Gun control?

Go down

Gun control?

Post  ExoticWhiteMan on Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:26 pm

So, the supreme court recently took a pretty conservative move and struck down a handgun ban in Washington DC. Many have criticized the decision as belonging in another century, but as for me, I think it's a practical solution to a problem this country has. We can outlaw handguns all we like, but bans have failed to keep dangerous criminals from being armed and dangerous. While we can make it hard to get a weapon or illegal to have one in 'gun free' zones, there's physically nothing stopping someone from walking into a classroom or shopping mall armed and dangerous.

The idea behind gun bans is that if guns are restricted/banned, gun violence will be severely reduced. Also, guns are largely used in suicides, and should be banned for that reason, too. True, guns can kill, but it comes down to people choosing to kill. If someone wants to use a gun on innocent people, it isn't difficult to obtain one illegally and carry it concealed. Unless people are patted down in malls and colleges, or police patrols increase by a lot, there is nothing but the consequence of the law protecting innocent people from a madman. And when someone is crazy enough to kill people, the consequences won't do much to stop them. Counting on laws that are extremely difficult to enforce (if the weapon is concealed, police won't notice) to protect innocent people is only going to stop the criminal after the fact, not before they commit the crime.

Ok, that was a bit long winded. Pretty much, just a ban isn't going to stop criminals from going on a rampage, unless lots of money is poured into physical measure like police/gun raids. The only easy way to ensure the protection of innocent people, is to give criminals a real incentive not to go on a rampage: the threat of people immediately firing back. Unless there's a threat of private citizens retaliating right away, a criminal has the freedom to rampage for a short while. At Virginia Tech, and other places, if a few of the victims, upright in the law, were armed for public protection, the criminals would have almost surely been stopped dead in their tracks, and many lives would have been saved. The only major obstacle to this solution to effectively protecting the public is the burning question: can upright citizens be trusted with their weapons? And how can police hand someone who accidentally shows their concealed weapon?

I guess, none of these questions are easy to answer. Without a doubt, mr. mentally unstable will think twice if many of his potential victims are armed. But, going along with gun use for suicide, this solution is useless if people can't be trusted to use their weapons only for protecting others and themselves. What would be the consequences of allowing people to conceal licensed weapons? Can the licensing process be reliable enough that only upright, clean-record citizens are armed?
avatar
ExoticWhiteMan
Admin

Posts : 81
Join date : 2008-07-05
Location : Southern NJ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun control?

Post  PokerFace on Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:28 am

I think putting guns into the hands of the "right people" is something that is difficult to assess. After all, we have tried to select people for certain things based on how we see them--and occasionally, these people run amuck or things change. Take some politicians, for example. To be elected, people see them as fitting candidates for the job, and sometimes things may go wrong and scandal breaks loose. You can apply this situation to other events where someone is chosen based on who the majority thinks they are as a person.

My point is...how can you really tell who is good and who is bad? It kinda sucks that I feel we need to assume this kind of skepticism when it comes to the general public, but there are bad people out there. There are bad people out there that masquerade as good people. There are good people that become bad once their emotions get the best of them.

It's difficult to asses who and who should not have guns because it is hard to assess each person on an individual basis and determine their state of mental health days, weeks, months, or years after receiving the "ok" to own a gun.

And yes, you were right when you said that none of these questions are easy to answer because even in typing this response I wasn't even so sure of the answers myself! silent

PokerFace
Admin

Posts : 22
Join date : 2008-11-03
Age : 29
Location : Philadelphia, PA

View user profile http://ssaddiction.proboards101.com/index.cgi

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun control?

Post  Church1ll on Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:43 pm

In this day and age, there really is no way of telling who is good or bad. Even background checks don't really prove anything, as you can't tell what anyone is going to do in the future. Really, the right to bear arms (2nd amendment) only applies in situations where civilians must protect themselves, which in turn protects the country. Basically, it was designed as a quick and easy way to tell people to arm themselves and prepare to fight in the event the nation was attacked on its own soil. Once our country established a very powerful military this amendment basically was interpreted as "anyone can own a gun to protect themselves" and basically left out the bit on using that right to protect the country. I think....it's been awhile since I picked up a US History book or looked at anything that has to do with our nation's history.

Anyway, like you both said there isn't really any way to stop people from getting guns no matter what laws are put in place. The best evidence of this is to look at drug laws. Every drug banned in this country is still widely used, especially in the poorer regions of the country. This is because there is no efficient way of stopping the drugs from getting into the country, which in turn makes it even more difficult to search each and every person from getting them. Guns would work the same way, although smuggling a box of handguns is going to be a bit more difficult than smuggling a box full of cocaine due to metal detectors and such.

By the way, even the most clean-cut citizen could actually turn out to be a psychopath acting like a normal well-behaved person. There is no way to tell what someone is going to do without seeing the future...which by then it's too late.
avatar
Church1ll
Admin

Posts : 103
Join date : 2008-06-27
Location : New Jersey

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Update :-)

Post  ExoticWhiteMan on Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:16 pm

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/12/02/jlott_guncontrol/

This article speaks for itself. All the points I mentioned in my post are in here. The incident in Mumbia, India is also used to demonstrate the safety of arming citizens, since India has extremely strict gun control, the police cowered, and the terrorists were free to go on a killing spree. Israel is also brought up, since Israel used to fall victim to machine gun attacks. But since citizens were allowed to carry weapons, the terrorists' had to resort to bombs, and the article goes into implications like that. A really good read :-)
avatar
ExoticWhiteMan
Admin

Posts : 81
Join date : 2008-07-05
Location : Southern NJ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun control?

Post  Gustavus_Adolfus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:52 pm

every American has the right to bear arms!

And I have always wondered of a scenario where everyone always had a gun with them....imagine how a robbery of a bank or something would go when the robber knows every person around them has a gun. Shocked
avatar
Gustavus_Adolfus
Admin

Posts : 78
Join date : 2008-06-27
Location : South Jersey Shore

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun control?

Post  Church1ll on Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:09 pm

I actually didn't think of that. Chances are, if everyone had a gun there would actually be less crime because everyone knows everyone has a gun. Think of it this way: if no one had any weapons of any kind, crime would be much less because potential criminals know that they are at the same or lesser power than their victims (assuming more than 1 victim of course). The same logic applies with guns, but with this little tidbit thrown in: it only takes 1 bullet to kill, regardless of the gun that fired it. Your size does not matter, how much you can bench does not matter, how fast you can run does not matter. One bullet to the chest, head, leg (if it hits the femoral), neck, or foot (a bullet wound to the foot is extremely deadly, draining blood from the body like water draining from a bucket with a hole in the bottom) and you have about a .01% chance of survival. Criminals will know this, and thus will be far less inclined to commit crime.
avatar
Church1ll
Admin

Posts : 103
Join date : 2008-06-27
Location : New Jersey

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Archie is right

Post  cherashine on Thu May 07, 2009 10:14 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM This is hilarious but would solve the problem of the armed bad guys or girls.. Razz
avatar
cherashine
Associate Member

Posts : 13
Join date : 2009-04-11
Location : down south in jersey

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun control?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum