Gun Ownership

[PT]

Ok, there is a branch of a discussion about guns in another thread right now, but I thought If I made a new one, we might get more discussion on it.

What do you think about the rights to carry guns?

In the US, we have it in our constitution that we have a right to bear arms, meaning we have the right to own and carry guns. This has been challenged many times, and there have been restrictions put on this, but with the proper licensing, private citizens in our country can actually strap on a pistol and walk around.

It has been argued that the reason the last war fought on US soil was the Civil War because we have the rights to carry guns, thereby making us a much more difficult country to invade. Agree, Disagree?

 

[Luis G]

ban guns.

 

[PT]

ban guns.

You really think this would work, with the millions of guns that are out there already? What are the laws in Mexico?

 

[ris]

we have a start on a gun debate already

omg a loooong and drawn out debate on gun ownership

personally, i am happy not to own a gun, and quite content that the uk makes them illegal, i don't see the need to own one here.

 

[Luis G]

ban guns.

You really think this would work, with the millions of guns that are out there already? What are the laws in Mexico?

Guns are illegal in Mexico, and if you get caught you will pay it in jail.....for a long time, according to the gun, i heard a guy was caught by the army while he was carrying a caliber 6 shootgun (barrels cut i think), he is purging 15 years in jail.

Notice, he was only CARRYING, he didn't even shoot it.

 

[Leslie]

haven't we done this already?

 

[unclehobart]

Own several, don't hunt. Won't give them up. I desire to have such implements to defend myself, my clan, my property from those who would do injury to me. It may be a clam and rosy day out today.. tranquil and whatnot... no reason to own such a thing... but when things go south... they go south in a big way. The very time when you would need it is when you would be unable to get it. Then you are in potential deep trouble.

 

[Jeslek]

I love guns. I own several of them. We have a lower crime rate than the countries that does not allow ownership of firearms.

The first step towards socialism and communism is to disarm the citizens. The government has NO RIGHT to control or ban firearms. That is not the job of the government.

Guns do NOT kill people. Gaping holes in vital organs do.

If you ban guns, the ONLY people with guns will be the criminals. Notice that guns are not allowed in France, yet the assassination attempt was done with a gun. By allowing citizens to carry firearms, you discourage crime.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that people should store guns in a SAFE place, and I do support training, but NOT as a requirement.

 

[unclehobart]

Ownership and crime stats have very little to do with each other. Its cultural more than anything. Japan doesnt allow guns, has a low crime rate... and is seriously would up so tight that theyre about to pop a vessel. It really depends on a huge number of factors. Upbringing, social morays, avaiability, proper persecution of the criminal element, too many to list. It all adds up to a rather consistent picture.

 

[Ardsgaine]

I don't believe in an absolute right to own guns, because there has to be a limiting principle-- unless you think that private citizens should be able to buy nuclear weapons. What I do believe in is the right to self defense. If the average criminal is able to get his hands on a gun easily enough, then the average citizen should be able to own a gun as well. In the US, we're spending billions of dollars on drug interdiction, but we can't keep drugs out of the country. There's no way we're going to keep guns out, our borders are just too porous. It would be grossly immoral of the government to disarm private citizens while criminals are still armed.

So to sum up, I think the principle should be: whatever weapons the police require to enforce the law should be available to private citizens as well. If a policeman can walk patrol safely with nothing but a nightstick, then the people don't need guns. If he needs a gun, then so do the people.

 

[PT]

If a policeman can walk patrol safely with nothing but a nightstick, then the people don't need guns. If he needs a gun, then so do the people.

I would agree with that, I have switched my viewpoint on this topic several times in my life, but usually come back to the fact that we need them.

I do own a couple guns, a shotgun, and a 9mm pistol. However they are put away and locked up, so that my children can not get to them.

 

[Luis G]

Ardsgaine: the US can't stop the drugs, its because you guys like it, its not other country's fault.

I know most of the drugs you get come from Mexico (enters your country via Mexico), but the fact is that there are not many addicts here, getting drugs could be easy, but not everybody likes it. So there is no real market here.

Same with guns, with so many "gun lovers" you will not be able to keep the guns out.

 

[DuronClocker]

Guns do NOT kill people. Gaping holes in vital organs do.

 

[ris]

guns don't kill people, they just make it far easier

 

[Ardsgaine]

Ardsgaine: the US can't stop the drugs, its because you guys like it, its not other country's fault.
<snip>
Same with guns, with so many "gun lovers" you will not be able to keep the guns out.

I agree on both counts. Wasn't trying to suggest it was anyone else's fault. My comment about our borders being "porous" wasn't directed at Mexico. Drugs come directly into the country at every major port. The only way to stop it is to turn the country into a police state. Not a very attractive option.

 

[Ardsgaine]

guns don't kill people, they just make it far easier

Which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on whether you're armed, and whether you're the one trying to defend himself.

 

[nalani]

My son hunts but he doesn't own a gun. He uses my brother's gun if they're hunting with guns (sometimes they hunt boars with only knives and dogs) BUT he had to learn about gun safety first. And before each hunting trip, they go over the rules and the formation so there's no crossfire. Sometimes this planning process can take days - it has to be down pat. It's a big responsibility, using a gun. And though I only believe in owning "functional" items, what is functional for my family (rifles for hunting versus pistols for protection) isn't functional for the next.

 

[Ardsgaine]

(Hey, Ris -- moved this over here...)

police in the uk don't carry guns, they have batons and some have pepper spray.

only the armed response units have guns [h&k's if memory serves]

Then I would say that there's not a problem, as long as you don't have a lot of criminals taking advantage of the fact that people are unarmed. There will always be crime, so that alone isn't enough to say that the people should be armed. IMO, this isn't a question that every country needs to answer in the same way. The answer should vary with the circumstances. If the UK suddenly found it necessary to arm patrol officers, then I would say they should reconsider private ownership of guns. (I'm not, btw, opposed in principle to registration or licensing as law enforcement tools. Most gunowners here see them as a prelude to taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, and I'm not sure they're wrong. The left here is anti-gun in a most irrational way.)

many of the 'guns' are actually still replica's [unchanged ones].

Blackpowder replicas?

 

[Luis G]

My comment about our borders being "porous" wasn't directed at Mexico.

I didn't knew if it was directed to Mexico's border, which in fact is one of the most secure borders in the world.

My point was to clarify that the fault is as bad from those who buy as it is from those who sell.

 

[Ardsgaine]

I didn't knew if it was directed to Mexico's border, which in fact is one of the most secure borders in the world.

Oh, no. I favor open immigration anyway. Background checks, but let everyone who checks out come on in.

My point was to clarify that the fault is as bad from those who buy as it is from those who sell.

Yeah, if there's a fault, then it's on both.

(Oh, crap! I'm agreeing with Luis!!!)