2nd Ammendment Rights: Should Guns Be Banned?

[Justin 188]

Originally posted by srawls

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?

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?

[Johca_Gaorl]

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

[Joel Glidden]

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

-Joel

[srawls]

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.

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

[FotoPlasma]

Originally posted by srawls


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.

[Johca_Gaorl]

Originally posted by FotoPlasma
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.

[srawls]

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?

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

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.

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

[Joel Glidden]

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.....

[Justin 188]

Originally posted by srawls

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?

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.

[Ben Mitchell]

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. "

[srawls]

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

Originally posted by J 188


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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Stephen

[Sean Conway]

Originally posted by J 188
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.

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.

[Joel Glidden]

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

[Alfred Thompson]

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? :-) ]

[Justin 188]

Originally posted by srawls
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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.