Do you think guns should be completely outlawed?

[A Tripolation]

Hey all. I don't know if this question is asked a lot (apologies if it is). I just wanted to know what the smart people on this forum think. The only decent reason I here from the anti-gun people is that it would reduce the number of accidental shootings. But then more children die from swimming pools than guns...so why don't swimming pools face the same judgement?

 

I think that guns should be allowed, but with more strict regulations than what they have nowadays (the current laws make it easy for people who should not have guns to get them.).

 

I also know from history that prohibition DOES NOT work, and that people who want illicit items will just buy them illicitly.

And there's also the cliched statement, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, because the law-abiding gents won't buy something illegal. And the criminals dont care anyways.

So what do you think? If you are for or against, Id love to hear your reasons.

 

Also, do you think that if the citizens of Iran were as well armed as the citizens of other countries (UK and US for example) that the supreme ruler would resort to shooting people so quickly? I believe he would think twice about it, but Im not for sure. Again, love to know what you think.

 

Thanks!!

[bascule]

I am a strong advocate of gun rights, both as a gun owner and as a civil libertarian

[iNow]

Also, do you think that if the citizens of Iran were as well armed as the citizens of other countries (UK and US for example) that the supreme ruler would resort to shooting people so quickly? I believe he would think twice about it, but Im not for sure. Again, love to know what you think.

I think that if the people of Iran had (and were currently using) guns, the government in Iran would be using more and bigger ones to suppress/kill them.

 

I also think this idea (that guns would somehow prove useful to the Iranian protesters) must have been put forth on AM talk radio (conservative blogs) within the past day or two since one of my close colleagues at work brought up the exact same point during lunch today.

[DJBruce]

I think that if the people of Iran had (and were currently using) guns, the government in Iran would be using more and bigger ones to suppress/kill them.

 

I also think this idea (that guns would somehow prove useful to the Iranian protesters) must have been put forth on AM talk radio (conservative blogs) within the past day or two since one of my close colleagues at work brought up the exact same point during lunch today.

 

Here is a link to Marco Rubio, the Republican candidate for the Florida senate seat, twitter page were he says, "I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours".

 

I have to agree with you iNow that an oppressive regime will always find a way to maintain their gripe over the masses.

 

As for the original idea on gun control, I believe that the right to bear arms is important and should only be restrained by reasonable regulations such as age limits and back ground checks.

[iNow]

Indeed. I quite agree being a gun owner myself.

 

One thing with which I struggle, however, is that I don't feel anyone should have assault weapons like AKs and ARs. They only have one purpose, and that is the mowing down of other humans. The challenge for which I've thus far failed to find solution is that... if we outlaw those weapons... then only outlaws will have them.

 

Dilly of a pickle, that.

 

 

Thanks, DJBruce, for confirming my instinct that this "if only Iranians had guns" idea was created and is generally being propagated through the right-wing ideological networks.

[padren]

First, I take a very libertarian view of gun control - I am against it, unless it's genuinely demonstrable to be unwarrantably harmful to the public. That of course includes some fairly vague constraints, but I can say in a generalized manner that cars can be harmful, but not unwarrantably so... and as such we regulate them but do not ban them.

 

 

With regards to Iran, I don't think many of the protesters have been anguishing over the inaccessibility of firearms - it does not sound to me that they are what they really want, so I don't see how having access to them would benefit them.

It may benefit some of the more radical protesters, who want armed rebellion to create either a more egalitarian or more totalitarian government, but I don't think those are representative of the movement that we are all seeing.

 

Access to weapons have been a mixed bag to radical groups in the past, in places like Ireland and the Palestinian regions of Israel, and I don't exactly see that either of their causes would be advanced by having 2x, 5x or even 10x the weapons they do/did.

 

The Iranians are protesting for their rights under Iranian law, which include free elections and the right to protest - not an all out rejection of Iranian law. They show the failings of their regime by acting within the rights they and all Iranians are supposed to have guaranteed, while that regime fails to honor them.

If they were shooting Iranian police in the streets, I think it would hurt their cause more than it would help and justify the heavy handed tactics used by the government. Loosely, these protests have more in common with Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha than the American Revolution.

[CaptainPanic]

I'm completely against any type of gun ownership, except by police and army.

 

Over here in the Netherlands, the bad guys usually do not have guns, and I therefore disagree with the argument that if you make guns illegal the bad guys are the only ones having them. Punishment of a similar crime is much heavier if the criminal was armed with a gun, and this prevents even the criminal from using them. In addition, guns are quite hard to find (except perhaps if you're part of an organized crime syndicate or something - but the number of people that are such heavy criminals is very limited - and they generally don't walk around killing random civilians, in stead, they kill each other, which is fine by me).

 

My main argument against guns is: Guns have only one purpose, which is to kill people.

 

However, I can understand that Americans don't believe in making guns illegal. Guns are so incredibly widespread in the USA that it might take decades before the number of guns is actually reduced sufficiently to make a difference. And during those decades, the criminals will have very easy access to guns.

 

Situation over here is different: guns are simply hard to find and the majority of criminals don't have one.

 

Therefore, I propose that we split up this discussion into two parts:

- Gun laws in a country where guns are widespread

- Gun laws in a country where guns have been illegal for a long time

 

 

And about Iran:

Any nutcase who thinks that the Iranian government would listen to an armed and dangerous mob is just stupid. The moment you use violence against the police, you are going to be suppressed even more. Governments and officials will always restore the peace before negotiating... unless you can actually defeat them in battle, which is unlikely.

Edited June 24, 2009 by CaptainPanic

[GutZ]

I am for gun control, not banning them, but proper registration like here in Canada that only someone with a really interest in hunting or collecting makes it worth while going through.

 

There is nothing wrong with guns, but what I notice is the mentality difference.

 

States is like: "It's my god given right to stock pile weapons"

 

Canada: "It's not worth all the hassle to get registered"

 

 

Ithink the states has an unhealth obsession with guns.

[Sisyphus]

The talk about Iranians with guns is stupid. It would be just like those talk radio guys to think that the only reason to have a peaceful protest is if you're not sufficiently well armed. What a depressing way to miss the point.

 

Anyway, no, I don't think guns should be outright banned. I really have no problem with the idea of being armed as a right, as a means to defend oneself and a tool against oppression. (I don't think it's a necessary right, but I'm fine with it being granted. Prefer it, even.) I also happen to think that a lot - maybe even most - of our gun control laws just don't work as intended. As a pragmatist, I have to say scrap them.

 

Now, that's not to say I agree with the saying about "only outlaws" having guns. Who are these "outlaws," anyway? Guys in black hats riding through town, robbing banks and abducting farmer's daughters? "Terrorists," maybe? Sorry, guys. That's just not how it works. Sure, you'll have lots of people with illegal weapons. Are they going to go around terrorizing the poor defenseless townsfolk? No.

 

And, of course, I still support some limits to our right to bear arms. For example, I will never support the legality of private citizens owning nuclear weapons. I would consider an improperly secured weapon in a house with young children to automatically be child endangerment. I would be fine with required licenses for gun ownership, much like (and for similar reasons as) we have required licenses for driving cars. I am fine with different laws for different circumstances, and I am fine with individual municipalities deciding what is reasonable. If any particular relaxed laws cause significant, demonstrable harm, I am willing to reconsider them on a case by case basis.

[john5746]

I see gun ownership as a state issue. Not that a state should ban guns, but we live in a large country with very different demographics and geography. What works in Montana may not apply as well in New York.

 

I would also like tougher sentencing on irresponsible gun ownership. Allowing easy access to a gun is much worse than having drugs, IMO.

[SH3RL0CK]

I see gun ownership as a state issue. Not that a state should ban guns, but we live in a large country with very different demographics and geography. What works in Montana may not apply as well in New York.

Upstate New York is quite different than New York City. As is downstate Illinois from Chicago. Perhaps it should be dealt with on a much more local level?

 

But then NYC or Chicago or whomever will complain about guns being bought in a rural area and brought into their city. They do so now anyway; as does Canada and Mexico (IIRC).

I would also like tougher sentencing on irresponsible gun ownership. Allowing easy access to a gun is much worse than having drugs, IMO.

 

What would define irresponsible? For example, how much tougher a sentence should be given for 1) a person giving a gun to a felon knowing they were abouit to commit a crime; 2) carelessly leaving a gun in a dresser drawer; and 3) having the guns stolen out of a locked gun safe. A good lawyer (for both the prosecutor and defense) can exploit the massive grey areas associated with a loose term like "irresponsible".

 

Why is easy access to a gun much worse than easy access to drugs? I don't understand the distinction. Please enlighten me.

[John Cuthber]

When I see someone write "Also, do you think that if the citizens of Iran were as well armed as the citizens of other countries (UK and US for example) " I wonder if they know what they are talking about. I live in the UK and I'm not sure that I know wnyon who owns a gun. If they do then it will be a shotgun. No pistols, no rifles.

 

I agree with Captian Panic. Guns are essentially designed to kill people so ther fewer of therm there are aboput the place the better.

I know people will still kill each other anyway but why make it easier?

 

Re "Why is easy access to a gun much worse than easy access to drugs? "

Because, while I may find it rather easy to kill myself with drugs, it's rather difficult to kill someone else. This inequality does not apply to guns.

Was that really a serious question?

 

While I'm at it, there's the old argument that if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have them. For a start it isn't true- you can still arm the police.

In the UK it's pretty close to the truth to say that "only outlaws have guns".

Great!

This makes it nice and easy for our police to spot the outlaws and shoot them. (Theoretically, they arrest them, but the public doesn't usually care if gun carrying crooks get shot by the police.)

[SH3RL0CK]

Re "Why is easy access to a gun much worse than easy access to drugs? "

Because, while I may find it rather easy to kill myself with drugs, it's rather difficult to kill someone else. This inequality does not apply to guns.

Was that really a serious question?

 

Of course it was a serious question. Why would you think it was not? Just because I see the world differently than you do, does not mean I am not being serious.

 

It isn't at all difficult to kill someone with drugs either. Simply apply sufficient dosage. In fact, why not get them addicted? Then they slowly die while giving you all their money (and all the money they can beg, borrow, or steal from others) and/or other "favors" at the same time. The destruction to society is far greater with drugs, IMO, than with guns.

 

Children who find unsecured guns often go to the hospital (or worse) when they use them. Children who find unsecured cocaine often go to the hospital (or worse) when they consume. Irresponsible and/or vicious people are the criminals here.

[John Cuthber]

"It isn't at all difficult to kill someone with drugs either."

OK, so I forgot to add "at 20 paces"

 

The difference is that I pretty much need your consent to kill you with drugs.

The "just say no" campaign doesn't work against bullets.

 

(Incidentally, being addicted to at least some drugs isn't a death sentence in the way you suggest- but that's a whole different thread)

[bascule]

One thing with which I struggle, however, is that I don't feel anyone should have assault weapons like AKs and ARs. They only have one purpose, and that is the mowing down of other humans.

 

I have a friend with a semi-auto AK. It's fun to shoot. I don't think it should be banned and can't really see someone actually picking it for the purposes of crime over a handgun (which is lighter, more easily concealed, and for the purposes of most crimes will be just as effective)

[SH3RL0CK]

Well John, that is your opinion, I have mine.

 

Its a moot point really, we are arguing about the shades of black between the pot and the kettle. Easy access to a gun is generally a bad idea. Easy access to drugs is also a bad idea.

[bascule]

"It isn't at all difficult to kill someone with drugs either."

OK, so I forgot to add "at 20 paces"

 

The difference is that I pretty much need your consent to kill you with drugs.

The "just say no" campaign doesn't work against bullets.

 

Has anyone ever informed you that cars are deadly weapons?

 

Maybe we should ban cars

[bombus]

My father (now deceased) worked in the middle east for a while in the 80's. He once told me that arabs have AK47's like westerners have golf clubs.

 

[As an aside, he reckoned that the so-called 'soldiers in civilian clothes' who tried to defend Basra from the invading Brits in 2003 were probably veterans of the Iran/Iraq war as most looked well past 40 and all had AK47's - he called them BagDADS Army (maybe you gotta be a Brit to get that joke).]

 

Anyway, I would bet that a relatively high proportion of Iranians do have an AK47 in the cupboard. Most of them probably support the government though. Also, there's no proof whatsoever that the Iranian elections were rigged in the first place, so the 'rebels' might be outnumbered anyway if it came to it.

 

Personally, I think private ownership of guns is generally a bad idea for society. I think hunting rifles/shotguns are OK, so long as proper checks are made, but hand guns should be outlawed. Maybe the genie can't be put back into the bottle in the USA though.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well John, that is your opinion, I have mine.

 

Its a moot point really, we are arguing about the shades of black between the pot and the kettle. Easy access to a gun is generally a bad idea. Easy access to drugs is also a bad idea.

 

But drugs only harm oneself - and most don't harm at all unless abused...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Maybe we should ban cars

 

Now you're talking!

Edited June 24, 2009 by bombus
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

Watch out, someone might taser you and stab you with a knife

 

Or shoot you with a crossbow

 

Or they could lob high explosives at you

 

Perhaps they're an expert at knife throwing

[GutZ]

bascule do you support strict licensing of guns or do you feel more that guns should be bought by anyone with an ID and money or somewhere in between?

 

I agree it's fun to shoot off guns but there are a lot of things that are fun to do...I wouldn't mind letting 500 kilo ton fission bomb off somewhere, I don't know if I want anyone to have that ability. I know that's umm farfetched...but a gun not a toothbrush....

 

It's designed to kill.

 

Where do you stand on how one should acquire guns?

 

(and of course bring the reasoning behind it as well.)

[Moontanman]

I see gun ownership as a state issue. Not that a state should ban guns, but we live in a large country with very different demographics and geography. What works in Montana may not apply as well in New York.

 

I would also like tougher sentencing on irresponsible gun ownership. Allowing easy access to a gun is much worse than having drugs, IMO.

 

So you are equating gun ownership with drug use? If drugs were available OTC there would be little or no violence associated with drugs. Alcohol and tobacco is at least many times the menace to our society than even the hardest of drugs. Are you saying guns are equal to drinking or smoking? Gun ownership is not for everyone, but I see no reason to keep guns out of the hands of reasonable law abiding citizens.

[cameron marical]

I think that people who want to kill are going to find a way to kill regardless of laws, whether it be guns, pipebombs, knives, shovels, whatever. They will if they really want to, they will.

[The Bear's Key]

The usual talk is how government's fearful of armed citizens. Not..quite..reality.

 

This government sure wasn't deterred by Iraqi guns. In fact, a more effective tactic by insurgents was roadside bombs. Perhaps U.S guns are more special than the Iraqis', thus making our superpowered government fear them so? Does the sight of U.S. guns make tanks go fleeing with its turret between its rollers?

 

Plus, many with the view of gun as *oppression insurance* happen to vote for those who supply government the biggest and meanest weapons. In the future it can just blast a (troublemaker's) house from space with a mega-laser, and what can the gun owner do (but wave their gun hopelessly)?

 

And I don't buy the "if guns were outlawed..." bit. For how does one reconcile such a view with the "they'll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers" people? That crowd is going to keep their arms.

 

I'm for gun-ownership in nations that already had it long, even though the usual arguments for it have been weak. I'm for the hunting of legal sport game/critters.

 

Has anyone ever informed you that cars are deadly weapons?

 

Maybe we should ban cars

They're more dangerous when concealed (and you need a vehicle in order to counterattack someone attacking you with a vehicle)

 

Watch out, someone might taser you and stab you with a knife

 

Or shoot you with a crossbow

 

Or they could lob high explosives at you

Then we can't ban explosives, otherwise just criminals will have them

Edited June 25, 2009 by The Bear's Key
added bits

[CaptainPanic]

Has anyone ever informed you that cars are deadly weapons?

 

Maybe we should ban cars

 

Did anyone inform you that cars have a second purpose, namely transport of people and other goods?

 

Guns are designed only to kill people and possibly animals, and that makes guns different from almost everything else in the world.

[SH3RL0CK]

But drugs only harm oneself - and most don't harm at all unless abused...

 

Talk to me after you have been mugged because some drug addict needed $50 to go buy his drugs and get his fix.

 

Or better still, go talk to a close family member of a drug addict. Ask them how torn up they are inside because their loved one died from an overdose. Or how they felt when said family member stole from them to get their drug money. Or ask a father how he feels about his daughter pimping herself out because she needs the money for her drug habit. There are lots of other victims...

Edited June 25, 2009 by SH3RL0CK