Gun Control: Should civilians be allowed to possess firearms? [ENDS 30/12/2012]

[Grig]

Gun Control: Should civilians be allowed to possess firearms?
Ends: 30/12/2012


There have been numerous cases in gun violence in the US ranging from theatre to school shooting etc., and that calls the possession of firearms for civilians into question. Whilst some will argue they are necessary to use for protection, particularly in more isolated area, as well a the civil liberties in terms of freedom to posses them. Also, banned guns may not necessarily remove them from the streets.

Others would question this and say it causes incident after incident and proves that people legally carrying guns is not good for society. They would argue that stricter control means more vigorous checks and licensing.

There is also a moderate approach to simply ban some medium-caliber guns etc. that are more powerful and dangerous.

Feel free to discuss the intricacies of this debate, and remember to stick to the rules.

[scottish]

No,

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=758106

[Mr-Trainor]

No. If people aren't allowed to and there aren't any firearms, then it won't be necessary to need them in order for self-defence; as no one would have them :P. However, I know it's unrealistic to assume that no one would be in possession of them.

[-Nick]

If we were aloud to have guns, the news breaking story about the school children? This would happen every other week, people would just go into shops and threaten!

[FlyingJesus]

"I am indifferent to people having guns on their own property, as that can genuinely be claimed a deterrent or defensive move, but I can't defend the "need" that anyone might have to carry one out in public places. Guns have one function and one function only, and that is to maim or kill things. I fully understand that whatever the law may state some people will have them anyway (as does happen even in the UK) but lawbreakers will be lawbreakers regardless, and living in a country that has one of the lowest firearm homicide percentages I don't see any need to bring in extra weapons just to fuel this needless paranoia that we're going to get shot every time we go out at night"

Still my view, still a perfect answer

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUIXH9DeCRU

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders."

Ted Nugent cuts through the political crap and says it in plain simple English. In other words, I won't be told by other people whether or not I have the right to defend myself as a free, sovereign human being. It's unacceptable and I won't accept it. And I agree 100%.

[Ardemax]

No.

As mentioned above, a gun has one purpose and one purpose only: to kill.

Thought unfortunately I don't think America will ever pass a law to ban the possession of firearms (as it goes against their great 2nd Amendment as we so often hear)

[-:Undertaker:-]

No.

As mentioned above, a gun has one purpose and one purpose only: to kill.

Thought unfortunately I don't think America will ever pass a law to ban the possession of firearms (as it goes against their great 2nd Amendment as we so often hear)

To kill people in self defence yeah, of which the right to self defence is much higher than the right to have sex (HIV rates, especially amongst gays), the right to consume large amounts of salt (heart disease deaths), the right to drink alcohol (depression issues and suicides), the right to take drugs (same as the latter) or any other rights you can think of.

[Ardemax]

To kill people in self defence yeah, of which the right to self defence is much higher than the right to have sex (HIV rates, especially amongst gays), the right to consume large amounts of salt (heart disease deaths), the right to drink alcohol (depression issues and suicides), the right to take drugs (same as the latter) or any other rights you can think of.

Are we limited to only talking about guns when we mention "the right to self defense"?

[alexxxxx]

i reckon some very small guns should be legal to protect your property in your own home. though you will need to be completely clean (even drug tests!) and the penalties for improper use should be increased. there is no need for someone to have access to an AK.

[Adolphin]

If they want to sort out the gun problem, here's an idea; let the people WITH GUNS fight the people WITHOUT GUNS, and let's see who wins?

[FlyingJesus]

Wow you're right that's totally a good way to solve political issues

[GommeInc]

Wow you're right that's totally a good way to solve political issues
About as useful as letting all the rapists out to rape their victims again to prove a null point :/

It would make more sense just to have gun laws against the use of guns in a public place. They should only be used on your own private property or property you have permission to use them on (farm ranchers using their own guns on farms they are employed with, shooting ranges etc.). Then from such a law you can build self-defence laws, where you can protect yourself, others or your own property using a "fire arm" on your own property, perhaps adding property you have permission on but this would cause difficulties involving permissions and evidence in court. Then you also get the problem of transporting guns - would a car be seen as private property or because it's not static like a house it loses such a quality? Would a new law even solve gun problems? People already own automatics and the black market over in the US must be rife with (more) dangerous guns.

Perhaps we should be thankful we have no use for mass private gun ownership in the UK - it's less confusing :P

[FiftyCal]

Yes. They are trying to an assault rifle ban, which will spark a second revolution. Guns defend liberty from the tyranny (The government is corrupt). Look what happened to the jews, they were disarmed and millions got killed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes. They are trying to an assault rifle ban, which will spark a second revolution. Guns defend liberty from the tyranny (The government is corrupt). Look what happened to the jews, they were disarmed and millions got killed.

Nearly all tyrants have banned guns as soon as they swept into office because they know, and it's very simple, that a disarmed people are a people that can be enslaved. But somehow in the west we have this strange sort of soft headedness where people actually believe that just because we get to vote every 4 years for identical state-funded parties and that our leaders don't wear an army uniform and sport a silly moustache - that somehow we're becoming more free and will continue to be immune from tyranny.

How deluded they are.

[FiftyCal]

Nearly all tyrants have banned guns as soon as they swept into office because they know, and it's very simple, that a disarmed people are a people that can be enslaved. But somehow in the west we have this strange sort of soft headedness where people actually believe that just because we get to vote every 4 years for identical state-funded parties and that our leaders don't wear an army uniform and sport a silly moustache - that somehow we're becoming more free and will continue to be immune from tyranny.

How deluded they are. That is just how peoples mindsets are. Things that are corrupt go into play slowly so it conditions people and give them a mindset that nothing wrong will happen with the current form of government (In the USA that is) Just the other day in Arkansas ( I think) The swat was flooded all over the streets and asking for peoples ID just for no reason, even if you were just walking your dog and you had to prove you were just walking your dog, or just talking a walk. I only wish that people would stand up for their rights and deny the ID check, but might of included an illegal detainment and nobody wants to deal with that, instead people want to do what is the easiest. People are slaves, and they don't see it this way.

[Oleh]

In all honesty, yes they should be allowed. But only after passing in-depth checks into mental health and a background check as well as a minimum age of 30 to own an automatic rifle, 25 to own a semi automatic rifle and 21 to own a semi automatic small caliber handgun, with electronic logs on who owns what as well as restrictions on amount of ammunition at any one point at 10 rounds, for any weapon, once the ammunition is expended the empty magazine is then brought to a store and refilled.

These are just my thoughts on how it could be controlled and not totally outlawed.

[FiftyCal]

In all honesty, yes they should be allowed. But only after passing in-depth checks into mental health and a background check as well as a minimum age of 30 to own an automatic rifle, 25 to own a semi automatic rifle and 21 to own a semi automatic small caliber handgun, with electronic logs on who owns what as well as restrictions on amount of ammunition at any one point at 10 rounds, for any weapon, once the ammunition is expended the empty magazine is then brought to a store and refilled.

These are just my thoughts on how it could be controlled and not totally outlawed. These laws would only effect law abiding citizens. Criminals would still be able to get their hands on Pistol/Rifles and not follow any background checks if they had a friend that was completely clean in the background check and got it for them, and then destroyed the serial number so it wouldn't trace it back to the original owner.

[dirrty]

These laws would only effect law abiding citizens. Criminals would still be able to get their hands on Pistol/Rifles and not follow any background checks if they had a friend that was completely clean in the background check and got it for them, and then destroyed the serial number so it wouldn't trace it back to the original owner.
LMAO no ****. didn't the phrase 'law abiding citizen' give that away...

[FlyingJesus]

Theft laws only affect law abiding citizens, therefore everything should be up for grabs in a free-for-all

Driving laws only affect law abiding citizens, therefore children should drive

Medical laws only affect law abiding citizens, therefore everyone should be allowed to perform surgery

[-:Undertaker:-]

Theft laws only affect law abiding citizens, therefore everything should be up for grabs in a free-for-all

Driving laws only affect law abiding citizens, therefore children should drive

Medical laws only affect law abiding citizens, therefore everyone should be allowed to perform surgery

Drug laws only affect law abiding citizens, therefore everyone should be allowed to take drugs.

But you support that, don't you Tom?

[The Don]

There were 6,285 firearm offences recorded by police in England and Wales from September 2010 to September 2011 which accounted for 0.2% of all recorded crime. Here’s the interesting part, 9.3% of all homicides in England and Wales involved the use of a firearm (meaning over 90% of all homicides did not involve a gun) this is polarised by California’s statistics where over 2/3rd’s of all murders during 2011 (68%) were committed using a gun. If Dan's (and anybody else who thinks arming everybody solves the issue) argument was valid then the percentage of murders committed using a firearm would be far higher than it actually is. Since a gun is superior to any other weapon such as knives etc. then by your logic all murders committed would include a firearm of some sort since every criminal, according to you, can easily obtain a firearm. In the real world, it is much harder to obtain a gun if they are banned (using the UK as an example) than you actually think it is. Legalising them would certainly have a negative effect and would be senseless to do so.

Rather than fighting fire with fire by placing armed guards in schools, which is preposterous might I add, the US should focus more on mental health care and preventing things such as columbine (where there actually was an armed guard on duty there at the time who was unable to keep the 13 students murdered safe) before they actually happen.

[FlyingJesus]

Drug laws only affect law abiding citizens, therefore everyone should be allowed to take drugs.

But you support that, don't you Tom?

Yes (in private areas) because that doesn't affect anyone other than the user. Shooting people, kids on the road, and performing surgery all involve other people

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes (in private areas) because that doesn't affect anyone other than the user. Shooting people, kids on the road, and performing surgery all involve other people

Actually, drugs do affect people to such an extent in terms of mental health that you end up with people becoming insane from drug taking. I posted in the current affairs forum the link that Hitchens points out that exists between drugs (mainly anti-depressants) and these gun massacres and would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Even though I detest drugs and accept that there will be a greater risk to everyone by legalising them, I believe in negative freedoms - and it's the same with guns. A greater risk is the price we pay for enhanced freedom. If you want the freedom to make yourself mad with dangerous drugs, I ask for the very least in that I have the ability to protect myself, especially from those who take drugs and who tend to be part of the criminal class/mentally unstable.


Shooting people

It'll only affect you if you come into my house and threaten my life and property.

[FiftyCal]

Theft laws only affect law abiding citizens, therefore everything should be up for grabs in a free-for-all

Driving laws only affect law abiding citizens, therefore children should drive

Medical laws only affect law abiding citizens, therefore everyone should be allowed to perform surgery

Oh, criminals like to follow the laws too, so they should be allowed to perform surgery on anyone for sure manyne

[FlyingJesus]

Actually, drugs do affect people to such an extent in terms of mental health that you end up with people becoming insane from drug taking. I posted in the current affairs forum the link that Hitchens points out that exists between drugs (mainly anti-depressants) and these gun massacres and would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Even though I detest drugs and accept that there will be a greater risk to everyone by legalising them, I believe in negative freedoms - and it's the same with guns. A greater risk is the price we pay for enhanced freedom. If you want the freedom to make yourself mad with dangerous drugs, I ask for the very least in that I have the ability to protect myself, especially from those who take drugs and who tend to be part of the criminal class/mentally unstable.

Psychoses from drug-taking tend to be enhanced versions of pre-existing conditions rather than ones concocted by the chemicals from scratch, and it would certainly be worth looking into the number of drug users who do already have poor mental health before making ridiculous statements that drugs will lead to killings. The huge number of drug takers and tiny number of gunmen suggest that anyone so unstable that they shoot up a school would have already been that sort of person and that the drugs are somewhat unimportant in the case - more likely they are simply in the person's life because they have a disregard for authority and people seem to love their little "bobba the police" phases when they're stressed.


It'll only affect you if you come into my house and threaten my life and property.

That's something which I've already said I wouldn't wholly oppose, but this discussion has been more about guns in public and state-owned areas, in which case it certainly would not only affect others in that situation


Oh, criminals like to follow the laws too, so they should be allowed to perform surgery on anyone for sure manyne

This is not a sentence, I have no idea how to reply to this

[Chippiewill]

Rather than fighting fire with fire by placing armed guards in schools.
On a sidenote, at the columbine(?) school shooting incident years ago there WAS an armed guard at the school, had a brief firefight with the offendee and achieved nothing, in fact he protected all of one out of the many entrances to the school. So realistically to defend a school you'd need 4-6 (That's still unrealistic), highly trained, spot-on expert marksmen who are used to stressful situations per school to successfully have legalised guns and at the same time protect all the children. Considering each of these people would have to be paid on the order of $60,000 PA minimum (For all the training they've gone through, risk to life, amongst other things) you'd be looking at tens/hundreds of billions of dollars just to keep fully automatic and concealable weapons legal. And then this is suceptible to slippery slope anyway as since the devastation at movie theatres is clear you'd need them all in movie theatres and generally everywhere in public.

[Andii]

Tbh there should be a license for guns just te way it is now, and it has to be out in a Cabnet out of sight and secure where the police have to come and check aswell as having a safe for animation.

My brother has 2 guns which are used for hunting as in foxes and rabbits and birds, I don't see the point in having a law which bans them, only and idiot with a gun would use it to kill people, guns are dangerous yea but to ban them cometely ly is just stupid, should sex not be banned If people are dying from HIV and aids???? Should knives not be banned as I hear more about stabbing rather than shooting, it is really sad as a man was murdered by a gunshot driving to work in the mornin who lives near me and it was sad for all of Northern Ireland.

[Kardan]

People that say "Oh cars kill people should we ban them?" "Oh, sex kills people should be ban that?" really annoy me. Anything can kill someone, some old lady died because a banana was dropped on her, and people die.from using the toilet. Heck, women die from childbirth lets ban having children.

[karter]

16 years ago in Dunblane, Scotland, a man entered a primary school armed with four handguns and killed sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide. The following year, the UK government banned the private ownership of all cartridge ammunition handguns, regardless of caliber. There hasn’t been a school shooting since.

This says a lot.

[peteyt]

Tbh there should be a license for guns just te way it is now, and it has to be out in a Cabnet out of sight and secure where the police have to come and check aswell as having a safe for animation.

My brother has 2 guns which are used for hunting as in foxes and rabbits and birds, I don't see the point in having a law which bans them, only and idiot with a gun would use it to kill people, guns are dangerous yea but to ban them cometely ly is just stupid, should sex not be banned If people are dying from HIV and aids???? Should knives not be banned as I hear more about stabbing rather than shooting, it is really sad as a man was murdered by a gunshot driving to work in the mornin who lives near me and it was sad for all of Northern Ireland.

Only an idiot would kill someone - state the obvious lol. The problem is identifying these people. There's this idea that all mental people are over the top insane and show it all the time. Interestingly did you know a lot of cannibals english and american wise have turned out to be posh.

My point is that you can't tell who's going to be bad and who isn't and I just think it's a too great risk to take. I don't want to ban rifles for things like hunting so maybe only hunters and the law should get them - there would always be a risk but some random person shouldn't be able to just buy a gun as he's old enough.

[Andii]

Only an idiot would kill someone - state the obvious lol. The problem is identifying these people. There's this idea that all mental people are over the top insane and show it all the time. Interestingly did you know a lot of cannibals english and american wise have turned out to be posh.

My point is that you can't tell who's going to be bad and who isn't and I just think it's a too great risk to take. I don't want to ban rifles for things like hunting so maybe only hunters and the law should get them - there would always be a risk but some random person shouldn't be able to just buy a gun as he's old enough.

Bu wouldn't that be like taking part of someone's freedom away?? What if someone lives in a really bad neighbourhood an was in great danger would they not r allowed a gun as protection??? If they are completely same and know not to shoot someone dead??? Why don't we ban knives aswell tho?? Since they kill more than guns these days ( not including wars or battles) what if someone went into a school with a knive and started killing everyone with it?? Would they then consider banning knives??? They need to focus on the people more than the weapons, like the old saying goes a poor craftsman blames his tools, if someone was going to buy a gun they should at lead be checked out it any sign of mental illnesses or any problems and every few months it should be followed up ;)

man ad be a good prime minister

[Kardan]

Bu wouldn't that be like taking part of someone's freedom away?? What if someone lives in a really bad neighbourhood an was in great danger would they not r allowed a gun as protection??? If they are completely same and know not to shoot someone dead??? Why don't we ban knives aswell tho?? Since they kill more than guns these days ( not including wars or battles) what if someone went into a school with a knive and started killing everyone with it?? Would they then consider banning knives??? They need to focus on the people more than the weapons, like the old saying goes a poor craftsman blames his tools, if someone was going to buy a gun they should at lead be checked out it any sign of mental illnesses or any problems and every few months it should be followed up ;)

man ad be a good prime minister

But getting mental health check ups isn't going to spot every mad man. I mean the Norway bomber, they declared him as sane, yet he still killed 77 people and injured 242.

And no, if you live in a bad neighbourhood, you shouldn't have a gun. We should focus on trying to improve the neighbourhood, not giving them more weapons.

[dirrty]

Bu wouldn't that be like taking part of someone's freedom away?? What if someone lives in a really bad neighbourhood an was in great danger would they not r allowed a gun as protection??? If they are completely same and know not to shoot someone dead??? Why don't we ban knives aswell tho?? Since they kill more than guns these days ( not including wars or battles) what if someone went into a school with a knive and started killing everyone with it?? Would they then consider banning knives??? They need to focus on the people more than the weapons, like the old saying goes a poor craftsman blames his tools, if someone was going to buy a gun they should at lead be checked out it any sign of mental illnesses or any problems and every few months it should be followed up ;)

man ad be a good prime minister
lmao good joke. you should do stand-up

[peteyt]

Bu wouldn't that be like taking part of someone's freedom away?? What if someone lives in a really bad neighbourhood an was in great danger would they not r allowed a gun as protection??? If they are completely same and know not to shoot someone dead??? Why don't we ban knives aswell tho?? Since they kill more than guns these days ( not including wars or battles) what if someone went into a school with a knive and started killing everyone with it?? Would they then consider banning knives??? They need to focus on the people more than the weapons, like the old saying goes a poor craftsman blames his tools, if someone was going to buy a gun they should at lead be checked out it any sign of mental illnesses or any problems and every few months it should be followed up ;)

man ad be a good prime minister

Everyone keeps using this argument.

A knife's main purpose really is for cooking. It can kill but so can sex, so can cars, so can lots of stuff, banning everything that can kill someone accidentally or on purpose is stupid if they have non violent purposes.

A gun however is made to kill, there's no other purpose for it. Also if you got attacked with (A) A Gun or (B) A knife - there's more chance you'd be able to survive. I have to point out if the killer at the school had a knife, I'm sure someone would have been able to have tackled him, remembering a gun is easy to use with long distance. Yeah you can throw a knife but while doing that you could be easily tackled from behind.

Gun's need to be controlled. If you have no real reason for a gun you shouldn't be allowed one - If guns where banned people would not need to protect themselves as much anyway's - crimes will always happen yeah but lets make it as hard as possible for them.

Also there's a thing about the constitution I read specially on the gun part - that when it was designed it was basically a blue print, and has something written inside it that apparently legally allows it to be updated (remember it was a far different time compared to today when it was originally wrote up)