Should there be more or less gun control?

Aristotle said:

I have always found the topic of gun control interesting and I recently had this debate with one of my peers. I believe that gun control does not help rid of crime and that there should be less of it. I really believe in the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

How does everyone else feel about it here?

Click to expand...

In my opinion we need less gun control and more people control.

I agree with gun control. We really should control the number and calibre of firearms (and other weapons) that the Government has. If we really think they should have any.

Doesn't bother me much either way. I don't know why Americans make such a big fuss over gun control.

Delta said:

Doesn't bother me much either way. I don't know why Americans make such a big fuss over gun control.

Click to expand...

Looking at the big picture, imagine we didn't have guns when we wanted to rid of King George's rule or if France didn't have them when they overthrew Louis (xvi I think it was) or during any revolution that has occurred since the invention of guns. Would these revolutions have been successful had the government only held the guns and perhaps more importantly how much more blood would have been lost?

The idea that the government can have guns and the citizens shouldn't is just absurd. A few bad apples doesn't mean everyone should be banned- the only gun ban I would support would be one that bans guns within and outside of government and some how makes sure no black markets for guns can form- this of course is impossible.

And as the bans in the UK and Australia show, banning guns or certain types of guns does not cut crime- in fact, both of those nations have seen similar or increased murder and crime rates after banning guns. Aristotle, I completely agree guns don't kill people, people kill people.

edit: I just wanted to add that while this may seem a little drastic it does happen and that is why we cannot consider this sort of possibility fringe. Need an example? Check out an Iranian news today.

Thanks to the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court, we will all have more control than ever before. If you take the time to read the majority decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, you will find that the court left virtually all gun-control except an outright ban on handguns intact.

Weapons should certainly stay when talking in the government/state/international level. However, on a more individual level, does the ordinary Joe really need a gun? For what purpose? I come from a background where individuals cannot own guns and, hence, am befuddled at US's stance on this actually.

myp, you make a good point that a few bad apples shouldn't spoil it for everyone. However, comparison between a government/state/international level and an individual level is incorrect as the latter does not affect as many people. Every life is precious and security is important; while guns can keep you safe, no gun at all can make an overall, safer community.

Static said:

Weapons should certainly stay when talking in the government/state/international level. However, on a more individual level, does the ordinary Joe really need a gun? For what purpose? I come from a background where individuals cannot own guns and, hence, am befuddled at US's stance on this actually.

myp, you make a good point that a few bad apples shouldn't spoil it for everyone. However, comparison between a government/state/international level and an individual level is incorrect as the latter does not affect as many people. Every life is precious and security is important; while guns can keep you safe, no gun at all can make an overall, safer community.

Click to expand...

And what if banning guns actually increases crime rates? I read an examination on this a bit back, in which the article looked at Australia I think it was. After banning guns, their crime rates actually went up.

Here's my take on it: when people want things, they find ways to get them regardless of what the government says. Banning guns will only mean good citizens won't buy guns, but criminals probably won't hesitate to go to the black market- which is often more dangerous and leads to more crime that it's white market counterpart. The war on drugs or prostitution are great examples in this as well.

I think from a practical, moral, and equality standpoint, that guns should be legal to own by an individual.

You got a great point there myp, but I think you come to such a conclusion because the United States has been quite free when it comes to guns. It is true that people will get their way around things when they really want it. However, whether it is gun control or drugs or prostitution, stopping it doesn't mean that you just change the law. You try to patch up all the little holes that you know of, any holes that you predict, and further holes as they come up that you never thought of. It is true that you can't stop it completely, but I think in the long run, a drop in crime rate due to guns will happen.

I think it can be somewhat in parallel with the idea of people from say Cuba coming over to the States by boat. To me, such illegal entrance is absurd and unthinkable. I would certainly question the government's immigration department and ask why they promote "the face of the country at her borders" idea that is seen all over the international airports. Once you ban it and you start to fix all the little details, after some period of time, you will see a change for the good in terms of immigration and you will see that the general opinion of the society regarding people coming in by boats is one of huge disapproval.

In somewhat of a same way, gun control obviously won't stop people immediately. However, long term efforts are sure to put a stop to these people. More and more people will also be against the idea of holding guns. When the society has a general consensus on something, one or two bad apples' aren't going get it their way.

By the way, regarding drugs, remember all those incidents of drugs being carried through condoms? For all we know, before we caught the first, there probably were many cases where such illegal transfers were possible. It's just a matter of finding the ways these people act and putting a stop to it. The first comes with changing the law. The second is taking physical action to fill in the areas that words just can't stop.

Static said:

You got a great point there myp, but I think you come to such a conclusion because the United States has been quite free when it comes to guns. It is true that people will get their way around things when they really want it. However, whether it is gun control or drugs or prostitution, stopping it doesn't mean that you just change the law. You try to patch up all the little holes that you know of, any holes that you predict, and further holes as they come up that you never thought of. It is true that you can't stop it completely, but I think in the long run, a drop in crime rate due to guns will happen.

I think it can be somewhat in parallel with the idea of people from say Cuba coming over to the States by boat. To me, such illegal entrance is absurd and unthinkable. I would certainly question the government's immigration department and ask why they promote "the face of the country at her borders" idea that is seen all over the international airports. Once you ban it and you start to fix all the little details, after some period of time, you will see a change for the good in terms of immigration and you will see that the general opinion of the society regarding people coming in by boats is one of huge disapproval.

In somewhat of a same way, gun control obviously won't stop people immediately. However, long term efforts are sure to put a stop to these people. More and more people will also be against the idea of holding guns. When the society has a general consensus on something, one or two bad apples' aren't going get it their way.

By the way, regarding drugs, remember all those incidents of drugs being carried through condoms? For all we know, before we caught the first, there probably were many cases where such illegal transfers were possible. It's just a matter of finding the ways these people act and putting a stop to it. The first comes with changing the law. The second is taking physical action to fill in the areas that words just can't stop.

Click to expand...

Well as an american I can tell you right now our gov't is heading for a wall at full speed. I'd like to have a little something when the crash happens and peaces start flying, otherwise i'll be 1 of the pieces.

Static said:

However, whether it is gun control or drugs or prostitution, stopping it doesn't mean that you just change the law. You try to patch up all the little holes that you know of, any holes that you predict, and further holes as they come up that you never thought of.

Click to expand...

You can't patch a flood with once brick. What happens when those "small patches" start to add up in costs. I am not sure if you are familiar with the United States' current "war on drugs," but it has cost billions of dollars, has thrown tons of people in jail who have done victimless "crimes" and yet, drug usage is still around where it used to be. If you look at prostitution you will see similar things- the book Superfreakonomics actually looks at it statistically within the city of Chicago and the numbers before and prohibition of prostitution are actually the same percentage wise. The same holds true for guns.

In a world where there is something like 1 gun for every 12 people, those black market guns will find their way out and the people buying them will likely be the real criminals- these laws will only stop law-abiding citizens from buying guns. Politicians can make as many claims to patching up these holes with different strategies as they want, but to date I have never seen any numbers that suggest any of their "fixes" have actually worked. It is simply a Utopian delusion carried by those who want gun bans (or drug bans, prostitution bans, etc.)

Static said:

It is true that you can't stop it completely, but I think in the long run, a drop in crime rate due to guns will happen.

Click to expand...

I am not worried about the crime rate due to guns here. As you said, life is sacred- that is what I am worried about. Does it really make much of a difference if the murderer used a knife or a gun? The overall crime rate is still what matters.

Static said:

I think it can be somewhat in parallel with the idea of people from say Cuba coming over to the States by boat. To me, such illegal entrance is absurd and unthinkable. I would certainly question the government's immigration department and ask why they promote "the face of the country at her borders" idea that is seen all over the international airports. Once you ban it and you start to fix all the little details, after some period of time, you will see a change for the good in terms of immigration and you will see that the general opinion of the society regarding people coming in by boats is one of huge disapproval.

In somewhat of a same way, gun control obviously won't stop people immediately. However, long term efforts are sure to put a stop to these people. More and more people will also be against the idea of holding guns. When the society has a general consensus on something, one or two bad apples' aren't going get it their way.

Click to expand...

You say that more and more people will be anti-gun. So are you saying that this sort of legislation should be used to control the way people think? Who says that government is right? As J.S. Mill wrote, we are all human and in the end no one knows for sure who is right even if something might seem right at the time (not a direct quotation.)

Let's say it was right and we did pass it. Even then, I don't know if more and more people would actually be against guns anyway because as we see with the War on Drugs, a lot of Americans still want to legalize drugs- in fact, there has been quite a resurgence in light of the potential tax revenue considering the state of debt this nation is currently in. Thankfully, legislation does not control minds.

And again, why is it that in countries such as the UK and Australia, where there have been these kinds of bans, that the murder rates and crime rates still haven't seen significant decrease? Even after time has passed, we have not seen much progression.

And in addition, what happens when the people truly need protection from government? I don't know if you saw this post that I made earlier, but check it out: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpost.php?p=8152&postcount=5

Static said:

By the way, regarding drugs, remember all those incidents of drugs being carried through condoms? For all we know, before we caught the first, there probably were many cases where such illegal transfers were possible. It's just a matter of finding the ways these people act and putting a stop to it. The first comes with changing the law. The second is taking physical action to fill in the areas that words just can't stop.

Click to expand...

These fixes will eventually end up throwing innocent kids in jail and criminalizing victimless crimes. As I have described above- it does not work in the real world.

The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). The problem, in a nutshell, is that the prohibition against "infringement" does not preclude "regulation." Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute. As Justice Antonin Scalia stated for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller:

?Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. (Citation Omitted) For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. (Citation Omitted) Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (FN 26 Omitted)

?We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." (Citations Omitted)? District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008).

I believe every citizen should have the legal right to protect themselves and that includes the right to own guns. It would however have to be important that the guns are registered, and that citizens have shown proof that they have done training in how to use guns, also that they understand the responsibility of how to maintain their guns as well as keep them in a safe and secure place. Irony if people are not allowed to carry arms to protect themselves, they would be the only target of Government checking on them not having guns. Those culprits who are responsible for killing people are usually ones who are owning guns illegally, and will always have guns. Until that can be sorted out so that there would be an equal playing field for not having guns, I believe all citizens should be able to purchase guns subject to regulations for safe carrying of arms.

When good people are kept from owning guns in society, only bad people have guns.

Dirk said:

When good people are kept from owning guns in society, only bad people have guns.

Click to expand...

Very true and very well said my friend.

Dirk said:

When good people are kept from owning guns in society, only bad people have guns.

Click to expand...

Dirk, you really have to get into the business of politics, maybe become a campaign manager. This is a really good slogan.

deanhills said:

Dirk, you really have to get into the business of politics, maybe become a campaign manager. This is a really good slogan.

Click to expand...

Oh, the irony!

Dirk said:

Oh, the irony!

Click to expand...

Talking about "sleeping with the enemy".

Static said:

Weapons should certainly stay when talking in the government/state/international level. However, on a more individual level, does the ordinary Joe really need a gun? For what purpose? I come from a background where individuals cannot own guns and, hence, am befuddled at US's stance on this actually..

Click to expand...

Yes, the ordinary Joe needs a firearm. I live in small town America, we don't have cable tv, there are areas that don't have cell phone coverage. If you call 911 and the deputy on duty is at the other end of the county it can easily take 10 minutes for him to arrive at my house even with lights and siren. If I am off in a remote pasture, in the woods, riding a horse, camping, on a dirt road, and the cell phone works, it may take hours to find me.

It's not just people that can pose a threat, either. My neighbor was attacked by a rabid fox a couple of years ago. He jumped in the back of his truck, but the fox kept after him. He had to shoot the fox.

Where I live, you have yourself and your neighbors, that's it, and that's the way I like it.

Static said:

myp, you make a good point that a few bad apples shouldn't spoil it for everyone. However, comparison between a government/state/international level and an individual level is incorrect as the latter does not affect as many people. Every life is precious and security is important; while guns can keep you safe, no gun at all can make an overall, safer community.

Click to expand...

As to the idea that "no gun at all can make an overall, safer community", do you have any evidence of this?

As you may guess from my earlier comments, everyone in my neighborhood has firearms. Its part of life in rural America. I have never heard of an "accidental shooting" or injury in my neighborhood. People know how to use them and handle them properly.

Florida has a very liberal policy regarding citizens carrying a concealed weapon. Statistics from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement show that since the CCW law was enacted (1987), crime has dropped across the state and in major cities (Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville). The total crime rate in Florida in 2008 was 4.7%, the total violent crime rate was 0.67%. The annual crime rate from 1971-2008 is provided at the bottom as an attachment.

From 1987 through 2008, Florida has issued a total of 1,593,602 Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) Permits. Of these permits, 5,035 were revoked for various reasons (but 572 reinstated), 167 for committing a crime with a firearm. As a percentage, 0.28% of all permits have been revoked, 0.0105% of all permits were revoked for a firearm related activity. In fact, the data shows that the CCW community in Florida has the lowest crime rate of any group in Florida. It is so low, that the state legislature is considering not even contiuing to collect the data any longer.

dave said:

Yes, the ordinary Joe needs a firearm. I live in small town America, we don't have cable tv, there are areas that don't have cell phone coverage. If you call 911 and the deputy on duty is at the other end of the county it can easily take 10 minutes for him to arrive at my house even with lights and siren. If I am off in a remote pasture, in the woods, riding a horse, camping, on a dirt road, and the cell phone works, it may take hours to find me.

It's not just people that can pose a threat, either. My neighbor was attacked by a rabid fox a couple of years ago. He jumped in the back of his truck, but the fox kept after him. He had to shoot the fox.

Where I live, you have yourself and your neighbors, that's it, and that's the way I like it.



As to the idea that "no gun at all can make an overall, safer community", do you have any evidence of this?

As you may guess from my earlier comments, everyone in my neighborhood has firearms. Its part of life in rural America. I have never heard of an "accidental shooting" or injury in my neighborhood. People know how to use them and handle them properly.

Florida has a very liberal policy regarding citizens carrying a concealed weapon. Statistics from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement show that since the CCW law was enacted (1987), crime has dropped across the state and in major cities (Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville). The total crime rate in Florida in 2008 was 4.7%, the total violent crime rate was 0.67%. The annual crime rate from 1971-2008 is provided at the bottom as an attachment.

From 1987 through 2008, Florida has issued a total of 1,593,602 Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) Permits. Of these permits, 5,035 were revoked for various reasons (but 572 reinstated), 167 for committing a crime with a firearm. As a percentage, 0.28% of all permits have been revoked, 0.0105% of all permits were revoked for a firearm related activity. In fact, the data shows that the CCW community in Florida has the lowest crime rate of any group in Florida. It is so low, that the state legislature is considering not even contiuing to collect the data any longer.

Click to expand...

I would imagine that especially in a State like Florida, where the crime rate is so high, that one would need a gun to protect you. If South Africa is any comparison, one would think that those living on farms in small communities would be safe from criminals, but quite often criminals from the cities make their appearance in small towns, or on farms. Working with animals and living near wild life would probably be a reason in its own right, but people seem to be more threatening than animals in overall. Especially criminals who are always carrying guns. I would think that ideally and instead of wanting to take away fire arms, funds should be invested to train people better in using guns, as well as scrutinize people who should not own guns, as sometimes people would buy guns for reasons other than self-defence. Difficult to guage that, but I'm sure there could be signs to watch out for, like someone with a history of real bad depression for example.