Gun Control: Pros and Cons

[SirRobin]

Well since the last one wasn't shall we say the best opening for the topic. Let's try something a little less biased, or delusional, shall we? Here is an oldie but goodie

Should civilian possession of handguns and other non-hunting guns be banned or severely restricted?

YES

1. Most violent crimes are committed with guns; thus, restricting gun ownership will likely reduce the number of such crimes.
2. Lunatics, bullied school kids, disgruntled workers, and others can inflict mass casualties with guns that otherwise wouldn't be possible.
3. A crime victim who has a gun may be in more danger than an unarmed person since the criminal may kill in perceived self-defense.
4. Suicides and crimes of passion are higher with gun availability, as it's much easier to act immediately on your impulses when a gun is available.
5. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution was targeted towards militia, e.g. the National Guard, rather than individuals.
6. Crimes that may have been less harmful can be made more dangerous by adding a gun.
7. Legalized gun ownership means guns have a greater chance of falling into the hands of kids, potentially resulting in some deadly accidents.
8. Terrorism, school shootings, and other modern circumstances make guns more dangerous nowadays.

NO

1. Criminals will always find a way to obtain their guns, leaving law-abiding citizens without any weapons to use in defense.
2. Crimes are often prevented by the deterrent effect of the possibility of victim gun possession.
3. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution protects the individual's right to gun ownership.
4. Woman and weaker individuals may have no means of self-defense from rape or other crimes, especially in the inner city.
5. Guns in the possession of citizens are an added protection against government tyranny.
6. Police are often too overwhelmed to protect all citizens from violent crime.
7. Banning guns will create another potentially large source of organized criminal revenue, as a black market for guns will surely develop.
8. Banning guns will take away yet another piece of our liberty, which is one more step to socialism and totalitarianism.
9. Reasonable gun control & education steps can be put in place, so an outright ban is unnecessary.

---------- Post added 2012-11-09 at 11:57 PM ----------

Personally I'll reiterate my thoughts on the topic. Like voting there should be more gun ownership, not less. Far too many people are, to put it simply, just assholes. Perhaps it will help human decency if the bullied, abused, mistreated, are as well armed as the bullies, abusers, and mistreat... erers...

[Deleted]

Guns are bad, mkay? No guns for civil man mkay?

Seriously, imo noone should be allowed to have a gun unless it's a working tool.

[MKing]

It's actually not that hard to build a gun, If something does happen to certain guns, people will just build them illegally, and people that want them will buy them. It's just like drugs.

[Fuzzzie]

There is no pros.
/thread.

eh.. already a bias opinion. I like this thread. It's a far better environment to discuss the issue.

There is no blanket taking away of guns.. This issue requires sensitivity and understanding. To say there are no pros to gun ownership is not accepting the whole picture.

[Northern Goblin]

I think you need to define gun control, it's possible to have control and restrictions without making it illegal.

Personally if a culture is going to allow guns, they need to be seen as a privilege, not a right. Something to be respected and handled with extreme care as opposed to a status symbol. They're a tool for hunting and clearing vermin, a recreational past time in target shooting, and the absolute last resort of self defence.

If a society runs with that mindset when using guns, then a lot of the issues resolve themselves. However I do think firearm types need restraint, nobody needs an automatic weapon at home, I can appreciate a high powered rifle for hunting, or a shotgun for farm work, or a handgun for last resort defence.

[Deleted]

It's actually not that hard to build a gun, If something does happen to certain guns, people will just build them illegally, and people that want them will buy them. It's just like drugs.

But by having a limited access will significantly decrease the amount of guns. Thats like arguing we should not have road saftey since there will always deaths related to car accidents.

[PizzaSHARK]

I think you need to define gun control, it's possible to have control and restrictions without making it illegal.

Personally if a culture is going to allow guns, they need to be seen as a privilege, not a right. Something to be respected and handled with extreme care as opposed to a status symbol. They're a tool for hunting and clearing vermin, a recreational past time in target shooting, and the absolute last resort of self defence.

If a society runs with that mindset when using guns, then a lot of the issues resolve themselves. However I do think firearm types need restraint, nobody needs an automatic weapon at home, I can appreciate a high powered rifle for hunting, or a shotgun for farm work, or a handgun for last resort defence.

Automatic weapons are amazingly fun to take out on the range, and the enormous costs associated with owning one make it so that it's extremely unlikely for some random Joe Sixpack to have one. The criminals that have them most often get them from sources outside the US, anyway.

I think it's better to use "selective-fire," rather than "automatic," because "automatic," just means a gun that doesn't require you to separately load the chamber and cock the hammer after each trigger pull - that's all done automatically, hence the name.

[Deleted]

eh.. already a bias opinion. I like this thread. It's a far better environment to discuss the issue.

There is no blanket taking away of guns.. This issue requires sensitivity and understanding. To say there are no pros to gun ownership is not accepting the whole picture.

It's early in the morning, I just woke up and for some reason I ignored the word control and assumed OP was pro guns. I edited my post as soon I realised my misstake.

[PizzaSHARK]

But by having a limited access will significantly decrease the amount of guns. Thats like arguing we should not have road saftey since there will always die people in car accidents.

In the hands of legal owners, sure. The US has a porous border, unlike virtually every other country used as a comparison point for gun control. If they don't get them here, they can easily get them somewhere else.

[MKing]

But by having a limited access will significantly decrease the amount of guns. Thats like arguing we should not have road saftey since there will always die people in car accidents.

It won't limit them though, it only costs like $30,000 max for all the equipment to make them with tons of profit. there would be just as many, and all the legal gun makers that used to make their living off of them would probably still sell them illegally. Getting rid of guns would do worse than keeping them because it would probably actually make them easier to obtain.

[Northern Goblin]

Automatic weapons are amazingly fun to take out on the range, and the enormous costs associated with owning one make it so that it's extremely unlikely for some random Joe Sixpack to have one. The criminals that have them most often get them from sources outside the US, anyway.

I think it's better to use "selective-fire," rather than "automatic," because "automatic," just means a gun that doesn't require you to separately load the chamber and cock the hammer after each trigger pull - that's all done automatically, hence the name.

Note why I said "at home." Personally I think public ranges should be allowed to store them for customer use, but with high levels of security in both the handling and storage of them. Or treat them like you do track cars, people are allowed to own an automatic weapon, but it stays locked at the range and never goes home with you.

[Deleted]

It won't limit them though, it only costs like $30,000 max for all the equipment to make them with tons of profit. there would be just as many, and all the legal gun makers that used to make their living off of them would probably still sell them illegally. Getting rid of guns would do worse than keeping them because it would probably actually make them easier to obtain.

Atm you can access guns mainly in two ways, legally and illegally. If we remove the legal way. How on earth could that increase the accessability? Thats logically impossible.

[Shinoashi]

this tired discussion again. that always leads to biased opinions, regardless of how well-put the original post was handled.

most of the killing in the us are due to inner city gun violence. until you fix my inner city school system and actually show the inner city youth that there is more to life than just killing each other, they will kill each other with or without the use of guns; and yes, there are other killings with guns, but are not even in the same spectrum of inner city death by gun violence. as far as the other random killings that occur? i can damn well guarantee you that these nutjobs will just end up doing something just as, if not more, devastation; um... like, build a bomb?

so until you fix this inner city issue, deaths will still happen and just as regularly. also, nutjobs are nutjobs, and will kill regardless of what they have their hands on. period.

just a bit tired of these liberal jackoffs acting as if gun control is going to solve my nations violence.

yeah edited my post to clarify what i was actually referring to in our inner cities....

[xylophone]

Personally I think the high violence rates here in Murrika are a cultural issue more than a gun control issue.

[Shinoashi]

Atm you can access guns mainly in two ways, legally and illegally. If we remove the legal way. How on earth could that increase the accessability? Thats logically impossible.

um... the same exact way that illegal drugs make it into my nation? could you be a bit more delusional please??....

[MKing]

Atm you can access guns mainly in two ways, legally and illegally. If we remove the legal way. How on earth could that increase the accessability? Thats logically impossible.

You don't understand how easy it is to get the equipment and metals needed to make weapons.. hell even now like my cousin got parts of an AK sent to him in seperate pieces in california and put it together. They only check for full guns.

[Deleted]

You don't understand how easy it is to get the equipment and metals needed to make weapons.. hell even now like my cousin got parts of an AK sent to him in seperate pieces in california and put it together. They only check for full guns.

You can not claim it will be more easy to get the mats after a gun control was implemented. At worst it is equally easy to get the mats.
It is illogically to claim the accessability will increase upon enforcing a restriction.

[Shinoashi]

You can not claim it will be more easy to get the mats after a gun control was implemented. At worst it is equally easy to get the mats.
It is illogically to claim the accessability will increase upon enforcing a restriction.

do i have to consistently repeat myself; or is it that my statement so truthful that you have to dodge it?

illegal drugs are still making it over borders into my country, so would the illegal weapons.

at this point, i am trying my damndist not to get infracted.

[Deleted]

um... the same exact way that illegal drugs make it into my nation? could you be a bit more delusional please??....

Being logical is now delusional? Quite the opposite.

[Necrotan]

Atm you can access guns mainly in two ways, legally and illegally. If we remove the legal way. How on earth could that increase the accessability? Thats logically impossible.

The less legal alternatives that exist, the more business the illegal methods get.

Removing the legal method will remove what little tracking we have now and replace it with even more people with illegal guns. A law only works if everyone plays by the same rules. Criminals do not play by those rules (hence the criminal part).