U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[Megalos]

First off, I'm British so you may want to tell me to go to hell, but I simply can't ignore the fact of all the recent shootings in the U.S.

Mindless violence often used in the "heat of the moment" seems to occupy about 70% percent of the "shootings" stories I read, 15% by some mentally disturbed person, 5% gang related the other 10% going to various reasons including extremism, pre med murder and robberies etc.

Now looking at that (I'm not saying that is exactly how things pan out, just by news circulation in the media) the top two reasons could easily be avoided by taking away the right to own firearms, simply by making it more difficult to obtain firearms.

I'm not saying it won't ever happen again, but it's certainly food for thought.


Is it time Americans reliquinshed their right to own firearms?

[Hooahguy]

congrats- you just opened a can of worms!
and no, the 2nd must always be upheld!

[Megalos]

It must be upheld why?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If someone threatens to kill you, you have the right to protect yourself.

If you heard someone breaking into your house, would you like to have a gun to defend yourself?

I believe if you fully consider the situation you would say yes.

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.

[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 While I find the amendment to be stupid and outdated, it is apparently a cultural and historical "BIG DEAL" for many people.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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[PowerWizard]

The reasons behind the second amendment - as i see it - are twofold.
1./ a well regulated militia
2./ security of the state

The two may intertwine, but not necessarily. Is a well regulated militia indeed needed to prevent the abuse of power of the government? If there's a serious abuse of power or a dictatorship or coup d'etat of some kind, the revolutionary forces would organize their weapon supply anyway. This right is also giving ground for coup d'etats by organizations who would like to overthrow the federal government with weapons. The state and its agencies should uphold superior firepower for situations like that.

"Security of the state" - while this may refer to the security of individuals, it is not a necessary implication. The state should take care of the lives of its citizens, if it is incapable of doing so, that's a matter of ineffeciency that can be improved. Allowing guns to be owned by anyone without any qualification equals giving guns to a bunch of potential criminals. It is a very dangerous policy indeed. The second amendment was reasonable and necessary in the revolutionary times when the Bill of Rights was formed, but it is unnecessary now. But yeah, Americans like to stick to their traditions, especially if it's the Holy Text of the Constitution.

[Crazed Rabbit]

First off, I'm British so you may want to tell me to go to hell, but I simply can't ignore the fact of all the recent shootings in the U.S.

Mindless violence often used in the "heat of the moment" seems to occupy about 70% percent of the "shootings" stories I read, 15% by some mentally disturbed person, 5% gang related the other 10% going to various reasons including extremism, pre med murder and robberies etc.

Data is not the plural of anecdote

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

It's not a right at all if the most effective means of practicing it are forbidden. It's like saying:

the right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to use mass communications devices.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

To everyone who says the Second Amendment is unnecessary, think about what you are saying. The instant you say that it is unnecessary - for whatever reason - and come to take it away, you have just made it necessary or proven that it is necessary.

[PowerWizard]

To everyone who says the Second Amendment is unnecessary, think about what you are saying. The instant you say that it is unnecessary - for whatever reason - and come to take it away, you have just made it necessary or proven that it is necessary.

By the same logic, the government couldn't tax you, because it is "your" money, not theirs. The more reason to have guns! Individual freedom is not boundless, especially if it endangers other people's lives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Is a well regulated militia indeed needed to prevent the abuse of power of the government?Yes because having the people speak out against corruption as brought so much progress.

If there's a serious abuse of power or a dictatorship or coup d'etat of some kind, the revolutionary forces would organize their weapon supply anyway. This right is also giving ground for coup d'etats by organizations who would like to overthrow the federal government with weapons. In other words, the crazy people who are in the vast minority, yeah big threat there.

The state and its agencies should uphold superior firepower for situations like that. Why do you think the government should be prepared at all times to crush its own people?

The state should take care of the lives of its citizens, if it is incapable of doing so, that's a matter of ineffeciency that can be improved. I never understood why people think we should let other people take control of our lives for us. If you think people are truely idiots at living their own lives, why would you let other idiots elected by idiots rule your life for you?

Allowing guns to be owned by anyone without any qualification equals giving guns to a bunch of potential criminals. It is a very dangerous policy indeed. Wrong, criminals buy guns from the black market in order so that the guns can not traced back to them if it is recovered after a crime, the only people who buy from legit gun stores are the average citizen, not criminals.

The second amendment was reasonable and necessary in the revolutionary times when the Bill of Rights was formed, but it is unnecessary now. But yeah, Americans like to stick to their traditions, especially if it's the Holy Text of the Constitution. It is still necessary if you wish for your governement to be respectful towards its own people. Also, great job slapping an incorrect generalization on Americans while alluding to the Bible when mentioning the Constitution.

at three characters need to be here for the post to go through. i think this is enough.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

By the same logic, the government couldn't tax you, because it is "your" money, not theirs.

EDIT: OK, my comment was needlessly insulting. Regardless, I think your logic is flawed.

Individual freedom is not boundless, especially if it endangers other people's lives.

Ah, of course, "for the greater good." When does the greater good trump individual freedom? Or is individual freedom the greater good?

I believe the latter.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Individual freedom is not boundless, especially if it endangers other people's lives.

Exactly! I want to know why nobody will take my proposal to ban all those deadly cars seriously. Everyone knows that certain groups of people are dangerous behind the steering wheel and we can't let our children walking to school accidentally be hit. I want a complete switch to bicycles, not only will public safety increase and deaths decrease, but the transportation industry will create thousands of new jobs when we need 250 people on bikes to carry what one 18 wheeler could.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

By the same logic, the government couldn't tax you, because it is "your" money, not theirs.

"No taxation without representation" was one of the reasons we rebelled against the British. The government doesn't have the right to tax you, it something the citizens agree to. Having said that, I'm not sure exactly what EMFM meant or what you mean.

The more reason to have guns! Individual freedom is not boundless, especially if it endangers other people's lives.

Privacy is an individual freedom that endangers people's lives. If we had cameras on every corner and radio tags in our bodies there would be less murder because the police could keep tabs on people with ease. But in this case I think you'd prefer individual freedom over people's lives. Instead of having a police state, we give people the ability to protect themselves.

[Marshal Murat]

The only gun crimes that reach any notoriety are those that involve hostages or mass killings. Just wanted to say that.

I support the ownership of guns because they enable me to defend myself and ensures the protection of my liberty. While it may seem anachronistic with no pesky Natives running around, the 2nd Amendment hasn't lead to the extinction of the American population yet. Gun crimes occur just like knife crimes in the UK. The Media does enjoy a good "hostage" situation or would mourn a tragic gun crime, but that isn't a norm now is it? It's part cultural, it's socio-economic, there are alot of factors that lead to gun crime.

But yeah, Americans like to stick to their traditions, especially if it's the Holy Text of the Constitution.

It's the highest law of the land. I'd like to stick to that.

[seireikhaan]

I always get ignored here.



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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I always get ignored here.



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

In NYC they ban handguns. That is an example of what you are saying, where it is better for the individual areas to make the laws. But it seems it is allowed under the 2nd amendment, so I don't see the benefit of abolishing it. I'm don't know much about the specifics of the law though.

[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]

In NYC they ban handguns. That is an example of what you are saying, where it is better for the individual areas to make the laws. But it seems it is allowed under the 2nd amendment, so I don't see the benefit of abolishing it. I'm don't know much about the specifics of the law though.

That is a minimum of what I talk about- I mean, each state should be allowed to have complete control over what gun laws they do and don't want enacted. Period.