americans every year than guns. Personally I think we need to do more about them than guns. Not an outright ban (we've seen how badly thta works) but some common sense restrictions. [Gee, where have I heard that term before? :-) ]

Nothing morally wrong with it... I can't think of a reason why sportsmen should be denied their choice of recreation, if that's what you're talking about - but on the other hand, I'm not sure if that justifies the fact that guns are used to murder people all over the place.


Well... it's the same principle as trying to eliminate nuclear weapons. Unless you are saying every country should arm themselves with nuclear weapons.


To reduce the chance of criminals getting a hold of a gun and killing people with it, and as a result, the crime rate.

If I'm wrong please correct me, but generally there hasn't been a huge history of law-enforcers going on a berserk shooting spree. I mean, they're supposed to enforce the law protect the people - and for all intensive purposes, that's what they do. I don't see any reason not to trust them.

You're right about guns being subject to greater regulation - but for all intensive purposes, guns are banned. Yes you can still get a gun, but the process is so elaborate and tedious that most people don't bother. Given this, I'm pretty sure that most of those 7 million+ guns comes from the military and police.

Good points Joel Glidden.

One point I have to make though, is how will banning guns solve anything?

We banned drugs too, and they are still around, heck, they are probably even more popular, since they are against the law.

There is no way that stopping people from LEGALLY owning firearms is going to prevent deaths. If I cannot own a gun legally, then only criminals, who own guns illegally, will be armed. The populace is effectively disarmed, and helpless.

It is widely believed that several million Canadians own unregistered firearms that were legally owned before the current round of gun laws passed there. There are also millions of legally owned and registered firearms that are mostly used for hunting.

One has to wonder why millions of Canadians would resist registering their firearms. One also has to wonder why the Canadian government thinks their own people are so untrust worthy that they should not own guns.

The big difference between the US and Canada in gun ownership is that there are very few handguns in Canada relative to the US. Since handguns are used for the large majority of homocides in the US, their large numbers in the US could have something to do with the US having a much higher homocide rate than Canada (and the UK, France, Australia, Japan,and about every other developed nation where handguns are rare).

It could be that Americans are basically more violent than people in these other countries, but there is probably more to it than that. Easy availability of handguns might seem to be a factor.

Didn't think of this before, but now that you mention it, it makes alot of sense. Greater availability -> more guns, and so on. :)

Hmm. Yep.

I think this thread has out-lived its allotted lifespan. Everybody has had ample time to make their point and express their opinions many, many times.

If you would like to continue this discussion, please do so via e-mail or instant messenger. Thanks.