|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
The other thread is going off topic with people debating about the general right to own and carry guns. This has been an ongoing debate in the United States since their founding. In Finland, where public carry permissions are effectively nonexistent, the school shootings of the past decade have been fueling the debate on gun ownership in general.
I personally believe that, in a perfect world, the law enforcement alone would be capable of wielding all the violence needed to keep society safe. However, this is an imperfect world. Criminals have gotten access to guns, and that is a genie that isn't going back into the bottle. The law enforcement has finite resources and can't always be there in time. Therefore I believe a person should have the right to arm themself for the purpose of self defence.
Further, I do not think that the actions of what is essentially the global bottom ten participants in a class of hobbies should be taken as a reason to limit said hobbies.
EDIT: Monday, Feb 20 12:45pm GMT (GMT+00:00); ClarRH.TV made a longish informative post on page 22, which you might want to check out; http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=13598455
Another good one on page 23 by Nagano; http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313472¤tpage=23#441
Also, I keep runnig into demands for research findings such as these;
+ Show Spoiler +Hemenway et al, "Firearm Prevalence and Social Capital" found that guns are more common in areas where there's low levels of social capital, that is people's trust in one another. Interestingly, they also used homicides and suicides with firearms as a measure of gun ownership. Kennedy et al, "Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime" found that "The profound effects of income inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and firearm availability, on firearm violent crime indicate that policies that address these broader, macro-social forces warrant serious consideration." If you feel this is a one-sided slice, PM me with a reference to research I omitted, and I'll put it up.
|
Gun control only serves to make it harder (or impossible) for law abiding citizens to have and use them for either home defense, the illusion of safety, or whatever reason they feel they want to have said weapon. If someone wants to obtain a gun to kill someone, gun control isn't going to put up any barrier to prevent this to happen as they are most likely already obtaining this weapon illegally.
That being said, gun ownership only poses one problem in my mind and that is vigilantism or the "Make My Day" law. Unfortunately, a large contingent of gun owners aren't qualified to be using them and should they deem it necessary to use them to protect others, they only serve to endanger or further exacerbate a dire situation.
I'm all for relaxed gun control laws. I find it obscene that any government can remove the ability of a populus to defend itself from terrorist and tyrants alike. I do feel that there needs to be some sort of mandatory / provided class(es) or training that completely familiarizes the individual with the use of the weapon, proper storage, understanding of munition the weapon uses, maintenance of the weapon and situations in which a concealed carry permit would be merited.
|
When I compare the murder rate in the US to that of other developed countries, I wish we had less guns. Its really staggering just how much more murder occurs here compared to Japan or Korea 
|
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn.
|
People killed people just fine before guns. And they will continue to do so for the rest of time, with or without them.
|
i think the liberal stance the US and switzerland have for example are terrible
|
Hello everyone in this other thread! As to answer the OP's question, as I'm sure you already know my stance on this from the other thread, I fully support the right to bear arms and the right to carry. At the end of the day, there is no legitimate reason for the government to take away either of those fundamental rights. Remember kids, fear is not a reason to take away people's freedom.
|
Finland441 Posts
My opinion is that all automatic weapons and pistols should be illegal and only guns that are mainly used for hunting should be allowed.
|
Theoretically I think it would be ideal if no one except specialized law enforcement could have guns. Unfortunately with the current proliferation of firearms in the US as well as the mindset of a large portion of the population this is an ideal which will never happen for the foreseeable future (in the US.) Plus, as some have mentioned, even if laws were passed to ban firearms. That would only serve to make the law-abiding citizens unarmed, while those who wanted guns could still get/keep them.
|
Guns are fine, are people really that naive to think guns are the problem here?
|
If people want to kill, they will find a gun anyway, banning guns would make little to no difference at all.
On February 20 2012 03:15 Maitolasi wrote:
My opinion is that all automatic weapons and pistols should be illegal and only guns that are mainly used for hunting should be allowed.
I guess thats the case in many countries.
|
Having lots of guns is not why the US has so much crime.
The US has lots of crime because it has lots of people statistically likely to commit crime.
|
I think con control arguments are stemmed with the invovement of two different americas. While if you look in the cities rge muder rate is really really high and you can't argure for guns in anyway you simply have to look in the countryside and you see a marinaly small rate with every redneck having small armories in their basements while they can leavr their homes and cars unlocked.
I have quite a few guns and I'm not afraid to use them in anyway. There are no drugs or gangs or any roberies that happen and ill be dammed If a government wanted to take away my security and saftey. More guns equal less crime and that only works in areas where there are guns in the hands of people that aren't cops or criminals. How you get to that stage I have no idea.
|
On February 20 2012 03:15 Maitolasi wrote:
My opinion is that all automatic weapons and pistols should be illegal and only guns that are mainly used for hunting should be allowed.
Automatic weapons I could understand, but there's still a much stronger argument for supporting the right to own a machine gun than there is against the right. However, why in the world would you want to ban pistols? I assume in your ideal world rifles and shotguns would be extremely regulated to the point where they were impossible to own as well?
|
Owning a gun gives you the option of slef defense, but IMO martial arts do that job pretty well.
And also, the worst part about having a gun, is that you may want to use it.
And from there on countless things may happen, good or bad, impossible to know.
Finishing: Learn kung-fu 
|
In the US, the two policies that I think that are pressing are the issue of psychological evaluations and preventing of mentally unstable people of acquiring firearms, and the purchase of firearms at the gun shows via the "loophole" where people do not file the normal paperwork done if say you were to purchase a firearm at a gun store.
Gun education is also something I feel needs to more stressed, people who use guns always stress the basic gun safety rules (don't point at something you don't intend to destroy, always treat as loaded, finger off the trigger until ready to fire), but I get the feeling substantial amounts of people who buy guns simply go to the store, buy a gun, spend minimal if any amount of time at a range, and when they're done they go home, put the gun away and they think that in a home defense/high stress situation that they'll be able to effectively use it.
|
On February 20 2012 03:22 sermokala wrote:
I think con control arguments are stemmed with the invovement of two different americas. While if you look in the cities rge muder rate is really really high and you can't argure for guns in anyway you simply have to look in the countryside and you see a marinaly small rate with every redneck having small armories in their basements while they can leavr their homes and cars unlocked.
I have quite a few guns and I'm not afraid to use them in anyway. There are no drugs or gangs or any roberies that happen and ill be dammed If a government wanted to take away my security and saftey. More guns equal less crime and that only works in areas where there are guns in the hands of people that aren't cops or criminals. How you get to that stage I have no idea.
This. This. This. This. This.
Can this be stickied at the top of every gun control thread?
|
On February 20 2012 03:21 Romantic wrote:
Having lots of guns is not why the US has so much crime.
The US has lots of crime because it has lots of people statistically likely to commit crime.
You say that as though gun prevalence clearly plays an insignificant role in the genesis of crime, when that could not be farther from the case.
|
On February 20 2012 03:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:21 Romantic wrote:
Having lots of guns is not why the US has so much crime.
The US has lots of crime because it has lots of people statistically likely to commit crime. You say that as though gun prevalence clearly plays an insignificant role in the genesis of crime, when that could not be farther from the case.
More guns = Less crime AND more open government AND more freedom
Less guns = More crime AND more authoritarian government AND less freedom
|
On February 20 2012 03:25 MerdaPura wrote:Owning a gun gives you the option of slef defense, but IMO martial arts do that job pretty well. And also, the worst part about having a gun, is that you may want to use it. And from there on countless things may happen, good or bad, impossible to know. Finishing: Learn kung-fu
The problem with your argument becomes apparent when your assailant has a weapon, a size advantage or just more experience in fights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
