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

[Grig]

Gun Control: Should civilians be in possession of guns?
Ends: 09/09/2012

This is an extremely interesting and relevant debate, especially after some recent news stories out of the US, which calls this policy into question.

Basically, there have been numerous shootings such as the recent one outside the Empire State in New York and of course the renowned 'Joker' shooting at the premiere of a Batman movie in Colorado. These are just a few recent cases and the list can be never-ending.

The result from these shootings were countless of innocent deaths by a lone gunman, legally owning a firearm(s). Let's quickly jump to a few argument points.

Those who support possession of fire arms state that it is necessary for protection. In terms of self-defense guns helped people who were being assaulted or robbed. Others view that the ownership of guns should be a civil right, particularly in the USA, which is viewed as a free and democratic country. In other countries such as Finland where conscription into the army if policy, firearms are allowed as they are viewed as a good training mechanism for the military.

As for the other side of the argument, some say that guns lead to more disastrous consequences of civil disputes and violence, where death is involved. It also, as echoed earlier leads to tragic shootings of those who take advantage of possession of firearms. Furthermore, some countries historically banned guns as a fear of violence against the government and governmental jurisdictions such as the police.

Anyway, the debate can go on and on. Let us know you views and back it up with some reasons! You may took about some case studies and examples as well!

[dirrty]

since previous events have been mentioned, i thought i'd be extremly relevant to mention this encase people aren't aware yet:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/25/ju...tate-shooting/

All Empire State shooting victims were wounded by officers

obviously the above doesn't/shouldn't detract anything from the arguments, but thought its worthy to mention. i have noticed that the other shooting that happened in chicago overnight on thursday/friday morning (19 shot in 7 attacks during the night) was barely reported compared to the NY one (probably because the latter was in a tourist attraction, but also because the former could be gang related, victims aren't speaking, etc.), but it just seems that these are either occurring more often, or the its being reported more/media creating a sense of moral panic.

either way, i do think that civilians shouldn't be in possession of guns. but then i also think the US are far too gone to even strip the population of their weapons as it's far too embedded within its society.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes we ought to be allowed to hold our own guns in a free society, indeed had guns been legal (like the US Constitution and our own say) then incidents such as the 9/11 hijackings wouldn't have occured as well as the Batman cinema shootings - it was because of government restrictions that guns were banned and these incidents became much worse than they would have had to have been had you been allowed to carry guns.

The self defence issue is a big one, and i'm sure people will comment on it later on which i'll respond to - however i'd point out that the reason guns are legal (especially concerning the US) is not so that people can hunt or even really deter criminals, gun rights were put into the constitution to protect the people from the government if it ever got out of hand (a tyranny). The same can be said for Switzerland which has low gun crime yet has very lax gun laws with most of the population owning one - the reason why Switzerland is like that is to protect the people against foreign governments, hence why Switzerland has managed to maintain its independence in Europe despite its tiny size and population.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." - Adolf Hitler

If my memory serves me correct, Hitler/Stalin/Lenin/Mao/Assad and others all removed gun rights as soon as they assumed power.

...

obviously the above doesn't/shouldn't detract anything from the arguments, but thought its worthy to mention. i have noticed that the other shooting that happened in chicago overnight on thursday/friday morning (19 shot in 7 attacks during the night) was barely reported compared to the NY one (probably because the latter was in a tourist attraction, but also because the former could be gang related, victims aren't speaking, etc.), but it just seems that these are either occurring more often, or the its being reported more/media creating a sense of moral panic.

Indeed, infact I believe the Chicago shootings occured in a city which has some of the most tough gun restrictions in the United States.

After all, what good are gun restrictions when law abiding people are faced with one in a dark side street?

[Catchy]

Could you imagine today's youth running around aimlessly with guns? Enough said.

[deathbot20.v2]

<_< dont youth's already do that?

[GommeInc]

I don't see the point in gun ownership. They come off as only increasing crime problems rather than decreasing them. More guns, more problems. If you need to protect yourself from another crazy gun wielding lunatic, you'll probably be dead before getting the chance to defend yourself from said lunatic.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Could you imagine today's youth running around aimlessly with guns? Enough said.

They do already, the only difference being that law abiding sensible people then have no protection from the idiots.

I don't see the point in gun ownership. They come off as only increasing crime problems rather than decreasing them. More guns, more problems. If you need to protect yourself from another crazy gun wielding lunatic, you'll probably be dead before getting the chance to defend yourself from said lunatic.

The facts prove otherwise (stats with gun regulation, the Swiss etc), but as the lunatic as the user above mentioned also - at least with a gun you have a chance. As they say, you don't enter a gun fight wielding a knife.

[GommeInc]

The facts prove otherwise (stats with gun regulation, the Swiss etc), but as the lunatic as the user above mentioned also - at least with a gun you have a chance. As they say, you don't enter a gun fight wielding a knife.

The Swiss are clever, stable people. Years of imbreeding in the US and UK would prove difficult to keep the peace if guns are chucked into the mix here, and the US seem to have problems keeping control of their population currently anyway. At least with a ban it's effectively like having a difficult system in a game - with guns you're upping the dangerous level, without them at least there's less likely a chance of too many people getting or killed, since knife crime is on the way down.

[Kardan]

Simply, no.

There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and gun crime.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Swiss are clever, stable people. Years of imbreeding in the US and UK would prove difficult to keep the peace if guns are chucked into the mix here, and the US seem to have problems keeping control of their population currently anyway. At least with a ban it's effectively like having a difficult system in a game - with guns you're upping the dangerous level, without them at least there's less likely a chance of too many people getting or killed, since knife crime is on the way down.

If you really believe knife crime and crime in general is on the way down like the government claims then what else can I say.

And if the United States and United Kingdom are full of nutters (most of them are petty criminals as opposed to nutters, so i'd certainly agree we have more petty criminals than Switzerland) then that simply makes the case for gun ownership stronger as a method to deter would-be criminals. The criminals will always commit crime and they'll always get hold of guns and weapons in general - so the question remaining is, do the law abiding majority deserve the right to defend themselves as hinted at in our own constitution?

I say yes, especially for those living in truly dreadful estates that we, being middle class, cannot imagine what life is like there every night and every day.

Simply, no.

There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and gun crime.

Not true, look at the Swiss example along with US cities/states which have stronger gun regulations compared with those that do not.

And besides, what right do you have to force your views upon me for my own good? if I want a gun for my own protection and protection of my property, why is that your business or the business of the state anymore than what you get up to inside your bedroom is my business or of the state?