Hmm... let's ponder this question for a minute... better yet, let's start by rephrasing it: "Should your constitutional rights be stripped away from you in the name of supposed public safety?" Now we can properly answer it - NO.
People argue that guns cause more problems than they end.
"School shootings occur because people have access to guns." Common recent examples of this claim include the VT shootings and the NIU Valentine's Day Shootings. If you stop and think about it... if students on both campuses had been legally armed, the tragedies would likely have been stopped sooner. Considering the size of the classroom involved in the NIU shooting, at least 10 students would have a gun in that room. Now let's run thru the shooting - crazy gunman walks in with a visible intent to shoot. If one of those 10 or more students pulled out their gun, it is likely that NIU would not have had as many casualties as it did. Same with VT. If students in the classrooms had been armed, they could have stopped the shooter.
"Kids accidentally kill themselves while playing with their parents guns." Here's a thought - lock your gun up. Keep out of reach of children isn't just a suggestion for perscription drugs and household cleaners. If you're worried your children will get curious about the gun, do what my grandpa did - take the kid out and let them shoot the gun in a controlled situation in which they cannot hurt anyone so they won't get struck by curiosity later and go play with guns when you aren't home.
"Shooting sprees happen because crazy people get guns. By not allowing anyone to have a gun, this prevents them from falling into the wrong hands." They have forms that people must fill out in order to get a gun. They have to pass certain tests. They have to wait a certain number of days before they are actually able to get the gun. Limitations are already placed on our Second Amendment rights... you cannot take away the right completely.
Here's something people don't always consider - if America were to make guns completely illegal, there would be an uprising of organized crime. The rusult would be similar to what happened during prohibition - mob bosses and others becoming organized with a sole goal - to make liquor (only in this case guns) available to those who wanted it and were willing to play with it. By making guns illegal, people similar to those in the days of Prohibition will rise up and create an even more dangerous society. Consider this - guns are illegal, that means police cannot have guns. If the police cannot have guns, and criminals get ahold of guns via the black market, the criminals are unstoppable. Pepper spray is not going to beat a gun. That's like putting up scissors and trying to convince everyone that they can defeat rock.
Taking away the constitutional rights of Americans gives the government even more power - something that is dangerous in and of itself. But taking away the constitutional right of the American people to bear arms... that is even more dangerous.
8 comments:
I find your idea that if, somehow, everyone were armed at all times (in public) that this country would be safer, absolutely preposterous. Think about all the crimes-of-passion and spur-of-the-moment-type crimes that would increase if everyone carried a gun.
I don't think that guns should be made illegal, I just did not understand that first part of your post.
what didn't you understand about the first part of my post? it's pretty self explainatory.
Crimes-of-passion are LESS likely to happen if people are armed. Would you be willing to pull out your gun and shoot someone if you knew they were armed as well? What if they were quicker on the draw than you? People aren't always willing to take that chance.
I also do not believe I said that everyone should be armed at all times. I believe that not everyone should have a gun. Some people (i.e. people with diagnosed mental disorders such as schizophrenia) should not be allowed to have weapons. I believe that there should be restrictions on who should be able to purchase weapons. Not everyone should be armed. But banning guns and enforcing laws such as "if you have a gun in your house the gun must be empty and the ammunition must be in another room" are abosultely rediculous.
I disagree with you on the crimes-of-passion issue, because at the base of those crimes is the fact that the perpetrator is not thinking clearly. If you were in such an uproar as to possibly kill someone, do you think that the person would take the time to think, "Oh, they have a gun, too."
I don't.
And you proposing that students carrying guns in school would prevent massive school shootings is what made me think you were assuming that carrying guns all over the place in public was a good idea.
Or do you just think that they should be carried in places with documented history of gun crimes?
I know for a fact that if a fight is breaking out and that person knows the other one has a gun they are much less likely to pull their gun out because they know the other person can do the exact same damage to them and the people around them. So yes, people do stop to think before they pull out guns, and most of the time they actually pull the guns out for show and intimidation, not with the basis to harm anyone.
like Meg said, people do stop to think and a lot of the times guns are just for show because they give the person a feeling of dominance or control over the situation.
i am not proposing that guns should be allowed at all schools - i'm saying at colleges where students are adults and can legally carry guns they should be allowed to do so. there are some places where guns should not be allowed, such as court rooms - only the police officers in the court rooms should be allowed to have guns. I'm arguing that people have a constitutional right to carry guns and they should not be limited if they pass the tests to obtain the gun, with a few exceptions.
no
The amendment wasn't meant so people could hunt. It was put in the constitution so if the govt got out of hand we would have a defense.
Okay, Amelia can tell you, and I think Tyler knows, I am a HUGE firearms enthusiast. Hell, I think Tyler and I may have logged more time together at Boy Scout shooting ranges than anywhere else, to be honest.
Now I want to break this down a lot. First I believe that the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms only those Americans who are in well-organized militias that are necessary to the security of the nation. We call these people members of the [insert state name here] National Guard.
However I am pretty sure that it does not say anywhere in the constitution that private American citizens are not allowed to keep firearms for sport, personal protection, or entertainment.
The utility and power of firearms has changed since the ratification of the constitution, but there are many other things the constitution never addressed, like commercial air transit, electronic communications, nuclear warfare.
Somehow, over the centuries, our elected representatives, and the people we gave them power to install, have come up with ways to interpret the spirit of the constitution that also successfully regulated these fields the founding fathers would have found unfathomable.
Now to my stance on the issue.
Should everyone be allowed to carry a firearm?
No.
Should certain people be allowed to own and operate any firearm they please, even fully automatic large caliber weapons?
Absolutely.
The bleeding-heart liberal will argue that most modern firearms were in fact specifically designed to kill people. Swords were designed to kill people, too, but we are allowed to keep them. So the "intent of design" issue has no legs to stand on.
And to be nit-picky, cartridges, not "guns" were designed to kill people, modern firearms are designed to chamber and fire these cartridges sending their load down range accurately or in rapid succession (in some rare cases, both).
With that argument covered, I move on to the stance that they should be banned because of the "danger such items pose to the public." People are allowed to own automobiles. We've seen how dangerous motor vehicles can be in the wrong hands.
And let's face it. If firearms were unavailable and someone wanted another dead, then they would find a way. Murder predates the first hand cannons by many millennia.
I see no reason to restrict the ownership of any firearm to hobbyists, sporting experts, outdoorsmen, or anyone of sound mind,with no regards to the necessity or utility of the weapon in question. A perfectly sane person should be entitled to "squeeze off" a couple thousand rounds from a General Electric Minigun for enjoyment, if he or she can afford to, and can be reasonably expected to do so in a responsible manner.
Would I feel safer if everyone carried a firearm? Certainly not.
What I believe firearm selection should be deregulated but ownership should be heavily regulated.
It honestly would not bother me to see civilians carrying full auto AK-47s or M-4 carbines or the like if I knew that it was the result of a thorough government screening, as well as regulated training in operation, handling, and ethics of firearms ownership.
That is why we do not fear soldiers with M16s, or police officers with magnums (ok, some of my ultraliberal brethren might); we know they are responsible handlers (usually).
I would like to state that I think that a world without firearms would be safer than a world with them, but I do not think we should sacrifice our freedoms for security. Frankly, I don't think conservative Bush supporters (not claiming anyone here is one) can validly argue that point though, as the Bush administration illegally monitored private communications just to scratch the surface.
As for crimes of passion, they are called such because people rely on their passion over their reason when they decide to commit them. Fatalities as a result of crimes of passion would certainly rise if firearms ownership was proliferated to just anyone.
PS: Guns are the deck emplacements on naval, artillery pieces, and the offensive armament of mobile armor. If you can hold it in your hand, you will refer to it in formal discussion as a firearm. Anyone who can not take me seriously on this matter of using terminology correctly, is not responsible enough to handle firearms.
Post a Comment