Carrying Firearms

[AtlasDark]

Not sure if this debate has been previously presented, though I believe it would make for a spirited defense of both sides.

What does the community think about the right to bear arms? What restrictions, if any, do you think should (or should not) be emplaced, and to what extent of use/concealment of firearms is acceptable?

[Spectre557]

If no one has guns, no one ends up shot... Mutual assured destruction is not feasible here.

If other people have guns, then that doesn't mean you should too, it means they shouldn't.

In America, the right to arms used to be a practical privelege, but nowadays, there's just no reason for the average citizen to need a shotgun (or other firearm) in their home, unless they plan on using it on someone else.

Keep guns on an absolutely need-to-own basis, so they're restricted to the armed services, armed-response police units, and government security and intelligence, and with a bit of luck, no innocents get shot.

[Heath Winchester]

I don't really agree with that so much. I do believe in stricter laws regarding guns but I am also for average citizens to have Handguns/Rifles/Shotguns. I am against semi and full automatic weapons in the possession of your average citizen.

To back up my point, if it were illegal for your average joe to have a gun then what's to prevent your average criminal from getting one? Your average joe wants to obey the law and do what is dictated to be right. (Average people don't question ethics) Your average criminal doesn't give a shit and will get one anyway. If average joe had a gun the average criminal would think twice before trying anything. I consider this to be fact in my opinion. If criminals could get guns (and they would) and average citizens couldn't criminals would take advantage of this.

I stand by my argument but welcome others insight.

[Spectre557]

To back up my point, if it were illegal for your average joe to have a gun then what's to prevent your average criminal from getting one? Your average joe wants to obey the law and do what is dictated to be right. (Average people don't question ethics) Your average criminal doesn't give a shit and will get one anyway. If average joe had a gun the average criminal would think twice before trying anything. I consider this to be fact in my opinion. If criminals could get guns (and they would) and average citizens couldn't criminals would take advantage of this.

That's a good point, but I was more thinking of what would be in an ideal world.

Of course, if guns were outlawed, then the government would have to crack down on the illegal supply of firearms in order to maintain a balance, which just wouldn't be feasible in America as there are so many damn weapons all over the place already. However, in somewhere like the UK (where I live), guns are completely illegal except with a special license (e.g. farmers to kill pests), and only a very small percentage of crimes involve guns. Although of course, shootings do still happen.

I think mostly it's about the society, not the individuals. Since there has never been a particularly strong civilian gun-culture here, there are less available which is what makes criminalisation realistically possible.

[david lightman]

It is completly about the culture. Im not sure if any of you have seen "Bowling for Columbine", but they go to Canada, and even though there is a ton of civilian owned firearms, there is little gun crime. I live in regina,canada (actually, we were the murder capital of canada in 2008), and there is nothing remotely like the gun crimes you read about in some parts of the USA. It does not really have that much to do with the guns. Of course, taking away the guns still takes away the possibility of gun crimes, but simply having guns dosnt ensure gun crimes will happen.

So in summary... America is quite simply fucked.

[Dredric1]

If no one has guns, no one ends up shot... Mutual assured destruction is not feasible here.

If other people have guns, then that doesn't mean you should too, it means they shouldn't.

In America, the right to arms used to be a practical privelege, but nowadays, there's just no reason for the average citizen to need a shotgun (or other firearm) in their home, unless they plan on using it on someone else.

i understand that you have already been questioned about this
but leave behind the "ideal sociaty" excuse and realy think about it


bad people will get guns like they get everything else such as drugs , and other things
so if good people do not have a way to defend themselves then how are we going to keep crime down?

and if bad people know that guns are band and know that the average person doesnt hav them ?

what then is detering them from commiting a crime
and of corse they plan to defend themself

let me ask of you a question
would you rater:
have a criminal shot by a landowner(a person defending theirself)?
or have a person unable to defend theirself shot by a criminal?

we will know who you are by your answer
if you say better for a criminal to die - you are either were uneducated as far as wat crimminals do or a hypocryt
if you say better for a inocient person to die - you are either stupid or a criminal

or you could find some other reason to explain you ideas

if you do not answer you are either to proud to admit you were wrong or not wanting us to know the truth about you

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
now isnt that logical?

[AtlasDark]

The illegal production and distribution would still take place, however; this would assure that at least one person would be in possession of a firearm and thus create the need of defense (or perceived defense from someone with such a weapon), and as such, someone will create another - one more will want defense and pretty soon, we will all receive weapons.

The outlawing of firearms would make sense, since any struggle would be on better grounds (whereas one side may gain an advantage based on skill rather than just the ability to hold the weapon level to your vision and squeeze a round off) giving anyone the chance to fight off attackers with more success, though they may still be in possession of a weapon that would still give them some type of advantage (range and damage of a lead pipe per se over barefisted combat), and dying from multiple knife wounds is perhaps worse than a single shot to the cranium.

[Spectre557]

bad people will get guns like they get everything else such as drugs , and other things
so if good people do not have a way to defend themselves then how are we going to keep crime down?

and if bad people know that guns are band and know that the average person doesnt hav them ?

what then is detering them from commiting a crime
and of corse they plan to defend themself

let me ask of you a question
would you rater:
have a criminal shot by a landowner(a person defending theirself)?
or have a person unable to defend theirself shot by a criminal?

we will know who you are by your answer
if you say better for a criminal to die - you are either were uneducated as far as wat crimminals do or a hypocryt
if you say better for a inocient person to die - you are either stupid or a criminal

or you could find some other reason to explain you ideas

if you do not answer you are either to proud to admit you were wrong or not wanting us to know the truth about you

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
now isnt that logical?

No need to be so aggressive about it.

I believe I've already answered your point:

If guns were outlawed, then the government would have to crack down on the illegal supply of firearms in order to maintain a balance, which just wouldn't be feasible in America as there are so many damn weapons all over the place already.

To be as clear as possible, I agree that the most sensible thing IF criminals have easy access to weapons is to do the same in self-defense. However, I disagree with it when there are only a small number of criminals with them. People should only use the possession of weapons as a last resort when guns are already freely available, as by equipping the public with firearms, you also equip any would-be criminal.

There needs to be a balance, and the tipping-point is where either EVERYONE has weapons, or (almost) no-one does.

P.S. As far as the "who should die" thing goes, I'm obviously in favour of it being the criminal, but if possible, I wouldn't want to see anyone hurt, not even a criminal.

P.P.S. I really don't appreciate being called "uneducated", a "hypocryt", "stupid", and especially not a "criminal", here of all places the least.

[AtlasDark]

Dredric1, the issue is that research shows most of those who use light firearms (sidearms) as personal defense in their homes are terrible shots and do not influence the crime rate - it in fact provokes the criminal into using deadly force as he/she gets yet another excuse to gun down the victim.

[Dredric1]

P.P.S. I really don't appreciate being called "uneducated", a "hypocryt", "stupid", and especially not a "criminal", here of all places the least.

if you say better for a criminal to die - you are either were uneducated as far as wat crimminals do or a hypocryt
if you say better for a inocient person to die - you are either stupid or a criminal

well i did say if and you didnt choose the option with stupid or criminal attached
and i said either or as in only one of those things