Gun Control-What's your stance?

[TrueVengeance]

After having a tiny debate with a friend of mine, I became curious as to what some other's stance on Gun Control. So, why not find out here on BB?

I, myself, am against Gun Control. It won't solve anything, in fact, it might get more innocents killed because the law-abiding citizens won't have a gun to defend themselves. Last I checked, it was illegal to kill someone. Yet, people still kill others. So those same people won't get a hold of guns? The violence will still be there, only the good people won't be able to defend themselves.

To quote one who has just passed:
"I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!"

Where do you stand?

 

[Tueuse de Vampires]

I'm pro Gun Control. It's funny how Americans keep saying they need guns to defend themselves and yadayadayada, but in so many other countries guns are really hard to get and surprisingly, we don't have any problems with gun violence.
And that's no the only thing. Think about all these accidents that happen with guns. Who here hasn't heard of a story where some little kid found a weapon lying around, played with it and boom - was dead.
Same with whenever a teen goes amok. People say it's so bad and complain this should've never happened. Again, any other country in the world has far less trouble with this sort of thing.

 

[Randy Giles]

I don't think it should be easy to get a gun, so maybe they should try to make it a little harder, but I don't think the government really has a right to say whether or not people can have weapons to defend themselves with, because there's no way to stop crime when it comes down to it.

 

[Tueuse de Vampires]

I don't think it should be easy to get a gun, so maybe they should try to make it a little harder, but I don't think the government really has a right to say whether or not people can have weapons to defend themselves with, because there's no way to stop crime when it comes down to it.

If nobody could get a gun in the first place people wouldn't need to defend themselves...

 

[palabravampiress]

I'm against gun control.

I can see both sides of the argument when it comes to whether or not gun control laws will actually make the world safer. On the one hand, guns *are* truly dangerous. They are deadly machines. When not used properly or with care or when not well-maintained, guns can cause accidents that may prove fatal. It makes sense to want to increase the likelihood that guns will only be used by those will use and care for them properly and/or kept out of the public altogether so that no one uses them improperly or fails to maintain them. On the other hand, there is the criminal element to consider. An excess of gun control laws may ensure that guns are only in the hands of the criminals and the government, putting law-abiding citizens in an awkward and potentially dangerous position. We Americans are funny about that; the whole reason the second amendment exists is to guarantee that the average citizen has the opportunity to defend himself from an oppressive, unlawful regime. The rest of the world and even half of our own nation may find that silly, but the fact remains that average Americans had to haul out their guns and head to battle once before. It makes sense that some people want to make sure they have guns in case that happens again. Both sides have points that I consider valid.


If I only had the above to consider, I would be indifferent on this issue. But I have the second amendment of the Bill of Rights to consider. On that issue, I am not indifferent. I hold the Bill of Rights as almost sacred. I think it's a dangerous game we've begun playing, this practice of modifying, re-interpreting, and sometimes out-and-out removing civil liberties in the name of safety and security. To remove or even abridge any one of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights is a serious departure from the ideals on which our nation was founded. It puts the other rights at risk, as well. It puts our democracy and our nation at risk. Sometimes, being free to do, think, and speak as you choose means that you have to allow other people to do, think, and speak as they choose -- even if those other people do, think, or speak in ways that you find dangerous or distasteful. I would rather be free than safe, so that's why I believe gun control is against our national interest.

For me, it all boils down to another amendment, the fourteenth amendment, which I believe pretty clearly states that it is unconstitutional to abridge or diminish the individual the rights of citizens except by due process:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."


Obviously, this argument is not valid in other countries. What I want to know, then, is how do American pro-Gun-control folks justify the unconstitutional abridgement of one of the ten amendments included in the Bill of Rights?

 

[Tueuse de Vampires]

For me, it all boils down to another amendment, the fourteenth amendment, which I believe pretty clearly states that it is unconstitutional to abridge or diminish the individual the rights of citizens except by due process:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."


Obviously, this argument is not valid in other countries. What I want to know, then, is how do American pro-Gun-control folks justify the unconstitutional abridgement of one of the ten amendments included in the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights was written more than 200 years ago. I think nobody can expect it to be still up-to-date. Even if it says nothing shall be altered etc., the Bill of Rights was written by people who were writing out of their point of view; they were writing about what seemed right at that time. Clearly, at that time the values and laws they were defending seemed really smart, so working something in to avoid any changes might seem reasonable. Things change, however. If there was a Right granting only married people to sleep with each other, would you still say 'nothing can be changed?'

 

[SpikedBuffy]

Guns are not dangerous. The idiots behind the trigger are dangerous.

In my opinion though, if there were more guns there would be less crime. For an example, a few weeks ago, someone tried to hold up a biker bar with a gun with the intention of robbing. The bikers on the other hand, all pulled out their guns as defense, and guess what? No robbery, no fatal injury. More guns, less crime.

 

[palabravampiress]

The Bill of Rights was written more than 200 years ago. I think nobody can expect it to be still up-to-date. Even if it says nothing shall be altered etc., the Bill of Rights was written by people who were writing out of their point of view; they were writing about what seemed right at that time. Clearly, at that time the values and laws they were defending seemed really smart, so working something in to avoid any changes might seem reasonable. Things change, however. If there was a Right granting only married people to sleep with each other, would you still say 'nothing can be changed?'

I want to address the following: "If there was a Right granting only married people to sleep with each other, would you still say 'nothing can be changed?"

That's not a right; that's a restriction. It's a limitation. It's a rule that limits the individual's rights; it is not a right, itself. There is a huge difference.


The constitution is two centuries old. I realize it is outdated. In many ways, American history is that of expanding the rights afforded by the constitution. Over the years, we expanded the constitution by affording those same unchanged, equal rights to previously excluded groups (slaves specifically, black men in general, women, and Native Americans all come rather readily to mind). We have come to regard many discriminatory practices as unlawful because they have, as a direct result, the effect of barring individuals from these same unchanged, equal rights. We have interpreted certain passages (especially the "liberty clause") as liberally as possible, interpreting them to include situations and ideas that our founding fathers could not have fathomed. I am always in favor of expanding civil liberties. That is how we keep the constitution up-to-date; we keep up with the times by providing more freedoms, not by diminishing existent freedoms.

Thinking like yours -- that the constitution is old and therefore invalid -- is exactly what the constitution is set up to guard against. The entire reason for the Bill of Rights was to be specific about a set of rights that could never ever be taken away, come what changes there may. It is there to protect the people. The idea is that while times my change, the right to individual sovereignty does not change. According to the constitution, the only legitimate reason to separate a citizen from his (or her, now that we have expanded the constitution) rights is by due process of law in response to a crime (an action that separates another citizen from his or her rights). The right to live your own life however you choose cannot be abridged or diminished just because time has passed and we don't wear tricorn hats anymore.

Changes come. But as an American, I can't stand by and let those changes erode our freedoms just for the sake of change. That is why we have the second amendment -- so that if that ever happens, the citizens can fight it. What is so good about change that we should forget that? What is so good about change that it justifies giving up our freedoms just because it's the 21st century instead of the 18th?

 

[Joyce Summers]

I appreciate everyone's arguments here, you've all made very valid points.

For my view doesn't change whether gun control laws do or not. I'm against guns. No guns are ever allowed in the house, no pro-gun attitudes, I didn't even let my husband go to one of those...erm, shooting ranges is it? You know where you pay to shoot at targets? Yes, well I didn't allow him to go to one of those when a few friends from his work offered. I may have been Unfun Wife at the time but I just don't like anything related to guns. As Buffy said 'These things? Never helpful!'.

However, as some of you have mentioned, gun control isn't going to stop the criminals getting hold of guns, just the people who need to defend themselves against aforementioned criminals. I have to say in England it is extremely difficult for a law abiding citizen to get a gun (And possibly harder in general. Not knowing the crime scene obviously, I can't be sure) and their gun crime is a lot lower than America...so maybe there is something in making guns harder to get? Didn't someone once say that when a gun is there, it will inevitably end up being used? Actually I think it was Grissom on CSI that said that....

 

[Hello Cutie]

I'm a UK girl, and we have far less gun crime because people most people aren't allowed to carry them. The NRA disgusts and my personal opinion is that you don't need guns to protect yourself.

But maybe that's because I've grown up in a place where guns aren't an issue- why would you even need a gun?? To be a man, or for street cred?? You're more of a man and deserve more respect for not carrying one than doing so- I have no respect for people that do- it's not cool, it's sick and disgusting, and in the US there is so much more gun crim than here because of it.

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

If nobody could get a gun in the first place people wouldn't need to defend themselves...

Oh, for Chrisssake. Do you people not actually watch the news? People have been killing each other right and left, on every continent where they've existed, in every country where they've existed, for thousands of years before guns were ever invented, and they're still doing it with whatever weapon is handy.

 

[Joyce Summers]

I totally agree with what Hello Cutie said. The NRA disgusts me too and I always found it strange that the same time the KKK was eradicated the NRA was formed....weird, no? And the NRA had their event in Columbine just AFTER the columbine shootings, I mean really, how sick is that?

And as I said in my previous post (as this is agreement with Cutie) I am very, very anti-gun and I've never permitted any form of the gun culture that is meant to be part of our country ever be a part of my or my family's life. Now we do have a baseball bat in the bedroom for that little extra protection and my Mom used to have a truncheon and I'm all fine with that, I do believe in a defence for just-in-case scenarios but I am fully against any use of guns. What's the point in having them in your house? They can only ever do more harm than help in my opinion.

 

[Hello Cutie]

Oh, for Chrisssake. Do you people not actually watch the news? People have been killing each other right and left, on every continent where they've existed, in every country where they've existed, for thousands of years before guns were ever invented, and they're still doing it with whatever weapon is handy.

Oh I agree with that. I mean, we dont have guns in the Uk really, but out knife crime has recently gone through the roof. My thing with guns is, when people have them its easier to kill people at a distance and kill more people at any one time with them, than it is with many other weapons. And while we can't eradicate unlawful killings etc completely because its been going on forever, anything we can do to make it less easy for people is fine by me.

[Also, sorry for any spelling mistakes in my previous post or this one, but i'm slightly tipsy cuz i've just come back from a club, so my typing isnt brilliant :S lol]

 

[Blondie Bear]

I totally agree with what Hello Cutie said. The NRA disgusts me too and I always found it strange that the same time the KKK was eradicated the NRA was formed....weird, no?

I have to disagree with you on a factual basis.

1. The KKK has not been eradicated. It still exists.

2. The NRA was formed for the express purpose of protecting the rights of African Americans to own firearms, because they weren't allowed to.

 

[white avenger]

This is another one of those "Astronauts vs Cavemen" arguments where both sides have very strong opinions and neither side has any intention of backing down. I've stated my views on this subject several times before, but here goes again:

A firearm, ANY firearm, from the tiniest handgun to the largest piece of artillery, is a mechanical object, nothing more. In and of itself, it is no more dangerous than any single component in its structure. Load it, cock it, and set it in the middle of the largest crowd that you can gather, and it will remain just as safe as a loaf of bread until someone decides to pick it up. From that point on, the danger or lack of same has nothing to do with the gun and everything to do with the attitude, training, and morality of the person holding it. You can't blame guns for crime or war any more than you can blame automobiles for traffic deaths.

As for those who either mistrust or are disgusted by the National Rifle Association, I submit that the only view that you have had of that organization has been given to you by movies such as "Bowling For Columbine," or "The Guns of Autumn," which offer about as accurate a view of gun owners as Uncle Remus gave of slave ownership in the Old South. NRA members are people, some good, some not so good, just like everybody else.

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

Oh I agree with that. I mean, we dont have guns in the Uk really, but out knife crime has recently gone through the roof. My thing with guns is, when people have them its easier to kill people at a distance and kill more people at any one time with them, than it is with many other weapons. And while we can't eradicate unlawful killings etc completely because its been going on forever, anything we can do to make it less easy for people is fine by me.

You're also making it less easy for the average person to defend themselves against a larger, stronger attacker. Should an elderly person have to go one-on-one against a six-foot-six, 300-lb home invader, just so they can "be a man" and live up to someone else's idea of "brave"? (That wouldn't be brave, it would be stupid.) Of course, most of those home invaders don't come alone, but, y'know, reality is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. How about the 85-year-old local woman who lived alone, the night a just-released convict (released the same night) broke into her house? She shot him - should she be required to fight him off by hand just so she live up to someone else's ideal of what it takes to be "respected"? Lotta good that's going to do her when she's six feet under.

How about people who are handicapped, or for whatever reason aren't physically capable of fighting off an attacker, or simply out-numbered? Just their tough shit? Gotta give them poor gang-bangers an even break, I guess.

Not me. I spent half my life learning how to kill, with weapons most people wouldn't even recognize as weapons, or none at all - and the other half learning how not to. To date, I've never had to do that; but I've had to draw my gun three times. So far, that's all it took to pull the plug on the situation, but here's the thing: a bluff is as good as a full house - but only if you have four aces to back it up.

[Also, sorry for any spelling mistakes in my previous post or this one, but i'm slightly tipsy cuz i've just come back from a club, so my typing isnt brilliant :S lol]

<shrug> No biggie. My brother is a journalist and published author, but he can't spell "cat" without a dictionary...

 

[Joyce Summers]

Blondie Bear, my karma comment entered itself before I'd erm, entered anything.

1. The KKK has not been eradicated. It still exists.

2. The NRA was formed for the express purpose of protecting the rights of African Americans to own firearms, because they weren't allowed to.

1. I mean officially eradicated. Which 'officially' it had disbanded. I'm not entirely naive, haha.

2. This is something WA touched on. About there being good and bad members in the NRA just like there is anywhere else. Whether that was what they were formed for (What you said, I mean) or not (I really don't know to be honest) there will have been members who had a more sinister ulterior motive and that has continued. I admit I am biased as regards to the NRA as I have only ever had bad experiences as regards to them directly or through a friend.

I'm just a very anti-gun person which makes me a very agressive debater in this particular matter, haha, which is why for my own sanity and others I'm just not posting in this thread again! Haha. Or probably not anyway....🙂

 

[ckg927]

My take:

If you feel that you need a gun to protect yourself-or your home-that's fine.

But you'd have to have a background check and be LICENSED to carry a gun-same as we do when driver's licenses are given out(after you've taken courses,etc.).

Remember: Just because you can,doesn't mean you should.

WA: I remember reading in a magazine some time ago that the NRA,about 30 years ago,wasn't all gung ho about protecting the 2nd Amendment. They were more moderate in their rhetoric,etc.(I could be wrong,but that's what I remember.)

 

[RogueHunter]

I'm firmly against gun control.
Cops can't be there when you need them, mainly because criminals wait until cops aren't around.
You can't compare the US with other countries, simply because of the size and diversity of the country is much greater than most other countries.
We have the right to own guns to protect ourselves from criminals AND the government should it become necessary.
Back in the 80's the NRA was the one standing up to those who wanted to ban martial arts weapons, despite the fact that they were hardly ever used in crimes.
I know how to use them, but I do not own them. I do occasionally go to the range with my brother, but I will not have one in my house at this point, and my children aren't allowed in houses that have guns unless I know the parents very well.
Being a martial artist, I think it should take a bit more skill and hard work to be able to kill someone, but the worlds far from perfect.
In the end, it comes down to the fact that there are bad people in the world and I want to have whatever I need at my disposal to defend myself against them.

 

[Tueuse de Vampires]

Oh, for Chrisssake. Do you people not actually watch the news? People have been killing each other right and left, on every continent where they've existed, in every country where they've existed, for thousands of years before guns were ever invented, and they're still doing it with whatever weapon is handy.

That might be true, but you don't have to make it easier to kill people than it already is. If somebody attacked me with a knife, I'd run away and stand a chance of getting out of the situation without any serious injuries, if somebody did the same with a gun, I could try to run but would be dead within 2 seconds.
I just don't think you should trust people with that much power over other people's life.

Any of you ever read the book 'Give a Boy a Gun'? You should...