The Second Amendment of the United States of America gives citizens of our country the "right to bear arms", but over the years legislature has come out limiting both the types of guns one can own, and who can own them. These types of legislature come from all levels of the government, federal, state, and local. The main distinction between laws is between each state, where some have strict gun-control laws, and others have very lax ones. The ban of "cop-killer" bullets, ones capable of piercing bulletproof armor, was done on the federal level, while bans on automatic and semi-automatic weapons was done on the state one, starting with California.
The Issue:
How far should gun control laws go? How hard should it be to obtain a gun? Where on the spectrum do you fall?
- Would you rather make it impossible for anyone to gain a gun, thus an attempt to prevent violent crimes, or would you rather be more lax, allowing people to defend themselves with a weapon?
- Assuming one legally owns a gun, do you support their right to Concealed Carry, the act of concealing a weapon on one's person in public? Or do you believe that if one has a gun, it should stay at home?
- Do you believe that assault (Automatic, Semi-Automatic) weapons should be banned?
- Do you believe that a wait period for a gun purchase should be used? The most recent legislature designates that, after applying for a gun, there is a five-day wait before you may receive your weapon.
- Should private militias be allowed to stockpile weapons? (This does not apply to gangs, or militias engaged in illegal activities)
28 comments:
# Would you rather make it impossible for anyone to gain a gun, thus an attempt to prevent violent crimes, or would you rather be more lax, allowing people to defend themselves with a weapon?
People should be able to defend themselves, ya.
# Assuming one legally owns a gun, do you support their right to Concealed Carry, the act of concealing a weapon on one's person in public? Or do you believe that if one has a gun, it should stay at home?
Concealed Carry is good.
# Do you believe that assault (Automatic, Semi-Automatic) weapons should be banned?
You don't need an auto/semi-auto to defend yourself. Should be banned.
# Do you believe that a wait period for a gun purchase should be used? The most recent legislature designates that, after applying for a gun, there is a five-day wait before you may receive your weapon.
Wait period is good.
# Should private militias be allowed to stockpile weapons? (This does not apply to gangs, or militias engaged in illegal activities)
No.
Why do you believe that private militias shouldn't stock weapons? Shouldn't they defend their members from possible attacks from those of different ideologies?
This is Anna L. :D
I believe that it should be impossible for the common folk to gain a gun, shooting sprees happen because people gained control of a gun and decided to use it.
If a person legally owns a gun, I think that if they live under certain conditions that require them to protect the themselves, then yes.
I think the semi-automatic / automatic weapons should be banned. Non-automatic /semiautomatic guns can still do damage.
Wait periods are needed, if you are a potential buyer and out to kill someone in a day, you now need to wait 5 days before getting that weapon, creating a chance for your victim to escape.
They are private militias, since they are not part of illegal business, then why not? They need the guns to defend themselves, although I do not see the need in stockpiling guns.
Haha, hey Anna :) Thank you for commenting ^^ You can use the "Name/URL" button down under "Choose an Identity" to type your name in ^^
Anyways, I like the idea that preventing people from getting guns in the first place, but what about the guns that are already out there? Or should that just be a problem for the police to tackle?
Yes, private militias could be formed either as Guns-for-hire, which is cleverly illustrated in "24" as the Starkwood company, or as a band of people of a similar ideology banding together to protect each other, as in cults. They stockpile weapons so that when new members come in, they can easily access a gun should they need one.
Private Militias are organized. If they are organized, they can and WILL become victims of crowd rage (dk the formal word for it) and do some very regrettable things. Even if they are initially peaceful and just defend themselves, some acts of public outrage, such as public reaction to 9/11 or Pearl Harbor might make them... not so peaceful.
first poster btw.
I think guns are perfectly fine. People should be able to defend themselves with weapons because of the various criminals out there. Concealed Carry will make criminals more reluctant to do whatever they do, leading to, theoretically, less crime. However, militias and organized small armies is a huge potential threat to public security that cannot be allowed to exist.
Ah, thank you for clarifying, First Poster. You make a very valid point. But, if these militia's are allowed to exist, the members would gain experience in combat, and they could be tapped into as an important resource to aid their country in a war. Not only that, but as we've seen after our wars, when Military veterans return home, they usually have a hard time finding jobs. The fighters in PMCs (Private Military Companies) have a constant job, in both times of peace and war.
Also, would you like to use a pseudonym? It'll keep you anonymous and you won't have to keep identifying yourself. :)
And to the second Anonymous poster, you also make good points. As in 24, the private army there threatened the United States with a biological weapon.
However, let me put, to both of you, an idea. What if these organized militias were allowed to bear arms, but had to comply with certain government regulations? Are there any regulations that you'd be willing to compromise with, or does that not ease your concern?
# Would you rather make it impossible for anyone to gain a gun, thus an attempt to prevent violent crimes, or would you rather be more lax, allowing people to defend themselves with a weapon?
Nearly impossible to gain a gun. Even though there will still be illegal weaponry, it will render the guns more difficult to obtain.
As to the guns that are already in people's possession, police should issue a mass recollection. But citizens should be recompensated for the confiscation.
# Assuming one legally owns a gun, do you support their right to Concealed Carry, the act of concealing a weapon on one's person in public? Or do you believe that if one has a gun, it should stay at home?
Leave at home. Concealed carry will make it legal for people to hide weaponry, and make it easier for gun-downs.
# Do you believe that assault (Automatic, Semi-Automatic) weapons should be banned?
Nopee; I think officers should be able to carry them. Not civilians though.
# Do you believe that a wait period for a gun purchase should be used? The most recent legislature designates that, after applying for a gun, there is a five-day wait before you may receive your weapon.
I don't see the point of a wait period. o.o
# Should private militias be allowed to stockpile weapons? (This does not apply to gangs, or militias engaged in illegal activities)
Yes. That's what militias are for, right? Immediate protection of an area? How can they do that without arms? A stockpile would allow the militia to have weaponry handy, but it will not create a hypocritical situation in which civilian members of the militia are allowed to keep guns around in their house. An inventory should be kept of the guns, though, as a stockpile would be an easy target for someone out to obtain a gun.
Wow, I did not think of that! Very nice! A collection to recollect guns from citizens.. That's not a bad plan. Reimbursement will calm some of the people who loose their guns.. And police raids could collect rogue guns.
Hm.. you trust officers with automatic weapons? Although, i guess if no one else besides Officers have guns, it wouldn't be too hard to prosecute one.. Your plan is pretty strong ^^
Wait periods, like Anna L. (Anonymous 2) said, gives victims a chance to escape by preventing the immediate purchase of a gun.
Yes, inventories are a good way of keeping check of your stores. ^_^ Great job.
I'd read Anna's comment before posting my own, and I suppose that would make sense, but the thing is, usually, when a murderer is out to kill a target, the victim is unaware of his/her danger, and, therefore, couldn't get away regardless of how long the evil-doer has to wait for the gun. Also, if the gunman had been planning the murder for a while, a mere five days isn't going to deter him/her.
Well, there is always the "Crime of Passion", where someone, usually a lover, is hurt so badly that they don't think straight and do rash things. This prevents them from running out, buying a gun, then shooting their rival in hot blood. At least, in theory. it really does, though, eliminate the "Crime of Passion" plea in a court case, though, replacing it with a straight, planned murder charge
I am extremely against the point of recollection of guns.
I believe guns are an inevitable part of living in America. The people who have attained their guns legally are not the ones going out there and killing masses, it's usually the ones who have attained them illegally. The recollection of guns would just rob those legit people of their security instead of its intended purposes. Criminals would feel safer, for their guns would be unparalleled and they would act out more. Thus, the police recollecting guns would probably do the opposite of keeping the peace.
first poster ya.
Haha, Crime of Passion. CSI: NY, wh00t.
The thing is, if it is difficult to get a gun in the first place, such crimes wouldn't be easy to commit regardless.
There will always be illegal ways to get guns. Smuggling from war-torn countries, etc. It just empowers the black market and the people who acquired it illegally instead of keeping the peace.
To hell with gun control laws.
All they do is screw over the innocent people who need guns to defend themselves.
They don't do shit on criminals, who ignore all laws.
So, if people will always find a way to get guns illegally, isn't it better to have the government regulate it? Or maybe just the state government should control these things, eg like people in Texas go hunting more than people in NY.
In my opinon, though, nobody should have guns in their home. It sends the message that we need the guns to feel safe.
I would imagine there are few people with guns who only have them in case of an attack, as opposed to criminals. We have policemen equipped with guns and that should be enough. It may reduce shootings if only people who need guns for their jobs should get them.
Hm, our Anonymous friend makes a very good point, yet again. While State control is nice, you have to realize that people cross state borders all the time, so it's easy to avoid state-bound laws by driving to a different state.
Hm, Davy, you seem to contradict yourself, or, at least, you aren't very clear in relation to your first and last parts. Even if the government regulates it so that only people who need guns for jobs can get it, you acknowledge in your first sentence that it is still possible to obtain them illegally.
Hm, Mr. Anonymous, how are you to the idea of using an increased amount of security to monitor our imports from other countries? Although I may eat my words in coming times, I don't think that smuggling weapons via plane is possible anymore. So, our only open spots are our borders, Mexico and Canada, and our trade ports. So, theoretically, if we could crack down on these access points, we could cut down on Black Market weapons (Among other things).
The problem with this is that it would cost money, as would a collection&reimbursement of weapons would. Although I have ideas in mind, what do you guys think we could do to solve the money problem, just to make this venture slightly less suicidal in these times of economical decline :)
I skimmed the 17 comments above, so I didn't really read what people said, but if I repeat something someone said, sorry.
I see where the need for guns come from, as it is a fundamental right as an American due to the Second Amendment, as the original poster pointed out in the background. The founding father had good reason to include the rights to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, as there was a need to protect Americans against British tyranny or other such cases of tyranny. As Jefferson himself said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." While history gave rise to such amendment, we must ask ourselves whether it still applies to the current state.
As Jefferson argues, the right to bear arms is to protect oneself against tyranny. While that is sufficient reason, given the state of affairs in the United States, I personally do not see it as a sufficient reason. The US government has not come close to "tyranny" that justifies bearing weapon.
People also argue that the right to bear arms is to prevent harm done on oneself. As a previous poster has mentioned, doing so implies that safety can only be achieved by bearing arms, and that should not be the case. In the ideal world, at least in my ideal world, there would be no weapons, no strife, and no violence, but we do not live in an ideal world. When it resorts to citizens bearing arms to stay safe, there is something wrong with society.
Speaking about gun control, when the government attempts some form of gun control, the NRA usually states that it's an attempt to take away the hunter's guns. I think having stricter gun control laws but still allowing hunters to purchase hunting rifles should appeal the NRA to a certain extent.
Of course, people do say that when there's a limit on availability of guns through legal channels, criminals benefit because they're the ones that gather it from illegal channels anyways and that should not affect them. If you look at recent killings involving guns, they were mostly all legally purchased. At the same time, when was the last time you heard that a person successfully averted a robbery or other such crime because they possessed a legally owned firearm?
I probably ranted for too long, but I don't see the need for normal citizens to have AK-47s or M16s. Hunting rifles, I understand, but automatic rifles, and even pistols, leave it to the professionals to protect us. If we can't even trust the police to help us, who can we trust.
This is what the last paragraph should read. edits are indicated in bold:
I probably ranted for too long, but I don't see the need for normal citizens to have AK-47s or M16s. Hunting rifles, I understand, but automatic rifles, and even pistols, not so much. Leave it to the professionals to protect us. If we can't even trust the police to help us, who can we trust?
Just on a side note-- if we should rely on the government and police to protect our welfare, should weapons be banned, it would also be necessary to have a more efficient police department, thought this may only be applicable to areas where security is lax. Regardless, this would also require more money.
Now, as the first time I'm actually performing my job as co-president of this blog: ;D
@James Gu:
I agree with you-- you make an incredible point about our democratic government, and how it is not run by fear or tyranny. However, what should happen if something were to go awry, and the United States government became corrupted? As unlikely as it is, it has happened to governments in history. If that should occur, will people be willing to rely on the police force--which may or may not be loyal to the government--to defend our rights? Or would it be better if we were able to act independently, without having to rely on others for protection?
In response to your second point, I must point out that the world is, quite unfortunately, far from ideal. While it is definitely a noble goal to achieve this Utopia, what should the people do while still working toward this goal? Should we all lay down our weapons, and hope for the best as we strive for the ideal society? Violence will occur as long as the goal has not been obtained; how should the people be able to defend themselves?
I think your third point is extremely thought-provoking; I back you 100%. :)
Thanks for replying!
Government has guns, criminals have guns, why not let the people have guns?
Hm, between reading James's, Iris's and Jeffrey's posts, I've come along to another problem that I didn't think about, when first decided to ask about Gun Control, and that's rebellions.
I'll have a separate post about protests and rebellions, but for now, do the people have a right to rebel against the United States's democratic government? Or, more importantly, at the moment, do they have the right to use guns and violence as a means of fighting the government, expressing their dissatisfaction?
Iris's recollection plan leaves the citizens unable to defend themselves against oppression from the government, so that is one more thing that will have to be considered- corruption. Once again, I stress "Prisoner's Dilemma", will one group or person take advantage of the situation, and how can that be prevented?
(Haha, and Iris, you don't have to steal my job, just cause your co-president of this blog :P Stick to your guns, man your arguments. I'll worry about keeping the debate flowing :) But you're still doing great ^^)
@Gib
In the Declaration of Independence, it writes, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." So technically, the people of the United States have the right to overthrow the government when it seems that the government is no longer helping the people. However, if you look at most stable countries around the world, there hasn't been much violent power struggles to remove the government.
@Hawk Dancer
Your points are very true, that there are countries who have fallen from its democratic roots and become tyrannical. As I've responded to Gib, the Declaration of Independence clearly supports the notion of overthrowing a tyrannical government, as we did during the American Revolution. Now, times have changed, and back in the days, there were Minutemen and the militia who had stockpiled rifles. However, the path to tyranny is often a gradual one. When it seems that the path to tyranny is inevitable, the people can still then begin to stockpile weapons and hope for the best. But, like I mentioned to Gib, there hasn't been much violent overthrowing of stable governments in recent times. With the increased international cooperation in recent times, no other country would like to see a stable country erupting into a Civil War or a Revolutionary War. Also, if you look at the colonial periods, where the colonial powers took over much of Africa, Asia, and South America. Then look at them again today, most of these countries have become independent and soverign nations. Even today, many of these nations have little means of defending themselves, arms wise, and yet they were still able to drive the colonial powers away from their homeland, which seems to imply that tyranny never works too well and are always replaced by another, more just, form of government.
About the police. Their goal is to protect the citizens, as its the goal of doctors to save patients. When the police no longer recognizes that goal or no longer supports that goal, then something else must be done. I don't know if Gib plans to do a topic on vigilantism, but if I keep talking, it'll go into vigilantism and off topic. Which is no good. :[
About the unideal world, yes, I agree, the world is unfortunately unideal. And you are correct in saying that we can not just lay down our arms and just hope for the best. However, if we believe that a gun is needed to protect ourselves, then something is wrong, and it only leads to escalations. If the criminals are currently only carrying pistols, and I only have my bare hands, they will think that they have an advantage. But when I go to a gun store and purchase a hand gun, their advantage is no longer valid. So in response, they will go out to purchase an assault rifle. When they do so, I will feel threatened, and purchase an assault rifle, which will lead them to purchase Kevlar and grenades. If this process continues, it'll only lead to an escalation in arms purchasing and will only lead to war. While it is true that I'm now able to protect myself because of the guns, there are unfortunate others, who because they don't have a gun, faces greater danger because the criminals are now welding assault rifles.
That's all for today. :]
Yes, James, I understand that the Declaration says that, but even so, the Declaration is merely that, a declaration. Whether or not it has any legal standing, I do not know, but I do know that no self-respecting government would willingly allow its people to overthrow it.
But then again, you are right, there haven't been in the more stable countries. You also make a very good point that international cooperation plays a big part in maintaining a stable partner.
But what if some catastrophe causes us to loose our stability? We're under economic duress, our federal system is taxed, our borders unsecure, our security haywire. Who knows what could push us over the edge? To add onto that, other nations may see it in their better interest to support a "newer" form of government in America. Countries like Cuba (Pre-Obama), suffering under trade embargoes, would love to support a more open government. Enemies of the state, North Korea, as a possible example, would also like to sieze the oppertunity to see America submerged in chaos.
Thanks for the idea James, vigilantism will be added to the list, with your name next to it :)
I love your layout of events, James. But, as a result of civilians having more weapons, what if organized crime members saw an increase in casualties? Would they risk capture by the police, stockpiling large weapons, or death while attacking an armed civilian? I think that if it became harder to rob people, organized crime recruitments might face some serious setback. What do you (and other? Anyone else there?) think?
"Hm, Mr. Anonymous, how are you to the idea of using an increased amount of security to monitor our imports from other countries? Although I may eat my words in coming times, I don't think that smuggling weapons via plane is possible anymore. So, our only open spots are our borders, Mexico and Canada, and our trade ports. So, theoretically, if we could crack down on these access points, we could cut down on Black Market weapons (Among other things)."
Smuggling black market is usually done using mass shipping boats or planes. As authorities cannot check every single shipment and every single carrier in that shipment, it becomes easy to smuggle large cartons of weapons. I believe it is next to impossible to cut down on the smuggling. You might catch one or two smugglers, but the grand scheme of smuggling is much much much grander than what is practical to restrict.
-Anon 1
"About the unideal world, yes, I agree, the world is unfortunately unideal. And you are correct in saying that we can not just lay down our arms and just hope for the best. However, if we believe that a gun is needed to protect ourselves, then something is wrong, and it only leads to escalations. If the criminals are currently only carrying pistols, and I only have my bare hands, they will think that they have an advantage. But when I go to a gun store and purchase a hand gun, their advantage is no longer valid. So in response, they will go out to purchase an assault rifle. When they do so, I will feel threatened, and purchase an assault rifle, which will lead them to purchase Kevlar and grenades. If this process continues, it'll only lead to an escalation in arms purchasing and will only lead to war. While it is true that I'm now able to protect myself because of the guns, there are unfortunate others, who because they don't have a gun, faces greater danger because the criminals are now welding assault rifles."
You're taking it to too much of an extreme.
Criminals WILL be violent, and to just give them free reign by banning legit guns is just stupid idealistic thinking. Besides, if they had access to assault rifles/machine guns, they probably wouldn't be carrying pistols in the first place.
Hm, i concede defeat in light of your first point, Anon-1.
However, I do not necessarily agree with the second point. If criminals were going to be violent, wouldn't they draw more attention to themselves? It isn't easy to cover the sounds of assault riffles firing, certainly that would attract attention. You forget that, in the dark world of crime, silence and secrecy are just as important for carrying out missions as mass-terror. While low-life-expectancy gangsters shoot up schools in drive-bys, highly organized mobs kill people with suppressors. There's two sides to this blade.
wonderful article... may help me a whole lot,it is Exactly what I became searching for! Many thanks. Runescape Gold
Post a Comment