Gun Laws- Positive or Negative?

[Silvershark]

I don't think people are as desperate to get guns as they were desperate to get beer during prohibition. And beer/alcohols are easy to brew. You could even get alcohol in internment camps by letting fruit fester. I remember guns being the first thing to benefit from factory assembly in my history book, meaning that they were probably not that simply to make at home. They would probably be more scarce than alcohol was.

People would get guns just for being told they can't. I know so many people who had never owned nor even fired a gun and had no inclination to do so, yet as soon as Obama took office they went out and bought an assault rifle just because they thought he would soon make it illegal for stores to sell them. When it comes to homemade firearms, apparently they're a problem in countries with strict gun laws like China and Russia. And some people in the US do make homemade guns still for the novelty of it, I believe if you look online you can find guides on how to make one.

EDIT: Got ninja'd a bit on homemade guns there.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Your probably thinking, Holy Balls, Why is this Legal?

Actually I'm thinking, Holy Wicked, that's cool. I didn't know homemade guns were so pervasive.

It also makes sense that when something is made illegal, there's definately a rush to buy it. Alcohol is still easier to produce but I guess the analogy works better than I thought.

 

[Litovoi]

THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO EXPRESS THIS WHOLE TIME.

Strict gun control was required in the first place. Here in Australia hardly anyone has even held a gun. You can get them if you are a farmer or you are a member of a shooting club but your details and the details of the firearm are recorded when you apply for a gun licence.

Police carry guns but they don't get to take them home in order to prevent gun robbery.

As a result hardly any petty crimes involve firearms. Of course the kingpins and underworld bosses have guns but that is a separate problem entirely as the general populous does not get involved with the underworld.

Things are different in the United States, no matter how strict our laws, CRIMINALS CAN GET GUNS. Therefore, we need guns for protection.

If killing is a bad thing, why are we letting people have access to guns?

If your opponent has a gun the way you yourself put it you will die either way. I fail to see how your having a gun is going to stop your opponent if he was prepared to kill you in the first place. If you get shot, you won't be able to fire back so it's not like he's worried that he can't attack first. In a situation where there are no witnesses (in your ideal case) there would be no stalemate. He's going to shoot you either way.

All you can do is make it super hard to come by a gun in the first place and learn how to deal with situations where you are threatened by an armed attacker.

Oh, and by the way, killing someone with a gun (even if they tried to rob you) is still murder and if you can even bring yourself to do it you'll have a lot of trouble sleeping at night nevertheless.

As far as I'm concerned arms have done no good for anybody.

If you get shot you can still shoot back...what if he misses? If you have a gun and he misses, you can shoot, if you DON'T have a gun and he misses, you're doomed.

And don't forget that if you get shot while aiming at him, the force could cause you to pull the trigger, or you're body can pull it as a reflex.

And I'll get over the shock of killing someone. Eventually...

Also, the fact that most of you have never held a gun much less used it might explain why you are against it. A fear of guns perhaps?

 

[littlea53]

6]Killing someone with a gun (even if they tried to rob you) is still murder and if you can even bring yourself to do it you'll have a lot of trouble sleeping at night nevertheless.[/B]

Yea... I hate to burst your bubble, but some people deserve to die. Like Nazi's, VC, or muggers. I killed plenty of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and didn't think twice. I have been mugged, I shot the bastard 7 times in the chest. No problem. It was Justifiable Homicide (under the "Castle Doctrine" or Stand Your Ground Law) because I was in fear of my life. I had a legitimate reason to be in fear of my life and so I stood my Ground and killed him so I did not die. The Florida State Law states,

Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Tl;Dr If you are legally allowed to be in an area, and you are in fear of your life, you have the right to "Stand Your Ground" and shoot to kill.

Found Here.

 

[kaiser soze]

Ok well since the debate is about gun control you shouldn't assume there are already guns everywhere.

So should we debate gay marriage while assuming gays don't exist? If you're going to ignore reality in a debate your conclusions are going to be useless because they will have no application to real life. Also the OP makes it pretty clear that the debate assumes guns exist.

Not every country is an island with good import control and minimal smuggling. There are several areas in Mexico near our border that are ruled by drug cartels. Plus the Mexican-Guatemalan border is even more porous. It's pretty easy for organized crime to get weapons (especially automatic weapons, which are banned in most states) into the US by getting them into corrupt Mexico easily, then getting them into the US. It's also pretty bad in eastern Europe, where there's several old Soviet caches that have been left unguarded. Guns also have long lifespans; the AK-47 is famous for being able to shoot no matter how dirty it is.

The theoretical question as to should people be allowed to own guns? Yes, so long as I keep it to myself unless in self-defense. Sport shooting's pretty fun, and hunting is a good way to get "back to nature." I have a right to defend my life, and a gun's pretty effective.

 

[Razor Xtreme]

^ Well, the Mexican drug cartels weren't NEARLY as bad until Eric Holder got a "hold" (haha, pun intended!) on them and gave em all guns. It isn't even legal to buy guns in Mexico, they started getting more and more when Eric Holder gave them guns. So while I do agree that it is too late to get rid of guns, guns shouldn't have been offered to the public in the first place. Just like in Europe, Mexico, etc.

 

[chuboy]

So should we debate gay marriage while assuming gays don't exist?

We can, and you would get a much better debate out of it because people's judgment wouldn't be clouded by anecdotal evidence from their personal experience with gays.

If gays didn't exist the Bible would have nothing to say about them. In that case there would be no argument against the notion that 'sexual preference should not affect one's legal right to marry'.

If you're going to ignore reality in a debate your conclusions are going to be useless because they will have no application to real life. Also the OP makes it pretty clear that the debate assumes guns exist.

'Gun Laws - Positive or Negative' does not require there to be guns in the first place. Debates can be and often are abstract.

Consider the debate topic to be 'if there were such a thing as handheld weapons that shoot a small projectile at very high speed, should society regulate access to them'.

The theoretical question as to should people be allowed to own guns? Yes, so long as I keep it to myself unless in self-defense. Sport shooting's pretty fun, and hunting is a good way to get "back to nature." I have a right to defend my life, and a gun's pretty effective.

You have no right to injure or end someone else's life, and a gun easily allows you to do that, much moreso than anything else you can get your hands on.

 

[Gergovia]

'Gun Laws - Positive or Negative' does not require there to be guns in the first place. Debates can be and often are abstract.

Consider the debate topic to be 'if there were such a thing as handheld weapons that shoot a small projectile at very high speed, should society regulate access to them'.

I don't think so. You opened that door yourself by claiming that Australia's crime rates are low because of strict gun laws. Now you're trying to close the door you yourself opened when someone retorts that your example doesn't prove much, if anything.

 

[chuboy]

I don't think so. You opened that door yourself by claiming that Australia's crime rates are low because of strict gun laws.

I'm not sure which door you're referring to, and I never made that claim. To assume a correlation between crime rates and gun control is silly.

What I did say is that guns play a very small part in the crimes that do happen in Australia on a day to day basis. I contend that this is due to the fact that they are heavily regulated.

Now you're trying to close the door you yourself opened when someone retorts that your example doesn't prove much, if anything.

Again, not sure what you're trying to say. Are you claiming that Australia as an island nation should expect to have low gun crime due to the fact that it is supposedly harder to smuggle them in? Arguable, but we still have plenty of drug busts from people importing illicit substances. Australia may be an island but it has a lot of coastline and a small population to police it.

Probably the factor that slows the arms market here is the high price for illicit goods. Penalties for getting caught are extreme and guns are available to those who really need them. As a result the price of a black market gun is out of the reach of the kind of petty criminal who might use one to hold up a bank.

Again, I entered this debate merely to discuss the merits of gun regulation, not to talk about whether it would make the guns already in the USA magically disappear.

 

[Silvershark]

You have no right to injure or end someone else's life, and a gun easily allows you to do that, much moreso than anything else you can get your hands on.

A chainsaw also allows you to easily injure or end someone else's life, should all chainsaws be banned despite their use for logging trees and buzzing down brush. Though I suppose that like comparing apples to oranges since a chainsaw lacks the range of a firearm (unless a method of accurate chainsaw throwing is discovered, but that's highly unlikely). Perhaps archery is closer to the mark. A bow and arrow can be a just as deadly a ranged weapon as a gun (not to mention getting stuck by an arrow can be much more painful than getting hit by a bullet), should all bows be regulated and denied to the public despite their use's for hunting and other recreational activity. Nail guns? Tools used for carpentry, but, like real guns, incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands. Throwing knives? Sling shots? My fishing pole? (You can jest, but I could easily hit someone between the eyes 40 yards off with a 3/4 oz. lure.)

As we have established: yes, guns can be dangerous, but gun laws and regulations do little to prevent criminals from laying their hands on them if they really want to (once again: black market, theft, garage guns, etc.). Citizens do have a right to defend themselves, firearms are one means of many to do so. Self defense aside, guns also have recreational value in hunting and sport shooting as Kaiser said. Not to mention extreme cases, such as a means of homeland defense against invasion in the instance of war, or overthrowing a corrupt government (not that you'd plan for such things, but a least with a gun you'd be prepared). If a citizen is responsible and law abiding, I see no reason why they shouldn't possess a firearm.

Bottomline that I took awhile getting to: Guns can make it easier to harm another person, but removing them won't stop people from killing other people.

 

[chuboy]

A chainsaw also allows you to easily injure or end someone else's life, should all chainsaws be banned despite their use for logging trees and buzzing down brush. Though I suppose that like comparing apples to oranges since a chainsaw lacks the range of a firearm (unless a method of accurate chainsaw throwing is discovered, but that's highly unlikely). Perhaps archery is closer to the mark. A bow and arrow can be a just as deadly a ranged weapon as a gun (not to mention getting stuck by an arrow can be much more painful than getting hit by a bullet), should all bows be regulated and denied to the public despite their use's for hunting and other recreational activity. Nail guns? Tools used for carpentry, but, like real guns, incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands. Throwing knives? Sling shots? My fishing pole? (You can jest, but I could easily hit someone between the eyes 40 yards off with a 3/4 oz. lure.)

Crossbows are the closest analogue and even they aren't the same due to the fact that they are hard to conceal and difficult to use compared to a firearm. In saying that, I don't see bows and arrows being sold anywhere either. That's not to say you can't get them as I have done archery before. Don't think as a layperson I have the ability to use one to defend myself or harm someone with one. On purpose, anyway

Slingshots and throwing knives? I don't see people using either of these as they are totally impractical, even as weapons. Although I do recall slingshots being banned in school, for good reason I suppose.

As for the rest of those things, the key difference between them and guns is yes while they are dangerous they have a different primary purpose for which there is no suitable alternative. I won't deny you harm a person with a knife, but have you ever tried to cut meat without one?

It's a matter of weighing benefits versus drawbacks and frankly none of the things a gun can do for your average Joe can't be done at least as well (but more safely in general) by something else.

As we have established: yes, guns can be dangerous, but gun laws and regulations do little to prevent criminals from laying their hands on them if they really want to (once again: black market, theft, garage guns, etc.). Citizens do have a right to defend themselves, firearms are one means of many to do so. Self defense aside, guns also have recreational value in hunting and sport shooting as Kaiser said. Not to mention extreme cases, such as a means of homeland defense against invasion in the instance of war, or overthrowing a corrupt government (not that you'd plan for such things, but a least with a gun you'd be prepared).

I guess its a matter of 'the harder you make it, the less likely people are to bother'.

If a citizen is responsible and law abiding, I see no reason why they shouldn't possess a firearm.

If the government had a foolproof way of determining who was responsible and law-abiding, and who wasn't, there would be no crime at all because all criminals, past, present and future would already be in prison.

Bottomline that I took awhile getting to: Guns can make it easier to harm another person, but removing them won't stop people from killing other people.

Of course it won't, if someone wants to murder you badly enough they will go ahead and do it some other way. But it will stop all the accidental deaths, as well as those that happened only because a gun was available.

 

[Silvershark]

Crossbows are the closest analogue and even they aren't the same due to the fact that they are hard to conceal and difficult to use compared to a firearm. In saying that, I don't see bows and arrows being sold anywhere either. That's not to say you can't get them as I have done archery before. Don't think as a layperson I have the ability to use one to defend myself or harm someone with one. On purpose, anyway

Compared to a handgun you mean, as most rifles and shotguns stand out as much as a crossbow, but you didn't specify just handguns, most of this debate you've been lumping all guns together in your arguments. And in my argument I was generally assuming that if someone is using a weapon of some sort, they would take the time to become moderately proficient with it, but if we're going to go with an average Joe who's never harmed a fly to discount the use of a bow of any sort, then you also have to discount pistols to an extent. Due to their short barrel, it takes a lot of practice to become accurate with a handgun. Someone who's never fired a handgun before might be accurate at point blank range (where a knife or another close range weapon would be as equally dangerous), but any farther: 10, 20 yrds. that accuracy starts to become shaky, particularly when you consider that an average person is naturally phychologically repelled from harming another human being.

Slingshots and throwing knives? I don't see people using either of these as they are totally impractical, even as weapons. Although I do recall slingshots being banned in school, for good reason I suppose.

The sarcasm with the slingshot seems to have slipped past you, after all I listed it with a fishing pole (both can cause pain and injury, but are only deadly in certain circumstances as is nearly everything). Throwing knives on the other hand are not entirely impractical. As I said, I'm assuming if someone's going to use a weapon, then they're going to take time to become familiar with it first. I know a number of store's that sell not only throwing knives, but also instructional books on how to use them. So their use is far from being out of reach from the average person, at least in my neck of the woods anyways. In fact, when my mom was younger she worked at a store that got held up with throwing stars before.

As for the rest of those things, the key difference between them and guns is yes while they are dangerous they have a different primary purpose for which there is no suitable alternative. I won't deny you harm a person with a knife, but have you ever tried to cut meat without one?

It's a matter of weighing benefits versus drawbacks and frankly none of the things a gun can do for your average Joe can't be done at least as well (but more safely in general) by something else.

Except hunting and recreational shooting. Archery is also a tool for those activities, but they're hardly less dangerous than firearms. Likely if guns never existed, we'd have a lot more people skilled enough with a bow to shoot accurately across two football fields just like in medieval times, and we'd be discussing the regulation of bows right now.

I guess its a matter of 'the harder you make it, the less likely people are to bother'.

Not matter how hard you make it to obtain a firearm, if someone really wants one they'll find a way to get it. Just like if some really wants to murder someone they'll find a way to do it.

If the government had a foolproof way of determining who was responsible and law-abiding, and who wasn't, there would be no crime at all because all criminals, past, present and future would already be in prison.

But they can do background checks and make people register their weapon when they legally purchase it and apply for a concealed weapons permit, as is done with handguns in the US. Rifles and shotguns are for the most part exempt from this, but they're hard to conceal, as you said about crossbows.

Of course it won't, if someone wants to murder you badly enough they will go ahead and do it some other way. But it will stop all the accidental deaths, as well as those that happened only because a gun was available.

Accidental deaths could be avoided if people took time to become more educated about firearms. And once again, if someone wishes to kill another human being, they'll likely do it, whether a gun is readily available or not. If one's not available, they'll just find another means to accomplish they're goal.

 

[Ununoctium]

Good news for freedom loving individuals everywhere, there is the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act passed in the House of Representatives. It will allow you to use your state's concealed carry license in any state, even if you don't live there.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articl...arry-reciprocity-act-common-sense-legislation

Also, an amazing video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKGkZUqporI

 

[Notalwaysbalckanddwhite]

Hey! If there weren't guns, you would have no grain- the deer would eat it all! And our armed forces need a way to keep our good country safe, because I doubt that al Quada will care about this petty little law. You need to have a way to keep the terrorists at bay or, you, my friend, would not, (I repeat, NOT) be sitting here today. You would be lying six feet under. So get over it.
And I live in one of the states mentioned.

 

[darkjigglypuff]

Firearms are the great equalizer. It allows a 4'10, 100lb teenage girl to stand in equal power to a 6'6", 300lb man in a defense situation. A man may not fear or respect a tazer, but most will fear the gun, and the simple fact is that even brandishing one tends to diffuse crimes very quickly.

Ultimately, you have to understand that the debate boils down to:

Should we try to reduce the overall amount of weapons that can be obtained and held legally, thus meaning law-abiding citizens need to rely on law-enforcement for their protection,

OR

Do we allow the ownership of firearms so that law-abiding citizens may be able to protect themselves, at the cost of making it easier for criminals to arm themselves.


From my perspective, the latter of these is the lesser of two evils, and with good reason. Law-abiding citizens vastly outnumber the common criminal, thus meaning that anytime a criminal chooses to commit a crime, they'd run the risk of other citizens stopping them. I'm sure that the though of 'Committing this crime might get me killed or gravely wounded if that guy is packing...' has ended a fair amount of crimes before they even began.

 

[Ioneos]

For the most part good, although when people don't expect anyone to have guns, then they aren't prepared.

Now for self defense, that's a different matter. The defender might kill the attacker, and will probably be sued for it just because they used an illegal weapon to protect themselves.

In general, gun law is a hazy subject.

 

[Charizardfan900]

I'm from Britain, where we have some tight gun control.

I think guns should be more strictly controlled. Band gun shops! The only guns should be in the hands of the Police and Military and they should be monitored very closely.

I know self-defense is important, but if there were no means of anyone getting guns, then self-defense from guns wouldn't be necessary.

I know there are illegal means, but the Police should try harder to stop them.

i think tasers could be a self defense weapon against a gun if you are being burgled. In your house you will probably be in distance of the taser's shot

 

[Bill Nye the Sneasel Guy]

The only guns should be in the hands of the Police and Military and they should be monitored very closely.

But they are the ones with the guns..? What can physically be done to those people if they go rogue while they have that power, with no one else having it? If you're setting up a state where only the police and the military folk have guns, who would fight against some sort of coup designed to establish a military junta? No one else has the guns.

I know self-defense is important, but if there were no means of anyone getting guns, then self-defense from guns wouldn't be necessary.

Who said guns were only for defending from guns? I hear a lot about knife crime over in the UK, and quite frankly I would prefer being shot to being slashed by some of those hooligans. If a big man with a knife tries to take on a young girl with a gun, the man is almost certainly screwed over unless there's some sort of ambush factor. If you remove the gun, then the girl's chances to get out unscatched rest entirely on the off chance that one of your police officers is nearby.

You'd have... some chances for that in a city, I guess, but rural folks are pretty much screwed.

I know there are illegal means, but the Police should try harder to stop them.

The police aren't omnipotent, and again, in the USA, we have over 200 million firearms around already (and you can't just confiscate, round up and melt down that many in any appreciable amount of time), many know how to make their own guns, and we have some of the largest borders in the world with very little supervision and security, enabling huge smuggling operations. Even if guns are banned, any criminal that wants one bad enough will come accross one pretty easily. Even if guns were banned and we were on a happy little island with not so many guns, a person determined to hurt another person can just use a different weapon. Again, I'd prefer being shot to death rather than being stabbed to the same.

i think tasers could be a self defense weapon against a gun if you are being burgled. In your house you will probably be in distance of the taser's shot

... wait, you're seriously pitting a taser against a gun based on the burglar in question being 'probably' close enough?

 

[randomspot555]

Okay, I've just spent the last 10 minutes reading 3 pages of pikapikachu and chuboy's anti-gun crap and it's so hilarious.

Listen, it's great that you guys live in a utopia where the sun is always shining and people fart rainbows, but in the real world, some people may in fact be out to harm you. Not specifically you, but if you're at the wrong place at the wrong time, you could be the victim.

First, let's debunk the whole thing chuboy keeps saying, the whole "just rung away" meme.

It's great that you're some Olympian level sprinter, but not everyone is. What do you tell to the person in the wheelchair, or on crutches? People with prosthetics? Or just someone who is a bit out of shape?

I also love how chuboy seems to trust the criminal who wants to steal and harm you much more than some law abiding citizen who carries a gun. He's convinced that gun owners are just going to go postal, where in fact that just doesn't happen.

I also think it's important to re-emphasize that ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL. chuboy, Australia is quite literally an island. And something like 90+% live along the coasts. It will be much easier to control something in those types of situations compared to the US. The US, which directly borders two countries (one of which is practically controlled by drug cartels) and is only a short boat ride away from many Caribbean Islands. The demographics and geographics in these instances are just vastly different.

At least in the US, gun control has failed miserably. Two major US citiies, Chicago and Washington DC, placed huge restrictions on private gun ownership and it did absolutely nothing to affect violent crime (as I've previously sourced in this thread).

As for this whole "licensing" thing for owning a gun and such nonsense: Using a maintaining a gun isn't rocket science. Handguns are meant to be used by nearly anyone. Rifles, shotguns, and antique guns, yeah, you should probably spend some time at a shooting range or take a class. But most handguns are pretty easy to use.

 

[chuboy]

I wonder where the black market gets their guns from. Could it be from countries where there is no gun control?