How does creating strict gun laws ensure less people will die? Look at marijuana, or any other drug, people still use it, and people will still get their hands on guns, and people will still shoot people. You are neglecting an entire side of the gun control debate.
No more illegal trade/blackmarket if it becomes legal; that's the beauty about removing embargoes.
Self-defence. If a man tries to rob your home, would you rather have a gun or a knife?
You're right, a gun probably won't help you in day to day life, nor will a security system. You get one to secure your possessions in the off chance that someone tries to steal them. As for the other citizens part, even IF there are strict gun laws, there will STILL be GUNS, and only CRIMINALS will have them. You are DEFENSELESS in this situation.I just don't get it :/. A gun isn't gonna help you in day to day life, it's not gonna give you any benefits in life either. > Protection? protection from what? other people with guns... Well you wouldn't have to protect yourself vs other guns if citizens weren't allowed to own guns in the first place.
Where do you live?
Let me put it the proper way.
I don't think it's an "against the people" to ban arms if you're in a republic. Elected officials represent the people, and can make political decisions on behalf of the populace. It is not immoral for the representatives of the people to decide that only government authorities should have the right to bear arms, as representatives in much of Europe have decided to great effect.
So it's worth it letting those 9000 die(if i have to turn ur answer around). Or it's worth it letting a percentage of those 9000 die while it could have been prevented with a more strict gun law(because not all of those people are killed by "legal guns").
I don't think you're answer to that will be Yes :/.
And of course the illegal trade won't stop, same here in Belgium. That's where the police/government comes in.
All i just don't get is why the heck do you even want to have the right to have guns OTHER THAN FOR HUNTING. I just don't get it :/. A gun isn't gonna help you in day to day life, it's not gonna give you any benefits in life either. > Protection? protection from what? other people with guns... Well you wouldn't have to protect yourself vs other guns if citizens weren't allowed to own guns in the first place
In the US, street criminals have guns(forgive me if im totally wrong xD) while over here the most they have, are knifes. Why? Because we never allowed people to have a gun of their own.
I personally think that everybody should contribute to prevent this in the future, citizens should take peace with a more strict law on guns, the police should also do their part of course. The US does have one big problem, there are already way to many guns already in circulation to be able to take any action against it.
If you ban something, in order to enforce the ban, you must force people to doing/possessing/whatever the thing that is banned. So, if you ban guns, you must force people to not have guns. Otherwise it would just be words on paper (which is all a law actually is).
That's one side to it. You are forced to have an official represent you, are you not? You are forced to choose between which official represents you, even though you consent to neither representation. Also, there is a tyranny of the majority at play here, elected officials have been elected by the majority, as for the minority...
Representatives of the majority of the people*
Yes, if the majority's representatives decide on a ban, then the ban will be enacted as long as it is in keeping with the other checks and balances of the government (which in this case, it is not). I see nothing unfair about that.
Yes, through the cumulative effects of human nature and our environment since the beginning of man, we are now in an anarchic international system of nation-states. Due to humans' strong proclivities towards power and our tendencies to disagree on specific issues, there will always be some people who are "forced" to do something against their will. That is how the world works. In a social situation with more than one person, politics are at play to decide who gets what and why. The general consensus is that this "majority rule" in a democratic republic is one of the most fair and unbiased ways for a population to construct a nation's laws.
I think I can change your mind fairly quickly on this one. Individuals' opinions will always conflict, as we are by nature self-interested. Therefore, we must be able to set boundaries for ourselves so we can live in social contexts. For example, if a sexually driven man lives in a social setting with a hot female, he will try to fuck her. However, the female has no desire to fuck the man. Therefore, to protect the rights of the female, the community decides to "force" the man not to fuck the female. By your logic, this prohibition of rape is immoral. Do you truly believe the prohibition of rape is immoral?
This argument makes no sense. Say the majority votes that the individual does not have the right to kill other individuals. Is this immoral, as it is forcing the individual not to kill?
So it's ok that some people are forced to do things against their will, so long as the needs of the majority are satisfied. I understand that people have differences and that somethings got to give, but that still doesn't detract from the fact that it is immoral to force the minority to do as the majority pleases.
Hardly my position. Rape is an initiation of force ergo it is immoral. The question you really want to ask is how can we stop the man from raping the girl without initiating force. If you want to know the answer, then ask.
Yes, it is immoral specifically when incidences of self-defence arise.
as a gun owner ( somone here old enough to buy a gun and not have daddy buy it for me) i think the right to own guns can't be taken away.
to all those sissy hippies that say they think they can do w/e they want/its dangerious. your all abunch of idiots.
passing stricter gun laws is ONLY i repeat ONLY going to take guns away from the law abidding citizens like myself, those guys that go and shoot up schools etc, didn't do the legal process t oget a firearm, all these laws are going to do is keep good people from getting guns, criminal will still find a way to get their hands on guns.
obama wants to use those kids death as a catylyst for his own agenda.
If we are going to ban guns for killing people, when are we going to start banning cars, prescription drugs, alcohol, knives, bows, shovels, hammers... the list goes on an on.
guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Revision WAS done...224 years ago. The legislative body in the US, Congress, has its power balanced by the executive (the president must approve the bill passed by the majority), the supreme court (which may rule against the bill on legal or constitutional grounds), and the constitution itself, which protects key rights from such legislative overstepping.,,
As I said before, as long as people have differences, some people will be "forced" not to do things the way they most prefer. That's the nature of politics.
I do want to know the answer. In a large enough society where not everyone has personal ties to everyone else, some people will always violates others' rights for personal gain. That's how we're built. Without an force-bearing authority, nothing will stop certain men from violating others' rights. i.e. rape, stealing, and other crimes will occur rampantly without the presence of force.
Please extrapolate on this; I am not familiar with that phrase.
A contract is worth nothing in an anarchic state (where force is not present). Just look at the history of international relations if you need proof of this. States are in an anarchic system; there is no overarching, hegemonic authority to control them and punish them with force. Therefore, agreements between states through international organization and international law are tenuous at best. Almost every agreement in history between states has been violated when it has been for the advantage of one state to do so, as there is no hegemonic force to stop the state.
This post concludes the debate. You may close the thread now.
Guns are already regulated. For example, there has been a ban on automatic assault rifles for decades. If you're not from the US, frankly you don't know wtf you're talking about and just wish you could own guns in your country.
Gun control is about taking away your rights slowly to see how much the government can get away with, when everyone is so emotional... baby steps
That image demonstrates nothing. All of Europe manages to survive with much less gun crime. Why? Because guns are banned. For the very few, sophisticated criminals who are able to obtain guns (and most likely arent going to use them against random civilians), the European governments have police forces with guns to deal with those crooks.This post concludes the debate. You may close the thread now.
This an absurd statement. First off, the federal assault rifle ban was allowed to expire by Congress during the bush administration, and is no longer in effect. Anyone outside of the US has just as much of a right to their opinion on this issue, and I bet a lot of them are very happy guns are banned in their respective countries.
This statement makes no sense. The United States government is "of the people, for the people, by the people". It is not a totalitarian regime of the nobles. How would taking away the guns of citizens at all benefit those in congress, or for that matter, the president.
Maybe he meant fully automatic weapons? You could theoretically obtain those legally but it's quite difficult.
Why?
A weaponless population is far easier to make sweeping decisions without threat of huge uprising you know. But, that never happens right?
I think you'd be better off not making uneducated statements... If you actually did any research you'd know that most Americans don't subscribe to that kind of hype. We can all be attentive of government decisions, but we aren't off our rocker paranoid about it.
Ok, have it your way.
I do not understand this point. Please rephrase.
I'm American. I'm highly educated. I've done the research. Obviously most Americans don't subscribe to the idea that government is out to get us, but Reaganism and succeeding right-wing movements have definitely embedded that idea way more into our culture than it used to be, for better or for worse.
Completely depends on where you are. Most in cities and universities are pro gun control, most in rural areas are anti gun control.
That's an idea I subscribe to. Maybe guns should be regulated like cars are regulated: written and physical test, as well as vision test, proof of age, and proof of mental stability to obtain a license.
