TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Guns - a personal liberty?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Guns - a personal liberty?
since the issue of gun control basicly comes down to personal liberties, isnt it kinda ironic that usually the left is about clamping down on that personal liberty while the right is the one advocating it?
there are those who belive that we should be able to do drugs legaly because it is our personaly freedom to do what we want to our body, why cant this same reasoning apply to guns. why cant i own a gun and take it to my local firing range and allow myself the personal gratification of stress relief or anger managment or any other feeling it my gives me.
most arguements that apply to drugs also work for gun laws. an example would be like just as drugs are a controlled substance, it doesnt stop them from being possessed and used. same would hold true for guns.
how do must drug proponents act when confornted with the question, drugs are dangerous to society because someone high could jump in a car and drive off impared and dangerous. most of them answer that there are still laws that forbid driving under the influence and it should be the responsibility of the user to obey, not the drug (or whatever valid arguement the bring up). same could be parallelled to guns... even though they may be used for some good they also posses a grave threat, but should that be enough to illegalize them? should we make religion illegal because even though it can be used for good, some abuse it and use it to basicly kill people?
ps. i have never owned or intend to own a fire arm of any kind.
I think that people are responsible enough to use CERTAIN drugs. With regards to guns though ... I think that we're pathetic. It's a shame how we abuse our 2nd amendment right. I say ban them. The intent of drugs are personel self indulgences. The intent of a gun is to maim or kill. Any dolt with an IQ of a retard can own a gun, there simply is no control at all. The right to possess a deadly weapon should not be an inherent right. I don't like either, but people are too irresponsible to have ownership of a deadly weapon.
PS I'm surprised you arent more of a gun advocate coming from texas haha
Well when it comes to the right to bear arms, certainly we have to draw the line somewhere. For instance, I doubt even the staunchest gun advocate would argue that all American citizens had the right to bear nuclear arms. At the same time, we can't ban everything that could be used as a type of arms - we'd have little left.
So, clearly, the question of where to draw this line is a function of the potential destructiveness if the weapon is misused. Automatic weapons, I think, clearly fall on the side of being too destructive. Other guns are very borderline, but I think the optimal course of action would probably be to phase them out of circulation by:
1. Banning the manufacture of new guns for public distribution.
and
2. Destroying guns found to have been used in crimes.
Perhaps I'll elaborate more later, but right now I'm feeling a bit sick.
my stance is that guns should be prohibted from citizens, with the exception of hunting rifles and such. the simple truth is that the purpose of a 9mm, a 357 magnum, or an AK47 is to kill a human being. nobody goes hunting deer with an uzi.
I had never really thought of target practice, i suppose that is a legitimate activity, and one you might want to use a pistol or assault weapon for. in that case, maybe the shooting range should have to store them, under lock and key for you? seems kinda like an invasion of your freedom, but i think it's worth it, given that it will preclude someone from getting such a weapon and shooting up a highschool or something.
I grew up with guns, my dad likes to hunt and has several rifles, shotguns, and even a pistol. i admit, i have went out in the bush for target practice when i was younger, and fired guns, and enjoyed the freedom to do it. I haven't done it in years though, and probably won't ever pick up a gun again.
Even though my stance is anti-gun (or at least anti handgun), there is something that i want to point out. In Australia, the made owning a gun illegal. in the weeks following home invasions in australia went up about 400% or so i think. I don't have specific information or sources on this, maybe our friend renegade can help?
anyway, just a quick note on the drugs thing, i believe people should have this freedom, because drugs hurt the USER, not a target. nobody goes to a school with a bag full of joints and tries to kill people with them. unless you count drug dealers, but then the participants are willing, not innocent targets.
Well like most things the governments do the semi/recent global clamp down on the types of legal firearms was a joke and a half but in the spirit of jumping on the band wagon many countries even distant ones like Australia put more limitations on the tpyes of firearms that are legal. WHATS REALLY GOING ON HERE?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!
Well like everything in life there are good, bad and neutral factors occurring here.
THE GOOD STUFF FIRST.
MILLIONS of people world wide enjoy target shooting, hunting and other related activities. This has been a very old tradition especially amongst old and young men in families. Its like bonding and stuff. These things also are useful in controlling many animal populations at the hunters expense which is very very very important as the balance of nature is way off in many areas where farm land and other types of human settlements allow explosions in certain animal populations. Especially for animals imported into new habitats by accident that have no predators. The amount of $$$ the taxpayers would have to pay in order to control these populations if the hunters had there firearms takeaway would be very very high indeed. 99% of legal gun owners in Canada( I live in Canada) are extremely safe and cautious when it comes to use, storage and training.
THE BAD
Throughout history people have tried to kill one another with technology. Guns are most popular nowadays. So naturally we say. HMMM lets get rid of the guns. Does this solve the problem of people wanting to kill one another no not really. There are many other ways to kill people and they will be used just as much as guns if they are taken away. However, the # of illegal or unregistered guns in circulation is rather alarming. For this reason we see many crime related shootings with unregistered guns. Even in Canada I know that if I have the money I can obtain illegal firearms (Mainly small hand guns). This coupled with people who want to start shiz, are really the problem and no amount of pressure on legal owners will stop the criminals who seem to be untouchable.
The situation surrounding the types of firearms u can own in certain countries is out of hand. The USA is kind of like this. Anybody and his uncle can buy 50 cal machineguns and semi auto shoties with extremely powerful fleshets with tubes that can house 10 + shells at a time. So over time u get a situation of neglect or bad parenting in one way or another and your got a bunch of kids shooting up a school with enough equipment to hold off the police which is exactly what they did in Colorado. SO we say hey guyz no more gung ho on the gunz, chill out. This is a very cheap easy and fruitless method of crime prevention to start with but fixing the reason people have to kill in the first place cant really be solved in the primitive state the world Is in now.
IN conclusion, I believe that restrictions on the certain types of fire arms and other deadly weapons should be controlled. However we should realize that most people in the world aren't criminals in the sense that they want to kill people needlessly and don't act as such when on position of powerfull technology.
i personally belive that gun control should definitly be regulated, i would like to see a lisence system imposed similar to that of the drivers lisence. no one has the automatic right to drive a car, they have to earn that trust, but the opportunity should be there. just as you may need a different liscense to drive a truck or bus same should be imposed with guns (higher exams and restrictions for those wanting certain more powerful guns). so basicly i oppose the idea of banning guns in general to all citizens. the opportunity should be there. just as i belive someone should have the right to smoke weed legaly if they wanted too, is it not the same for guns?
many of you have mentioned or hinted at this arguement....
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider The intent of a gun is to maim or kill. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Izzy i think that is kind of narrow minded-ness because i can think of many ways an intent of gun would not be to maim or kill. the examples being, me wanting to go to a shooting range just for stress relief, or shooting skeet or even coke cans for personal pleasure, or the feeling of security it may give me knowing i can defend my home. in other words the intent is not to kill but rather give a certain emotional feeling, one of which simply put can be described as pleasure, why should i be denied this personal liberty? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider However I would rather relinquish that satisfaction if it results in a significant decrease of crime. Call me narrowminded, but I think public safety in this case outweighs personal enjoyment. |
Oi, friendly northern neighbors!
Why do Canada's gun control laws seem to work (relatively low crime/homicide rate), and the US's don't? Or is this an erroneous view of your situation?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JudgeJulez Oi, friendly northern neighbors! Why do Canada's gun control laws seem to work (relatively low crime/homicide rate), and the US's don't? Or is this an erroneous view of your situation? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Mental Exodus No my fine southern peer it is not, its rare that we see shootings and other crime here in the cold northern colection of igloos as we arent allowed to have handguns and most of the guns that are involved in crime here are in fact smuggled in from none other than our southern brothers. other than the recent over crack down on the law bideing owners and the ever increasing taxation of related sports our laws keep us safe and allow us to use them respondsibly for fun. GO CANADA!!! |
| quote: |
| i think that is kind of narrow minded-ness because i can think of many ways an intent of gun would not be to maim or kill. the examples being, me wanting to go to a shooting range just for stress relief, or shooting skeet or even coke cans for personal pleasure, or the feeling of security it may give me knowing i can defend my home. |
| quote: |
| Guns invented in the late 1400's were a new generation in fighting. Cannons also evolved during the early 1500's. Guns were not very accurate, but very expensive. Weapons were essential to the king's land, and to peoples lives. |
Ahh the political forum... I fancy the heated debate from time to time, I should come here more often.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider The intent of a gun is to maim or kill. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider However I would rather relinquish that satisfaction if it results in a significant decrease of crime. Call me narrowminded, but I think public safety in this case outweighs personal enjoyment. |
| quote: |
| Even though my stance is anti-gun (or at least anti handgun), there is something that i want to point out. In Australia, the made owning a gun illegal. in the weeks following home invasions in australia went up about 400% or so i think. I don't have specific information or sources on this, maybe our friend renegade can help? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by nrjizer Correct, but their use can meet many different circumstances. One of them being to protect. Banning guns would do nothing but take them out of law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves and their families. Just look what good outlawing drugs has done. People still get and use them. Even on this very forum, many people regularly take illegial substances. Guns are no different. Criminals will still get them and use them. There is no possible way to completely abolish guns. And when one of those maniacs wants to break into my house, tie me up and rob me, prehaps planning to kill me afterwards, what will I do to protect myself if guns are banned? Weild a kitchen knife? Surrender to his demands? Like I said, criminals will still get guns. If responsible citizens don't have them, the shift of power would be completely tilted to the criminal. Crime rates would likely sky rocket. I dont know if you have ever lived in a rough area, but the city I used to live in got pretty bad before I moved out. Several homes in my neighborhood were broken in to. Gang grafitti was everywhere. My friend got chased around the high school by gang members wanting to kill him for wearing a Green Day shirt. Just around the corner from me, 3 guys got held at gun point for their money; one was shot and killed, the other shot but survived, and the last one got away. The same gang that chased my friend shot and killed someone at the soccer fields just down the road that I used to practise at three times a week. I still love that town and really it wasnt that bad of a place to live, but the way it had gotten, I wouldnt really feel safe living there without a gun. |
I don't think guns should be made illegal because every person has a right to defend himself if attacked. But, that doesn't mean guns should be given to anybody. It would be best if the person that wants to own a gun first has to pass through extensive and strict psychological examination before being allowed to buy one. Also, punishments for illegally owning a gun should be much higher than they are now. That way guns could be owned only by people who are capable of controling themselves. Besides, you can kill someone with bare hands if you want to, so it's not like prohibiting guns will make murder rates drop by much. People will then either own guns illegally or they'll be attacking each others with knives or other more basic weapons.
| quote: |
| because drugs hurt the USER, not a target. |
| quote: |
| the simple truth is that the purpose of a 9mm, a 357 magnum, or an AK47 is to kill a human being. nobody goes hunting deer with an uzi. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 .... Not always. People on drugs can be highly irresponsible and can behave very dangerously. Imagine a heroin addict that's got no money and is going through a crises. He'll rob the first person he sees to get the money for the drug. Also, imagine someone who's totally high trying to drive a car and imagine the possible consequences. .... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I don't think guns should be made illegal because every person has a right to defend himself if attacked. But, that doesn't mean guns should be given to anybody. It would be best if the person that wants to own a gun first has to pass through extensive and strict psychological examination before being allowed to buy one. Also, punishments for illegally owning a gun should be much higher than they are now. That way guns could be owned only by people who are capable of controling themselves. Besides, you can kill someone with bare hands if you want to, so it's not like prohibiting guns will make murder rates drop by much. People will then either own guns illegally or they'll be attacking each others with knives or other more basic weapons. |
For those that make the 'guns for sportshooting' argument, I and some of my forest-dwelling friends would tend to disagree...
Secondly, universal gun ownership in America is quite unconstitutional. Even if we forget about the critical passage in the second amendment which explicitly mentions "militias," a passage, incidentally, which conservatives gloss-over, if you look at the debates of the constitutional convention, you will find ample evidence of the Founding Fathers' views on gun ownership.
The Federalists (Adams, Hamilton, Jay) were unapologetic elitists and wouldn't under any circumstances agree to having an armed proleteriat running around the countryside of their nascent country.
The Anti-Federalists (Jefferson, Mason), who were the architects of the Bill of Rights, also were against popular gun ownership. When the Whiskey Rebellion and other riots broke out in the wake of Constitutional ratification, the leaders and the moderates of the anti-Federalist party (elitists in their own right) were appaled and terrified of their gun-toting compatriots in the lower classes. They feared arming the popular classes just as much as their Federalist counterparts.
The only people, in fact, who did support universal gun ownership were a radical fringe group of the anti-Federalists whose politics can most aptly be characterized as proto-syndicalist. The militia clause was inserted because of anti-Federalists fears of a standing, national army, and not because they wanted cowboy-types in the west to be armed to the teeth or because they wanted to gun down deer for sport.
Good topic
I think its quite a hard topic to tackle, because the USA has this frontier style history thats its every mans right to posses a firearm, it would be so difficult with the amount of firearms on the streets in USA if ever they were made totally illegal, it would be immpossible to remove them from the street.
Where I live in the Uk there is a firearms ban, you face 3 to 5 years now in jail if your caught with one. The ban started after a number of mass shootings one being some paedofile up in Scotland who entered a school and shot 16 kids and a teacher dead with 4 firearms including a 45 magnum, the other a guy in his 20s in the 80s, entered an office building with an AK 47, and a pump action shotgun, gunning dead I think about 27 ppl odd including two coppers. But as much as we don't get scenes like that no more, gun crimes been on the increase, Manchester the 3rd Biggest City, has a homocide rate worse then most American Cities and its got around 2.5 million ppl living there, its got the nickname Gangchester, clubs are practicially bullet proof in some areas, as gangs turn up not in a group of about 7 ppl its usually around 30 ppl threating innocent staff and customers.
Londons got pretty bad too theres some serious problems with people getting a lot of guns off the street, and as much as the ban is usually scum will always kill scum, crack dealers and gangs will always try and kill eachother weather it be with guns or knives, the criminal element in society will always find a way to be armed, right now as much as theres lots of arms dealers walking around, another big method for getting guns in the UK, is you can buy a deactivated gun like a M 16 assualt rifle, even M 60 chain guns for around 200 - 300 GBP, if you look carefully you can walk into any old dingy pub or bar, and theres a bloke sitting there who will put in a firing pin for about a 100 quid, and will most definatly be able to find you ammo too.
The Uk has got according to a newspaper report out of the biggest economic powers in the world has the worst record for assualts, now if you gave everyone here the same availability of firearms as the USA you would be looking at one hell of a high murder rate, someone finding their wife cheating instead of a heated row, and a punch up if there was a 9mm handgun lying around you know the score and happens in heat of blind rage, also the ammount people drink here the beers a lot stronger and we're bigger drinkers, I could imagine it being like dodge city to go for a drink.
At the end of the day gun control would stop murders being commited some nutjob who gets the piss taken out of him at school who picks up his dads assualt rifle and sprays a group of classmates. Will also stop the guy who finds his wifes been fucking her boss for year from killing two ppl in a fit of rage, It will stop Mr Joe Average from killing however as I said before the criminal element will always have access to weapons.
| quote: |
| At the end of the day gun control would stop murders being commited some nutjob who gets the piss taken out of him at school who picks up his dads assualt rifle and sprays a group of classmates. Will also stop the guy who finds his wifes been fucking her boss for year from killing two ppl in a fit of rage, It will stop Mr Joe Average from killing however as I said before the criminal element will always have access to weapons. |
| quote: |
| When looking at the risk of a woman being killed at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative, the authors found that having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of such a homicide. |
| quote: |
| ...family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons similarly situated who had no such family history of gun purchase. This increased risk persisted for more than five years after the handgun was purchased. |
| quote: |
| Other studies have looked specifically at the narrow question of keeping guns in the home for self-defense. One, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that having a gun in the home made it nearly three times more likely that someone in the family will be killed. This risk is particularly high for women, who are more likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. An Archives of Internal Medicine study found that, with one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. |
| quote: |
| But how often do people use guns successfully to protect themselves from criminal acts? Does it justify the deaths and damage that comes with guns? Apparently not. Most studies have found that guns play a relatively minor role in preventing crime but a major role in facilitating it. For example, the US Department of Justice study found that, on the average, between 1987 and 1992 only one percent of actual or attempted victims of violent crime, or about 62,000 people, attempted to defend themselves with a firearm. On the other hand, criminals armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes in 1992. Data from the FBI's Crime in the United States reveals that for every time in 1999 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 48 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone. |
) - could just put one and two together and put aside their extreme paranoia for a second, perhaps we could see the end of unnecessarily tragic domestic homocides like the ones described above.^^^
Studies ... sources ....logic ... common sense ... Now that is a well put together argument! 
Btw it's nice to have a thread longer than a page that doesn't talk about the middle east or the US.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Btw it's nice to have a thread longer than a page that doesn't talk about the middle east or the US. |
well theres already a shitload posted here, but hey i gotta throw my 2 cents in also.
I'm all for stricter regulations on guns, but I don't think these regulations will cause a drastic and immidiate drop in crime.
First of all there is absolutly no need for citizens to have hand guns or automatic weapons.
protection? bah. from what. In case the germans come? or even worse those evil neighbors to the north, the Canadians, WHAT IF THEY ATTACK?
Please. the sad thing is there are actually militias out there that train in case of certain events.
now being less sarcastic. if someone is so worried about an intruder entering their home or is so scared to walk down the street, they can get some pepper spray or a tazer. If everyone had a gun to protect themselves there would be much more accidents than actual events where the gun is used to protect someone in a life threatening encounter. Besides, someone who is entering your home to just steal your belongings, as horrible as that is, does not deserve to be killed. Police in England don't have guns for self protection and they get along pretty well (any people out there in england want to prove me wrong go ahead, im not too knowledgeable in english crime).
Now I do believe guns do have some uses. Huntings guns should be available for those who are properly liscenced.
For those who really like guns like handguns and automatic weapons and want to shoot them, they should have gun clubs where they can go and use AK47's, colt AR 15's, uzi's, 9mm and whatever else type of gun that was made to kill people, to shoot at targets. The guns would not be allowed to leave the location.
Now back to my previous statement. I don't think regulations like this would immidietly cause a sudden and drastic decrease in crime in America. For crime to get as low as other countries, it will take alot more change in American culture and an end to many social problems here such as poverty, the drug war, our "culture of fear" etc..
I do think these regulations would save lives though. (don't you think it would be worth it to give up your gun if it could save the life of one innocent person? You don't need them that badly). Regulations such as these would be a good compramise for those who really want to hold on to their guns. And they would be a start at lowering our high murder rate.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.