Should people have a legal right to carry guns?

To solve world problems

Moderator: Moderators

DiscipleOfTruth
Scholar
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:08 pm

Should people have a legal right to carry guns?

Post #1

Post by DiscipleOfTruth »

We live in a society that tells us we are supposed to rely on the police in a dangerous situation. However, by the time a person can call the police, depending on the serverity of the situation, it's too late or there wasn't an opportunity. If the victim was even successful in making such a call the time it takes for them to arrive on the scene could be unsatisfactory. And what about the people who are likely to suffer from police brutality, shouldn't people be able to protect themselves against those who are suppose to be their protectors? And if such a thing was to happen my secondary question would be shouldn't people have a legal right to wear appropriate gear against guns(vests, etc)

Personally, I feel that I should have this legal freedom to protect myself against any possible unexpected situation where my life could be in danger. Because I know that I am not going to use this freedom to be one of the people looking to hurt other in an easier way.

I'm having mixed thoughts about whether or not I would actually want this to pass as a legal freedom for everyone, though I feel I should have it. And here's why:

Positive:People who plan to obey the laws of their land for whatever reason and live a productive, legitimate life are better equipped to protect themselves against anyone who threatens their desire to enjoying a happy, safe, prosperous life.

Negative:People who wish to hurt others for whatever reason in whatever way now have a easier way of doing that. Especially since they could walk by police and not have to worry about getting arrested for the posesion of weapons anymore.


How do we make the world into a safer place if people are not better prepared to protect themselves? The only scenario that I could imagine of attempting such a goal without enabling my above statements is (and alot of people won't like this) if we removed all traces of privacy by enabling cameras everywhere(or almost everywhere) imaginable, and designed it so that equipment is placed everywhere to detect illegalized weapons on any person. But then, again, we'd have to further rely on those who are supposed to be the ones protecting us and be made vulnerable to them. And when it's all said and done who would actually observe the observers of the observers and so on to keep them in check?

User avatar
His Name Is John
Site Supporter
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 am
Location: London, England

Post #2

Post by His Name Is John »

Nope.

You are found with a gun, you should get 5 years minimum. That is what we have in the UK (or something similar - where 5 years is the standard) and we have barely any gun crime at all (to be fair, we have barely any guns at all).

It should be 2 years if found with a knife.

Then it just stops being worth carrying.
“People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.�
- G.K. Chesterton

“A detective story generally describes six living men discussing how it is that a man is dead. A modern philosophic story generally describes six dead men discussing how any man can possibly be alive.�
- G.K. Chesterton

Fides et Veritas

Post #3

Post by Fides et Veritas »

First. Thank God we don't live in the U.K. which I don't think is a united kingdom anymore anyway... It's pretty much just Britain now, right?

Second. I agree with the O.P. that there are surely plus and minus to anything. How many car accidents are caused a year by people too old, too young, too distracted or too dumb to drive? Yet they still get their license.

With guns... well here where I live you cannot Conceal carry one if you have every had a protection order against you, been busted for fighting or threatening, domestic violence or any other reason. You can still own one (which I think is a recipe for disaster.)

We live in a country where criminals can still buy guns. No matter how much you regulate John Q citizen into not being able to the criminal still can. So... whats better an unarmed populace w/ armed criminals or armed populace with armed criminals. See my point? As long as there are armed criminals there really isn't a fully safe way to role on this one. No matter which direction we choose its a gamble with human life.

Guns in general a extremely dangerous and highly lethal. So are cars. Gas furnace, Hot water heaters and even clothes dryers. Not to mention the electrical sockets in your house. We live in a world fraught with danger and the dangerous. I would rather in the end role my dice so that I might have a slightly better round of odds of surviving an encounter with a criminal than to be the one left bloody in the street.

This is why I carry.
This is why I support intelligent gun legislation.
This is America and the Second Amendment says I can.

So I will...

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #4

Post by McCulloch »

The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force is the conception of the state expounded by Max Weber. This conception of the state as holding a monopoly on force has figured prominently in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century. The state is defined as a community successfully claiming authority on legitimate use of physical force over a given territory.

To me, one measure of the success of a government, is the degree to which this monopoly is respected. In a state where the actions of the police and the military cannot be trusted to do their job adequately, there is a need for private citizens to arm themselves to make up for the lack.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
His Name Is John
Site Supporter
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 am
Location: London, England

Post #5

Post by His Name Is John »

Fides et Veritas wrote:First. Thank God we don't live in the U.K. which I don't think is a united kingdom anymore anyway... It's pretty much just Britain now, right?
I don't quite get what you are saying here.
We live in a country where criminals can still buy guns. No matter how much you regulate John Q citizen into not being able to the criminal still can. So... whats better an unarmed populace w/ armed criminals or armed populace with armed criminals. See my point? As long as there are armed criminals there really isn't a fully safe way to role on this one. No matter which direction we choose its a gamble with human life.
If you made guns illegal for everyone but the police, then presumably criminals couldn't buy guns nearly as easily. The better situation would be have barely anyone with guns. But I agree that you can have armed police, and they will keep those criminals with guns in check.
Guns in general a extremely dangerous and highly lethal. So are cars. Gas furnace, Hot water heaters and even clothes dryers. Not to mention the electrical sockets in your house. We live in a world fraught with danger and the dangerous. I would rather in the end role my dice so that I might have a slightly better round of odds of surviving an encounter with a criminal than to be the one left bloody in the street.
All of those things serve another purpose, being dangerous is a side effect, with guns that isn't the case. Guns are designed to kill.
This is why I carry.
This is why I support intelligent gun legislation.
This is America and the Second Amendment says I can.

So I will...
You have a right to do so, just as I have a right to think it is wrong.
“People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.�
- G.K. Chesterton

“A detective story generally describes six living men discussing how it is that a man is dead. A modern philosophic story generally describes six dead men discussing how any man can possibly be alive.�
- G.K. Chesterton

Haven

Post #6

Post by Haven »

I'm with John and McCulloch here -- I support a strict ban on all firearms. The nonsense about gun control increasing criminal gun violence is simply that -- nonsense, as numerous studies have shown. European nations have tight gun control laws and they all have low rates of gun crime; in fact, low rates of violent crime period. A ban on guns, combined with an assault on poverty by the implementation of socialist economic programs and structures, will lower violent crime rates in this nation.

DiscipleOfTruth
Scholar
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:08 pm

Post #7

Post by DiscipleOfTruth »

It's very easy to feel that strict laws over possession of guns is the answer, that is, unless you find yourself or someone you love in a situation where a gun could of saved your life or thiers.

It's easy to present a solution that appears to sacrifice the few to probably save the many. But once it gets personal and hits home, I'd imagine it would become a different story, no?

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7954
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Post #8

Post by Wootah »

I've always found it bizarre that people don't believe in self defense. I think there is a sense of unreality that is created in us without the presence of the ability to defend oneself.

The state will protect me. Except it can't. It can however create a crime scene afterwards.

I am for guns because i judge that their presence is a sobering effect on the gun carrier and the reality of life is more apparent.

User avatar
His Name Is John
Site Supporter
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 am
Location: London, England

Post #9

Post by His Name Is John »

Wootah wrote:I've always found it bizarre that people don't believe in self defense. I think there is a sense of unreality that is created in us without the presence of the ability to defend oneself.

The state will protect me. Except it can't. It can however create a crime scene afterwards.

I am for guns because i judge that their presence is a sobering effect on the gun carrier and the reality of life is more apparent.
I believe in self defence. If someone was rushing at you with a gun about to kill you, and you had a gun in your hand, I would think it was a moral thing to shoot them.

However I can see the effects of legalizing guns, and they are not positive.
Haven wrote:I'm with John and McCulloch here -- I support a strict ban on all firearms. The nonsense about gun control increasing criminal gun violence is simply that -- nonsense, as numerous studies have shown. European nations have tight gun control laws and they all have low rates of gun crime; in fact, low rates of violent crime period. A ban on guns, combined with an assault on poverty by the implementation of socialist economic programs and structures, will lower violent crime rates in this nation.
Agreed and well said (I went to give you a token donation, but I guess this sub-forum is one where you can't do that...).
“People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.�
- G.K. Chesterton

“A detective story generally describes six living men discussing how it is that a man is dead. A modern philosophic story generally describes six dead men discussing how any man can possibly be alive.�
- G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #10

Post by McCulloch »

I believe that my position may have been misunderstood. I do believe that in a country with a high crime rate you may need the protection of owning personal firearms. I feel fortunate that I live in a civilized country where the crime rate has been kept down to a level where the risks of gun ownership outweigh the benefits. If I lived in a less civilized country, I might seriously look at the option of emigrating.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

Post Reply