The Gun Debate
#1
Alright, before we start, I want to settle a few things right now. This thread has obvious potential to spiral out of control, and to hurt a lot of people involved. So be respectful, do not lose your temper, and keep every point said in mind. I love a good debate, but when it begins to hurt people participating in it, it turns sour.

If you do spiral the thread out of control, consequences will follow, along with the closing of this thread until it is cooled down.


Now, on to the debate.

Guns have become a very hot debate topic in the United States recently, and the two main sides are the people who want restrictions on guns and people who believe gun rights are protected by our Constitution, and therefore should not be touched.

I discussed this matter a few months ago, but never got feedback, so I will base my first post off of that monster wall of text:

Quote:In my own little mind, I do believe that gun control attempts will be made by the United States government at some point in the future. I do believe there will be more devastating school shootings before and after this happens. Why? Well, first, the writers of the Constitution, meaning to or not, made an extremely flexible guideline to America's government. This has allowed it to last as long as it has, and include support for laws for things like conservation of nature and energy, something that obviously was not an issue back in the end of the 18th Century. Keep in mind, they also didn't have amazing innovations in weapons. They had muskets that took quite a few seconds to reload on the battlefield, and shot once. But the fact that the Constitution is so flexible allows our government to analyze this and possibly, depending on how many Republicans and Democrats there are in the current House and Senate, pass new laws and amendments that alter or change the Second Amendment.

Let's look at the Second Amendment:

Quote:As passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.

This has been interpreted up to this day in history for America that citizens of the USofA have a right or privilege (Definitely depends on who you ask) to own a weapon of sorts, be it a 9mm Pistol, 20ga Shotgun, or even a machine gun.

However, let's say the United States decided to interpret the wording of it differently. Perhaps, looking specifically at the terms "A well regulated militia", the government decides to allow citizens to have arms at the condition that they meet criteria, maybe even going through military training for the weapon they want to have. This could work. It could help filter the American citizens who should not have weapons. Those who are mentally ill, or those who just simply aren't responsible enough to handle a firearm.

Issue with this solution is the ever-blurring line between responsible enough to handle a firearm and the citizen staying safe. And there are always going to be different definitions of safe. Some people just feel safer with an AUG in their garage, while others are fine with a pistol or even a baseball bat with the words, "Kiss Me" written on the side. And this is the point where the government really needs to step their foot in and tell the citizens what is proper defense and what is just plain and simply insane fears of the local SWAT team going berserk and challenging you to Team Deathmatch in your home without warning.

Now, why do I believe that even if the government took these measures, there would still be shootings? Well, as it has clearly been stated in this thread previously, two big reasons:
  • Clear evidence during the 1920s ban on alcohol that if the government should try to keep such a large and popular product out of the hands of everyone, they will inevitable fail thanks to dare devils like Al Capone, who can evade the law countless times, supplying alcohol during the ban, effectively ruining the purpose of such an action
  • Huge blackmarkets outside of the US, which would allow many to smuggle weapons in without having to worry about relying specifically on gang lords or city suppliers in the nation, perhaps at better deals

And these are more of the same: Smuggling in weapons is as easy as smuggling alcohol under Coolidge. If you'd like evidence, below I'll provide you a few links that elaborate on who Al Capone was, and how unsuccessful the prohibition of alcohol by the US was.

Al Capone:
http://www.chicagohs.org/history/capone.html
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famo.../al-capone

Prohibition:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1920s/p...bition.htm

Quoted from the source for Prohibition:
Quote:It led to the first and only time an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was repealed.

This time period can serve as a possible glimpse into one path the US could go down if it did put a total ban on guns. I seriously doubt we'd see a revolution, that we would see the "Second American Civil War". Why? Because Americans would probably aren't looking to make their own nation. The US went through a Civil War because of government balance (And there are a lot of opinions on the exact reasons, this is my opinion, judge if you must). The southern states had been trying for so long to maintain balance in congress so it would not be outvoted on issues that concerned only them and not the opposing northern states, and once Lincoln was elected into office, out of fear of not being able to protect their own beliefs, the south seceded from the United States, in the vision of creating their own government that they had been going after since the debates concerning the creation of the Constitution had gone on.

Americans who lose their guns wouldn't be so much concerned with creating a new nation as they would with making a lot of noise, protesting, and trying to get the government to listen and kneel to their demands. And many may wise up and realize that it is just a repeat of prohibition. That there will never be a "Gun free America". And then you'll just have a new debate: What do we do with all these hardened gun dealers?
Reply
#2
My personal views on guns are this: I have never liked them, and I will likely never own one. I was not raised to believe in guns.

However, policy-wise, I get it. People want to feel safe in their homes. I know I do. But the problem with this is that there are people on the right that are totally misinterpreting the gun debate and the President's response to it. I don't believe that he wants to take away everyone's guns (that is when even I would say he is going too far...because that's unfair). However, the President and his administration wish to regulate gun purchasing, and strengthen background checks to make sure people who shouldn't have them don't get access to them.

In addition, there is absolutely no need for anyone to have a military-grade weapon in their ordinary home, within the reach of both children and those who might not be mentally stable (the latter has led to multiple school shootings). If people wants a gun for hunting or simply for defense, then fine. But it should be a simpler weapon (not one used for war) and the owner should be mentally stable.

That's just my two cents.
Let's Play channel

Let's get to know each other =]
Reply
#3
This will probably sound like a massive insult to Americans, but I want to make it clear that I do not like American society. There are such things as nice Americans, sensible Americans, and so on. There are plenty on this site. But get enough Americans together and the mob equation turns the group into a bunch of sqeauling idiots with the mentality of a five-year-old. I do not like American society.

Personally, I've always seen it as America should never have had guns available to the citizens the way it is. It should be gun-free, like my native Britian. The problem is that so many Americans are making a great big childish hoo-hah about the possibility of having their precious precious guns taken away, no matter ho remote the possibility actually is or the fact that too many of them lack the responsibility to actually use them well. It's spoken of as a divine right and that the responsibilities don't matter, when the shootings say otherwise.

Canada has guns, and far less gun crime. There are other countries like that. But America wants to have the rights without the responsibilities and acts like a whiny teenager when not given them. But what should you do with a teenager who uses what you've given them recklessly? You take it off them. America as a country is incredibly immature and the natural thing to do should be to take the offending object away.

Unfortunately, that won't happen. If they did try to confiscate all the guns, then not only would the whole prohibition analogy likely happen but what do you think will happen to the ones told to go and confiscate all the guns? They'll likely be shot by the whiny idiots who can't bear to have their precious precious guns taken away. Y'know, the very people who shouldn't be trusted with them in the first place.

There's no way what I think SHOULD be the situation over there (i.e. British style no guns) will ever happen. But the methods of getting one should be FAR more stringent. My suggestions for this include:
  1. Seperate licenses for hunting and general use
  2. Hunting licenses being far more stringent than general ones (until the day hunting is banned, at least)
  3. General licenses forbidding any gun other than fairly weak pistols
  4. General licenses requiring extensive background checks more thorough than currently
  5. General licenses requiring mandatory psych evals and mandatory gun training (minimise risk of hurting innocents)
  6. General licenses needing renewing every couple of years, including a new psych eval
  7. Psych evals are of EVERYONE in the house if you intend to keep a gun
  8. Being forbidden to have a gun in the house if you have children younger than 18
This often catches me out, too, but Xander the Crocoal is female.
Avi by DevArt user DragonA7X, taken from here. Free to use.
'...No matter what you do or what you become: You are nothing less than beautiful.'--SCP-1342
'One voice is small, but the difference between zero and one is as great as one and infinity.'--SCP-1281
[Image: 76561198157421562.png]
Reply
#4
Screw it, I'm engaging in necrotheurgic double posting because I found out something interesting. Specifically, Switzerland's gun laws. See, those guys don't exactly have a standing army; instead, they have a conscripted militia. As a result, everyone in said militia is allowed to keep their service gun, resulting in a similar level of gun ownership as the US. Except that it's for defense if the militia gets called up. Essentially, I think that this is what the Second Amendment was actually trying to get.
This often catches me out, too, but Xander the Crocoal is female.
Avi by DevArt user DragonA7X, taken from here. Free to use.
'...No matter what you do or what you become: You are nothing less than beautiful.'--SCP-1342
'One voice is small, but the difference between zero and one is as great as one and infinity.'--SCP-1281
[Image: 76561198157421562.png]
Reply


Forum Jump: