I don't know how big this is in European countries, but in the United States and even Canada now, this has been something politicians have argued over. Not so much today in the U.S., but in the past 5 years, it has been a hot topic. I was compelled to write this because I saw a YouTube video of a Canadian governor who wants to implement gun control into his city's legislation. This also made me realize that if the U.S. does elect a democratic president (Obama), gun control will no doubt be brought up again. So, do you agree or disagree with gun control? I disagree strongly. This accomplishes nothing but putting law-abiding citizens at greater risk. Let me explain. Besides the fact that it goes against the U.S. constitution *glares at the Bush Administration* and that areas with more lenient gun laws have less firearm-based violence, this legislation is simply pointless. People who obey the law will give up their guns. But just like with drugs, people who chose to break the law will still find a way to get their hands on guns. Whether its importing or making home-made guns (trust me, some people would do this), they will find a way. So, in the end, the bad people have guns, and the good people are defenseless. Thoughts? EDIT: This might belong in the Debate Corner.
The problem in America is not the legislation. It is not the fact that the majority of the population owns at least one gun ( >_> ). It is the mindset. It is a mental problem with (apparently) the general American populace. For example, in Canada there are more guns per capita than America, and yet the proportionate number of gun related fatalities every year is massively less. How can this be possible? Also, taking guns off of people would not work now. People have had them for too long and it is completely ingrained into the society. It would just end up being driven even further underground. As for the part about it being against the "Constitution" *cough* that is an obsolete section which should be removed as soon as possible. It has been left over from when there was no American army. This meant that civilians had to keep weapons so that they could be called up as a militia at short notice. Nowadays the USA has a rather large army and therefore no need to arm its population.
I agree mostly. As for the Canadian proportionate sales of guns, I think it has to do with the huge U.S. population since there are more people to actually buy the guns. And as for the Constitution, you're right that the Right to Bear Arms Amendment is outdated, however removing a piece of the Constitution would be a bad idea in my opinion. It would show how politicians could abuse the Elastic Clause to do what they want, and it would be a slippery slope. Remove one Amendment, and the others are open to being removed as well. I think the Right to Bear Arms Amendment should stay.
It should at least be Amended (again I don't see the point in this, either it stays in its entirety or it goes completely and is replaced >_>). The slippery slop argument is a slippery slope in itself <_>
In Ireland (where I live) there is pretty much zero gun crime. Probably only 1-2 % of the population own a gun. However, "banning guns" or whatever will definitely not help the problem in America. It's a social issue that needs to be remedied and treated as such. Putting restrictions on having a gun will make people want them even more. =.= That's not to say that I think everyone has the right to a gun. If they weren't there, people wouldn't need them to protect themselves using guns in the first place.
Well not to get over dramatic, but the whole reason the founding fathers put in the Right to Bear Arms Amendment was so future generations could rebel against a government bent on taking away their liberties. Again, don't want to sound over dramatic, but does the idea of a government trying to take away our liberties sound so alien nowadays? Thomas Jefferson thought that there should be an armed rebellion every 20 years. That's very outlandish, but he is correct that an armed rebellion is necessary at times. I'm not saying right now or even in the immediate future, but someday it could very well be necessary. And what's so slippery about the slippery slop concept? xD Well in the U.S. it's different with the gun thing because everyone automatically thinks they deserve a gun because of the 2nd Amendment, where in reality, a great deal of the population should never be in contact with a gun. I agree entirely that it's a tradition and social issue. Do I think there should be stricter methods through which people obtain guns? Yes. Do I think guns should be banned entirely? No.
The more people quote the slippery slope argument the more it's mentioned lol And yes I know that it is said that the government should fear its people, not the other way around. But what is the point of a government with so little power and that is so weak that it is in danger of being taken over at any moment? Governments need to be in power for a certain amount of time for them to have any effect. They need have the time to see some of their legislation through.
The 2nd Amendment was not just about letting people have a gun for military purposes. It was the point of also keeping the government in check and that the populace had a way if something like Hitler happened, having a safety against it. Really, in the end, I don't believe there's a problem with the Constitution and wish we'd follow it more...but I digress. Guns have both led people to make good and bad decisions. They have saved people's lives and also some people hunt and they can be for sport, which these things don't bug me really as long as someone isn't poaching. Guns have certainly helped crime and every time people try to take guns away, the black market gets more money. I do agree with making sure anyone who purchases a gun has to meet requirements such as not having a criminal record and also displaying proper ID that can be checked etc, but I also feel that taking away gun rights would just erupt into madness as the criminals can ALWAYS get guns and the people that want to defend themselves would suddenly be quite powerless. Unless people are willing to go through each house etc and conduct searches to remove them all there's just no way of decreasing guns. Gun 'control' I agree with. Removing guns, as much as I don't really care for them, is just not going to happen, regardless of what people want. If they make a 'gun war' it will be as successful as the 'drug war'. In the end, the point is to make owning guns a lesser important thing in society and to fix up areas of society that require it. Guns themselves aren't necessarily the problem and are tools. It's people's mindsets and their activities they do that are the real problems. There are plenty of people that own guns and do the right things with them. However, the ones doing the wrong things that are harmful to society...it's really time to analyze their culture mentality more and make guns less appealing to them to use to settle conflicts with.
the governor in my state tried to set up a "one gun a month" policy but then the NRA took it to court and it didn't happen. i just dont' understand why some people find the right to bear arms more important than decreasing the amount of guns to prevent life loss.
The problem I think would be that every time a 'right' is modified, people who are against it even existing have won a victory and will try again for more ways to take away the right. The little amendments to rights happens enough that we've lost some rights except as a shadow of a memory. Also, it really isn't having an effect on the people it should have the effect on. Often rights like this that are adjusted still make the criminals stronger while others suffer for it. If it was not for the fact that people so against something would do this, the 'one gun a month' issue would have been no problem. Right now so many of our rights have been slipping away and most people don't want to move to a fascist state where we can't go back and reverse decisions.
that is true that it might not affect criminals who are the people that it should be affecting but even illegal guns have to come from somewhere. i heard that people are allowed to buy like 100 guns at one time if they wanted to. unless that person happens to be a gun collector, i seriously doubt they would need 100 guns, and i heard that a lot of criminals purchase guns in bulks like that and then illegally re-sell it to people. i mean, one gun purchase a month would make guns less readily avialable and it's not really taking someone's right away to own a gun, i mean they can still own it but just not get as much at once. i dunno, the "one gun a month" sounded pretty good to me. i do think there needs to be more gun control laws because ppl can buy a lot of guns at once. oh, does anyone know if they do background checks for guns?
I do agree the 'one gun a month' thing sounds good to me too unless someone is doing some business like a shooting range. I just think it was argued because of the reason I said because people are worried anymore that if we give up any parts of rights we have the potential to utterly lose them. I would be for the rule pretty much everywhere in this country if not for that reason. There is a mandatory background check on anyone who purchases a gun. Usually background checks take a week or two here in NY. Not sure about everywhere but many states are like that. If you have a criminal history you automatically disqualify and age is a factor. Other than that, I think anyone can get a gun but has to go through the waiting process so people don't tend to be able to walk in somewhere and buy a gun and walk out the same day.
this wil be one of my shorter replys as far as gun control gos their should be a backround check on those wanting to puchase one and i whould allso like to mention a quote a kid i know who is actuly quite in love with guns who constantly recites and that is "guns dont kill people do"
