Gun Control
I understand that many people are against gun control. Is it mostly because they do not want to change the Constitution and want to defend their families?
If so, I am sure there can be many compromises. If they want to defend themselves and their families, they can use tasers (that don't kill you) or perhaps a different weapon that will not kill, but make the attacker unconscious. Guns are fatal, and they can be used for good and bad. Why not use something that still work, but doesn't have a high risk?
And I understand that Americans are very proud of their Constitution. They should be, it is, after all, the longest kept Constitution in history. But it has had 27 amendments, and all the changes have been for good. A framer making the Constitution once said, "The law is for the living, not the dead." (Or something along those lines). Perhaps we should change things, for the better of our country. I'm sure that's what the Congress at that time would have wanted.
I also understand it is, thought by some people, a symbol of America. But it is necessarily a good symbol? I am sure we can make a good impression of our nation in a less violent way.
People who are against gun control have suggested armed policemen standing in front of schools and public buildings as enforcement against these sorts of dangerous people. But this is slightly... ironic. This won't make children or even adults feel safe, it reminds them of danger and makes them feel overall scared.
I just wanted to hear some thoughts on this.
If so, I am sure there can be many compromises. If they want to defend themselves and their families, they can use tasers (that don't kill you) or perhaps a different weapon that will not kill, but make the attacker unconscious. Guns are fatal, and they can be used for good and bad. Why not use something that still work, but doesn't have a high risk?
And I understand that Americans are very proud of their Constitution. They should be, it is, after all, the longest kept Constitution in history. But it has had 27 amendments, and all the changes have been for good. A framer making the Constitution once said, "The law is for the living, not the dead." (Or something along those lines). Perhaps we should change things, for the better of our country. I'm sure that's what the Congress at that time would have wanted.
I also understand it is, thought by some people, a symbol of America. But it is necessarily a good symbol? I am sure we can make a good impression of our nation in a less violent way.
People who are against gun control have suggested armed policemen standing in front of schools and public buildings as enforcement against these sorts of dangerous people. But this is slightly... ironic. This won't make children or even adults feel safe, it reminds them of danger and makes them feel overall scared.
I just wanted to hear some thoughts on this.
Comments325
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
There are massively misleading statistics on self protection incidents involving guns, predicated on the idea that if you use a gun in self defense you intend to kill your attacker, there were 326 reported justifiable homicides in 2010 [link]
I am all for gun control....
I use both hands, and hit my target. If that needs to be enforced by law, we got a real problem as a nation.
I use both hands, and hit my target. If that needs to be enforced by law, we got a real problem as a nation.
I still think the obvious solution is to ban ammunition. That way the gun owners get to keep their toys and the owning of ammunition would be an offence. Maybe it could be kept and used in licensed gun-clubs, or bought during hunting season with a clear identity / background check in small quantities, each bullet marked with a serial number or something and some kind of trade-in at the end of season.
Ditto for farmers.
Just thinking on the fly....
Ditto for farmers.
Just thinking on the fly....
First of all, many of the guns used in these mass shootings were obtained illegally. Therefore, simply focusing on restricting the legal gun trade won't do much to solve the problem. There needs to be a bigger focus on stopping the black market for firearms, and steeper penalties on those caught illegally selling guns.
I don't think that having access to firearms is the problem. Instead, I think that we have a culture that has attached a sort of mysticism (for lack of a better term) to them. Guns are glorified in today's media, and while I'm not going to blame Grand Theft Auto for gun crime, I think that we've become obsessed with guns without knowing the reality of them. Me and my conservative roommate had a discussion on this a few days back, and he half-jokingly said that every child in America should have to execute a cow- the point being is that people will know what a bullet can do to living tissue.
We should be able to have guns, but we need to make sure that those people who do have guns are going to use them responsibly. When you get your driver's license, you often have to take a driver's ed course and then take a variety of tests. After all, having a car is a huge responsibility and people can get hurt if you don't know what you're doing. Therefore, it only follows that a gun, who's explicit purpose is to cause harm to living things, should also require stringent testing. Background checks should be a given, so that we aren't giving guns to people with certain mental illnesses or a history of violent crime. People applying for a firearm license should also be required to take a gun safety course, so that they won't leave their rifles unlocked in a house with their unstable son. We should also make sure that gun show merchants are legit and follow the same rules as any other gun store.
Also, no citizen needs an assault rifle. However, the term "assault weapon" is really vague and is mainly cosmetic. People who complain about the vagueness of the Second Amendment will go on and argue that certain guns should be banned because it looks scary.
However, it always makes me laugh when people say that we need guns to "protect ourselves from the government." I mean, if the world's most powerful and technologically advanced military wanted you dead, I don't think that Grandpa's rifle will protect you from the deathbots that roam the skies. America doesn't even for the most part have the same advantages that Vietnam had, such as deep jungle that precipitates guerrilla warfare.
I don't think that having access to firearms is the problem. Instead, I think that we have a culture that has attached a sort of mysticism (for lack of a better term) to them. Guns are glorified in today's media, and while I'm not going to blame Grand Theft Auto for gun crime, I think that we've become obsessed with guns without knowing the reality of them. Me and my conservative roommate had a discussion on this a few days back, and he half-jokingly said that every child in America should have to execute a cow- the point being is that people will know what a bullet can do to living tissue.
We should be able to have guns, but we need to make sure that those people who do have guns are going to use them responsibly. When you get your driver's license, you often have to take a driver's ed course and then take a variety of tests. After all, having a car is a huge responsibility and people can get hurt if you don't know what you're doing. Therefore, it only follows that a gun, who's explicit purpose is to cause harm to living things, should also require stringent testing. Background checks should be a given, so that we aren't giving guns to people with certain mental illnesses or a history of violent crime. People applying for a firearm license should also be required to take a gun safety course, so that they won't leave their rifles unlocked in a house with their unstable son. We should also make sure that gun show merchants are legit and follow the same rules as any other gun store.
Also, no citizen needs an assault rifle. However, the term "assault weapon" is really vague and is mainly cosmetic. People who complain about the vagueness of the Second Amendment will go on and argue that certain guns should be banned because it looks scary.
However, it always makes me laugh when people say that we need guns to "protect ourselves from the government." I mean, if the world's most powerful and technologically advanced military wanted you dead, I don't think that Grandpa's rifle will protect you from the deathbots that roam the skies. America doesn't even for the most part have the same advantages that Vietnam had, such as deep jungle that precipitates guerrilla warfare.
About your last paragraph, look back to 1776. American colonists were nothing more than armed civilians, going against the most powerful military in the world at the time: The British. Who won that?
Disarming the law-abiding citizens will only harm society. The law-abiding citizen won't go on a rampage like a criminal would, and even then, at least the people would have a means of shooting back at the crazed gunman. And in regards to banning assault weapons only - what would that change? Ban an M4, and a criminal can still use his shotgun, or even a handgun, and still cause trouble. Decreasing the legal magezine size won't change much either as changing mags can be done within 1 second for some. Banning one type of weapons wouldn't stop these shootings even if the gun is obtained legally.
Banning guns in any way only hurts the law-abiding citizen. Whether he owns a gun for hunting, defense, or even just to shoot targets or clay pigeons, it's a burden on them. Criminals don't follow laws. If they want to kill someone, they'll find a way to do it.
Disarming the law-abiding citizens will only harm society. The law-abiding citizen won't go on a rampage like a criminal would, and even then, at least the people would have a means of shooting back at the crazed gunman. And in regards to banning assault weapons only - what would that change? Ban an M4, and a criminal can still use his shotgun, or even a handgun, and still cause trouble. Decreasing the legal magezine size won't change much either as changing mags can be done within 1 second for some. Banning one type of weapons wouldn't stop these shootings even if the gun is obtained legally.
Banning guns in any way only hurts the law-abiding citizen. Whether he owns a gun for hunting, defense, or even just to shoot targets or clay pigeons, it's a burden on them. Criminals don't follow laws. If they want to kill someone, they'll find a way to do it.
About your last paragraph, look back to 1776. American colonists were nothing more than armed civilians, going against the most powerful military in the world at the time: The British. Who won that?
Times change. The brits didn't have tanks, Kevlar body armor, UCAVs, missiles, or spy satellites.
Times change. The brits didn't have tanks, Kevlar body armor, UCAVs, missiles, or spy satellites.
My point is that civilians defeated a more well-equipped power. Keep in mind that many of those technologies are developed by civilians. Are you telling me that if tyrrany formed in the government, you'd rather roll over and take it rather than fight for your freedom?
There was a much smaller gap between the firepower of the military and civilians back then.
And no, I wouldn't roll over. I'm going to continue my family's proud tradition of dealing with serious issues. That being, running to the nearest safe haven.
And no, I wouldn't roll over. I'm going to continue my family's proud tradition of dealing with serious issues. That being, running to the nearest safe haven.
The Americans only won because France intervened in the conflict. Prior to that, the Americans were constantly losing.
As for fighting back against a tyrannical government, unless the army decides to unilaterally side with the rebels or other countries intervene on their behalf, any rebellion would be crushed rather easily.
As for fighting back against a tyrannical government, unless the army decides to unilaterally side with the rebels or other countries intervene on their behalf, any rebellion would be crushed rather easily.
I'd rather prevent it by doing my civic duty in the first place to prevent the government from becoming dictatorial, and by correctly distinguishing between dictatorial behavior and reasonable behavior, and not proving I can't do so by lustily cheering on actual dictatorial behavior.
However, the thing is that in 1776 the difference in technology available to the militias and available to the British wasn't very much different. You had muskets, and bayonets, and cannons and hopefully some ships. Nowadays, the military has tanks, drones, assault rifles... even nukes. The question of whether the top command would nuke its own infrastructure notwithstanding, a citizen militia would be severely outclassed in both tactics and weaponry. Meanwhile, the British had to sail across an ocean to get supplies over, which took much longer than it would now. Here in the US, we have land supply routes unless the rebellion starts in Hawaii or Guam. Plus, at least a good half of the nation supports these gun control measures, while loyalist support back in 1776 was at about 20%. Also note that many other British colonies also rebelled around the same timeframe, and pretty much all of the other rebellions were quashed.
Also, please note that I also don't support an assault weapons ban. It was assault rifles that I'm against citizens having. You can't kill as many people as quickly with a revolver or with grandpa's hunting rifle than with an M4, or even a Tommy Gun. And to say that if we had more lax gun laws, then the people in Aurora or Sandy Hook could've fought back- would you really want a shootout in such a chaotic situation? Imagine trying to find the shooter in a dark and dusty movie theater, when people are panicking and screaming. Imagine if there were other people shooting. In such a chaotic situation, could you really pinpoint the criminal in the seconds that you may have? And a shootout in a classroom of screaming kids shouldn't even be a question.
I'm not advocating taking away anyone's guns. I'm just advocating for responsible sale and use. As I said, a gun is a huge responsibility- if you aren't careful, people can die. If having to register or take background checks is a "burden" then so be it. If you can't take the responsibility of having your weapon registered, then maybe a firearm is too big a responsibility for you right now.
It may not stop all of the criminals, but you shouldn't discount a solution just because it isn't perfect. Drugs are illegal, but people still do them; should we make crack legal? Or rape? To discount an idea just because it isn't perfect is just nihilism.
Also, please note that I also don't support an assault weapons ban. It was assault rifles that I'm against citizens having. You can't kill as many people as quickly with a revolver or with grandpa's hunting rifle than with an M4, or even a Tommy Gun. And to say that if we had more lax gun laws, then the people in Aurora or Sandy Hook could've fought back- would you really want a shootout in such a chaotic situation? Imagine trying to find the shooter in a dark and dusty movie theater, when people are panicking and screaming. Imagine if there were other people shooting. In such a chaotic situation, could you really pinpoint the criminal in the seconds that you may have? And a shootout in a classroom of screaming kids shouldn't even be a question.
I'm not advocating taking away anyone's guns. I'm just advocating for responsible sale and use. As I said, a gun is a huge responsibility- if you aren't careful, people can die. If having to register or take background checks is a "burden" then so be it. If you can't take the responsibility of having your weapon registered, then maybe a firearm is too big a responsibility for you right now.
It may not stop all of the criminals, but you shouldn't discount a solution just because it isn't perfect. Drugs are illegal, but people still do them; should we make crack legal? Or rape? To discount an idea just because it isn't perfect is just nihilism.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
By restricting certain class of weapons there is no infringement - Americans would still be able to own arms. Fatuous argument.
Oh geez lol. Normally I would start going on about how you guys sure love to classify weapons you know so little about, but the sheer fact that you use the word "fatuous" gets you immediately dismissed from any potential discussion.
No, it means that you don't actually have an argument in response, no attempt to defend the accusation of fatuousness, just a blank denial of any position other than your own. Also fatuous and, alas, as to be expected.
Unless of course you have a different understanding of that word.
The right to bear arms is not something that can be denied without reshaping the US into something other than it is. So be it. The right to bear arms makes no comment about the nature of said arms, other than that they be firearms (see much of the discussion). Claiming otherwise is blatant sophistry at best, fatuous bawling at worst.
Unless of course you have a different understanding of that word.
The right to bear arms is not something that can be denied without reshaping the US into something other than it is. So be it. The right to bear arms makes no comment about the nature of said arms, other than that they be firearms (see much of the discussion). Claiming otherwise is blatant sophistry at best, fatuous bawling at worst.
What part of dismissal do you not understand?
I'm not humoring you because I've already done it to fools so many times this month and I've found it to be absolutely fruitless.
Play that game with somebody else and take the recycled lines you learned from talking heads to somebody who gives a damn.
I'm not humoring you because I've already done it to fools so many times this month and I've found it to be absolutely fruitless.
Play that game with somebody else and take the recycled lines you learned from talking heads to somebody who gives a damn.
So, you concede, or withdraw. Dismissal is not a valid response in a debate.
Withdrawal.
Look, I don't mean to be so rude. Or single you out. Or any of that. It's just that it feels like this is the only thing I have talked about for weeks.
In those weeks I have presented many arguments to many different people.
Each encounter ending in a sense of utter dread and hopelessness when it was with someone with a very solidified anti-gun position.
Not once was I presented with a logical, professional argument in opposition to weapon freedom. Each encounter, the anti-gun position begins to use ridiculous emotional appeals or other unbelievably underhanded techniques in "debate".
None of the arguments ended in a beneficial way for either side. The country is literally split down the middle on this and it's tearing apart the unity of the union.
So forgive me if I'm not willing to hear the same things again and again in a fruitless attempt to undermine the very document that ensures Americans their freedoms.
Too many freedoms are lost already. Talk of any more is just.. It's a sadness I wish no one would have ever have to deal with. So if what you have is a packaged and deceptive approach to gun legislation then save it for someone whom it might matter on.
Look, I don't mean to be so rude. Or single you out. Or any of that. It's just that it feels like this is the only thing I have talked about for weeks.
In those weeks I have presented many arguments to many different people.
Each encounter ending in a sense of utter dread and hopelessness when it was with someone with a very solidified anti-gun position.
Not once was I presented with a logical, professional argument in opposition to weapon freedom. Each encounter, the anti-gun position begins to use ridiculous emotional appeals or other unbelievably underhanded techniques in "debate".
None of the arguments ended in a beneficial way for either side. The country is literally split down the middle on this and it's tearing apart the unity of the union.
So forgive me if I'm not willing to hear the same things again and again in a fruitless attempt to undermine the very document that ensures Americans their freedoms.
Too many freedoms are lost already. Talk of any more is just.. It's a sadness I wish no one would have ever have to deal with. So if what you have is a packaged and deceptive approach to gun legislation then save it for someone whom it might matter on.
View all replies
Every one can understand that, because it is the thought by some people, a symbol of America. seems to me like, it is necessarily a good symbol? I am sure we can make a good impression of our nation in a less violent way.
____________________
Storage Melbourne
Melbourne self storage
Self storage Sydney
____________________
Storage Melbourne
Melbourne self storage
Self storage Sydney
I like the fact that different firearms can be used for different results. I mean, one can fire a weapon to do a variety of things from scaring an offender to killiing her/him.
Yes, because it's always the guns...always. It's a bigger problem than that.
It's a problem very difficult, with our current understanding nearly impossible to get anywhere near solving. We can't stop it at all. But we can't get much closer to solving it than trying to prevent their access to guns.
Guns, video-games and Marilyn Manson are easy to blame, but they're not the problem. Armed policemen in front of public buildings is just a placebo for the (rightfully) scared citizens, but I don't think that counts as part of a solution.
I think gun control is a valid semi-effective short-term measure that should be taken if the nation were in a state of emergency (I'm not sure if this is the case), but it's not a solution. USA needs to address a mental-health problem: you only want to keep crazy ones from miss-using guns, scissors, socks or whatever they could use to hurt others. You don't need to forbid guns, just to limit the right of ownership and usage to the sane and technically-competent ones.
I think gun control is a valid semi-effective short-term measure that should be taken if the nation were in a state of emergency (I'm not sure if this is the case), but it's not a solution. USA needs to address a mental-health problem: you only want to keep crazy ones from miss-using guns, scissors, socks or whatever they could use to hurt others. You don't need to forbid guns, just to limit the right of ownership and usage to the sane and technically-competent ones.
The Second Amendment has little to do with home securty from robbers, or hunting deer, though, they are "side effects" if you will of the amendment.
The Secod Amedment to United States Constitution is, along with nine others, part of the Bill of Rights. In the preamble to the bill of rights the founders lay out why they felt it was nessecery to add the first 10 amendments
"Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York,
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
With this knowldege, we can deduce that the right to bear arms, along with the other rights bestowed upon us, (not by government, but simply by the grace of being born) was granted to people to ensure that the tyranny that they were once ruled by from England would not come to pass in this country. We were given the right to bear arms to make sure that a "free state" would continue on into the future, to "Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
In short, the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves from our government, not from other citizens. It is an amendment to the constitution that was put in place to defend all the other amendments. Thatis why itis nessecery, our government should fear us, not the other way around. Fortunately, at this time, they need only fear our votes and not our guns.To belive that this will always be so is nieve however and that is why the second amendment is so important.
The Secod Amedment to United States Constitution is, along with nine others, part of the Bill of Rights. In the preamble to the bill of rights the founders lay out why they felt it was nessecery to add the first 10 amendments
"Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York,
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
With this knowldege, we can deduce that the right to bear arms, along with the other rights bestowed upon us, (not by government, but simply by the grace of being born) was granted to people to ensure that the tyranny that they were once ruled by from England would not come to pass in this country. We were given the right to bear arms to make sure that a "free state" would continue on into the future, to "Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
In short, the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves from our government, not from other citizens. It is an amendment to the constitution that was put in place to defend all the other amendments. Thatis why itis nessecery, our government should fear us, not the other way around. Fortunately, at this time, they need only fear our votes and not our guns.To belive that this will always be so is nieve however and that is why the second amendment is so important.