Should laws be passed to limit gun ownership further?
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death and injury can be removed from...
The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death and injury can be removed from our society, the safer it will be. In the U.S.A death by gunshot has become the leading cause of death among some social groups. Quite simply, guns are lethal and the fewer people have them the better.
Prohibition is not the answer, especially not in countries such as the USA where gun ownership is such an entrenched aspect of society. Banning guns would not make them disappear or make them any less dangerous. It is a legitimate right of citizens to own weapons with which to protect themselves, their family, and their property (see point 4). Many people also need guns for other reasons. For example, farmers need guns in order to protect their stock and crops from pests, e.g. rabbits, birds, deer, foxes, stray dogs attacking sheep, etc.
The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably leads to many unnecessary and tragic ...
The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably leads to many unnecessary and tragic deaths. Legally held guns are stolen and end up in the hands of criminals, who would have greater difficulty in obtaining such weapons if firearms were less prevalent in society. Guns also end up in the hands of children, leading to tragic accidents and terrible disasters such as the Columbine High School massacre in the U.S.A. Sometimes even normal-seeming registered gun owners appear to go mad and kill, as tragically happened at Hungerford and Dunblaine in the U.K.
Guns don’t kill people – people kill people. Restricting gun ownership will do nothing to make society safer as it is the intent of the criminal we should fear, and that will remain the same whatever the gun laws. In the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the gun used is not legally held or registered. Many of these illegal weapons are imported secretly from abroad, rather than being stolen from registered owners.
Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture...
Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorises and legitimises unnecessary gun ownership. It remains the interest of a minority, who should not be allowed to block the interests of society as a whole in gun control. Compensation can be given to individual gun owners, gun clubs and the retail firearms trade, in recognition of their economic loss if a ban is implemented.
Shooting is a major sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated. In addition, field sports bring money into poor rural economies and provide a motivation for landowners to value environmental protection.
Burglary should not be punished by vigilante killings. No amount of property is worth a human life....
Burglary should not be punished by vigilante killings. No amount of property is worth a human life. Perversely, the danger of attack by homeowners may make it more likely that criminals will carry their own weapons. If a right to self-defence is granted in this way, many accidental deaths are bound to result.
Self-protection. Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)
There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because...
There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because gun owners are more depressive, but because the means of quick and effective suicide is easily to hand. As many unsuccessful suicides are later glad that they failed in their attempt, the state should discourage and restrict the ownership of something that wastes so many human lives.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary top the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Any country is much more able to defend itself from aggression if many of its citizens are able to use guns, keeping them for leisure and sporting use. Some countries actively require adult citizens to maintain weapons in their house, and periodically to train in their use. Of course, such widespread ownership of weapons is also a safeguard against domestic tyranny.
A new era for USA
USA constitution allowed for guns at a time when tanks, landmines and jet fighters did not exist. Sould USA citizens be able to have this new type of guns?
You must hold into account that you have nothing to do with your gun if the federal government comes against you with tanks.
The far west times is gone. Your culture should change. You do much more damage to yourselves and the world by having guns. It grows a culture of fear, need for protection and violence.
Compare yourselves with other countries. What does this ability to buy and hold guns do for you, as a citizen, in practical terms?
Gun companies fund elections. Leaders in America, need support from gun companies(financial as well as Gun-loyalist) to get votes. [[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t261437/]]
The provision for gun ownership in the US was originally created to allow the common person to stand before his government and defy it should it become tyrannical. While many make the claim that tanks, mines, drones, and technology make the guns a private citizen own seem useless, I would point out both Afghanistan and Vietnam as examples where superior technology failed in the face of superior morale. While the US in such a scenario would be fighting a war of extermination, the defenders would only have to demoralize the loyalist US forces to cause US defeat. As such, firearms still stand as a bulwark against tyranny today. As a citizen, firearms allow you to remain free and capable of providing your own defense against the potentially tyrannical US.
For those who bemoan the criminal elements that exist in the US and not in countries where guns are outlawed I would suggest looking into the skinheads of Russia or the chavs of Britain. Both countries have much more strict laws against gun ownership than the US and both still have crime. Switzerland has the largest number of militia owned firearms on Earth yet has one of the lowest crime rates. A better predictor or gun violence (and violence or crime in general) would be the gap between rich and poor in a country - the bigger the gap the greater the violence (check US GINI of 51 as compared to Switzerland's GINI of 34 according to World Bank statistics).
In short, firearms are a red herring for the intellectually lazy - this is statistically born out by looking at the statistics available.
cut guns = escalation in knife crimes
Let's face it, murders happen:bombings/shootings/guttings/poisonings all occur and have occurred historically often.
Gun control will only lead to a reversion to ubiquitous knife crime.
Yes; we look to America and think racially/penury motivated high-school shootings, muggings,mobsters, shootouts ; more specifically Columbine, V.T killer etc and also that Britain didn't have this problem until guns were legalised/legalized.
Now, we aren't trigger happy Texas rangers and certainly not attached to guns but let's put it this way:
If say, you had to be killed would you rather be shot or gutted with a sharp kitchen utensil? Personally, I prefer the former.
In fact, being bombed thus dying instantly is probably the best way to be killed.
Sacrifice the one for the many:
Warning:Parental advisory Content: certain murder-method- descriptions are graphic and might cause readers to regurgitate:
It is disgustingly defeatist/fatalist to claim that murders are inevitable or that being shot is relatively painless.
Gutting(or death by laceration) takes time(either for sufficient blood loss or to cut the right organs) ; mass gut-tings(or throat/wrist slits) are virtually unheard of and physically impossible to carry out (unlike 'mass' shootings: spraying/splaying ricocheting/streaming bullets alternatively bombing massacres from bombs set off in crowded public places.)
While the humanity of passing onto the other realm, is important (certainly suicide by barbiturate overdose is a lot less painful than being shot/bombed/burned/dying-by-laceration) ; the general rule is 'sacrifice the one for the many' we are interested in reducing numbers of murders/attacks/fatal-injuries and gun control is effective in this regard.
people keep guns for their own protection; sometimes only to scare potential attackers/intruders rather than to use guns as weapons
A gun shot in the air has scared off many an intruder and a gun pointed expertly at a potential rapist/criminal is just as effective. Guns are kept in households for their 'scare-value' and they have an incredibly high scare value.
Gun Control Leads To More Crimes
-This post is based on laws in the USA-
Gun Control Laws are designed to prevent incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech from occurring. If an individual is so mentally unstable that they desire to shoot random classmates, it is not feasible to believe that a gun control law will stop them. If an individual truly wants to harm others, then they will try to do so regardless of laws or regulations. This greatly prevents the laws from serving their purpose (to prevent gun crime). If anything, gun control laws will increase crime.
A saying often muttered in the Southern United States is, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." This statement is often ignored but it is true. Criminals rarely go through the legal channels to obtain their firearm so it is easy to conclude that criminals will barely be affected by gun control laws. The average citizen will be the one affected. The only real accomplishment gun control laws will have is hindering law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right [[http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artaubin.html]] If citizens are heavily hindered from getting guns they will have a harder time protecting themselves. I believe that citizens should rely on law enforcement, but on average Seattle's emergency crews took 8 minutes 46 seconds to respond (by respond, I mean arrive and begin helping victims), Oklahoma City 7 minutes 36 seconds, Tulsa 8 minutes 48 seconds, Columbus, Ohio, 7 minutes 49 seconds, Charlotte 6 minutes 56 seconds, and Fresno took 22 minutes 11 seconds [[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/ems-day2-cover.htm]] . If you have no protection, what could happen to you in that time?
In conclusion, I believe that gun control activists mean well but, in the end, these laws will cause more trouble than they're worth. If someone is determined to commit a crime using a gun, a law will not stop them. If they break one law (murder, robbery, etc.), they will not mind breaking another (gun control law).
This would simply lead to more deaths. Of course you cant rely on the police getting there in time, this is perhaps even more the case in Britain where we do not have many police officers with firearms. But still do we want to have situations where people are regularly shooting people who robbers? If you have a gun, and even more so if they have a gun too you increase the chances of a confrontation whereas if you (or better both sides) dont have a gun then the confrontation is much more likely to be avoided. Having firearms encourages people to reklessly take the law into their own hands.
History repeating itself
Everybody knows about the small period of time were the United States banned alcohol. Now, putting aside personal opinions, lets look at facts. In that time, crime rates skyrocketed. Now, I'm not saying that we should just legalize everything society doesn't like, however, there are many highly opinionated factions who are waiting for an opportunity to snap at gun control laws strengthening. that, and the fact that our constitution permits defense of freedom, leeds me to believe that gun control should be left alone.
What do you think?