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 #21

Post by His Name Is John »

DiscipleOfTruth wrote: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.[/quote]

What I am saying is this:

1. It would be better if no one owned guns (criminals, civilians etc.)
2. We are closer to that aim if we ban guns.
3. Thus guns should be illegal.

and this:

1. We have a right to self defence.
2. If there is a gun at hand and someone is rushing to attack you you have the right to defend yourself.
3. Thus you can shoot that person in self defence.

I don't have a problem (in one way) with guns being legal. I think in self defence they are totally ok. However I understand that the culture that comes with legalizing guns and the effect that has on violent crime makes it hardly ideal.

In England, if someone had you hostage and dropped one of their guns (they had another in the other hand) and you picked it up and shot them, you would almost definatly not go to prison - even though guns are illegal.
“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

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

Post #22

Post by DiscipleOfTruth »

HisNameIsJohn


So you are satisfied with a criminal(who isn't being stopped for a crime they committed at any time)or a civilian being disabled to defend themselves against police brutality?

You are satisfied with the unlikeliness that a gun would be available in such a situation that it is required?

Why isn't the option of legalizing possession to people who pass certain requirements being taken under consideration?

I find it strange that a person can go off to another country in war for whatever reasons their country gives them. Yet, they can't be enabled to protect themselves against someone on their own soil, soil that they can kill and die for, without their own country sending them to prison. Should it really be considered criminal behavior to own a gun for the intentions of self defense? I am struggling to see the criminality in that.

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

Post #23

Post by His Name Is John »

DiscipleOfTruth wrote:HisNameIsJohnWhy isn't the option of legalizing possession to people who pass certain requirements being taken under consideration?
To be honest, as far as this point, it is simply slippery slope.
I find it strange that a person can go off to another country in war for whatever reasons their country gives them. Yet, they can't be enabled to protect themselves against someone on their own soil, soil that they can kill and die for, without their own country sending them to prison. Should it really be considered criminal behavior to own a gun for the intentions of self defense? I am struggling to see the criminality in that.
Yeah but I consider that wrong. I think that wars can't be fought for just any reasons. I believe in Just War theory (a great theory for Christians and non-Christians alike).
“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

Mr. LongView

hi..

Post #24

Post by Mr. LongView »

As long as people have the illegal right to carry a gun, I might as well have the legal right to carry one as well. (Or two.)

What was that line in the "Untouchables?"

You brought a knife to a gun fight?
:D
Zombies, terrorist, home invasion, or bears trying to gain entrance to your home...

A nerf crossbow just doesn't cut the mustard!

One guy killed 68 in Norway?
Wouldn't of happened where I lived.

Speak softly carry a big stick. (Or two.)

Not a gun nut....

Just the right tool for some jobs.

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

Post #25

Post by DiscipleOfTruth »

Just a few days ago I heard the story of a man who walked into a Colorado movie theater and shot up 50-70 people. Killed about 12. This is a perfect example of why we need to be enabled to better protect ourselves, people of authority need to do a better job at preventing this from happening. Someone should be held responsible when they do a horrible job of protecting people when denying them any good form of self defense. If some of the audience had guns there's a pretty good chance this guy might of got shot before injuring as many people as he did.

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

Post #26

Post by McCulloch »

DiscipleOfTruth wrote: Just a few days ago I heard the story of a man who walked into a Colorado movie theater and shot up 50-70 people. Killed about 12. This is a perfect example of why we need to be enabled to better protect ourselves, people of authority need to do a better job at preventing this from happening. Someone should be held responsible when they do a horrible job of protecting people when denying them any good form of self defense. If some of the audience had guns there's a pretty good chance this guy might of got shot before injuring as many people as he did.
We generally do not make laws based on newsworthy but exceptionally rare events. For every person killed this way, there are hundreds of people killed by their own guns that were intended to be used in defense or someone gets shot by an untrained and frightened gun wielding citizen who has not the discipline, training and restraint that the police should have.
DiscipleOfTruth wrote: So you are satisfied with a criminal(who isn't being stopped for a crime they committed at any time)or a civilian being disabled to defend themselves against police brutality?
Owning a weapon is probably not the best solution to the problems of police brutality. The police are always going to be better trained and better armed than you are. Resisting the police by force of arms will only likely to get you killed. The solution to police brutality involve accountability of the police to civilian authorities, a transparent and clear complaint process and proper training and selection of police officers.
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

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

Post #27

Post by DiscipleOfTruth »

Do you honestly believe that if the force of arms wasn't used that this country would be where it is today? If it wasn't for the Black Panther Party using the right to bear arms combined with the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King we'd probably still have racial segregation and tension all over America. There is still a problem of racism in America but it is no where near as bad as it used to be.

I can agree with you on how gun possession of civilians can backfire, but I think it's a shame that we have to wait till the news events possibly multiply enough before something can be done. People are not safe. There are countless schools and jobs that don't provide security or metal detectors. How many more people have to be sacrificed because someone in power doesn't want to do something to prevent these type of things from happening? No guns to the public, ok, fine, but at least do something to prevent these things from happening because until they do, people will continue to carry guns illegally to increase the chance of safety they feel entitled to. This in turn increases the crime rate, possibly increases the prison population(which depends on the crime it was used for), which in turn raises the taxes. Someone needs to step up because this isn't working.

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

Post #28

Post by McCulloch »

DiscipleOfTruth wrote: Do you honestly believe that if the force of arms wasn't used that this country would be where it is today? If it wasn't for the Black Panther Party using the right to bear arms combined with the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King we'd probably still have racial segregation and tension all over America. There is still a problem of racism in America but it is no where near as bad as it used to be.
We can all speculate about possible alternate histories.
DiscipleOfTruth wrote: I can agree with you on how gun possession of civilians can backfire,
Not only that it can backfire, but statistically it does backfire more often than it helps.
DiscipleOfTruth wrote: but I think it's a shame that we have to wait till the news events possibly multiply enough before something can be done. People are not safe. There are countless schools and jobs that don't provide security or metal detectors. How many more people have to be sacrificed because someone in power doesn't want to do something to prevent these type of things from happening? No guns to the public, ok, fine, but at least do something to prevent these things from happening because until they do, people will continue to carry guns illegally to increase the chance of safety they feel entitled to. This in turn increases the crime rate, possibly increases the prison population(which depends on the crime it was used for), which in turn raises the taxes. Someone needs to step up because this isn't working.
Actually, it is working. Crime rates, particularly violent crime is down. What is needed to make it work better is not a heavily armed citizenry, but a societal respect for the rule of law; an expectation that criminal activity will be investigated and prosecuted; a pervasive attitude that crime, even small ones, are not a good thing. This is done by spending money on improved policing and social programs aimed at removing desperate levels of poverty and improving education.

The fact that many in your country feel the need for protective weaponry is an indictment of your legal and social systems' failure.
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

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

Post #29

Post by DiscipleOfTruth »

Regardless of where the statistics stand while acknowledging that there might not be 100% accuracy, as a situation(s) that would fit the criteria might have not been included. Furthermore, as the earth continues it's population of entirely new generations, there can come a time where citizens will need a legal right to carry firearms. All because of the unpredictablness of the random personalities that will interact with each other in the future.

However, let's say for the sake of argument that keeping it illegal would always be the best course of action. How would we then deal with the crime rate that would counter this? As there will most likely always be people who might recognize that guns should remain outlawed but choose to not cooperate with being potential sacrifices of the law makers(such as choosing to illegally carry anyway)? How do we teach an entire society to comply with the law to the extent that not even one person would fall into a situation that possession of fire arms was a necessity?

I further reinforce my position that if guns are to be illegal for civilian possession in public then someone needs to be held responsible in preventing weapons from ever being a necessity, regardless of how rare that necessity could be. One life having to suffer the short end of the stick is one too many. Putting people in prison who are only desiring to protect themselves isn't the solution as well. Prison should be for people doing something wrong, attempting to protect yourself in ways that the government is unable(or better yet refuses to) isn't something wrong. All it's doing is increasing a prison population that is already exceeding bed capacity and putting more of a burden on tax payers to help the country keep these people in prison.

User avatar
sirunknown
Student
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:33 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post #30

Post by sirunknown »

Apologize for hitting on an older thread but I really connected with the last opinion very much.

Simple issue, especially for here in America alone. Either have ZERO guns or all have the ability to have guns. Here in the US, we put WAY too much faith, that our government and police are the crucial decision makers in the time of mayhem and panic. Its a proven fact over and over that the US government has no concern for our publics safety over and over. Just as of recent a man shot ONE person, a former co-worker near the empire state building, the police come into play shoot 16 rounds at almost point blank range and hit several people and only hit the "bad" guy 2 times out of 16 rounds. I DO NOT TRUST my government and MANY of the police all over the nation, not based on opinions but actual FACT that they have lied and done many of corrupt things for personal gain or biased judgement. If you leave it in the hands of people you consider "officials" it seems that you presume they have your best intentions at heart, so once you learn they do not and have killed hundreds of thousands in the blink of an eye, you get left with a massive trust issue that isnt opinion based but factual truth.

Post Reply