U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[Meneldil]

While I don't really think the right to bear arms is an unalienable human right, I don't think it is the source of the problem here.
A lot of countries widely allow their citizens to bear arms (Canada, Switzerland), without facing the violence issue that the US does.

I think it's more of a cultural issue than anything else.

The arguments that overall crime rates would drop aren't well supported by data, and there are many other easier ways of reducing the crime rate. But that argument misses the point in the first place--the right to defend yourself is a personal right.

Nice, but the right to defend yourself does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to bear lethal weapons.

Now, I don't think US citizens should give up their right to do it. While I find the amendment to be stupid and outdated, it is apparently a cultural and historical "BIG DEAL" for many people. So well, as long as they find valuable ways to fight violence (sadly, they apparently don't),that's fine with me.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think it's more of a cultural issue than anything else.

Certainly, that is the approach many people take.

Nice, but the right to defend yourself does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to bear lethal weapons.

Well, this is the whole question. Obviously you are allowed to defend yourself, and just as obviously there are things you can't rightly do in self defense. So how far do we take it? Guns are an equalizer like no other weapon. No other method of self defense can reliably give a weak person a chance and defending them self from a strong person, or give one person a chance against multiple people.

I would hazard a guess that if you found yourself under attack and had a moment for reflection, you would not care a fig about the deaths by violence caused by guns being legal, but would wish desperately that you had one yourself.

[Meneldil]

Agreed. Mind you, my issue is not with the right to bear arm per se*, or even with the weapons themselves.

I just think that if the citizen of a given modern country has to buy and bear firearms to feel secure, then there's something wrong in the first place. I'm not saying that american citizens are crazily violent people, or fascists wannabees or what not. Just that so much violence in a modern society is wrong.

*I think the 2nd Amendment is outdated because, if I understood correctly, it was firstly written to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. Nowadays it's used as a right to self defense and kind of lost its original meaning.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Agreed. Mind you, my issue is not with the right to bear arm per se*, or even with the weapons themselves.

I just think that if the citizen of a given modern country has to buy and bear firearms to feel secure, then there's something wrong in the first place. I'm not saying that american citizens are crazily violent people, or fascists wannabees or what not. Just that so much violence in a modern society is wrong.

I would agree. It's ironic that the most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment are the most outspoken supporters of the war on drugs and harsh prison sentences.

*I think the 2nd Amendment is outdated because, if I understood correctly, it was firstly written to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. Nowadays it's used as a right to self defense and kind of lost its original meaning.

The amendments are usually interpreted in part based on the known beliefs of the authors, and they strongly believed in self defense. The wording also makes it clear that it is an individual right, it uses the militia bit as an example.

[DemonArchangel]

Yes, but only if we get to have swordfights instead.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I just think that if the citizen of a given modern country has to buy and bear firearms to feel secure, then there's something wrong in the first place. I'm not saying that american citizens are crazily violent people, or fascists wannabees or what not. Just that so much violence in a modern society is wrong.

Ideally, you would be correct. It seems, however, that the real world is a little different. I mean no offense, those are merely my observations.

[CountArach]

All Americans have the right to own a firearm debate.

[naut]

Of course not. What method do you suggest should be used to collect all the currently owned legal firearms? There isn't a single viable, or cost effective way to.

Leave them be, just educate in proper and safe use, ownership and vendition.

[rory_20_uk]

Ask people to register them? Give a deadline a generous 6 months away? Hardly rocket science, is it? The law abiding majority will get them registered. Inform people that if there are any ones that require stronger checks or are now illegal of this fact. There are probably not many that fit into this category.

Education is one of those oft used puff terms that basically means "do nothing, and tut a bit when the next massacre happens".

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Here. I support the right of American citizens to bear arms, and I would support a right to bear arms here in Germany as well.

[Megalos]

Here. I support the right of American citizens to bear arms, and I would support a right to bear arms here in Germany as well.

That article was written in 2000.....

It's also so full of machismo it's untrue. "Only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents" 142 too many, and his use of the word "only" I find insulting. He also gives no sources for his findings in the parts I read ( I must admit I couldn't bear to read too much of that garbage, sorry).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That article was written in 2000.....

Which is completely irrelevant.

It's also so full of machismo it's untrue.

"Only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents" 142 too many, and his use of the word "only" I find insulting.

"In 1995, more than 250 children ages 14 and under died in bicycle-related crashes."

From WikiAnswers. It isn't as if more gun control would help these children. Regardless, even if it did help them, the Second Amendment needs to stay. Why? Here you go.

He also gives no sources for his findings in the parts I read ( I must admit I couldn't bear to read too much of that garbage, sorry).

The Cato Institute is the source. They take the statistics and come to this conclusion. You can do it independently and come to the same result.

[Megalos]

Which is completely irrelevant.







"In 1995, more than 250 children ages 14 and under died in bicycle-related crashes."

From WikiAnswers. It isn't as if more gun control would help these children. Regardless, even if it did help them, the Second Amendment needs to stay. Why? Here you go.



The Cato Institute is the source. They take the statistics and come to this conclusion. You can do it independently and come to the same result.

Fair enough, more children died in bike accidents than gun accidents. I would be interested to see if gang warfare and murder (non gang related) were listed under gun "accident".

Sorry I have no idea what the CATO institute is, so please forgive my ignorance.

[seireikhaan]

I think the 2nd amendment should be abolished/rewritten, and instead allow for individual states to decide for themselves what sorts of gun laws they want. Different people function differently, and its no different when it comes to violence. I would volunteer two examples- Switzerland and Japan. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, as a function of their mandatory army services. Switzerland has extraordinarily low levels of violent crime. Japan has very strict laws on gun ownership, even on police, who are allowed, at most, a minimum caliber pistol. Japan also has extraordinarily low levels of violent crime. Both systems are capable of working, but they need to be applied with discipline and in the correct demographic circumstances.

[Sheogorath]

Gosh, I don't know WHY the US doesn't follow the UK's example and ban guns. I mean, it was so terrible effective at reducing gun crime in the UK. Just like the knife ban! And no doubt the upcoming 'blunt object ban' will be just as successful.

I'm really sure that attempting to enforce the same legislature on a nation with 300,000,000 people, which is about 200 times the size of the UK, with about a billion more miles of border, and a strong firearms related tradition, with a massive base of firearms supporters, will be really effective!

Golly gee wilikers.

Seriously though. I hate the thought of 'relinquishing' any rights. Maybe in the UK you've got a different perspective, but over here I'd like to think that we can at least pretend the government doesn't run everything.

[Whacker]

I think it's more of a cultural issue than anything else.

I'd agree completely here. However...

Nice, but the right to defend yourself does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to bear lethal weapons.

I contend it does, however this is not absolute. I have a right to defend myself, however that is largely a hollow statement unless I am able to bear arms of similar caliber (not literally, as in gun barrel size) as they who are attacking me. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

*I think the 2nd Amendment is outdated because, if I understood correctly, it was firstly written to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. Nowadays it's used as a right to self defense and kind of lost its original meaning.

This last bit gets me quite a bit. If anything, given our past presidency, this has simply reaffirmed in my mind the need for Americans to be able to defend themselves against oppressive government. I'm not saying that I'm ready to go out and start another grand Revolution, however I am thoroughly disgusted and quite jaded with quite a bit of legislation that's been passed in the last 10-8 years that impinges direction on our freedom (Patriot Act, DMCA). This is of course notwithstanding what the executive office deciding how it would operate, pissing all over the constitution in the process. The trend has been a constant erosion of our freedom as citizens, and more and more power taken in by the government who clearly has their constituent's best interests at heart. By constituents, I mean big business. The current economic crisis is a direct result of this corruption and greed. So much for tangents huh? At any rate, if the rubber ever does hit the road and the situation keeps getting worse and worse, then I would fight for what I believe is right with deadly force. Again, fighting someone who has a gun with a kitchen knife isn't exactly smart or productive.

[Che Roriniho]

Gosh, I don't know WHY the US doesn't follow the UK's example and ban guns. I mean, it was so terrible effective at reducing gun crime in the UK. Just like the knife ban! And no doubt the upcoming 'blunt object ban' will be just as successful.

I'm detecting sarcasm here, but I don't know why. How many people died in the UK as a result of Guns? For the year of 2004, there was 191 GCN. The whole of the UK. In the Us, it is about 11,000 (apologies, the source I am using (Beurau of Justice Statistics) doesn't give the exact number.
Given the fact that the population of the UK is about 60 million, and that of the US is about 300 million, I will times the UK number by 5 to get a comparitive size. So we arrive at 955. That is less than 10% of the US size. Oh, and the US data is just from Homicides. so that doesn't count accidental firearm deaths. The actual figure is probably MUCH higher.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I always get ignored here.

Fine, here you go.

I think the 2nd amendment should be abolished/rewritten, and instead allow for individual states to decide for themselves what sorts of gun laws they want. Different people function differently, and its no different when it comes to violence. I would volunteer two examples- Switzerland and Japan. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, as a function of their mandatory army services. Switzerland has extraordinarily low levels of violent crime. Japan has very strict laws on gun ownership, even on police, who are allowed, at most, a minimum caliber pistol. Japan also has extraordinarily low levels of violent crime. Both systems are capable of working, but they need to be applied with discipline and in the correct demographic circumstances.

The answer to this is very simple: Leaving the decision of gun control or not to the state governments is the same as leaving it up to the federal government. Bad.

[seireikhaan]

The answer to this is very simple: Leaving the decision of gun control or not to the state governments is the same as leaving it up to the federal government. Bad.

I know! I'll throw out random generalizations about other poster's beliefs and tell them they're freedom haters or violence mongers instead!

Awesome.