*abruptly stops singing bowie*

Anyways, what are your thoughts on gun control? In the U.S., we have the constitutional amendment #2 with our right to bare arms. I haven't read the amendement ::shame:: but you do have a right to own a gun, right? But you aren't considered an official citizen of the U.S. until you're 18, I believe. So, if you're 18 or over, you can have a gun. *shrugs* I have sketchy info, I know, but it all seems so simple to me. Putting guns in the hands of kids is another thing...something that shouldn't be allowed, but I don't know how serious the offense would be. (damn you british, I almost said offence. just kidding, love ya guys. )

Your thoughts?

In America gun control provides an interesting case. Americans and guns have a strong bond, unlike that of European countries. Should we ban guns? No, that would just lead to a bigger black market. Should we regualte them? Yes, a bit, not too much however.

U.S. Constituional Amendment #2:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Interesting topic... I think this is one of the more controversial things in the Constitution, as the meaning of this amendment is currently interpretted differently from what it was originally intended.

I think the original writers were mostly talking about members of militias to be able to have arms in case of enemy attack... to protect the country, and that type of thing. Since we don't really have militia/voluteer armies anymore, this has now been interpreted as the right of everybody to bear arms.

As far as having to be 18, I think it varies, depending on the state. In Ohio, they just passed some new law where anyone over 21 can apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Interesting. So if there is no militia, is the right revoked?

It's 21 for a lot of places, I believe.

I don't think it should be revoked. Although we may not have the kind of enemy attacks they feared in the colonial era, I think the element of self-defense still applies. People still should have the right to protect themselves.

*flees*

Previous thread

*abruptly starts singing bowie*

Faaaaame Fame, what you like is in the limo. Fame, what you get is no tomorrow.
Fame, what you need you have to borrow.

Anyways. I think there should be regulation, more control of bullets really. Somehow I dont think a black market for bullets would go to well. Probably cost to much for the bullets anyways.

Well as a Canadian I cant make much of a statement on American policy and what not. But I dont see why someone would want a gun anyway. Really, what is the probability that someone will break into your house, while your home, and rather then just snatching your stuff and running he'll want to hurt you. I dunno I just think there are better ways of protecting yourself then guns. All around I just think less guns in everybodies hands would be a good idea. Taser guns are good though. Great protection, alot less likely kill someone in an accident scenario.

I'm sorry, but that's a very generalized statement. I know of people around my neighborhood who own guns but they sit collecting dust and are absolutely never used. Forget the fact that there's no amo in the house. I know many ppl who would never even think of purchasing a gun.

Guns have a strong bond to certain types of ppl, not Americans. It is a person's choice whether he or she wants a gun, America doesn't say GO BUY GUNS - GO NOW AND BUY THEM ALL!


I'm not saying that that's what you were inferring but around here at least, people are actually trying to stop the purchasing of guns.

Sorry, but that was just a very generalized statement. America is huge. There are a lot of people, not to mention 50 different states with different laws per state.

That'd be like saying the Irish and their beer have a strong bond. I'm sure that not everyone there drinks and drinks and drinks.

Yes, what was said about Americans and guns having a connection was a generalization, but there is a basis in reality. You talk to the amjority of Americans about taking away guns and there is a knee-jerk reaction. Many of those who even have guns have a similar reaction... "it's our constitutional right..."

Quite frankly, I don't think the 2nd ammendant is valid in today's world. It was talking about protection of the state from invaders. There's the army to do that now. No need for militia groups. So, yeah.

And that's my spiel.

Gun shows are by far the most popular in America. The best guns come from America. The gun industry is a huge industry in America. Every statement is a generalization, especially about a diverse America. However, if you are going to make any arguements, we have to speak in generalizations, and it is true that American culture has guns play a big part.

I my opinion all fit (not neccesarily as in physically fit) Americans should have the right to own a gun. I suppot screening and similar things to make sure that guns don't find their way into the wrong hands. Otherwise every person has the right to own and use a gun. I myself have never used nor held a gun, I never intend on ever going hunting or using a gun either. Guns do have practical uses such as hunting. Americans don't need to hunt nearly as much as they used to, but I think that one should be able to do so if they wish. In conclusion, gun control should strictly be used to keep it out of the hands of criminals and those who don't have the proper judgement to handle a weapon. I support the second amendment.

When I was being given a brief history of the US I was told that the second ammendment was put in place so that people would be armed if another country were to seize control of the government.

Basically you have the right to bear arms against an unjust and undemocratic government, there is nothing about 'for reasons of personal household security' because that is the role of the law.

It does seem that having a gun in the house if someone breaks in will just make things worse. If a person is already commiting a criminal act then they are fairly likely to be armed. If you pull a gun on them they are likely to start shooting before you get the nerve to. Seriously, could you pull the trigger without hesitation? I really don't think you can say until the time comes. Even in the armed forces only 2% have ever killed anyone, there is a huge rate of people who find that they can't despite their training, so what are our chances of being able to do it?

Guns for hunting is fine, personally I'm not really keen on hunting, but it probably can serve some purpose in the restriction of damage to crops etc. (although I'm not wholy convinced). If a gun is being kept for the purpose of 'in case I need to shoot a human' then I don't think it's helping anyone. Either you'll make a bad situation worse, you'll get shot, or you'll shoot someone else and have to live with that.

Having the right to bear arms seems like having the right to drill holes in your own head. Sure, it's legal, but is it actually doing you any good?

Good form, Mata, good form.

Guns serve no purpose other than for death. And though people, especially in the US, may swear up and down about their so called 'rights' to own guns and use them, I think everyone would agree that this world would be a better place without them.

So what they use them for hunting. There are such things as a bow and arrow, people. What did the Indians do for all those thousands of years? There was no such thing as a gun to them until foreign men brought it over. And the gun wasn't originally designed for hunting. It was designed for protection of man from other men. TO KILL MEN.

Over the weekend, in my city, Pittsburgh, PA, the NRA held one of the largest conventions with over 3 million in attendance. All gun supporters. It's sick. People wear their guns like an award, when really it's a shame.

I was watching some bizarre newscast on television the other day, where someone was interviewing felons in prison. The criminals that were being interviewed stated that their biggest fear was not being caught by the police, but by the more widespread use of guns by the general public. They said that it is getting more difficult to rob/rape/assault/or whatever people because there is a much greater possibility that that person will have a gun.

What about widespread use of guns, if mostly for intimidation purposes? Do you think it's a possible way to cut back on crime?

I've agrgued about this hundreds of times, so I'm a bit tired of it. I will, however, add my two cents.

I don't believe in violence. I do, however, believe in self defense. If someone enters my house with the intention of attacking me or my family then I feel that I should be able to protect myself. That doesn't mean I believe that we should throw caution into the wind. When I get certified for a handgun and purchase one, I fully plan on using a gun lock and keeping said gun in a gun safe for no reason other than safety.

If guns are illegalized, then the black market will pick up where the ligitamate market left off. It was like that with alcohol during Prohibition. If guns are made illegal, what's to stop illegal arms smugglers from doing their work? If anything, with the demand hightened among non-legitamate users, it'll give them more incentive.

Look, it's not an American culture thing. It's a violence thing. Why should I have my rights taken away because the guns that violent criminals use happen to be the same ones I use for protection?

But almost anything can be used as a weapon...how come so many people focus in on guns? What right have they to take that away from us? In fact, what right do they have to take any object away from us? Whoa...never mind. /spam

A lot of people want to ban guns because "guns are evil." It is not the gun itself that is evil, but the person and their intentions behind the trigger. We have a right to bear arms, and as long as people are responsible, it'll be okay. You will always have violence in the world, so banning guns would not put it to an end.



Ditto!!

this is a good topic to be thinking about, as i believe today is the 5th anniversary of the columbine incident..

it also is a reminder about some very important gun control laws that were passed in the wake of that tragedy, which included sunset provisions.. that is to say, they were to expire after a period of time. and that deadline is coming up.


there is a fight going on now to ensure the laws stay on the books, lead by the father of one of boys who was killed in his school five years ago. (.. i still can get over the thought of a school being, practically, a war zone.)


these eric and dylan kids shouldn't have had the guns they did. but the NRA will fight to the death to keep the guns freely flowing.

I don't get it.. does the NRA do these things simply out of principle?

cause who needs semi-automatic weapons? who needs easily concealable guns? who needs armour piercing "cop killer" bullets? nobody, but the NRA will fight to the death for the right to bear them.

and i'm not exaggerating.. what do you think "out of my cold dead hands" means?

-cm

Guns are funny things really..they are very seductive once you have held and fired a gun it is not something you forget, I know a lot of people who like firing guns..whether or not this makes them potential killers I don't really know. Gun control is of course a good idea from a saftey point of view, you test someone & train them in the practical aspects of handling and maintaining a gun, hopefully you pick out the nutters -refer to a gun as a weapon in your test & see how quick they put a shrink on you- but licencing will not totally eliminate the possiblity someone will be killed with the gun. How many stories do you hear about little kids finding their parent's handguns and blowing themselves or their friends away by mistake? If, as the NRA'a arguement goes, you have a weapon (let's be realistic here) in your house for self defence how can you use it in a crisis situation (burglary, house invasion etc) if you have the gun in a totally secure location, like a locked gun cabinet with the bolt and magazine removed & stored in separate place. This is why you get accidental deaths, because the weapon is being stored close at hand and ready to use. I heard the kid story on the news, the visuals were of a nice, upmarket suburb in New York..I don't live there but I don't think that guy needed to have a gun..and as he proved he was clueless about storing it & ignored all the saftey rules he is supposed to be abiding by when he got the licence!

The focus in on them, because people shoot up schools with them

There's your problem right there. People are not reasonable. People are drunks. People are emotionally unstable. People are not sensible. People are careless and forgetful. People are downright irresponsible. People are stupid. People are violent and immoral.

I agree that in an ideal idyllic world, there would be no need for gun control. Ironic that in such a world, there would be no need for guns either.

How many people are injured in spiked club attacks? Or by roaming swordsmen? Compare with how many are injured in gun-related attacks.

See?

Well J-man, I went to the dirt mall not-too-long ago and saw a nice selection of dirks, brass knuckles, butterfly knives, switchblades and other bladed and non-bladed weapons that can easily rip someone to shreds. One doesn't need bullets to kill others; a trip to the dirt mall or Mexico can insure that.

I also have a kitana in my apartment that could really mess someone up. I prefer studying iai and I once used it as a prop for a monologue I did in high school.

So all people are drunks, immoral, etc? Then that would mean my dad, who collects guns. And that would mean me, because I want to learn how to use one.

Ah...I see... a more utilitarian approach?

No, you misunderstand my point. You say that everything will be alright as long as people are responsible. My point is that people aren't always responsible. Some people are rarely responsible, and some people are idiots. I'm sure that you and your dad are reasonable folk.

The problem as I see it is that the idiots can get their hands on automatic weapons. I defy anyone to explain to me how allowing that can be a good idea.

And the only solution to having nutcases, fools and idiots having easy access to serious hardware? Gun control. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before there's another Washington Sniper-style incident.

Well, I guess I take that back. I support some sort of gun control - I think (for in America) you should be 18+ and go through all the licensing.

The thing that you have to realize is that people will always find a way to get around a law. If someone entered by home with a gun, I would prefer being equally armed (I know that sounds terrible, but that is the way I see it) to give myself as well as the police. Since some are already distributed don't count on getting them back from the people that want to use them irresponsibly. I think that gun control could possibly just make it worse. Just screen someone before they get a gun, but it won't catch everyone. (I hope you see my point, I don't think I got it completely through...bad day...)

No actually I see your point and except for some more security measures the point I'm trying to make is highly similar...