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 #11

Post by His Name Is John »

McCulloch wrote: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.
I think I agree with this on one level.

Say I was forced to move to Mexico I would almost certainly procure a gun. The basic safety of my family cannot be assured if I did not.

In a case like that though, the police actually can't do the job they are supposed to.

And I would still advocate the banning of all guns if possible. It is just while living in a situation where guns are legal, it may be needed to own one (even though you would argue for no guns at all).
“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 #12

Post by Fides et Veritas »

Look for insertions points.
His Name Is John wrote:
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.
>At one time it was a united kingdom with Union Jack flying over multiple countries and at that time it really was a United Kingdom. Now its just Britain. You know. The little country all by itself in Europe with no one to pick on any more other than Scotland and Ireland. So.... basically it was a stab at our one time brother country.<
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.
>That would only result in unarmed populace and out gunned cops. This is America. Guns are already here. We never lived under a King/ Queen that had reason enough to fear the populace enough to take away any right to bear arms.<
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.
>You are right Guns are designed to kill. However, mine has twice prevented me from being harmed. So they can serve another purpose. After all the best way to secure peace is to prepare for war. If you are the armed and confident 90% of people will pass you by for the little guy over there that isn't armed . That’s how that scenario will play out. Sad but true.<
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.
>Agreed<

Mr. LongView

hi...

Post #13

Post by Mr. LongView »

I live in an area with bears and mountain lions. (When not traveling, which is often.)

In the mating season even deers can be aggressive.

If you want to go for a walk, I'd suggest you be packing.
(Warning shots only, of course.)
:D

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

Post #14

Post by McCulloch »

Fides et Veritas wrote: At one time it was a united kingdom with Union Jack flying over multiple countries and at that time it really was a United Kingdom. Now its just Britain. You know. The little country all by itself in Europe with no one to pick on any more other than Scotland and Ireland. So.... basically it was a stab at our one time brother country.
Off topic but: In 1707, the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed by the uniting of the crowns of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland. In 1801, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland united to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which changed its name to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927.
The term UK has never referred to anything other that these countries. The British Empire, which was once controlled by the UK, devolved into the British Commonwealth, now known as Commonwealth of Nations, normally referred to as the Commonwealth.
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

Fides et Veritas

Post #15

Post by Fides et Veritas »

McCulloch wrote:
Fides et Veritas wrote: At one time it was a united kingdom with Union Jack flying over multiple countries and at that time it really was a United Kingdom. Now its just Britain. You know. The little country all by itself in Europe with no one to pick on any more other than Scotland and Ireland. So.... basically it was a stab at our one time brother country.
Off topic but: In 1707, the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed by the uniting of the crowns of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland. In 1801, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland united to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which changed its name to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927.
The term UK has never referred to anything other that these countries. The British Empire, which was once controlled by the UK, devolved into the British Commonwealth, now known as Commonwealth of Nations, normally referred to as the Commonwealth.
Thank you so much for causing me to kick myself in the rear end. Lol. I should have known that fact and some how along the years I had forgotten and somehow assimilated the history of one into the other, lol.
Thanks for the correction good sir.

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

Post #16

Post by DiscipleOfTruth »

His Name Is John wrote:
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...).
I'm getting mixed signals from this. On one hand you're saying that if someone is rushing at someone else and they have a gun and if the situation requires it, then they should use it. But on the other hand you're that strict laws should be in place so that any civilian who possesses a gun should face serious consequences.

So what you're saying is, no one should have a gun unless they are the police, but if they happen to have it provided that they didn't get caught with it, then they should use it when the situation requires it. But after using it you are in support of the court system punishing them for having it even though it saved their life. So in other words you are satisfied with that person facing consequences for having something that saved their life, or you are satisfied with that person obeying the law and possibly losing their life because of it? And if you happen to say that this should be an exception to the law, then how would anyone be able to possibly benefit from it if they aren't allowed to carry in the first place?


The message I'm getting is:

Don't own guns, but if you have them use them if needed, but you are going to do some serious prison time for saving your life.

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

Post #17

Post by DiscipleOfTruth »

McCulloch wrote: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.
Would you still feel as fortunate about where you live and that the ''risks of gun ownership outweigh the benefits'' if you were put into a situation where you needed to have a gun or you would die? I don't think you would, because for you to leave a less civilized country is your way of saying that you want to be somewhere that it's less likely you will have to own a personal firearm. But see, you can find yourself into the same uncivilized situation in a civilized country, no matter how low the possibility of that is because of the country. The possibility doesn't go away just because you live in an area where it may be highly unlikely to happen. What good is it that your country is cilivilized if you COULD still end up in a life threatening situation?

For all you know, you could of stayed in that dangerous country and never had a problem. But because you tried to play it safe and refused to fight for a legal right to carry a gun, you found yourself in a situation here that wouldn't of happened to you over there for whatever reason.

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

Post #18

Post by McCulloch »

[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=460528#460528]DiscipleOfTruth[/url] to McCulloch wrote: Would you still feel as fortunate about where you live and that the ''risks of gun ownership outweigh the benefits'' if you were put into a situation where you needed to have a gun or you would die?
Obviously, I could think of situations where, even in my country, it would be beneficial to have a gun. However, those situations are improbable. In planning for the future, one has to review the risks and the benefits and the probabilities of each. Where I live, the risks of gun ownership are greater than the benefits. Thus, public gun ownership is statistically inadvisable.

Were I to live less than a hundred miles south, in a less civilized country, gun ownership might be warranted. I believe that the people and government of that nation should look at the examples of countries with lower crime rates to determine what should be done to reduce their crime rate.
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

WinePusher

Re: Should people have a legal right to carry guns?

Post #19

Post by WinePusher »

DiscipleOfTruth wrote: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).
Yea, that's the problem. In a liberals mind a person should rely on the government for all things, and this includes self defense and protection. According to liberals, if your home is being invaded you should call the police and wait patiently until they arrive to identify your body. Taking matters into your own hands, to protect your own family and your own property, is absolutely reprehensible and abhorrent.
DiscipleofTruth wrote: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.
This is true of all things though. Everything has a potential to be misused. A person could go out and randomly shoot up a place with a gun just for the hell of it, just like a person could go out with a knife and stab multiple people just for the hell of it, or take his car and run over a crowd of people just for the hell of it. Guess we should ban knives and cars.
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.
This is wrong on so many levels. History, and actual studies, have shown that socialist programs like Welfare do nothing to eliminate or reduce poverty. They merely perpetuate the problem. And actual statistics have shown that European nations, like Britain for instance, have higher rates of crime despite their strict gun control laws.
The United Kingdom has had one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world since before gun control legislation became stricter from the late twentieth century. http://www.ask.com/wiki/Gun_politics_in ... arms_crime
You're making stuff up. And besides, one only has to think this problem through logically to realize how absurd your position is. A criminal is a person who has no regard for the law, a criminal is a person who is likely to abuse the use of a gun, so a law banning a gun would have no effect on criminals.

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

Post #20

Post by DiscipleOfTruth »

McCulloch wrote:
[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=460528#460528]DiscipleOfTruth[/url] to McCulloch wrote:
Would you still feel as fortunate about where you live and that the ''risks of gun ownership outweigh the benefits'' if you were put into a situation where you needed to have a gun or you would die?

Obviously, I could think of situations where, even in my country, it would be beneficial to have a gun. However, those situations are improbable. In planning for the future, one has to review the risks and the benefits and the probabilities of each. Where I live, the risks of gun ownership are greater than the benefits. Thus, public gun ownership is statistically inadvisable.

Were I to live less than a hundred miles south, in a less civilized country, gun ownership might be warranted. I believe that the people and government of that nation should look at the examples of countries with lower crime rates to determine what should be done to reduce their crime rate.


That's very good for where you live. But this is more so about you then it is that. How are you able to reach the acceptance that you shouldn't do all you can to be prepared for any situation? Improbable doesn't equal impossible. So if you should happen to encounter that unlikely situation, and I hope you don't, then because you aren't prepared you would be dead. Your country would continue on with some who share your confidence, but your confidence wouldn't mean anything for YOU anymore because you ended up with the short end of the stick. The country would move on and you would be gone before you had to be. Do you think of the value of your life as something that should be made as vulnerable as others say it should be?

You and I can not say for certain what is or isn't a reality after death. Therefore, I'd imagine we should treat the safety of our lives to be of unlimited worth unless we find out otherwise.

The legalizing of personal firearms doesn't have to be for every person that desires it. Requirements can be set first, and after seeing how things go the proper authorities can evaluate it to see if things should be taken further. Why does the civility of where you live cause you to not take this type of option into consideration? Especially after you've admitted that you can imagine situations that a gun would be beneficial, even though improbable? You recognize the chance of ending up in the situation yet you have become accepting of your vulnerability to it.

Post Reply