Gun Control: Should civilians be in possession of guns? [ENDS 09/09/2012]

[Empired]

Guns cause nothing but death. If you get up and shoot someone, you must (however subconsciously) have made up your mind to kill them. Even if it's because there's someone in your house pointing a gun at you, you've made the choice to try and shoot them dead. Nobody (obviously minus very young children) picks up a gun and shoots at someone by accident or without knowing what they're doing. It just doesn't happen.

And about all this "self defense" talk, nobody should have the right to take somebody's life away even if they're about to die themselves. It makes them just as bad as the original attacker.
Anyway, if I was held at gunpoint by somebody but I shot them dead, I could never live with myself afterwards. It would just lead to a lifetime of counselling sessions, depression and all sorts of problems that would just make me suffer. I think I would rather be dead than have to live with taking someone else's life, even though I may not think that at the time.

I don't think people should be allowed to be in possession of a gun either. Shooting at somebody because they're shooting at you does not make the problem go away, it basically just means you've added yourself to the problem. Congratulations.
There's no point in making guns illegal in homes though. It will not work unless all guns have to stop being manufactured so eventually there will be none left. This will never happen.

There's a short story called Give Peas a Chance where basically a boy won't each his fruit & vegetables until every country has given up their weapons and put them out of reach. He makes world news and his "plan" works and nobody has any weapons anymore until one day one country starts to make more. And then every other country does the same so we were back where we started.
So if we ever got to the fantastic situation where nobody owned any guns anywhere in the world (never going to happen), one country would end up making more so they could conquer the rest of the world or something similar so everywhere else makes weapons too. It's a never ending cycle.

[FiftyCal]

Yes of course Civilians should be armed with guns. Disarming people only effects law abiding citizens, criminals don't follow the law. The 2nd amendment in the constitution states The right to bear arms, and with no weapons here there goes our last line of defense against tyranny, that's what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, not go to hunting or just target shooting, but simpily to protect yourself from corrupted government. There is a lot of armed robberies in the USA and i think that people who are Anti-Gun should look at good civilians that do no harm with guns and not just look at the bad people with guns. Matter fact im going to start carrying around my Chinese SKS Rifle around in public probably this week to promote the second amendment.

[Corina35]

I dont think that civillians should have guns, it would just mean that there is more chance for violence. They would then be able to use them if they get attacked but there are other things use can use as weapons around the house that are not guns. However people could just invest in extra security for doors and keep windows shut if they are worried about people getting in.

[dbgtz]

..thus the reason why gun crime is so high is an unintended consquence of gun controls. With gun controls, you may have 10 would-be criminals who will arm themselves, break into a house and out of them 10 incidents it may result in 4 of them ending in death. Without gun controls, of the 10 would be criminals, 6 may be instantly put off even considering breaking into private property and of those 4 incidents that take place, 2 may end in death (but with a twist, the deaths resulting from those incidents would include the criminals as opposed to the innocent occupiers of the property).

You've just pulled those figures out of your arse to help your own argument. Have you ever asked yourself what happens when it is abused? What would have happened if the rioters last year had guns? Or this more recent threat of an armed revolution. I think you have to look at what is more likely, government tyranny or a bunch of morons pointing and shooting guns everywhere.

Yes of course Civilians should be armed with guns. Disarming people only effects law abiding citizens, criminals don't follow the law. The 2nd amendment in the constitution states The right to bear arms, and with no weapons here there goes our last line of defense against tyranny, that's what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, not go to hunting or just target shooting, but simpily to protect yourself from corrupted government. There is a lot of armed robberies in the USA and i think that people who are Anti-Gun should look at good civilians that do no harm with guns and not just look at the bad people with guns. Matter fact im going to start carrying around my Chinese SKS Rifle around in public probably this week to promote the second amendment.

Just to turn Undertakers own argument against him, since when did something being law make it just?

I have more points but I have dinner now so I shall expand later.

[DryRash]

It's hard because there are so many positives and negatives here's mine.

Positive
It can be good in ways as if people where aloud to carry fire arms and things like that, Maybe we wouldn't have many issues where the good people get shot like it even happens with Police (UK) One policemen was follow this man as he had to go to jail so as he was following him down an alley he knew he cornered him, So he called for back up and as he called for back up he went in the alley and the man turned around and shot him, His collogues came to find him dead. There are many incidents like that, So I suppose it would be good if a citizen could even carry a fire arm it can save them in so many way!

Negatives
It can be bad, Because people can abuse it, Like one person may buy one for protection for his family but then his wife divorces him and he goes mad and shoots her or maybe others around he are looking, Plus if citizens decide cause they have a gun they can be the hero like they go and shoot the bad guy but the good guy ends up getting shot it would just cause chaos and too much blood spilt.

What do I think?
I can't really decide because it's a 50/50 situation but im glad you now know my thoughts and things it will be good to see when this debate ends.

[FiftyCal]

Well drink driving is already banned,

Regarding the sex issue they have both consented to do that, whereas the person whos getting injured by a gun didnt consent to getting injured. No they may not have known about adisease possibly but they both consented to it, Guns = bad.

Some Facts
Americans own 200 million firearms
and 35 percent of homes contain at least one gun
a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found more than 1.7 million children live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns
a study published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found 39 percent of kids knew where their parent's guns were stored, while 22 percent said they had handled the weapons despite adult's warnings to stay away. What's more, age was not a factor in whether children had played with the guns -- 5-year-olds were just as likely to report doing so as


Some "accidents that have happened" all due to guns

A 3-year-old Southeast Washington boy shot himself in the foot and grazed his hand while playing with his father's gun -- which he found lying on the floor.

The 10-year-old son of a New York City police officer died after shooting himself in the face with his father's loaded revolver. The boy found the weapon on a shelf in the basement while looking for a ball his mom had hidden.

A 2-year-old Tampa boy shot himself in the chest with a loaded 9 mm he found in his parent's couch while playing.

...

The parents are the one to blame for not putting trigger locks on them and keeping them in a gun safe away from children.
People think guns should be under very hard control because of these "accidents" but a lot of accidents where kids end up shooting themselves with guns is because they are not locked away and are in a kids reach.

If i have kids i'd buy a gun safe so my guns don't get stolen in case of a break in and so my kids don't play with them.

[Kardan]

The parents are the one to blame for not putting trigger locks on them and keeping them in a gun safe away from children.
People think guns should be under very hard control because of these "accidents" but a lot of accidents where kids end up shooting themselves with guns is because they are not locked away and are in a kids reach.

If i have kids i'd buy a gun safe so my guns don't get stolen in case of a break in and so my kids don't play with them.

Very true in the case of younger kids, but when young teenagers are involved, it's different. 13 or 14 year olds can easily search the house for example, so it'd be easier in the UK to not have guns at all.

[santa-my-nana]

The parents are the one to blame for not putting trigger locks on them and keeping them in a gun safe away from children.
People think guns should be under very hard control because of these "accidents" but a lot of accidents where kids end up shooting themselves with guns is because they are not locked away and are in a kids reach.

If i have kids i'd buy a gun safe so my guns don't get stolen in case of a break in and so my kids don't play with them.

But dont you think buying a gun when you have children is immoral because your basically teaching your kids that guns are ok, violence is ok, Go join a gang and kill people.

[FiftyCal]

But dont you think buying a gun when you have children is immoral because your basically teaching your kids that guns are ok, violence is ok, Go join a gang and kill people.

It's not really immortal if you raise them the right away and teach them to be a respectable person when they grow up. Guns are not a bad thing, there's just bad people handling guns out there thinking they are bigger than anyone else, but there is also good people out there with guns. You're taking things the wrong way, there's more things to do with guns than just going on a killing spree.

[santa-my-nana]

It's not really immortal if you raise them the right away and teach them to be a respectable person when they grow up. Guns are not a bad thing, there's just bad people handling guns out there thinking they are bigger than anyone else, but there is also good people out there with guns. You're taking things the wrong way, there's more things to do with guns than just going on a killing spree.

Yes but theres always that risk, its safer to not have a gun than to have one, Even if you handle it correctly you can still get accidents, You can try to teach someone to be respectfull but generally it doesnt work that way, the more you push someone, the more they dissabey (cant spell it). It is immoral and absolutely wrong,