Gun Control Debate

[Spearing]

Right, let me lay down that only intelligent arguments should be posted. If you are simply looking to post "I liek guns, #bangbang" fuck off.

Here's the statement:

Strict federal control & regulation of firearms, no matter the specifics of them (fire rate, magazine size, etc. etc.), is imperative to reducing gun-related crimes in the U.S.

Begin.

[Jacob]

Guns should be outlawed.

[Hugh MacKay]

I'm just gonna quite myself. Don't understand why we need 2 threads though.

As Gragnok said, people will always be violent and many doesn't follow the law, but it still helps. I can't remember when we last had a case of shootings where people actually got killed. We got a few gang-fights over in Copenhagen, but it's only the really hardcore crimininals that got acces to guns.
And no, going with the "If I have a gun I can protect myself" doesn't work at all. In that cinema at the Batman-massacre, a few guys actually was armed but could do nothing as the attacker was much more heavily armed and used gas and shit IIRC.

Interesting reading: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

My condolences to the families.

[Budzinskiy]

It should be like in France.You may be allowed to have gun only if you subscribe in a shooting club.Furthermore in France,we also can only own historical black-powder guns like those beauties at home:

Spoiler

[close]

Spoiler

[close]

We also can have some hunting weapons but you need a license for it.
That's why don't have such massacre like in the USA.
Although we have a lot of problem with gangstas but they are gangstas so ...

[Pinball Wizard]

Well the 2nd Amendment was for protecting the people against the government. Clearly, we don't really care about that now with all these crazy laws they set up and the huge military they erected. So, why not take away our heavy duty guns of war?

I say let us keep our hunting rifle, someone who wanted to go on a rampage, could not do so with the hunting rifle, at it is slow to fire. Plus, allowing us hunting rifles keeps the people who love guns happy. Going on with that; maybe the ability to buy guns if you are looked into by a therapist and psychologist, plus you need 1 year of hunting lessons.

[Hugh MacKay]

Well the 2nd Amendment was for protecting the people against the government. Clearly, we don't really care about that now with all these crazy laws they set up and the huge military they erected. So, why not take away our heavy duty guns of war?

And I'm also quite sure the 2nd amendment stated they that had to be part of "a well regulated militia" to be allowed to bear arms. Don't think every citizen in the US is a part of "a well regulated militia" and should ever be allowed to.

[Jacob]

Tighter gun laws are what is needed, however with such a large population the po po are a minority compared to the general populos, so it's hard to regulate everyone

[Treble]

Guns shouldn't be allowed.

[Pinball Wizard]

Well the 2nd Amendment was for protecting the people against the government. Clearly, we don't really care about that now with all these crazy laws they set up and the huge military they erected. So, why not take away our heavy duty guns of war?

And I'm also quite sure the 2nd amendment stated they that had to be part of "a well regulated militia" to be allowed to bear arms. Don't think every citizen in the US is a part of "a well regulated militia" and should ever be allowed to.

Well in the defense of the people who shout 2nd amendment, no one is actually teaching us what the amendments say or connects them to the times of which they were written in, so "guns for all with the 2nd amendment" has been so mainstream thinking.

[Diplex]

I agree with the most of you.

No one really has guns in Sweden, except for the hunters up north, who only have a shotgun or something for their hunting.

[TheBoberton]

So hang on, 'unintelligent' gun related stuff isn't permitted here, but a page of uninformed, unintelligent railing against gun rights is?

Good job.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the "People" (At the time consisting of the adult white male population) shall not be barred the use of arms (At the time, muzzle-loading firearms), in order to ensure that, if the need arises that the People can resist threats, domestic or otherwise. It would only make sense that such things would extend to more than just blackpowder weapons, given that armies (Both ours, and those of our 'enemies') have evolved beyond such tools.

Also, if anyone is confused about the language of the era.

[DaMonkey]

 Well, ask yourself this. Do criminals care if owning a gun is illegal? No. They will get one anyways. What does it mean for them? Their victim will not have a gun, and therefore there is no risk of doing your crime.

Edit: And there is no "well regulated militia." I guess what can be considered so is the National Guard. Local 'well regulated militias' are not allowed anymore, as that would technically take away from the pool of the regular Army's recruits.

[Odysseus]

Guns should be better restricted in the US.

In Canada, There are non-restricted firearms, restricted firearms and prohibited firearms.

Non-restricted firearms are any hunting rifle like a bolt action or shot gun and a license isn't to hard to get.

Restricted firearms are pistols an concealable firearms, licenses for these are much more difficult to aquire.

Prohibited firearms are any semi automatic or automatic firearm, these are restricted to mostly military persons only.

I personally think that the only firearms available to the public should be blackpowder weapons and one shot bolt action rifles, because these have slow reload and would help prevent violence.

[Melmil]

Since it seems like no other people have actually posted the text from the Congressional 2nd Amendment, I'll do it here:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What I find interesting about the phrasing of this amendment is that it's fairly ambiguous, and was probably intended to be so, so that the future citizens and statesmen of the United States can define it themselves. So far, I haven't seen it defined fairly definitively, and it seems that it will continue to be that way in my lifetime.
I'll just post how I read each little phrase and clause in this, primarily so I can find fallacies in my thinking with help from this community:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

In this particular line, a well regulated Militia could be many things, including a pool of able bodied people capable of being drawn for national defense, a specific defense service, a reserve army, or a privatized military group. In addition, the particular text refers to the militia as being necessary for the security of a free State. Consequently, that could mean that the free State requires the militia in order to remain secure.

Considering the role of volunteer military units in the War of American Independence, I would consider a militia to be a locally organized group responsible for the defense of their national ideas within their area of origin. In addition, due to the fact that the area was embroiled in a war, there was a general lack of security in communities, thus leading to the militias.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

The citizens of the nation's right to keep and bear weapons, without any clear intention, is permissible and protected under law.

Due to the fact that this is included in the same sentence as the one about militias, I would think that citizens are able to keep weapons in order to be part of a militia quickly.

shall not be infringed.

The government maintains all abilities to revoke these rights at any time, and can brutally oppress their people using any objects or weapons which they wish.

The rights referred to in the earlier part of the sentence can't be violated.

Not sure how this plays out, but there's my take on this.

[Hugh MacKay]

Well, ask yourself this. Do criminals care if owning a gun is illegal? No. They will get one anyways. What does it mean for them? Their victim will not have a gun, and therefore there is no risk of doing your crime.

Ehm, wrong! Many european countries have so well regulated arm-laws that only the very most hardcore criminals have guns and they are just extremely rare. I mean, carrying a knife in public here in Denmark can easily put you right in jail. Calling it a police-state? Nah, you can just stop carrying a knife if you don't have any legal purpose for it.
There was a documentary a few years ago in danish television where a guy that had been undercover in a gang couldn't even buy a gun after 1½ years and getting quite deep into the gang.
So no, with proper laws you can easily avoid guns in a society.

Edit: And no risk in doing a crime? WHat? So punishment isn't a risk? Several years in prison? Nah but okay, after all USA is the country with most prisoners per capita...