Furry-Within

No debates yet? Poppycock! Allow me to kick this shiznit off.

I'm pretty much your stereotypical Texan. I love to drink beer, I love to shoot guns, and I love football and BBQ. However, one of my favorite past times has come under fire recently (no pun intended...even if it was a bad one), and I would like to open the forum for a debate on the issue!

The issue is, gun control. Do we as Americans need more restrictive legislation on the issue, or less? If you aren't living in America, feel free to throw your two cents in anyway, I like to get outside opinions as well.

Gun laws vary from state to state, but generally you can buy a rifle at your local sporting goods store and walk out with it that day (after a background check of course), or after a brief waiting period, once you are 18 years old. Along the same lines, you can buy a handgun at the age of 21 with the same amount of ease. However, there have been more calls for restriction than ever before, with Chicago leading the charge with a proposed handgun ban.

Should we take guns out of the hands of regular citizens? You decide!

First, I should state that I don't want to be labeled politically for putting my two cents in here.  I don't affiliate with a political party, mainly because a) my apathy is greater than my wish to be involved and b) I don't agree with either party's agenda on the majority of the issues.  Okay, now that the disclaimer's done....

I think that we need more legislation, but not a ban.  I think that there should be protective legislation put in place to make it more difficult to buy a weapon, and that the age restriction should be raised by a lot ("a lot" meaning 21 to buy a rifle, 25 to buy a handgun).  I think that extensive background checks should be made, as well as a psychological wellness check if the buying party doesn't have one on their medical records.  You'll always have your nutjob that can pass the background checks and psychological wellness and ends up killing people, but I think these changes will cut down on it a lot.

It comes down to the Constitution.  If you want to ban handguns from the civilian market, you need to make a change to the Constitution because it clearly states that "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." ^(source)    No law can be made that conflicts with that right as of now, and if it is made, it will surely be found unconstitutional much sooner than later.

I just have to make a comment about the line people love to regurgitate without actually thinking about. People love to talk about the second amendment, but it seems like they don't actually read and understand it. "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." People notice the second part but not the first part. The whole amendment means you need to be part of a militia in order to have as many guns as you can eat. It doesn't mean every single citizen has the right to have full-auto shotguns and shit.

However! My opinion is that people who have taken extensive background and psychological checks, should be allowed to carry a few regulated guns. As in, maybe handguns and some rifles. I am for regulation, not a ban nor do I believe everyone should be allowed to run around with every gun under the sun because they can yell "OMG! Second Amendment!" People are stupid. They should not be trusted with everything. There are some things that do need to be controlled, like things that can KILL people.

I'm afraid you're missing a bit of the context of the second amendment, Mito. Please keep in mind that, when the Constitution was written, the fledgling nation had just successfully succeeded from England. They did this thanks, in no small part, due to the fact that nearly everyone owned a firearm (hunting was necessary back then). The Founding Fathers recognized that a country may want to pass gun legislation, and if they did, they'd seriously cripple the populace's ability to revolt - which was a very bad thing, in their eyes. Thus, the second amendment - intended to allow for defense of home and nation, and to allow defense of home /from/ the nation.

Besides, the Supreme Court has said that you don't have to be in a militia to have the right to bear arms. See the court case 'District of Columbia v. Heller', for example.

Anyway, I, personally, am a Libertarian, meaning I think that government power (especially centralized power) should be as minimal as possible. As such, gun legislation is against what I consider the optimal political state, and thus, I oppose it. I would prefer to be able to defend myself if need be, thank you. Sure, it means that killers would have guns. But killers would have guns anyway. The difference is, so would their intended victims. That's the best way to deter violent crime, at least until someone invents a way to instantly get police to every crime in progress.

Hear, hear!  Leithri made a good point that I forgot to include in my initial argument. 

Quote from: LeithriSure, it means that killers would have guns. But killers would have guns anyway. The difference is, so would their intended victims.

Guns would just end up like illegal drugs:  on some sort of black market, selling under the radar, constantly falling under the prey of sting operations but always a thriving industry.  If they were illegalized, the people we're trying to keep from having weapons, would still have those same weapons.  The difference is that the common folk who use their weapons responsibly would no longer have them, far increasing violent crimes and perhaps making them more brutal.  It'd be like shooting penned deer.

However, then Leithri said something I don't necessarily agree with.

Quote from: LeithriThat's the best way to deter violent crime, at least until someone invents a way to instantly get police to every crime in progress.

I very much disagree with this statement.  Making it so that everyone has weapons, clearly, deters nothing.  In fact, it may even raise the chances of violent crimes occurring in situations where no one may have been hurt before.  *shrugs*  It's hard to say for sure what will or won't deter violent crime, aside from the government resorting to violent crime to terrify and subdue the masses.  <----I don't support that, by the way.  ^-^;

Like the second amendment, apparently my post was not read fully as well. I didn't say I support a ban. I support regulation. No, not everyone should have a gun. Sorry if you disagree, but again, people are stupid. They should not be allowed to have every gun imaginable. They should be allowed a select few. For protection against an individual or a small group of people.

Sorry, Leithri, but no matter what guns they have, Average John Does cannot take on the government army with even a ton of assault rifles. Because they have things like TANKS. If they can blow the shit out of other countries, they can definitely blow away Bob the Redneck who thinks he needs to protect his trailer with shotguns, assault rifles, and machine guns. That makes the whole "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government" point moot. Don't believe me, by all means, go try to take over a police department by yourself with a couple of guns. That is a small scale example. Multiply both sides by the same number, any number, and the result will be the same. As much as people like to imagine Americans can be like the citizens who fought the Redcoats, they aren't. It was a completely different time then. Also, the Revolutionists needed French soldiers to win as well. They didn't win by themselves because they had free reign to guns. I would fall in shock if any country tried to help American citizens out if there was a civil war today instead of letting America simply destroy itself because of its own stupidity.

Well, it's all in mentality. A criminal if determined enough to violently rob someone will use whatever is handy if guns aren't available. Humans are ingenious little creatures who thrived off of tools. When we were uga buga Neanderthals we survived by using sharp rocks to cut pelts and meat. And we hunted with them. Sharp rock on feathered stick with string taunt between the ends of a curved stick, pull string back to store energy, release. Bow. Sharp rock angled correctly on end of stick, tied in place with string. Axe. Long sharp rock as is. Knife. Then we turned them on ourselves and thus tools became weapon.

It's the same in modern times. Sure, not everyone is The Rock but if a criminal is desperate enough a friendly piece of lumber can smash a head real good. Same with garden variety tools like wrenches, lengths of pipe, anything you can grip and swing. Zombie movies have taught us the value of improvisation. Hell, in all technicality a gun is a tool. Something to hunt with. It serves the purpose of killing something real good, be it animal or human. We just use it in crime because we don't need to hunt anymore what with your friendly neighborhood butcher serving up all the best cuts seven days a week, and as any gun vs sword results will tell you it's far easier to just point and pull a trigger.

But still! Guns are tools, and the real badbadbad here is not them... it's the people who wield them. The same people who if denied guns will either do what Amina stated, buy them for slightly more on a Blackmarket via smugglers or underground manufacturers... or as I'm stating will simply find something even cruder but equally effective to be criminals with. We have the internet now, I could easily find information on how to make petrol fueled "Potato Guns" which with modifications could fire just as deadly projectiles, bombs, everything. If the government locks down on guns from people they'll blackmarket them. If the government prevents manufacturers from ever releasing their guns anywhere but TO the government with explicit orders to destroy all excess or damaged leftovers once they have served their purpose, people will just MAKE their own guns. And once we start getting into denial of information on HOW to make guns... well, there goes parts of our freedoms. Not to mention, as I said... melee weapons still serve a purpose in modern times in the form of knives and the like. And ANYTHING can become a melee weapon. It's all about how determined the criminal is in violently robbing someone.

So in the end, it's less about banning guns and more about beefing up civil protection to deter criminals from ever thinking about using ANYTHING, gun or otherwise; to rob and kill people. After all, even in jail people get killed by improvised weapons or just raw fighting power... and you'd figure a jail to be the most secure place where criminals COULDN'T find the means to maim each other.

Oh, and Addendum: Or improving the areas with crime so people don't have reasons to be criminals. Some people are just wacky, and kill innocents because of mental problems... but really the majority of crime results from desperation and a wild attempt at the easy way out. Robbing a place for a quick buck because there are no jobs and no benefits and you have a family to feed, that deal. Or a sense of jealousy of the rich, with people getting fed up of being lower class and getting stressed out over constant work but never moving up, and trying to take from those who have excess like a lesser child who's tired of watching the obese kid eat all the pudding cups while they aren't allowed. If our country can improve the state of living for EVERYONE, not just the few privileged who managed to strike it rich with what few opportunities were available, there'd be no reason to rob and steal and murder people for their belongings. And if everyone is content, and has access to better services they won't go crazy and murder little girls or burn places down because of some sort of mental trauma brought forth by a poor life. But yeah, I dunno... both are difficult to achieve. You look like an oppressive tyrant if you beef up civil and military to quell crime through force and fear... and no country has ever really achieved the Utopia of improving everything to make everyone happy without someone finding said utopia shite or having different views... which in a country like ours is different views, different ethnicities, different morals, different ways of living, everything... so I highly doubt our country will ever be able to make everyone happy in it since there are so many people who will only be happy if our melting pot country looks like THEIR country, which would make so many others upset from other countries as a result.

Well, whaev. I've said all I have to say on this discussion already pretty much. x3 Continue.

Quote from: Amina on September 21, 2010, 11:39:43 PMMaking it so that everyone has weapons, clearly, deters nothing.  In fact, it may even raise the chances of violent crimes occurring in situations where no one may have been hurt before.  *shrugs*  It's hard to say for sure what will or won't deter violent crime, aside from the government resorting to violent crime to terrify and subdue the masses.  <----I don't support that, by the way.  ;

I would argue that point. Consider from a criminal's point of view: Would you prefer to commit a violent crime against an unarmed victim, or an armed citizen? Would you want to do it, knowing full well that even if you shot the victim first, any spectator could immediately open fire on you?
It's not like murder would suddenly become the standard. Murder would still be illegal, murderers would still be imprisoned or executed. That would continue being a strong deterrent.

But yes, the government restoring to terror and violence to placate the population is a bad thing.

Quote from: Mito Blue on September 22, 2010, 12:33:26 AMLike the second amendment, apparently my post was not read fully as well. I didn't say I support a ban. I support regulation. No, not everyone should have a gun. Sorry if you disagree, but again, people are stupid. They should not be allowed to have every gun imaginable. They should be allowed a select few. For protection against an individual or a small group of people.

And you, as always, seek to interpret my statements under the most negative light possible. But let's consider those automatic shotguns that are always used as examples in this kind of argument. They're utterly deadly, right? Totally devastating... But then, why hasn't any world military or paramilitary force adopted such a weapon? Well, it turns out, weapons such as that aren't very good. They are extremely bulky and heavy. Their mechanisms tend to be complex, leading to poor reliability. Ammunition capacity is a pretty serious problem - at most, you can hold about twelve or twenty shells in such a weapon, which is more than you need in short situations, but too little for suppression. And, finally, reloading tends to be a significant problem, either relying on unwieldy drums, massive box magazines, or, worst of all, having to insert each shell manually. In brief, automatic shotguns aren't good for any purpose, and you wouldn't see people rushing to get this useless, monstrous firearms which easily weigh twice as much as a full-size assault rifle but only have half of the ammunition capacity and a tiny fraction of the effective range.

Quote from: Mito Blue on September 22, 2010, 12:33:26 AMSorry, Leithri, but no matter what guns they have, Average John Does cannot take on the government army with even a ton of assault rifles. Because they have things like TANKS. If they can blow the shit out of other countries, they can definitely blow away Bob the Redneck who thinks he needs to protect his trailer with shotguns, assault rifles, and machine guns. That makes the whole "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government" point moot.

Ah, but Mito, you're forgetting an important part of this scenario. What happens if a country uses tanks on its own civilians? Then you get hated by every country in the world. Trade sanctions. International efforts to aide the oppressed citizenry. Outside intervention, even.
And another factor: What would happen to military morale, knowing that they're slaughtering their own families? Would they continue obeying their politician masters? Do you really think a soldier would obey the President if ordered to kill his own wife, on American soil? Of course not. The military would see personnel deserting in droves, and huge amounts of materiel stolen. These deserters would work to defend the citizens, their families and neighbors, even if it meant overthrowing their government (who are unarguably malignant and tyrannical at this point). So the citizens don't need to stand up to tanks: They just need to be able to fight until the government orders the military to do something that will cause mass desertion (or, if the government doesn't do this, then the citizens won't have to worry about tanks in the first place).

So it would seem that so far, the majority is voting to keep guns at retail stores, but with some more restrictions.

Now, say we did tighten our laws. Let's pretend that we do the same thing that England did in 1997...what do ya'll suppose would happen in the US?

Real men use knives.

Real nice contribution there, Tsunama.  ....Christmonkeys.

If guns are illegal or overly restricted, only criminals would have them.

It's the circle of fear of everyone packing heat that maintains order.

I love how people are talking as if they are approached every day by people with guns.  XD

In Toronto (largest Canadian city) its near impossible to get a concealed weapon and the people who get in gun fights are generally both criminals that have both gotten their hands on illegal guns in the first place.  I don't think getting to hold a gun makes anyone any safer.  I don't care for guns at all but I know that a complete ban would be pretty dumb, I'm all for restriction.

Do keep in mind, Stoat, that Canada has a far lower crime rate than the US in the first place (both violent and non-).

Could that be due to the lack of guns?